Should human laws be modeled after God's law?

[McCulloch]

Isnt it correct that sin must be repented of, then society will accept us irregardless of our past. Instead, the gays are pushing it down the throat of society to ACCEPT SIN.

No. Gays and other human rights advocates, are pushing the idea that legal prohibitions and discrimination based solely on religion are not acceptable.

And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

The above verse tells me that God would not find your reasoning acceptable.

Since this sin has been made legal, what right does a court of law has to convict murderers, perjurers, false witnesses, ? It smacks of double standards.

The laws of your country (assuming the USA) were not made to uphold the religious idea of sin. The laws were established to protect rights and to facilitate a well ordered society. There is no double standard in the secular state not enforcing by law the religious precepts of a specific brand of theist.

Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Which is it? Do the religious have the moral right to impose their standard of ethics on the rest of society by force of law? Do the non-religious have the right to ignore God's pronouncements and tolerate sin in society?

[Bibowen]

Which is it? Do the religious have the moral right to impose their standard of ethics on the rest of society by force of law? Do the non-religious have the right to ignore God's pronouncements and tolerate sin in society?

...there is a difference between crimes and sins. "Sins" would embody all those acts that are contrary to the will of God. "Crimes" are those sins which God has demonstrated an allowance for civil authority to punish. The Bible says that God hates "a proud look," but no where in the Bible is there a law against it. So, a "proud look" is a sin, but not a crime. The same would go for gluttony, gossip, or drunkenness.

However, some sins are crimes and God has demonstrated a sanction against such acts through the use of civil authority. Acts such as adultery, murder, and rape are crimes and should be treated as such under the law.

The problem with your comments is that what exact law do you feel these should be punished under? Should a women who has premarital sex be stoned to death, should a theif has his arm cut off?

I do not think there was a death penalty for fornication per se under the Mosaic Law. As for theft, restitution was the order of the day; I do not believe they cut off their arms.

The example used was for stoning a woman to death if her new husband could prove that she wasn't a virgin when she came to her marriage bed. That would be in Deuteronomy 22. ..

My third comment in reference to the woman in Deuteronomy 22:20-1 is that its unlikely that many women died this way. A woman that knew she could face stoning at the door of her house if she defiled herself would likely stay pure. Among the few that would be willing to risk it, few among that group would likely conceal it from their fathers lest he betroth them to another man who could find them out (in other words, she would tell him that she was not chaste, rather than run the risk of dying).

I think we are down to a small number, but lets continue....A father that knew he had an unchaste daughter would not likely betroth his daughter to another man since he runs the risk of her being stoned and the family shamed. And even if all the above failed to protect her, the man receiving her probably loved her and would have likely concealed it just as Joseph did for Mary (see Matt. 1:18-19). In fact, the passage indicates that Josephs concealment of Marys pregnancy emanated from his being "just." In Mary's case, she was thought to be not just impure, but also bearing another man's child.

So, while stoning is what the law allowed for, I doubt the penalty was often exacted. In fact, Id bet there is a higher number of people that get on the internet and complain about the law, than there were actual death sentences under this law.

[McCulloch]

So, while stoning is what the law allowed for, I doubt the penalty was often exacted. In fact, Id bet there is a higher number of people that get on the internet and complain about the law, than there were actual death sentences under this law.

That is no the point. This allegedly perfect law, demands stoning for a bride who is found not to be a virgin. Is this the kind of law that human laws should be modeled after?

People generally do not make laws about improbable activities. We have no laws about keeping rhinoceroses on dirigibles.

[Bibowen]

Which is it? Do the religious have the moral right to impose their standard of ethics on the rest of society by force of law? Do the non-religious have the right to ignore God's pronouncements and tolerate sin in society?

...there is a difference between crimes and sins. "Sins" would embody all those acts that are contrary to the will of God. "Crimes" are those sins which God has demonstrated an allowance for civil authority to punish. The Bible says that God hates "a proud look," but no where in the Bible is there a law against it. So, a "proud look" is a sin, but not a crime. The same would go for gluttony, gossip, or drunkenness.

However, some sins are crimes and God has demonstrated a sanction against such acts through the use of civil authority. Acts such as adultery, murder, and rape are crimes and should be treated as such under the law.

The problem with your comments is that what exact law do you feel these should be punished under? Should a women who has premarital sex be stoned to death, should a theif has his arm cut off?

I do not think there was a death penalty for fornication per se under the Mosaic Law. As for theft, restitution was the order of the day; I do not believe they cut off their arms.

