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

Seems like you answered the question yourself with the 2011 not 111 line.

For someone who starts troubles, take two eyes.

For someone who starts troubles, take two eyes.

yeah maybe in 111.

one of god's laws is to obey the secular laws of the land. it's not a commandment, but it is in scripture. you're also only considering the OT, and entirely dismissing the NT.

Not at all.

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.

Regards
DL

Not at all.

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.

Regards
DL

divorce doesn't cause happiness from what i've observed. for all the things we claim make us so happy, why is everybody so miserable?

divorce doesn't cause happiness from what i've observed. for all the things we claim make us so happy, why is everybody so miserable?

Wow. You judge others by your own situation I think.
You are wrong.
I know of many that are quite happy. Divorced or not.

Regards
DL

Jesus was very antagonistic to this (from Mathew):
"You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer."

So you cannot say that Christians (part of the Bible munchers group) should follow this OT statements. Au contraire!

And as for the divorce, Jesus teaching was beyond divorce by law and beyond sex. Jesus did not condemn the evil doers, he did say (from Luke):
“Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. “

But he also said (from Mathew 5):
"You have heard that it was said, `You shall not commit adultery.'
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

So for Jesus, there was really no difference on lusting over a woman in the mind or divorcing a woman, it is all the same stupidity.

Jesus created a new interpretation of the OT, and he was against many stupid things about the old Bible. He often spoke about the ancient Jewish laws, and he continued the phrase “But I say unto you…”, and that is one of the reasons he was crucified by the Jewish orthodox. Because he was speaking against old OT laws (for orthodox Jews these laws were given by god), and with his own authority and his own understanding.

Jesus was very antagonistic to this (from Mathew):
"You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer."

So you cannot say that Christians (part of the Bible munchers group) should follow this OT statements. Au contraire!

And as for the divorce, Jesus teaching was beyond divorce by law and beyond sex. Jesus did not condemn the evil doers, he did say (from Luke):
“Every one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery. “

But he also said (from Mathew 5):
"You have heard that it was said, `You shall not commit adultery.'
But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

So for Jesus, there was really no difference on lusting over a woman in the mind or divorcing a woman, it is all the same stupidity.

Jesus created a new interpretation of the OT, and he was against many stupid things about the old Bible. He often spoke about the ancient Jewish laws, and he continued the phrase “But I say unto you…”, and that is one of the reasons he was crucified by the Jewish orthodox. Because he was speaking against old OT laws (for orthodox Jews these laws were given by god), and with his own authority and his own understanding.

This assumes that the Jews read their scriptures literally.
I do not think they did.
They continues to not be monotheistic for some time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sw-NFvueK8

Regards
DL

Wow. You judge others by your own situation I think.
You are wrong.
I know of many that are quite happy. Divorced or not.

Regards
DL

My point was that divorce itself doesn't make people happy. I think on the emotional scale, it ranks right up there with the death of a loved one.

Wow. You judge others by your own situation I think.
You are wrong.
I know of many that are quite happy. Divorced or not.

Regards
DL
My concept of marriage, is that it is about more than the uniting of just two individuals, but it is the uniting of two families, it is the constructing of new communities, and new families. When there is discord in the couple, they separate and destroy the union, with no thought as to how it will affect the families, and the community that was built up around the marriage.

It seems that in modern society, and in the concept of modern marriage, the only factor that is important, is the happiness and contentment of the individual participants, not the community. So, if that is your standard of measure, I guess you might be correct. I see the forest that the tress are growing in. The forest is dying friends. The community is falling apart. Children are growing up in pain, despair, and loneliness.

Jesus Of Suburbia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA8v3B1SxR0)

Children from families of divorce are far more likely to not have relationships that last, because they see as the highest importance in the relationship, their own satisfaction, not the lasting endurance of the family and the community. There is no sacrifice or humility, no unconditional love anymore.

It seems that in modern society, and in the concept of modern marriage, the only factor that is important, is the happiness and contentment of the individual participants,
love and marriage are marketed as 'happy the rest of your life', truth is there will always be fights and feelings of unhappiness, it shouldn't be an excuse to separate.. (with exception to the extreme cases)
and 'mr/mrs right/perfect'..no such thing, we are all messed up..

i think of it as 'mr/mrs messed up just right'.

My point was that divorce itself doesn't make people happy. I think on the emotional scale, it ranks right up there with the death of a loved one.

Unless you are an abused victim or the one with any good reason for seeking it.

Poor victim. Move on.

Regards
DL

My concept of marriage, is that it is about more than the uniting of just two individuals, but it is the uniting of two families, it is the constructing of new communities, and new families. When there is discord in the couple, they separate and destroy the union, with no thought as to how it will affect the families, and the community that was built up around the marriage.

