I can only conclude that you believe either a) some sins are worse than others, or b) every sin should be punished by an earthly court of law. Neither seem particularly theologically defensible. God gave us brains to work these things out for ourselves and we should use them instead of seeking insight by rolling around on a church floor barking like a dog.

However this time I will play your game. With relation to polygamy God’s original plan was one man and one woman for life — Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden was a blueprint for God’s good creation. However, after the fall of mankind it seems that God did at least tolerate polygamy in the Old Testament.

Now without having made an in-depth study of the subject, monogamy became the rule following the New Testament revelation. Particularly pertinent are rules about Elders being the husband of but one wife, for example — 1 Titus 3:1 ” Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer (elder), he desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.”

With regard to your quote from Exodus — the more authoritative NIV translation reads thus — ” EX 21:7 “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. 8 If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. 9 If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. 10 If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. 11 If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.”

The point about polygamy I think I have dealt with. The point about the daughter being underage — I don’t see how you can get that from the above verses? But I would imagine that in ancient Israel interfering with children would be unthinkable.

In relation to your point about slavery — the above verses mitigate what was a universal practice in the ancient world. The girl sold as a servant is being granted the rights of a daughter.

We also know, and the film Amazing Grace shows this rather well,it was under the guidance of Christians such as William Wilberforce in the 19th century that slavery was finally abolished in the Western world.

However if you do not believe me then I suggest you go to your pastor and elders and say to them, “I think bestiality should be legal because it doesn’t hurt anybody else, what do you think?”
I suspect you may not hear an answer for a moment or two. The only sound will be that of jaws dropping.

Bollocks. Arrogant and presumptuous on your part Rex. I’m not a Christian for starters, and even if I was, why would it matter? Check out the comments thread kiddo, it’s you who’s been banging on about God, jail and the Taliban, not me. I’m simply prepared to make a judgement of what I believe to be right & wrong based solely on my own gut instinct, that is all, and I’m happy to say it. If 40 years of turgid social engineering and exposure to post-modernist poison has precluded you from being able to make such a distinction that’s scarcely my problem. Your automatic association of the word “morality” with some phantom Christian dogma is clear evidence of that !

Answer me this, at what point along the continuum does indiscriminate tolerance be come void, if at all ? For example, how do you see the Armin Miewes case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes , because it happened behing closed doors, and they both consented, is what they did wrong ? Or was it merely a form of voluntary euthanasia or extreme BDSM, and therefore perfectly legitimate behavior – or at the very least behavior that we shouldn’t ‘judge’?

Just because we have a spiritual law to adhere to, it doesn’t necessarily mean that this should form the basis of any temporal law… putting someone in prison for a victimless crime just because you (or God) finds it personally distasteful is not part of God’s plan for anybody’s life.

It’s refreshing to meet a Christian who appreciates the difference, Blair. Frankly, people like Grant S, who expect us all to bow down before a law which is congruent with his religious beliefs, would presumably be happier living under the Taliban (assuming they all converted to Christianity of course) since spirtual law enforced in a temporal court is exactly what they support.

And for your information, Grant S, I have a steady moral compass (if I didn’t, for one thing I’d've have kept my mouth shut and been carried into Parliament in 1996) it just happens to chart a different course to yours. I see defending the right of people not to be imprisoned for doing no harm whatsoever as objectively moral and even courageous, since when someone like libertyscott makes a point they’re inevitably pilloried (a particularly apt term under the circumstances) as a “warped freak” by people like yourself.

In the past, the churches’ pursuit of heretics whose only sin was to chart a different moral course and/or refuse to accept doctrine as law led to burnings and disembowelings. This debate is a reminder of how little many self-professed Christians have developed from those times. It’s a relief to know that when you start the flames start licking round my boots, at least Blair and a few others might be in the crowd saying a prayer for my soul

Oh and Scott? MT 18:5 might well imply a protective attitude to children. But I’d also direct your attention to Exodus 21:7-11 NLT:

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again… If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife…

So polygamy’s okay… and I don’t see anything there about an age limit on the daughter, either. Unfortunately Leviticus explicitly forbids bestiality, but if dime can’t take his donkey on a honeymoon perhaps you could point him to the nearest slave auction?

