[Closed] Religion. Again.

They'll probably pull this one out and argue the technicalities

Leviticus 20:13
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Don't you just love some of the shit printed in the book of lies (bible)?
And then some brainless homophobic racist lowlife sad excuse for a human uses chapters to justify evil bullshit.
Unbelievable.

Surely if you are into religion then the 10 commandments overrides the other crap. Nothing about being gay in the top ten. Carry on as you were gay people.

Saw in the news this morning another UKIP mp having difficulty when expressing their opinion.

So what's worse? The people who are actually out there saying they hate homosexuals/muslims/insert other option or... those that publicly say we have no issue with homosexuals/muslims/insert other option, but behind closed doors out of the public eye have those prejudices?

That's the usual one to crop up in internet arguments, however, I suspect a court of law would go in to the motives behind the actions in a more depth.
First of all, lesbians are OK then as they don't get a mention in the bible?
Secondly, would someone have to prove they live their whole life according to the bible, including the bits about slaves from neighbouring countries, clothes of mixed cloth and so on, to justify leaving someone to die?

I wouldn't ever use the Bible as a good source of values or principles - it supports Slavery:

Exodus 21:
'If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.'

That's sort of my point, teef.
These arguments go round and round on the internet and never get resolved.
There is now a remote possiblity that the old christian trope of "If you were on trial for christianity, would there be enough evidence to convict you?" could come true.
Someone may have to stand in court and explain why they refused to load an injured gay man in to their ambulance, [url= http://biblehub.com/leviticus/19-19.htm ]while wearing a poly-cotton shirt[/url].

Would a vicar reading out the gay killing bit in church be guilty of a hate crime?

1. I don't live in Michigan, so don't care
2. Most doctors I've met couldn't give a fig about a persons sexuality.
3. In an A&E I rock up with my leg all bust up 'cos I've come off my bike, I doubt very much it'll be a case of "well....I could help you but the bible tells me.."

most people who want to be doctors want to help people, regardless.

7 They fought against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and killed every man. 8 Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. 9 The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11 They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12 and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

13 Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15 “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16 “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident, so that a plague struck the Lord’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Who amongst us would not set their moral compass by this?

Oh my mistake I am not gay so I dont care 😕

I doubt very much it'll be a case of "well....I could help you but the bible tells me.."

They say that in Ireland:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/apr/08/abortion-refusal-death-ireland-hindu-woman

In Northern Ireland the DUP are trying to introduce a "conscience clause" into the bill of rights which will effectively do something similar to the OP.

[url= http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/gay-cake-dup-mla-to-launch-private-members-bill-to-introduce-conscience-clause-into-aspects-of-equality-law-30802406.html ]Link Here[/url]

Although the whole thing was started over a cake of all things, the wider implications are pretty sinister.

I wouldn't ever use the Bible as a good source of values or principles - it supports Slavery:

Exodus 21:
'If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.'

This intrigued me enough to do some googling.

Question: "Does the Bible condone slavery?"

Answer: There is a tendency to look at slavery as something of the past. But it is estimated that there are today over 27 million people in the world who are subject to slavery: forced labor, sex trade, inheritable property, etc. As those who have been redeemed from the slavery of sin, followers of Jesus Christ should be the foremost champions of ending human slavery in the world today. The question arises, though, why does the Bible not speak out strongly against slavery? Why does the Bible, in fact, seem to support the practice of human slavery?

The Bible does not specifically condemn the practice of slavery. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1), but does not outlaw slavery altogether. Many see this as the Bible condoning all forms of slavery. What many fail to understand is that slavery in biblical times was very different from the slavery that was practiced in the past few centuries in many parts of the world. The slavery in the Bible was not based exclusively on race. People were not enslaved because of their nationality or the color of their skin. In Bible times, slavery was based more on economics; it was a matter of social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

The slavery of the past few centuries was often based exclusively on skin color. In the United States, many black people were considered slaves because of their nationality; many slave owners truly believed black people to be inferior human beings. The Bible condemns race-based slavery in that it teaches that all men are created by God and made in His image (Genesis 1:27). At the same time, the Old Testament did allow for economic-based slavery and regulated it. The key issue is that the slavery the Bible allowed for in no way resembled the racial slavery that plagued our world in the past few centuries.

In addition, both the Old and New Testaments condemn the practice of “man-stealing,” which is what happened in Africa in the 19th century. Africans were rounded up by slave-hunters, who sold them to slave-traders, who brought them to the New World to work on plantations and farms. This practice is abhorrent to God. In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8–10).

Interesting how different, even opposite, conclusions are reached from looking at these things literally and in isolation, or with some context.

