Chris,

Thanks for your prompt reply. I’m sorry I haven’t been able to respond right away. Sometimes it may take a day or so before I can clear my docket and get down to offering the kind of answer you deserve.

Here’s my understanding of your remarks:

I. No True Scotsman Fallacy

I believe I gather what you’re aiming at here, but I’m not sure it accurately applies. There seems to be to be some ambiguity in the premise regarding what constitutes a Christian society (or nation), but the main thrust of your comment is well taken. Still, I don’t see how there can be any equivocation when there hasn’t been a bona fide “shoring up” of the challenged original. Be that as it may, it isn’t really germane to our discussion. (As an aside, some Supreme Court decisions have denominated the US as a “Christian” nation; other decisions do not so presuppose).

II. Denial of a Moral/Ceremonial Aspect in the Law

You mention that the Scriptural references provided give no specific evidence of the kinds of laws you have in mind which I presume you mean laws such as prohibitions on unclean meats (Lev. 20:22-26), on equal yoking of animals (Deut. 22:10), and certain kinds of mixing of seed or cloth (Deut. 22:9,11). The references I gave from Hebrews and Ephesians were meant to show that the New Testament writers saw certain aspects of the Mosaic code as no longer applicable in its specific form. Though the pious Israelite would certainly have treated the law as an integrated whole, he would, nevertheless, have appreciated critical distinctions as well. The two passages previously cited demonstrate the abrogation of those aspects of the law that theologians have called “ceremonial” or “restorative.” They are not ceremonial because they necessarily involve ceremonies, but because define the redemptive process of restoration (e.g. necessity of sacrifice for atonement, etc.). These have been generally seen to involve two subdivisions. The first are laws that typify Christ (sacrifices, temple, priesthood, etc.). The other are those laws involving the holiness of the nation by defining the parameters of its separation from the unbelieving nations

This is included particularly in Paul’s reference in Ephesians 2:15 where “the law of commandments in ordinances” does not refer to each and every command revealed in the Old Testament. Rather, Paul speaks of “the law” of commandments which can be understood to mean the principle, order, policy, or system of commandments. He also says the law of commandments “in ordinances” which are decrees or laws imposed by authority, but not in virtue of intrinsic rightness.
According to Colossian 2:17 in speaking about these ceremonial kinds of “ordinances” Paul calls them a “shadow of the things to come.”

So my point is that the Scripture itself provides for an abrogation of certain kinds of laws due to fulfilling their mandate of typifying Christ and of defining holiness. To indict Christians for falling to build a fence on the rooftops (Deut. 22: or reaping their fields to the edges (Lev. 19:9) fails to understand how these kinds of laws functioned in the phase of God’s redemptive purpose for calling out one particular nation to be a prototype of redemptive significance. When their purposes were fulfilled, so were the sanctions.

Of course, the law of God is first and foremost moral as an expression of His righteous character, and even the ceremonial/restorative laws were moral in how the pointed to the reality of Christ.

The Old Testament Mosaic law should not be viewed as an exhaustive list of codified laws covering every situation for every nation at every time, but as a pattern from which to glean matters of equity and justice. Much of the laws of the Old Testament are found in case laws that contain the abiding principles, but couched in language of an ancient culture that has passed away. This means that there can be a “progression” in the laws of a society, but always it should be within the framework of the abiding moral principles embedded in the statutory law.

III. The People’s Awareness Prohibition Against Change

You ask if the people desiring to change these laws were fully aware that God had ordered them not to be changed, and you cite Deuteronomy 28:15 and Matthew 7:17-19. It seems to me that the Apostles were clearly aware that the law of God was unchanging but many of its outward expressions were. Here are a couple of examples. Sabbath observance “changed” from the last day of the week to the first. The writer of the Hebrews makes a masterful case for the changing of the priesthood and with it a changing of “law,” not the moral law, but that which was shadowy and temporary. The Apostle Peter and the Gospel writer, Mark, clearly understood a divine change in Mark 7:19.

Jesus’ arrival on earth did not change the laws of the Old Testament because He came to fulfill them (Matt. 5:17-19). But His resurrection/ascension marked a major demarcation from “this age” (Old Testament) to the “age to come” (New Testament).

The laws involving eating non-scaled fish, wearing mixed cloth, eating pork, and the like have all been abrogated in Christ. This is clear from the Hebrews and Ephesians texts.