It seems that in modern society, and in the concept of modern marriage, the only factor that is important, is the happiness and contentment of the individual participants, not the community. So, if that is your standard of measure, I guess you might be correct. I see the forest that the tress are growing in. The forest is dying friends. The community is falling apart. Children are growing up in pain, despair, and loneliness.

Jesus Of Suburbia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA8v3B1SxR0)

Children from families of divorce are far more likely to not have relationships that last, because they see as the highest importance in the relationship, their own satisfaction, not the lasting endurance of the family and the community. There is no sacrifice or humility, no unconditional love anymore.

Anymore! ?

What is good for the one is good for the many.
What does not kill the young will make them strong.
People should and do marry for love and damn the community.
This is how it should be.

As to your unconditional love, even God does not have it. if he had, then Sodom or the genocide of Noah's day would not have been written.

Regards
DL

My concept of marriage, is that it is about more than the uniting of just two individuals, but it is the uniting of two families, it is the constructing of new communities, and new families. When there is discord in the couple, they separate and destroy the union, with no thought as to how it will affect the families, and the community that was built up around the marriage.

It seems that in modern society, and in the concept of modern marriage, the only factor that is important, is the happiness and contentment of the individual participants, not the community. So, if that is your standard of measure, I guess you might be correct. I see the forest that the tress are growing in. The forest is dying friends. The community is falling apart. Children are growing up in pain, despair, and loneliness.

Jesus Of Suburbia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA8v3B1SxR0)

Children from families of divorce are far more likely to not have relationships that last, because they see as the highest importance in the relationship, their own satisfaction, not the lasting endurance of the family and the community. There is no sacrifice or humility, no unconditional love anymore.

I agree, and add that I don't think satisfaction is attained by the individual in this way most of the time either. They have to deal with a monumental sense of failure and usually victimization in some form, and animosity, ongoing unless or until forgiveness is attained.

Unless you are an abused victim or the one with any good reason for seeking it.

Poor victim. Move on.

Regards
DL

I'm not a victim and you are as usual wrong on all counts. If your massive yet oh so fragile ego can handle it, why don't you move past the personal insults and find out what the psychology professionals have to say about the emotional detriment and stress of divorce. And here I thought it was common knowledge. Then again I did take psych 101. Guess you slept through that class.

This assumes that the Jews read their scriptures literally.
I do not think they did.
They continues to not be monotheistic for some time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGrlWOhtj3g

http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/doubtingexodus.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sw-NFvueK8

Regards
DL


That man can be a Jew, but he speaks from a modern age perspective. You cannot compare his beliefs for the beliefs or actions of the Jewish people 2000 or 2500 years ago. The Kabbalah for example, is an interpretation of the Jewish scriptures from 11th-13th century. Even this brings a new understanding or a new light to the study of the OT.
Understanding evolves through generations.
Although you are talking about 2000 years ago, and in the times of Jesus there where 3 main kinds of Jews: the Zealots (revolted against the Roman Empire in arms), the Essenes (communes devoted to god: John the Baptist, Jesus), and the Pharisees (orthodox Jews: priests, synagogue goers).
Nowadays there are a lot of kinds of Jewish people, we cannot generalize now. But in those days, the Essenes were an interesting group of Jews worth studying. Jesus specifically referred to the Pharisees as hypocrites and evil doers in his discourses (not the Jewish community in general), and these were the people who created the revolt to kill him.

And about marriage, from my perspective: adultery = sex without love. If there is true love, there is no adultery, just 2 beings responding as 1. A reference in the NT of this is: “if you look at a woman with lust in your eyes, you have committed adultery in your heart.”.

Legal marriage has nothing to do with this subject; common “marriage” without love, is just a political structure, of no real value.

As to your unconditional love, even God does not have it. if he had, then Sodom or the genocide of Noah's day would not have been written.

Sorry, I was off topic. I don't want to discuss the fairy tale with you, or the Aramaic concept of an anthropomorphized god. I was just commenting on the silly notion that you can go shopping for marriages and return them at your convenience and think it will have no ill effects on the community.

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.





ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

Indeed.

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

God is great.


FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

Yes.

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

Okay.

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

That man can be a Jew, but he speaks from a modern age perspective. You cannot compare his beliefs for the beliefs or actions of the Jewish people 2000 or 2500 years ago. The Kabbalah for example, is an interpretation of the Jewish scriptures from 11th-13th century. Even this brings a new understanding or a new light to the study of the OT.
Understanding evolves through generations.
Although you are talking about 2000 years ago, and in the times of Jesus there where 3 main kinds of Jews: the Zealots (revolted against the Roman Empire in arms), the Essenes (communes devoted to god: John the Baptist, Jesus), and the Pharisees (orthodox Jews: priests, synagogue goers).
Nowadays there are a lot of kinds of Jewish people, we cannot generalize now. But in those days, the Essenes were an interesting group of Jews worth studying. Jesus specifically referred to the Pharisees as hypocrites and evil doers in his discourses (not the Jewish community in general), and these were the people who created the revolt to kill him.

