Should human laws be modeled after God's law?

[McCulloch]

Isnt it correct that sin must be repented of, then society will accept us irregardless of our past. Instead, the gays are pushing it down the throat of society to ACCEPT SIN.

No. Gays and other human rights advocates, are pushing the idea that legal prohibitions and discrimination based solely on religion are not acceptable.

And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

The above verse tells me that God would not find your reasoning acceptable.

Since this sin has been made legal, what right does a court of law has to convict murderers, perjurers, false witnesses, ? It smacks of double standards.

The laws of your country (assuming the USA) were not made to uphold the religious idea of sin. The laws were established to protect rights and to facilitate a well ordered society. There is no double standard in the secular state not enforcing by law the religious precepts of a specific brand of theist.

Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

Which is it? Do the religious have the moral right to impose their standard of ethics on the rest of society by force of law? Do the non-religious have the right to ignore God's pronouncements and tolerate sin in society?

[Cathar1950]

Again, the solution does not lie in the government. It lies in the people genuinely trying to act as Christ would act. You never saw Jesus picketing the roman government, or setting up ballot initiatives to make Jewish law roman law. He just lived it, and encouraged others to do the same.

I remember reading Jesus caused a stir at the temple whip and all. Given the temple police I doubt he did it with out back up. We never saw Jesus doing anything.

A few of them must have found their way into our civil Laws ie; thou shalt not kill, not steal, not bear false witness.

McCulloch

These did not find their way into our civil laws. These are incorporated into the civil laws of all successful human societies (including the ancient Israelites) because without them human society just does not work.

Long before the unknown authors/redactors of the Torah produced their work (800-400 BCE) there was the "Code of Hammurabi " (1760 BCE) and the "Egyptian book of the dead" all having laws almost word for word, law for law. The Egyptians went befor the judge of the dead and ask questions the dead would respond "I have not killed", "I have not stolen" and " I have not lied". They are a product of our social relations in advanced societies with government and rulers.

[Beta]

I don't think I came over very clear when mentioning the 10 Commandments (also called the Law). They were given to Israel as an ' entire package ' not to be split.

Do correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that the Law (Torah) was defined is the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible, ascribed to Moses, who is known as "the Lawgiver" to distinguish them from the Prophets (Nevi'im) and the Writings (Ketuvim). If the Law is not to be split, then do you advocate that we follow:

But if this charge is true [that the woman was not a virgin when she married], that the girl was not found a virgin, then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

Now a man or a woman who is a medium or a spiritist shall surely be put to death. They shall be stoned with stones, their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

A few of them must have found their way into our civil Laws ie; thou shalt not kill, not steal, not bear false witness.

These did not find their way into our civil laws. These are incorporated into the civil laws of all successful human societies (including the ancient Israelites) because without them human society just does not work.

But we have split them and therefore reap the consequences. Even Christians don't take God serious enough, many believe the Commandments need not be kept and that fact shows in our crime-rates as well as social ills in our society.
Btw, we can not put God to the test , trying him out won't work. We either seriously accept his Law or we don't get the benefits. We are saved by faith , not by proven facts.

Would that be blind faith which is believing in something without any evidence whatsoever or just faith , believing in something without sufficient evidence?

You may consider it blind faith because humans can not believe what they can't see , but from God's point the right way becomes obvious. Heb.11v1. There is no point in being a christian if we can't trust God - Jesus did fully and we are expected to follow him.
I do not know where you stand in your christian walk but could it be we are on opposite sides ?(I just don't know you yet)

I don't know who calls Moses a Lawgiver. MY Bible says there is only one and it is God. Is.33v22 , Jas.4v12. The reason God gave his Laws through Moses was by request of the people and not by original intent Ex.20v18/19. In Ex.20v1 God set out personally to speak to the People listing the 10 Commandments which we see referred to in Jas.2v10/11 as the Law and in Rom.7v10-12 as holy, just and good. It may help not to refer to the Commandments as Law since that can confuse , and when I say split I mean we split the Commandments by disregarding the first four. Christians are well into worshipping idols and icons, misusing God's name, breaking the Sabbath.
I see you listed a lot of OT Laws coming through Moses that never made it into the NT as we are now in a new covenant. The 10 Commandments never were part of the abolished Laws but remain in a spiritual context. Now we can have the HS to help us keep them we no longer need what has been dealt with in Christ. It is pointless to bring them up as we take our example from the risen Christ and the Apostles.
So many scriptures refer to them in the NT we'd have to pull pages out of the Bible to disregard them 1Jh.2v4, 5v3, These Commandments are a code of conduct that would guarantee love and peace among those who call themselves Christian - if only they were serious.

[McCulloch]

You may consider it blind faith because humans can not believe what they can't see , but from God's point the right way becomes obvious. Heb.11v1. There is no point in being a Christian if we can't trust God - Jesus did fully and we are expected to follow him.
I do not know where you stand in your Christian walk but could it be we are on opposite sides ? (I just don't know you yet)

I have abandoned my Christian walk. I used to be a Christian. I am now an atheist and a humanist. I think that it is fair to say we are on opposite sides.

I don't know who calls Moses a Lawgiver.

It is common, I am told among Jewish scholars. He was their prophet, after all. I don't think that they mean that he formulated the law but that it was through Moses that God gave them their law. Similar to the way that Paul is sometimes called the apostle to the gentiles by the Christians.

MY Bible says there is only one and it is God. Is.33v22 , Jas.4v12. The reason God gave his Laws through Moses was by request of the people and not by original intent Ex.20v18/19. In Ex.20v1 God set out personally to speak to the People listing the 10 Commandments which we see referred to in Jas.2v10/11 as the Law and in Rom.7v10-12 as holy, just and good. It may help not to refer to the Commandments as Law since that can confuse , and when I say split I mean we split the Commandments by disregarding the first four. Christians are well into worshipping idols and icons, misusing God's name, breaking the Sabbath.
I see you listed a lot of OT Laws coming through Moses that never made it into the NT as we are now in a new covenant. The 10 Commandments never were part of the abolished Laws but remain in a spiritual context. Now we can have the HS to help us keep them we no longer need what has been dealt with in Christ. It is pointless to bring them up as we take our example from the risen Christ and the Apostles.
So many scriptures refer to them in the NT we'd have to pull pages out of the Bible to disregard them 1Jh.2v4, 5v3, These Commandments are a code of conduct that would guarantee love and peace among those who call themselves Christian - if only they were serious.

You have confused me. Do you think that Christians should obey as best they can, the entire law, only the ten commandments, or none of the old law and be guided by the Holy Spirit? Do you split the ten from the rest of the law as outlined in the Torah?

More to the point, do you believe that secular governments should enforce the first four commandments on non-believers?

[diggnate]

More to the point, do you believe that secular governments should enforce the first four commandments on non-believers?

Even as a Christian, I would aggressively stand against that. Although, I can't speak for Beta.

[Beta]

Should human Laws be modelled after God's Laws ?
I thought they were !!!
Did man have any Laws BEFORE the 10 Commandments given by God in Exodus 20 ?
It is obvious that some of our civil Laws were taken from them but in doing so man has violated the entire Law of God which is not to be split up.
Ever thought why our Laws are ineffective, why we are failing to deal with criminals ? Man is tampering with God's word and he has withdrawn his protection and power for our peace and safety.
God repeatedly admonished man to obey his voice if we want to reap the benefits set up for us. The consequences of human disobedience are seen worldwide.

You are kidding right? Yes, man had laws before the 10 commandments, or was every civilization that existed prior to Moses generation just hybrid animal acting on instinct?

You seek to explain mans laws as being ineffective because God has withdrawn his protection? And this is a loving and just God? Because politics separated church from state, all mankind will now suffer. You realize how irrational this sounds right?

I would guess it is more along the lines of this: If your God exists, he withdrew from mankind long ago after being so disgusted that generation after generation violated His laws and He could do nothing to stop it. He tried to flood the world and start over with Noah and his righteous family, and still, mankind defied Him. He sent His only son and still mankind defied Him. But if such is the case, then God has no factor in life any longer. This to is irrational. If God had no power to stop mans sinful nature, then he isn't all-powerful, if he thought that Noah and his family wouldn't continue the cycle of sin, then He isn't all knowing. If he withdrew from this world, then He is no longer able to judge man at all since He no longer acknowledges mans existence.

Sorry, way to many flaws in that one post for me to even consider your perspective as truth.

Man's Laws are not God's laws , that must become obvious when God selected the nation Israel to be his chosen people from all the nations of the earth. Had they been right God would have accepted them .Even Israel had to be given correct Laws, they had none of their own. But throughout scripture we see that natural-born people are unable to keep Laws as defined righteous by God Rom.8v7. Natural man has been infected/affected by wrong reasoning since Gen.3 . It is all a long story that can not be told in a few sentences and running off in personal scenarios is only adding confusion.
Of course God could have intervened any time he chose but he is creating man (we are not completed yet) according to the plan worked out since before our creation and God sticks to what he says.
Ex.20v9 says he gives man 6 days in which to do things in his own way and further scripts say that God is not bound to time as we are - one day can be as 1000 years and vice versa. However we know that the human experience runs along 2 ways giving us a choice which one to go and consequently in God's plan are clauses to make allowances for those who chose to go God's way rather than their own.
Mankind has been led to believe WE can decide what is good and what is bad, but originally it is something God decides and can best be understood that what God says is good - what man thinks is not to be relied on. The way out of this is to compare our words and deeds with what God says, THEN we will get it right.

I am quite prepared to communicate with non-christians but scripture tells us it can be useless because we look at things from opposite directions 1Cor.2v9-14. But if people are willing to include God's word by all means let us talk.

[Beta]

You may consider it blind faith because humans can not believe what they can't see , but from God's point the right way becomes obvious. Heb.11v1. There is no point in being a Christian if we can't trust God - Jesus did fully and we are expected to follow him.
I do not know where you stand in your Christian walk but could it be we are on opposite sides ? (I just don't know you yet)

I have abandoned my Christian walk. I used to be a Christian. I am now an atheist and a humanist. I think that it is fair to say we are on opposite sides.

I don't know who calls Moses a Lawgiver.

It is common, I am told among Jewish scholars. He was their prophet, after all. I don't think that they mean that he formulated the law but that it was through Moses that God gave them their law. Similar to the way that Paul is sometimes called the apostle to the gentiles by the Christians.

MY Bible says there is only one and it is God. Is.33v22 , Jas.4v12. The reason God gave his Laws through Moses was by request of the people and not by original intent Ex.20v18/19. In Ex.20v1 God set out personally to speak to the People listing the 10 Commandments which we see referred to in Jas.2v10/11 as the Law and in Rom.7v10-12 as holy, just and good. It may help not to refer to the Commandments as Law since that can confuse , and when I say split I mean we split the Commandments by disregarding the first four. Christians are well into worshipping idols and icons, misusing God's name, breaking the Sabbath.
I see you listed a lot of OT Laws coming through Moses that never made it into the NT as we are now in a new covenant. The 10 Commandments never were part of the abolished Laws but remain in a spiritual context. Now we can have the HS to help us keep them we no longer need what has been dealt with in Christ. It is pointless to bring them up as we take our example from the risen Christ and the Apostles.
So many scriptures refer to them in the NT we'd have to pull pages out of the Bible to disregard them 1Jh.2v4, 5v3, These Commandments are a code of conduct that would guarantee love and peace among those who call themselves Christian - if only they were serious.

You have confused me. Do you think that Christians should obey as best they can, the entire law, only the ten commandments, or none of the old law and be guided by the Holy Spirit? Do you split the ten from the rest of the law as outlined in the Torah?

More to the point, do you believe that secular governments should enforce the first four commandments on non-believers?

