Hold on a second. How exactly does living according to one's own conscience equate to "someone else's idea of a good time"?
Secularism and gay activism are a good place to start.
Just because someone doesn't derive his morals from the Bible does NOT mean he doesn't have morals; I think this is a concept that some Christians struggle with.
The ones not reading the Bible. Both Jesus and Paul have glowing things to say about non-believers. Not anti's, but non's. You should read things other than skeptic websites. Go to a Christian book store or listen to Christian music and see what and who we are. Our adversaries are not going to tell you the truth.
Also, if you're going to use rape as your example of problems with moral behavior, you might want to have another look at your Bible. Between mandating that a raped woman marry her rapist and requiring that a woman who was raped in a city be killed if no one heard her scream, the Bible isn't exactly the best source of upstanding moral values on the topic.
Really? The Bible ends with Jesus. Not a bad place to find compassion and love. And "out of" the same book.
Again, where is this "concept of a good time" coming into this discussion? It's something of a non-sequitur, as the post of mine that you quoted was discussing individuals following their own consciences, rather than being held to another person's conscience.
Non-sequitor, that is precisely the point. Following "their own" consciences have lead to the greatest horrors in the history of our species (and other's), beingforced on all. Even now, INTO and ONTO our Churches.
Believe it or not, people who believe differently than you do still have consciences that restrict their behavior.
Prison and civil lawsuits. The secular answers to the reality of The Slippery Slope Effect.
You have not "proven" this. Also, I'd like to point out that Rome didn't fall until after Constantine had mandated the conversion of the empire to Christianity. Draw your own conclusions.
Violence and Christ do not mix. It is a well-established fact. The Romans before Constantine held that Christians were "enemies of mankind." Sounds very familar 2008-wise. Free thinking anyone?
This is not an accurate representation of the problems Romans had with early Christians; Romans had laws against secret meetings of private groups, in order to prevent seditious activity, and requiring acknowledgement and respect for the state religion. Further, once again you may wish to refer to your Bible on the topic of slavery; Leviticus has some interesting opinions on the matter.
You call Leviticus and I'll raise you Philemon. You may want to gamble elsewhere. Treating their slaves correctly to a Christian "master" in Roman Christianity, got the slave treated like a borther.
If I'm reading you correctly, you are stating that Islamic sharia law would not turn out to be the prevailing view. First, I'm inclined to say that neither would Christianity.
I'm sorry? You call forced conversion and I'll raise you a billion free Christians.
(Man I'm gunna be rich.)
Second, and more importantly, that was not my point in bringing up Islamic sharia. My point was, would you find it acceptable to be forced to adhere to a set of moral laws to which you did not subscribe?
Humanism sounds alot like Christian morality when you boil away the non-godianism. Luckily for the signers of the Humanist Manifesto, Christians are not quick to sue plagarists.
Because this is precisely what the person to whose post I was responding was suggesting. Jews and Muslims find it morally wrong to eat pork.
As do sows and boars and peopel with heart disease.
Some vegetarians consider eating any meat tantamount to murder. Should laws be passed forbidding you from enjoying a bacon cheeseburger?
Um, how long before it is a law? Cigarettes are a free choice, and look what happens now in restaurants and bars? It may be a good thing don;t get me wrong, but it is someone else's idead of a good time being implemented and taken away too.
Or should you be permitted to follow your own conscience in this matter?
Slippery slope WARNING! Injury and death may occur.
Sorry, I like facts.
This statement doesn't really pertain to what I said. I stated that, according to the Bible, Jesus drew a distinction between earthly governments and the province of the divine.
Did he now? He was referring to a coin and taxes. He didn't speak highly of "pagans" and "tax collectors." In fact, He (Jesus) put them as low as it gets: a liar that won't repent. Have you never read the Gospels?
That's a lovely opinion you have there. How does it pertain to my statement that Jesus did not advocate theocracy?
Jesus was opposed by the Sanhedrin members because he was advocating a Theocracy, with Him (Jesus), as absolute ruler (God). Have you never read the New Testament?
Would you start another thread for our debate?