IV. Slavery

You next cite slavery as an example of a divine law that has taken man’s progression to overcome. Perhaps you might find it a bit ironic that it have been Christians (no need to invoke the True Scotsman) who held to full Biblical authority who have been instrumental in this progression. History (e.g. Wilberforce) and clear exegesis of Scripture runs counter to your perspective.

I believe that your premise is flawed in supposing that because God regulated slavery for a certain time that therefore it was created and designed by Him.
You might as well say that God designed divorce, murder, and every other sin because He gave laws to regulate and restrain them. If you take the creation account (I hold to one, not two) for what it is, man was not created in bondage or slavery. Man is responsible for that. It is the gospel of Christ, properly understood and applied, that sets free (John 8:32; 2 Cor. 3:17).

Oh, I am aware of various theologians of centuries gone by who defended slavery in this country ostensibly on the basis of Scripture. I do not agree with their views, however, nor does a majority of Christians.

It should not be surprising nor a grounds for indictment against the Christian worldview to recognize legitimate progression in man’s total life, personal, social, cultural, political, etc. Christians (at least the ones I know) are not hostile to progression, but welcome it. The question again remains, “Who does one interpret and measure progression?” Christians evaluate progression in terms of Scripture.

The “slavery” of Israel’s day was nothing as practiced in England, America, or even in present day countries such as the Sudan. Biblical slavery was never coerced (except in limited cases dealing with holy war). It was to be temporary. And it was to be humane. So one must be careful to read the accounts regulating slavery (servanthood) in Scripture and filter them strictly through 21st century sensibilities. Compared to the cultures around Israel, indentured servanthood was a “walk in the park.”

(By the way, the same word for “slave” or “servant” in Exodus 21:20-21 also describes Moses as the “servant of God” [1 Chron. 6:49 (34, MT)]).

V. Punishments

You next talk about punishments. You state that “your own morality tells you that someone can only be put to death if they murder another.” I’m not sure what you mean by “your own morality.” Certainly various philosophers, jurists, and political scientists would vehemently argue with that assertion from a non-Christian perspective. But I would even challenge you to substantiate “morality” starting from man alone. How can it be differentiated from preference? How absolute is it? What makes it moral? You are starting from a premise that has no underpinning. Actually, in talking about morality you are really borrowing from my worldview which provides the only basis for human morality.

You say that “by definition” death is the “most fair punishment for taking a life.” Again, how does your morality substantiate that? Is life sacred? Then no one should take it ever! Is life utilitarian? Then fairness depends upon how useful a life is. These are certainly not the only ways to rehabilitate your thesis, but I submit nothing apart from the God who reveals Himself in Scripture and in Jesus Christ can provide a satisfactory basis.

You say that if Christians were truly carrying out God’s will they would be punishing homosexuals, murderers, adulterers, etc. The implication would be that most modern people would find such actions inherently repugnant and instinctively see the fallacy of Biblical justice. But from my perspective, if I am understanding Biblical justice correctly, Biblical authority does not bow to a majority vote. The stoning of homosexuals charge is a clever rhetorical maneuver that suggests Christians cannot wait to yank them from their inner chambers into a more lethal one. But if homosexual behavior is a sin worthy of the death penalty (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:32), how can “man’s morality” that comes from whole cloth veto it? The same is true for adulterers as well. However, if as some theologians point out, only murder was a capital crime for which no plea bargain (i.e. redemption) could be offered, then it is quite possible that
adulterers and homosexual offenders could be pardoned. This last issue requires more study, and I am not at all prepared to take a final, definitive position one way or another on it. This is simply a recognition that God’s revelation needs to be consulted more thoroughly and comprehensively.

VI. Abandonment of Biblical Law

You state that you agree with Biblical morality insofar as it comes from “[y]our own morals.” This is an important point of demarcation as I see it. From a Christian worldview Scripture, God’s Word, is the judge of every aspect of man’s life (John 12:48). Scripture judges “your” morality.

Apparently you do believe that Christians can “account” for the changes in their views of Biblical law, but it appears that you judge their “accounting” to be illegitimate. Without meaning to be pejorative, that is to be expected since from your own remarks you reject Scripture’s authority. For you, these changes are a “matter of updating the Bible to fit with the times than realizing God’s true meaning …” That, of course, requires some serious argumentation. To do so, you’ll have to take into account centuries of Biblical jurisprudence to substantiate that one.

VII. Whose Influencing Whom?

You include me among those influenced more by non-Christian thinking than Christian thinking as you would most Christians. This, of course, depends upon the validity of your thesis that Christians are not following Biblical law because they don’t execute adulterers, homosexuals, shellfish eaters, and polyester wearers. I hope that my remarks have at least provided a reasonable basis for seeing this issue as more complex than simply treating the case laws of the Old Testament Scriptures as a full-blown penal code. I will allow that I have in my life been influenced by non-Christian thinking as you have by Christian thinking. The goal is for both of us to become more conscious of our worldviews and live accordingly. But living according to my worldview (even inconsistently) has far greater eternal significance than one who does not adopt the Christian worldview (meaning he or she must begin bowing the knee to Christ and Lord and King).

I’m not sure how your comment about 83% of Americans as Christians can at the same time mean that Christians are and are not being influenced by non-Christians (“I would have to include most Christians. According to statistics 83% of Americans are Christian, so they are not being influenced by the decisions of the non-Christians.). I suspect you may have left out a word or inserted one that you didn’t mean. But it isn’t a main issue anyway.

From your comments about true Christians as the “fundamentalist types” I gather that your main thesis is that the Bible really can’t be what it is for most Christians find they have to water it down to be palatable. In my country the word “fundamentalist” carries a much different connotation from yours, I believe. I surmise that in your view a fundamentalist is one who takes the Bible as literally God’s Word. (In my country a Fundamentalist is a subset of Evangelicalism. Here the Fundamentalist and the Evangelical both take the Bible to be literally true [while recognizing genres, metaphors, and other figures of speech], but the Fundamentalist holds to certain social taboos and strictures Evangelicals find to be extra-Biblical or not adequately supported by Scripture). Your view is that man’s ascending morality has reinterpreted the archaic and sub-humane mores of the Bible.

I believe I have provided a basic structure from Scripture itself that adequately rebuts this view though I won’t be surprising if you disagree. You can only continue to hold such a position if you reject out of hand the kind of legitimate Biblical reasoning I have offered. Theologians have always recognized a progression to God’s redemptive acts. Various phases of redemptive history required various means. God’s manner of revealing Himself has changed (i.e. progressed), but the eternal truth has not. An analogy would be the way a parent treats a child versus an adolescent.

I submit that it has been the influence of Christianity (as imperfect as it has been through the hands of imperfect men and woman) that has advanced the cause of women, improved society, provided the basis for outlawing slavery, and promoted the advancement of science, among other things. That I do not include acceptance of homosexuality in this abbreviated list is not an oversight.

Chris, your interaction is most welcome, and I appreciate also how succinctly you express your point of view. As a Christian I can well appreciate your sharp intellect and serious approach to issues such as these. I apologize if I have been verbose or long-winded. In the future I shall try to keep my remarks briefer.

Michael

____________________________

Michael,

Thankyou for your detailed response.
On the matter of the No True Scotsman fallacy, it was in response to the question you raised of whether the western world was indeed Christian. I saw two possible explanations for what your meaning was here. One, that the Governments of the Western world are in no way obligated to uphold the beliefs of one religion over another, therefore the choice words of a 'Christian nation' carry no more weight than 'Jewish nation' or 'Muslim nation'. The notion some Supreme Court decisions have denominated the US as a Christian nation could make for an interesting discussion, but in the context of this debate, it does not apply. The second possible meaning I saw was that while most people claim to be Christian, you would not consider them such. It is that distinction in differing beliefs which led you to believe you are following the right path in being Protestant, as opposed to being Catholic, Jehovah's Witness, Evangelical or another religion which uses the Bible as the basis of its beliefs, all of whom you believe will not be saved. By invoking the No True Scotsman example, I wished to cover all the bases.

You have stated that the scriptural references you gave from Ephesians and Hebrews were meant to do away with the ceremonial and restorative laws, and my argument was that, from my understanding, I could see no distinction between the different kinds of laws.

Eph 2:15 says: by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace,

In what part of this scripture is it making a distinction between the different kinds of laws God gave in the Old Testament? Reading it as it is written, without attempting to use human reasoning to make a distinction, I see none.

Heb 7:11,12: 11. If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come-one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron?
12. For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.

Again, this is showing how the law can change with the passage of time, but I still see no distinction between the kinds of laws that could be cast aside, and those which were to be kept. In Ephesians, when you say it is talking of laws imposed by authority, are you making the claim that moral laws were not equally imposed by authority? Would the authority still not make clear the moral laws, and punish those who did not obey them?

When you mention all the laws as being moral in how they pointed to the reality of Christ, in what way can not wearing two kinds of materials, being forbidden from touching a woman on her period (unless one went through a lengthy isolation process afterwards) and not eating shellfish be rules to show the way to Christ, or prove he was real?

