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

[rosends]

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?

none is redundant and, in fact, each deserves extensive study to understand its unique implications. there are 2 categories -- aseh ("to do") and "lo ta'aseh" (not to do). We have certain pairs of commandments like "do love your neighbor" and "don't hate your neighbor." Because they are in separate categories, there are different consequences and applications.

 

[rosends]

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?

Just as clarification -- the Jewish commandment is "you must not murder" not "kill."

 

[Gadawg73]

God is watching football today and tomorrow.
Will ask him Monday at 9 am.

 

[whitehall]

The US Constitution seems to coincide with what we understand as the Christian version of "God's law". Most Christians have been raised with moral values that don't conflict with the law of the land. I don't see any problem except when the radical jihadists advocate a version of 6th century skewed sharia morality.

 

[The Irish Ram]

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.

Sunni, you are referring to the laws pertaining to the Age of the Law. Gentiles follow the teachings of Christ. He added another commandment to the ten we are told to follow:

John 13:34-35 A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you..

Rosends, it's nice to see you here. There is debate about the translation, but I stand corrected, because I stand on the side of the original meaning being murder. I'm used to seeing it translated as Thou Shalt Kill in our Ten Commandments.

I'd like to ask you a question, are you concerned about the new regime in Egypt? I'm afraid they are going to be as aggressive as Iran.

 

[The Irish Ram]

God is watching football today and tomorrow.
Will ask him Monday at 9 am.

He's on the Steelers side, you know...................

 

[jillian]

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

people have different ideas about what G-d's law is.

and therein lies the problem.

religious extremists always think their pov is the only pov.

 

[rosends]

Rosends, it's nice to see you here. There is debate about the translation, but I stand corrected, because I stand on the side of the original meaning being murder. I'm used to seeing it translated as Thou Shalt Kill in our Ten Commandments.

I'd like to ask you a question, are you concerned about the new regime in Egypt? I'm afraid they are going to be as aggressive as Iran.

The Hebrew used is lo tirtzach which comes from the root r-tz-ch, murder, as opposed to tamut (make dead) or taharog (kill). If one were to make a blanket rule against killing, it would include judicial killing as well, and yet there are capital punishments listed in the text.

As for the Egypt thing, I am concerned and not concerned about everything. I know so little about geopolitics that I can't be sure of anyone's motives so I allow myself some free floating anxiety and don't try to predict the players.

 

[Votto]

Amish

Omish Amish?

 

[Votto]

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 is an unwritten natural law that we all live by, which is the Golden Rule spoken of by Christ. Do unto others as you would have them do to you. According to Jesus, all the other laws in the Bible hinge upon this law.

And so it is, within every society on earth such things as murder and theft are illegal. Where it tends to get gray are punishments for "sins" as well as moving the goal posts. For example, the only way the Golden Rule works is if the other party is your equal. We have no problems killing and eating animals because they are not our equal and the Godlen Rule does not then apply. And so it goes, those who wish to kill their fellow man or abuse him in some way go to great lengths to first take away their humanity. This means that the slave in the deep south is a glorified ape and beast of burden, the Jew is vermin, and non-Muslims are infidels. Oh, and the unborn is a fetus. This is a vital step towards genocide because it allows us to help silence the inner voice of objection when we violate the Golden Rule.

I find that athiests tend to lean towards Big Government and are left leaining. I don't think this to be a coincidence. After all, we all have the inner voice demanding "justice" and the Golden Rule, but what outlet do we have for such a voice when we see those in need? For those of faith, we have outlets like church outreaches. In fact, look at any outreach around the world outside of government and what you will find is that it is dominated by those of faith. However, the world only has the power of government to respond to the "justice" plea that will not go away inside their heads. So they seek to empower government to save them all. I think it no coincidence that people such as Karl Marx were anti-God. As society distances itself from God, they unwittingly embrace statism because we must respond to the call to help those in need and seek organizations bigger than ourselves to help.

For evidence of this, just look to Europe. As they become more athiest they become more socialist, or vice versa. You see, we all look for a "Shepherd" to show us the way. For more and more people, Big Government fits the bill.

 

[Gadawg73]

The US Constitution seems to coincide with what we understand as the Christian version of "God's law". Most Christians have been raised with moral values that don't conflict with the law of the land. I don't see any problem except when the radical jihadists advocate a version of 6th century skewed sharia morality.

Total BULL SHIT.

When the Constitution was written the Founders were running from ANY AND ALL religious influences in government.
The laws then in ALL OF EUROPE were based on divine right and the monarchs had the calling of God to rule by that.
The Founders specifically voting down any religious references of any kind in The Constitution.
We are a nation of law, not men and their various religious beliefs.

Moral values that do not conflict with the law? Of course there are many as ALL moral values should NEVER conflict with the law.
NO matter what religion they are from.

 

[Votto]

The US Constitution seems to coincide with what we understand as the Christian version of "God's law". Most Christians have been raised with moral values that don't conflict with the law of the land. I don't see any problem except when the radical jihadists advocate a version of 6th century skewed sharia morality.

Total BULL SHIT.

