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

[Foxfyre]

So why all the rightwing fuss against Sharia Law? Isn't that just another form of "narrow minded restrictive fundamentalist community" as any other "narrow minded restrictive fundamentalist Christian community"?

Yes it is, and there is no Constitutional basis for denying the practice so long as it is confined to the community who adopts it. But just as narrow minded restricted Chrsitian theocracies in some of the colonies were still subject to the law of the land, federal and state, so are those who want Sharia law and neither are authorized to impose religious law on the non consenting anywhere else.

The point being is that nobody should be excused from requirements of federal law. Christians have not asked for any exemption from federal law or state law. Those promoting Sharia Law want to be subject ONLY to Sharia law and, when they have have the ability, achieve sufficient numbers, invariably force everybody in the country to be subject to those laws..

Christianity on the other hand, wherever it is the predominent religion in a country, has evolved to the point that it allows complete religious freedom for non Christians and non believers.

My point, however, though I will defend Chrsitianity when it is unfairly or dishonestly attacked, is that, in my opinion, God's Law, however we imperfectly understand or obey it, is ultimately the law of everything and nobody can escape the consequences of it. No human has authority or power to define it or enforce it, and no human power has ability to escape it.

That statement is not accurate. There is a concerted effort amongst fundamentalist Christians to outlaw abortions even for those who do not share the same beliefs. There is no difference between them and those who want to impose Sharia law in this nation. Both are equally wrong.

I'm sorry. Did you consider abortion to be a religion? I suppose it is a kind of religion for those who want abortion for any reason at any stage to be a fundamental right. So yeah, if you think abortion is your religion, then I suppose there are Christians who would stand in the way of you exercising your religious faith by allowing abortion for any reason at any stage if they could. Even notwithstanding that most Christians are not anti-abortion fundamentalists.

But here's some clues for you, Sherlock. Yes, many Christians do believe that unborn baby is a human soul deserving of respect of his/her right to live as much as any other human soul. And for that reason abortion should never be a matter of convenience and that unborn child should not be discarded for no better reason than the parent doesn't want it. Most Christians who want restrictions on abortions want abortion to be reserved for those times when it is necessary for health or humane reasons.

And would you believe many Christians also believe that it should be illegal to kill a child AFTER it is born? Who would have thought those evil Christians would insist on you not harming your child that might be inconvenient or difficult to deal with or too expensive or whatever? They are terrible people aren't they?

And those evil Christians also believe that it should be illegal to drive drunk or destroy your neighbor's property or steal from people or claim that your product will cure cancer when it won't. Mercy, they are just trampling on your rights to do whatever the hell you want all over the place.

So who should have the last word about what is right or wrong? Who gets to decide that. Them? Or the one who wants the right to murder, kill, maim, steal, and commit mayhem without consequence?

 

[JakeStarkey]

What actual evidence do you have to substantiate your claim that the "power nationally of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians weakens nationally every election season"?

Check the voter numbers for 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012. Do some research. The bad little evangelicals only cry and hiss; they have little power now.

Where are these voter numbers broken down into evangelicals and others? Unless you can provide actual polls you are just making this up.

Only in your mind. You make allegations and you expect me to reject them with evidence?

Grow up, please.

You cannot demonstrate by evidence the bad little evangelicals are infringing on your freedoms.

 

[koshergrl]

You made the allegation. He's asking you to back it up.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I am sure without even opening kg's post she is going to say I made an allegation.

In fact, de is suggesting that evangelicals are taking away his freedoms, which is an opinion. I told him they don't have the numbers to take away his freedoms.

He wants evidence. He needs to support his OP before I need to provide evidence for my counter opinion.

That is how it works.

And here is a video of goat screaming kg.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlYlNF30bVg]Funny Goats Screaming like Humans - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Underhill]

Yes it is, and there is no Constitutional basis for denying the practice so long as it is confined to the community who adopts it. But just as narrow minded restricted Chrsitian theocracies in some of the colonies were still subject to the law of the land, federal and state, so are those who want Sharia law and neither are authorized to impose religious law on the non consenting anywhere else.

The point being is that nobody should be excused from requirements of federal law. Christians have not asked for any exemption from federal law or state law. Those promoting Sharia Law want to be subject ONLY to Sharia law and, when they have have the ability, achieve sufficient numbers, invariably force everybody in the country to be subject to those laws..

Christianity on the other hand, wherever it is the predominent religion in a country, has evolved to the point that it allows complete religious freedom for non Christians and non believers.

My point, however, though I will defend Chrsitianity when it is unfairly or dishonestly attacked, is that, in my opinion, God's Law, however we imperfectly understand or obey it, is ultimately the law of everything and nobody can escape the consequences of it. No human has authority or power to define it or enforce it, and no human power has ability to escape it.