The example you gave of some rules being allowed to change is fair, providing the 'backbone' remains intact. Changing the Sabbath day is an indicator of this, I agree. One day in the week is still being set aside for God, no matter what day it happens to fall on. But dropping some rules altogether is entirely different. If one goes from not mixing seeds, to mixing seeds, or not wearing clothes made from two materials, to wearing clothes made from two materials, it is a blatant ignorance of the original laws. It's not a change in the way God's main intention is still upheld, it is a clear erasure of those laws.

Jesus made it absolutely clear that nothing was to change from the old law (not one stroke, jot, tittle, smallest letter- depending on which translation you prefer), not until his death, but until heaven and earth pass away. If you are reading this email I would surmise the earth has not passed away, in which case Jesus' clear message that the old law is still applicable should remain in effect now. However, if this email has not reached you, I would be willing to concede all points about the old law being applicable to us.
Jesus quotes from Moses (Deut 8:3) when he says "It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.’"
Mark 7:6-13 again shows Jesus' acknowledgement of the old law, and he says those not obeying the commandments were following the traditions of men. All the discussion of man changing the rules is moot if one considers God and Jesus the only true authorities on the subject.

Regarding slavery and how Christians were instrumental in overcoming it, I believe it supports my theory that Christians are just as much influenced by their morals as non-Christians. The Bible allows for slavery, but it also speaks of showing love to your neighbour. If the latter is but one of the ways Christians justified their beliefs that slavery should have been abolished, did this mean the words magically appeared on the page at a time God knew we would be ready for them? The answer is no of course. Those verses were always there, and they were known to all thologians. The turning point from allowing slavery, to outlawing it, came not from discovering new scriptures or understanding God's intention better. How could the intention be any clearer than 'love thy neighbour'? Another factor was involved, one I still hold to as being the progression of morality. This is a point I will be coming back to later.

I believe God created slavery, and you do not, and this is something I expect will become a whole new debating point. Let me just clarify why I believe slavery was created by God - from your own viewpoint for the sake of argument. I don't actually believe God exists.
God is the creator of all things. He is all knowing, and he knew, before he created the universe, exactly what would happen. Man's free will has no bearing on the issue if we understand that slavery would be a bi-product of man's disobedience, and God was well aware of this. He could have created a universe in which slavery would not even cross our minds, but he didn't. He knew full well slavery would be part of society for a time, and he did nothing to change that. Claiming free will allowed us to create slavery would have to mean free will allows us to do anything. I cannot fly, I cannot put the moon in my pocket, so clearly my free will has limitations. The limitations set by God did not include a world without slavery. Therefore, in the system set up by God when he created us, slavery was a part of that system. In that sense, God created slavery.

I am pleased to note you do not agree with the views of theologians of centuries gone by who defended slavery on the basis of scripture (no need to invoke the True Scotsman). If God saw it as wrong to keep slaves, he would have made it known at the same time he created his other laws, so clearly he is in favour of it. The claim that slavery then was not as bad as slavery in recent times is neither here nor there, it is the act of owning someone which is morally wrong, not so much how you treat them, although treating anyone badly (slave or not) is still wrong too.

The way you evaluate the progression of man's attitudes in terms of an unchanging book is quite frankly, baffling to me. A verse that means one thing at one time in history quite literally comes to mean something else entirely in time. I'm unsure of your views on the creation story, but there are Christians who used to think the six days of creation were literal 24 hour periods, but who now believe a day in the Bible is akin to 1,000 years of Earth time, or more. It isn't a case of people interpreting the Bible differently before it comes up against contrary evidence, in the case of the creation story it was only after scientists showed how the Earth is much older than we thought that certain Christians changed the meaning of the word 'day'. It was to fit in with a changing world, and I think the same can be said for morality in the Bible. I feel that it is the secular countries which are leading the way in terms of progress, and religion is struggling to keep up. I quote now from leading author Sam Harris:

'Countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark and the United Kingdom are among the least religious societies on Earth. According to the United Nations' Human Development Report (2005) they are also the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate and infant mortality. Conversely, the 50 nations now ranked lowest in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious. Other analyses paint the same picture: The United States is unique among wealthy democracies in its level of religious literalism and opposition to evolutionary theory; it is also uniquely beleaguered by high rates of homicide, abortion, teen pregnancy, STD infection and infant mortality. The same comparison holds true within the United States itself: Southern and Midwestern states, characterized by the highest levels of religious superstition and hostility to evolutionary theory, are especially plagued by the above indicators of societal dysfunction, while the comparatively secular states of the Northeast conform to European norms.'

