God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?

[Brakeman]

Here's my version of that, adjusted to the delusion of a theist:

A woman speaks out loud in an empty room because she is told you can hear her no matter where she is. She asks, "Do you love me?" You do not reply. She says, "Can you verify that for me? If you can't I won't marry you." You still don't reply. She gives up and goes away. Then, when she dies, you blame her for not being faithful to you and subject her to an eternity of torture and misery.

I would add to it this, just to be fair.

A woman speaks out loud in an empty room because she is told you can hear her no matter where she is. She asks, "Do you love me? Other girls that are known to lie through their teeth and can't get their story straight say that you do," You do not reply. She says, "Can you verify that for me? If you can't I won't marry you." You still don't reply. She gives up and goes away. Then, when she dies, you blame her for not being faithful to you and subject her to an eternity of torture and misery.

[Creed of Heresy]

The failure here is not us for lacking faith, but you for making claims no one can verify.

You ask a woman out, date her, and propose marriage. She asks, "Do you love me?" You reply yes. She says, "Can you verify that for me? If you can't I won't marry you."
Is there any possible way to prove your love to this woman? You can do nice things and say all the right words, but will she ever really know? Which is more important: her believing the unverifiable truth or her clinging to scientific process?

This analogy doesn't work very well for you since it basically sounds more like what I would use to scorn the idiots who think evolution is not factual; given the proof and then asked "WHERE'S THE PROOF?" If you ask a woman to marry you you do so because you love her. If she needs more proof than that then you probably have no business marrying such a clueless individual [and you probably would have come to this conclusion long ago]. This is a fallacy of logic because you're stating it as if the woman is being completely rational in asking for proof when she has just been given the largest piece of proof ever; the proposal for marriage; you know, the ultimate union of two individuals to one another til death do they part and all that? Wherein the man swears to never fuck another woman and the woman says the same thing and they may very well mean it forever, or at least for a few years?

You get a Derp Award for this one, AND the coveted gold Bullethole In The Foot trophy.

[Ryantology]

She might ask for more proof if you are prone to behaviors which suggest you don't love her at all. If, for example, you are physically violent or emotionally abusive. If you guilt-trip her into doing what you want or use threats. If you are a compulsive liar. If you are insanely jealous every time she looks at another man. If you demand complete and total devotion from her above all other considerations.

[Whateverist]

Is there any possible way to prove your love to this woman?

In my experience a wink and a suggestive waggle of an eyebrow will seal the deal. I can convince her, but she has to want to be convinced.

[Darkstar]

She might ask for more proof if you are prone to behaviors which suggest you don't love her at all. If, for example, you are physically violent or emotionally abusive. If you guilt-trip her into doing what you want or use threats. If you are a compulsive liar. If you are insanely jealous every time she looks at another man. If you demand complete and total devotion from her above all other considerations.

I see what you did there.
EDIT: I posted before looking at the links, which gave it away rather explicitly.

[Greatest I am]

If believers believed that God’s laws are moral, it follows that they would be trying to have them implemented by governments. Strangely, they do not.

Most belivers do not actually abide by their god's rules. Society is secularized today, so most believers recognize that they live in a society where their personal rules have no place in the laws.

Those who do believe in their god's rules (we call them fundamentalists) try really hard to have their rules implemented by governments. And in some country (i.e. Iran) the governments obey.

True but the U S does not have to look further than home to see the same thing.

Regards
DL

---

Greatest I am you sign off with DL. Who is DL or what does it stand for if anything?

Just my real initials is all.

Regards
DL

---

@ GreatestIam.

I consider every set of laws and moral code given by a movement, ideology or deity which claims absolute supiriority and unquestionable correctness to be false.
Moral standerds are something I consider to be a evolving learning process. Sociaty learns out of earlyer laws and perceptions of sociaty how to regulate today.
To me there is no such thing as an absolute standert set of values - only values earned through learning out of mistakes. And therfore every Movement...etc which claims to have a totalitarian, unchabgeable, always perfect set of moral values are to be rejected.

Example - rape - I just read today how in a marrige a husband could rape his wife and get away with it up to 1963 in Germany. Because it was seen as "private buisness" and a wifes "obligation" to have "sex" with her husband. The set of values which kept this lawless state in existance were not overturned by "revalation" but through human reasoning.
And on the other hand, the set of values which kept this state in place, claimed total moral supiriority and a rejection of the evaluation of those standerds moral correctnes.

I know of no non-religious secular government which claims absolute supiriority and unquestionable correctness in their laws.

As to rape laws, one has to wonder why we are fighting to help the Afghanistan government which has just lately imposed such a law on it's women.

Regards
DL

---

Then, it is a worthless law. It is designed specifically to make criminals out of everyone. If God makes rules which he, himself, admits are impossible for men to hold to, what does that say about him?

It depends on whether or not He provides the crimminals a way to attone for their crimes.

[

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-91mSkxaXs

Yet Drich, God sure did. Except you have to sell your soul to Satan to use it.

Regards
DL

---

You act like rejecting claims of fictional beings is a bad thing? Tell me, do you follow Allah's laws? Or Yahewh's laws? How about the laws the Anceint Egyptians claimed Ra mandated on them?

Sniped for brevity but a good post.

We are on the same basic page and nowhere do I indicate that rejecting claims of fictional beings is a bad thing.

Regards
DL

[ThomM]

If believers believed that God’s laws are moral, it follows that they would be trying to have them implemented by governments. Strangely, they do not.

Most belivers do not actually abide by their god's rules. Society is secularized today, so most believers recognize that they live in a society where their personal rules have no place in the laws.

Those who do believe in their god's rules (we call them fundamentalists) try really hard to have their rules implemented by governments. And in some country (i.e. Iran) the governments obey.

Actually - No one abides by rules of gods - gods are imaginary - and the rules are made by humans

Religion was once the way to keep the uneducated masses of people in line - and therefore the rules had to at least originally be harsh - but today - they have no place in society. To claim they have a divine origin has NEVER been established -= and most of the laws are based on ancient prejudices that have long since passed.

[Greatest I am]

Yes. God inspired means inspired by men.

Fools will think otherwise.

Regards
DL