Laws must have a secular purpose. We have laws against theft and murder, not because of the Ten Commandments, but because we can demonstrate that these acts cause harm to society.

why do those who reject the bible reject it entirely?

the bible is undeniably a historical document (whether you accept it as inerrant or not). the structure of the laws in the bible are established by the same means as our laws are today.

an athiest in old testament times would be forced to say exactly the same thing - "We have laws against theft and murder, not because of the (nominated more-ancient document), but because we can demonstrate that these acts cause harm to society."

my point is that the source of the laws against theft and murder must be the same. whether you believe the rules are sourced from god or sourced from an understanding of the harm done to society, to be logically coherent you must apply the same source for the bible and for laws today.

"McCAIN ‘BOOED’ AT ON-LINE GRADUATION CEREMONY" has the same link as "Mad Kane's Ode to Rep. Jefferson."

Here's the actual article http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?bid=15&pid=85098

Speaking of McCain getting booed. Here's one about Condi

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060522/tsaltafp/usiraqunresteducation

"Depriving committed gays and lesbians of the opportunity to marry serves no secular purpose -- it only advances a particular religious agenda."

I don't think that this is true. Of course a lot of the arguments against same-sex marriage have been purely religious. But it's not true that all of them have been. Of course it's very frequently asserted that because some people are religious or motivated by religion, that their views are only supported--and could only be supported on sectarian grounds. But I scarcely know how this could even be established, unless one knows all the possible reasons that will or could be given for something--this even goes for something so extreme as the establishment of a state church, which could be and was in the past argued on 'secular' grounds.

Before this country adopted no-fault divorce, some advocates of it made the same claim against their opponents: you're just motivated by religious dogma that tells you you can't get divorced. But there were also some good secular reasons for hesitating to allow it, which have in fact been borne out by history (divorce is now much more widespread than the orignal proponents of NFD ever imagined).

It is true enough that opposition to same-sex marriage is in large part motivated by simple hostility to gays or by religious dogma, so much that if you subtracted all this gays would have been able to marry long ago. But that in itself doesn't mean we should do it. Equating the non-adoption of a policy with the opponents of a policy is ad hominem.

Many advocates of same-sex marriage have themselves admitted that allowing homosexuals to marry would certainly change the cultural meaning of marriage in possibly unforseen ways, and would likely even change the law surrounding it. If we really care about the family, and the role it plays in a decent society (rather than just caring to throw family values into the faces of people we may be able to paint as hypocrites), we should perhaps worry about the effect these changes will have on society as a whole before we adopt same-sex marriage.

stipe- the laws of today were not created the same way the laws in the bible were created. the laws in the bible were created by different people who didnt like certain things (whether or not god told them to dislike those things), and then it was later edited down by the church. they may have had the same motivation of helping the society, perhaps that was your point, but there are very large distinctions. our laws can be changed, and they were not drafted by an unaccountable central authority, as they would be in a dictatorship. also, all 3 branches of government, as well as the constitution, provide a check on the law that is ultimately passed (these checks and balances dont work too well when all sides agree though).

dende- "If we really care about the family, and the role it plays in a decent society (rather than just caring to throw family values into the faces of people we may be able to paint as hypocrites), we should perhaps worry about the effect these changes will have on society as a whole before we adopt same-sex marriage."

thats only true if you dont accept homosexuals as part of society (which, apperantly, we currently dont). if a court or legislature were to say "homosexuals are to be treated equally" im not sure there are really that many consequences of that, and i certainly dont think it would change society in any significant (though it would be significant for gays) or fundamental way.

Dende

You suggest that there are negative unforseen consequences of same-sex marriage but fail to mention any. One can certainly point to positive reasons for allowing such realtionships. Committed relationships are good for society. Homosexual men, a group with a high incidence of STD's, that entered into committed relationships would certainly lower the incidence of STD's and that would benefit society. Most of the reasons that marriage benefits society would apply equally to homosexual relationships. Changes to the cultural meaning of marriage and changes in the law aren't necessairly a bad thing, the unforseen changes you seem to fear may turn out to be good things. Certainly we should consider the consequences of changes, but the only secular consequences I see are positive ones. Your turn.