I don't live in Ireland either, and I'm unlikely to need an abortion TBH

And then some brainless homophobic racist lowlife sad excuse for a human uses chapters to justify evil bullshit.
Unbelievable.

Sadly I'd say 'believable'. Very believable. The rest of us just need to hold these idiots to account and the resulting ridicule they deserve. The vast majority (just like most bullies) will go away. Some will stick around, so you just have keep pointing and laughing until they shuffle off the mortal coil.....

I don't live in Ireland either, and I'm unlikely to need an abortion TBH

'No Man is an Island'

No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main;
if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe
is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as any manner of thy friends or of thine
own were; any man's death diminishes me,
because I am involved in mankind.
And therefore never send to know for whom
the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

don't live in Ireland either, and I'm unlikely to need an abortion

My personal favourite bible passage is Ezekiel 23:20

19"Yet she multiplied her harlotries, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the harlot in the land of Egypt. 20"She lusted after their paramours, whose flesh is like the flesh of donkeys and whose issue is like the issue of horses. 21"Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom because of the breasts of your youth.

Number 20 must smart a bit afterwards

Interesting post TGA.....

...Aristotle had some interesting things to say about slaves. Shall we discard his writings too?

I'm not much of a scholar, so I've had to do more googling! I wonder if he too was influenced by the culture/standards of his day? Hard to see how one wouldn't be really, even if only a little bit. I would be reluctant to discard every opinion someone held because I didn't agree with one of them.

Undoubtedly, hence reviewing OT through 21C lenses is a bit silly really. Especially if that leads to a religion v xxxx conclusion. The Bible and classical writings are great sources for understanding the culture of earlier periods. The poetry in the former is quite beautiful at times (until it gets interpreted literally.)

Tbc, my discard comment was a general one not related to your previous post. I agree with your comments.

I wonder if he too was influenced by the culture/standards of his day?

Unfortunately it seems that some are more influenced by the culture/standards of writings several thousands of years old.

When it's people taking such writings out of context to justify their hatred and mistreatment of others, then I wholeheartedly agree. The question of context crops up regularly in religion threads, but to my mind it must apply to both 'sides'.

Unfortunately it seems that some are more influenced by the culture/standards of writings several thousands of years old.

I would take Aristotle and Kant and parts of many different religious texts above Russell Brand any day. Contemporary voices are not necessarily better!

Discussion on LBC at the moment about how discrimination against aetheists and humanists is increasing around the world.

Saudi have even declared aethism as bad as terrorism :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-declares-all-atheists-are-terrorists-in-new-law-to-crack-down-on-political-dissidents-9228389.html

Don't you just love some of the shit printed in the book of lies (bible)?
And then some brainless homophobic racist lowlife sad excuse for a human uses chapters to justify evil bullshit.
Unbelievable.

If you believe the Bible and all the other nonsense that goes along with it, racism, homophobia, misogyny are par for the course. Very easily backed up by the scripture. That despicable "God hates fags" church, I found easier to understand* than people who believe in the Bible but also accept other people.

*I think God, quite clearly, does hate fags! Lucky he's not real and they can carry on being happy...

[i]I would take Aristotle and Kant and parts of many different religious texts above Russell Brand any day. Contemporary voices are not necessarily better![/i]

hmmm, but surely these voices were contemporary at some point. I'm not sure I'd want to live by the Deontical school of ethics anyway, but interesting that you chose Kant 😉

I would take Aristotle and Kant and parts of many different religious texts above Russell Brand any day. Contemporary voices are not necessarily better!

Undoubtedly, hence reviewing OT through 21C lenses is a bit silly really.

That makes perfect sense, but doesn't the same apply to the NT?
One of the bits that's never made sense to me is the cherry picking of which (unsavoury) bits to wave away as allegorical, or say meanings have changed over time- which they very likely have- and which bits to keep and assume they mean pretty much what they say.

😀

(More categorical than consequential!)

Edit for X posts: yes applies to all texts, sources and opinions, A reason why everyone should be taught history properly.

One of the bits that's never made sense to me is the cherry picking of which (unsavoury) bits to wave away as allegorical, or say meanings have changed over time- which they very likely have- and which bits to keep and assume they mean pretty much what they say.

Why not? We're always going on on here about how things have changed and there's lots of crazy stuff in there. So why not pick and choose?

The Bible has always been a subject of study, discussion and interpretation. That's why it's a collection of books by different authors.

Surely we allow religious and moral beliefs to affect delivery of medical treatment in the UK as well though? For example doctors can opt out of dealing with abortion or fertility treatment. Obviously this is normally done in a discreet way by referring them on to another doctor, and therefore ensures the rights of the doctor not to do something they disagree with are respected without affecting the medical care the patient receives. Seems to have worked ok for a few decades now.

