Should human laws be modeled after God's law?

[McCulloch]

Isn’t 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?

[Confused]

Isn’t 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?

I think that anyone living in the USA has to remember that most of the "founding fathers" of this country came here to escape both religious and political persecution. If we allow religion to infringe upon the moral ethics of our society, then we may as well as reverse time and repeat the dominance of the Catholic church and the slaughtering of the Holy Wars. There is a separation of state and church for a reason. Religious organizations are allowed to maintain their practice and beliefs, but not allowed to impose it on someone of another faith or belief. If you don't want to see to gay men kissing on the streets, don't look. You don't have the right to judge man upon earth. That is the job of God. The non-religious have every right to ignore Gods law and tolerate sin in society, because God gave us the free will to do so. Man can't condemn man. God will dish out his punishment upon the day of judgment. Man's law and Gods law cannot co-exist in harmony. This is what lead to the abuse of power by the Catholic church to begin with. It isn't for the clergy to punish, only God can do so. If man allows homosexuality by law, that is mans right. Just because it offends a religious institution isn't grounds for making it illegal. This also goes for the government infringing upon a religious institutions right. If a particular religion is non-violent, then during wartime, they cannot be forced into the draft by mans law to disobey their religious rights.

To me, the answer is very straight forward. While on earth, mans laws are to protect the rights of man. Period. Not God. Government laws are to reflect what is best for the people. Religious laws are to protect what is right for the soul. This is an area governed by God, not man. Therefore man has no right to force it upon man.

[melikio]

...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?

If we were to BY LAW roll any/all religious beliefs onto people, the same problems of all societies which have done the same in the past would come to be.

For people of faith (like myself) there are "real" aspects to things religious; but I cannot help but realize and understand that my beliefs, the sacred views I hold and the interpretations of scriptural writings I embrace, will not be for everyone.

This is a difficult thing for some people to accept; and many problems within this world have been perpetuated because of it. Basically, many people fighting for what is truly meaningless to many; that is, people struggling to survive in the deadly wake of intransigence and hatred (unfortuantely brought about by blind "belief" in various religious views).

Those truly blessed, are those who have learned to question (somewhat) the beliefs/values they embrace. I say that, because such reasonable inquiry helps to balance or mitigates the volatile attitude that ALL OTHERS are wrong (except those who believe the exact way they might).

For that reason, laws should not be based upon any specific religious views or scripture. And those laws which serve to protect individual rights (to the degree that one person's rights or liberties do not step on another's), are those we should diligently pursue. It's a delicate balance indeed, one which our U.S. Constitution brilliantly addresses in a broad sense.

Trying to honor each/every religion in a legal or political sense, is ultimately a prescription for societal-chaos; I think we can bank on it.

Criminals (those who harm others, force serious effects without actual consent), should be watched and controlled by laws/rules (even religion), but the idea that "Islam", "Christianity", "Judaism" or philosophies (similar to religion) should RULE ALL, is something many are right to question and/or challenge.

The Founding Fathers of America pretty much nailed the proper relationship between a government (made by man) and the power of God (which is His alone). They realized for more than a few reasons, that mankind stepping out to PLAY GOD, would lead to problems which they should seek to avoid.

I know things can change, but all I can say is that I certainly hope America never becomes a THEOCRACY; it would be as tragic as any case in history where the effects of such has been observed.

-Mel-

[micatala]

Can anyone find some support in the NT that commandments given by God to believers should be imposed on the larger society including non-believers?


I would agree with the comments above that there is a different between God's ultimate judgment of sinners, and man's legal judgment of other men. We have no right to usurp God's role in judging sin. As it says in Romans 14, (paraphrase) "who are you to judge another man's servant. It is to his own master that he will stand or fall."

In my view, Christians in a democratic society should feel free to advocate for any laws they wish. However, it is incumbent upon them to provide non-religious rationale for laws which non-believers would also have to follow. Murder, stealing, etc., are all 'command of God' but also have clear non-religious rationale for why they should be illegal.

[McCulloch]

Can anyone find some support in the NT that commandments given by God to believers should be imposed on the larger society including non-believers?

I get the feeling from reading the NT that the writers never thought that Christianity would be the dominate force in society, that they would always be the minority, the underclass, the poor, out of power. There are some who would say that is right and there has never been a truly Christian society.

In my view, Christians in a democratic society should feel free to advocate for any laws they wish. However, it is incumbent upon them to provide non-religious rationale for laws which non-believers would also have to follow. Murder, stealing, etc., are all 'command of God' but also have clear non-religious rationale for why they should be illegal.

But many Christians disagree with you. None of them are posting on this thread, but they are clearly there.

[melikio]

micatala wrote: In my view, Christians in a democratic society should feel free to advocate for any laws they wish. However, it is incumbent upon them to provide non-religious rationale for laws which non-believers would also have to follow. Murder, stealing, etc., are all 'command of God' but also have clear non-religious rationale for why they should be illegal.

Mc wrote: But many Christians disagree with you. None of them are posting on this thread, but they are clearly there.

You guys have it right. And I don't worry about the others who don't get it, because unless they have some "perfect" way to keep people from being HUMAN, their "disagreement" will always be challenged.

You see, it's easy for someone to claim some thought or position of "faith" is of/from a higher-power. But people WILL always question and challenge so-called established truths. And while that can sometimes be a fruitless endeavor, it typically encourages people (at least some) to THINK about what they "believe" and WHY they believe it.