Scott, that is complete nonsense. Christian faith is a basis for personal governance, not an excuse to play God with the lives of others. Christianity teaches salvation by faith, not by force of law.

Putting someone in prison for a victimless crime just because you (or God) finds it personally distasteful is not part of God’s plan for anybody’s life.

So some religious position or another will always inform our laws — it depends which one. As a Christian I think you should stick up for Christianity. In this particular case to say that bestiality is okay as a legal position is clearly against God’s plan for our lives. Religion is the basis of morality, morality is the basis of the law.

Yes I agree that those who engage in the practice of bestiality will be judged at the end of time. However it is no good for us Christians to imply in any shape or form that the practice is okay.
Are we not just encouraging people to sin? How can we have a prophetic voice in the nation if we say, it doesn’t matter what the law is?

At the moment you are arguing that bestiality is okay and reasonable. I am arguing that it is unreasonable and perverse. I do not agree that given two millennia of Western civilisation, the witness of the Bible and humanities instinctive understanding of sex with animals as perverse that the onus is on me. The onus is on you to argue why bestiality is okay. You are the one upsetting the status quo. You are the one wanting to make one more perversion okay.

However if I cannot convince you then I suggest that over the next week or two you discuss this with your friends and family. Convince them that bestiality is okay.
If they think it is perverse then it may be you might like to change your view.

That’s what it should be. Animal cruelty.

“And are you really arguing that family shame should be grounds for making something illegal?”

No. You asked how it harms anyone but the pervert. I was answering your question.

“radar you dropkick, how will halal slaughtermen get on under your insane ideology?”

They won’t, which is the idea. And kosher slaughtermen can join them on the unemployment line as well. Hooray.

And are you really arguing that family shame should be grounds for making something illegal? At that rate we’ll be arresting every Jewish male who fails the bar exam.

People don’t need to eat meat. Slaughter is cruel – cutting the throat, factory farming practices etc. Therefore, we can avoid cruelty by not engaging in the eating of meat. How’s that? That’s the reason I am a vegetarian. If we can avoid cruelty, we should.

“Bestiality therefore becomes a practical issue – does it hurt or harm anyone other than the pervert themselves? If the answer is no, then we have no business making a law against it when God’s law is entirely sufficient.”

It hurts or harms the perverts family through massive public shame. Presumably being raped would hurt the animal, physically and psychologically. Cruelty to animals is illegal (usually) so raping an animal would come under this law. Further, it is never enough to rely on what God might say about something, because not everyone believes in your invisible, imaginary, God.

As a Christian myself, I find it very odd to argue that because something is sinful, it should also necessarily be illegal. Just because we have a spiritual law to adhere to, it doesn’t necessarily mean that this should form the basis of any temporal law.

I have faith that at the end of the world God will judge the living and the dead. That seems plenty punishment enough for anybody. For a Christian therefore, when we discuss earthly laws and judgements, it is pointless to assume the place of God in judging our peers. To paraphrase Jesus, the law was made for man, not man for the law. Bestiality therefore becomes a practical issue – does it hurt or harm anyone other than the pervert themselves? If the answer is no, then we have no business making a law against it when God’s law is entirely sufficient.

It goes like this. Without life, nothing else matters for human beings, therefore the precondition for all other values (and everything) is life. The highest value should therefore be life. In order to sustain life human beings must apply their minds to the environment, this is to do everything from the simple such as catching fish, hunting, seeking out fruit, growing crops, building or seeking shelter, building weapons to protect from aggressors. Without reason, human beings will die. If reason is applied, human beings can apply their minds to the environment and can create, innovate, discover why and how things happen and can plan around nature, and change nature. They can grow more food, build better shelters, fight diseases, create clothing to protect from sun, wind and rain. Failing to apply reason risks death.

