Question For Christians

[Apokalupsis]

Quote by: zynner ItsDarts, Civil laws are based on morality. The reason people have different views of what laws should be or not be is because of their different views of morality.

How are they based on morality? Are the sacrificial, ceremonial, military, etc... laws based on morality as well?

[zynner]

Quote by: ItsDarts So speeding on the freeway is a moral law?

The idea behind this law is that a speeder might lose control and kill innocent people. Killing innocent people is immoral. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the law; just pointing out that it is based on some people's views of morality.

Of course, the Germans attempt to solve this problem by building better roads and better cars, eliminating the need for speed limits (at least on some roads). So, there are alternatives available. One society chose one method and another society chose another.

Also, speeding laws are largely a government ruse to collect extra taxes, which is immoral, but that's another issue.

civil laws are in place to maintain civility, not morality.

What is your definition of "civility?" Isn't it about behavior? Isn't that also what morality is about?

What would an uncivil society look like in the worst case scenario? Everyone would rape, pillage and plunder each other until everybody killed each other off, right? Would that be a moral society? So, how can you separate the morality from the civil laws?

Also...

You made these statements:

Like I said, the act of raping is a sin, or immoral ... I'm not sure what the NT says about rape. I can only assume that the act is a sin. I don't know what the NT says about how to handle the rapist ... Do I have my own personal views on the act of rape? Yes, I think its immoral.

You have arrived at a conclusion that rape is immoral, but you do not know what the NT says about it and you dismiss whatever the OT says about it. Obviously, then, you cannot have arrived at your position on rape by way of the Bible. That's important to realize.

You said that that civil laws, (which DT23:12 is) are based on morality, then christians should be covering their poo in a hole outside of the city. This exact same logic can be applied to the law in your original post.

Yes, that could be done, but you obviously do not agree with that biblical passage. My question is: Why?

Obviously, there is some source of morality, other than your god or the Bible, that you really follow. That's my point and I'm wondering if you can identify what that is.

~ zynner

[zynner]

Quote by: Apokalupsis As shown in the post by putting the event into historical context, there is no disagreement. It's a faulty question, it doesn't apply to the event.

Excuse me, but the Bible does not say, "This is for today, but tomorrow you can do whatever you want." The Ten Commandments say adultery is a sin, but everybody screws around today. So, are you saying that it's now only Nine Commandments that count?

Times may change, but until the Christian god says otherwise, the Bible stands as the Christian version of morality.

So, I can ask you the same question as ItsDarts: Let's assume you are correct and that times have changed; by what moral basis can you claim your position *if* you are a Christian? If you are a Christian, then you get your morality from your god and the Bible. If you claim a moral position that is in direct contradiction to the Bible, even though you claim it is because times have change, on what moral basis do you claim your position?

That's my question.

Do you hold Jews in contempt of God's Law too?

Don't misdirect the question. I am asking *you* how you arrive at *your* moral position if it contradicts the Bible. Jews have the same issues.

And you ignored the fact that since you do not believe there is any particular designation for the Law, that this would mean that all people would be held to this standard, meaning that you as a non-believer would also be breaking this Law. Your moral code would not need to come from God in order for you to be breaking this law. Do you believe you are a law breaker in this instance?

True -- *if* I were a rapist, which I'm not. But if I were, then I would be subject to the same laws on the books that others would impose. And paying a chick's dad a few bucks and marrying her would be a lot less severe than 20 years in prison -- unless she was like Rosie O'Donnell or something (haha).

However, *I* am not the one claiming that this is a just punishment. Christians are when they claim the Bible represents true morality.

I am asking Christians what moral basis they can use to advocate any law that directly contradicts the commandments (or is it the "recommendations," now?) of the Bible and their god.

~ zynner

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: zynner The idea behind this law is that a speeder might lose control and kill innocent people. Killing innocent people is immoral. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the law; just pointing out that it is based on some people's views of morality.

So if I speed to get someone who is badly injured to the hospital, that is being immoral? Hardly. Infact it would be an act of morality in this case. While speed limits are for protection of our lives and the lives of others it isn't based on morality. Murder is immoral, but getting into accidents and killing someone isn't necessarily immoral unless done intentionally. Speed limits are not in place to prevent people from intentionally murdering people. Speed limits are a civil law. Here is the definition of civil law.... "The body of laws of a state or nation dealing with the rights of private citizens." This is what the law in your OP is dealing with. There is no morality based on that law, it is civil, dealing with the rights of the rapee, her father and the rapist. Your argument just crumbled.

