The Perfect Law

[74x12]

James 1:25 talks about the perfect Law; which is singular.

If one follows the idea of compassion, thoughtfulness, loving kindness, law of reciprocity, or golden rule could there be anything greater as a moral standard?

The perfect Law of Liberty is without exception. The perfect Law is perfect because it is not written down; which is also why It is liberating because the perfect Law knows all things and judges everything individually. Which is the guidance of the holy Spirit.

 

[gnostic]

James 1:25 talks about the perfect Law; which is singular.

If one follows the idea of compassion, thoughtfulness, loving kindness, law of reciprocity, or golden rule could there be anything greater as a moral standard?

I am all for "compassionate" and "kindness".

But these are moral values, not legal matters.

Law is about putting in place some forms of acts, or preventive measures, to control the masses (population) from breaking those acts (eg prevent physical violence, to prevent stealing, breaching contracts, etc), and to punish those who would break those laws (eg fines, imprisonment, capital punishment, etc).

Sure, the line between morality and law can blur at time, but they are not the same things.

You cannot make moral values like "compassionate", "kindness", "respect" or "love" into law. They are personal codes and conduct.

Can you really legally punish one person for not being "compassion" or for not been "loving kindness" to another person?

To give you a very typical example. Let say there is a man and a woman, they are complete strangers. The man found the woman attractive, and want to date her, but she don't find him attractive, nor do she want to date him.

So must she date him? Can she not say no to him?

If she told him, "no", repeatedly, he should get the message that she is not interest in him, but if he persist, despite the repeated rejections, then that would be in venturing in "sexual harassment" territory, or even to spiral into sexual assault, if he get touchy.

Because according to verse in James that you have cited, if it is "law", then she must show him "loving kindness" to a stranger. If it is the law, she cannot legally reject his advances.

Where are logic in that?

Although I do find being compassion and kind are good, there are limits.

You cannot make into "law" or "rule" with such personal values, because it is impractical and illogical to force anyone to being kind, compassion, respect or loving to other people, and you cannot punish those who don't.

You can love a person, people or country, but you turn love into "law" and "rule". But people, as individuals should have the rights to love or not to love. You cannot force people to love, and you cannot punish those people who don't love.

 

[dfnj]

James 1:25 talks about the perfect Law; which is singular.

If one follows the idea of compassion, thoughtfulness, loving kindness, law of reciprocity, or golden rule could there be anything greater as a moral standard?

Come up with a faith based choice as to why we exist for God. I would choose whatever makes me happy (in a socially acceptable moral way) is why we exist for God. I believe we exist so our omnipotent God can experience the thrill of having limitations by sharing our experiences of joy and sorrow. And what makes us enthusiastic makes God enthusiastic. So the very best thing we can do to have reverence for God is by culturing our enthusiasm for participating in God's creation for ourselves and other people. And we are against God when we make other people suffer or lose enthusiasm. The idea of everyone consciously and purposely working together to cultivate enthusiasm for each other as a way of showing reverence for God would be an element of faith I would choose to value in order to promote a greater moral standard between people.

 

[robocop (actually)]

James 1:25 talks about the perfect Law; which is singular.

If one follows the idea of compassion, thoughtfulness, loving kindness, law of reciprocity, or golden rule could there be anything greater as a moral standard?

Of course there can be better. There can be reasons to do this and specific goals in order of importance, and the greater the reason and goals the better it is.

 

[Fool]

I am all for "compassionate" and "kindness".

But these are moral values, not legal matters.

Law is about putting in place some forms of acts, or preventive measures, to control the masses (population) from breaking those acts (eg prevent physical violence, to prevent stealing, breaching contracts, etc), and to punish those who would break those laws (eg fines, imprisonment, capital punishment, etc).

Sure, the line between morality and law can blur at time, but they are not the same things.

You cannot make moral values like "compassionate", "kindness", "respect" or "love" into law. They are personal codes and conduct.

Can you really legally punish one person for not being "compassion" or for not been "loving kindness" to another person?

To give you a very typical example. Let say there is a man and a woman, they are complete strangers. The man found the woman attractive, and want to date her, but she don't find him attractive, nor do she want to date him.

So must she date him? Can she not say no to him?

If she told him, "no", repeatedly, he should get the message that she is not interest in him, but if he persist, despite the repeated rejections, then that would be in venturing in "sexual harassment" territory, or even to spiral into sexual assault, if he get touchy.

Because according to verse in James that you have cited, if it is "law", then she must show him "loving kindness" to a stranger. If it is the law, she cannot legally reject his advances.

Where are logic in that?

Although I do find being compassion and kind are good, there are limits.

You cannot make into "law" or "rule" with such personal values, because it is impractical and illogical to force anyone to being kind, compassion, respect or loving to other people, and you cannot punish those who don't.