Doesn't tolerance and diversity work both ways?

So why not pick and choose?

Seriously, this again?

[i]Because the bible is supposed to be the word of god;[/i] that is, it's a collection of texts written by people whom god has purportedly spoken through or otherwise directed.

So if you can pick and choose, what are you saying? That god was wrong? Or that it's "just" a book?

If you're a Xtian, isn't it somewhat problematic to be second-guessing your god?

The pick and choose option only applies if you live within Rome and wear a pointy hat. No one else is appointed by God and therefore has the ability to see His thoughts on the matter in order to communicate them to the rest of us.

Quite.

The only way this makes any sense is if the Pope pops up one day going "hang on a minute lads, I've just got off the blower with god and his lad, and they reckon we've got it all wrong. Turns out, gaying is all right after all, who knew!"

Reform needs to happen because, as the atheists gleefully point out at any given opportunity, the Bible is contradictory and its relevance is increasingly incompatible with modern society (and law). The tracts about slavery, infidelity, incest and so on were probably quite pertinent a couple of millennia back; these days not so much.

But any such reform needs to come from the top down (and will probably cause a Bible 2.0 schism); this wooly "well, we believe this bit but not that bit, this is a metaphor except when it isn't, and it's open to interpretation anyway, but it's still the word of god how dare you question it" approach at the ground level is helping no-one.

The current pope is fairly progressive. He has made several changes to doctrine that have moved the Catholic church forward in a positive way. I think he is a good influence on the church. Still a long way to go but he cannot change things too dramatically too quickly as he has to gather support from cardinals and bishops.

I like this bible quote and find it oddly overlooked.

John 13:34-35 “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you are also to love one another. By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”

[img] [/img]

That passage should have come with a caveat that the other party should be above the age of consent.

Miketually's Law of Biblical Interpretation: [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermeneutics#Religion_and_theology ]If something in the Bible contradicts something you want to believe, it either needs to be understood in its historical context or it is allegorical; if something supports your point of view, it is true and must not be questioned.[/url]

Why not? We're always going on on here about how things have changed and there's lots of crazy stuff in there. So why not pick and choose?

Cougar basically said it, but it depends on whether
a) you're saying it's just a big book of stories, or
b) you're trying to claim some sort of moral authority (with God backing you up) based on the things in it.

So the thing I don't get is how people cheerfully reconcile the picking and choosing with b), because it seems to me that they're basically incompatible.

I don't agree. Parts of it can have value, even if other parts do not. You read it like any other book - food for thought. Only Christians put more weight on the stuff that is in it, I'd imagine, because they believe it contains some stuff that God said. Do the writers of Leviticus etc claim to be relating the word of God?

Claiming moral authority is highly dubious anyway - didn't Jesus tell us not to judge?

EDIT: Wiki says this:

"The instructions of Leviticus emphasize ritual, moral and legal practices rather than beliefs. "

So that would seem to indicate that the Bible is all sorts of things in addition to God's word..?

If you're a Xtian

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Xtian

HTH.

Parts of it can have value, even if other parts do not. You read it like any other book - food for thought.

Only Christians put more weight on the stuff that is in it, I'd imagine, because they believe it contains some stuff that God said.

EDIT: Obviously I'm looking in from the outside and I'm sure that if you believe then the way you see the relationship between the bible and God can be quite a complex thing that maybe doesn't depend on the bible being Gospel (See what I did there?)
But it just seems that allowing what's in the bible to inform any of it seems to implicitly acknowledge that it's all a bit arbitrary, and that's where it starts to all look a bit shakey to me.

So what's worse? The people who are actually out there saying they hate homosexuals/muslims/insert other option or... those that publicly say we have no issue with homosexuals/muslims/insert other option, but behind closed doors out of the public eye have those prejudices?

The former as if those sorts of people are allowed to get away with it, it legitimizes racism and homophobia among those people who are borderline racists etc, allowing it to become socially acceptable.

Re the great ape on slavery
Its a rationlaisation made by a christian to explain the fact the Bible is clearly not against slavery. Would you wish to defend the positon? No who would? Therefore they try to argue "slavery" was not actual slavery but somehow different. It was not it was slavery You were not free you were owned.

reviewing OT through 21C lenses is a bit silly really

Aristotle had some interesting things to say about slaves. Shall we discard his writings too?

I don't know JY ?