The example used was for stoning a woman to death if her new husband could prove that she wasn't a virgin when she came to her marriage bed. That would be in Deuteronomy 22. ..

My fourth comment to "Confused" is that your complaint is probably empty since its unlikely that the Deuteronomy 22 passage would have a strict application in todays world. At least in democratic states, women are independent agents and enter marriage of their own will. Also, in ancient Israel, a man paid the father of the bride for his wife. Today, the father takes out a second mortgage to pay for the wedding to present his daughters hand for matrimony.

[Confused]

Which is it? Do the religious have the moral right to impose their standard of ethics on the rest of society by force of law? Do the non-religious have the right to ignore God's pronouncements and tolerate sin in society?

...there is a difference between crimes and sins. "Sins" would embody all those acts that are contrary to the will of God. "Crimes" are those sins which God has demonstrated an allowance for civil authority to punish. The Bible says that God hates "a proud look," but no where in the Bible is there a law against it. So, a "proud look" is a sin, but not a crime. The same would go for gluttony, gossip, or drunkenness.

However, some sins are crimes and God has demonstrated a sanction against such acts through the use of civil authority. Acts such as adultery, murder, and rape are crimes and should be treated as such under the law.

The problem with your comments is that what exact law do you feel these should be punished under? Should a women who has premarital sex be stoned to death, should a theif has his arm cut off?

I do not think there was a death penalty for fornication per se under the Mosaic Law. As for theft, restitution was the order of the day; I do not believe they cut off their arms.

The example used was for stoning a woman to death if her new husband could prove that she wasn't a virgin when she came to her marriage bed. That would be in Deuteronomy 22. ..

My fourth comment to "Confused" is that your complaint is probably empty since its unlikely that the Deuteronomy 22 passage would have a strict application in todays world. At least in democratic states, women are independent agents and enter marriage of their own will. Also, in ancient Israel, a man paid the father of the bride for his wife. Today, the father takes out a second mortgage to pay for the wedding to present his daughters hand for matrimony.

So we should toss any passage that doesn't fit in with todays society? So the bible is just a set of outdated rules that can be divided into sins and crimes, but if todays society is not like that of the society in existence when the bible was written, we can feel free to scratch those sins vs crimes. Now tell me, under whose authority to we have the right to decide which are relevant and which aren't? Do we find someone capable of having a conversation with God loud enough for all to hear to find which He finds still valid and which are archaic?

[Bibowen]

So, while stoning is what the law allowed for, I doubt the penalty was often exacted. In fact, Id bet there is a higher number of people that get on the internet and complain about the law, than there were actual death sentences under this law.

That is no the point. This allegedly perfect law, demands stoning for a bride who is found not to be a virgin. Is this the kind of law that human laws should be modeled after?

People generally do not make laws about improbable activities. We have no laws about keeping rhinoceroses on dirigibles.

The short answer to your question is "yes," this is the kind of law that human law should be modeled after.

First, who alleged that the Mosaic Law was perfect? It is only perfect in that the source of the law is perfect. But the law was given to man and hence its limitations. For example, the Bible indicates that the law did not always reflect God's perfect will for Israel. See Matthew 19:8.

Second, societies do make laws to keep destructive behaviors improbable. Threatening the penalty of death in the Deuteronomy 22 matter is likely to help keep promiscuity low. It is precisely because the woman might get the death penalty that the woman is likely to stay chaste. But even if she did not, the father and groom are likely to extend mercy. That is, the father is not likely to betroth his unchaste daughter to a man who might have her killed, and the groom is not likely to report his unchaste bride.

Third, "rhinoceroses on dirigibles" is a bad example and not very funny. "Rhinos on dirigibles" are "improbable" because they are unlikely. Since they are unlikely, there is no need to pass a public law against them. But, who knows? A tense rhino in a dirigible could be a problem. If it became a trend, then you might have a public hazard aloft. Perhaps a "Rhino Division" at the Department of Transportation would be in order (I know what youre thinking, but stranger things have happened). The only problem is that we would need someone to head that division....what is Janet Reno doing these days? Then we would have "Reno at Rhino." I know, its a scary thought, but I would feel safer with Reno at the helm. If a rhinoed dirigible endangered public safety, she would immediately incinerate it, just like the Waco compound.

Regardless of the future regulation of rising rhinos, it is likely that if there are not legal/societal sanctions against promiscuity, it will be prevalent and its prevalence will undermine the family structure that is essential to a democratic society.

[Greatest I Am]

Isnt it correct that sin must be repented of, then society will accept us irregardless of our past. Instead, the gays are pushing it down the throat of society to ACCEPT SIN.

