"Relativism in law" (the loss of an absolute)

[FWI]

Professor Thomas Frank of NYU states that: Law has become undisguised as a pragmatic human process. It is made by men, and it lays no claim to divine origin or eternal validity. This leads Professor Frank to the view that: a judge in a court reaching a decision is not propounding a truth, but is rather experimenting in the solution of a problem. If his decision is reversed by a higher court, or if it is subsequently overruled, that doesn't mean it was wrong, only that it was, or became in the course of time, unsatisfactory.

Frank, also states that: Law is now characterized by existential relativism. Indeed, it is now generally recognized that no judicial decision is ever final, that the law follows the event, is not eternal or certain, is made by man and is not divine or true.

Professor Harold J. Berman of Harvard states: If law is merely an experiment, and if judicial decisions are merely hunches, why should individuals or groups of people observe those legal rules or commands if they do not conform to their own interests? It seems that he’s right.
(Excerpts from the book: "The Interactions of Law and Religion" by Harold J. Berman)

So, which side of the fence are you on...

[Divine Insight]

So, which side of the fence are you on...

Human laws can be nothing other than man-made. Where else would they come from? I certainly hope that these professors aren't suggesting that we should follow the laws of the Bible? That would be horrible!

If law is merely an experiment, and if judicial decisions are merely hunches, why should individuals or groups of people observe those legal rules or commands if they do not conform to their own interests?

Not being arrested, fined, and/or incarcerated by the society we live in should be sufficient motivation.

In fact, millions of people break the laws everyday and simply don't get caught. Some of them break the laws openly and make legal arguments for why they feel they should be exempt from the law (see the financial behavior of the current president of the USA as an example)

Moreover, laws have absolutely nothing at all to do with morality. Or at least they shouldn't.

For example, I just paid my property taxes for the year. It was quite a large sum of money (for me). Did I pay those taxes because it's the "moral" thing to do? Absolutely not. In fact, I personally feel that property taxes are themselves an immoral tax. I pay them because if I don't pay them the government will kick me off my property and auction it off to the highest bidder. That's why I pay them.

Laws have absolutely nothing to do with morality. And they shouldn't. Laws should be based entirely on protecting the citizens of the state. Including protecting them from each other, as well as protecting them from capitalistic commerce that might otherwise take advantage of them.

So yes, laws are a human experiment. And they do need to change over time to keep up with humanity as we evolve to higher and higher levels of intelligence and compassion.

Think about it, laws that had existed in the past were often time quite horrific. A person could be burned alive at a stake just because someone accused them of being a witch! I certainly wouldn't want that on the books today. Plus that specific law was inspired by religious beliefs in the Bible.

So if we can't get sane laws from the Bible from whence are we supposed to obtain them if not making them up on our own?

[FWI]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Moreover, laws have absolutely nothing at all to do with morality. Or at least they shouldn't.

For example, I just paid my property taxes for the year. It was quite a large sum of money (for me). Did I pay those taxes because it's the "moral" thing to do? Absolutely not. In fact, I personally feel that property taxes are themselves an immoral tax. I pay them because if I don't pay them the government will kick me off my property and auction it off to the highest bidder. That's why I pay them.

Morality is simply being in accord with standards of good or right conduct. Paying taxes is just that: good and right conduct, as outlined by the authority, which has jurisdiction over the area you live in. Since, you seem to reject this moral authority as being immoral, then why do believe that man should be able to make up their own rules?

You stated: So yes, laws are a human experiment. And they do need to change over time to keep up with humanity as we evolve to higher and higher levels of intelligence and compassion.

How would this be possible (higher levels of intelligence and compassion) if we didn’t pay real estate taxes? The bulk of our public educational system’s expenses is paid through these taxes. As well as, other local services.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Moreover, laws have absolutely nothing at all to do with morality. Or at least they shouldn't.

For example, I just paid my property taxes for the year. It was quite a large sum of money (for me). Did I pay those taxes because it's the "moral" thing to do? Absolutely not. In fact, I personally feel that property taxes are themselves an immoral tax. I pay them because if I don't pay them the government will kick me off my property and auction it off to the highest bidder. That's why I pay them.

Morality is simply being in accord with standards of good or right conduct. Paying taxes is just that: good and right conduct, as outlined by the authority, which has jurisdiction over the area you live in. Since, you seem to reject this moral authority as being immoral, then why do believe that man should be able to make up their own rules?

You stated: So yes, laws are a human experiment. And they do need to change over time to keep up with humanity as we evolve to higher and higher levels of intelligence and compassion.

How would this be possible (higher levels of intelligence and compassion) if we didn’t pay real estate taxes? The bulk of our public educational system’s expenses is paid through these taxes. As well as, other local services.

So if we can't get sane laws from the Bible

The bible outlines a tax system of about 10% for all. This would mean that an individual who earned $50,000 would pay a total of $5000 in taxes. So, it would seem that: when it comes to taxes, the bible is the sane one and the world’s ways may not be as great as it seems!

[Divine Insight]

Morality is simply being in accord with standards of good or right conduct. Paying taxes is just that: good and right conduct, as outlined by the authority, which has jurisdiction over the area you live in. Since, you seem to reject this moral authority as being immoral, then why do believe that man should be able to make up their own rules?

Man does make up his own rules. If you are religious person what justification can you give for men to charge other men to live on God's green earth???

You stated: So yes, laws are a human experiment. And they do need to change over time to keep up with humanity as we evolve to higher and higher levels of intelligence and compassion.

How would this be possible (higher levels of intelligence and compassion) if we didn’t pay real estate taxes? The bulk of our public educational system’s expenses is paid through these taxes. As well as, other local services.

If humans had a sense of absolute morality they would volunteer to be teachers for free. And the entire community would pitch in to build the school.

Taxes are only necessary because people aren't willing to pitch in unless they are forced to.

So if we can't get sane laws from the Bible

The bible outlines a tax system of about 10% for all. This would mean that an individual who earned $50,000 would pay a total of $5000 in taxes. So, it would seem that: when it comes to taxes, the bible is the sane one and the world’s ways may not be as great as it seems!

The Bible was written by monarchical rulers. It's not the "Word" of any God.

And besides, you seem to be avoiding the fact that the Bible condones many immoral behaviors such as the keeping and even the beating of slaves.

The Bible even condones that if a man rapes a women he has to marry her. Could you imagine that being the law today? If a man wants to marry a specific woman all he needs to do is rape her and it's a done deal. Apparently she has no say in the matter.

The Bible is extremely immoral.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

[FWI]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

Man does make up his own rules. If you are religious person what justification can you give for men to charge other men to live on God's green earth???

Yes, you are correct, certain men do make-up the rules for others! However, man (as a whole) was offered a better way, which was rejected. So, no justification is needed, because that’s just the way it is, like it or not. This will not change until, God decides to send His Son to implement the Kingdom of God upon this planet.

The Bible was written by monarchical rulers. It's not the "Word" of any God. The Bible is extremely immoral.

These two statements are only opinions and hold no factual status. Therefore, they are not reliable.

And besides, you seem to be avoiding the fact that the Bible condones many immoral behaviors such as the keeping and even the beating of slaves.

There are several good reasons why God allowed the Israelites to have bondservants, which were “much more� humane than the other nations that existed then and do today. Yet, there is one telling law, which downplays an attempt of criticism! Exodus 21:16: “And he that stealeth a man and selleth him or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.� Additionally, in Exodus 21:20 it is stated that: “If a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that they die under his hand, he shall surely be punished (Holman-NKJV). It is also stated that: if a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye� (Holman-NKJV). “And, if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth� (Holman-NKJV). So, it seems that this immoral behavior that is suggested the bible condones, is actually inaccurate.

However, slavery has been a fact of human existence for almost as long as the human race has been in existence. Physical punishment to enforce compliance has been part of slavery for just as long. But, this seems to only apply to the Israelites, when the rules were broken.

The Bible even condones that if a man rapes a women he has to marry her. Could you imagine that being the law today? If a man wants to marry a specific woman all he needs to do is rape her and it's a done deal. Apparently she has no say in the matter.

No, it doesn’t. The bible states that: But, if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside and the man “forces� her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But, you shall do “nothing� to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death. (Deut. 22:25-26a-Holman-NKJV). So, if a man forcibly lies with a woman against her wishes (rape), the man is killed! It surely would be difficult to be required to marry a dead man! What this implies is that “rape� may have been less of a problem, than fornication was. Today, rape is common (under man’s laws) and there is no such penalty as death (in certain societies). Thus, God’s law shows much more concern for the rape of a woman, than man’s laws do!

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 4 by Divine Insight]

Man does make up his own rules. If you are religious person what justification can you give for men to charge other men to live on God's green earth???

Yes, you are correct, certain men do make-up the rules for others! However, man (as a whole) was offered a better way, which was rejected. So, no justification is needed, because that’s just the way it is, like it or not. This will not change until, God decides to send His Son to implement the Kingdom of God upon this planet.

What?

I'm sorry but you are talking nonsense. No God ever offered man a better way. There is no reason to think that the Bible contains truth, moreover, even the Bible doesn't offer a better way. Are you kidding me? The Bible has God commanding men to stone each other to death, often for petty offenses. We've certainly moved beyond that. At least some of us have.

The Bible was written by monarchical rulers. It's not the "Word" of any God. The Bible is extremely immoral.