You can love a person, people or country, but you turn love into "law" and "rule". But people, as individuals should have the rights to love or not to love. You cannot force people to love, and you cannot punish those people who don't love.

i believe you're referring to ethics vs morals. unfortunately we can't regulate thoughts; which leads some to negative actions.

 

[74x12]

Because according to verse in James that you have cited, if it is "law", then she must show him "loving kindness" to a stranger. If it is the law, she cannot legally reject his advances.

If she told him, "no", repeatedly, he should get the message that she is not interest in him, but if he persist, despite the repeated rejections, then that would be in venturing in "sexual harassment" territory, or even to spiral into sexual assault, if he get touchy.

Well, I think maybe you're conflating true love with sexuality. True love is more sisterly/brotherly love. Love as in sexual love is something else to be enjoyed in marriage. Let me know if I'm wrong.

 

[gnostic]

Well, I think maybe you're conflating true love with sexuality. True love is more sisterly/brotherly love. Love as in sexual love is something else to be enjoyed in marriage. Let me know if I'm wrong.

I was actually talking about any type of “love”, but my example is just one instance, between a man and woman, could be potentially “sexual”.

But my reply is not just about one type of love, but about all kinds, whether to between man and woman, or to kins (to parents, to children, or to siblings), to fellowshipw to country, to leaders (eg to president or PM, monarch), to a specific religion or to deity or deities, etc.

But my real intentions in that example, is to show, where the “love” is not reciprocated between two parties. Can you really really make love into law, where both parties must reciprocate, or be punished if one doesn’t reciprocate.

It doesn’t have to be man and woman. You can substitute the parties in my example for something else.

For instance, you can change the character in my example, to a Christian and a Jew. A Christian can love Jesus. But a Jew don’t follow Christianity, so a Jew wouldn’t love Jesus. My question would change to:

Can you by law punish the Jew for not “loving” Jesus the way a Christian do?​

Do you get what I mean now?

Law is about stating a “rule” that whole groups of people are compel to follow, or risk some sorts of punishment, if such rules are broken or breaching the “law”.

Law is about enforcing the rule, and punishing anyone who break it. Do you get what I mean by “law”?

What I have been saying over and over again, that you cannot make “love”, or bond, or “compassion” or “kindness” into “law”.

You cannot punish a person for not showing showing compassion or kindness or love...especially if you are trying to turn these values into “law”.

Jesus tell you to “love thy neighbor”. This is a guideline, not a rule for being a “Christian”. You cannot force or compel a person to follow such a rule. Can you punish a person if he don’t?

Jesus also tell you “to turn the other cheek”. Can you really be punished for not?

I can turn the other cheek, if I am slapped. But there are limits of how many slaps I would take. I am not a masochist. But I don’t necessarily mean “slapping back”, but that is a possible option; no, I am talking about stopping the slapping, or just walking away.

But if a person do slap back, would a Christian be punished for not turning the other cheek? Can you excommunicate or arrest a Christian if he doesn’t follow Jesus’ teaching of not turning the other cheek?

 

[SinSaber]

But it doesn’t say “follow this law and you can forget everything else”

Most important doesn’t mean “only one of any importantance”

 

[David T]

I feel those are all admirable qualities; ones that I admire from christians i know and work with every day. I just wish the ones who spoke loudest would exhibit those traits as well, but that seems to be a completely different story, in my experience...

Hell, just the other day I had some random guy at the ferry terminal (with a very confederate headband, heh) trying to proselytize at me, and when I tried to get away from him and told him I wasn't interested, he still was talking at me and followed me a ways. Not the first time this month.

I always look at it and imagine if they werent in religion!!!! It can be assumed by some that religion made them that way. Oh no very very much the opposite is true.

 

[David T]

But it doesn’t say “follow this law and you can forget everything else”

Most important doesn’t mean “only one of any importantance”

Law.... Interesting word..... Why are there so many lawyers involved? We also have "law of physics? Again lawyers involved. My daughter can't follow any "law" and most certainly "laws of physics" is a extremely confused understanding of physics itself.

So we have one statement by some in science "laws of physics" which does not literally exist and then laws in religion which are impossible for my daughter to follow. I find the whole law thingie to really only to exist in the cranium for a rather select group of people, or intellect in science a d in religion. . Which is odd it seems the text might be broader than that for some reason on religion and of course the law of physics thingie is clearly factually nonsense. We have just physics, there is nothing governing the behavior it's behavior is physics itself.

 

[Islam Al Mahdi]

I feel those are all admirable qualities; ones that I admire from christians i know and work with every day. I just wish the ones who spoke loudest would exhibit those traits as well, but that seems to be a completely different story, in my experience...

Hell, just the other day I had some random guy at the ferry terminal (with a very confederate headband, heh) trying to proselytize at me, and when I tried to get away from him and told him I wasn't interested, he still was talking at me and followed me a ways. Not the first time this month.