Of course, the Germans attempt to solve this problem by building better roads and better cars, eliminating the need for speed limits (at least on some roads). So, there are alternatives available. One society chose one method and another society chose another.

You just refuted your own claim. "Society" chose in this case. Are the Germans guilty of breaking some moral law? No.

Also, speeding laws are largely a government ruse to collect extra taxes, which is immoral, but that's another issue.

agreed LOL.

What is your definition of "civility?" Isn't it about behavior? Isn't that also what morality is about?

Courteous behavior; politeness..... I can steal from someone with politness and be immoral and civil at the same time.

What would an uncivil society look like in the worst case scenario? Everyone would rape, pillage and plunder each other until everybody killed each other off, right? Would that be a moral society? So, how can you separate the morality from the civil laws?

Simple, while this immoral society is raping and pillaging, they would still have to bury their poo on the outskirts of the city, while not speeding on the way to do it.

You have arrived at a conclusion that rape is immoral, but you do not know what the NT says about it and you dismiss whatever the OT says about it. Obviously, then, you cannot have arrived at your position on rape by way of the Bible. That's important to realize.

Correct, I arrive at my moral standards based on a few things. I have a conscience, I know that I wouldn't want bad things to happen to me, so I don't do bad things to others. I enjoy being happy and I enjoy making others happy, I don't need a bible to tell me this. I also find that morality is a subject thing among the human race. What might be wrong for me, could be fine for another culture.

Yes, that could be done, but you obviously do not agree with that biblical passage. My question is: Why?

see above.

Obviously, there is some source of morality, other than your god or the Bible, that you really follow. That's my point and I'm wondering if you can identify what that is. ~ zynner

Firstly, it is not "my god", I'm an atheist and lack belief in god(s) so obviously I don't necessarily use the bible or a god to support my moral code. I would agree that the basics are based on the bible...I was raised in a predomenantly christian society, but I don't agree that the bible is necessarily the source. For instance, the golden rule is in the bible, but it doesn't originate from there. My conscience is a strong source of my morality. Morality is large in scope, many factors dictate what morality is.

My rebuttle to your OP is only based on christian apologetics. This is how a christian can rationalize their morality. I agree with this rationalization and find it logical, it doesn't mean I believe in this god or the bible as his word.

We often see different christian points of view on the same subject and we rarely see christians debating each other over the differences. We're both atheists and I think we should set an example and if we see fallacious arguments being presented from the atheist view point, it is wise to show each other the errors. This is my way of saying your argument to somehow discredit christianity or show the hypocracy of christianity, is weak at best. You don't have to agree with the christian rationalization, but I feel you are portraying christianity incorrectly.

[zynner]

Quote by: ItsDarts So if I speed to get someone who is badly injured to the hospital, that is being immoral?

Nope, and if a cop pulled you over, he would give you a police escort to the hospital. Still, laws regarding speed limits are ultimately based in morality because "civility" as you call it is based in morality.

When I say that, I mean that *some* people's *views* of morality is what the laws are based on. That is not to say their morality is correct, but it *is* the basis of all laws.

Here is the definition of civil law.... "The body of laws of a state or nation dealing with the rights of private citizens."

Yes, and "rights" are based on morality. Rights have to do with how one person interacts with another within the context of a society. Morality determines what are rights and what are not rights. Can you show that rights can exist without appealing to morality? No.

So, it's like this: morality --> rights --> laws.

This is what the law in your OP is dealing with. There is no morality based on that law, it is civil, dealing with the rights of the rapee, her father and the rapist. Your argument just crumbled.

No, you have to ask, "Where did the *idea* of that law come from?" The answer is: the Christian god (in the example given). The moral concept the person holds will determine what he wants the law to be.

It's not like *POOF* and the law just existed. Somebody had to *think* about what should be the law. And *that* thinking is all about morality.

You and I might point out that their morality, upon which the law is based, is *wrong* -- but that does not change the fact that it *is* based on their view of morality.

You just refuted your own claim. "Society" chose in this case. Are the Germans guilty of breaking some moral law? No.

"Society" is just a convenient concept we use to think of individuals. Only individuals exist in the real world; groups do not. Groups are just concepts, not physical entities that can take actions.