Until I see evidence to the contrary, the homophobe movement will be regarded as spearheaded and fomented by Christians. That's my point on this and their main form of contention starts with this SOLE phrase in the Bible:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus, 18:22.

However, there is a problem with using the Bible as a foundation for laws as scholars do not necessarily regard the Bible as a historical document as it contains many very contradictory and conflicting elements. And the authors of the original writings were never identified and the original writings had long been lost while only imperfect translations remain.

The problem is compounded by the Bible, which has many dubious moral standards, one of which is highlighted here in the article:

"The problem is that circumstances change, while ancient texts do not. For example, slavery, which is condoned in the Bible, is properly outlawed in modern society.

Laws must have a secular purpose. We have laws against theft and murder, not because of the Ten Commandments, but because we can demonstrate that these acts cause harm to society."

Passages condoning slavery are abundant: (1 Peter 2: 18, Colossians 3:22-25, Titus 2:9-10, Ephesians 6:5-8) Furthermore, many characters portrayed as beacons of virtue and goodness had slaves including Abraham himself.

The Bible is also not for women rights as it condones the subjugation of women (Ephesians 5:22-24, 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, 1 Peter 3:1).

1 Timothy 2: 11 says: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

The Bible also condemns plurality and the advocating of death as a sentence on non-believers:

2 Chronicles 15:13 says:

“Whosoever would not seek the LORD god of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.”

Deuteronomy 13:6-10: “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son…entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, …kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death…”

I'll stop here. I think the case for the exclusion of religious influences and agendas from the making of laws have been substantiated.

First couple splits over constitutional amendment banning gay marriage

http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/marriage.htm

"Vice President Dick Cheney, whose daughter is a lesbian, also opposes the bill. Administration sources said Mr. Cheney has argued against introducing a constitutional amendment in 2006.

In 2004, Mr. Cheney's daughter, Mary, was said to have nearly quit the Bush-Cheney campaign because of the president's position on gay marriage. Miss Cheney has been touring the talk show circuit and speaking out against the marriage amendment.

"What I can say is look, amending the constitution with this amendment, this piece of legislation, is a bad piece of legislation," Miss Cheney said. "It is writing discrimination into the constitution, and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong."

... Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove have been forceful proponents of the legislation.

Both Mr. Frist and Mr. Rove have assessed that the legislation will help mobilize the Christian Right to support GOP candidates for Congress. Recent polls show a sharp drop in support for the administration among conservatives."

The Christian bible deserves as much place in American civil law as the Koran and the Thibetan Book of the Dead, or the Bhagavad Gita.

None, at all.

The Christian bible deserves as much place in American civil law as the Koran and the Thibetan Book of the Dead, or the Bhagavad Gita.

What part of:

Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [bold caps, mine]

dont you understand?

Hi Erick, thomasmccay is merely saying that the Bible should not have any previledged position when it comes to setting laws.

Most of us here do believe that no religion should gbe given any priviledge in the forming and enactment of laws. It's not fair and it will make things biased.

Btw, Tibetan book of the dead? Are people in US reading the Bardo Thodol as a religious text? It's a book of funeral rites...

Ha, re the Book of the Dead. I know those who use it as a religious text but I meant that it has as much place in civil law as the Koran or the other books.

Christians have and should have all the rights and protections citizenship suposedly affords everyone. Denigning you the 'right' to dictate civil law based upon your religious beliefs is a very long way from denying you any bit of religous freedom. But that massive sense of intitlement so many christians carry makes them feel picked on when they don't get to control everyone.

NO religious dogma has a place in civil law in a pluralistic democratic society. You have the same rights as everyone, and civil law is for everyone.

Six of your ten commandments refer to a specific god and duties to that god. Yet Christians want to pretend that it is the basis for civil law. A religious creed that sould adorn public buildings and be memorized by by children of every religious back ground.

If you can't see the obvious problems of giving one religious group that kind of power, then may your god protect us all. For His followers have gone dangerously insane.

rfrfgedfi:

i dont think i stated my point very well. i'll try again.

my point was that the authority for establishment of laws has to be the same. the method by which they are implemented and enforced is unarguably different. i do not contest that.

that todays laws can change is an indication of difference in implementation, but not a change of the source.

Hi Erick, thanks for clearing that up : > I'm not familiar with how people in US practise Buddhism.

