God did make a world where drugs do exist. So saying drugs should not exist is sort of like saying god was wrong, and shouldn’t have made them.

Plus what is the cut off point? If drugs where gone, would we be questioning the existence of cigarettes? And if they were gone, would we question the existence of beer, or unhealthy food?

Drugs do terrible things; I have seen a few of my friends lives fall apart because of them. Although at the same time, I think everything happens for a reason.

In the movie Kung Fu Panda they say “there are no accidents” I was thinking about that, and it is pretty true, everybody and everything is a part of God’s plan. I don’t know why god made drugs, maybe it was to challenge our faith like you where saying.

However, if by this question it is meant to mean, the elimination of all illegal drugs from existence, and no possibility of replacing them, then I think it would be a good thing, and I would support it. But it doesn’t eliminate sin or all of those legal drugs that can be used abusively.

I basically feel that the church has not preached a message saying that God loves people, and that He can and will help people overcome sin if they believe in Him. Instead, it has focused on a self-righteous path and has condemned all who are attracted to the same sex and whatnot. And without love, there is no real benefit to what they are saying.

Though I will admit that I do understand everything after the first sentence in that first paragraph that you wrote, and the typical small-government response is that parents should do that job. But with the state of the family as it is, that’s not a feasible response.

My best response now is that instead of relying upon government to solve our problems, we should make every effort to establish true relationships with people and show them what God is really all about. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t vote, it’s just that I don’t think government in general does a whole lot of things correctly.

Oh, and I don’t remember Jesus lobbying any sort of government to forbid any sinful practices. Sure, he did say to repent, and it is in our duty to repent and turn towards God, but he did not force action upon any human.

(I apologize for lack of transitions!)

But in all honesty, I see what you’re saying. If I executed my dream of seeing pornography banished by going door to door and seizing it in the name of Jesus Christ, that would have to come across as oppressive, harsh, judgmental…all those things. Legislating a porn ban would mean Internet filters and morality police in a dystopian vision of the future…a throwback to the theocratic days of Christendom in Europe. Sure, society was a bit more holy, but forced morality generally isn’t that good at winning souls for the kingdom.

See? I’m still split on this!

The analogy does not seem fully coherent to me. If the parent forbids the child from touching the stove, then the child is saved the pain of having a burnt finger. However, if a Christian forcibly forbids a person from having same-sex relations, is the latter person automatically saved by God for not breaking one of the laws? Since that person (as well as the rest of us) “have fallen short of God’s perfect standard,” he or she would still need to accept Jesus as his or her Savior.

As stated in the excerpt, I believe in free will. If God created robots (or humans like robots) that always did what He wanted them to do, then I don’t believe that He would get any satisfaction out of their love because they were forced to love Him. The main reason that should stop me from doing “bad” things is to show my love towards God, and I believe that should apply to everybody.