Bible law exceeds God’s “Eye for an Eye” law.

[Greatest I am]

Bible law exceeds God’s “Eye for an Eye” law.

From this fact, it follows that human institutions have placed themselves higher than God, in terms of what laws they will follow. This includes religious hierarchies. They all break the first commandment. All believers also break the first commandment if following secular law over God‘s.


There are ample examples in scriptures where the basic law of an eye for an eye is promoted. IOW, the penalty should suit the sin. A graduated scale of fault. A do onto others and brotherly love type of fiduciary thinking. Reciprocity is fair play type of thinking.

Lev 24;20
Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.

You might note that this passage indicates that man sins against man and shows that we do not and cannot sin against God. Forgiveness comes from man. God cannot be hurt by mere men.

There are also ample instances where the Bible urges us to kill our own for reasons that are less offensive and that do not meet the notions of the justice of an eye for an eye. Fornication and disrespecting parents being two of the many reasons to exact holy revenge by death. Exceeding an eye for an eye by a long shot. It is these more barbaric law that has helped secularism grow.


In following secular laws, we seem to be ignoring God’s laws and thus breaking the first commandment.
God. The word God, means many things to many people but at the root of your understanding of the meaning of that word-- should be rules for living a good life.

Secularism has wisely, chosen to discard some of the older notions and draconian laws.
As more people become educated to secular standards, religions will decline. God’s laws will die in the hearts of men.

Should believers of the Bible God follow God’s laws or the laws of man?
Does it break the first commandment or not if believers follow mans laws?

Is this an end to religion’s and God’s relevance in terms of law?
Is the mythical God no longer required for the best law?

Remember please that we are in 2011. Not 111.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94f2h-5TvbM&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-2_LqOS3uo

Regards
DL

 

[BornReady]

I like the video clips you posted. I haven't watched any of The West Wing. I'll give it a try.

The idea that people will be immoral without God is silly. I'm an atheist and still live a moral life. Most atheists do.

I'm not a fan of an eye for an eye. As Martin Luther King said, it leaves the whole world blind. But Jesus over corrected with turn the other cheek.

 

[Pet Sounds]

First to clear up that misinformation in that video. It totally commits the fallacy of false cause by attributing any sort of relationship between atheism and good behavior. So the entire video is based on that fallacious premise.

It then of course uses a cherrypicking fallacy to show that everything in the UK is tea and crumpets. They could have just as easily shown somebody being stabbed outside a pub. I wonder why they didn't, oh because it's a propaganda piece. The UK actually has a higher violent crime rate that than the US, and the rest of Europe.

Source:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Misleading statistics as well. Less than half of Brits actually believe in in evolution. Source:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct/25/teach-evolution-creationism-britons

I can't take any of their numbers seriously. Don't believe everything on Youtube. Anyone can make a video.

And again, where are your numbers on religions dying? Sure the west is becoming less religious. But they also have the lowest birth rates. As does Japan. The Muslim/African, and Latin worlds are exploding.

It is these more barbaric law that has helped secularism grow.

You are just talking. You are stating opinions without backing them up or giving any reasoning or evidence. Don't just say thing things, back them up with some substance. Lazy damn arguments.

Secularism has wisely, chosen to discard some of the older notions and draconian laws.

You mean secular places like China, North Korea, and the Soviet Union?

 

[Pet Sounds]

Oh I just finished the video. One of my favorite pieces of pseudoscience! Evolutionary psychology. So moral traits were selected for huh? Morality is universal? lol. Then why does every society without government enforcing that morality have chaos and violence reign? Where morality isn't enforced, it is lacking. People behave because somebody is making them behave. Not because they are born "good."

Those claims about moral traits coming from evolution are nothing but:

A just-so story, also called the ad hoc fallacy, is a term used in academic anthropology, biological sciences, social sciences, and philosophy. It describes an unverifiable and unfalsifiable narrative explanation for a cultural practice, a biological trait, or behavior of humans or other animals. The use of the term is an implicit criticism that reminds the hearer of the essentially fictional and unprovable nature of such an explanation. Such tales are common in folklore and mythology

many hypotheses put forward to explain the adaptive nature of human behavioural traits are "Just-so stories"; neat adaptive explanations for the evolution of given traits that do not rest on any evidence beyond their own internal logic. They allege that evolutionary psychology can predict many, or even all, behaviours for a given situation, including contradictory ones. Therefore many human behaviours will always fit some hypotheses. Noam Chomsky noted: "You find that people cooperate, you say, ‘Yeah, that contributes to their genes' perpetuating.’ You find that they fight, you say, ‘Sure, that’s obvious, because it means that their genes perpetuate and not somebody else's. In fact, just about anything you find, you can make up some story for it."[18][19] For example, kin selection has frequently been claimed to predict that humans will be altruistic toward relatives in proportion to their relatedness, while reciprocal altruism predicts that we will be altruistic toward people from whom we can expect altruism in the future (but not strangers). A story of any complexity can be constructed to fit any behaviour, but, critics assert, nothing distinguishes one story from another experimentally.

You're just telling stories. There is absolutely no evidence for the scientific claims in the video. Atheists using bad science and misusing evolution as usual. Step back, realize its not a religion, and doesnt have the answers for everything.

So they are saying that good and altruistic behavior is inherent because it is for the good of the species. It helps us survive, by helping eachother. So we evolved to be nice to eachother. So how do you answer this: why have the most successful reproducing humans been the most ruthless ones? Gengis Khan is like the most prolific breeder in human history. The people who spread their genes the most throughout history have been similar ruthless men. Conquerers, kings, etc.. They spread their genes by force, not by altruism. So if anything, we should have evolved to be mean bastards, considering where we came from. Another huge hole in that argument

 

[Tuffdisc]

In following secular laws, we seem to be ignoring God’s laws and thus breaking the first commandment.
God. The word God, means many things to many people but at the root of your understanding of the meaning of that word-- should be rules for living a good life.


Regards
DL

I would like to pick out the fact that GIA has said the word "we"

 

[Sparkey Duck]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ry-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

I can't take any of their numbers seriously. Don't believe everything on Youtube. Anyone can make a video.

Whilst I agree that the video has no real factual foundation, quoting the Dailymail is just as bad

They call it the 'league of shame' and mention The analysis is based on the number of crimes per 100,000 residents" Number of crimes... not number of violent crimes, the paper has just pulled a fast one there and the readers gobble it up. I'd only ever take statistics from the Home Office and independent analysts, not a Newspapers 'interpretation'..

I never get involved in these debates and so only have to say that the debate on religion v atheism is never going to be neutral, whether its Hitchen's scathing often pointless remarks or the Vatican's factless truths about morality and religion... but...

I'm an atheist and the only thing I find more abhorrent than someone telling me I'm a bad person because I don't believe in God, is someone who finds it okay to try and change fundamental beliefs of someone who does believe.

Sure this would all be pointless if we all just moved to Discworld...

 

[Greatest I am]

I like the video clips you posted. I haven't watched any of The West Wing. I'll give it a try.

The idea that people will be immoral without God is silly. I'm an atheist and still live a moral life. Most atheists do.

I'm not a fan of an eye for an eye. As Martin Luther King said, it leaves the whole world blind. But Jesus over corrected with turn the other cheek.

Thanks and I agree.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

P S

You are right in saying that all statistics should be taken with a grain of salt.

Let's go to logic and reason then.

Are you suggesting that Biblical law is superior to secular law?
Can we have a couple of examples?

As you seek them, consider.

That much of what Jesus said was simplistic rhetoric that does not work in real life.
Turn the other cheek.
I can see the logic of that somewhat if we are talking about treating the thief as a charity case but if you try to apply that saying to rape for instance, what is one to do?
Offer the wife after the daughter has been raped?
See. It does not work the same way as much of Jesus' rhetoric does not work.

Take Jesus for instance. He promoted that for divorce, let no man put asunder should be the norm, yet today, it seems like the majority of so called Christians are divorced.
Most have good reason for it and Jesus was wrong to promote that unhappy people should refrain from trying to find happiness with a better mate.

Whose law do you follow? Secular law or religious laws?

Regards
DL

 

[Panacea]

I think, just generally, very few laws of any kind can last hundreds of years exactly the way they were first created. Societies change, and their expectations change. People stray from the laws first imposed by leaders of their belief, and some get trapped in hypocrisy, others backpedal a bit.

I think it's important to look at the needs of the current society when determining collectively what is acceptable behavior and what isn't. That's one of the things some religions have faltered with.

 

[CityGirl]

I think the whole human experiment would have yielded the moral values that most societies embrace via trial and error. We have learned what works and doesn't in a civil society. Though no longer a believer, I was raised as a Southern Baptist and I was taught that Jesus actually introduced the secular law because he brought in a new covenant which superceded the old covenant represented by Old Testament laws....that is why in western cultures we don't exact the eye for an eye type punishments that prevailed back in that time.

 

[CityGirl]

P S

You are right in saying that all statistics should be taken with a grain of salt.

Let's go to logic and reason then.

Are you suggesting that Biblical law is superior to secular law?
Can we have a couple of examples?

As you seek them, consider.

That much of what Jesus said was simplistic rhetoric that does not work in real life.
Turn the other cheek.
I can see the logic of that somewhat if we are talking about treating the thief as a charity case but if you try to apply that saying to rape for instance, what is one to do?
Offer the wife after the daughter has been raped?
See. It does not work the same way as much of Jesus' rhetoric does not work.

Take Jesus for instance. He promoted that for divorce, let no man put asunder should be the norm, yet today, it seems like the majority of so called Christians are divorced.
Most have good reason for it and Jesus was wrong to promote that unhappy people should refrain from trying to find happiness with a better mate.

Whose law do you follow? Secular law or religious laws?

Regards
DL

You make good points. In our western world Jesus is given credit for teaching the golden rule about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you but this is actually a universally recognized concept in nearly all religions.

1. Judaism and Christianity. Bible, Leviticus 19.18[/I]

Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.
2. Christianity. Bible, Matthew 7.12

Not one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.
3. Islam. Forty Hadith of an-Nawawi 13

A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated.
4. Jainism. Sutrakritanga 1.11.33

Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence.
5. Confucianism. Mencius VII.A.4

One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself. This is the essence of morality. All other activities are due to selfish desire.
6. Hinduism. Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 113.8

Tsekung asked, "Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?" Confucius replied, "It is the word shu--reciprocity: Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you."
7. Confucianism. Analects 15.23

Leviticus 19.18: Quoted by Jesus in Matthew 22.36-40 (below). Mencius VII.A.4 and Analects 15.23: Cf. Analects 6.28.2, p. 975.



Comparing oneself to others in such terms as "Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I," he should neither kill nor cause others to kill.
8. Buddhism. Sutta Nipata 705

One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts.
9. African Traditional Religions. Yoruba Proverb (Nigeria)

One who you think should be hit is none else but you. One who you think should be governed is none else but you. One who you think should be tortured is none else but you. One who you think should be enslaved is none else but you. One who you think should be killed is none else but you. A sage is ingenuous and leads his life after comprehending the parity of the killed and the killer. Therefore, neither does he cause violence to others nor does he make others do so.
10. Jainism. Acarangasutra 5.101-2

The Ariyan disciple thus reflects, Here am I, fond of my life, not wanting to die, fond of pleasure and averse from pain. Suppose someone should rob me of my life... it would not be a thing pleasing and delightful to me. If I, in my turn, should rob of his life one fond of his life, not wanting to die, one fond of pleasure and averse from pain, it would not be a thing pleasing or delightful to him. For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must also be to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?
As a result of such reflection he himself abstains from taking the life of creatures and he encourages others so to abstain, and speaks in praise of so abstaining.
11. Buddhism. Samyutta Nikaya v.353