When the Constitution was written the Founders were running from ANY AND ALL religious influences in government.
The laws then in ALL OF EUROPE were based on divine right and the monarchs had the calling of God to rule by that.
The Founders specifically voting down any religious references of any kind in The Constitution.
We are a nation of law, not men and their various religious beliefs.

Moral values that do not conflict with the law? Of course there are many as ALL moral values should NEVER conflict with the law.
NO matter what religion they are from.

The Founding Fathers believed that all men were equal under God. As such they had natural rights referred to by Locke. This was the basis of their general philosophy. However, they also recognized the power of the state from behind the pulpit, and disdained this form of state control. This is why they forbade governemnt to sponser any form of religion.

 

[spectrumc01]

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

Law is neither moral or immoral it's just a law. The application of said law is what makes it moral or immoral.

For arguements sake let's assume the bible is correct. God gave everyone free will, and the ability to choose between sinning and not sinning. God supplies the laws and let's us choose wether we want to follow them or not. God will punish those who broke his laws in the end of times. On the contrary mans law only concerns itself with maintaining law and order, right now. Punishment is also right now, not at the end of times. God's people can't wait for Gods punishment, so they lend a hand.

Believers are the greatest bunch of rationalizers ever. no challenger anywhere. They stand alone at the top of the mountain.

 

[The Irish Ram]

When the Constitution was written the Founders were running from ANY AND ALL religious influences in government.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Not only did those men get down on their knees at home and their place of worship, when they congregated to form this nation, they got down on their knees together to ask God for guidance.
What they did was make sure that pilgrims from this country never had to leave due to religious persecution from our government.

Here is the opinion our first Supreme Court Justice:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

 

[Gadawg73]

The US Constitution seems to coincide with what we understand as the Christian version of "God's law". Most Christians have been raised with moral values that don't conflict with the law of the land. I don't see any problem except when the radical jihadists advocate a version of 6th century skewed sharia morality.

Total BULL SHIT.

When the Constitution was written the Founders were running from ANY AND ALL religious influences in government.
The laws then in ALL OF EUROPE were based on divine right and the monarchs had the calling of God to rule by that.
The Founders specifically voting down any religious references of any kind in The Constitution.
We are a nation of law, not men and their various religious beliefs.

Moral values that do not conflict with the law? Of course there are many as ALL moral values should NEVER conflict with the law.
NO matter what religion they are from.

The Founding Fathers believed that all men were equal under God. As such they had natural rights referred to by Locke. This was the basis of their general philosophy. However, they also recognized the power of the state from behind the pulpit, and disdained this form of state control. This is why they forbade governemnt to sponser any form of religion.

Sure they did, all the slaves they owned and all the women were equal under God.
They talked a mean game on that but it was just that, all talk.

 

[Gadawg73]

When the Constitution was written the Founders were running from ANY AND ALL religious influences in government.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Not only did those men get down on their knees at home and their place of worship, when they congregated to form this nation, they got down on their knees together to ask God for guidance.
What they did was make sure that pilgrims from this country never had to leave due to religious persecution from our government.

Here is the opinion our first Supreme Court Justice:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

All talk.
Where is God mentioned in The United States Constitution?
Men wrote that.
Founders WERE majority Christians and many did practice often.
But many were bootleggers, smugglers, drank heavily, owned the largest distilleries in the land, ran up massive debts, paid for ladies of the night, owned slaves, sold offspring of their slaves, had sex with their slaves and a dozen other things that were not Christian at all.
The Founders were radical rebels of their time. The OPPOSITION, the Torries were the religous folks of the colonies. They backed the monarchy that proclaimed GOD gave the King his power through divine right and all men had to listen to God. We kicked their ass and 100,000 of them left back for England and Canada after the revolution. Mass migration and closing of numerous Church of England (Episcopal) churches during that time. Fact is MOST of the Founders were Episcopal, Church of England and had massive opposition IN THEIR OWN CHURCHES. The south was very religious and except in certain areas, opposed the revolution and still supported the King!
Founders said to hell with that. MAN writes the laws and we are a nation of LAWS, not men and their divine right God gives the power to certain folks over another religious beliefs.

 

[there4eyeM]

Amish

Omish Amish?

That is the Zen sect of the Amish.

 

[PratchettFan]

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'.

I know this is a little off topic, but why would "God's laws" be the very definition of moral?

 

[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'.

I know this is a little off topic, but why would "God's laws" be the very definition of moral?

I did think this obvious, but because if God existed God would, by definition of the term, be the supreme arbiter of all good, bad, evil, just and other laws, including moral. As the only truly objective standard, God would be the reference to which all would have to yield.

As it is, we have to accept that this word, moral, comes from humans as do all words and concepts and, so, is totally and can only be relative to us.

 

[PratchettFan]

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'.

I know this is a little off topic, but why would "God's laws" be the very definition of moral?

I did think this obvious, but because if God existed God would, by definition of the term, be the supreme arbiter of all good, bad, evil, just and other laws, including moral. As the only truly objective standard, God would be the reference to which all would have to yield.

As it is, we have to accept that this word, moral, comes from humans as do all words and concepts and, so, is totally and can only be relative to us.

I don't see it as obvious at all. I will agree that such a being might have the power to enforce any standard it pleases, but why does that power make it moral?