So, individuals make laws and those laws are based on the morality that those individuals accept. The "society" of individuals in one geographic location can have very different views of morality from the "society" of individuals in a different geographic location (Saudis, Chinese, Americans, etc.). That does not change the fact that the individuals in each location made laws that were based on *their* view of morality.

Courteous behavior; politeness..... I can steal from someone with politness and be immoral and civil at the same time.

You cannot steal and be civil at the same time. Putting a gun in my face and demanding that I hand over my money is an act of brutality, regardless of whether or not you have a smile on your face.

Simple, while this immoral society is raping and pillaging, they would still have to bury their poo on the outskirts of the city, while not speeding on the way to do it.

LOL. And if Muslim, they'd have to stop 5 times a day and pray to Mecca, too.

I arrive at my moral standards based on a few things. I have a conscience, I know that I wouldn't want bad things to happen to me, so I don't do bad things to others. I enjoy being happy and I enjoy making others happy, I don't need a bible to tell me this.

I was really aiming this discussion at theists who claim to follow the Bible. I was pointing out that Christians actually follow some other source of morality than they pretend to. Most Christians do not realize this fact.

I also find that morality is a subject thing among the human race. What might be wrong for me, could be fine for another culture.

I agree that many cultures differ as to their views of morality, and that's why their laws are different. I disagree, however, that they are all correct in their views, or that morality itself is subjective in any way. It's just that the entire world, for the most part, is deluded by religion and other corrupt ideas, so that they cannot see morality for what it is (they cannot see, even, that they do not actually practice the morality that they think they do).

For instance, the golden rule is in the bible, but it doesn't originate from there.

Agreed.

My conscience is a strong source of my morality.

Have you ever examined this? I agree that we tend to "know" morality at a gut level. We must be rigorous in examining morality, however, if we want to be consistent and know for sure that we are following the correct morality for humans. The gut, or conscience, may be a guide but it is not the source.

The source is reality itself. Just like a scientist might have a gut instinct that a particular theorum is true, he cannot know it for sure until it is developed and tested (in reality) and proven to be true (by reality). Then, he can rely on it *because* it is true in reality. The same is true of morality.

We often see different christian points of view on the same subject and we rarely see christians debating each other over the differences.

The differences they have are minor compared to the larger issues.

We're both atheists and I think we should set an example and if we see fallacious arguments being presented from the atheist view point, it is wise to show each other the errors. This is my way of saying your argument to somehow discredit christianity or show the hypocracy of christianity, is weak at best. You don't have to agree with the christian rationalization, but I feel you are portraying christianity incorrectly.

You seem to be seperating the laws of men from the moral views that those men accept as true. That is impossible.

Laws are based on morality. It may be true that a particular law is based on a wrong view of morality (most laws are), but that does not change the reality that Law X was based on Morality Z.

If those people had a different morality, those laws would be different, too.

You can look at the laws in Saudi Arabia about cutting off a thief's hands or about women wearing veils or no premarital sex. You can look at the Salem, Massachussetts laws against witchcraft, or the current drug laws, or alcohol prohibition or laws against rape. And you can identify a specific morality that each law is ultimately based upon.

Now ... if the morality a person actually practices in life is something other than what that person thinks they are practicing, then there is a serious conflict within.

Christian morality is something that is not even practiced by Christians in the real world. Just look at the laws they advocate or refuse to advocate despite their holy book telling them something to the contrary.

They are only superficially basing their morality on their religion. In reality, there is something *else* that tells them that the morality they have been taught cannot be 100% true. And that is what I was getting at: not just that it's hypocritical, but at a much deeper level that it is not even their own real morality.

~ zynner

[RickHodgin]

Quote by: zynner Here's my question to Christians: Based on your Bible, and since your morality is derived from your god, do you support a law that says that any rape victim and her rapist must get married and never get divorced? If you do not, then on what moral basis do you claim such a position? ~ zynner

The law was given unto man so we would know what sin is. The law was given also to demonstrate that no man can live up to all of the requirements of the law. When Jesus came, he did live up to all requirements of the law. He is the only flesh and blood man to ever do so. He is often referred to as "The Second Adam", meaning that God made Adam perfect, as he made Jesus perfect. Adam could not stand because he was man. Jesus could only stand because he was God.

To help a nonbeliever understand what it means to be a Christian and to have a redeeming savior like our Lord, Jesus Christ, consider this: Jesus Christ represents a grace offering by God to us (mankind) to relieve us from the law, and therefore our sin. We are all sinners, every one of us. The difference between non-believers and Christians is that we (Christians) have a hope, a purpose, a reason to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, teachings which, to the non-believer, seem outrightly foolish and counter-productive to a well-lived life here on Earth.

Our purpose, as Christians believing in Christ, is to live for the promise that his sacrifice makes available to all of us. We are able to stand in this world, throughout all of the struggles, trials, pitfalls and troubles which come our way, and to do so with true joy and inner peace, because we are not resting our confidence or our trust on things of this world. We are only looking to a single source, that of Jesus Christ and the free offering he has made available to anyone who will answer his call, of which he extends to each of us several times throughout our lives.

Jesus Christ is everything that we need. We do not need food, water, clothing or air. All of those things are unnecessary to the true believer, the one seeking after the teachings of Jesus Christ and desiring truly in their heart to live that life. To that person, who is at peace with everything and everyone, and is, therefore, able to stand against anything this world throws at them, a natural desire to share the gospel, to live, follow and obey the philosophy of the law (love), will automatically flow from within.

Jesus Christ is all we need.

It is my experience that those who question the teachings or meaning of the Bible have only glanced at it casually. The Bible says one should study the Bible to show themselves approved, but also that in everything one should gain an understanding. To casually sit back and post a single circumstantual question based on one passage from the Bible is as meaningless as anything could be.

The Bible is a philosophy, an instructor, an educator, a peacemaker, a hope, a promise and it's the most significant love story ever written. It is God's way of saving us from ourselves, and whereas the teachings within initially seem foolish to the nonbeliever, God is reaching out to them as they earnestly seek to understand His teachings. He meets us where we could not meet Him, and as He begins to give the non-believer an understanding, things which seemed foolish previouisly begin to seem real, and that which seemed real previously begins to seem foolish.

There is a way which seems right to a man, but the path thereof leads to destruction.

And the best news: Those who seek will find. That promise saves us from our sin and from the second death. Those who truly find shall never want again, and from within them will flow such peace, love and purposeful joy. The Bible refers to "rivers of living water" flowing, and that is what happens. All of those qualities, those of Jesus Christ, manifest and take over in ways not fathomable to the non-believer. There is nothing more beautiful than that. Not one thing.

[RickHodgin]

Quote by: zynner This passage in the Bible says something about what your god thinks about what should be the concequences of rape. You might agree or disagree. But it is in the Bible (not from some other source).

Nothing in the law has changed. Those who do not follow the commandments by God regarding their transgressions of the law will be judged by the law, including you (as you indicate "your god").

What Jesus Christ has offered mankind is a new covenant. The New Testament describes the offering by God of Himself through Jesus Christ. We are now under grace, not the law. Jesus has "extended a pardon," if you will, to all who call upon His name and do so truly. Those who believe in and accept the free offering of Jesus Christ are free from the law.

[quote=zynner;294945]If you do not agree that a rapist and his victim should ....[quote]

You are looking for a literal answer to your question. The fact remains that we (Christians) are now under grace. Each of us will have many different beliefs as to what should happen in a circumstance such as that, and for the true Christians who are truly under grace, our response will not be wrong.

The truth is that the answer to your question is what is written in the Bible, for it was handed down by God through Moses to all of mankind. As such, that which is spelled out is exactly what the law demands in that circumstance. For anyone to say otherwise is to be in violation of the law, plain and simple.

That is why the new covenant through the blood of Jesus Christ is a better covenant. It is more desirable because it frees us from such stringent adherence to that which we, while we are in the flesh, are completely opposed to doing at nearly every turn. Only through a close, personal relationship with Jesus Christ does the truth begin to manifest and the outward flowing of love, peace and joy become real.

ps: Yes, ItsDarts, I am an atheist, not a Christian -- I do not believe in superstition (and I think it is unhealthy to do so).

For what it's worth, I do not believe in superstition either. The Bible teaches that God is real and that He loves us, all of us. It is his depeest desire that none shall perish. For those who believe, we have a savior and a redeemer. We will be called back home to stay with our Father in Heaven. Our destiny is to be with Him for all eternity.

For those who choose not to believe in Him, He is so loving and gracious that, despite His personal desire and longingness to be with you for all eternity, He will honor your request, the one made through your lifestyle choices and your denial of Him while here in the flesh. He will let you choose your fate, and He will honor your decision.

He leaves that choice open to all of us and it is our free will that we are exercising while being here in the flesh.

The fact that you have come here, read the Bible, asked these questions and we have answered, will provide you with an avenue to seek the truth. If you choose not to believe, that is your choice and you will have no excuse when you stand before Him on the day of judgement. He will ask if you have had the opportunity to know Him and you will be compelled to answer yes. He will then examine your life and your choices to determine what decision you made. He will then show you to your eternal destination.

"Weeping and nashing of teeth" is how the Bible describes the fate for non-believers. As beautiful as this world is (nature, for example), and as awful as this world can be (cruelty, despair, etc.), the extremes of both as we see them today will be nothing compared to what awaits for us in eternity. Beauty beyond beauty for the believer, awfulness beyond awfulness for the non-believer.

I will pray for you, Zynner. You are making a decision right now which has eternal consequences. You owe it to yourself (and your family/friends) to seek the truth before reaching a conclusion.

I also used to be an athiest. God's grace upon me demonstrated to me, and now serves as a witness to others, that He can reach the most rigid non-believer, and He can do so with dispatch. If you want to know what I'm talking about, read the lyrics to the song "Amazing Grace" and know that it was an ex-slave trader, a most vial man, who wrote those words after being saved through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ and his grace.

[RickHodgin]

Quote by: Chava That verse in Deuteronomy is almost completely void within Judaism also. Judaism is a time adapting religion.We're not stringent.

That statement is incosistent with the teachings of the Bible. Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of the law (the smallest characters in the Hewbrew language) will disappear from the law. He said Heaven and Earth will disappear, but his words will never disappear.

The fact that Jewish believers today do not follow all of the laws speaks to this world "pulling the wool over their eyes" and deceiving them into believing they are safe from God's wrath in not doing such things.

The law has not changed, and God's mandate that we must all follow all of the law has not changed. Through Jesus Christ, however, we are freed from the law by accepting and obeying his teachings.

Many Christians need to wake up to the reality that they are not saved. Jesus Himself warned that in that final day many will come to him saying "Lord, Lord..." They call Him "Lord" because they believe they are following Him, but they are not. He will say to them "Depart from me, ye that work in iniquity" and "I tell you the truth, I never knew you".

Christians have a responsibility that most are not living up to. We, like the Jews, are being fooled into believing we are saved when we are not saved. There is a reality found within the teachings of the Bible which supercede any of our personal beliefs which might be to the contrary. The bottom line is that we (Christians) have a responsibility to uphold the teachings of Jesus Christ in every circumstance. We are to "walk the walk" as we "talk the talk" and do so from desires stemming from a true heart within. It is not enough to claim when others around that we believe, or to tithe or to do other things which many Christians today might claim or do outwardly. It is only that inward drive bubbling up through a close, personal relationship with Jesus Christ that drives us (Christians) to become the salt and light of the Earth, meaning that we set the tone (salt) and provide guidance (light).

We have a responsibility, one to another, to help our brothers and sisters come to know Jesus Christ, for there is no other name by which we can be saved. And once they have that knowledge of Him, it is our duty to then provide support and strength as we all become examples to the world.

This world does not know Jesus Christ. He came offering himself as an atoning sacrifice for all of our sin, and did so before a people that did not know Him. It is our responsibility (as Christians) to revel in that sacrifice and to stand up and demonstrate to the world that which He has told us to do. It is not enough for us to believe, though through HIs grace many who simply believe will be saved. He has placed a calling upon our lives, that we may reach others and share His word with them.

We must "walk the walk" *AND* talk the talk" because we are Christ's only ambassadors here on Earth. The world does not believe His word, until they study it honestly. The world disagrees with His teachings, as is evident in everything we see. And in a world wrought with sin, one being taught from all sides that there either is no God or that tolerance of a person's belief system is not only a better way but the correct way, we must take a stand and tell them that Jesus Christ is the only way. He is the only way to be saved and that His is the only name we need to call upon. He gave everything of Himself, and did so without reservation. He gave Himself to a world that does not acknowledge Him. And for those of us who have answered His call, our duty is clear and should be unquestioned. We have but one mission, that summed up in the last verse of Matthew.