So if the highest value is life, reason is needed to survive, extend and enhance life. Ultimately the application of reason means that the sustenance of life becomes so easy that there is leisure time and more time to further enhance life. Part of this is human interaction, as people can specialise and combine their talents and what they learn, it is to their mutual benefit. This is all the application of reason. Argument, debate and discussion is also the application of reason – using the mind to resolve disputes and learn and debate ideas, theories and concepts.

However, the use of force is the antithesis of this. Force denies the brain, it is the tool of the animal or the brute that cannot or refuses to understand. Force states that another human being or whatever that person produces can be used and taken over for your benefit – which of course is self defeating. Those who purely employ force against other humans to survive will either kill off those who produce or enslave them, heavily reducing their ability and incentive to produce or innovate. So the only answer to force is self defence. Force produces nothing, it destroys and confiscates. By contrast, human beings interacting voluntarily are free to innovate, produce, create and enjoy life – when leisure exists they create art, music, sport, literature. They form social attachments which are, of course, most valuable when mutual.

So from this, reason and the value of life, the initiation of force, and its corollary fraud (which is force with delayed impact) is morally repugnant because it is anti-reason and anti-life. Violence is abhorrent because it is by its nature destructive, and is only legitimate in response to violence – in self defence against an aggressor.

You say it is my obligation to assert that sex with animals is ok because it is currently illegal. It is NOT the obligation of a person in a free society to argue why what they do is ok and should be allowed, but the obligation of someone to say something is NOT ok and shouldn’t be allowed. Why is it ok for you to eat shellfish? the Bible says it is not.

However the crux of your argument appears to be that morality can exist without religion. Indeed Graham Capill is a good moral case to try out this theory. He inflicted force and fraud — we agree on that. I have attempted to show that what he did was a violation of Christianity. We know that Jesus loved the little children and how many adults still tearfully remember that wonderful old song “Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so. Little ones to him belong, they are weak but he is strong. Yes Jesus loves me…”

However sadly without Christianity and without God there is only atheism which gives us little moral guidance. Indeed using atheism as our guiding principle who can say that force is wrong? An atheist believes in evolution and evolution, if it is about anything, is about the survival of the fittest. The strong survive and reproduce, the weak die out.
I’m sorry but arguing from atheism is not a good way to convincingly argue morality.

I agree that we need some form of moral compass, but religion, with its primacy of faith over evidence, seems a very poor one.

I tend to find a secular state oppresses no one, as it is neutral on whether you believe in ghosts and which ones – leaving everyone to choose for themselves – but setting rational rules of human interaction that protect us all from each other hitting, raping, murdering, stealing and defrauding each other. States based on religion set rules based on what those who believe in those ghosts think people should do, not caring a jot that they ban or compel those who believe in other ghosts or don’t believe in ghosts to do what they think.

You don’t need religion to know that Capill was immoral, he was immoral because he inflicted force and fraud upon a child unable to understand the nature and consequences of what was going on. That is immoral because if you value life (which rationally must be the highest value as everything else depends upon it), then the initiation of force and fraud is the antithesis of that. It is a complete nonsense that a moral compass can’t exist without religion. I have one – you might think imprisoning people for sexual contact with animals is really important, i happen to think initiating force against another human being is what the criminal law is about.

“50 years ago we were guided by 10 rules — the 10 Commandments. We had less police, much less crime and much less violence. That is because we had God’s law in our hearts” Well yes, you’re probably right in many cases – yet how do you explain how much more prevalent domestic violence was then, or how children who were abused in institutions were not listened to or believed? How do you explain the incarceration of gay men for consensual sex? (sorry i forgot you like owning other people’s bodies, you cheered that one on I am sure).

What gives you any right to decide what people do with their own bodies, as long as they respect the same in others or their property?