Should God's Law be the Law of the Land?

[logical4u]

The Ten Commandments leave out "Thou shalt not rape." So would we leave that out?

These ARE Commandments..

Wrong. your god's law is that your daughter has to marry me and fulfill her duty(serve me sexually) in our marriage after I rape her pretty little virgin body.

Interesting ethics you have.

Selective quoting, I see. Apparently, you are confused between the OT and the NT. The NT is the part the "Christians" were living at the time of CHRIST. HE explained that a lot of those "rules" in the OT were because people were stiff-necked and did not want to follow the LORD (just like today, the laws are written to keep people from hurting other people, not to force law abiders to do actions). Rape would be against the ten Commandments, condensed down to Love the LORD with your whole being and love your neighbor as yourself (where do you see "rape" in that?). Must be hard to hate Christians so much that you have to selectively quote what people say to manipulate their words. Are you kin to Satan?

 

[logical4u]

Well there is one thing we can't disagree with

Judeo-Christianity does have a marked influence on the US Constitution.

But to say it is based on christiantiy in itself is kind of a reach.

Especially since the Christianity of the last 300 years is in turn based upon Judaism, Greek philosophy, and even some Arab Philosophy and Islam itself.

So the real question is--with all this stuff forming an ideological basis for the US constitution, is there any atheism in it(Deism and pantheism does not count--in a since they too have a god/s even if it is not the same as the christian god)

I think now that most people wish to attack what I just posted. Go ahead, its just an opinion.

Not me. It's a fair and balanced view of history. Whatever basis on Judeo-Christian values that there is in the Constitution is there in an indirect way, since the values of classical liberalism have their influences from the same. There's no stretch in saying that. Any laws since then that were influenced by faith are simply there because of the predominance of the faith amongst Americans. No big mystery there either. Some of them have been determined to be unconstitutional, sometimes for good reason.

The founders set a framework of religious tolerance and specifically tried to avoid a theocracy. A predominant faith is naturally going to flourish under such a framework, such as it did with Christianity. Modern fundamentalists want a return to what they believe was a theocratic framework that really never existed, and now Christianity is falling apart, partly as a result of that, and yes, partly because of efforts by atheists to shut down any influence of faith on politics. That's where we are now. Christians want a theocracy, and atheists don't want religion to have any influence on politics. Neither is really possible under the Constitution. The Constitution forbids a theocracy, while nothing can prevent elected officials from having faith and letting it influence their decisions and voting practices. It is a balance that has always been. Let it be.

Please list the "Christians" calling for a "theocracy". Love how you people just make stuff up to make Christians look bad. Bear false witness, much?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, I would like to join the Elks. I like secret handshakes, eletism, goofy rituals and unlimited happy hours at the club as much as anyone else, but they won't let me in unless I swear that I believe in god....

Oh, well! I guess I will have to be content with hanging out at the Wet Spot bar and grill with all the riff raft who wear bowling shirts.

 

[logical4u]

Christians do not want a theocracy. They just want to be able to worship openly and without undue interference.

That is not the same as wanting to establish a theocracy. When people make that stupid claim, I ask them to present the proposed legislation whereby we are seeking establishment of a theocracy.

That's when atheists do things like point and yell "LOOK THERE GOES ELVIS!" "You're so dumb! Hahahaha Christians are big dummies!"

It’s important to understand that you do not speak on behalf of Christianity.

Which is an important point because you know not a whit of what you speak.

The long term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to his Church’s public marks of the covenant-baptism and holy communion-must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel.
Gary North


I hope to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be.
Jerry Falwell



There will never be world peace until Gods house and Gods people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world.
Pat Robertson

Not sure who Gary North is, but it sounds like he is just trying to make sure "citizens" are not treated like "gun owners".

I think churches wanting to operate the school system would be a relief to the tax payer.

So you don't "want world peace"?

None of those are calling for a theocracy (Gary North might come close). There is no movement to set up religious judges to rule (at least not by Christians). Christians just can't understand why people that had so much fun mocking and ridiculing us for our beliefs, want to "hurt" us, "silence" us, when they are "claiming" that is what Christians did to them. If it was wrong to do one way, why would you support it, when it comes from another direction?

 

[logical4u]

Well, I would like to join the Elks. I like secret handshakes, eletism, goofy rituals and unlimited happy hours at the club as much as anyone else, but they won't let me in unless I swear that I believe in god....

Oh, well! I guess I will have to be content with hanging out at the Wet Spot bar and grill with all the riff raft who wear bowling shirts.

And that is what is great about America! You can!

 

[varelse]

Christians do not want a theocracy. They just want to be able to worship openly and without undue interference.

Which they can and do.

Now sit down and shut up.

 

[t_polkow]

Not a true statement.

First off, Christianity was slowly replacing the Roman Empire (not by brutality, but by the teachings of the Christ). Then came the pillaging and plundering muslims, Turks, and Moors. That was the beginning of the "Dark Ages". It took hundreds of years to recover (sad, today, people are saying: we should embrace their way of thinking, their culture).

Christianity was points of light at that time for many. There were some really corrupt players that infiltrated the church then too. There were still pagan religions, human sacrifices, and some other nasties too! Then there was the belief that "royalty" had different rules than the "commoners". That was not changed until the Quakers gained prominence. The Quakers (a Christian faith), influenced the new gov't in this country, so there would be no special rules for those in gov't and the citizens that chose them!

Noticed how you skipped over the inquisitions

Or conquering native lands and forcing Christianity on the population by the sword like in Mexico and South America

Witch Hunts (beginning circa 1480 in Europe): The witch hunts in the United States were short lived and resulted in very few deaths compared to the witch hunts in Europe where countless people were wrongfully murdered after bogus trials for the cross.

The Crusades (Beginning 1095): As a religious driven military movement, the Crusades, fought mainly against Muslims, were efforts to recapture the “Holy Land” which lead to irrational claims of “crosses” appearing on chests of leaders, demoralization of non-Christians (Jews and Muslims) and mass murders of innocent men, women and children.


The Inquisition (Beginning 1184): The purpose of the Inquisition was stated in a 1578 handbook for inquisitors as, “… for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit.” Such as statement makes it clear that the goal was to inspire fear among a people in order to rule and conquer them. During the Inquisitions church leaders often supported the enslavement and/or murder of “heretics”.

The Holocaust (beginning circa 1933): Christian Fundamentalism was a primary cause of the Holocaust. Jewish persons had been murdered and enslaved throughout Europe’s violent Christian history and the Nazi’s continued this long tradition of murder – claiming it to be for the betterment of God and God’s wish. Although the Jewish people took the largest number of casualties, other groups were murdered including, homosexuals, Soviet citizens, political prisoners and the disabled.

What complete rubbish you spew.

Yes historical facts are fairy tales to you , but story's of god men with no verifiable evidence is reality to you . That is called mental illness. Thank fully your ilk are shirking in America

 

[koshergrl]

Progressives continue to label all who don't toe the line as "mentally ill" "dangerous" and "defective" to justify their assertion that the state should punish/eliminate them.

Some things never change.

 

[t_polkow]

Progressives continue to label all who don't toe the line as "mentally ill" "dangerous" and "defective" to justify their assertion that the state should punish/eliminate them.

Some things never change.

 

[koshergrl]

Shouldn't you be posting nonsense in the "adherence to religion is a mental illness" or "taking your children to church is child abuse" threads?

 

[t_polkow]

Shouldn't you be posting nonsense in the "adherence to religion is a mental illness" or "taking your children to church is child abuse" threads?

I am so glad I don't hire fundy christers

 

[JohnA]

Christians do not want a theocracy. They just want to be able to worship openly and without undue interference.

"

\
and they have that .*freedom of religion * is guaranteed under the constitution .

christians can worship all day every and any day ,pray 24 hours a day any day, they can pray going to work ,coming home from work ,at home, at the store ,and even pray while on the crapper if they want. there are NO RESTICTIONS on them practicing their faith and there should,nt be

what they want thou is to tell others what they should do ,believe and practice and shove their religion in everybody face by passing laws based on christian beliefs

differant animal

 

[koshergrl]

Sure they can. They can tell others whatever they like. Just as you can tell us that we can't tell you what to do.

Same animal, except that in your version, you get to dictate what we are *allowed* to speak of.

Sorry, you don't.

 

[Derideo_Te]

We'll just have to agree to disagree D.T. I am as convinced of the truth of my statements as you are convinced I'm all wet.

