I did not make a big deal out of it; I simply honestly admitted I did not know what you were referring to. I guess all you can possibly engage in is senseless criticism of my person, lacking the wherewithal to engage in toughminded dialectic regarding the challenge I have issued to American jurisprudence. The impression(s) you take from my interactions transpire in a region which is entirely out of my control, i.e., within your interiority. It is indifferent to me what you are capable of thinking regarding my person; I am interested in what you think of the original critique of law which I have written...
LAW IS NEITHER OBEYED DISOBEYED NOR BROKEN / AN EXISTENTIAL ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF OF LAW
- Thread starter Duane Clinton Meehan
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Another way of saying it scriptural is "in the last days evil will wax worse and worse and evil will be called good and good evil" and that the world will become a lawless people.
Mike Waters
Well-Known Member
30 days hath Octember, April, Moon, and Nowonder, all the rest have cheese for dinner, except Grandma who rides a bike.
Helen
Well-Known Member
- Oct 22, 2011
- 15,476
- 21,157
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- Canada
30 days hath Octember, April, Moon, and Nowonder, all the rest have cheese for dinner, except Grandma who rides a bike.
Thats about right!! If he's looking for intellectuals , I think he has come to the wrong Site. NOT that I can speak for everyone here lol
Heart2Soul;
I posted on this particular Christian site because I have some past familiarity with the site, and, since I am essentially proposing an alternate approach to civilization, other than civilization-via-law. Christians purport to be living an alternate non-law approach to human sociospheric being, hence I submitted my critique of law here, for perusal by that set of persons who claim to have transcended law in their own particular way, i.e., via Christ's invocation to love...
I am tendent to imagine some ilk of return to an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth, natural man, approach to coping with and adapting to human misconduct...What do you, Heart2Soul, think regarding the eye for an eye tooth for a tooth model of human interpersonal conduct?
Duane
Now imbecilic flippancy upsurges uselessly poking silly nonsensical and radically rude fun.30 days hath Octember, April, Moon, and Nowonder, all the rest have cheese for dinner, except Grandma who rides a bike.
In my younger days I had a lot of anger due to alot of abuse and I had that attitude that "don't start no bull and there won't be any bull " in other words I was a peaceful person and hated confrontation but if someone started an attack against me whether physical or by mouth then finished it.
All that is in the past, Praise God. He has healed me of all my internal conflicts and unresolved hurts and how I feel now is opposite of the past me.
I don't have any desire to do eye for an eye or life for a life or tooth for a tooth...I have been tempted to though...many times...but I just pray for them instead.
Your proposal of a civilization without laws could never exist in a gluttonous, greedy, and envious world like we have today...without laws to govern how we live then it would be a very dangerous place and survival of the fittest may not apply....it would be survival of the most ruthless.
If everyone walked in love, we would never need any laws, but when mankind through out God, He too through out love, and now we have the results.
What I am doing is proposing the most radical possible scenario in order that some compromise might be attained wherein law is not as absolute, intrusive, and peon-generative; and, said mid-point between absolutism and total freedom would be characterized by everyone being reflectively free, instead of merely pre-reflectively free as we are at this time.
I do not think law is in fact an efficacy for influencing human behavior. Clearly you do think it both works and is necessary. I think we need to attempt to live a compromise situation wherein I have more freedom than I do now, without so much law; and, if in an eye for an eye situation, all persons could protect themselves, all the ill conducted persons would be eliminated via the natural consequence of their misconduct...
Language of law is not in fact determinative of human behavior, we just mistakenly think it is, though, from your viewpoint, that mistaken belief in law as a determinative force among persons is a good thing which you think is preserving us from total horrible chaos...I think in an eye for an eye world the ruthless predators would be eliminated at a young age and the rest of the people would be left to live in peace...
Thomas Paine, the American patriot, wrote in his "Common Sense" that immediately after the American revolution, when there was no law, all was peaceful, because commerce had to function normally so that people might live.