That statement is not accurate. There is a concerted effort amongst fundamentalist Christians to outlaw abortions even for those who do not share the same beliefs. There is no difference between them and those who want to impose Sharia law in this nation. Both are equally wrong.

I'm sorry. Did you consider abortion to be a religion? I suppose it is a kind of religion for those who want abortion for any reason at any stage to be a fundamental right. So yeah, if you think abortion is your religion, then I suppose there are Christians who would stand in the way of you exercising your religious faith by allowing abortion for any reason at any stage if they could. Even notwithstanding that most Christians are not anti-abortion fundamentalists.

But here's some clues for you, Sherlock. Yes, many Christians do believe that unborn baby is a human soul deserving of respect of his/her right to live as much as any other human soul. And for that reason abortion should never be a matter of convenience and that unborn child should not be discarded for no better reason than the parent doesn't want it. Most Christians who want restrictions on abortions want abortion to be reserved for those times when it is necessary for health or humane reasons.

And would you believe many Christians also believe that it should be illegal to kill a child AFTER it is born? Who would have thought those evil Christians would insist on you not harming your child that might be inconvenient or difficult to deal with or too expensive or whatever? They are terrible people aren't they?

And those evil Christians also believe that it should be illegal to drive drunk or destroy your neighbor's property or steal from people or claim that your product will cure cancer when it won't. Mercy, they are just trampling on your rights to do whatever the hell you want all over the place.

So who should have the last word about what is right or wrong? Who gets to decide that. Them? Or the one who wants the right to murder, kill, maim, steal, and commit mayhem without consequence?

Those are all terrible examples.

The better examples are gay rights issues where there is a clear subversion of an entire group of people thanks to christian (among other religions) views.

Another example where they have tried, and thus far failed, to impose themselves on our rights is prayer in schools, which they still fight for, or christian monuments and symbols erected by religious groups on public property.

If they want a monument to their beliefs, just buy your own fucking property. Like this guy did...

Rainbow house fights Westboro Baptist with love

 

[Foxfyre]

That statement is not accurate. There is a concerted effort amongst fundamentalist Christians to outlaw abortions even for those who do not share the same beliefs. There is no difference between them and those who want to impose Sharia law in this nation. Both are equally wrong.

I'm sorry. Did you consider abortion to be a religion? I suppose it is a kind of religion for those who want abortion for any reason at any stage to be a fundamental right. So yeah, if you think abortion is your religion, then I suppose there are Christians who would stand in the way of you exercising your religious faith by allowing abortion for any reason at any stage if they could. Even notwithstanding that most Christians are not anti-abortion fundamentalists.

But here's some clues for you, Sherlock. Yes, many Christians do believe that unborn baby is a human soul deserving of respect of his/her right to live as much as any other human soul. And for that reason abortion should never be a matter of convenience and that unborn child should not be discarded for no better reason than the parent doesn't want it. Most Christians who want restrictions on abortions want abortion to be reserved for those times when it is necessary for health or humane reasons.

And would you believe many Christians also believe that it should be illegal to kill a child AFTER it is born? Who would have thought those evil Christians would insist on you not harming your child that might be inconvenient or difficult to deal with or too expensive or whatever? They are terrible people aren't they?

And those evil Christians also believe that it should be illegal to drive drunk or destroy your neighbor's property or steal from people or claim that your product will cure cancer when it won't. Mercy, they are just trampling on your rights to do whatever the hell you want all over the place.

So who should have the last word about what is right or wrong? Who gets to decide that. Them? Or the one who wants the right to murder, kill, maim, steal, and commit mayhem without consequence?

Those are all terrible examples.

The better examples are gay rights issues where there is a clear subversion of an entire group of people thanks to christian (among other religions) views.

Another example where they have tried, and thus far failed, to impose themselves on our rights is prayer in schools, which they still fight for, or christian monuments and symbols erected by religious groups on public property.

If they want a monument to their beliefs, just buy your own fucking property. Like this guy did...

Rainbow house fights Westboro Baptist with love

Like my other friend up there, you seem to have trouble distinguishing between infringement of freedom of religion, God's role in the affairs of humankind, and a whole bunch of other issues that essentially have nothing at all to do with religion. And that would include abortion and gay rights and anything else that is a controversial social issue but is not based on a particular religious faith. I simply am not going to go along with derailing this thresd into one of those other topics that have plenty of threads of their own.

Let's continue to focus on God's role and our ability to pay attention to that please.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How does North Dakota violate anybody's rights when the majority of the people vote for a particular policy that applies to all citizens equally and equitably and makes no distinctions between any group or demographic?