No , I do not think spiritual Laws (Commmandments) should be enforced by anybody - They are given by God and motivated freely by Love. 1Jh.5v3 , Jh.15v10 are just two scripts telling us that Love is what works with God and not power. Yet I think it is a Governments responsibility to set them before people as a Choice just as they do with traditional holidays christianity has acquired for themselves. These too are not biblical but never-the-less find support from Government. What this pictures is a corrupt church and state.
In the Bible we find Feasts and Days holy to God which Jesus, the Apostles and the early Church kept and observed , but no longer in established christianity. As soon as these are mentioned up goes the cry ' jewish jewish ' and in comes the sunday and ungodly holidays supposed to be for Christians. God's Holy Days incl.the Sabbath were never replaced or abolished - so since when has God got two chosen nations ? the Jews doing one thing and the Gentiles another ?
In Acts are many verses to show the Apostles debating with Jews AND Gentiles to follow the new way and new religion. A.18v4, 17v6, 13v26, to mention only a few, but all have to change and accept new teaching .
We know that most Jews have not accepted Jesus as the Son of God and from scripture is seen that Christianity established their own Jesus from the moment of resurrection not fully found in the Bible. Even as then so now ALL have to turn fully to the word of God to become accepted as his children.
Thanks for your explanation of where you stand in your belief. As you can gather I am not a traditional christian but a ' Bible-based ' one calling myself Judeo-Christian.

[McCulloch]

No , I do not think spiritual Laws (Commmandments) should be enforced by anybody

So your answer to the question for debate is, "No, human laws should not be modeled after God's law" ?

Thanks for your explanation of where you stand in your belief. As you can gather I am not a traditional christian but a ' Bible-based ' one calling myself Judeo-Christian.

It is strange how many different versions of Christianity all describe themselves as Bible-based.

[Beta]

No , I do not think spiritual Laws (Commmandments) should be enforced by anybody

So your answer to the question for debate is, "No, human laws should not be modeled after God's law" ?

Thanks for your explanation of where you stand in your belief. As you can gather I am not a traditional christian but a ' Bible-based ' one calling myself Judeo-Christian.

It is strange how many different versions of Christianity all describe themselves as Bible-based.

Your answer is not my answer McC. This world finds itself in quite a different situation to when God first gave the Com.to Israel. We should not for one moment think all the confusion accumulated since then can be sorted and settled in a sentence or two. In fact it is now insolvable , that is why we need the return of Christ.

I can not be responsible whether or not others obey scripture - I can only speak for myself. Everyone is required to give account of his own actions. It's not what a person says that counts but what he does.

[McCulloch]

No , I do not think spiritual Laws (Commmandments) should be enforced by anybody

So your answer to the question for debate is, "No, human laws should not be modeled after God's law" ?

Your answer is not my answer McC. This world finds itself in quite a different situation to when God first gave the Com.to Israel. We should not for one moment think all the confusion accumulated since then can be sorted and settled in a sentence or two. In fact it is now insolvable , that is why we need the return of Christ.

Human societies need to make and enforce laws in order to function.

The question for debate is whether those laws should be based on the religious principles outlined in the Christian Bible or whether societies' laws should be based on some other principles.

If you say that the laws (spiritual laws) in the Bible should not be enforced by anybody then you are saying that secular laws should not be based on the Bible, no?

If you say that human societies' laws should be based on the Bible, but not all of the biblical laws, then you must be able to outline some kind of principle to determine which biblical laws we can safely ignore and which ones should be enforced.

[diggnate]

Human societies need to make and enforce laws in order to function.

The question for debate is whether those laws should be based on the religious principles outlined in the Christian Bible or whether societies' laws should be based on some other principles.

I want to clarify my position (not speaking for beta):

I don't think a secular government should make laws based on nothing more than "this or that holy book says so", but that by no means that we should not have laws on our books that are analogous to a religious law. If the law is a good law (offers a decent secular benefit without restricting the citizens' basic freedoms) then it shouldn't matter whether or not it is a religious law.

I guess my main point is, we shouldn't even take into account what religious books say when drafting our laws. We should neither adopt them, nor forbid them based on whether or not they are in a holy book. The only criteria we should ever consider is whether or not it is beneficial to the society in an immediate, material way, and whether or not it violates essential liberties. THATS IT!

Sorry to interrupt