I stated previously that I use my own morality to determine which parts of the Bible are good, and which are bad. You say that God's word is the only source of morality. This raises two interesting questions. The first is, are you saying that before the Bible was written, people were killing each other left, right and centre at a much higher rate than now? If not, what was the basis for their choice not to kill if not their own morality?
And the second question is, is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?

I'm unsure how centuries of law during Biblical times is an argument against mine, it shows how they changed parts of the Bible's meaning to make for a better society, same as now. Discarding parts of the Old Testament was man's choice, not God's. Surely Paul's views carried less weight than Jesus'.

I mentioned how killing someone if they kill someone else was acceptable if I used my own morality. By 'my own morality' I mean my own views, my own reasoning, influenced by events in my life, the society I was raised in, the beliefs of others, but ultimately the sum of my own mind. Morality is not always constant among different people. Something wrong to one person could be perfectly acceptable to someone else. When rules change, it is usually the result of one person or one group of people's morality (viewpoint on what is good or bad) influencing others. Clearly morality is subjective, hence the differing values we see in people. As things change, morality changes. You would be right in saying there is no absolute definition of what is right or wrong, but does this mean we should abandon law and principals? We should be striving to better ourselves as a species, by improving upon what is morally acceptable in every generation, and yet the religious are at the back, struggling to keep up and clinging to ancient beliefs. I will give examples of this shortly.
To say the Bible holds the true ideals of a moral society is to ignore every civilised country which does not follow the Bible.

I do not believe that my view is the only true one regarding the punishment of murderers, I do see it as my own personal view, there are good and bad points for each side of that argument and I would not want to impose my exclusive choice on others. At the end of the day, it is the law of the land I live by, and there are many other views I hold which are not held by my Government, but which aren't important enough for me to want to change. Paying taxes to support the Royal family, not being able to shop at any time I want on a Sunday, and so on. However with religious people, they do try to impose their views and change laws in Government, with more severe consequences than anything I may wish to change. As with the examples of religious people finding it hard to progress as fast as secular humanists, I will shortly give examples of the kind of things religious people try to change in Government. The two are related.

You ask a question, which I think needs to be turned around and addressed to you. Your question was if homosexual behavior is a sin worthy of the death penalty (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:32), how can 'man’s morality' that comes from whole cloth veto it? My answer is that this shows morality can't have come from scripture then, but as you say it does I would be interested in your view.

On the point I made of Christians not being influenced by non-Christians, in America at least I do not think atheists have a strong enough voice to influence the majority. There was a poll done to determine whether a person would vote for a presidential candidate, qualified in every way, if there was something different about him/her. There was then a list of the differences the poll offered like black, woman, Jew, gay, and so on. The results indicated that atheists would get the least votes, even having the same qualifications as the other candidates. In some cases, yes, a Christian may become influenced enough to become atheist him/herself, but on the whole a Christian's viewpoint is very black and white. 'We are right, everyone else is wrong.' It's the same with the atheists too, so when you say we need to live accordingly, this only goes so far. There will be times our opinions clash and society becomes affected as a result. But back to my point, which was that 83% of Americans, on the whole, are not influenced by the non-Christians, and come to change their worldview on their own. It just nearly always happens to agree with the views of atheists, who wanted a change long before. I will admit that without non-religious people speaking up, things would take longer to progress, so in that way they are influenced. But would a Christian admit they had been influenced to think differently, or would they start interpreting scripture differently and claim it was in the Bible the whole time, that God had given new meaning to the verses?

I like your analogy of God revealing himself to us as being like how a parent talks to a child, then an adolescent. If a parent wrote a book to a six year old saying they had to kill a cat if it stole food, and then left never to be seen again, the six year old would grow up believing it was okay to kill cats which steal food. But as the child's mind developed, the idea of killing cats would seem wrong, and they would no longer do it. The choice then becomes, does the child try to find a part of the book in which it says they don't have to kill cats, in order to keep the parent good in its eyes, and attempt to forget all the cats that died unneccesarily? Or does the child come to realise that the rule to kill cats was wrong in the first place, should never have been followed and that they were used because they were too young to understand?

