God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?

[GreatestIam]

God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?

Our literature is rife with criticisms of God’s laws denouncing them as immoral.
This is mostly done by non-believers and secular law makers and even many believers. The whole world has rejected the morality of God’s law.

Satan shall deceive the whole world. That is scripture.

Believers say that God’s laws are moral; yet very few believers are trying to push for adoption of God’s laws by secular governments.

If believers believed that God’s laws are moral, it follows that they would be trying to have them implemented by governments. Strangely, they do not.

Can a believer believe in God yet not believe in his laws?

No believer is living by God’s law.

If believers believe in God’s laws, should believers be living by them?

Law without punishment is impotent law.

Should believers demand that secular law use God’s punishments where those few laws are basically identical?

Regards
DL

 

[TNHarley]

God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?

Our literature is rife with criticisms of God’s laws denouncing them as immoral.
This is mostly done by non-believers and secular law makers and even many believers. The whole world has rejected the morality of God’s law.

Satan shall deceive the whole world. That is scripture.

Believers say that God’s laws are moral; yet very few believers are trying to push for adoption of God’s laws by secular governments.

If believers believed that God’s laws are moral, it follows that they would be trying to have them implemented by governments. Strangely, they do not.

Can a believer believe in God yet not believe in his laws?

No believer is living by God’s law.

If believers believe in God’s laws, should believers be living by them?

Law without punishment is impotent law.

Should believers demand that secular law use God’s punishments where those few laws are basically identical?

Regards
DL

I dont know too many christians that are christians. Omish live by them.

 

[uscitizen]

Omish?

 

[TNHarley]

Amish

 

[uscitizen]

Ahh, well they sort of do.
They may not have electricity and such in their homes but they do in their barns and business interests.
They love cordless power tools.

Not sure where that do not drive a car thing came from in the bible, but they seem to have no problem riding in the cars and such.

 

[rosends]

God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?

Our literature is rife with criticisms of God’s laws denouncing them as immoral.
This is mostly done by non-believers and secular law makers and even many believers. The whole world has rejected the morality of God’s law.

Satan shall deceive the whole world. That is scripture.

Believers say that God’s laws are moral; yet very few believers are trying to push for adoption of God’s laws by secular governments.

If believers believed that God’s laws are moral, it follows that they would be trying to have them implemented by governments. Strangely, they do not.

Can a believer believe in God yet not believe in his laws?

No believer is living by God’s law.

If believers believe in God’s laws, should believers be living by them?

Law without punishment is impotent law.

Should believers demand that secular law use God’s punishments where those few laws are basically identical?

Regards
DL

there are, I feel, 2 versions of morality, and confusing these two is a problem.

1 type of morality is the human construct -- the sense of propriety of things that allows us to coexist in a society. We often make laws to police this type of morality.

the other type is the (often religious) notion of a transcendent morality which drives god's behavior and laws. Sometimes these come into conflict with man's morality and we have to reconcile the contradiction.

But both, to 2 different definitions, are templates of morality.

 

[Connery]

Religious law can never truly speak to all people where everyone gets the same rules. Religious law is about inclusion and exclusion.

Secular law speaks to an entire population and provides and avenue for redress without qualification.

Indeed, by design morality is a contrivance in both religious law and secular law.

 

[rosends]

Religious law can never truly speak to all people where everyone gets the same rules. Religious law is about inclusion and exclusion.

Secular law speaks to an entire population and provides and avenue for redress without qualification.

Indeed, by design morality is a contrivance in both religious law and secular law.

Secular law is also about inclusion and exclusion -- rules for citizens and non-citizens, or lawful subgroups and those beyond the law (felons can't vote I believe).

But do you think that there is a transcendent morality which, if not god-based is somehow innate and encoded in our genetic make up?

Is man's state of nature infused with any moral law or is it all construct?

 

[PratchettFan]

Neither is moral. As far as I can tell, the primary difference between the two is that secular law is administered by courts and God's law is administered by a sword.

 

[Koios]

God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?

Niether, and both. It merely depends on how it is used and what goals it endeavors to achieve.

 

[emilynghiem]

The same spirit of truth and justice
fulfills both the sacred laws of scripture
and the secular/natural laws including civil laws.

What is right and moral universally
is going to meet both standards.

What is wrongful, harmful or unjust
is going to contradict one or the other or both.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Can a believer believe in God yet not believe in his laws?

Stupid believers maybe. Amish just made up their own rules.

God has 10 Laws. Jesus added one. That is it.
What would civilization be like if we followed them? Perfect.

A study was done Great, to answer the question you posed:
A group of people were given a test that they could cheat on. And they did. The test was stopped and those being tested were asked to think about the 10 commandants for 10 minutes. The testing resumed. Not one person cheated on the remainder of the test.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Can a believer believe in God yet not believe in his laws?