To many in this world, there is something so wrong or frightening about questioning one's own beliefs, that they just STAY where they are. I definitely understand that, and have been there myself. But I've also learned over time, that there are good and valid reason which OTHER PEOPLE have (even whithin themselves) to believe DIFFERENTLY that I myself do. Christians do not ALL believe the same things, despite the calls by many who "believe" they should. And personally, I don't see evidence where any such "harmonization" of religious consensus is likely (where it concerns biblical or other writings). In fact, it was 9-11 that showed me people under the SAME religious "label", often think/behave differently. I'm not ashamed to tell ANYONE: That is WOULD NOT accept the kind of religion, that calls for the literal "extermination" of those who oppose it. And while that kind of thinkng is attributable to only a few (belief systems) in this world today, I think it emphasizes the importance of allowing various "beliefs" or "truths" to be cross-checked/challenged via basic human nature.

If we had LAWS which sought to stifle human expression (which most religious law would practically ensure), it would be a pitiful existence indeed (just look around the world and see what I'm saying). I think the only thing worst for a society than an evil dictator, is an evil dictator/government which thinks/believes it has some direct connection to the Creator. Even worse, is when the "people" begin to believe that their "God" directly approves of that dictator's or nation's actions.

Now, I'm an American. And I do deeply believe in DEFENDING freedom and liberty, safety; even by fighting for the same. I HATE war, but I know people must (at times) defend themselves. I think because of our Constitution, most average citizens do believe that legal or diplomatic means (reasonable compromise) is usually a viable solution to most real problems. However, should we EVER move toward a more THEOCRATIC form of government, I can see where that concept would become a thing of the past. We would ALL be stuck will someone's interpretation of "religious" scriptures and subsequent laws (as some seem to want us stuck with today).

America's Founding Fathers did not take "lightly" the freedoms and liberties they literally wrote into the Supreme Law of The Land; and while it's no verifiable DICTATE from God's desk upstairs, it is something mankind wield reasonably for the well-being or betterment of most people living UNDER it. Sad to say, a nation laws (and social dynamics) based upon "religion", does not look out as well for its people (for myriad reasons, which I think history can prove). America's founders surely understood the effect of oppressive religious law/rule; they knew firsthand that it was a terrible thing.

I can definitely see where religion is GOOD as being a part of any given society, but the notion of a MONDO-GIANT-CHURCH, the size of a nation really hasn't proven itself to be the BEST thing in the long run. And that is likely why the most prosperous nations (socially and economically) are typically those which represent a reasonable balance of religious and secular thinking.

-Mel-

[Confused]

Isn’t 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?

In reality, I think that if God had wanted earth to be run by His laws, then he would be here personally overseeing it, not the presidents and politicians. Man runs mans domain. If God wanted a say so, then he should have come to the last 'State of the Union' meeting. If he did indeed create earth and man, he gave up his right to rule us when he withdrew his presence from it/us.

[The Duke of Vandals]

This is what I call the "American paradox". We're a democratic nation where the majority is supposed to hold sway, however our most treasured legal document ensures protections of the minority from the majority... and also grants religious freedom.

It's counter-intuitive to me to attempt to legislate based on religious belief when the Constitution allows us to worship any religion and ensures that there cannot be a state religion.

The fatal flaw of democracy is this: if 51% of the people don't want a democracy, democracy ceases to be. Either the majority will institute something new or the minority will attempt to force democracy on the majority. It's why America is meant to be a republic / representational democracy.

Anyway, slightly off-topic, I'd hate to see a body of laws that condemns adulterers and consentual homosexuals equally with murderers and rapists (as the bible does).

[MagusYanam]

I think the United States is pretty schizophrenic with regard to religion, even among the Founding Fathers - on the one hand, you have the voice of religious sceptics like Thomas Jefferson advocating a separation of Church and state that allows all to practise their own religion without interference from the government, and on the other hand you have fundamentalist firebrands like James Otis advocating what is essentially theocracy.

And I think we're still living with that societal schizophrenia today. I personally would like to see a society in which it was at least customary for churches and mosques and synagogues and temples to exchange members from time to time, to discuss all issues theological, philosophical, political, scientific, historical. Something a little like the early Church of England, which was composed of Catholics, moderate Protestants and Puritans. What came out of the Church of England was a broad-minded, broad-practised, socially conscientious faith. Or (a better example) ancient China, in which Confucianism, Daoism, Buddhism and Islam not only coexisted harmoniously but also added and built upon each other, adopting ideas and doctrines from each other and adding significantly to the richness of that society's culture. In the United States, TV preachers can get away with fleecing enormous amounts of money from their audiences, fundamentalists are free to abuse their children and spouses, and we have a general atmosphere of religious intolerance that I find intolerable (pun very much intended), despite a Constitutional amendment to the contrary.

Oh yes, I would also hate to see a body of laws that condemns consenting homosexuals equally with murderers and rapists, especially since their sins, if such they can be called, need hurt no one. Adultery is a different beast entirely - it does hurt a wife if her husband cheats on her (or vice versa), and if there are children from the marriage it becomes an even bigger problem. Since it involves a lot of people, it should be treated as crime (nowhere near as serious as murder or rape, though - perhaps it should be dealt with in civil law).

[Confused]

Isn’t 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?

Any time you feel yourself asking if we should not model society after "Gods" laws and not keep church and state separate: anyone who lives in America or is familiar with American History, need only look at the Salem Witch Trials. There was a court guided by religion and while the death count wasn't anywhere near the Holy wars, I take it a little more personal, because these people died to prove their faith in their Lord. Man judged, man condemned, and man murdered. These weren't men after power or prestige. They were devout religious men who thought to rule man as God ruled heaven. Never mixes.