Salt and light. Salt and light. We are called to be NOTHING in this world, except salt and light, so Jesus might reach, through us, those who do not know.

We need to answer the call.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: Zynner That is not to say their morality is correct, but it *is* the basis of all laws.

You are blatenly wrong. Morality is not the basis of all laws. Please explain how Parking Tickets relate to morality. Please explain how Tax laws relate to morality. Please explain how laws against marijuana use relate to morality. If all laws were based on morality, there would be no need for terms like civil law, common law, tax law, criminal law.

[zynner]

ItsDarts,

What are laws?

~ zynner

[zynner]

Quote by: foxmuldr You are looking for a literal answer to your question.

Yes, I am asking about what *you* advocate for rape laws. We live in the real world, not some fantasy world. We live in a society. We have laws. I am asking what *you* advocate should be the law.

If you think you are "under grace" because of Jesus and the NT, then fine. What does that *mean* when it comes to advocating laws?

Let's say you and I are in the legislature and someone has said we should have a law against rape. I have two questions for you:

(1) On what basis will you answer *if* there should be a law?
(2) On what basis will you answer *what* the law should be, if any?

I also used to be an athiest.

Interesting. Did you use an objective method of analysis to arrive at you conclusions? Did you study other religions, too?

~ zynner

[RickHodgin]

Quote by: zynner Yes, I am asking about what *you* advocate for rape laws. We live in the real world, not some fantasy world. We live in a society. We have laws. I am asking what *you* advocate should be the law. If you think you are "under grace" because of Jesus and the NT, then fine. What does that *mean* when it comes to advocating laws?

It means that I accept whatever this world throws at me because I am not living for this world. No matter what comes upon us, we must not lose sight of the fact that we (Christians) are witnesses of Jesus Christ. Jesus asked us not to repay and eye for an eye, but rather to love our neighbors as ourselves. If they do us harm, we are to love them in return.

In all honesty, that is what I would do.

Let's say you and I are in the legislature and someone has said we should have a law against rape. I have two questions for you: (1) On what basis will you answer *if* there should be a law? (2) On what basis will you answer *what* the law should be, if any? Interesting. Did you use an objective method of analysis to arrive at you conclusions? Did you study other religions, too? ~ zynner

I am a Christian, and whereas I have run for public office (and lost) I would not seek office again. My purpose is to spread the word about Jesus Christ, and that is what I will do.

To answer your questions: If you love everyone, even your enemies (i.e., those who would do you harm, or those who would rape you), there would be no need for a law. If they harm you, then it's upon their head. If they love you, then it's to their credit. If they are indifferent then it will be considered.

Love can defeat every evil which exists. Only love can defeat every evil which exists. And I would argue that all of the laws we (mankind) create are only means to distract us from the true purpose of our existence. We begin to set up measuring rods by which we must judge one another's behavior.

The truth is God already gave us the laws we need to obey, and even did so as they apply to daily life. It is we, ourselves, who have sought out more. It is we, ourselves, who have looked to change our lifestyle from that which God setup for us all those eons ago. It is us who has decided that God had it wrong and that we had a better way. We pushed and prodded and moved and did all sorts of things to replace the way God had for us with a new way.

As a result, today we live in a society with enough resources and knowledge to feed everybody, clothe everybody, make sure that no one goes uneducated. But as it is, we are in a world where we are taught that you need to look out for #1 and don't care about other people and live only for today.

In such a scared, petrified world the need for the kinds of laws you're talking about arise. In a world ruled by love, and by caring for others, and by setting yourself up to be a servant to others, everything will be provided for. And even then if it is not, then by holding still to the belief that Jesus Christ and His teachings are the truth, then we have already won.

Everything in this world will pass, including its man-made laws. The only thing that matters is having a close, personal relationship with Jesus Christ. From there, the reality of the lack of need for man's laws becomes clear.

Jesus said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's". He left it up to us to decide what is Caesar's and what is God's. As for me and my family, we are giving all to God and nothing to Caesar, except for the respect of living in the society that those around us dictate to us (and wrongly (on their behalf) also, I might add).