Now for the can of worms...
Tying in to what I said about providing examples of religion's difficulty to progress and the influence it tries to exert in Government, I now need to address your claim that Christianity has advanced the cause of women, improved society, provided the basis for outlawing slavery, and promoted the advancement of science, among other things.

First the cause of women, by which I presume you mean women's rights, equality between the sexes and so on. Much as I enjoy a good sense of humour, this really is laughable. According to the Bible, women were designed to be pleasing to men, to comfort them and to honour them. As Jesus is the head of man, so too is man the head of the household. The roles they can play is limited in religion, alot of the Old Testament laws were sexist, there is a clear difference in the punishments and treatment of a person, depending entirely on their sex. This leads into what I was saying earlier about religion struggling to keep up with the rest of society.
In every other job, women have been allowed to be a part of the workforce. They have proven themselves to be perfectly capable of it too, and now you cannot discriminate against an applicant of a job based on their sex. Yet the battle on allowing women to become vicars, priests, and so on, rages on. While alot have decided to allow women to preach to the flock, the process has been slow and a long way behind the norm. It all rests on what the Bible says on the matter. In the cases of churches not allowing females to hold positions of power, they interpret scripture one way, and then for others to allow it, we see the clear distinction in scripture being interpreted differently. The words have not changed, rather the meaning does, and always a few steps behind a society not governed by scripture.
Improved society, that is a difficult one to answer as we need actual examples of how society has improved. I'll stick with the examples you gave, and the next is outlawing slavery. I went into this in greater detail earlier so all I will say here on that matter is that I agree it's wonderful Christians called for the end of slavery, but that it's tainted by the sour taste of knowing who supported it in the first place.

Promoting the advancement of science is one I have to show my complete opposition to. There was a time science was heresy and certain views punishable by death or imprisonment. Teaching that the Earth was not the centre of the universe, that is was not flat and that we went around the sun, not the other way round, are examples of this.
In medicine, scientists trying to develop cures were held back by the backward beliefs of people who would drill holes into people's skulls to release evil spirits, or who thought the power of prayer was enough. For 1,000 years, science came to a halt, and all for one reason- religion. We call them the Dark Ages now, but the threat of a return to those times is ever present.
Evolution, a fact proven time and time again, still has to fight against the idea of a grand creator in some schools. Through wilfull ignorance, religious people are refusing to accept anything that goes against the Bible's explanation of how we came to be. Stem cell research, one of the most promising
lines of scientific enquiry for curing diseases and growing body parts, is being held up because religion teaches that souls inhabit the small cluster of cells scientists need to work on.
The dangers posed by global warming are not being given enough attention, by people who think a God will not let anything bad happen to the Earth.

With homosexuality, last year in the UK gay people were given the same rights as straight people, and the only people petitioning against the decision were the religious. Having opinions on homosexuality is absolutely fine, just as I have opinions on murderers being put to death, but the difference is that the religious want everyone else to live by their rules. They don't keep their opinions to themselves. They truly feel that a person is not entitled to the same level of respect and the same rights as others because of what they do in the privacy of their homes when naked. 'Judge not lest ye be judged' is a phrase I wish more Christians would listen to. If indeed they are right and God will punish gay people in time, it should be left with Him. But the fact is religious people are very outspoken about the issue, and it's attitudes like this I believe should not be allowed to influence society to the point where people are discriminated against.

I'm sorry for jumping around, I'm not sure I structured my reply very well. I hope you can understand that I don't reject the idea of religion because I don't agree with it, I do so because I feel it has a negative impact in a world I have to live in. If I've missed anything out, please inform me and I'll try my best to give you a better explanation.

Chris.

------------------------

Just to add,

I was looking back over what I'd written and I believe I should have phrased something better to avoid confusion.

'I hope you can understand that I don't reject the idea of religion because I don't agree with it, I do so because I feel it has a negative impact in a world I have to live in.'

I do infact reject the idea of religion because I don't agree with it (the claims it makes, aswell as the rules I see), but I reject it in an outspoken way because of the effect I feel it has. I also reject the claims of people who believe Elvis is still alive and people who tell of being abducted by aliens, but as they have little to no influence on my own life, I am perfectly fine letting them believe what they want to believe. It was a poor choice of words on my part.

Chris.

His confusion over the 83% being influenced by a non-Christian way of thinking is something I should have addressed more simply. I had originally meant a non-Biblical way of thinking, not that they were influenced by atheists. I kicked myself for not having enough clarity in my mind at the time, but still, the reply was sent and it didn't become much of an issue after.
With the additional message too, I can see I just wasn't thinking straight at the time.