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

Greatest I am

Greatest I am

Valued Senior Member
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
 
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
 
Greatest I am said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
Lori_7 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Wisdom_Seeker said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Greatest I am said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Greatest I am said:
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
Click to expand...
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

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.
 
The Esotericist said:
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,
Click to expand...
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'.
 
Lori_7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Poor victim. Move on.

Regards
DL
 
The Esotericist said:
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

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.
Click to expand...

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
 
The Esotericist said:
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

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Greatest I am said:
Unless you are an abused victim or the one with any good reason for seeking it.

Poor victim. Move on.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...

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.
 
Greatest I am said:
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
Click to expand...


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.
 
Greatest I am said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top