Can no one stop this???

[leo9]

But christians seek not inclusion in civil law of anyu of the requirements of the religion.

Which Christians? Not these ones:
http://www.morallaw.org/
http://www.tldm.org/news7/judgeroymo...mmandments.htm

In the Bible the nature of the system to follow changes drastically between the two major sections. In that called the New Testament the nature of God and the mandates to the people is to be kind and helpful to all.
The other major religion in question with regard to laws also has a book divided in two sections. But a major difference is that the vengeful nature of the book actual can be seen to increase rather than ameliorate. So the choice is a benevolent system that does not seek to intrude, or one that essentially DEMANDS that its religious law must apply to all and that law is less than benevolent.

Which would be fine if it was the benevolent system that does not seek to intrude that people were trying to introduce to the law: but they invariably refer to the Old Testament, a document rather less liberal than the Quran (which does intersperse its bigotry with messages of peace and charity, unlike the OT.)

In any case, the whole point of the separation of church and state is to not have to choose which religion will dictate your laws: none of them should.

As I have said before, there are very few differences among the major religions of the world in their basic tenents.

Only to the extent that any code of behaviour for a viable society has to start with such basics as "Don't kill our sort of people," "Don't steal within your own community," and that most popular religious commandment, "RESPECT AUTHORITY." Once you get beyond the self-evident, they go off in all directions. Honour your mother, don't listen to women, be a warrior, turn the other cheek, all men are brothers, high caste is far above low caste, I could go on all day.

It's true that spirituality is much the same whatever religion people reach it by, but spirituality is to religion as good behaviour is to law: one is what people feel from within, which is human nature, the other is the system imposed on them, which is different everywhere.

[DuncanONeil]

Which Christians? Not these ones:
http://www.morallaw.org/
http://www.tldm.org/news7/judgeroymo...mmandments.htm

Which would be fine if it was the benevolent system that does not seek to intrude that people were trying to introduce to the law: but they invariably refer to the Old Testament, a document rather less liberal than the Quran (which does intersperse its bigotry with messages of peace and charity, unlike the OT.)

Sorry but I must disagree. The vast majority of Christian theology comes from the New Testament, rather than the Old. Still there is no expressed intent to replace all other religions by force or duress, as there is in the other in the discussion.

In any case, the whole point of the separation of church and state is to not have to choose which religion will dictate your laws: none of them should.
Only to the extent that any code of behaviour for a viable society has to start with such basics as "Don't kill our sort of people," "Don't steal within your own community," and that most popular religious commandment, "RESPECT AUTHORITY." Once you get beyond the self-evident, they go off in all directions. Honour your mother, don't listen to women, be a warrior, turn the other cheek, all men are brothers, high caste is far above low caste, I could go on all day.

I wholeheartedly agree that no nation needs to be ruled by a set of religious laws. However when I speak of the major tenents I have morals and values in mind. The Christian book does not make a distinction between our kind and another kind when it comes to murder. There are religions that do make the distinction as you say, do not murder us. Them other people fine go right ahead.

It's true that spirituality is much the same whatever religion people reach it by, but spirituality is to religion as good behaviour is to law: one is what people feel from within, which is human nature, the other is the system imposed on them, which is different everywhere.

[leo9]

Sorry but I must disagree. The vast majority of Christian theology comes from the New Testament, rather than the Old.

Arguably true, but we weren't talking about theology, but about appeals to the Bible for mundane law. And people looking for rules generally refer to the OT, because Jesus's reported sayings are way too liberal-hippie for most Biblical literalists' taste. (Though of course there is a rich seam of dictatorial and misogynist pronouncements from Paul.)

If you really believe there is no current movement for Christian religious law, you're not following the news: http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...186#post881186

Still there is no expressed intent to replace all other religions by force or duress, as there is in the other in the discussion.

In the first place, you were the one who introduced that as a test of liberalism: the rest of us were discussing more everyday issues of law and social attitudes. In the second place, that's a consequence of history, not a sign that one text is more humane or enlightened than the other. The Israelites didn't bother about converting other peoples, by force or otherwise, because they simply massacred them. And the early Christians had to convert people by being nice (indeed, it's been argued that they censored a great deal of militant stuff from the early Bible to make themselves look safe and acceptable,) because they were too few and weak for a Jihad. Once they were in a position to replace other religions by force, history records in detail all the bloody ways they did it, but that came too late to be part of the Book.