I agree with everything you say but I want to make one point clear though.

The 10 Commandments that we are referring to here is Protestant, not the Catholish or Jewish version.

The positition of religious texts in law-making will be further weakened by this case in religious discrimination.

Stipe, I hope that you made it clear that the source you are referring to refers to the secular authority of the courts and government who run with the approval of the masses. That is the source of power.

as long as you acknowledge the same source for all laws in human history then youre fine ...

I do not acknowledge any same source for all laws in human history then youre fine.

The Chinese civilisation and culture existed for 5000 years without any influence or presence of the Bible. Our laws were based on a filial system of respect and obdience in which the relationship between a ruler and a subject is like between father and son, each with its own sets of obligations and duties.

There is no one source for all laws in human history and those insist are those with no facts and regard for the truth.

In Singapore, our laws are decidedly secular and we would throw out religious fundamentalism out of law making. There is no religion that is regarded as superior here.

Each nation, people and region evolved their own sets of laws based on their particualr social, political, religious and economic backgound and circumstances.

The Bible has NO place in the forming of laws because of its many biases such as condoning men's greatest evils.

It was only in the 1800s with woman having the right to vote and that came only after the liberals fought for the emancipation of women and slavery.

If any American regard the Bible as the starting point for their legal system, kindly note that the Bible will have to take its share of responsbility for condoning slavery and the oppression of women, which can be seen in numerous statements within the Bible itself.

Exodus 21: 20-21 states: “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.”

Other passages condoning slavery are abundant: (1 Peter 2: 18, Collosians 3:22-25, Titus 2:9-10, Ephesians 6:5-8) Furthermore, many characters portrayed as beacons of virtue and goodness had slaves including Abraham himself.

Many passages also condone the subjugation of women for example: Ephesians 5:22-24, 1 Corinthians 14:34-36, 1 Peter 3:1.

1 Timothy 2: 11 says: “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

Based on this, the Bible has clearly no place in forming laws that are worth respecting, especially when it condoned slavery and the oppression of women.

For religious fundamentalists who insists that religion play a part in law, I believe that Buddhist and Taoist writings formed a better basis in setting down laws of humanitarism that covers people of any race, gender and religion.

kes you miss my point entirely .. its a very simple one and makes no assault on the original article or what youve said.

where does law come from? you say singapores laws are of secular authority and you also say (i think) that no common source exists for laws. from that i assume you think biblical laws came from god?

Stipe, why don't you just say where YOU think that laws come from and stop hiding the ball. Can you explain your views on this in a succinct manner so everyone will know what the hell you're getting at?

i think biblical laws come from god, jo ann. any laws today that line up with the bible therefore also come from god. any that reject gods laws come from man.

where do you think the bibles laws came from?

Hi Stipe, I did not miss your point, especially when you have put out yourself as a clear-cut religious fundamentalist.

I just wanted to remind you that the Bible is not and will never be the common source of law as it is only relevant to certain parts of Middle East, Europe and the Americas in terms of cultural and social relevance.

I am not making any assumptions on the Bible but it is fair to take the view that if Christians see the Bible as the perfect word of God, it includes biblical laws, including those which condone slavery, oppression of women and death to non-believers.

As I cleary pointed out, laws come from the social, economic, political and religious mileau of a particular people, nation or even region.

In China's case, where the Bible's influence was besent for over 5000 years, the laws were defined by the Legalist school of thought, which was not a religion but a social philosophy targeted to bring order and unity to the Warring States period of the Chou Dynasty.

The secular set of laws, enforced by rules and punishment, helped Emperor Qin to the first emperor to unite China into 1 centralised country.

In Singapore, no preminence is given to any religion and no religious elements are allowed to interfere with the forming and enactment of laws that apply to everybody.

If we allow religion to have a say in our laws, we will end up with a system that imposes religious laws on certain group of believers while others are subjected to another set of secular laws. We saw this previously in the 2 states at neighbouring Malaysia, which is under Islamic rule.

There was havoc whenever a believer is implicated in a case with a non-believer as it was hard to decide which laws applied.

That's my point, along with the fact that the Bible is one lousy guide for modern moral standards and legal laws.

