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?

[McCulloch]

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.

Good example. There are other good examples in European and middle eastern history.

They were devout religious men who thought to rule man as God ruled heaven. Never mixes.

And yet so many, with only their religious values to support them, want to legally ban the recognition of same-sex marriage.

[Confused]

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.

Good example. There are other good examples in European and middle eastern history.

They were devout religious men who thought to rule man as God ruled heaven. Never mixes.

And yet so many, with only their religious values to support them, want to legally ban the recognition of same-sex marriage.

There is no religion in the law. Man cannot ban something on a religious basis unless they can get the originator of that basis to testify. Man isn't God. We have seen what happens when they try to be and the results are never good. Let God judge when he feels appropriate. Otherwise, man is overstepping his boundaries by assuming they have the authority of God to do so. If anyone can show me wher in scripture it gives man the right to condemn or force Gods law on man, the I will reconsider my stand. But no man has the right to act as God. I believe this would make them a "false prophet".

[Goat]

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?

From my point of view, the religious 'prohibitions', for the most part are ways of living that I choose to follow so that I can feel closer to God. If those religious
choices are made into civil law, then it would not be a choice for me to make to follow to be closer to god, but rather merely imposed upon me from the outside.

Some are just common sense , and are good ideas if you are trying to get close to god or not (such as, do not murder, do not steal, do not covent your neighbors wife, or his ass, or even his wifes ass).

I personally think by legistating the prohibition takes away the personal choice to follow it

[Confused]

Boy where do I pick this apart:

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

Da 7:25 wrote:
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.
topaz wrote:
The above verse tells me that God would not find your reasoning acceptable.
topaz wrote:
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.

First off irregardless isn't an acceptable proper form of English. It is a double negative. The word iself cancels itself out and makes it meaningless.

Second: It is God's job to punish sinners. Not mans. Gays aren't shoving anything down your throat, you just find it so morally horrendous that you take a personal offense. I can only assume you take it personally because unless God has made you his punisher, then you have no right to take any religious stand on it. If it goes against Gods will, then God will see fit to exact his punishment on His terms, not Topaz's. You are forced to accept sin every day in your life. Any one who tells you a white lie, any murderer who is released on a technicality, any divorce, any immoral sexual act between a man and woman. Why is it that homosexuality is the one you seem to want to banish the most????

Third: marriage today is seen as a govenment institution not a religious one. So long as a preacher doesn't perform the marriage, then your religion should have no right to quarrel. Because you file the proper papers through the state for the state to recognize you as a married couple and because the ceremony can be performed by a clergy takes any and all religious aspects out of it. In the eyes of God, the marriage may not be recognized, but once again, that is not for you to judge, it is for God to judge.

Fourth: murders, etc.... are acts committed against mankind. Not God. At least not in the eyes of the law. Homosexuality between two consenting people is not an act against mankind. You see it as an act against God. Fine. I can't argue that. But you have no right to be judge, jury, and executioner. That is for God to do. Man follows mans laws. God follows Gods laws. Each hold their own domain. Until man enters Gods domain, we must rely on mans laws. Until God enters mans domain, we must rely on mans laws. Offenses against God can be dealt with by God. Offenses against man must be dealt with by man. Homosexuality isn't an offense against man unless it is forced upon one of the parties involved in which it is rape. Your religious objections hold no water in a court of law. If we allowed them to, we would likely have never gotten out of the era of the Salem witch persecutions.

Fifth: Topaz-you are not God. You are not one of his personal messengers entrenched with the responsibility of upholding His laws. You are responsible for your actions. Not others. You tell me where in the bible you (personally you) have the right to judge these people???

[McCulloch]

From my point of view, the religious 'prohibitions', for the most part are ways of living that I choose to follow so that I can feel closer to God. If those religious choices are made into civil law, then it would not be a choice for me to make to follow to be closer to god, but rather merely imposed upon me from the outside.

Some are just common sense, and are good ideas if you are trying to get close to god or not (such as, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet your neighbors wife, or his ass, or even his wife's ass).

Yes. These ones are made into law, not because they transgress a particular religious code but because they are necessary for a well ordered society.

