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]

[/quote] 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?[/quote]

First, if a religious standard were implemented through the democratic process, the religious person would not be "imposing their standard." Someone's standard will prevail in the law. To exclude a religious standard from the democratic process but to allow all others (say, that of an atheist) is to exercise a prejudice toward religion. In a democratic process, the Christian has to compete to advance his ideas like everyone else. But where is the tolerance in silencing his view before he has the chance to present it simply because it is religious? Such an approach is oppression thinly disguised as tolerance.

Second, no one has the right to ignore God's pronouncements. To disobey God is to be immoral. There is no right to be immoral or unethical. People may use their freedoms toward immoral purposes--that happens all the time. But no one has a right to do wrong.

Third, 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.

[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?[/quote]

First, if a religious standard were implemented through the democratic process, the religious person would not be "imposing their standard." Someone's standard will prevail in the law. To exclude a religious standard from the democratic process but to allow all others (say, that of an atheist) is to exercise a prejudice toward religion. In a democratic process, the Christian has to compete to advance his ideas like everyone else. But where is the tolerance in silencing his view before he has the chance to present it simply because it is religious? Such an approach is oppression thinly disguised as tolerance.

Second, no one has the right to ignore God's pronouncements. To disobey God is to be immoral. There is no right to be immoral or unethical. People may use their freedoms toward immoral purposes--that happens all the time. But no one has a right to do wrong.

Third, 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. [/quote]

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?

You are being silly. If God feels so strongly against these, then I would welcome Him coming to earth to mete out punishment. But since God seems to have disappeared, that leaves man to police man. God leaves no room for special circumstances, such as killing an abusive husband before he kills you.

[bernee51]

[First, if a religious standard were implemented through the democratic process, the religious person would not be "imposing their standard." Someone's standard will prevail in the law. To exclude a religious standard from the democratic process but to allow all others (say, that of an atheist) is to exercise a prejudice toward religion. In a democratic process, the Christian has to compete to advance his ideas like everyone else. But where is the tolerance in silencing his view before he has the chance to present it simply because it is religious? Such an approach is oppression thinly disguised as tolerance.

last time I looked my neighbour, a christian, had exactly the same vote as my other neighbour, a muslim. And exactly the same vote as me. How is christianity discriminated against in the democratic process.

Second, no one has the right to ignore God's pronouncements.

Different god's have different pronouncements. Why is your's the one that should be adhered to over any other?

To disobey God is to be immoral.

We only have man's pronouncement of what any god says is immoral. It is going agianst these that is regarded as immoral

There is no right to be immoral or unethical. People may use their freedoms toward immoral purposes--that happens all the time. But no one has a right to do wrong.

Of course they do..as there is no universal morality. They do, however, have to face the consequences of whatever moral standard is adhered to in the society in which they live.

Third, there is a difference between crimes and sins. "Sins" would embody all those acts that are contrary to the will of God.

There is no such thing as 'sin'

"Crimes" are those sins which God has demonstrated an allowance for civil authority to punish.

Crime is a breaking of secular law.

Acts such as adultery, murder, and rape are crimes and should be treated as such under the law. [/size]

last time I looked adultery, in most societies, is not a crime.

[Bibowen]

[/quote]

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?[/quote]

...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.[/quote]

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?[/quote]

I do not believe that someone received the death penalty for fornication per se under the Mosaic Law. Also, I do not believe that they cut peoples hands off for stealing. Restitution was the order of the day for theft.

[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.

[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. In regards to theft, Matthew 5: 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. Again in Matthew 18:8If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

[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. In regards to theft, Matthew 5: 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. Again in Matthew 18:8If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire. 9And if your eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell.

As for the woman being stoned, first, this does not dispute my earlier comment that people were not executed for sexual sins, per se. Second, the woman mentioned in Deuteronomy 22 is not being stoned merely for not being a virgin. This woman has deceived both her parents and her spouse. Furthermore, the passege indicates that she is put to death because she has played the whore in her father's house. My sympathies are not with the woman; they are with her parents. In this senario she has shamed her family and made a liar and a fool out of her father. She has passed herself off to be something that she is not. She is not the victim here, her parents and her spouse are.

As for Jesus' statements about cutting off your arm, this has nothing to do with the law. The context pertains to offending "little ones" (probably children).

[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. ..

In Deuteronomy 22:20-1, the woman passes herself off as being chaste, when she is not. In this instance, she is not the victim, but rather the perpetrator. The father in good faith presented a chaste bride to a man who received her in good faith.

Second, my earlier comment about fornication not being punished by death per se still stands. Had the woman told her father that she was impure, her father probably would never have given her to another man and no penalty of death would ensue. She would likely come under the law stated in Deuteronomy 22: 28-9 where a man that "humbled" a woman was required to marry her and compensate the father.

[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. ..

In Deuteronomy 22:20-1, the woman passes herself off as being chaste, when she is not. In this instance, she is not the victim, but rather the perpetrator. The father in good faith presented a chaste bride to a man who received her in good faith.

Second, my earlier comment about fornication not being punished by death per se still stands. Had the woman told her father that she was impure, her father probably would never have given her to another man and no penalty of death would ensue. She would likely come under the law stated in Deuteronomy 22: 28-9 where a man that "humbled" a woman was required to marry her and compensate the father.

Really, where in that scripture/passage does it say that she told her husband she was chaste? Perhaps he assumed it, but I can find nowhere in which she claimed to be a virgin. Only that the man said she wasn't. So you will have to forgive me when I disagree with the victim issue. Lets be honest, if the man wasn't happy with her in bed, he could burn the sheets and claim her to be not a virgin and show the lack of blood on the new sheets to be proof. Hmmmm a bit of a patriarchal advantage here wouldn't you say? Not to mention, stoning one to death for lying?????? So way overdramatic.

In regards to your second paragraph, you have yet to show me where she claimed to be pure, or do you just interpret it that way? Preceptions are so double sided aren't they. You will not find any such passage in which the girl explicitly states she is a virgin, nor does the father explicitly state this either. The husband my assume she is, but that is hardly her fault now is it? Had he asked her and she said "yes, I am a virgin" then you might have some foundation, but there is no mentioning of this statement. One can hardly be responsible for the assumptions of others.

[Furrowed Brow]

Second, no one has the right to ignore God's pronouncements.

Well so much baggage in one simple sentence. Do I not have the right to be an atheist? Do I not have the right to deny that those pronouncements you say belong to God are no such thing? Do I not have the right to criticize those pronouncements, and reject them if they do not stand up to scrutiny. Do I not have the right to make up my own mind?