"In China's case, where the Bible's influence was ABSENT for over 5000 years, the laws were defined by the Legalist school of thought, which was not a religion but a social philosophy targeted to bring order and unity to the Warring States period of the Chou Dynasty."

i dont need to be reminded that the bible is not a source for law .. i never said that .. i have recently said it is gods law and god is the source. so i assume my initial point is accepted that the article erred when presuming a seperate source for bible law and modern law...

anything in the bible that condones something is not a law. i will not deny that some of the laws in the bible are distinctly barbaric, many of them irrelevant or impossible in modern society. but i will not accept that social and historical commentary is a statement of law.

just as we have changable laws today, so god has. just as we hold some laws as non-negotiable so god does.

that secular authorities create laws where its common to find loopholes aplenty that allow extortion, injustice and corruption is evidence that a perfect law will always be beyond the range of human systems. i believe gods law is perfect, but as long as humanity rejects gods law our justice systems will always be flawed.

my statements here obviously spark another debate entirely .. one that will be open and probably unresolvable. but i think i have made it perfectly clear that what i believe is an all or nothing scenario...

Stipe, I can't agree with you. The source of laws are from man who are influenced by the circumstances of their times. The Immigration Bill written in US is a clear-cut example of this.

Man writes the law. Man developed the language used in law, along with all its meanings, nuances and expressions. God has no role in it.

Because of this, our laws are imperfect as man constantly seeks new ways to break it or evade it as there are merely laws created by men to control other men. Your Church is one good example of this.

If you know Chinese culture, our belief is not in God but in the Heavens, an IMPERSONAL super entity whose thinking and will is not knowable.

This Heavens is instrumental in giving us a conscience that differentiates right from wrong but leaves us with the free will to choose to do right or do wrong.

The laws of man simply does not give us as much free will as it defines right and wrong for us and punishes us accordingly. So even if we do something right based on the law, it may not be an exercise of good will but simply fear of punishment.

Put it simply, you can see out laws are a man-made creation of God that is supposed to punish those who need to be punished and guide those who are innocent. The very existence of laws is testimony to the absence of God in the real world, where there is no one to pass judgement on us...

Other than ourselves.

grin

yeah i know you dont agree with me. i dont agree with you either. how about we settle on this: i think gods law is perfect and only human divergence from it makes the laws we see today imperfect .. you think man created all laws and that man created all ways to evade and break those laws. either way our justice systems are broken.

how much of that do you agree with?

if we ignore the fact that we disagree on source i think we could use logic alone to advance some ideas on how law could be improved..

we'd also have to ignore the source of logic .. but thats an entirely separate discussion as well .. :D

ultimately though there will only be so far we can go on this artificial common ground. we will always be faced with the polar opposites of our sources and authorities for law and therefore will always promote different ends....

id be willing to at least try and advance some rational discussion though...

Stiope, it's going to be hard to have any rational discussion if you insist on making statements like this one:

"gods law is perfect and only human divergence from it makes the laws we see today imperfect."

You can't throw a statement like that without saying what is god's law and why it's perfect. I really can't take your word for it.

And it seems to absolve God of all the ills done by the man. I would expect that laws inspired by God to be at least near perfect. Otherwise God may appear to be less than perfect...

gods law:

love god with everything youve got, love your neighour like you love yourself.

its perfect because theres no way to make a law against it.

god doesnt need absolution, humans do. god can no more be held accountable for our actions than you can be for insert random murderous dictator's

gods law:

love god with everything youve got, love your neighour like you love yourself.

its perfect because theres no way to make a law against it.

god doesnt need absolution, humans do. god can no more be held accountable for our actions than you can be for insert random murderous dictator's

Hi Stipe, your gods law is not perfect and there are laws against it.

First problem with your law.

There is no specifics to loving God i.e. how you are supposed to show it in everyday life. Second, it excludes those who don't believe in God and there are sultures or civlisation that had existed for thousands of years without knowledge of the Christian God.

Thus the first part of your god's law is not universal and is way too divisive to be of any use to anyone.

The second part of your lar is not achievable by Christians.

If a Christian truly loves thy neighbour, he or she would be able to accept his neighbour for who he is, warts and all. That includes his beliefs, his culture and religion which may not be Christianity.

However if a Christian uses his faith to judge non-believers, he clearly does not love his neighbours for what they are beyond meaningless platitiudes that are not backed by real action.

