• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

God and Free Will, Choice

FredVB

Member
Free choice, which we do have, to an extent, should not be taken away. What we have of that is from God. But what good is it without choice being informed choice? And we don't know enough, or are informed enough, about many choices. Believers in God should then seek God and be prayerful for God's direction where we need it, we would otherwise many times go in a worse direction.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
You don't think we should have laws against murder, violence, rape, theft, etc?

Well, we need some laws. But the funs start with what harm/wong/bad/evil is in some cases.
Further murder is by definition unlawful. But no all killing is that to some people. So that is one example of where different people might not agree on where killing becomes murder.
 

KW

Well-Known Member
Well, we need some laws. But the funs start with what harm/wong/bad/evil is in some cases.
Further murder is by definition unlawful. But no all killing is that to some people. So that is one example of where different people might not agree on where killing becomes murder.

But that doesn't have anything to do with limiting choice.

That has to do with which choices we will limit.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
That's the way they do it in North Korea and Russia!

And in a limited sense in the USA. Now nowhere as bad, but still.
Now if you want to you could make a version where 45% of the voters could rule the rest and still call it a democracy.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Which 45%?

Both sides could do it, if they wanted to. It requires the control of both chamber, the President, the SC and enough of the big states.

It is rather simple and it is in the constitution and the current way you divide members of the House.
Divide enough of the big States into smaller states and make sure that you make more new states from your side.
Then makes sure that you gerrymander the House districts and the new and current states and switch the electoral votes from elections to appointed by the state. Do the same for Senators. Bingo, if your side can be kept together, you now run the country based on 45% of the voters. Long live state rights!
 

KW

Well-Known Member
Both sides could do it, if they wanted to. It requires the control of both chamber, the President, the SC and enough of the big states.

It is rather simple and it is in the constitution and the current way you divide members of the House.
Divide enough of the big States into smaller states and make sure that you make more new states from your side.
Then makes sure that you gerrymander the House districts and the new and current states and switch the electoral votes from elections to appointed by the state. Do the same for Senators. Bingo, if your side can be kept together, you now run the country based on 45% of the voters. Long live state rights!

I see what you mean.

I think that is temporary though. It gradually changes over time.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
I see what you mean.

I think that is temporary though. It gradually changes over time.

Well, no, because now you control all the levels and you then get to control who get vote and who are not allowed. As long as you can maintain the overall structure of gerrymandering and who gets to vote, you are on top. Of course you have to cater to your base, but with some fear, stereotypes and perks to your base and if you don't overdo the exploitation of the other side you might have a long run. Or not. ;)
 

KW

Well-Known Member
Well, no, because now you control all the levels and you then get to control who get vote and who are not allowed. As long as you can maintain the overall structure of gerrymandering and who gets to vote, you are on top. Of course you have to cater to your base, but with some fear, stereotypes and perks to your base and if you don't overdo the exploitation of the other side you might have a long run. Or not. ;)

Democrats still control the bureaucracy, the media, both houses of congress and the White House.

They have fallen off the deep end on the left though, so the tide is turning.

The voters will decide. I think hispanics will make the difference. They are leaving the Democrat party.
 
Top