Mike,

>>A stop sign is there so you will stop, not decide if you want to stop or not.
>
>A stop sign exists so we can navigate the road safely. There is no other reason for having a stop sign. Having a law just to have a law makes no sense, and, it should be a red flag that the Government for the people is not doing its job.

Well (he says scratching his head <g>) the last time I read the definition of the word "Stop" it meant stop. <g>

>
>Police officers who protect and serve agree with me.

Uh huh.. Those same officers would most likely give you a ticket for an incomplete stop in many cases...

>
>>If it is 'better' or 'more right' to allow people to hold themselves above the law than not, again, that's just anarchy IMO.
>
>I'm not holding myself above the law, I'm respecting why that sign is there, and doing my part as a citizen so everyone else can be safe on the roads.

Sure you are if you allow yourself the right to change/obey the laws at a whim I'd think.

>
>I don't respect why drug laws exist, since they have for little reason and logic behind them.

Well, understand that your personal views are contrary to established law in most cases. THis is, in effect, holding yourself above the law, right?

>
>>Actually, I don't have the kinds of friends who live in fear of the law Mike. At least not that I know of. <g> I'm guessing from this sentence that you do. That's their own fault I suppose.
>
>You probably don't think any of your friends live in fear of the law because they do a good job at hiding their harmless activities from the outside world. Unfortunately, thats most people's only option.

Perhaps... If true that's kind os a sad commentary don't you think?

>
>>Not the point. The point is whether it does or not, not whether it does more or not.
>
>In order to create consitant, fair laws it is 100% rellevant and required.

Well, what do you know of in life that is always 100% as you suggest? I'd bet not much. We live in a fallen world and, while sad, it is the case. However, IMO that doesn't remove from us the obligation to do our best I'd think.


>
>>Yes, you are quite correct - it can be a lot of fun. Is it right, or good or desireable though?
>
>Is it right? I think so, but thats what we are discussing. :-)

Right. <g>

>
>>That's too bad. And it doesn't change the facts but only proves them. If you didn't have something going on inside as a reaction you wouldn't have reacted. That you reacted in pretty much the expected fashion only proves that there is something inside that reacts to these words. I didn't make you have this reaction.
>
>Thats what xtians use as a reason for believing these days? This is scary.

Well, the Bible teaches a concept that is called the 'total depravity of man'. That is not to say that all men are depraved in the sense of all of their actions but that all men could be that way if they so chose. Man can also choose good but he (mankind) needs the power of God to help him do what is good, otherwise it's all a bunch of wasted effort.

Don't know if that makes any sense to you. Probably not..

The difference is choice. It's the only truly 'free' thing man has that he can exercise. All else flows from choices. Either freedom or not. That some men "choose" good and some choose evil is, at the end of the day, a matter of the result of the free exercise of choice.

You become what you choose, so to speak.

>
>>So you do have a faith then? Just that your god is a man-made creation? <g> Are you promoting a modern day version of emporer worship? <g> I have faith in God, not government that's for sure.. <g>
>
>I could write an esaay in response to this. Do I have faith? "Faith: Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." If I live in America, I sure as hell want to believe in the value and trustworthyness of my Governement! Like I said, I don't have that faith, and in order to get it, they have to change a couple things first.
>
>Whats the difference between having faith in god and governement? Well, I can not go to church if I loose my faith. If I loose faith in my country, I have to leave the country, this is something I've considered for quite a while (I'm thinking about being a Canuck with Evan in Vancouver), but I'll wait to see if America can get its laws back in order before I do. Also, the government is real, and effects my life, day to day. I've seen no evidence that god has that same power.

Ooooo... Good questions.. <g>

You are absolutely correct in your observations that it is the object of your faith that makes the difference.

Only a perfect God can perfectly meet the needs of faith. False gods qill always disappoint...

As far as not seeing the power of god to respond to faith; sure you've seen the evidence. Just look at the genetic makeup of a blade of grass (the lawn type < BG >).


>
>>I think that the definition of the word 'freedom' here is a huge difference. I define it as "The ability to NOT do something" whereas I think yourdefinition would be along the lines of "The ability TO do something." Am I close?
>
>Yes. For example, my "good little chirstian" post. Why do people believe that they can't do certain things while on earth? That seems like a crime to me.

Well, actually, the Bible says that in Christ "all things are lawful". The last time I looked at the Greek for the word "all" it meant "all". <g> There is total freedom for the Christian but the difference now is that there are many things I have perfect freedom to do butthat I do not want to do.

IOW, I have no desire to take drugs or drink alcohol, not that I couldn't I suppose.

>
>>IOW, I think it takes more strength to have self control than not.
>
>I have self control. Taking a recreational drug is not the lack of control. Being powerless to take a recreational drug (inlcuding alcohol and nicotine) is.
>
>Fortunately for you, you don't need control, you have religion to do that for you *sigh*

<g>

As I've mentioned before I do not want 'religion', I want a personal relationship.


>
>>I've enjoyed this Mike.
>
>Me too.