- Joined
- Feb 9, 2011
- Messages
- 19,965
- Reaction score
- 7,359
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Re: Religious Objection to Minimum Wage
Ah, I remember, maybe not that specific verse, but a similar one. But looking just prior to that:
Between this and what I remember (could well be a different translation of this same section), basically something that you consider to not be a sin someone else might, and you should try to not to do that action around them. But this is only one section of "instruction" and I view my religion as a whole. All the things weaved together. In the end, I am judged by my actions and my actions alone. Not by what others do, and , in my view, not by whether others committed sins by things I provided to them, especially when their religion might not consider them a sin. God gave everyone the choice to follow and worship whomever they wish. I am realistic enough to realize that I indeed could be wrong with regards to God and my religion. But even if I am not, whom am I to counteract God's plan to allow others to choose for themselves? I can preach/witness/testify/etc to my heart and soul's content. That requires nothing from anyone else. They don't even have to listen, they can just walk away or ignore me. But the moment that I try to codify my religious beliefs into law, I am bypassing God's gift of choice to others. Each individual has to decide for themselves whether or not something is a sin. The bible and the other religious texts are great guidelines, but they are still human works and subject to error. We caught one error, the Adulterer's Bible, but how many more errors are there within the various religious text that have never been caught. Or cultural context and implications that we no longer have any real understanding about. Supposedly the word that was translated into "witch" for the KJV translation didn't come from the original word that mean "wise one" but from the word that should have translated to "warlock" which originally mean "oathbreaker". There are all kinds of arguments on what the various translations are or supposed to be. That is why one must use their conscience and relationship with their deity as the ultimate indicator as to what is a sin.
That said it does not mean that everything is permissible within a society. That is where the "your freedom stops where it imposes upon my freedom" thing comes in. The sad thing is, many people want to interpret someone else choice within that other's freedom, that inconveniences the person or makes them feel uncomfortable as an imposition upon their own freedom.
Ah, I remember, maybe not that specific verse, but a similar one. But looking just prior to that:
Between this and what I remember (could well be a different translation of this same section), basically something that you consider to not be a sin someone else might, and you should try to not to do that action around them. But this is only one section of "instruction" and I view my religion as a whole. All the things weaved together. In the end, I am judged by my actions and my actions alone. Not by what others do, and , in my view, not by whether others committed sins by things I provided to them, especially when their religion might not consider them a sin. God gave everyone the choice to follow and worship whomever they wish. I am realistic enough to realize that I indeed could be wrong with regards to God and my religion. But even if I am not, whom am I to counteract God's plan to allow others to choose for themselves? I can preach/witness/testify/etc to my heart and soul's content. That requires nothing from anyone else. They don't even have to listen, they can just walk away or ignore me. But the moment that I try to codify my religious beliefs into law, I am bypassing God's gift of choice to others. Each individual has to decide for themselves whether or not something is a sin. The bible and the other religious texts are great guidelines, but they are still human works and subject to error. We caught one error, the Adulterer's Bible, but how many more errors are there within the various religious text that have never been caught. Or cultural context and implications that we no longer have any real understanding about. Supposedly the word that was translated into "witch" for the KJV translation didn't come from the original word that mean "wise one" but from the word that should have translated to "warlock" which originally mean "oathbreaker". There are all kinds of arguments on what the various translations are or supposed to be. That is why one must use their conscience and relationship with their deity as the ultimate indicator as to what is a sin.
That said it does not mean that everything is permissible within a society. That is where the "your freedom stops where it imposes upon my freedom" thing comes in. The sad thing is, many people want to interpret someone else choice within that other's freedom, that inconveniences the person or makes them feel uncomfortable as an imposition upon their own freedom.