I base my convictions on my experience, what I see and read and hear with my own eyes and my own understanding. I note that for years now, whenever somebody starts a religious thread, the Atheists almost always descend upon it to inform us believers how delusional we are to believe and teach 'fairy tales' and such, how intolerant we are, how bigoted we are, how we are trying to force our religion on others, yadda yadda.

But your experience is based exclusively on the threads where you are only exposed to the vocal subset of Atheists who have strong views and who are responding to their equally vocal counterparts amongst believers. Would it be fair to judge all Christians by the likes of only QW and KG? If not then why are you judging all Atheists by the handful who participate in this forum? Most Atheists are just normal average everyday people who you would never know were Atheists at all.

And I base my beliefs on the convictions of the Founders and corruption in government on reading, reading, and more reading as well as attendance in some damn good history courses. We have NEVER seen such corruption in government as has existed since politicians figured out how to use our money to advance themselves, something the Constitution was clearly intended to prevent.

The Founding Fathers were complaining about corruption in Congress from the very outset. The primary difference is that today corporate welfare is the primary driver of corruption amongst the politicians and it is completely bipartisan.

You can see in recent posts here, that some simply cannot bear to hear this said even though they cannot rebut it with anything authoritative. So they attack me or somebody else making the case.

And so it goes. . .

And now I intend to go put the frosting on an excellent devil's food cake as that is what our local Christians ordered instead of angel food.

Even if there was complete reform of the entire political campaign system to outlaw any connection between contributions and subsequent legislation there would still be corruption. Whenever there is a lot of money involved you will find corruption. Greed is a very powerful motivator.

 

[hortysir]

Shouldn't you be posting nonsense in the "adherence to religion is a mental illness" or "taking your children to church is child abuse" threads?

I am so glad I don't hire fundy christers

Religious discrimination?
Really?

wow

How very 14th century of you

 

[Foxfyre]

We'll just have to agree to disagree D.T. I am as convinced of the truth of my statements as you are convinced I'm all wet.

I base my convictions on my experience, what I see and read and hear with my own eyes and my own understanding. I note that for years now, whenever somebody starts a religious thread, the Atheists almost always descend upon it to inform us believers how delusional we are to believe and teach 'fairy tales' and such, how intolerant we are, how bigoted we are, how we are trying to force our religion on others, yadda yadda.

But your experience is based exclusively on the threads where you are only exposed to the vocal subset of Atheists who have strong views and who are responding to their equally vocal counterparts amongst believers. Would it be fair to judge all Christians by the likes of only QW and KG? If not then why are you judging all Atheists by the handful who participate in this forum? Most Atheists are just normal average everyday people who you would never know were Atheists at all.

And I base my beliefs on the convictions of the Founders and corruption in government on reading, reading, and more reading as well as attendance in some damn good history courses. We have NEVER seen such corruption in government as has existed since politicians figured out how to use our money to advance themselves, something the Constitution was clearly intended to prevent.

The Founding Fathers were complaining about corruption in Congress from the very outset. The primary difference is that today corporate welfare is the primary driver of corruption amongst the politicians and it is completely bipartisan.

You can see in recent posts here, that some simply cannot bear to hear this said even though they cannot rebut it with anything authoritative. So they attack me or somebody else making the case.

And so it goes. . .

And now I intend to go put the frosting on an excellent devil's food cake as that is what our local Christians ordered instead of angel food.

Even if there was complete reform of the entire political campaign system to outlaw any connection between contributions and subsequent legislation there would still be corruption. Whenever there is a lot of money involved you will find corruption. Greed is a very powerful motivator.

You are quite right that while I did not intend to infer that ALL Atheists are hostile and uncharitable to the religious, I did not make that unequivocably clear in my previous post. So I will graciously accept your gentle chiding and do wish to make that correction now.

I will stand by my conviction however that you can trace the huge lion's share of corruption and malfeasance in government to self serving politicians and those who depend on them who use our hard earned money to increase their power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes. If we removed that one single ability from them, the unacceptable stuff that would be left would be on such a smaller scale and of so much less consequence that we could recognize it and deal with it more constructively.

And because there would be far less personal gain included in the equation, we would be far more likely to have honorable public servants instead of career politicians running for office.