And if you think the OT is more liberal than the Quran, note that it doesn't even require witnesses before a woman is put to death for adultery...

I wholeheartedly agree that no nation needs to be ruled by a set of religious laws. However when I speak of the major tenents I have morals and values in mind. The Christian book does not make a distinction between our kind and another kind when it comes to murder.

As I have noted, much of the OT is concerned with lists of the various tribes which the Israelites are proud to record that they slaughtered to the last man. (And, by implication, raped to the last woman, but that's another issue.) There is no record of their god or his priests showing anything but approval for these massacres, nor for other piecemeal killings of assorted enemies. A reasonable reading is that when their laws said "Thou Shalt Not Kill" they understood it to mean "...Your Own People."

To the best of my knowledge, the NT says nothing for or against the subject.

[Thorne]

A reasonable reading is that when their laws said "Thou Shalt Not Kill" they understood it to mean "...Your Own People."

From what I've read, the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill" would have been more properly translated as, "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder." A subtle difference, perhaps, but when you consider outsiders to be non-people it makes a difference. Killing in war is not considered murder. Killing a heretic is not considered murder. Killing a slave is not considered murder. Convenient, that.

[DuncanONeil]

Arguably true, but we weren't talking about theology, but about appeals to the Bible for mundane law. And people looking for rules generally refer to the OT, because Jesus's reported sayings are way too liberal-hippie for most Biblical literalists' taste. (Though of course there is a rich seam of dictatorial and misogynist pronouncements from Paul.)

I really have not seen much of this assignment of modern society to the laws set out in the Bible. Admittedly I have not read Leviticus. But the "laws" therein can not be much different or worse than the Code of Hammurabi. I have read some of those.

If you really believe there is no current movement for Christian religious law, you're not following the news: http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...186#post881186

News! I am not sure this qualifies as news. While some in the blogosphere do a creditable job in presenting news articles this one is quite weak. Much of what is said seems to be a leap of conclusion, or faith if one chooses. The author does not provide much in the way of support for their conclusions. There are precious few quotes from Ms Angle, I remember none. Suffice to say I do not qualify this as news.

In the first place, ... Once they were in a position to replace other religions by force, history records in detail all the bloody ways they did it, but that came too late to be part of the Book.

Humans are a cantankerous bunch. Just which events do you have in mind when speaking of "replace other religions by force, history records in detail all the bloody ways they did it"?

And if you think the OT is more liberal than the Quran, note that it doesn't even require witnesses before a woman is put to death for adultery...

I believe the comment was based on the fact that the Bible becomes more tolerant and the Qu'ran less tolerant as time progressed through the books. That is the Bible begins 'violent' and lessens through its pages. The Qu'ran begins 'violent' and becomes more so. I seem to remember the break in the Qu'ran is after Medina. Whatever happened to the Prophet in that time soured him quite a bit and it is carried into his writings.

As I have noted, much of the OT is concerned with lists of the various tribes which the Israelites are proud to record that they slaughtered to the last man. (And, by implication, raped to the last woman, but that's another issue.) There is no record of their god or his priests showing anything but approval for these massacres, nor for other piecemeal killings of assorted enemies. A reasonable reading is that when their laws said "Thou Shalt Not Kill" they understood it to mean "...Your Own People."

In and among my readings and viewings I picked up a tidbit, which I do not remember the source. But the point is that the word "kill" is a mistranslation. The actual prohibition was for that of murder. "In Exodus 20:13 we have the Fifth Commandment “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. Take a good look at that word “Kill”. In the Hebrew Manuscript the word is “Ratsach” which means: Murder; ie - to Murder, a Murderer; to dash to pieces. Thus, Exodus 20:13 Actually reads “Thou Shalt Not MURDER”. Next, look to Exodus 21:12 “He that smiteth a man so that he die, shall be surely put to death”. Here, the Hebrew word translated ‘Smiteth’ is “Nakah”, which means: Murder, To Slay, to make slaughter. Thus, Exodus 21:12 Actually reads “He that Murders a man so that he die, shall be surely put to death”. " (http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin...cgi?read=31043 & http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/docs/6_37.pdf) They both say essentially the same thing one is a bit easier to read.