Stupid believers maybe. Amish just made up their own rules.

God has 10 Laws. Jesus added one. That is it.
What would civilization be like if we followed them? Perfect.

A study was done Great, to answer the question you posed:
A group of people were given a test that they could cheat on. And they did. The test was stopped and those being tested were asked to think about the 10 commandants for 10 minutes. The testing resumed. Not one person cheated on the remainder of the test.

Not surprising. If I were cheating on a test, and somebody stopped me and told me to think about the Bible, I would probably stop cheating too, mostly out of paranoia over why I was stopped from a test while I was cheating and why I was being asked to think about the Bible.

 

[there4eyeM]

It is clear that we cannot all agree on what, where or who God is. Thus, establishing objectively what God's 'laws' are is not possible.
Of course, 'God's laws' would be the very definition of moral.
Lacking that, the question is the morality of law. Without the objective standard of God or other, all such morality is necessarily relative. It is what humans identify/decide it to be.
For society, secular law must reign. For a believer, God's law must. The problem for the believer is that she/he must realize that belief is purely personal, an existential decision on the part of the individual and not incumbent on anyone or anything external.
Reminder: Jesus said any sin but one could be forgiven (extra points given for knowing what that one sin is!). So, breaking a law for a Christian, intentionally or by accident, is not 'mortal'.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Blaspheming the Holy Spirit is the unforgivable sin, according to Jesus. points please.
I understand your point, there4, but one can be objective when presented with any law regardless of it's origin.
Thou shalt not kill is a Jewish law. That we Christians have adopted. The same is a secular law handed down by governments. All three connected to morality. There are moral reasons for one law, in three different objectives.
If mortals are the subject of law, how can breaking the law not be mortal?

 

[Sunni Man]

God has 10 Laws. Jesus added one. That is it.
What would civilization be like if we followed them? Perfect.

Actually, God had 613 Laws but Christians chose to only follow 10 of them.

 

[there4eyeM]

Getting even between families and clans is very disruptive to society. Vengeance and retribution wreck havoc on organized civil life. It was found against the interests of the governing that the governed take 'justice' into their own hands. That explains much of codified law.

Morality had little to do with it.

We encourage our sons to kill in war and give them pretty ribbons and such for the deeds. Obviously, killing is not immoral, as society itself does it with capitol punishment.

If morality is equivalent with the interests of civilization, then all laws are moral in that respect.

P.S. Rosie gets the points.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

God has 10 Laws. Jesus added one. That is it.
What would civilization be like if we followed them? Perfect.

Actually, God had 613 Laws but Christians chose to only follow 10 of them.

That's true, but aren't some of them a bit redundant? I mean, there's one that says to love your fellow believer, and then another one that says not to hate you fellow believer, then another to love converts. Aren't those three essentially one rule?

 

[eots]

god’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?

Our literature is rife with criticisms of god’s laws denouncing them as immoral.
This is mostly done by non-believers and secular law makers and even many believers. The whole world has rejected the morality of god’s law.

Satan shall deceive the whole world. That is scripture.

Believers say that god’s laws are moral; yet very few believers are trying to push for adoption of god’s laws by secular governments.

If believers believed that god’s laws are moral, it follows that they would be trying to have them implemented by governments. Strangely, they do not.

Can a believer believe in god yet not believe in his laws?

No believer is living by god’s law.

If believers believe in god’s laws, should believers be living by them?

Law without punishment is impotent law.

Should believers demand that secular law use god’s punishments where those few laws are basically identical?

Regards
dl

you cant really be a christian in our society without living on the fringes of it and being at great risk of being prosecuted for doing so

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

god’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?

Our literature is rife with criticisms of god’s laws denouncing them as immoral.
This is mostly done by non-believers and secular law makers and even many believers. The whole world has rejected the morality of god’s law.

Satan shall deceive the whole world. That is scripture.

Believers say that god’s laws are moral; yet very few believers are trying to push for adoption of god’s laws by secular governments.

If believers believed that god’s laws are moral, it follows that they would be trying to have them implemented by governments. Strangely, they do not.

Can a believer believe in god yet not believe in his laws?

No believer is living by god’s law.

If believers believe in god’s laws, should believers be living by them?

Law without punishment is impotent law.

Should believers demand that secular law use god’s punishments where those few laws are basically identical?

Regards
dl

you cant really be a christian in our society without living on the fringes of it and being at great risk of being prosecuted for doing so

The fringes of what? Society or Christianity? My beliefs are closer to gnosticism, so I'm DEFINITELY on the fringe of both.