The hurdle to get over though, is most folks are more than willing to have government benefits and corruption addressed, so long as it doesn't interfere with whatever government benefits they themselves are receiving. And because 50% or more of Americans are now receiving some kind of government benefit, it becomes increasingly more difficult to address the core problem. And I still remain convinced that this is the last generation who will have any chance of doing so.

And you are quite right that there is culpability throughout government regardless of political affiliation. Which is why I made no distinction between political parties in my previous comments.

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

I suppose this probably wasn't such a good choice for my first read on this forum. So much for easing my way in...

I come from a religious background. Whether I am "Christian" or not depends on your definition of the term. I don't claim to be an educated person, nor do I presume to instruct you on how to live your life. I don't know a lot about current events, and I am not a scholar of constitutional law. In short, I am human, and full of human flaws. That said, here is my humble opinion on the matter of whether "God's Law" should be the law of the land.

If God has a Law, the purpose of that law is to help us to better ourselves.

The Law of the Land is meant to protect the rights and lives of others.

I would not want to force anyone to live in accordance to God's Law as I see it. That would defeat the purpose. Being forced to do something does not make you a better person. If you only do good because you are forced to do so it does not change who you are. You have to choose something for it to be a real indication of what kind of person you are.

The Law of the Land on the other hand has to be enforced. The Law of the Land is not for your own good. It is for the protection of those around you. I cannot trust you not to exercise your free will in a way that will harm me or those that I love. I would be foolish to trust you thereby risking my life, limb and property or those of my fellow man.

So God's Law and the Law of the Land are and will always be separate. By making God's Law the Law of the Land you would in effect make it not God's Law. By removing the choice and personal accountability you would invalidate it's very purpose. Or by allowing others to act entirely of their own free will you would neglect your responsibility to protect the rights of others.

That said, the Law of the Land has and always will stem from the moral beliefs of the people. What makes it wrong to kill or to steal? There has to be some value that tells us that these things are wrong. For many of us this "moral compass" is inspired by or strengthened by our religious beliefs. For others it may come from an entirely different source of morals. You may not agree with or value the morals of others. Unfortunately because we live in a community you may need to learn to live with them.

 

[Foxfyre]

I suppose this probably wasn't such a good choice for my first read on this forum. So much for easing my way in...

I come from a religious background. Whether I am "Christian" or not depends on your definition of the term. I don't claim to be an educated person, nor do I presume to instruct you on how to live your life. I don't know a lot about current events, and I am not a scholar of constitutional law. In short, I am human, and full of human flaws. That said, here is my humble opinion on the matter of whether "God's Law" should be the law of the land.

If God has a Law, the purpose of that law is to help us to better ourselves.

The Law of the Land is meant to protect the rights and lives of others.

I would not want to force anyone to live in accordance to God's Law as I see it. That would defeat the purpose. Being forced to do something does not make you a better person. If you only do good because you are forced to do so it does not change who you are. You have to choose something for it to be a real indication of what kind of person you are.

The Law of the Land on the other hand has to be enforced. The Law of the Land is not for your own good. It is for the protection of those around you. I cannot trust you not to exercise your free will in a way that will harm me or those that I love. I would be foolish to trust you thereby risking my life, limb and property or those of my fellow man.

So God's Law and the Law of the Land are and will always be separate. By making God's Law the Law of the Land you would in effect make it not God's Law. By removing the choice and personal accountability you would invalidate it's very purpose. Or by allowing others to act entirely of their own free will you would neglect your responsibility to protect the rights of others.

That said, the Law of the Land has and always will stem from the moral beliefs of the people. What makes it wrong to kill or to steal? There has to be some value that tells us that these things are wrong. For many of us this "moral compass" is inspired by or strengthened by our religious beliefs. For others it may come from an entirely different source of morals. You may not agree with or value the morals of others. Unfortunately because we live in a community you may need to learn to live with them.

A commendable first post, new friend. Kudos and welcome. You did pick an unusually rankorous thread to wade in on.

My take on it isn't that much different from yours as I also believe our sense of right and wrong comes out of our cultural influences, and those cultural influences, for better or worst, have been shaped mostly by the JudeoChristian traditions that were the norm from the time the first settlers arrived at Plymouth Rock and coming forward.

I agree that there is a civil law of the land--one initiated and installed and enforced by humans--and this may or may not be in agreement with God's law. It is this law that generally receives most of our attention.

