On Monday, June 10, 2013 12:34:23 PM Lonnie Olson wrote: > Ethics are not dependent upon a god. Ethics can and should be derived > from science > and logic. By the way, even the basic idea of Ethics did not come > from a god, and > especially not Jesus Christ. The term comes from the Greek word ethos, > which means "character", long before said Jesus Christ was born. >
Uh, last I checked the old testament pre-dated the greeks. Morals and ethics, which is right/wrong and how to treat other people is a major concept in the bible. Maybe you should read it. :-) And science doesn't teach that killing other people (murder, in the pre-meditated way, not self defense) is wrong. Science teaches that organic matter is just organic matter and destroying a life inside a woman is equivalent to squashing an ant. Science cannot teach sanctity of life, and the majority of science's unproven theories should not be used as justification for anything until the theories can be proven. And until the theories can be proven they are just that *theories*. > > Also, if you want to lower taxes drastically, you must accept that > there will be cuts to government provided services. > What do you want to cut first? Defense, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. > Actually, defense of the nation is a primary purpose of a federal government. But I'm glad you tried to steer the conversation by pointing it out first. Defense is defense though, it is not protection of the government from the people, but protection by the government for the people. States can determine proper methods for helping people who are in need. I realize you may not agree, but in large part this is a failure of the local churches not teaching proper alms giving to the poor. Proper laws could be created to not allow the medical / insurance fields to get out of control. I took my dehydrated son to the hospital after a wicked bout with the stomach bug and after 24 hours I owed almost $60,000. How is that justified? Is medicare/medicaid required? It doesn't need to be. If the government encouraged people to set money aside for emergencies, rather than just depending on the government for said needs, we would be better off. And if laws did not permit the faulty pursuit of riches in the name of medical malpractice we wouldn't be in the boat we are today. > Um, No! Marriage is not a Christian concept. People have been > getting married long before Jesus Christ was around. I agree with this. The institution of marriage was given by God the Father long before we understood him as Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ only confirmed what God had already created. The state has ZERO business in the relationships of families. The government should be concerned with a high divorce rate and should encourage strong families. > Even if you want to classify it as a religious concept only, then are > you willing to pay increased taxes for a long period > of time in order to support the effort to modify hundreds or possibly > thousands of laws, paperwork, etc. Marriage > is so deeply entrenched in our society and government that it is next > to impossible to remove it. Actually, yes, we should fix it! The current tax system is so corrupt anyway it needs to be fixed. Numerous laws should be retracted or changed. If a pastor/minister wants to put himself under God's review for marrying a man/man, woman/woman, dog/man, woman/horse, that should be entirely up to that minister. The government should not be involved. > It would be far > easier and less difficult to rebrand religious marriage differently, > if you truly care about keeping them separate. > There is a thing called a "Covenant Marriage" that I have found few know about, but states accept. It is a document that contains personal vows and doctrine from scripture that describes the union between a man and a woman as an institution given by God and a vow between the man the woman and God with many witnesses. In todays society when a couple gets married they are entering into a contract with the state, and since it is required by federal law that one state recognize another states marriages, they are in fact entering into a contract with the federal government. The couple becomes an "entity of the state" and is required to act in accordance with what is best for the state. The children also become state entities because they are products of the resulting state entity from the marriage. Do you like the idea that your children are born as wards of the state and you are only allowed to watch over them, so long as you have the governments best interest at heart? That's rediculous! Nathan /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