 

[Islam Al Mahdi]

I always look at it and imagine if they werent in religion!!!! It can be assumed by some that religion made them that way. Oh no very very much the opposite is true.

It is all a matter of intent and religious practionism that enables a pious man to an avid preaching psychopath. i am a member of Islam and the muhajadin, the prophet taught [saw] that compassion is an intimate knowledge of self and others. That all men need religion as far as is practicable. anymore and one degrades self autonomy and good regulation. The dreiving of ones own importance by harrying another is an act of unreasonable aggression against ones civil liberty

 

[Fool]

I was actually talking about any type of “love”, but my example is just one instance, between a man and woman, could be potentially “sexual”.

But my reply is not just about one type of love, but about all kinds, whether to between man and woman, or to kins (to parents, to children, or to siblings), to fellowshipw to country, to leaders (eg to president or PM, monarch), to a specific religion or to deity or deities, etc.

But my real intentions in that example, is to show, where the “love” is not reciprocated between two parties. Can you really really make love into law, where both parties must reciprocate, or be punished if one doesn’t reciprocate.

It doesn’t have to be man and woman. You can substitute the parties in my example for something else.

For instance, you can change the character in my example, to a Christian and a Jew. A Christian can love Jesus. But a Jew don’t follow Christianity, so a Jew wouldn’t love Jesus. My question would change to:

Can you by law punish the Jew for not “loving” Jesus the way a Christian do?​

Do you get what I mean now?

Law is about stating a “rule” that whole groups of people are compel to follow, or risk some sorts of punishment, if such rules are broken or breaching the “law”.

Law is about enforcing the rule, and punishing anyone who break it. Do you get what I mean by “law”?

What I have been saying over and over again, that you cannot make “love”, or bond, or “compassion” or “kindness” into “law”.

You cannot punish a person for not showing showing compassion or kindness or love...especially if you are trying to turn these values into “law”.

Jesus tell you to “love thy neighbor”. This is a guideline, not a rule for being a “Christian”. You cannot force or compel a person to follow such a rule. Can you punish a person if he don’t?

Jesus also tell you “to turn the other cheek”. Can you really be punished for not?

I can turn the other cheek, if I am slapped. But there are limits of how many slaps I would take. I am not a masochist. But I don’t necessarily mean “slapping back”, but that is a possible option; no, I am talking about stopping the slapping, or just walking away.

But if a person do slap back, would a Christian be punished for not turning the other cheek? Can you excommunicate or arrest a Christian if he doesn’t follow Jesus’ teaching of not turning the other cheek?

love and sex are not the same thing.

love doesn't force, or coerce. we do not have control over another, we can not control another's thoughts but we can control another actions by caging them, by building prisons to contain their negative behavior. we cannot alter a person's spiritual nature for creation, or destruction, except by their own free will to do so. you cannot profit from what you cannot control. those who desire power over another for selfish gain must have physical, or mental control of their host.

a law isn't an external thing that must be seen as apart, or separate from self. for the law to be seen as realistic and attainable it must be something acceptable and possible within self.

in other words it's intrinsic and not something acquired from someone, or somewhere outside of self. it can be perfected by self, or personified in self. jesus was perfect in that way, able to judge. that is the perfect law. he was a law unto himself.

those within the Law are not like those without the Law but no one is above the Law.


Romans 2:14
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.

 

[Fool]

It is all a matter of intent and religious practionism that enables a pious man to an avid preaching psychopath. i am a member of Islam and the muhajadin, the prophet taught [saw] that compassion is an intimate knowledge of self and others. That all men need religion as far as is practicable. anymore and one degrades self autonomy and good regulation. The dreiving of ones own importance by harrying another is an act of unreasonable aggression against ones civil liberty

ahmi yat ahmi

my father's name and a prophet's name to claim

 

[David T]

It is all a matter of intent and religious practionism that enables a pious man to an avid preaching psychopath. i am a member of Islam and the muhajadin, the prophet taught [saw] that compassion is an intimate knowledge of self and others. That all men need religion as far as is practicable. anymore and one degrades self autonomy and good regulation. The dreiving of ones own importance by harrying another is an act of unreasonable aggression against ones civil liberty

That's very well put. All religions face the exact same danger today. While we are rock throwing at each other preoccupied with ourselves the population has grown from 2.9 to 7.5 billion unabated in my life time. That's insanity. That a world of the walking dead. Dead sky, dead earth, dead water, dead air, dead cosmos 99. 9999999999999% dead. With religions promoting reality beyond its dead understanding, and science totally agreeing its just dead stuff randomly self organising. Sorry all of it wrong. I might say the dead are coming and they ain't dead. Global nonsense that's all we have going today.