September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  


« Courses in Literary Apologetics | Main | Does the Bible Condone Slavery? »

February 16, 2012



First, I want to apologize. Right after I posted that, I thought to myself: maybe that wasn’t such a good idea. Being that you contribute to this blog, I didn’t want to take your words and apply them to something else (especially if you disagreed with the manner in which I applied them). Sometimes specific words are meant for specific circumstances.

Those words are actually from an str blog ,E Is for Evangelical back in January of 2007. I was actually part of that conversation with Alan. I was “Kevin W” until I changed my screen name to KWM because there was some confusion with similarities with another Kevin.

I thought you described the issue perfectly as it related to that post. I can’t believe I thought to look it up 4 years later.
You can find the specific post using the str search function.

Again Francis, my apologies.


I think the moral aspect of an action is tied to intent, but I'm not finished thinking it through. Negligence can be a factor as was discussed on the birth control thread, in some instances intent is murky. In this context, laws are an overt statement of "what is good, and what is evil." This is a moral declaration of secular norms, they are based on either opinion[someones or group of someones], or rooted in an objective authority. If it is opinion, the norms are subject to change and do not qualify for classification of good or evil.

No, the reason that stealing and murder are illegal is because it interferes with someone else's rights. It is NOT just "because it's immoral." We don't legislate what other people do when it doesn't infringe on other's rights.

Bah. Hit send.

So, when you say someone accidentally killing someone is okay, it is excused because there was no immoral intent. What immoral intent do you think homosexuals have? Whose liberty are they trampling?

All religeous people have the right to influence society and all politicians have the right to vote their beliefs or their constituents will in matters of public policy. Our constitution protects minority rights. (Jews cannot be required to become Christians.)but there are issues such as abortion that are rather tricky and moral views are important.

God allows many sinners to live very rich and comfortable lives. This does not mean that justice will not be done and it certainly does not mean that Christians should shut up.

If two individuals in the United States have a different religious belief - one believes "something" is morally wrong, the other does not. The first individual lobbies to impose his/her moral conviction on everyone through law to ban this "thing." The law is shown to cause harm for some people, including the second individual whose religious beliefs say there is nothing morally wrong with this "thing." The existence of the "thing" that the first individual believes is morally wrong does not cause harm to him/her. VIt is merely offensive or distasteful from a distance. I personally believe it would be wrong on many levels for the first individual in this scenario to impose his/her moral beliefs on everyone. Unfortunately, when the first individual is part of a majority religion in the country, he/she is frequently successful to the detriment of others. One right in the Constitution should not be allowed to trample another - we need more balance and common sense and less dogma and moralizing. We live in a pluralistic society where there is room for all to live and let live.

The comments to this entry are closed.