Why the obsession with religiously-derived laws?

[Neutraligon]

It really isn't though, the origin is not Christian and so I would claim that saying it is a Christian dietary law is in fact deceiving. Oh and...I would not claim that the first is followed all that much in modern times (rare hamburgers and meat are very common), and the third is not followed for other reasons, namely strangulation is a rather slow method of killing an animal, which means fewer animals can be killed and thus less money made.

That's like saying that the belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob isn't a Christian or Muslim belief because Jews held it first.

Not really, the first has connotations that it originates with Christianity, it does not. The second is about a belief system and so does not have that connotation.

The red in rare meat, at least in the United States, is not blood. Slaughtered animals in the United States are drained entirely of blood in ordinary slaughter. Learned it from Menassa, NSG's resident rabbi.

Source.

[United Muscovite Nations]

That's like saying that the belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob isn't a Christian or Muslim belief because Jews held it first.

Not really, the first has connotations that it originates with Christianity, it does not. The second is about a belief system and so does not have that connotation.

The red in rare meat, at least in the United States, is not blood. Slaughtered animals in the United States are drained entirely of blood in ordinary slaughter. Learned it from Menassa, NSG's resident rabbi.

Source.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wha ... 55eab6eb36

[Neutraligon]

Not really, the first has connotations that it originates with Christianity, it does not. The second is about a belief system and so does not have that connotation.

Source.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wha ... 55eab6eb36

This does not say they are drained of blood.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Social conservatism in the US, arguably is all about trying to get a Christian theocracy. Presumably- it would consist of rich, White, male Protestants in government and they'd do such things like have prayer and the Bible in public schools, ban abortion and contraception, ban Harry Potter and Halloween, have all text books in education use a Christian narrative, and tout a revisionist history and so on.

See, this is the ignorant part.

First, social conservatism is common in rural, blue-collar, and religious backgrounds with generations of Christians, so any dominating class of social conservatives would have huge minority backing. It's one of the biggest reasons, ironically enough, that Muslims once voted en bloc for Republicans. Republicans have a far larger share of Hispanics than blacks, and I would go to say that if the Republicans got the message to Hispanics that they were not going to be deported if they were lawfully in the country, it'd be higher.
(My mother told me about one of her Hispanic kids- her "babies", she calls them -who said that his or her parents were going to be deported if Trump won. The kid and the parents were in the country lawfully.)


Second, school prayer and Biblical usage in class has never been compulsary, and even the greatest of fundamentalists want it to be voluntary, with an opt-out. We're not in the business of compulsary school prayer, and we have never been. We argue that teachers should not forfeit their freedom of speech and association because they work at a schoolhouse. As long as the school is not saying the Lord's Prayer over the loudspeaker, individual teachers, as employees, should be allowed to lead voluntary prayer.

Furthermore, the Protestant church does not oppose contraception use in wedlock. That is a Catholic doctrine. We, like all Christians, oppose all premarital and extramarital sex, as well as all sodomy. Any sex not in wedlock is considered an abomination in the Christian religion.

As for abortion, all Christians agree it is murder. However, the Church is split widely on how far it should go: in my own church's Sunday School, years back, I was the only person who believed abortion should be lawful only in the cases of rape and if the mother's life is in danger. The rest of my class called for a total ban. We all agreed, however, that Crisis Pregnancy Centers and groups that assist those with an unplanned pregnancy needed direct aid from the Church. (My church donates directly to a crisis pregnancy center in our hometown.)

(My view on abortion is only for rape and if the mother's life is in danger, but I am actually iffy about the rape, because the fetus is innocent. I believe that abortion should be completely forbidden in all circumstances after twenty five weeks, when a fetus is capable of feeling pain.)

[The East Marches II]

...Christian dietary laws?

Yeah, Christians were supposed to stay away from "... food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood." Why sexual immorality got stuck in there, who knows? The food polluted by idols means stuff used as a sacrifice. It was customary to consume the offerings after giving the gods some time to do so. Deities in ancient times were notoriously picky eaters.

