Bible Party of the USA

Well I can't speak for all Christians but I don't believe what you say about "Problems with Christianity in laws".

Illegalizing divorce. Divorce is not un biblical. It is sometimes necessary.

Illegalizing gay marriage. While I wouldn't make it a crime, gays should not be allowed to "Marry" Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.

Illegalizing adultery. Again, it wouldn't be illegal but when you are cought and divorced, you should have more responcablity for your former family.

Illegalizing gambling. Gambling may be foolish at times but it isn't evil. I would make it legal.

Illegalizing drugs and alchohol. I'm 100% for the Legalizing of drugs and alchohol. It should be left up to the parent. That is what is Biblical. The Bible says that wine is a blessing.

Illegalizing porn. No, even though it is imoral, it isn't the governments right to legistlate that.

Illegalizing some sexual acts. Sexual acts are meant to be done in private, so no that isn't the government's legislation.


We are not all the fundimentalist, Don't drink don't chew crowd. I believe that the problems you said. Are all good concerns. Christians who believe thoses things are wrong about what the Bible says.

Also just because the Bible says something is wrong doesn't mean that it says for the government to enforce those laws. People will be eternally judged for there sins. If you have recieved Christ then his death on the cross will make you pure. If you don't then you will spend eternity in hell.

Gossip is a sin but it would be a bit silly if the Gubment were kiicking in the door when a couple ladies start talking about their neighbor. :-)

I'm not saying that's what's happening, I'm saying that's what can happen.

ANY law that infringes on freedom, Christian or otherwise, is immoral.

By what standard? All laws infringe on freedom. Are you an anarchist?

Rights are invented by humans to justify the infringement of freedom ("workers rights"), freedoms are a bunch of ideas that make up the whole idea of freedom.

Freedom is objective.
Rights are highly, highly subjective.

No they don't.

Only an anarchist would believe that.

Freedom is when people are punished for infringing on other people's freedom, government or otherwise.

Anarchy is a very temporary state, in which coercive governments will pop up overnight and bands of bandits will roam the cities looking for someone to rob.

Libertarianism is where the government only makes laws limiting people from harming other people directly.

Pick a definition, any definition.

Definition of right - Merriam-Webster Online DictionaryDefinition of freedom - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

You've been watching too many movies and reading too much propaganda.

You don't see the difference?

You don't see the subjectivity of rights and the objectivity of freedom?

I see the opposite.

What does the Bill of Rights protect, Rights or Freedom?

No they don't.

Only an anarchist would believe that.

Freedom is when people are punished for infringing on other people's freedom, government or otherwise.

Anarchy is a very temporary state, in which coercive governments will pop up overnight and bands of bandits will roam the cities looking for someone to rob.

Libertarianism is where the government only makes laws limiting people from harming other people directly.

You've been watching too many movies and reading too much propaganda.

Explain.

... What? How? There is a set in stone definition of what freedom is. There's a set definition of a "free" state. There's no set definition of a "state of rights". That's because rights are purely subjective and based on indvidual opinion.



Rights.

Granted, rights that lead to freedom, but that doesn't make them any less subjective.

There are also "rights" that lead to the loss of freedom.

Your reply was straight out of a Mad Max movie, Snake Pliskin, Red Dawn, or any one of a hundred bad movies about post apocalyptic life.

Anarchy lasts for hundreds of years. Look at the Dark Ages. What were they?

... What? How? There is a set in stone definition of what freedom is. There's a set definition of a "free" state. There's no set definition of a "state of rights". That's because rights are purely subjective and based on indvidual opinion.



Rights.

Granted, rights that lead to freedom, but that doesn't make them any less subjective.

There are also "rights" that lead to the loss of freedom.

Freedom is a feeling. It's emotional. How can emotion be objective?

Rights are objective and inalienable. Read Animal Farm by George Orwell. That is what happens when people believe rights are subjective.

If a right is subjective, then anyone can take away a right or redefine what rights are.

1. I've never seen any of those movies. I haven't seen many.

2. No... it doesn't. The Dark Ages weren't anarchy. Very very small governments, perphaps, but not anarchy. What do you call Charlamagne?

No, it's not emotional.

Freedom is the ability to do whatever you wish, within your means, without coercing another person or being coerced by another person.

When people must live in the shadow of a rock fortress in order to stay alive, it's anarchy.

You've been brainwashed by your teachers.