From the link I quoted, it talks about how slaves should be dealt with, then later [i]In fact, the penalty for such a crime in the Mosaic Law was death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death” (Exodus 21:16). Similarly, in the New Testament, slave-traders are listed among those who are “ungodly and sinful” and are in the same category as those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, adulterers and perverts, and liars and perjurers (1 Timothy 1:8–10).[/i]

So, even for just this one small example, as far as I can see there are two options.

1) the bible is both pro-slavery and simultaneously anti-slavery and therefore completely contradictory, or

2) each bit must be read and considered in context, because taking small snippets in isolation rather than in context will result in misunderstanding of the point that is being made.

Of course what you end up with is those who think it's a load of crap doing the former, and those who think it's not doing the latter, which in both cases more often than not reinforces the position already held!

God is pretty clear on what to do with gays etc

I would take Aristotle and Kant and parts of many different religious texts above Russell Brand any day. Contemporary voices are not necessarily better!

Not sure what biblical [ translation] version that is the King James is

8 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

I am not massively sure what manstealer means here - adultery? or slave traders. I suspect the former

I dont recall anything recanting slavery in the New testament but I am not an expert. Its certainly not as clear cut or as repetitive as it is on being gay. its seems reasonable to conclude the Bible does not condemn it and we can debate how much it condone its IMHO. the answer to that is far to much as well

And that servant*, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.

* means slave but they say servant [ OT as well] to sound more acceptable a rebranding of the Bible if you will 😉

Shall we agree it was institutionally slavist

FWIW I think the bible is always both 1 [ contradictory] and 2 needs to be read in context
Its like fables many hand makes light work or too many cooks spoil the broth

Its unequivocal on homosexuality though. Kill them but the progressive dont want to either admit this nor accept the moral authority of their lord is questionable as it all falls down then if you can think god was wrong.

Aww it's a great book......
just like statistics you can always dig out something that proves what you want to prove.

And Aristotle, he was a bugger for the bottle.

I used this line with my physics students last week and they had no idea what I was on about.

Everybody knows that the bits that are supposed to be true have been constantly revised/translated over however many hundreds of years. So to believe that it contains some stuff God said, knowing that a few hundred years ago you'd have been believing something different, requires some mental gymnastics IMO

Surely the sentiment can still be there? Why do you think it's been discussed so much over the centuries? Because it's not explicit.

the bible is both pro-slavery and simultaneously anti-slavery and therefore completely contradictory

The Bible is not one single work, so why wouldn't it be self contradictory?

God is pretty clear on what to do with gays etc

Which bit of the Bible did God write?

The current pope is fairly progressive. He has made several changes to doctrine that have moved the Catholic church forward in a positive way. I think he is a good influence on the church. Still a long way to go but he cannot change things too dramatically too quickly as he has to gather support from cardinals and bishops.

The issue here is can a doctor chose who they treat and who they don't. Secondly is discriminating on the basis of sexuality allowable. Trying to benchmark one society (US mid West) against another (UK) is interesting but ultimately pointless.

As for quoting from the bible, a series of books written between 1800 and 3000 years ago, a totally different age is not really relevant. There are many societies today that still discriminate against homosexuals and which are largely atheist.

There are many societies today that still discriminate against homosexuals and which are largely atheist.

They aren't irreligious though.

There are many societies today that still discriminate against homosexuals and which are largely atheist.

Russia ?

Russia ?

China, I'll let you dwell on that for a while.

Russia is actually religious in the classical sense of the word.

Russia ?

Yeah, Russia is a great example alright these days
The orthodox church is literally Putin's right hand man in governing the country
[img] [/img]

There are many societies today that still discriminate against homosexuals and which are largely atheist.

a) you'll be hard pressed to find a society which discriminates against homosexuals [i]because [/i]they're atheist, and

b) so what? Did you ever get caught eating sweets at school and respond with "but Miss, Paul's chewing as well!" Did the teacher reply "oh, well that's all right then, carry on"?

China, I'll let you dwell on that for a while.

China as a communist single party system has more in common with a theocracy than any modern secular "more atheistic" society.
The reason communist regimes denounce religion is mainly because it competes with it from totalitaran point of view.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, if there is one person I wish I could meet....more than my other favorite academics and writers....eg Locke, John Nash, Hitchens, Czes?aw Mi?osz, Stanislaw Lem.......it would be a toss up between Eric Hoffer and Darwin.

Darwin because...well....Biology is my area. Eric because I would love to get him in a room and talk about his thoughts on religion, authoritarian regimes and mass psychology.

The cruel paradox that all you neo liberals fail to grasp is that the progressive doctrines you can't help but tout are unequivocally a form of religion.. Why don't you sign up for some Common Purpose classes ..