But from the beginning of this thread, I also say that humans cannot remove themselves from God's law that will be the ultimate law of the land whether or not anybody recognizes it, acknowledges it, or obeys it. God's law is eternal and cannot be escaped. We are subject to both the blessings and consequences of God's law whether or not we choose to be and whether or not we believe it even exists. But that is my opinion and belief, and not one that I am at liberty, either by God or by civil authority, to impose on anybody else.

 

[HereAmIAmMe]

I suppose this probably wasn't such a good choice for my first read on this forum. So much for easing my way in...

I come from a religious background. Whether I am "Christian" or not depends on your definition of the term. I don't claim to be an educated person, nor do I presume to instruct you on how to live your life. I don't know a lot about current events, and I am not a scholar of constitutional law. In short, I am human, and full of human flaws. That said, here is my humble opinion on the matter of whether "God's Law" should be the law of the land.

If God has a Law, the purpose of that law is to help us to better ourselves.

The Law of the Land is meant to protect the rights and lives of others.

I would not want to force anyone to live in accordance to God's Law as I see it. That would defeat the purpose. Being forced to do something does not make you a better person. If you only do good because you are forced to do so it does not change who you are. You have to choose something for it to be a real indication of what kind of person you are.

The Law of the Land on the other hand has to be enforced. The Law of the Land is not for your own good. It is for the protection of those around you. I cannot trust you not to exercise your free will in a way that will harm me or those that I love. I would be foolish to trust you thereby risking my life, limb and property or those of my fellow man.

So God's Law and the Law of the Land are and will always be separate. By making God's Law the Law of the Land you would in effect make it not God's Law. By removing the choice and personal accountability you would invalidate it's very purpose. Or by allowing others to act entirely of their own free will you would neglect your responsibility to protect the rights of others.

That said, the Law of the Land has and always will stem from the moral beliefs of the people. What makes it wrong to kill or to steal? There has to be some value that tells us that these things are wrong. For many of us this "moral compass" is inspired by or strengthened by our religious beliefs. For others it may come from an entirely different source of morals. You may not agree with or value the morals of others. Unfortunately because we live in a community you may need to learn to live with them.

A commendable first post, new friend. Kudos and welcome. You did pick an unusually rankorous thread to wade in on.

My take on it isn't that much different from yours as I also believe our sense of right and wrong comes out of our cultural influences, and those cultural influences, for better or worst, have been shaped mostly by the JudeoChristian traditions that were the norm from the time the first settlers arrived at Plymouth Rock and coming forward.

I agree that there is a civil law of the land--one initiated and installed and enforced by humans--and this may or may not be in agreement with God's law. It is this law that generally receives most of our attention.

But from the beginning of this thread, I also say that humans cannot remove themselves from God's law that will be the ultimate law of the land whether or not anybody recognizes it, acknowledges it, or obeys it. God's law is eternal and cannot be escaped. We are subject to both the blessings and consequences of God's law whether or not we choose to be and whether or not we believe it even exists. But that is my opinion and belief, and not one that I am at liberty, either by God or by civil authority, to impose on anybody else.

Thanks. I think I'll try to find the kiddie pool next time instead of diving in way over my head.

So really the only disagreement that you and I seem to have is possibly a matter of definition. When I refer to the Law of the Land I refer only to the "civil law of the land--one initiated and installed and enforced by humans." as you called it. I can only speak from my own understanding, but I believe that was also the meaning intended by the OP.

Anyone who believes in God's Law will certainly believe that law to be supreme and unavoidable. Trying to force others to obey that law is where I think some have a problem.

I have had others try to force their beliefs down my throat. After I bit their hand I politely excused myself from their company. It isn't a pleasant experience, and nothing could prompt me to disagree with you faster or more reflexively than trying to force your point of view on me. I can wholeheartedly understand the plight of the atheist or "non-believer" when faced with an overzealous "believer".

The best way for me to share my point of view with a person is for me to live my life in such a way that they can look at me and say, "now there is an honorable man." Then they might be interested in what I have to say. If not, at least I may have a friend.

Nice to meet you Fox.

 

[koshergrl]

So which of God's laws do you think we should not enforce...that are being proposed, and are incompatible with the law of the land

And who is trying to force God's laws on the people (in this country), in instances where God's laws are separate and different from the laws of the land?

Specifics, please. Names and legislation.