These two statements are only opinions and hold no factual status. Therefore, they are not reliable.

And your opinion that the Bible has anything to do with any God is just your opinion, and therefore equally not reliable.

And besides, you seem to be avoiding the fact that the Bible condones many immoral behaviors such as the keeping and even the beating of slaves.

There are several good reasons why God allowed the Israelites to have bondservants, which were “much more� humane than the other nations that existed then and do today. Yet, there is one telling law, which downplays an attempt of criticism! Exodus 21:16: “And he that stealeth a man and selleth him or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.� Additionally, in Exodus 21:20 it is stated that: “If a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that they die under his hand, he shall surely be punished (Holman-NKJV). It is also stated that: if a man strikes the eye of his male or female servant and destroys it, he shall let him go free for the sake of his eye� (Holman-NKJV). “And, if he knocks out the tooth of his male or female servant, he shall let him go free for the sake of his tooth� (Holman-NKJV). So, it seems that this immoral behavior that is suggested the bible condones, is actually inaccurate.

Hogwash. Just because you personally condone these immoral principles doesn't make them moral.

All you are doing here is exhibiting to me your own opinions of what you think should constitute morality. Opinions that I totally disagree with.

However, slavery has been a fact of human existence for almost as long as the human race has been in existence. Physical punishment to enforce compliance has been part of slavery for just as long. But, this seems to only apply to the Israelites, when the rules were broken.

Murder, rape, and child molestation have been a fact of human existence as well. Is this then an argument that these things then must also constitute moral behavior?

Your arguments don't hold water.

The Bible even condones that if a man rapes a women he has to marry her. Could you imagine that being the law today? If a man wants to marry a specific woman all he needs to do is rape her and it's a done deal. Apparently she has no say in the matter.

No, it doesn’t. The bible states that: But, if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside and the man “forces� her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But, you shall do “nothing� to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death. (Deut. 22:25-26a-Holman-NKJV). So, if a man forcibly lies with a woman against her wishes (rape), the man is killed! It surely would be difficult to be required to marry a dead man! What this implies is that “rape� may have been less of a problem, than fornication was. Today, rape is common (under man’s laws) and there is no such penalty as death (in certain societies). Thus, God’s law shows much more concern for the rape of a woman, than man’s laws do!

You didn't read far enough:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

There you go. All a man needs to do is seize a woman and have sex with her and she will have to marry him.

Sorry, but the Bible does support that a man who violates a virgin must marry her.

And apparently the violated virgin has no say in the matter because the Bible is a totally patriarchal male-chauvinistic paradigm that doesn't even consider women to be anything more than property.

So your defense of the Bible fails.

[FWI]

[Replying to post 6 by Divine Insight]

It seems that there is a sense of desperation and anger in your recent post. I hope that you weren't offended, because I disproved your accusations related to the bible. Since, you implied that the bible condones this and condones that, you must logically show that this is true. But, you must use the bible “itself� to prove this, not opinions and/or innuendos. Yet, you didn’t do this. I supplied the bible verses that shows your statements to be unreliable, so what’s the problem? You really didn’t think I was just going to accept your position, when I know you are wrong. I showed no disrespect, just recorded facts related to some of God’s laws.

However, you did supply Deut. 22:28-29 as some sort of proof. But, you forgot to review Exodus 22:16-17, which are parallel verses of the related topic, which states that: the father of the virgin could refuse the marriage. There is also an example story in Genesis 34 that is related to your unusual claim: that a defiled women “must� marry their defiler. When, in fact, the consequences could be quite severe, when someone defiled an Israelite virgin.

Now, I have given you another clear example that disproves your claim. So, please give me a biblical example, where an Israelite virgin, who was defiled and then forced to marry the one who violated her…

If, you can't. A retraction is required.

[Divine Insight]

But, you must use the bible “itself� to prove this, not opinions and/or innuendos.

I already did that.

Now, I have given you another clear example that disproves your claim. So, please give me a biblical example, where an Israelite virgin, who was defiled and then forced to marry the one who violated her…

Sorry, but you haven't given me a clear example that disproves my claim. What you have pointed to was much earlier in the chapter and addresses a totally different situation entirely.

You pointed to the situation where a man had already given his daughter in marriage and it was claimed by her husband that she wasn't a virgin. Then the father proves that she really was a virgin prior to this marriage and the man is then chastised for having defiled the virgin woman and claiming that she wasn't a virgin.

So you haven't show my original claim to be false. I was pointing to verses much later in the chapter that addresses what happens when a man has sex with a virgin outside of marriage and without the permission of her father.

In fact, the part of the chapter you pointed to actually starts at verse 13:

[13] If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

What you have pointed to is a situation where the man had already taken the woman as his wife.

That's not the verses I was talking about.