No. Gays and other human rights advocates, are pushing the idea that legal prohibitions and discrimination based solely on religion are not acceptable.

GIA wrote
Laws are changed through social pressure. If any religious group or non religious group is strong enough to force a change then things are as they should be.
If gays have to push anything down our throats it may be because our throats are closed off to the right thinking we should have had in the first place. Then they would not need to push so hard.
Especially with the wrong advice given in the Bibles of today.

And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

The above verse tells me that God would not find your reasoning acceptable.

Since this sin has been made legal, what right does a court of law has to convict murderers, perjurers, false witnesses, ? It smacks of double standards.

The laws of your country (assuming the USA) were not made to uphold the religious idea of sin. The laws were established to protect rights and to facilitate a well ordered society. There is no double standard in the secular state not enforcing by law the religious precepts of a specific brand of theist.

Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

GIA wrote
Gays, like all of us are created Perfect for their position in life.
Their natures are God given. To follow this nature then is pleasing to God, otherwise He would not have created it or allowed it to fruit. Since He did. We must assume He wants us to see and deal with it. How we deal with it is what He is judging.


Which is it? Do the religious have the moral right to impose their standard of ethics on the rest of society by force of law?

GIA wrote
Yes they do. As any group does if they have the power. This is how our systems are designed.


Do the non-religious have the right to ignore God's pronouncements and tolerate sin in society?

GIA wrote
Yes they do have this right but should not ignore the penalties that the now civil law might impose.
If the Bible is wrong in this then we should revue what we call sin.

Regards
DL

[McCulloch]

Do the religious have the moral right to impose their standard of ethics on the rest of society by force of law?

Yes they do. As any group does if they have the power. This is how our systems are designed.

I don't know who you mean by us, but our systems (US and Canadian constitutional law) were designed to protect minority rights.

[Greatest I Am]

Do the religious have the moral right to impose their standard of ethics on the rest of society by force of law?

Yes they do. As any group does if they have the power. This is how our systems are designed.

I don't know who you mean by us, but our systems (US and Canadian constitutional law) were designed to protect minority rights.

GIA wrote
Yes but why does it do such a poor job and why does it take minorities so long to get these rights. Is it because every law that is passed is permission to discriminate against another group.

Any political system is invented or created to bring order from chaos in a social group. This is its primary reason for being. Human rights come later.

Regards
DL

[Bibowen]

...there is a difference between crimes and sins. "Sins" would embody all those acts that are contrary to the will of God. "Crimes" are those sins which God has demonstrated an allowance for civil authority to punish. The Bible says that God hates "a proud look," but no where in the Bible is there a law against it. So, a "proud look" is a sin, but not a crime. The same would go for gluttony, gossip, or drunkenness.

However, some sins are crimes and God has demonstrated a sanction against such acts through the use of civil authority. Acts such as adultery, murder, and rape are crimes and should be treated as such under the law.

The problem with your comments is that what exact law do you feel these should be punished under? Should a women who has premarital sex be stoned to death, should a theif has his arm cut off?

I do not think there was a death penalty for fornication per se under the Mosaic Law. As for theft, restitution was the order of the day; I do not believe they cut off their arms.

The example used was for stoning a woman to death if her new husband could prove that she wasn't a virgin when she came to her marriage bed. That would be in Deuteronomy 22. ..

My fourth comment to "Confused" is that your complaint is probably empty since its unlikely that the Deuteronomy 22 passage would have a strict application in todays world. At least in democratic states, women are independent agents and enter marriage of their own will. Also, in ancient Israel, a man paid the father of the bride for his wife. Today, the father takes out a second mortgage to pay for the wedding to present his daughters hand for matrimony.

So we should toss any passage that doesn't fit in with todays society? So the bible is just a set of outdated rules that can be divided into sins and crimes, but if todays society is not like that of the society in existence when the bible was written, we can feel free to scratch those sins vs crimes. Now tell me, under whose authority to we have the right to decide which are relevant and which aren't? Do we find someone capable of having a conversation with God loud enough for all to hear to find which He finds still valid and which are archaic?

First, the rules are not divided into "sins and crimes," the offenses are. Second, yes, we would have to decide which laws apply and which ones dont. Remember that while it is Gods law, it is a law given to men. So man must exercise his discretion in implementing that law justly. Gods law was first given to a tribal and nomadic people. They had a priestly caste, ritual animal sacrifice, and carried with them the presence of God via the Ark of the Covenant. None of these things would apply to us today, so the laws governing those areas would have no application.