Stipe, your god's law is flawed to the core with its lack of specifics and its innate discriminatory elements.

That sounds more like your law. As Isaih points out that God's ways are not our ways, what makes you think God believes in laws the way you do?

God may not even need any law like we do.

I have pointed out that laws care created by men to control our behavior and predetermine right from wrong as we human beings do not have God to pass judgement on us in ecveryday life in this life, not just afterlife.

gods law is foolishness to those who reject god. but for those who accept god it is life itself.

gods law is perfect.

if you dont know how to love god then the simple solution to that is to ask him.

people who reject god arent excluded from this law .. they are judged by it. similarly cultures and people who have never heard of god are judged by their response to it. that sounds unfair and foolish if you reject faith, but if you accept faith then it is freedom and life for all peaople throughout all history.

gods law is universal and divisive. thats what makes it perfect. all people whether they have been reached by christian missionaries or not, have gods law written inside them. they are judged by their freely made decision in response to gods law ..

if a christian loves his neighbour he would point out the things he sees that are destroying that person. love does not accept sin and evil .. it works to turn it around. you cant turn people around by accepting them as they are.

accusing a christian of not being tolerant and accepting is merely pointing out that said christian is doing her job.

god's law is perfect, very specific and it has innate discriminatory elements such that every person must either accept god or reject him.

if i can cross pollenate ideas from another thread: this is an example of a scientific theory that requires faith to accept. it perfectly explains the divergent opinions evident in the world yet has no parameters that science can test.

i understand that you will likely reject gods laws so instead would you like to describe your views instead of attacking mine? how do natural processes form laws?

Stipe, I'm getting tired of your constant proselytizing under the guise of rational discussion. You consider it your job and I consider it rude. It will stop, or you'll no longer be welcome to post comments here. It's hypocritical that you expect others to be tolerant of you, but you view forcing your unwanted testimony on others as your 'job'. Do unto others, right.

Stipe, your god's law is evidently BS if you can't give me any specifics on how it is supposed to be enacted in real life.

Your god's law is also obvious bigotry, intolerance and filled with self-righteousness from a religion that promoted intolerance and bloodshed throughout the ages and should be condemned as such.

Stipe: "gods law is foolishness to those who reject god. but for those who accept god it is life itself. gods law is perfect."

How can make such a judgement on people you do not know?

Thus you lied when you say a Christian love thy neighbours.

It's obvious that a Christian don't love people for what they are, for their beliefs and values unless they are converted to Christianity.

Thanks for outing yourself as your veneer of reasonableness is exposed for the pretend act it was.

==========

"people who reject god aren’t excluded from this law... they are judged by it. similarly cultures and people who have never heard of god are judged by their response to it. that sounds unfair and foolish if you reject faith, but if you accept faith then it is freedom and life for all people throughout all history."

This is Bull Shit as this is purely your wishful belief talking.

Are you saying that Christianity is only faith there is. I'm sorry based on the bloody and intolerance beliefs and actions of the Church, I do believe that most Christians are not going to Heaven. And for those who perpetuate its lies, they are not going to Heaven too.

Only a flawed bigot of a religion can condemn babies who died before having any faith or people who did not know of this faith to any judgement when they do not know of it and is also not part of their lives, culture and traditions.

===

Your god's law is not universal as no one in the world will recognise it as such.

Saying that it is universal and divisive is because it's perfect is just BS if you can't back it up

====

Here's an example of my own God's laws.

I don't believe it in though as I am just trying to put forth a counter-point to Stipe's BS.

Anyone who does not love his parents and family has no credibility when he says he loves God.

This is the basic humanity.

Thus Christians, whose faith does not promote filial piety, are hardly humans as not only their faith do not have filial piety practises; Christians do not practise it themselves.

Stipe has repeatedly avoided answering me how he has honoured the memory of his loved ones who has passed away.

It is clear that his worship of the holy father precludes him from paying any form of real respect to his earthly one.

It is my faith that Christians who pay lip service to filial piety won't go to Heaven.

And that applies to Jesus who was willing to abandon Mary in his attempt at martyrdom to save the Jews.

Jesus does not deserve to go to Heaven as he did not even care about his mother. Or care about what will happen to her.

