[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"] Yes - we disagree at the point where one common law suddenly becomes hundreds of the same laws used by religions. I think its still the one law, but you've intimated that the original law is now different somehow, but has commonality with the law its based on. I have said that this common ground between religion and human society is an illusion - the law is the same - stolen and re-purposed by the religious.
Android339
This is evidence that you have entirely missed the point of what I have written. My point, as I have repeated ad nauseum, is that the body of religious law as found in various religious texts is not solely composed of laws that prohibit homosexuality, or anything of that nature. For you to dispute this is to ignore basic fact. Religious law, as found in various religious texts, may or may not be composed of laws which have a secular purpose. You cannot tell me, without being ignorant, that the entirety of religious law, as found in various religious texts, is devoted to prohibiting homosexuality, or anything like that. The very fact that the law is the same is proof if its common ground. The United States, and England, both prohibit murder. It is the same law, but the common ground between both states is that they prohibit murder. It's a very simple concept.
That was not the basis of that particualr disagreement. I have never disputed the extra content of religious law. I have in fact affirmed this. I also don't understand your fixation on homosexuality. I trust you remember I commented on the various views from the church on this issue.
Your next bit, on "common ground" has been agreed by us already - the law is the same law in some instances. These fundamental laws are derived from human origins. My dispute is in your use of "common", which suggests the similar law comes from different origins. Whereas I content that the same law is re-used. Therefore comminality is not remarkable, but evidence of a shared fundamental values system across most religions and cultures instead.
The prohibition of muder is slightly different in the UK (or Europe or Australia), since we don't have a death sentence. The reasoning behind this is not my own, but a shared national and international view against the punishment by death of offenders. You even did concede yourself in this thread that such systems could be defined as murder.
[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]
We've already discussed this muchly over the past few pages. We even recognised and "agreed" to drop our differences of opinion on that particular issue. Perhaps you were being unclear there, or mis-informing me about that. Personally, I am still interested in bottoming this out...
Android339
I'm not misinforming you. You're simply not understanding.
How will you know when I do understand? Do you think I'll join the Mormon faith? Perhaps you're worrying once again too much about what I'm thinking, rather than on expressing your own point.
[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]
If you did agree with me, why would there be common laws, rather than just the singular one law that people create and religions inherit?
Android339
I'm not talking about any abstract concept here. I'm talking about the secular law as adopted by government, and the religious law as found in various religious texts, and, lo and behold, they contain some of the same laws.
Agreed already (especially since you now use "the same", rather than "in common").
[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]
It seems to me that you have more work to do. The lack of clarity sounds like a false claim, since you don't think we do disagree.
Android339
Indeed. It's hard to bring clarity to someone who has already closed his mind.
Indeed - your lack of clarity is a false claim if you do know what I think? Nice of you to admit it! How will you know what I think now I've closed my mind, or can you still see in there ok?
Log in to comment