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.

 

 

 

 

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

 

[A Tripolation]

In following secular laws, we seem to be ignoring God’s laws and thus breaking the first commandment.

 

Jesus disagrees:

 

Later they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Jesus to catch him in his words. They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know that you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or shouldn’t we?”

 

But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?”

 

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

 

Then Jesus said to them, “Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.”

 

Emphasis mine.

[Realitycheck]

When you factor in sharia, the disparity in punishments start becoming pretty severe.

[Greatest I am]

Jesus disagrees:

 

 

 

Emphasis mine.

 

Is there a limit to this give to Caesar?

 

The ancients were were told to kill the enemy and rape their women etc by the state.

Can all of God's laws be ignored and if so, what good are they?

 

Regards

DL

 

When you factor in sharia, the disparity in punishments start becoming pretty severe.

 

 

Yes. Other than the Jews, most of the Abraham cults are rather draconian.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[Marat]

As Hegel points out, the rule of 'an eye for an eye' can never be just, since the loss of an eye will always be of different value for different people, so it only apparently expresses a formula of equivalence in punishment. In the extreme case, if a criminal cyclops puts out one eye of someone having two eyes, what is the appropriate punishment for the cyclops? Utter blindness? So it hardly matters that there are contradictions of this initial rule in the Bible, since the rule is itself incoherent and fails to set any valid standard.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Marat

[John Cuthber]

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

 

From this fact,..."

It's not a fact.

 

Last time I checked, the bible was God's law.

Also, remember that anyone citing Leviticus is likely to end up looking, at best, rather outdated.

for example "And he that hath his hair fallen off from the part of his head toward his face, he is forehead bald: yet is he clean"

(other silly looking quotes are available.)

 

Seriously, where can I find "God's laws" if not in the bible?

[Greatest I am]

As Hegel points out, the rule of 'an eye for an eye' can never be just, since the loss of an eye will always be of different value for different people, so it only apparently expresses a formula of equivalence in punishment. In the extreme case, if a criminal cyclops puts out one eye of someone having two eyes, what is the appropriate punishment for the cyclops? Utter blindness? So it hardly matters that there are contradictions of this initial rule in the Bible, since the rule is itself incoherent and fails to set any valid standard.

 

 

I agree.

 

That is why I put this bit in the O P.

 

" 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."

 

In you example, the cyclops would keep his eye and some other form or retribution would have to be found.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Bible law exceeds God's "Eye for an Eye" law.

 

From this fact,..."

It's not a fact.

 

Last time I checked, the bible was God's law.

Also, remember that anyone citing Leviticus is likely to end up looking, at best, rather outdated.

for example "And he that hath his hair fallen off from the part of his head toward his face, he is forehead bald: yet is he clean"

(other silly looking quotes are available.)

 

Seriously, where can I find "God's laws" if not in the bible?

 

 

Well. If you are a Bible believer, then you should kow that it tells you that God's laws are written on, or is it in, your heart.

 

Regards

DL

[A Tripolation]

Is there a limit to this give to Caesar?

 

Jesus is basically saying to follow the laws of man (give to Caesar what is Caesar's) while maintaining what God expects of us (give to God what is God's).

 

The ancients were were told to kill the enemy and rape their women etc by the state.

Can all of God's laws be ignored and if so, what good are they?

 

None should be ignored. Though they frequently are. It's called sin.

I fail to see your point.

 

Well. If you are a Bible believer, then you should kow that it tells you that God's laws are written on, or is it in, your heart.

 

He's not. And I think you're talking about the Holy Spirit. But it supposedly only resides in the souls of Christians. He was right in stating that the Bible contains God's Laws. Ever heard of The Ten Commandments and the two rules Jesus spoke of as being the greatest rules?

[John Cuthber]

"Seriously, where can I find "God's laws" if not in the bible?

 

Well. If you are a Bible believer, then you should kow that it tells you that God's laws are written on, or is it in, your heart."

I'm not.

Does that mean that , for me, those laws don't exist?

[Brainteaserfan]

"Seriously, where can I find "God's laws" if not in the bible?

 

Well. If you are a Bible believer, then you should kow that it tells you that God's laws are written on, or is it in, your heart."

I'm not.

Does that mean that , for me, those laws don't exist?

No, those laws do still exist for you 1 Corinthians 5:10 and http://godsacres.org/quarterly.God'sSettledWord.Lesson13.pdf. I'm not sure exactly what reference you are using for the "laws written in your heart" idea. If you are talking about psalms 119:11, then I think that the 2 interpretations are that either the psalmist was talking about himself having memorized the law, or at least knowing it really well, or he was talking about that the Christian should study and memorize the law.

[John Cuthber]

"Not Found

 

The requested URL /quarterly.God'sSettledWord.Lesson13.pdf. was not found on this server."

So they really don't exist for me.

 

Incidentally, are there any cardiac surgeons or pathologists or whatever on the site who can vouch for the presence of these rules?

[Brainteaserfan]

"Not Found

 

The requested URL /quarterly.God'sSettledWord.Lesson13.pdf. was not found on this server."

So they really don't exist for me.

 

Incidentally, are there any cardiac surgeons or pathologists or whatever on the site who can vouch for the presence of these rules?

That's strange, an hour ago it worked fine for me. Sorry about that. Maybe try it without the period that I put on the end of the sentence?

 

In answer to your second question, I don't know. That was just a random google site that supported my beliefs.

[Marat]

Queen Catherine, Henry VIII's first wife, although an extremely pious woman fully observant of God's laws, was discovered during the preservation of her body after death to have a black heart. Is this because she died of a rare form of cardiac cancer or because the laws of God were so densely inscribed on her heart as to make it appear black?

[Brainteaserfan]

Queen Catherine, Henry VIII's first wife, although an extremely pious woman fully observant of God's laws, was discovered during the preservation of her body after death to have a black heart. Is this because she died of a rare form of cardiac cancer or because the laws of God were so densely inscribed on her heart as to make it appear black?

 

I don't think that "heart" is to be taken literally.

[Greatest I am]

Jesus is basically saying to follow the laws of man (give to Caesar what is Caesar's) while maintaining what God expects of us (give to God what is God's).

 

 

 

None should be ignored. Though they frequently are. It's called sin.

I fail to see your point.

 

 

The point is that if following Caesars law is going against a law of God’s, then the believer is breaking the first commandment.

 

I guess the type of infraction I am thinking of is like though shalt not kill. If all Christians refused to follow Caesar in war, then war would end. They do not and go directly against God and the first commandment.

 

He's not. And I think you're talking about the Holy Spirit. But it supposedly only resides in the souls of Christians. He was right in stating that the Bible contains God's Laws. Ever heard of The Ten Commandments and the two rules Jesus spoke of as being the greatest rules?

 

 

Yes I have and know that God himself broke a few of his big ten and that Jesus/God also said to love the sinner and hate the sin but you will know that God does not punish sin but for sure punishes the sinners he loves for eternity with fire and torture.

Quite the way to show your love that.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

 

 

"Seriously, where can I find "God's laws" if not in the bible?

 

Well. If you are a Bible believer, then you should kow that it tells you that God's laws are written on, or is it in, your heart."

I'm not.

Does that mean that , for me, those laws don't exist?

 

 

This says that they are but I do not attribute them to a God. They seem to be hard wired into our DNA.

 

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100511/study-infants-morality-100511/20100511/?hub=EdmontonHome

 

Regards

DL

 

 

[Brainteaserfan]

"Yes I have and know that God himself broke a few of his big ten and that Jesus/God also said to love the sinner and hate the sin but you will know that God does not punish sin but for sure punishes the sinners he loves for eternity with fire and torture.

Quite the way to show your love that.

 

Regards

DL"

 

 

It makes Him sad to punish those who do not repent and accept His ultimate sacrifice, but to be a perfect and just God, he must.

Deuteronomy 32:4 KJV

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.

[Greatest I am]

"Yes I have and know that God himself broke a few of his big ten and that Jesus/God also said to love the sinner and hate the sin but you will know that God does not punish sin but for sure punishes the sinners he loves for eternity with fire and torture.

Quite the way to show your love that.

 

Regards

DL"

 

 

It makes Him sad to punish those who do not repent and accept His ultimate sacrifice, but to be a perfect and just God, he must.

