NationStates

Senkaku wrote:

Minzerland II wrote:
Although marriages are, in their most basic form, promises through and through, it is probably more accurate to call marriage a contract; which has legal ramifications for obvious reasons.

Hence, divorce, which frequently occurs when a partner is unfaithful.

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Senkaku wrote:Yes. Because unless a man in the sky hands you a book, how would you know right from wrong, Vass?

Look, if you're going to attack Christian beliefs, you should at least describe them correctly.

Vassenor wrote: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.

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts

For starters, at least in the US the Constitution is very explicit that you can't actually do that ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which despite what everyone seems to think doesn't only mean that they can't stop you starting a religion).

So here's my open questions to the floor: Why are people so adamant about forcing biblical law into a system where it's not actually permitted, and what makes biblical law OK but Shariah and others the work of true evil?

Oil exporting People wrote:

Vassenor wrote: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.

Lol, what? Leviticus 20:13 directly states:

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

That's pretty clear on Homosexuality. But, you might say, that's the Old Testament! Here's 1 Corinthians 6:9:

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homosexual acts

For starters, at least in the US the Constitution is very explicit that you can't actually do that ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which despite what everyone seems to think doesn't only mean that they can't stop you starting a religion).

Specifically Congress in terms of establishing a religion, but the Founders were pretty okay with just about everything else; Washington used the Inaugural Bible in 1789 just fine, and the various States had established religions for decades after the Constitution was written.

So here's my open questions to the floor: Why are people so adamant about forcing biblical law into a system where it's not actually permitted, and what makes biblical law OK but Shariah and others the work of true evil?

For the first question, does the Constitution not contain the ability to add new Amendments? Such is the ultimate purpose of those seeking to restore religion into shaping public policy here in the States. As to the second question, why would a Christian want to enact Muslim law, or vice versa? Why would a Communist wish to implement Fascist social policy? The answer to this question is rather obvious.

Victores wrote:Because most people think that their religion is more important than the laws of the State, but they don't want to break laws. Therefore they want these two sets of laws to be the same. My religion doesn't really have a legal code though, so I wouldn't know

Holy Tedalonia wrote:Don't start saying the Bible says this or that. It's very metaphorical and crap like that. That's why there's so many versions of it.

Oil exporting People wrote:

Holy Tedalonia wrote:Don't start saying the Bible says this or that. It's very metaphorical and crap like that. That's why there's so many versions of it.

That the Bible condemns Homosexuality is beyond a doubt, and to claim otherwise is baseless.

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. - Matthew 10:34

I have come to cast fire upon the Earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49–53)

Holy Tedalonia wrote:Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. - Matthew 10:34
Something like this is suggesting the Bible supports aggressive action. Yet many christians believe god comes in peace. As I said there is much metaphorical stuff within the Bible, something's are to be taken with a different outlook then the literal one. It continues on into supporting the murder of some dudes father or something like that. I don't remember much.

Also here's a quote from the Bible supporting dividing families due to difference in belief!

I have come to cast fire upon the Earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49–53)

As I said if this was taken literally then we would have radical Christianity.

Oil exporting People wrote:

Holy Tedalonia wrote:Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. - Matthew 10:34
Something like this is suggesting the Bible supports aggressive action. Yet many christians believe god comes in peace. As I said there is much metaphorical stuff within the Bible, something's are to be taken with a different outlook then the literal one. It continues on into supporting the murder of some dudes father or something like that. I don't remember much.

Also here's a quote from the Bible supporting dividing families due to difference in belief!

I have come to cast fire upon the Earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49–53)

The entire point of both verses is that people must stick to the Faith, and that this will inevitably result in broke families, simple enough. As is the verses I cited, as there is literally no other way to interpret them.

As I said if this was taken literally then we would have radical Christianity.

We have had that, at many points. You might want to look up the Donatists of North Africa, for example, or the Masculine Christianity movement of the 19th Century.

Albrenia wrote:Is adultery illegal in the US? Because if it is, that's really weird. I didn't think many civilized nations actually had laws against it.

Holy Tedalonia wrote:

Oil exporting People wrote:
That the Bible condemns Homosexuality is beyond a doubt, and to claim otherwise is baseless.