You shame your name my friend if you go about believing in a literal historic Jesus.
To believe such, you have to believe in fantasy, miracles and magic.

That is not a wise belief. It is a rather stupid one.

You might have missed other writings that make Jesus, what, the 7th man born of a virgin.
Your God is quite prolific with his invisible flying sperm that targets only virgins.

Regards
DL

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

Who is me. An absentee God who cannot grow his laws as man grows.

What is his view of cloning or stem cell research?
How about in vitro fertilization?
How can you know since God is unfathomable. All you can do is guess.


TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

Indeed.

Yet many idol worship a book. or words that would also be in heaven.
THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'


FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

God is great.

Is that Saturday or Sunday? The debates has never ended.


FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

Yes.

Sure. Tell that to a girl who gets raped by her father while the mother turn's a blind eye.


SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

God's genocide in Noah's day shows how he follow that one.


SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

Yet God used another man's woman to reproduce.



EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

Okay.

Yet God, in a sense steals the free will of those he kills who have a free will to live.


NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

Yet God makes people believe lies and they bear false witness. He is thus culpable for lying.


TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

Yet God himself covets our love, honor and respect and sends us to hell forever if he does not get what he covets.

He also coveted Mary. Another man's woman.

Regards
DL

You shame your name my friend if you go about believing in a literal historic Jesus.
To believe such, you have to believe in fantasy, miracles and magic.

That is not a wise belief. It is a rather stupid one.

You might have missed other writings that make Jesus, what, the 7th man born of a virgin.
Your God is quite prolific with his invisible flying sperm that targets only virgins.

Regards
DL

Hello Greatest, I don’t think he was born of a virgin either, that would have been very freaky.
The story of Christianity is ugly, and the canon gospels were deliberately changed by the Roman Empire when they created the “Roman Unified Religion”.
From the beginning of Christianity in the 1st century, the movement started to gain a lot of followers and it was prohibited by the Roman Empire. The original Christians were prosecuted for more than 300 years and survived through their own means, some as martyrs and some as marginal citizens. By the 2nd and 3rd Centuries there were more than 32 gospels, and Christianity was already the biggest threat to the Empire because of the number of followers. So when Romans legalized it by the 4th century it was a political move, they systematically picked 4 main gospels, because it would be impossible to change more than 30 gospels. They added their own rituals, practices and beliefs to the scriptures. After that, they destroyed any other scripture that they could find.
Obviously stuff like: being born of a virgin, the December 25th birthdate, the Sunday as the holly day; all these were rituals inherited from Mithraism, the Roman religion before Jesus. At the beginning Mithraism was the main religion among the population of the Roman Empire (in Jerusalem opposed by Moses following), and by the 3rd Century AC, against Roman prosecution, Christian population over counted Mithraism, Jews or Pagans of the time.
Answer this: Why do you think that in 200 years’ time, a religion that started from scratch took over more than half of the population of the Roman Empire (included Romans themselves) ? Where do you think the scriptures of Jesus came from? Who “invented” them? If Mithras’s religion was already the main religion amongst the population at the beginning of the First Century, why didn’t Mithraism prevailed over a religion that “someone” invented, even against such strong opposition?
There is more information in the apocryphal gospels, there is much more different and contradictory information. From Zen-Like sayings of the Gospel of Thomas (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9ocv9AJI88) that unlike the canonical gospels, it just contains powerful sayings attributed to Jesus, and it just doesn’t care (as it should be) about the historical Jesus. But it cares much about the teachings. To Gospels like Mary Magdalene’s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DY4b80kCmw), who describe the old arguing among Jesus disciples about women (in that chauvinistic culture), you can find evidence in almost all gospels that Mary was undoubtedly one of the main disciples of Jesus, but according to the Gospel of Mary, other disciples (especially Peter) were against a woman having any kind of power. And it turns out Mary had a great influece in some branches of early Christians but that movement was not accepted by the prevailing chauvinist culture.

BTW, I’m not a “christian”, and I don’t have a god you can argue about.

I cannot prove the historical Jesus, just as skeptics cannot prove that he didn’t exist. But I really enjoy reading every paper there is about Jesus, I do think they contain much wisdom.

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

Indeed.

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

God is great.


FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

Yes.

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

Okay.

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

O.K. everybody . Look close at number 1 . I would think you all know who Me is

Wisdom_Seeker

The Bible writers did put the odd bit of wisdom in Jesus' mouth, but unfortunately, they also added a bunch of un-workable rhetoric and thus polluted whatever message he had to offer us.

Regards
DL