I personally think by legislating the prohibition takes away the personal choice to follow it.

[mrow]I would agree with you on[mcol]but not on[row][list][*]Sabbath breaking [*]Idolatry [*]Homosexuality [/list][col][list][*]Theft [*]Violence [*]Fraud [/list][row]because these prohibitions serve no purpose but to establish religion.[col]because these prohibitions are necessary to a well ordered society.

[conus]

[quote="topaz"]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.[

I would like to add this for thought. The definition of sin is to violate a religious law. For those of us who do not believe in God or religion the word sin has no meaning and we can not sin. However, their are actions that degrade rather than enhance society. Example: Two people caring for one another, weather they are of the same sex or not does not harm society or civilization. Discrimination against people who are different than yourselves, does have a negative effect.

When you come to realize, if ever, that people are born this way (not a choice), you will realize also that this is a natural action. Just because it does not seem natural to you or myself, doesn't mean that it is unnatural.

Sorry about being off the topic, I just wanted too add that comment real quick.

Should our laws be modeled after God's? No!

The founding fathers had it right when the separation of church and state was established. I've read the biographies of the founders who wrote the Constitution. They were Deist. They believed in a God of nature not the Bible or any other man made manuscript. A God who started creation but had no control over it's progress or digression. Because of the atrocities allowed and even sanctioned by the God of the Bible, they knew that this was not a real God.

At this point in time, if they had known about evolution, I am sure that they would not have been Deist either.

[4gold]

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?

No! God's laws should not be used as a model for human laws!

I am very emphatic on this. The separation of church and state could quite possibly be the single greatest political achievement of the 2nd milennium.

I do realize that it is impossible to keep religion and politics separated, and I also realize that it is impossible to keep religion from influencing the laws, but as much as is physically possible, politics should be about the collision of secular ideas -- may the greatest idea win.

[Agur]

No! God's laws should not be used as a model for human laws!

I am very emphatic on this. The separation of church and state could quite possibly be the single greatest political achievement of the 2nd milennium.

I do realize that it is impossible to keep religion and politics separated, and I also realize that it is impossible to keep religion from influencing the laws, but as much as is physically possible, politics should be about the collision of secular ideas -- may the greatest idea win.

Why do you think that it is impossible to seperate them? Would you consider that it is because they are intrinsicaclly linked and therefore should not be seperated?

[Confused]

No! God's laws should not be used as a model for human laws!

I am very emphatic on this. The separation of church and state could quite possibly be the single greatest political achievement of the 2nd milennium.

I do realize that it is impossible to keep religion and politics separated, and I also realize that it is impossible to keep religion from influencing the laws, but as much as is physically possible, politics should be about the collision of secular ideas -- may the greatest idea win.

Why do you think that it is impossible to seperate them? Would you consider that it is because they are intrinsicaclly linked and therefore should not be seperated?

No they are not instrinsicly linked. They share some common traits, but remain separate entities. For example, Is there reference in the Bible about cloning man? In contrast, is there reference in mans law about repenting to God only, not the police. The abuse of the Catholic church and the Salem witch trials are two of the best arguments about why church and state should be separate. Can you think of any arguments about why they should be linked?

[4gold]

No! God's laws should not be used as a model for human laws!

I am very emphatic on this. The separation of church and state could quite possibly be the single greatest political achievement of the 2nd milennium.

I do realize that it is impossible to keep religion and politics separated, and I also realize that it is impossible to keep religion from influencing the laws, but as much as is physically possible, politics should be about the collision of secular ideas -- may the greatest idea win.

Why do you think that it is impossible to seperate them? Would you consider that it is because they are intrinsicaclly linked and therefore should not be seperated?

There are certain parts of our law that are intrinsically linked to religion.

For example, individual property rights vs. communal property rights. Our form of law is based upon the principle of individual property rights, which goes back at least as far as Abraham and Lot, perhaps earlier. In other religions (for example, the Patuxet tribe that met the Pilgrims in 1620) believed in communal property rights...no one owns anything. It all belongs to everyone.

If our Congress is going to choose whether to base our law on individual or communal property rights, they are going to have to use one religion's sense of property rights and reject the other's.