Were they to truly know the Lord, then man's laws would be seen for what they are, a distraction, a necessity only due to fear and ignorance. When Jesus Christ is known, the reality of what truly is becomes clearer and the purpose for which we are here in this world also becomes clearer. We begin to live not for ourselves, but for others. We place greater value on service than on having, and we place all of our faith, hopes, dreams and anything we espouse for in the world which will come after, the world where we will live with Jesus and see him face to face.

To answer your question truthfully, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. If you understand what that means (and you can gain that understanding by reading above what I have written), then you will know my answer. I would love and pray for that person who attacked (raped) me. I would not require of them anything in the flesh, but I would witness to them (probably directly also, but certainly through my actions) that there is a better way and there is a God ready to forgive all sins if we would only turn and believe.

I wish you well, Zynner. You are seeking. If you turn your focus toward knowing Jesus Christ, and therefore turn your focus toward the truth rather than these distractions, you will find Him and He you.

[underbear1]

Those laws were out dated 2000 years ago.........move on.
One of the most radical thing attributed to Jesus is, he had a woman be his first witness to his rising from the crypt. No contemporary Jew or Roman would have given a woman that type of position of honor.

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: zynner ItsDarts, What are laws? ~ zynner

You're avoiding my questions, if i need to define laws, to you then we are done talking... answer my last post or concede.

Apok and myself have both explained many times now how and why christians don't follow civil laws from the OT... They are not based on morality, they are rules to follow after the morality has been broken.

[zynner]

ItsDarts,

I'm not avoiding anything. I am asking you to define the word "laws."

In so doing, you would have to concede that they are rules of conduct within a society. You have already provided a definition of laws that has to do with rights.

So, what are rights? They are social constructs that have to do with behavior -- one person's behavior with regard to another, within the context of society.

Behavior itself is morality.

Like I said: morality --> rights --> laws.

You ask about civil laws vs. traffic laws vs. criminal laws, etc. Those are labels we put on them to distinguish one kind of law from another. So what?

There are also property rights and human rights and voting rights, etc. They are all rights.

Laws and rights are not free floating concepts that just *poof* come out of thin air. They are thougths that people have. They debate and fight over them. These belief systems are THEIR view of morality (not necessarily your or my view, but theirs). And then they apply what they believe to be true when they pass laws.

Do you think that the Saudi punishment for theft is different from the Idaho punishment for theft for NO REASON at all? Just because of "cultural differences?" What exactly?

Whatever you answer to that, you will find that those particualar people are basing their opinions on their view of morality.

"It's just not right to imprison someone without a trial." "Sure it is." What is the difference between two people who make these two statements? It is their view of morality. And their laws will follow their morality.

~ zynner

[ItsDarts]

Quote by: zynner ItsDarts, I'm not avoiding anything. I am asking you to define the word "laws." In so doing, you would have to concede that they are rules of conduct within a society. You have already provided a definition of laws that has to do with rights. So, what are rights? They are social constructs that have to do with behavior -- one person's behavior with regard to another, within the context of society. Behavior itself is morality. Like I said: morality --> rights --> laws. You ask about civil laws vs. traffic laws vs. criminal laws, etc. Those are labels we put on them to distinguish one kind of law from another. So what? There are also property rights and human rights and voting rights, etc. They are all rights. Laws and rights are not free floating concepts that just *poof* come out of thin air. They are thougths that people have. They debate and fight over them. These belief systems are THEIR view of morality (not necessarily your or my view, but theirs). And then they apply what they believe to be true when they pass laws. Do you think that the Saudi punishment for theft is different from the Idaho punishment for theft for NO REASON at all? Just because of "cultural differences?" What exactly? Whatever you answer to that, you will find that those particualar people are basing their opinions on their view of morality. "It's just not right to imprison someone without a trial." "Sure it is." What is the difference between two people who make these two statements? It is their view of morality. And their laws will follow their morality. ~ zynner

Morality is not the basis of all laws. Please explain how Parking Tickets relate to morality. Please explain how Tax laws relate to morality.

[Jack]

If you love everyone, even your enemies (i.e., those who would do you harm, or those who would rape you), there would be no need for a law.

The truth is God already gave us the laws we need to obey

The only thing that matters is having a close, personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

The ability to love is not restricted to those who believe in your god. So if "love conquers all", then your god wasted his time creating laws and your last statement is irrelevant and untrue. Love is not a product of religion.
BTW-I believe man gave himself those laws in the bible. Yet even pretending the gods gave them to us can't get people to follow them despite threats of eternal damnation.