God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-11-2012, 12:47 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(15-11-2012 11:51 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  There is no God's Law as there is no God. There is a book which describes some laws that some people living in the middle east were using a few thousand years ago. And then there's today's (mostly) secular law.
I think you're being a bit pedantic here. There is a generally accepted sense of what makes up "God's law", just as there is a general acceptance of what makes up "secular law" (which varies from country to country, obviously). Whether or not God exists to lay down such a law doesn't determine whether laws exist that are attributed to such a being.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Starcrash's post
15-11-2012, 02:32 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(15-11-2012 12:47 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(15-11-2012 11:51 AM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  There is no God's Law as there is no God. There is a book which describes some laws that some people living in the middle east were using a few thousand years ago. And then there's today's (mostly) secular law.
I think you're being a bit pedantic here. There is a generally accepted sense of what makes up "God's law", just as there is a general acceptance of what makes up "secular law" (which varies from country to country, obviously). Whether or not God exists to lay down such a law doesn't determine whether laws exist that are attributed to such a being.
Yeah, I'm going to stop posting now and just read. I don't know why I wrote that. I blame sleep apnea.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cardinal Smurf's post
15-11-2012, 05:35 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(15-11-2012 08:44 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(15-11-2012 07:10 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Cool story bro needs more dragon

I don't know. I felt it was draggin.
The clever is strong in this one.
+10 points.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes earmuffs's post
15-11-2012, 08:49 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Neither.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Ghost's post
15-11-2012, 09:24 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(15-11-2012 10:07 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  God's law -- No stealing or murder. (Unless they are of a neighboring village and do not agree with your beliefs; at God's direction)
Secular law -- No stealing or murder.
Fixed.

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2012, 10:09 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Secular law -- No stealing or murder... Unless you're rich, in which case, have at it!

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2012, 10:15 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
The shellfish thing is moot seeing as if you are arguing with a Christian they can simply pull out Mathew 15:11

"It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man."

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2012, 10:50 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(15-11-2012 10:15 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  The shellfish thing is moot seeing as if you are arguing with a Christian they can simply pull out Mathew 15:11

"It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man."
Just because one part of the bible can be used to refute another part doesn't mean that the first part can't be cited as part of "God's law"; it just means that the bible contradicts itself. This wouldn't happen if Christians would simply drop the Old Testament and stop pretending that it's relevant, but that's never going to happen.

Also, I've noted it before and I'll note again, in the book of Acts (which comes after Jesus came and went, and after he stated the above verse you cited), Peter has a dream where he is presented with "unclean" animals and refuses to eat them. A Christian may interpret that in the same way you're interpreting Matthew 15:11 -- it means that unclean animals are no longer unclean -- but Peter goes on to interpret the dream as not being about literal animals or about eating. Just the fact that Peter is still uncomfortable with eating these animals is a pretty clear sign that Jesus had not taught him to change his diet. Furthermore, there's no logical reason why Jesus' arrival or death would change the status of such a sin.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2012, 10:55 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(15-11-2012 10:50 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(15-11-2012 10:15 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  The shellfish thing is moot seeing as if you are arguing with a Christian they can simply pull out Mathew 15:11

"It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man."
Just because one part of the bible can be used to refute another part doesn't mean that the first part can't be cited as part of "God's law"; it just means that the bible contradicts itself. This wouldn't happen if Christians would simply drop the Old Testament and stop pretending that it's relevant, but that's never going to happen.

Also, I've noted it before and I'll note again, in the book of Acts (which comes after Jesus came and went, and after he stated the above verse you cited), Peter has a dream where he is presented with "unclean" animals and refuses to eat them. A Christian may interpret that in the same way you're interpreting Matthew 15:11 -- it means that unclean animals are no longer unclean -- but Peter goes on to interpret the dream as not being about literal animals or about eating. Just the fact that Peter is still uncomfortable with eating these animals is a pretty clear sign that Jesus had not taught him to change his diet. Furthermore, there's no logical reason why Jesus' arrival or death would change the status of such a sin.
No, the point I was making was the fact that "God" has removed it from the law so presently, it is not on the table, but once was.

Your points are valid, but you are assuming I am the one interpreting the verse, when I am only repeating an argument used against me. This is not be challenging you, but giving insight as to why some Christians don't consider the shellfish( this one is mostly because of ignorance though), pigs, and other such animals are fair game to be eaten.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2012, 11:00 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(15-11-2012 10:09 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Secular law -- No stealing or murder... Unless you're rich, in which case, have at it!

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
I don't think circumventing the law through bribery or influence is the same thing as not having a law apply to you. Plus this standard isn't always consistent (Jack Abramoff, for example, served 43 months in prison for stealing).


But more importantly, I want to comment on this idea that secular law is not moral... in some cases it isn't, but it strives to be. The reason we have laws is to protect us from each other and from ourselves... it's about a functioning society that gets along. That's also the purpose of ethics, and our laws tend to reflect our ethics. There are cases where the law doesn't protect us (for example adultery is still legal, though I have no idea why the fuck that is... it's always harmful), but that is its aim. God's law sometimes does that, too, but where it differs from secular law is where it tends to favor worship, rituals, and protection of Christianity over the general welfare.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: