Why the obsession with religiously-derived laws?

[UKCS]

Even leaving aside the whole cherry-picking aspect (like why only the bits of Leviticus that talk about homosexuality are valid but the rest isn't), this strikes me as kind of bad logic.

I've had to explain this so many times...

The Old Law (like Leviticus) was not destroyed by Christ, but He fulfilled it. Christians didn't scrap the Old Testament. There's a reason it makes up 3/4ths of the Bible. One of the great theological questions of early Christianity was how did the Old Law fit into the New Covenant. The resulting doctrine was a synthesis of the Old Law and the new commandments given by Christ.

Homosexuality is a sin because it is sexual amorality. Several of the Apostles warn about avoiding sexual amorality and Christ Himself says marriage is the unification of a man and a woman. On the other hand, things like circumcisions were replaced with baptisms while dietary laws were scrapped. We had no need to eat pure foods when it is Christ that makes us pure.

This has been established doctrine since A.D. 50. The answer to the "cherry-picking" argument was given 2,000 years ago. The only reason there is widespread confusion on the issue is because most modern people don't read the Bible or ever care to ask theologians about the matter.

You can't seriously expect your average person to treat a 2000 year old book as gospel (no pun intended), can you?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

ME doesnt govern by Shari'ah.

Saudi Arabia?

Lol SA is governed by a munafiq (whoops, spoke Arabic again), corrupt gov that doesn't care about Al-Islam, only their power.

[Hakons]

I've had to explain this so many times...

The Old Law (like Leviticus) was not destroyed by Christ, but He fulfilled it. Christians didn't scrap the Old Testament. There's a reason it makes up 3/4ths of the Bible. One of the great theological questions of early Christianity was how did the Old Law fit into the New Covenant. The resulting doctrine was a synthesis of the Old Law and the new commandments given by Christ.

Homosexuality is a sin because it is sexual amorality. Several of the Apostles warn about avoiding sexual amorality and Christ Himself says marriage is the unification of a man and a woman. On the other hand, things like circumcisions were replaced with baptisms while dietary laws were scrapped. We had no need to eat pure foods when it is Christ that makes us pure.

This has been established doctrine since A.D. 50. The answer to the "cherry-picking" argument was given 2,000 years ago. The only reason there is widespread confusion on the issue is because most modern people don't read the Bible or ever care to ask theologians about the matter.

You can't seriously expect your average person to treat a 2000 year old book as gospel (no pun intended), can you?

The average person gave the book much attention when it was 1800 years old. My point being, the age of something should not detract from its importance, and people just 200, even 100, years ago found it very important.

[Fauxia]

I don't use religion as a basis of my anti-abortion stance. It's murder to me.

[Hakons]

I've had to explain this so many times...

The Old Law (like Leviticus) was not destroyed by Christ, but He fulfilled it. Christians didn't scrap the Old Testament. There's a reason it makes up 3/4ths of the Bible. One of the great theological questions of early Christianity was how did the Old Law fit into the New Covenant. The resulting doctrine was a synthesis of the Old Law and the new commandments given by Christ.

Homosexuality is a sin because it is sexual amorality. Several of the Apostles warn about avoiding sexual amorality and Christ Himself says marriage is the unification of a man and a woman. On the other hand, things like circumcisions were replaced with baptisms while dietary laws were scrapped. We had no need to eat pure foods when it is Christ that makes us pure.

This has been established doctrine since A.D. 50. The answer to the "cherry-picking" argument was given 2,000 years ago. The only reason there is widespread confusion on the issue is because most modern people don't read the Bible or ever care to ask theologians about the matter.

So the fact that it's the bit of the bible that the politicans and pressure groups (you know, the people relevant to the issue of forcing Christian morality through the law) keep citing isn't important.