The cruel paradox that all you neo liberals fail to grasp is that the progressive doctrines you can't help but tout are unequivocally a form of religion.. [b]Why don't you sign up for some Common Purpose classes[/b] ..

By neoliberal are you trying to mean socialist? Poor you.

[quote> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Xtian

HTH.
No that can't be right. You'll be telling me next Xmas is an abbreviation of Christmas.

^^^^^^^
ZZ Top are beginning to show their age.

You'll be telling me next Xmas is an abbreviation of Christmas.

FWIW,

The 'X' in Xmas and Xtian isn't an X; it's the Greek letter Chi which has been used as shorthand for "Christ" for a very long time. The whole 'removing Christ from Christmas' movement is relatively recent thing and a misinterpretation.

(I used "Xtian" earlier to to refer to varying Christian denominations generically rather than a specific branch. That might be misuse on my part because they're really synonyms, but that was what was in my head at the time.)

There you go. I knew this forum was the repository of all knowledge from the moment I first looked at it. I knew nothing of the X Chi Christ connection. But then it's all Greek to me.

I'm still calling to Crossmas.

whenever I'm in a moral quandry, I like to think 'what would a load of bronze age religious zealots living in a desert and fighting against much larger, far more civilised empires and battling surrounding hostile tribes do?"

Unfortunately, this has wandered off to become yet another religion thread.
One of the few replies that's relevant to my original point is the one about the refused abortion in Ireland.

Out of interest, is there anything in the bible specifically about abortion, or this bit entirely made up by the catholic church?

I'm guessing there must be at least one doctor in Ireland who is not catholic, but it looks like even if they want to perform an abortion on a patient who is not catholic either, the system itself is catholic, so it is not possible.
Going back to the original point, if ever this medical staff not treating gay patients thing did go to court in the USA, I suspect the result would be more down to the prejudices of the judge and jury than to following established legal practice.

As a loose analogy;
As a vegan, my employers are obliged to supply me with non leather safety boots as veganism is a "strongly held ethical belief" and is considered the same as a religion for discrimination purposes.
If my employer caught me eating meat, that would prove that my ethical beliefs are not that strongly held and they can give me leather boots like everyone else.
If a christian refuses to treat a gay person because of their religion, then if they were caught wearing a poly-cotton shirt, that would prove that they are not really christian and it was a personal prejudice against gay people.

Religion. Again.

Then...

Unfortunately, this has wandered off to become yet another religion thread.

Erm. Yeah....

Fair point MTG.

There is a difference between a doctor refusing to participate in an abortion and refusing to treat a person because they're gay (which of course is presently a hypothetical scenario in the debate about this legislation, although being America probably won't be long).

The former is an unwillingness to participate in an act that one believes is a sin/morally wrong. Whatever your views on that there is at least some logic behind it.

The latter, however, is not at all logical. If Christians believe that nobody is perfect and everyone is a sinner, then the doctor should see themselves, heterosexual patients and the homosexual patient as equal in that respect, and in addition, they are not being asked to participate in something that compromises their faith, merely help a fellow man. I'd be interested to see a scriptural basis for taking such a stance, particularly some sort of guidance from the man who chose to hang around with, for want of a better word, the dregs of society rather than the elite.

I've missed the connection between Christians and polycotton shirts. What's all that about then?

You know how all these religious half-wits go on about how "gay" is a lifestyle "choice"?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-30413515

[url= http://biblehub.com/leviticus/19-19.htm ]"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material"[/url]

MY point is that [i]in a court of law[/i], not just on the internet, would it be found acceptable for someone to refuse carry out their duties as a medical professional because they have chosen to take one part of the bible literally, while ignoring another part?

Surely the sentiment can still be there? Why do you think it's been discussed so much over the centuries? Because it's not explicit.

Who is it that the Pope is supposed to be talking to then? A sentiment? On the rare occasions I find myself in a church a lot of the stuff that goes on there and is on the walls seems to be about specifics, not sentiment. It's based on events that are supposed to have occurred and things that people have said. The bible seems to be treated as if it's more than a book of stories that you pick and choose from. But people [i]have[/i] picked and chosen(?- that reads wrong!) but everything carries on as if they haven't and at least some of it is literal. It just seems a bit odd to me.

I guess that might depend on whether they can provide a satisfactorily explain of their reasons for recognising some of the rules as still applicable and some as no longer applicable, notwithstanding that regardless of whether or not they can do that, it may well conflict with discrimination laws (I don't really know what they have in America), which might create something of a quandry for a court if two different laws contradict each other.

Are we going to have medical staff that have to be issued with christian friendly clothing?