This law is universal as filial piety is a universal value and it is divisive as it strikes at the heart of Christians who believes in Jesus as a God who can do no wrong.

Based on Stipe's definition, it's perfect god's law.

As I said, I don't believe in any god's law as why would god need any law if he can simply will anything into existence.

Only man needs laws and thinks God needs one when Isaiah clearly says that "My way (God's way) is not your way."

"I don't believe in it though as I am just trying to put forth a counter-point to Stipe's BS."

Btw, Norm, thanks for calling him out on Stipe's act.

Everytime he gets stuck on a point, he brings in God or the Bible as if that gets him off the hook in answering simple questions about life.

a quick and accurate summary of this thread:

stipe's opening point: the source of the laws against theft and murder must be the same.

rfrfgedfi's response: the laws of today were not created the same way the laws in the bible were created.

stipe's clarification: the authority for establishment of laws has to be the same. the method by which they are implemented and enforced is unarguably different. i do not contest that.

kes' obligation of stipe: I hope that you made it clear that the source you are referring to refers to the secular authority of the courts and government who run with the approval of the masses. That is the source of power.

stipe's obfuscation: as long as you acknowledge the same source for all laws in human history then youre fine ... (perhaps i should have explained that it is logical madness to assert that humans made laws today, but someone else made them for the bible)

kes' history lesson: The Chinese civilisation and culture existed for 5000 years without any influence or presence of the Bible. Our laws were based on (human understanding). The Bible has NO place in the forming of laws.

stipe tries to point out the logical inconsistency hinted at in his opening post: where does law come from? you say singapores (chinas?) laws are of secular authority and you also say (i think) that no common source exists for laws. from that i assume you think biblical laws came from god? (perhaps i shouldnt have asked that rhetorical question given the responses it generated)

jo ann asks stipe where he thinks laws came from.

stipe tells her he thinks laws came from god and followed all the conditions of her question. stipe asks jo ann the same question.

kes makes a sound point: the Bible is not and will never be the common source of law.

stipe reiterates: it is gods law and god is the source.

kes disagrees with stipe: I can't agree with you. The source of laws are from man who are influenced by the circumstances of their times.

stipe acknowledges this and offers to at least try and advance some rational discussion ...

kes asks stipe what is god's law and why is it perfect.

stipe states gods law.

kes disagrees with gods law.

stipe starts proselytising.

norm says stop proselytising.

stipe backtracks and tries to put the topic back onto safe ground: i understand that you will likely reject gods laws so instead would you like to describe your views instead of attacking mine? how do natural processes form laws?

Ah, the world according to Stipe. The one where reasoning just goes round and round and round and round and....

Stipe left out a few things.

stipe's opening point: the source of the laws against theft and murder must be the same. to be logically coherent you must apply the same source for the bible and for laws today. Here it is obvious that Stipe is saying that God creates laws

rfrfgedfi's response: the laws of today were not created the same way the laws in the bible were created. rvrvgedfi very logically and cleary refutes the notion that God creates the laws

stipe's clarification: the authority for establishment of laws has to be the same. the method by which they are implemented and enforced is unarguably different. i do not contest that. Here Stipe is once again hiding the ball. What he is saying is that he believes that God creates the laws, but he won't just come out and say it.

kes' obligation of stipe: I hope that you made it clear that the source you are referring to refers to the secular authority of the courts and government who run with the approval of the masses. That is the source of power. Kes knew exactly what Stipe was saying and cut to the chase.

stipe's obfuscation: as long as you acknowledge the same source for all laws in human history then youre fine ... (perhaps i should have explained that it is logical madness to assert that humans made laws today, but someone else made them for the bible) Who is Stipe arguing with here? Himself? No one claimed that that anyone other than humans made the laws in the Bible. But Stipe is claiming that the laws in the Bible come from God.

kes' history lesson: The Chinese civilisation and culture existed for 5000 years without any influence or presence of the Bible. Our laws were based on (human understanding). The Bible has NO place in the forming of laws.

stipe tries to point out the logical inconsistency hinted at in his opening post: where does law come from? you say singapores (chinas?) laws are of secular authority and you also say (i think) that no common source exists for laws. from that i assume you think biblical laws came from god? (perhaps i shouldnt have asked that rhetorical question given the responses it generated)

jo ann asks stipe where he thinks laws came from.

stipe tells her he thinks laws came from god and followed all the conditions of her question. stipe asks jo ann the same question.

kes makes a sound point: the Bible is not and will never be the common source of law.

stipe reiterates: it is gods law and god is the source.

kes disagrees with stipe: I can't agree with you. The source of laws are from man who are influenced by the circumstances of their times.

stipe acknowledges this and offers to at least try and advance some rational discussion ... Rational discussion my ass! Stipe keeps insisting that the source of law is God, and Kes explains that the source of law is men, and then Stipe suddenly acts like he agrees and offers a plea for rational discussion? Deceptive to say the least.

kes asks stipe what is god's law and why is it perfect.

stipe states gods law.

kes disagrees with gods law. No, Kes disagrees with Stipe!

stipe starts proselytising. Stipe did not start prselytising. He has been proselytising right from the beginning, even though he has his sermon wrapped up to try to look like a rational discussion

norm says stop proselytising.

stipe backtracks and tries to put the topic back onto safe ground: i understand that you will likely reject gods laws so instead would you like to describe your views instead of attacking mine? how do natural processes form laws?

So here we are back to square one. I'm not sure about the origin of this phrase, but it reminds me of the chessboard Norm has as his logo which has this kind of Alice in Wonderland look to it. And listening to Stipe attempt to engage in a rational discussion feels like Alice talking to the Caterpillar.

"I can't explain myself, I'm afraid, sir," said Alice, "because I'm not myself, you see." --"I don't see," said the Caterpillar. --"I'm afraid I can't put it more clearly," Alice replied very politely, "for I can't understand it myself top begin with; and being so many different sizes in a day is very confusing." --"It isn't," said the Caterpillar

hmm .. would it matter if i said i agreed with your analysis kes?

i believe i am being rational and i believe i am bending over backwards and being forced to stare up my own behind in order to post within the limitations being demanded of me.

if i ask pertinent questions about a subject and do not reveal what i believe about gods ideas on that subject then i am hiding the ball.

if i say what i believe god thinks on a situation then i am accused of proselytising.

if i respond to direct questions then i am accused of both.

if i want to post here and avoid accusations like this my only recourse remains to agree with those who i dont agree with. i will never do that and i dont expect that of anyone else either.

i do not believe i have to agree with anyone else to be rational. i believe that i am entitled to my opinion, and i believe that if i think my opinion is true, that i am allowed to present it as such.

i believe this describes a direct conflict in culture and worldview. i describe the world in terms of black and white and acceptance or rejection of truth. that opposing worldviews cannot do likewise and cannot tolerate such views is my burden to deal with.

i do believe that if i present a question in purely secular terms then posters should be able to reply in similarly secular terms. my underlying beliefs should create no prejudice in people. what i might say should not concern people.

at this point i do not think i am achieving anything, and others have expressed the same sentiments. so i will take two weeks off from visiting this site.

i will wrap up any discussions that i have left and see you all again shortly.

cheers.

If you want to reason about faith, and offer a reasoned defense of faith, I'm eager to play. I certainly grant the existence of the phenomenon of faith; I want to see a reasoned ground for taking faith seriously as a way of establishing useful facts. But don't expect me to go along with your defence of faith as a path to truth if at any point you appeal to the very dispensation you supposedly try to justify (circular reasoning). Before you appeal to faith when reason has you backed into a corner, think about whether you really want to abandon reason when reason sits on your side. --Daniel Dennett

Hi Stipe, you did hide the ball by not coming out at the beginning to say that you though God was behind laws.

You have also avoided giving me any actual details or features of this God's law and why you know that it came from God.

And you did not answer me on why you thought God needed laws for us to follow, especially if he gave us free will.

Law and freewill don't mix very well after all and laws are inherently imperfect, which makes it doubtful that it is the creation of a Perfect Being.

It's hard to have a rational discussion with you if you hide all the premises or the basis of this discussion.

It's like having a discussion on the emperor's clothes. It's not there, so you can interprete god's law to be anything under the sun to answer your critics here.

I will agree this is a more sophisticated tactic than circular reasoning.

Problem is... none of us are 3-year olds here.