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. - Matthew 10:34

Something like this is suggesting the Bible supports aggressive action. Yet many christians believe god comes in peace. As I said there is much metaphorical stuff within the Bible, something's are to be taken with a different outlook then the literal one. It continues on into supporting the murder of some dudes father or something like that. I don't remember much.

Also here's a quote from the Bible supporting dividing families due to difference in belief!

I have come to cast fire upon the Earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished! Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law. (Luke 12:49–53)

As I said if this was taken literally then we would have radical Christianity.

Bakery Hill wrote:All laws are religiously derived. It's impossible to draw the line in any real sense. It's just the rhetoric that changes.

ThePeacekeepers wrote:

Holy Tedalonia wrote:
Something like this is suggesting the Bible supports aggressive action. Yet many christians believe god comes in peace. As I said there is much metaphorical stuff within the Bible, something's are to be taken with a different outlook then the literal one. It continues on into supporting the murder of some dudes father or something like that. I don't remember much.

Also here's a quote from the Bible supporting dividing families due to difference in belief!

As I said if this was taken literally then we would have radical Christianity.

Hebrews 4:12
Ephesians 6:17
The sword matt is talking about is clarified as being the word of God. And the verses after that are saying that your family members will be at odds with you and hate you for the Lords word. The same goes for you passage in Luke since many of your family members will hate you for the Lord's sake. Just wanted to point that out to you.

Kenmoria wrote:

ThePeacekeepers wrote:Hebrews 4:12
Ephesians 6:17
The sword matt is talking about is clarified as being the word of God. And the verses after that are saying that your family members will be at odds with you and hate you for the Lords word. The same goes for you passage in Luke since many of your family members will hate you for the Lord's sake. Just wanted to point that out to you.

Let's not forget Deuteronomy 22:11 and Leviticus 19:19 which state it is immoral to make clothes made of more than one fabric.

The Serbian Empire wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:
Let's not forget Deuteronomy 22:11 and Leviticus 19:19 which state it is immoral to make clothes made of more than one fabric.

It'd be hilarious if that led to all politicians being forced to wear sacks of burlap because wool blend suits are forbidden.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Senkaku wrote:Hence, divorce, which frequently occurs when a partner is unfaithful.

no not really

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yourtango ... 86312.html

Austrasien wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
no not really

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yourtango ... 86312.html

Shockingly huffpo is wrong.

Oil exporting People wrote:

Vassenor wrote: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.

Lol, what? Leviticus 20:13 directly states:

If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

That's pretty clear on Homosexuality. But, you might say, that's the Old Testament!

Vassenor wrote:

Oil exporting People wrote:
Lol, what? Leviticus 20:13 directly states:



That's pretty clear on Homosexuality. But, you might say, that's the Old Testament!

So if you're saying Leviticus is valid, when are you going to start petitioning the government to outlaw pork products in accordance with Leviticus 11:7?

And this is before we get to how blatantly the American conservative Christian groups tend to disregard 19:33-34.

This is what I mean by cherry-picking. Taking bits out of the book that support one's own prejudices and disregarding the rest. Surely religious law is an all-or-nothing proposition?

Vassenor wrote:So in today's round of shower thoughts, something hit me that I figured I might as well try and get everyone's views on.

What is with the current obsession with demanding laws be written to fit within religious edict? Since it just seems like every time the topic of abortion or LGBT rights comes up it's met with a flurry of "it needs to be banned because the bible says so".

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.

For starters, at least in the US the Constitution is very explicit that you can't actually do that ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", which despite what everyone seems to think doesn't only mean that they can't stop you starting a religion).

There's also the element of hypocrisy involved, given that a lot of the people pushing that angle will also turn around and talk about the evils of religious law, at least when it comes from other religions.

So here's my open questions to the floor: Why are people so adamant about forcing biblical law into a system where it's not actually permitted, and what makes biblical law OK but Shariah and others the work of true evil?

Ethel mermania wrote:

Senkaku wrote:Hence, divorce, which frequently occurs when a partner is unfaithful.

no not really

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yourtango ... 86312.html