People who cite Leviticus are not wrong. Sections of Leviticus do still apply. I just think it would be better to cite the words of Christ, the Apostles, and 2,000 years of Church tradition.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

For some silly reason, we humans seem to have this fascination with telling one another what to do constantly, and further, watchdogging one another to make sure the rules are kept, and even further, making sure that whoever is rocking the boat gets rocked back, hard, to send a message. Even when it really isn't warranted, or right, or decent.

Power. That's really the bottom line. One point that the die-hard defenders of religion-based laws seem to forget, is that if their god is in fact, The God, then he/she/it shouldn't need a bunch of pesky humans down here crusading in their name, making up laws, enforcing them, and using their name as an excuse to enact them and what not. That always amuses (unless it more warrants 'disgusts') me. But really, it all comes down to power. Power over others, power to raise one's self up, the aggrandizement that goes alone with being seen as a power within society and even better, when there's a solid legitimacy to back it up - such as The Law. Worse, we've monetized it, and as we all know, if you follow the money far enough, you've a fair chance at seeing what's driving any given effort in politics, laws, etc. Sad to say.

People will come up with all sorts of excuses and reasons as to 'why' it ought to be that way, from the outlandish, to the foolish, to the downright gawdawful, and blindly bull past any arguments to the contrary, because 'God said' - even when they didn't.

Now don't get me wrong - happen to have a more religious leaning than some might think, and happen to believe that religion can be a fantastic thing for people, and families, and all sorts of things that way, but that's when it isn't misused as a tool to beat folks into submission with. And while I'll stand firmly for people's right to worship as they see fit, to pray to whoever they please, I'll just as firmly call people out on their bs regarding it all too.

The main point people need to understand, and we have not, clearly, done an adequate job in educating our citizens about this, is that our rights begin and end with ourselves. They do not go further. We should not have the right to tout ours over another citizen. We should not be allowed to state 'my faith first and foremost, and to hell with the rest' with anything more than a 'my opinion' backing it. (People are free to think anything they like, at last check - and other people are just as free to wave those notions off and think something else.)

So we end up with people who have influence, money, even sheer numbers in areas where like minds are a majority, and we end up with some of the ridiculous laws on books we've had, court rulings we've seen, a lack of separation of church and state to an almost disturbing degree, and a lot of people being discriminated against because 'God Says'--when its really, 'because we say so and are using God as our excuse', admittedly or not. Yeah, really does need to stop. And people really do need to ease up, learn to coexist more or less peaceably, and deal with the fact that we aren't all the same, don't believe the same, aren't likely to do so any time soon, and honestly, don't need to, while minding our own business more often than not, and worrying about our own behavior, actions, and affect on the people around us.

[Luminesa]

She isn't.

You using Sharia as an example was a poor example because, if you think Christians are bad when it comes to LGBT rights, you don't want to live in the Middle East.

So where did I say sharia was a good thing? My point was quite clearly that we should treat attempts to force biblical law with the same disdain and possibly hostility that we treat attempts to force sharia. But that doesn't work as a springboard for someone to go on a rant about how evil Muslims are.

Where is anyone saying all Muslims are evil? I'm merely saying Shariah law is very staunchly anti-LGBT, and that LGBT people should not support it, nor should they wish for it to be treated as an equal to U.S. law. But you can hide behind your imaginary oppressed Muslims if you want.

[Luminesa]

Weren't those started because people thought that England at the time was too religiously tolerant?

Quite the opposite, early colonies were primarily founded by Catholics, Puritans, and other groups that weren't tolerated by the Anglican Church.

I mean, that's just basic American History. Conflicts during and in the aftermath of the English Civil War caused for many non-Anglicans to leave the country for the colonies. The historical revisionism is not appreciated, Vassenor.

[Luminesa]

I've had to explain this so many times...

The Old Law (like Leviticus) was not destroyed by Christ, but He fulfilled it. Christians didn't scrap the Old Testament. There's a reason it makes up 3/4ths of the Bible. One of the great theological questions of early Christianity was how did the Old Law fit into the New Covenant. The resulting doctrine was a synthesis of the Old Law and the new commandments given by Christ.

