Truman made the choice, it wasn’t for “we the people” to decide, few even knew about it
Some rules are for faithful only while others are for all
Do you think it possible to interpret the Bible to say it isn’t a sin?
Edit: Do you think it possible to validly interpret the Bible to say it isn’t a sin?
Well if you google it you will find plenty on the topic saying it isn’t a sin. How is it any different from the multitude of other “interpretations” of the Bible which people say “well that doesn’t mean what it says”?
Whenever we have these threads people point out verses and then some people say “well that’s not what it means.” When we’re basing things on a super old book that has gone through tons of changes and interpretations and that book contains countless contradictions I’d say anything is on the table.
Do you think our laws should all be based around what the Bible means when few agree? And why that book over any other? I don’t really care if people think it’s a sin or not. Legalizing gay marriage was the right thing to do in my mind. Maybe it wasn’t in yours. Maybe god made all these gay people just so they could burn in hell or something?
Why should we decide things based off your religion and not someone else’s? Most of these Uber faithful Americans are voting for a President whose sin count is probably much higher than the average gay person. The Old Testament features slaughter, rape, cannibalism, and all sorts of other barbaric acts. God doesn’t even want people following the Ten Commandments (in b4 those don’t mean what they say).
Biblical believers pick and choose the parts of the Bible they want to follow anyways.
Followed by multiple posts of non believers espousing moral relativism, aka the exact opposite of submitting to him.
@mnben87 As a Christian, l only believe in my doctrines. I literally believe all others to be in error and have no care what they have decided their canon to be.
I already said I have no problem submitting to him. But first I need to know he exists. And then I need to know what submitting to him means. Because even for the billions who have said he exists most of them don’t agree at all on how to submit. So which version do I sign up for?
Again not wanting to submit doesn’t even come into the equation. If I thought an all powerful being existed and I knew how to submit to that being I would do it in a heartbeat as would virtually everyone else. It’s essentially human nature to not fight when you know you can’t win. If a guy has a gun pointed at my chest right now I’m throwing my hands up and asking what he wants. Those of us who aren’t pretending they are Chuck Norris do the same.
I won’t speak for all but I think pretty much anyone who is lacking that belief isn’t doing it because they don’t want to submit. Should I just fake it and pick a religion out of a hat and go with it perhaps?
What part of logic tells me that God exists and then what part of logic tells me the right way to submit and what he wants. The logic battles can get close with the first part (lacking to me still but at least in the ballpark). The second one I haven’t seen anyone ever come remotely close.
It’s a special kind of rock n roll band that shoots cannons off inside at full volume 
Worth it.
It wouldn’t Inherently be wrong to deny them.
I didn’t ask Google, not did I ask “plenty”, I asked zecarlo
Which would be very different from interpretation by the way
Why?
I know the question isn’t directed to me but I started reading the Quran when I visited Turkey; copies were handed to us and when we visited a mosque. I didn’t get through much. From the little I know about Islam, it strikes me as a sort of survivalism considering the harsh desert environment in which it was founded and what it involves: polygamy, prohibition of mind altering substances, veiling and subordination of women, fasting, etc.
Well if there is no right or wrong there’s not much to worry about
Precisely. With no agreed-upon moral code, a society is certain to degenerate.
The USA is a secular government. The laws in the US are not set by a religious text. Most of us seem to agree on those laws for the most part.
Some laws are influenced by religion, but we are seeing that some of those are getting less popular, and going away (see gay marriage).
I think even if you think that religion is needed for moral code, I think you have to accept that the religious text is not being used to generate such code for the most part (there are some crazy churches, see Westboro Baptist who do try their best to follow a literal interpretation). A literal translation of the Bible or Quran for moral code leads to many untenable practices by present day standards. One would be thrown in prison in short order if they followed either book literally.
The Bible, no. But it is certainly faith-based.
I am not speaking of law only. It’s legal to treat people like crap in various ways, dress inappropriately for certain settings, act rudely, indulge oneself, etc.
Sure. I would say the moral code one gets at church does not typically line up with scripture. At least not all scripture. It is picking and choosing.
Another thing to consider is that when we look at things deemed undesirable, it doesn’t seem that being religious helps one out statistically. Evangelicals have higher divorce rates than atheists for example. Atheists are about underrepresented in federal prisons by about a factor of 10.
We can also see what has happened in the past few decades as religion took a hit: Decreased marriage rates, increased divorce rates, out-of-wedlock births, precocious sexuality, increased drug use, difficulty pair bonding, and a vulgar, animalistic cheapening of sexuality generally. And each one of these leads to a variety of social and mental pathologies.
Many will think this is not a cause-and-effect thing but I do.
There would be a lot more whippings, capital punishments, and peoples’ hands cut off, but no prison time at all whatsoever - that would be inhumane
You do have some points.
TBF, the atheists being underrepresented in prison thing has some criticism. Prisoners lose some benefits like chapel time if they claim atheist. They might find it difficult to find a group for protection as an atheist. Additionally, religion and poverty are correlated and so are poverty and crime. I don’t know if these thing account for a factor of 10X underrepresentation?
You’ve brought this up in other threads
Have you ever looked for comparisons of before and after? Like did they find religion in prison or before it?
And what does
mean?
Are you comparing Atheists to every religion separately or against religion as a whole?
Is it that there’s 1/10 the number of Atheists in prison than there are Mormons? And 1/10 the number of Christians, Jews, etc, separately
Or is it that Atheists make up 10% of the group comprising Atheists, Muslims, Christians etc?
Edit: just saw your latest post
We can count these questions as rhetorical…