How are North Dakota people's rights not violated just because somebody somewhere else doesn't like a policy and demands that North Dakota not have it?

A majority, but not all.

No citizen can be compelled to forfeit his right to privacy solely as a consequence of his state of residence; one’s state of residence does not determine whether one will, or will not, have his civil liberties, even if he is a minority of one.

Our civil rights are inalienable, they can be taken by no man, no government, and by no majority.

The people of North Dakota are citizens of the United States, they are citizens of a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy; the people of North Dakota – all the people of North Dakota – are subject only to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – the evidence of that can indeed be found in North Dakota.

That's how.

 

[LilOlLady]

GOD's law is the law of the land. we just ignore it.
Have anyone had the feeling of late they we are living in the nation of Sodom and Gomorrah and fire out of heaven will come down and destroy us all? LOL
These asteroids for late is getting a little too close for my comfort.
Obama even has his girls talking about gays.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

GOD's law is the law of the land. we just ignore it.
Have anyone had the feeling of late they we are living in the nation of Sodom and Gomorrah and fire out of heaven will come down and destroy us all? LOL
These asteroids for late is getting a little too close for my comfort.
Obama even has his girls talking about gays.

Thanks! You've really illustrated my point.

 

[varelse]

Lol.

No it's not. And firstly is not a word.

first·ly

adverb \-lē\
Definition of FIRSTLY

: in the first place : first

See firstly defined for English-language learners »

See firstly defined for kids »

Examples of FIRSTLY

1. <firstly, gather all the ingredients together>

First Known Use of FIRSTLY

circa 1532

Firstly - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

You would have been better off going after the actual typographical error in that post


Surely, nobody can be as stupid in real life as you play on the internet...

 

[Underhill]

I'm sorry. Did you consider abortion to be a religion? I suppose it is a kind of religion for those who want abortion for any reason at any stage to be a fundamental right. So yeah, if you think abortion is your religion, then I suppose there are Christians who would stand in the way of you exercising your religious faith by allowing abortion for any reason at any stage if they could. Even notwithstanding that most Christians are not anti-abortion fundamentalists.

But here's some clues for you, Sherlock. Yes, many Christians do believe that unborn baby is a human soul deserving of respect of his/her right to live as much as any other human soul. And for that reason abortion should never be a matter of convenience and that unborn child should not be discarded for no better reason than the parent doesn't want it. Most Christians who want restrictions on abortions want abortion to be reserved for those times when it is necessary for health or humane reasons.

And would you believe many Christians also believe that it should be illegal to kill a child AFTER it is born? Who would have thought those evil Christians would insist on you not harming your child that might be inconvenient or difficult to deal with or too expensive or whatever? They are terrible people aren't they?

And those evil Christians also believe that it should be illegal to drive drunk or destroy your neighbor's property or steal from people or claim that your product will cure cancer when it won't. Mercy, they are just trampling on your rights to do whatever the hell you want all over the place.

So who should have the last word about what is right or wrong? Who gets to decide that. Them? Or the one who wants the right to murder, kill, maim, steal, and commit mayhem without consequence?

Those are all terrible examples.

The better examples are gay rights issues where there is a clear subversion of an entire group of people thanks to christian (among other religions) views.

Another example where they have tried, and thus far failed, to impose themselves on our rights is prayer in schools, which they still fight for, or christian monuments and symbols erected by religious groups on public property.

If they want a monument to their beliefs, just buy your own fucking property. Like this guy did...

Rainbow house fights Westboro Baptist with love

Like my other friend up there, you seem to have trouble distinguishing between infringement of freedom of religion, God's role in the affairs of humankind, and a whole bunch of other issues that essentially have nothing at all to do with religion. And that would include abortion and gay rights and anything else that is a controversial social issue but is not based on a particular religious faith. I simply am not going to go along with derailing this thresd into one of those other topics that have plenty of threads of their own.

Let's continue to focus on God's role and our ability to pay attention to that please.

Gods roll? How do discuss God's roll if you can't even discuss what you think his roll is?

Gods law obviously cannot be the law of the land as people don't even agree with the question of what gods law is...

 

[JakeStarkey]

That unbelievers don't get or won't get it is not the believer's problem.

However, since we live by a secular constitution, that is where this issue will be resolved.

I expect if not a complete victory for same-sex marriage in June, I do think significant weakening of walls against it by SCOTUS.

 

[Underhill]

That unbelievers don't get or won't get it is not the believer's problem.

However, since we live by a secular constitution, that is where this issue will be resolved.

I expect if not a complete victory for same-sex marriage in June, I do think significant weakening of walls against it by SCOTUS.

It's the right thing to do.

If churches want to continue discriminating that is their right. But the public should not be enforcing what is, at its heart, a religious position.

 

[varelse]

No church should be forced to marry queers or different races.

No church should be allowed to legally marry anyone.

Let the churches worry about the religious/spiritual union; that is between them and their gods.

Let the courthouse handle legally binding unions/contracts between consenting adults, which what a legal marriage, recognized and enforcable by the state, is.

Everybody wins.

 

[Foxfyre]

Those are all terrible examples.

The better examples are gay rights issues where there is a clear subversion of an entire group of people thanks to christian (among other religions) views.

Another example where they have tried, and thus far failed, to impose themselves on our rights is prayer in schools, which they still fight for, or christian monuments and symbols erected by religious groups on public property.

If they want a monument to their beliefs, just buy your own fucking property. Like this guy did...

Rainbow house fights Westboro Baptist with love

Like my other friend up there, you seem to have trouble distinguishing between infringement of freedom of religion, God's role in the affairs of humankind, and a whole bunch of other issues that essentially have nothing at all to do with religion. And that would include abortion and gay rights and anything else that is a controversial social issue but is not based on a particular religious faith. I simply am not going to go along with derailing this thresd into one of those other topics that have plenty of threads of their own.

Let's continue to focus on God's role and our ability to pay attention to that please.

Gods roll? How do discuss God's roll if you can't even discuss what you think his roll is?

Gods law obviously cannot be the law of the land as people don't even agree with the question of what gods law is...

I think any God that could be defined, explained, ordered, or commanded to be in any role by the people, wouldn't be much of a God. I don't think we mere mortals have any say in what God chooses to do or what the consequences of disobeying His law might be. It is a difficult thing for an unbeliever to understand, but God is God. We can ask. We can do our best to conform to His will. But we don't get to tell Him what to do.

And it is that concept that, in my belief, makes His law the law of the land whether or not we understand it, obey it, or even care anything about it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Like my other friend up there, you seem to have trouble distinguishing between infringement of freedom of religion, God's role in the affairs of humankind, and a whole bunch of other issues that essentially have nothing at all to do with religion. And that would include abortion and gay rights and anything else that is a controversial social issue but is not based on a particular religious faith. I simply am not going to go along with derailing this thresd into one of those other topics that have plenty of threads of their own.

Let's continue to focus on God's role and our ability to pay attention to that please.

Gods roll? How do discuss God's roll if you can't even discuss what you think his roll is?

Gods law obviously cannot be the law of the land as people don't even agree with the question of what gods law is...

I think any God that could be defined, explained, ordered, or commanded to be in any role by the people, wouldn't be much of a God. I don't think we mere mortals have any say in what God chooses to do or what the consequences of disobeying His law might be. It is a difficult thing for an unbeliever to understand, but God is God. We can ask. We can do our best to conform to His will. But we don't get to tell Him what to do.

And it is that concept that, in my belief, makes His law the law of the land whether or not we understand it, obey it, or even care anything about it.

This is exactly why it is a complete and utter waste of time trying to have a reasonable and logical discussion with believers. You demand that this thread be about your deity's "role" then when you are called upon to define his role you do a 180 and claim that his role is undefinable. In essence this is just a game of Whackjob-a-Mole. Thank you for disqualifying yourself from any further meaningful participation on this topic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

_Te is a simple moron, unable to grasp beyond his own mortality.

Such a dip.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Check the voter numbers for 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012. Do some research. The bad little evangelicals only cry and hiss; they have little power now.

Where are these voter numbers broken down into evangelicals and others? Unless you can provide actual polls you are just making this up.

Only in your mind. You make allegations and you expect me to reject them with evidence?

Grow up, please.

You cannot demonstrate by evidence the bad little evangelicals are infringing on your freedoms.

Are you now denying that you made this allegation?

Originally Posted by JakeStarkey

Yesterday, 05:04 PM

The power nationally of evangelical and fundamentalist Christians weakens nationally every election season. This will not change, but only weaken their power politically even more.

Your failure to substantiate your claim when called upon to do so means that you have harmed your own credibility in this forum. Have a nice day.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not at all. You made an original claim that their power was great.

I made a counter claim.

Now pony up your evidence, _Te, or forfeit your points as you were taught in college logic.

You did have a logic or philosophy class in college?

You make this so easy for your opponents to toy with you.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Not at all. You made an original claim that their power was great.

I made a counter claim.

Now pony up your evidence, _Te, or forfeit your points as you were taught in college logic.

You did have a logic or philosophy class in college?

You make this so easy for your opponents to toy with you.

In which case you should have no problem providing the link and the actual posted statement that you are whining about.