God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-11-2012, 01:32 AM
God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(21-11-2012 06:51 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, Smurf.

I think that all punitive systems should be replaced, be they secular or religious. Like I said before, I don't care what it's replaced with so long as it's better. Restorative justice is great; however, it is not the only alternative. There's no magic wand here. Replacing punitive systems of law is a process, not an act; and a fucking complicated process at that.

In terms of operating alone, I want to say yes, but it's complicated. Ideally, all this business about law, crime, punishment and the rest goes the way of the dodo and we wind up with a system that is a true alternative, different in every way. But ideals and Darwinism don't mix. Maybe some of it survives. Who knows? Daniel Quinn once said something very important, "No paradigm is ever able to imagine the next one."

In terms of what is, restorative justice IS being used in a complimentary manner with criminal justice today in different forms and in different places. Again, for me, it's the Dutch story of Hans Brinker. If the dyke is leaking, plug the leak with your finger. But don't pretend like the problem is fixed because the problem isn't the leak, it's the fundamentally unsound dyke that needs to be replaced by something that actually works. Restorative justice used in concert with punitive justice plugs a leak. But it's no solution. Law needs to be replaced.

For me, the system of laws and punishment is rotten at the core. It's fundamentally flawed. It is terrible for people. It has its advantages, but in the final wash, we can do better. A LOT better.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

I think I understand. There is a particular technological trend I've been pondering that I think may contribute to this many years from now (if my predictions are anywhere near accurate).

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2012, 07:07 AM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Hey, Smurf.

Go oooooooooon Cool

Of what do you speak?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2012, 08:31 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Meh I can't believe I've read this entire thread.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 12:34 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(15-11-2012 10:07 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  I was at least hoping for examples, but instead you gave us empty assertions. So let me do what you should have.

God's law -- Slavery is fine, so long as you don't enslave fellow Jews.
Secular law -- Slavery is illegal.

God's law -- Women are killed if they aren't virgins on their wedding night. Guys can sleep with whomever they want before getting married, with no penalty. Gays must be killed. Rapists are killed if caught, and so are their victims if they don't make enough noise.
Secular law -- Sex that doesn't cause harm is perfectly legal, and it's nobody's business (right to privacy). If you have a potentially deadly STD, you must tell your partner. Rape is illegal, including sex with people who are too young to consent.

God's law -- No shellfish , pigs , or a variety of other animals (like sphinxes ???).
Secular law -- You have the freedom to eat whatever you want, short of cannibalism.

God's law -- No stealing or murder.
Secular law -- No stealing or murder.

God's law -- Kill all non-believers. (also here)
Secular law -- Freedom of religion.

The reason that we criticize God's law is because it's so easy to point at examples which are silly, cruel, or foolish. Secular morality protects people from getting hurt, and God's law protects the feelings of a non-existent entity. We can see the benefit of secular laws, but many of God's laws are pointless.
Thanks for this. Well put.
I just chose to let whatever laws came to the minds of others as there are many Gods.
Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 12:39 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(15-11-2012 10:58 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(15-11-2012 06:49 AM)Greatest I am Wrote:  
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.
I don't agree with this at all. First, I think some believers do push for governments to adopt God's laws. Here in the US, the debates over abortion, gay marriage, whether to keep "God" on money or in court houses, etc. are examples of that. However, by and large most believers do stay uninvolved in the push here. But that doesn't lead to the conclusion that they don't believe God's laws are moral. I think (at least in many countries) people accept that not everyone believes the same things and are willing to let it go at the government level. But even that isn't always true either. Look at Islam, for example where religion and government are completely integrated.

Yes but most Muslim countries have rejected Sharia law or do not practice all of it.
They still have thieves but we do not hear of them cutting off their hands nor do we hear of them killing those who leave Islam which I believe Sharia laws tells them to do.
Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 12:45 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(15-11-2012 11:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  People generally think that God's law of Old Testament is equal and just, that is, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. That is kind of sort of moral, for that time. The law of proportionality of crime and punishment can be found in all modern secular criminal law codes, that is moral.
But when my law teacher said that, eye for eye is from the Old Testament, I disagreed. I said it is from the Hamurrabi's code and that Old Testament is basically Sharia law. That there is no proportionality between OT "crime" and the punishment.