Deuteronomy 32:4 KJV

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.

 

 

Punishment is given to change attitudes and actions.

 

God’s punishment ignores any change of attitude as it is eternal torture.

 

Torture without purpose is what God offers and just done for the sake of cruelty.

 

Parents make sacrifices for their children all the time. We do not torture our children if and when they do not accept them.

 

Your God is a piss poor example of parenting love.

 

And your attitude that we should try to profit from the murder or suicide of an innocent man is immoral to the max.

 

You follow your immoral genocidal God quite well.

 

 

You have taken on his evil inclinations.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[Brainteaserfan]

Punishment is given to change attitudes and actions.

 

God's punishment ignores any change of attitude as it is eternal torture.

 

Torture without purpose is what God offers and just done for the sake of cruelty.

 

Parents make sacrifices for their children all the time. We do not torture our children if and when they do not accept them.

 

Your God is a piss poor example of parenting love.

 

And your attitude that we should try to profit from the murder or suicide of an innocent man is immoral to the max.

 

You follow your immoral genocidal God quite well.

 

 

You have taken on his evil inclinations.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

 

I disagree with your first premise. I believe that punishment is earned through an offense or fault. http://dictionary.re...owse/punishment

 

He is not torturing us for not accepting Him. He is torturing us for our sins, which He will forgive if we accept Jesus, because He died in our place.

Edited June 6, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[Greatest I am]

I disagree with your first premise. I believe that punishment is earned through an offense or fault. http://dictionary.re...owse/punishment

 

He is not torturing us for not accepting Him. He is torturing us for our sins, which He will forgive if we accept Jesus, because He died in our place.

 

 

I agree. Punishment is earned by offense.

That does not take a way from the fact that we punish to change the attitude of the perpetrator so that he will not do that offense again.

 

 

 

If I think it immoral to take advantage of the murder or suicide of an innocent man, why should I be condemned for choosing the moral high ground and following Jesus' own words?

 

Matthew 10:38

And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

 

I will carry my cross and responsibilities thanks.

You go ahead and take the immoral path if you so choose.

 

Regards

DL

[Brainteaserfan]

I agree. Punishment is earned by offense.

That does not take a way from the fact that we punish to change the attitude of the perpetrator so that he will not do that offense again.

 

 

 

If I think it immoral to take advantage of the murder or suicide of an innocent man, why should I be condemned for choosing the moral high ground and following Jesus' own words?

 

Matthew 10:38

And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

 

I will carry my cross and responsibilities thanks.

You go ahead and take the immoral path if you so choose.

 

Regards

DL

You either have to accept his gift (or murder if you want to look at it that way), or face eternal torture if you have ever sinned, which all have. You cannot just deal with it yourself. http://www.loriswebs.com/lorispoetry/grace.html

[njaohnt]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

Regards

 

DL

Look in, I believe that chapter, if not the one before.

[Phi for All]

Look in, I believe that chapter, if not the one before.

This sentence makes little sense, but it sounds like there's a chapter of the Bible you don't believe in. Please tell us why.

[kisai]

Jesus is basically saying to follow the laws of man (give to Caesar what is Caesar's) while maintaining what God expects of us (give to God what is God's).

 

 

No, he's not. You missed the point of the story because you're not taking it into historical context or with the context of the parable.

 

 

 

Why does the coin have the image of Caesar on it?

Edited March 8, 2012 by kisai

[A Tripolation]

No, he's not. You missed the point of the story because you're not taking it into historical context or with the context of the parable.

 

 

 

Why does the coin have the image of Caesar on it?

 

You apparently can't read.

 

Because Caesar had it minted that way.

[imatfaal]

No, he's not. You missed the point of the story because you're not taking it into historical context or with the context of the parable.

 

Why does the coin have the image of Caesar on it?

 

You're going to have to enlighten us - my reading of the passage is pretty much the same as trips, which is the traditional exegesis.

 

http://bible.cc/matthew/22-21.htm (scroll down and there are several parallel commentaries.

 

If you are referring to the neat dodging of a false dichotomy trap (heads I win, tails you lose) - this is widely acknowledged, but the story has much greater resonance than merely a clever answer to confound those who were trying to trick Jesus