I would think that the bolded would be obvious given the prevalence of beastiality

[TURTLESHROOM II]

No blood was not Christian, it was Jewish, does meat offered to the Jewish god count, because that was a thing. Jewish dietary law insisted on the throat being slit so that the blood drains quickly and the animal dies quickly.

Yes, but the restriction continues in Christian practice, so it's also Christian dietary law.

Correct.


There are Christian dietary laws, and they are in Acts 15.

A Christian cannot willingly and knowingly consume:

• The meat of any animal that was sacrificed to an idol. (This includes Halal meat, because its sacrifice is prescribed during a ritual observance of Quraninc reading and praise to the Islamic deity.)
• Blood, of any kind.
• The meat of an animal that has been inhumanely strangled to death, by asphyxiation.

This means a Christian is sinning if he eats the rarest of meats and it means a Christian is sinning if he eats Halal meat.
(Note: medium meat has red juice, but it's not blood. It's a lighter color that looks red in the light as it rolls down the hot pink center of the meat.)

[TURTLESHROOM II]

It was not long ago that adultery was illegal.

Adultery should still be illegal. Even in the most libertarian of views, it has muster to be banned: it is breach of contract.

[New haven america]

A lot of people view [Insert deities/texts here]'s laws as more important than state laws.

[Albrenia]

Does blood include your own blood? Because I'm an even bigger sinner than I thought if so due to that one time my tongue was bleeding...

[United Muscovite Nations]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wha ... 55eab6eb36

This does not say they are drained of blood.

It confirms that there's not blood in red meat. I don't know why you think it has to get into more specifics, but here you go: http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x6909e/x6 ... 6-Bleeding

This confirms that bleeding is the standard practice as well: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/conne ... OD=AJPERES

[TURTLESHROOM II]

A lot of people view [Insert deities/texts here]'s laws as more important than state laws.

Christians believe that the commands of God trump any and all demands of the state. However, the Bible explicitly says, over and over again, that Christians must obey the law unless the law orders them to act against the commands of the New Testament.

As an example, the bakers who refuse to participate in a homosexual union defied the law saying they had to because the Bible calls homosexuality an abomination. However, they follow the non-discirmination law when a gay couple asks for a birthday cake or something benign, even if they would rather not be serving gays. (This was the case in most of the incidents of religious fundamentalists being bullied by the worst factions of the LGBT lobby, which went beyond demanding tolerance and into demanding absolute submission without privilege of dissent.)

Does blood include your own blood? Because I'm an even bigger sinner than I thought if so due to that one time my tongue was bleeding...

No. You must willingly and knowingly consume blood to breach Acts 15. As you bit your tongue and it bled everywhere, you didn't really choose to get blood in your mouth.

[Albrenia]

Good to know, thanks TS.

[Keshetar]

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?

I don't know, and no comment on the rest yet. I know that there are crazy Christians too, but please don't compare biblical law and Shariah law. That's very bad. I wonder if you have ever considered that it's not really so much hypocrisy, more of a different culture/rules.

[Neutraligon]

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?

I don't know, and no comment on the rest yet. I know that there are crazy Christians too, but please don't compare biblical law and Shariah law. That's very bad. I wonder if you have ever considered that it's not really so much hypocrisy, more of a different culture/rules.

Explain why it is very bad to compare the two.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Adultery should still be illegal. Even in the most libertarian of views, it has muster to be banned: it is breach of contract.

It's more so the issue of enforcement potentially being worse than the crime that is cause for concern.

I get that there are those who approve of adultery itself, but it's not the source of all opposition to criminalizing it, and I doubt it's the source of most of it.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Adultery should still be illegal. Even in the most libertarian of views, it has muster to be banned: it is breach of contract.

It's more so the issue of enforcement potentially being worse than the crime that is cause for concern.

I get that there are those who approve of adultery itself, but it's not the source of all opposition to criminalizing it, and I doubt it's the source of most of it.

It's probably best if it was "legal" so that they are safe from dangerous punishments. Let the public denounce and excommunicate the person.