A certain heathen came to Shammai and said to him, "Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot." Thereupon he repulsed him with the rod which was in his hand. When he went to Hillel, he said to him, "What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah; all the rest of it is commentary; go and learn."
12. Judaism. Talmud, Shabbat 31a

Sutta Nipata 705: Cf. Dhammapada 129-130, p. 478. Acarangasutra 5.101-2: Cf. Dhammapada 129-130, p. 478. Samyutta Nikaya v.353: The passage gives a similar reflection about abstaining from other types of immoral behavior: theft, adultery, etc. To identify oneself with others is also a corollary to the Mahayana insight that all reality is interdependent and mutually related; cf. Guide to a Bodhisattva's Way of Life 8.112-16, p. 181; Majjhima Nikaya i.415, p. 465.



"Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" Jesus said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets."
13. Christianity. Bible, Matthew 22.36-40

Matthew 22.36-40: Cf. Deuteronomy 6.4-9, p. 55; Leviticus 19.18, p. 173; Luke 10.25-37, p. 971; Galatians 6.2, p. 974; Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 5.2.2, p. 972; Sun Myung Moon, 9-30-79, p. 150.] http://www.unification.net/ws/theme015.htm

 

[Aries]

I think, just generally, very few laws of any kind can last hundreds of years exactly the way they were first created. Societies change, and their expectations change. People stray from the laws first imposed by leaders of their belief, and some get trapped in hypocrisy, others backpedal a bit.

I think it's important to look at the needs of the current society when determining collectively what is acceptable behavior and what isn't. That's one of the things some religions have faltered with.

These are exactly my thoughts as well.

 

[Pet Sounds]

P S

You are right in saying that all statistics should be taken with a grain of salt.

Let's go to logic and reason then.

Are you suggesting that Biblical law is superior to secular law?
Can we have a couple of examples?

As you seek them, consider.

That much of what Jesus said was simplistic rhetoric that does not work in real life.
Turn the other cheek.
I can see the logic of that somewhat if we are talking about treating the thief as a charity case but if you try to apply that saying to rape for instance, what is one to do?
Offer the wife after the daughter has been raped?
See. It does not work the same way as much of Jesus' rhetoric does not work.

Take Jesus for instance. He promoted that for divorce, let no man put asunder should be the norm, yet today, it seems like the majority of so called Christians are divorced.
Most have good reason for it and Jesus was wrong to promote that unhappy people should refrain from trying to find happiness with a better mate.

Whose law do you follow? Secular law or religious laws?

Regards
DL

I see you don't want to take on my points that destroyed your little video. I would be extremely happy to educate you on the behavorial aspect of morality, instead of the outdated nativism you parroted that started with the Greeks and finally ended with American Behaviorism in the 20th century, through actual experiment, not just storytelling; and the Human Genome Project, lead by a fundamental Christian gene hunter, put the final nail in the coffin of this outdated belief. But hey, an atheist video on Youtube says otherwise. Funny that atheists are making their own propaganda videos now complete with factual inaccuracies and use of junk science, and you believe them simply because they fit with your ideals and WANT to believe them. Not actually doing research to see if they were actually true. Which you would quickly and clearly find they aren't.

When is humanity going to learn that revenge/retribution don't work? How many thousands of years is it going to take. Violence is a pathological and infectious agent. The more it is used, the more it spreads. Violence only causes more violence, always has, always will.

They said turning of the cheek wouldn't work in India, for example. Tolstoy and Ghandi, both very religious men, thought otherwise and did it. Tolstoy wrote a letter to them encouraging them to do so:

A Letter to a Hindu (also known as A Letter to a Hindoo) was a letter written by Leo Tolstoy to Tarak Nath Das in 1908.[1] The letter was written in response to two letters sent by Das, seeking support from the famous Russian author and thinker, for India's independence from British colonial rule. The letter was published in the Indian newspaper Free Hindustan. The letter caused the young Mohandas Gandhi to write to the world-famous Tolstoy to ask for advice and for permission to reprint the Letter in Gandhi's own South African newspaper, Indian Opinion, in 1909

Some of Tolstoy's advice from the letter:

[SIZE=+1]A commercial company enslaved a nation comprising two hundred millions. Tell this to a man free from superstition and he will fail to grasp what these words mean. What does it mean that thirty thousand men, not athletes but rather weak and ordinary people, have subdued two hundred million vigorous, clever, capable, and freedom-loving people? Do not the figures make it clear that it is not the English who have enslaved the Indians, but the Indians who have enslaved themselves?[/SIZE]

(Tolstoy though violence and revenge were superstitions, and the belief in that as the main way to beat Britain was wrong)

[[SIZE=+1]If the people of India are enslaved by violence it is only because they themselves live and have lived by violence, and do not recognize the eternal law of love inherent in humanity.[/SIZE]/QUOTE]

[SIZE=+1]As soon as men live entirely in accord with the law of love natural to their hearts and now revealed to them, which excludes all resistance by violence, and therefore hold aloof from all participation in violence-as soon as this happens, not only will hundreds be unable to enslave millions, but not even millions will be able to enslave a single individual. Do not resist the evil- doer and take no part in doing so, either in the violent deeds of the administration, in the law courts, the collection of taxes, or above all in soldiering, and no one in the world will be able to enslave you.[/SIZE]

You can say there are cases when this won't work, well I can list more cases of your side not working. Has being violent towards rapists or waging wars actually stopped wars or rape? Of course not.

 

[Greatest I am]

I think, just generally, very few laws of any kind can last hundreds of years exactly the way they were first created. Societies change, and their expectations change. People stray from the laws first imposed by leaders of their belief, and some get trapped in hypocrisy, others backpedal a bit.

I think it's important to look at the needs of the current society when determining collectively what is acceptable behavior and what isn't. That's one of the things some religions have faltered with.

Well said.
:thumbup

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I think the whole human experiment would have yielded the moral values that most societies embrace via trial and error. We have learned what works and doesn't in a civil society. Though no longer a believer, I was raised as a Southern Baptist and I was taught that Jesus actually introduced the secular law because he brought in a new covenant which superceded the old covenant represented by Old Testament laws....that is why in western cultures we don't exact the eye for an eye type punishments that prevailed back in that time.

I do not think it did back then. Even secular law was more draconian than today.
We are closer to Eye for eye justice nowadays with out secular graduated system.

Regards
DL

 

[darkcgi]

GOD (PERFECT BEING) tell man his words , man writes words, man is imperfect possible an idiot back then
you do the math
I love GOD

 

[rback33]

Yet in post 8 I show where Jesus was not quite on the target and how some of his laws are immoral or un-workable.

I think that Jesus was just a pathetic self aggrandizing type who wanted tio be the hero of the Jews.


Regards
DL

You posts would hold more water by actually citing scripture. Show your source. All post 8 shows is you saying Jesus said something.

 

[Greatest I am]

GOD (PERFECT BEING) tell man his words , man writes words, man is imperfect possible an idiot back then
you do the math
I love GOD

Oh ye of little faith in the one you laughingly say you love.

Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
Matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

You posts would hold more water by actually citing scripture. Show your source. All post 8 shows is you saying Jesus said something.

LOL.
The only source for Jesus being literal and historic is a book that begins with a talking snake and ends with a seven headed monster and has an immortal God in the middle who can somehow die.

Ya, lets call that a goo source and be as silly as literalists and fundamentals.

Regards
DL

 

[rback33]

LOL.
The only source for Jesus being literal and historic is a book that begins with a talking snake and ends with a seven headed monster and has an immortal God in the middle who can somehow die.

Ya, lets call that a goo source and be as silly as literalists and fundamentals.

Regards
DL

Well give that the Bible is his only source for quoting Jesus I guess we will have to accept it. I never said one way or the other how I felt about the source. I asked him to quote it and not make a blanket statement with no support. Right now you have a preconceived notion in regards to my religious views and I have indicated in any way shape or form what they are yet.

One thing you can count on from me is 1) expect sources and 2) Play the devil's advocate. A discussion is not much of a discussion if only one side is being examined. I like being the underdog.