Last edited:
I can think of a lot of things you probably are, but that isn't one of them. LOL
I most certainly am super/superior as per IQ testing, wherein I was determined to have a variable intelligence quotient in the superior range, meaning that somedays I am dumber, some smarter! Funny huh?
No, now why do you insist on constantly attempting to deprecate my person, while, all the while, I am perfection!?
It is not me but rather my reasoned position you ought to attempt to critique, but, you are unable to because there is nothing lacking therein...
Mike Waters
Well-Known Member
Just me testing to see if the other extreme of intelligence might evoke a 'happy medium'.....but seems there are no spiritualists around
Mike Waters
Well-Known Member
I too am "perfection"....with the exception of just one fault .....I can never tell the truth.
This truth thing can seldom be indubitably established for we invariably err. You might not be being untruthful, merely always mistaken...
Even the Atheists share our view of this blathering. (read the comments posted about this "nightmare wall of text"
Ontological Disproof of God
Ontological Disproof of God
Your profile indicates you are of other faith..which isn't the point...what I am getting at is you took what part of scripture you wanted to justify your point of view but you left some of it out that negates your view....that teaching of eye for an eye, etc...was in the OT....Jesus says to do the opposite on The Sermon on the Mount teaching.....
What does the Bible mean by "an eye for an eye"? | GotQuestions.org
The concept of “an eye for eye,” sometimes called jus talionis or lex talionis, is part of the Mosaic Law used in the Israelites’ justice system. The principle is that the punishment must fit the crime and there should be a just penalty for evil actions: “If there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exodus 21:23–25). Justice should be equitable; excessive harshness and excessive leniency should be avoided.
Besides Exodus 21, the law of “an eye for an eye” is mentioned twice in the Old Testament (Leviticus 24:20; Deuteronomy 19:21). Each time, the phrase is used in the context of a case being judged before a civil authority such as a judge. “An eye for an eye” was thus intended to be a guiding principle for lawgivers and judges; it was never to be used to justify vigilantism or settling grievances personally.
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus counters the common teaching of personal retaliation: “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you . . .” (Matthew 5:38–39). Jesus then proceeds to reveal God’s heart concerning interpersonal relationships: “Do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you” (Matthew 5:39–42).
So regardless of what your faith is if you are justifying a lawless society based on what was taught in scripture then you have deceived yourself.
Last edited:
I am not attempting to justify a lawless society via the fact that scripture posits the eye for an eye mode of human conduct; I am indeed advocating the employment of the ancient notion of reciprocity within misconduct, at the interpersonal level, for the sake of upholding personal freedom of self-defense absent interference from an ontologically unintelligible system of law. Law mediated by judges is the purest ilk of criminal misconduct, whereby we continually dupe ourselves into mistakenly deeming law to be determinative of conduct; and, what is achieved thereby is primarily an eating-out of the substance of the populace by those who practice law for pecuniary gain. Law/Justice is an ugly scam; it is the utmost criminal action, predicated upon a totally mistaken notion of the origin of a human act.
My theoretical constructions upsurge out of my absolute ontological freedom and require no excuse or justification, they only require intelligibility.
Fantastic perfect discussion of the eye for an eye construct Heart; I learned a tremendous lesson from it; just the tune-up I needed. Thanks a million for your scholarship.
Duane
Last edited:
LOL....I am no scholar! As to your comment about those who practice law for determinative conduct...well it's kind of like which came first the chicken or the egg concept....was laws put in place because of the conduct of society or to guide the conduct of society into a certain frame of expected behavior....well this is a good point...I was reading through some old state laws in Oklahoma....one of them was so ridiculous I had to laugh....in the earlier days of statehood they created a law that made it illegal to spit on sidewalks...now I had to picture in my mind why this law had to be established and the only thing I can think of is that someone spit on the sidewalk in front of someone else who became highly offended...(probably stepped in it) ...and who was a prominent citizen that rubbed elbows with politicians.
Similar threads