Homosexuality is a sin because it is sexual amorality. Several of the Apostles warn about avoiding sexual amorality and Christ Himself says marriage is the unification of a man and a woman. On the other hand, things like circumcisions were replaced with baptisms while dietary laws were scrapped. We had no need to eat pure foods when it is Christ that makes us pure.

This has been established doctrine since A.D. 50. The answer to the "cherry-picking" argument was given 2,000 years ago. The only reason there is widespread confusion on the issue is because most modern people don't read the Bible or ever care to ask theologians about the matter.

So the fact that it's the bit of the bible that the politicans and pressure groups (you know, the people relevant to the issue of forcing Christian morality through the law) keep citing isn't important.

Moral law, not ceremonial law. No politicians are calling for LGBT people to be stoned. They are saying that gay marriage should not be a thing. There's a difference.

[UKCS]

You can't seriously expect your average person to treat a 2000 year old book as gospel (no pun intended), can you?

The average person gave the book much attention when it was 1800 years old. My point being, the age of something should not detract from its importance, and people just 200, even 100, years ago found it very important.

That's before we had a proper, complete understanding of the "world around us". It's not the 1800's anymore.

[Telconi]

The average person gave the book much attention when it was 1800 years old. My point being, the age of something should not detract from its importance, and people just 200, even 100, years ago found it very important.

That's before we had a proper, complete understanding of the "world around us". It's not the 1800's anymore.

TIL our understanding of the world around us is 'proper and complete'.

[UKCS]

So the fact that it's the bit of the bible that the politicans and pressure groups (you know, the people relevant to the issue of forcing Christian morality through the law) keep citing isn't important.

People who cite Leviticus are not wrong. Sections of Leviticus do still apply. I just think it would be better to cite the words of Christ, the Apostles, and 2,000 years of Church tradition.

By that logic, we should abandon most forms of modern technology, 'cause, ya know, science is heresy.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Moral law, not ceremonial law. No politicians are calling for LGBT people to be stoned. They are saying that gay marriage should not be a thing. There's a difference.

Well, to be fair, there's a number of them crying that they're being discriminated against for not being able to have their way, so ... *shrugs* People tend to spin it however they like to come out looking like they're the properly oppressed party. Welcome to politics.

[UKCS]

That's before we had a proper, complete understanding of the "world around us". It's not the 1800's anymore.

TIL our understanding of the world around us is 'proper and complete'.

Never said it was complete, I meant more that we're no longer shovelling our own shit off the streets.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

So where did I say sharia was a good thing? My point was quite clearly that we should treat attempts to force biblical law with the same disdain and possibly hostility that we treat attempts to force sharia. But that doesn't work as a springboard for someone to go on a rant about how evil Muslims are.

Where is anyone saying all Muslims are evil? I'm merely saying Shariah law is very staunchly anti-LGBT, and that LGBT people should not support it, nor should they wish for it to be treated as an equal to U.S. law. But you can hide behind your imaginary oppressed Muslims if you want.

They aren't imaginary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobic_incidents, http://www.euronews.com/2017/03/05/ban- ... er-wilders, https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/201 ... face-veils, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13038095

[Luminesa]

Moral law, not ceremonial law. No politicians are calling for LGBT people to be stoned. They are saying that gay marriage should not be a thing. There's a difference.

Well, to be fair, there's a number of them crying that they're being discriminated against for not being able to have their way, so ... *shrugs* People tend to spin it however they like to come out looking like they're the properly oppressed party. Welcome to politics.

Ayyyyyyup.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

science is heresy.

Says who? Is that in the Bible or taught by the church(es), or something else?

[Vassenor]

So where did I say sharia was a good thing? My point was quite clearly that we should treat attempts to force biblical law with the same disdain and possibly hostility that we treat attempts to force sharia. But that doesn't work as a springboard for someone to go on a rant about how evil Muslims are.

Where is anyone saying all Muslims are evil? I'm merely saying Shariah law is very staunchly anti-LGBT, and that LGBT people should not support it, nor should they wish for it to be treated as an equal to U.S. law. But you can hide behind your imaginary oppressed Muslims if you want.

You mean like you keep hiding behind imaginary calls for sharia to be implemented?

[UKCS]

science is heresy.

Says who? Is that in the Bible or taught by the church(es), or something else?

I was responding more to his comment about the whole "must follow church tradition" thing.
A great church pastime over the centuries has been the burning of scientists etc.

[Hakons]

Says who? Is that in the Bible or taught by the church(es), or something else?

I was responding more to his comment about the whole "must follow church tradition" thing.
A great church pastime over the centuries has been the burning of scientists etc.

My purpose was to dispel the "cherry-picking" myth. 2,000 years of Church tradition of holding sexual amorality as sinful while holding dietary laws as unnecessary is one way of demonstrating this. I never said national governments or non-Christians must follow Church traditions.

It is historically correct to say a great pastime for many clergy has been scientific inquiry. The idea that Christianity and science are diametrically opposed, just like the "cherry-picking" one, is in fact a modernist myth. While the Church has been at odds with certain scientists before, I'm not aware of any person being put to the stake simply for using the scientific method. The majority of scientists have been Christian and have been perfectly fine with the Church.

[UKCS]

I was responding more to his comment about the whole "must follow church tradition" thing.
A great church pastime over the centuries has been the burning of scientists etc.

My purpose was to dispel the "cherry-picking" myth. 2,000 years of Church tradition of holding sexual amorality as sinful is one way of demonstrating this. I never said national governments or non-Christians must follow Church traditions.

It is historically correct to say a great pastime for many clergy has been scientific inquiry. The idea that Christianity and science are diametrically opposed, just like the "cherry-picking" one, is in fact a modernist myth. While the Church has been at odds with certain scientists before, I'm not aware of any person being put to the stake simply for using the scientific method. The majority of scientists have been Christian and have been perfectly fine with the Church.

I think quite a few Italians would disagree....

And the church and science aren't directly opposed, I wasn't intending that implication. I'm just saying that people need to move on from fantasy.

[Philjia]

The conflict always boils down to "God is great so our law is great" Vs "God is bunk so your law is bunk" without any attempt to justify either side.

[Hakons]

My purpose was to dispel the "cherry-picking" myth. 2,000 years of Church tradition of holding sexual amorality as sinful is one way of demonstrating this. I never said national governments or non-Christians must follow Church traditions.

It is historically correct to say a great pastime for many clergy has been scientific inquiry. The idea that Christianity and science are diametrically opposed, just like the "cherry-picking" one, is in fact a modernist myth. While the Church has been at odds with certain scientists before, I'm not aware of any person being put to the stake simply for using the scientific method. The majority of scientists have been Christian and have been perfectly fine with the Church.

I think quite a few Italians would disagree....

And the church and science aren't directly opposed, I wasn't intensing that implication. I'm just saying that people need to move on from fantasy.

Those Italians would like the honor of being named, and would certainly criticize you for what you attribute to be fantasy.

[UKCS]

I think quite a few Italians would disagree....

And the church and science aren't directly opposed, I wasn't intensing that implication. I'm just saying that people need to move on from fantasy.

Those Italians would like the honor of being named, and would certainly criticize you for what you attribute to be fantasy.

I have yet to see any compelling evidence for the existence of a god or other such divine being.

[Luminesa]

Where is anyone saying all Muslims are evil? I'm merely saying Shariah law is very staunchly anti-LGBT, and that LGBT people should not support it, nor should they wish for it to be treated as an equal to U.S. law. But you can hide behind your imaginary oppressed Muslims if you want.

You mean like you keep hiding behind imaginary calls for sharia to be implemented?

So Pew Research Center's findings are imaginary. Scroll down to see the percentages of Muslims in Muslim-dominated countries that want to implement Sharia. In many of those countries they are the majority.