I did not have time to add more. But you get the idea. It's all death for non-crimes like picking sticks on sabbath or being gay and if you get lucky, there's just chopping limbs. But if you rape someone, just throw 30 pieces silver on top to the father and you've got yourself a new wife.
I know Sharia is in Islam and Islam comes from about 4th century from Muhammad, but Muslims just like Christians come from some semi-Jewish desert tribes that shared a lot of the culture, including the writings. Muhammad just did a worse job in reforming Judaism than Jesus, Muhammad saved his own skin but made a compromise of the tribal law of the desert. The power in Judea was broken by Romans. But Muhammad had only his own might to make right, he was a warlord and probably needed other patriarchs as allies and they had demands on what to put into Koran, I think. This is why today in Islam we have basically laws that were obsolete and primitive 4,000 years ago, compared to Hamurrabi's code (Babylonians I think). And this is the law that Christians consider morally superior?
No argument.
It is quite easy to find that all of the Abrahamic laws and words of wisdom came from older religions and governments. Sumer and Egypt are two good candidates.
Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 12:52 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(15-11-2012 10:55 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  
(15-11-2012 10:50 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  Just because one part of the bible can be used to refute another part doesn't mean that the first part can't be cited as part of "God's law"; it just means that the bible contradicts itself. This wouldn't happen if Christians would simply drop the Old Testament and stop pretending that it's relevant, but that's never going to happen.

Also, I've noted it before and I'll note again, in the book of Acts (which comes after Jesus came and went, and after he stated the above verse you cited), Peter has a dream where he is presented with "unclean" animals and refuses to eat them. A Christian may interpret that in the same way you're interpreting Matthew 15:11 -- it means that unclean animals are no longer unclean -- but Peter goes on to interpret the dream as not being about literal animals or about eating. Just the fact that Peter is still uncomfortable with eating these animals is a pretty clear sign that Jesus had not taught him to change his diet. Furthermore, there's no logical reason why Jesus' arrival or death would change the status of such a sin.
No, the point I was making was the fact that "God" has removed it from the law so presently, it is not on the table, but once was.

Your points are valid, but you are assuming I am the one interpreting the verse, when I am only repeating an argument used against me. This is not be challenging you, but giving insight as to why some Christians don't consider the shellfish( this one is mostly because of ignorance though), pigs, and other such animals are fair game to be eaten.




Psalm 89 ;34 My
covenant I will not break,
Nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips.





Hebrews 8; 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no
place would have been sought for a second.




Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 01:04 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(16-11-2012 12:51 PM)Matthew Laramore Wrote:  It is obliviously obvious that you are not well educated on the grounds of variable dogmas pertaining to what defines god, rather by terms or names or definition, regardless of whatever laws they pretend to implement to the untamed minds of their created forms to follow. If you justify anything that any of your own personal attained knowledge through experience shall define a law of god you have already failed, and furthermore what separates man's law from a god's law is a no-contest, especially in a case such as yours where the only thing representing what you call a law of god or a law of man is nothing but the labels themselves....law of god and law of man. So you've accomplished nothing more than a stalemate, and not even with any one of us but with yourself. It's hysterical I tell you, especially coming from the likes you, someone who propagates the Illuminati.
Mixing posts is never a good idea as they usually do not relate as your comment/lie just proves.
Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 01:28 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
(17-11-2012 06:32 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  I'd say the main difference between the two is that religion asserts a morality and forces it never to be questioned because god willed it.

Where as secular morality is allowed to be questioned, scrutinized, ripped apart and worked on.
Which, like science, is what gives it a way to improve or reach it's highest ideal.
Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-11-2012, 01:51 PM
RE: God’s law versus secular law. Which is moral?
Ghost
I can see some benefits for low grade crimes and minor offences.
I cannot see how they would work for capital crimes.
If I steal 120 million and blow it all away and have no way to ever repay it, give a scenario that would satisfy the victims of my crime so that I can have more of an idea of how that would work.
How do you restore the affluence of those I have put in the poor house?
Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: