so what you're saying here is you can't follow through on the subject of the OP, correct?

God's Mind doesn't evolve, though there's something to the thought of eternity being used to His advantage or to accomplish creation. biblically He has been known to use His creation to accomplish. it would be difficult to understand eternity as in always was seeing we are here for a brief part of it.

na, actors work and use emotions at will all the time for money and fame, convincing the audience of their sincerity. not to mention a skilled con. how did Johnny Depp say it, he's a professional liar. women convince men they love them but they really hate them, its not a autopilot situation unless one lets it be.

granted one can love, but does one chose to love what they love? and therefore they would in their choice chose to hate what they hate in a love hate scenario. and then because of one's choice they can also be betrayed by what they love and then hate that.

but again in the case of law its agreed this is good that is bad and that which is against or acts against the agreement is hated. so what is hated is technically by choice of the law giver, or law makers. and even law makers, as in man's duty, that are entrusted with that precept can be corrupted.


everyone that can walk, walks, but where they walk is a decision.

well, societies have law, hence they agree, this is what ought to be and this is what shouldn't be. if its a dictatorship then the dictator is entrusted or a king is entrusted to discern what should or shouldn't be and is empowered to make it law of the land. lawmakers are empowered and that is a part of the agreement.

a household agrees and what is against that agreement, is evil to the household. simple. the agreement is the set of morals agreed to. same with the US constitution. its an agreement between a government and its people and what is against it is evil or at the least perceived as evil by its people and or its government that are in that agreement.

acts against the agreement by those within the agreement are hated by the offended in the agreement or at the least the acts are hated.

if you don't know what hate is you should look it up, or if you want to challenge what I might think it is, then maybe you should use the dictionary. OED works it goes back as far as it can find documented use of the English language.

na, you do it in the courts. simple. being manipulated by media isn't a stand, its stampeding for sound bites. media always fan's a fire to get public attention and to be able to manipulate power in government. media is propaganda, its supposed to be means for propaganda. but if you believe what they tell you, oh well.

for example: no body seems to notice that police procedure just might not necessarily be "Law". Maybe the law makers did write police procedure, but without really knowing I really doubt they did. so if a cop waists an innocent, and he followed police procedure, well his buttocks is covered, correct?

but there seems to be no challenge to that.

no, everything has its place. hate isn't evil, but hate in the incorrect place is. same as the old adage that guns don't kill, people do. there is a correct place and time for everything under the sun.

if you love torturing and raping the week and innocent, then what does that make love? love is love and hate is hate. the men are evil, not love and hate.


but in a free society what if expressing what you hate is against the law? like many think is should be. then if you hate the corruption of the government and express that, then they can put you away, can't they? because the public was convinced at one time or another that hate is evil because it doesn't make them feel good, and for their feelings gave up the right to that free speech.

to OP
Its not confusing at all, no interpretation needed. Some reality would be nice though. In the Israeli society or nation formed under the Torah such laws apply. In none Israeli societies it doesn’t apply. Other nations were not and are still not in a covenant with the Almighty, but Christians are. Meaning amongst Christians such activity is unacceptable and should be disregarded. But Christians do not live physically in God’s Kingdom from Heaven as of yet, so Christians don’t have right to impose their followings on none believers unless authorized by God which will happen but not until Jesus returns.
Now in a democratic society where Christians have a majority vote they do have the right to impose their views just as would any other majority even if their views are incorrect biblically. Or in the case of the Church of the Roman empire they where authorized to eliminate pagan religions within the empire. Or if an authority of a nation such as king, dictator and the like are authorized to make law so if they are Christian then the law may reflect Christian values. If such leaders where Buddhist or atheists or Muslims then the laws would reflect those beliefs.
The pick and choosers are just justifying to themselves and others what it is they want. Which certainly isn’t what God wants of them. In this world most Christians are to be proved. Jesus did say something to the effect that in the day light one doesn’t stumble but in the dark one must have the Light to see and walk according to the Light. And the world is in the dark in Christian context because Jesus Christ is the Light of the world, and few know Him, meaning the Light of the world.

retributive justice goes as far back as human nature has walks the earth, but its applications are according to who's judgements? in the case of biblical reference there is nothing to imply no one else could understand their creator's will. before Moses wrote it down according to the Lord his God's Judgements.

take the life that men experience, is it according to their own judgement, or God's?

biblically speaking not everything under the sun that was spoken to those whom God may have had a relationship with, was written. and there's no reason to think that God didn't lead men into certain concepts even without their awareness. and it doesn't change the view biblical that all is made but the Creator and Judge. hence where did man's abilities come from.

one may not need to be Christian to understand what you've said. but if something is as available as the bible is today, then context counts doesn't it?

also, the people He was speaking to at that time lived in the covenant ( +- the teachings the may have suffered) set by the hand of Moses, so they did understand where Jesus was coming from on that. and we who are not of the Israeli culture don't get it, unless we have the basics, and that info is available.

and again, didn't Christ finish the statement with:

KJV: Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

so really in context, its nothing new under the sun is it?

I mean I understand non-believes must go by their own judgement and they use whatever to construct the same, but if one intends to understand what the text is, then context counts. and its not always "good" that people use scripture though it may seem so, because many are deceived in their own interpretations and never find what the text is for. what good is a half truth if it leaves your soul for dead anyway. might as well know the whole of the truth and maybe live.

nope you have your interpretation and the bible the source of both eye for eye and what you call the golden rule state what they state


the source is the correct interpretation because its according to the source. if you are going to use what Jesus says then you must use all of what Jesus says. and according to the bible Jesus is the Word of God made flesh and it was the Word of God that spoke the law of eye for an eye to Moses, and it was also the same source, the Word of God, that spoke the golden rule, isn't it?

and according to the bible God doesn't change. so the golden rule is not without the eye for an eye rule. and the eye for an eye rule is not without the golden rule. or you miss understand the One who spoke it.
and actually the golden rule is how to live in a society that is an eye for an eye rule.

if you don't believe all of what the bible says, then why use it to justify your own judgement, unless you are out to deceive those who believe it but don't know it very well.

go by your own rules and be honest about it.


also forgiveness isn't an entitlement or its not forgiveness. so forgiveness isn't assumed only available if granted by the injured party the one who has the power to forgive. what is agreed.


if Jesus speaks a commandment like the "golden rule" its law, for those bond to it. if your not bond to it what does it matter to you? Jesus to the faithful is the everlasting covenant, also meaning agreement or contract. therefore all that He says is law to those in the Kingdom of God that He preached. also Jesus says He didn't come to eliminate the law (Torah) He came to fulfill it. so the law isn't null and void as many want to believe.

how did Apostle Paul say it:
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

No!
The question is, what should be done to you, seeing you agree that what you are doing to others should be done to you.
There is no agreement in this case that says you should be forgiven the agreement.
You don’t agree to treat as you would be treated by treating others as you would not be treated. The agreement is to treat as one would be treated. Therefore, one should be treated as one treats others. Once the act is committed you have fulfilled what it is you expected, as in how to be treated.
Forgiveness is not a given, not even under grace.

The golden rule huh?

If you agree that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you, then, you also agree that what you do unto others, should be done unto you.

Therefore, if you murder someone, then what should be done to you? You see the golden rule doesn’t negate eye for an eye, does it?

Jesus is showing how to coexist within the context of eye for an eye. in the Christian context the same that gave the law of eye for an eye to Moses, was telling them what is called the golden rule.

"If God exists, does God have a purpose for existing?"

existence or more accurately in this case the universe or creation exists to accommodate the presence of life therein.

"Nah. I cannot equate the two. Agreements can be immoral."


according to who's judgement? yours? morals, fulfilled or not, are measured by those who are in the agreement, or bound to the agreement. not by those outside of it. disagreeing to come into an agreement doesn't put you on moral high ground. it only leaves you outside the benefits of the agreement (if there are any).


"So, one person can simply do whatever s/he chooses to do to another and it would not be right nor wrong - so long as there is no agreement?"

correct, no one is bound to something they are not a part of, or in agreement with. but again one can be in agreement with, by virtue of standing within a sovereign's territory. therefore, bound to the laws thereof.

Americans are not bound to Russian law unless an American steps on sovereign soil that is Russia's. then by default the American agrees to the morals explained in the laws of that land.


I'm just repeating here so, have a nice day

na creativesoul morals are simply an agreement, rules are a product of agreements. to come into an agreement with someone with the full intention of not keeping one's part agreed to, is unethical simple as that.

everything else associated to that is usually a peaceful coexistence between persons, or entitlement for restoration or vengeance for offence of the agreement.

"Jesus Christ was a political figure with a radical message"

nope
Jesus isn't a political figure what so ever, even when the populous escorted Him on what is known as Palm Sunday to be King of Israel, He didn't take the throne in Israel as they expected. nor was He going to, at that time. Jesus held no position of worldly authority what so ever then. and He wasn't a revolutionary either. Not getting along with the corrupt isn't rebellion, its quite the opposite in this case. it was the corrupt that was rebellious.

"Moral codes are not always voluntarily agreed upon. In fact, one's first moral code is entirely adopted. That holds good for everyone regardless of individual particulars. "

I'd agree with Inter Alia in respect to:

"I'm not sure how constantly restating your belief is of much use on a philosophy forum, could you explain why you think morality is this? If it's just a premise you happen to believe in, that's fine, but trying to debate with people who do not accept your premise from a position which nonetheless presumes it's the case is a bit pointless."
____________________________________________
living is voluntary, so what. Submitting or adopting is also voluntary even if it’s to sustain living.

And if one enters some one’s household, by default one agrees to their rules by submission, no matter where one’s heart maybe, even if one is born into the household. And if one is in disagreement with the household but needs the household, one might try to come into a new agreement with the authority of the household.

Morals or “moral code” is simply what is agreed between two or more in any transaction, an agreement.
Could be a purchase could be a marriage could be a boarder, could be the use of the same property (public property), could be the ten commandments (which are called a covenant which is a agreement or contract) a certainly can be a contract or an agreement between a gov and its people. law is a part of if not the agreement.

Any party in said agreement must hold up his end of the bargain. Should any party fail to do so is in breach, or has offended, or has “sinned”, if you will, against the others in the same agreement.

If there is no agreement of any sort between two, then one can not sin against the other, or offend the other nor is morally obligated to each other. Like animals they are not morally obligated at all. Animals can eat each other their young and there is no revenge of any act. There is acts of defense but not revenge. Without an agreement there is no such thing as revenge or cause for revenge, and no cause for restoration or expectation of restoration, either.

"Does a bird know that it's beautiful?"

It seems that the male has a sense of what the female finds as beautiful attractive an attraction. It might be that nothing knows it’s beautiful unless it experiences something else desired by it is attracted to it.
Take the usual female teenager that doesn’t know or believe she is attractive until someone genuinely finds her attractive.
Isn’t beauty another word for attraction or attractive?
One isn’t attracted to what is perceived as ugly or abhorring. So, beauty is perception of the observer anyway. Some see gold bullions as beautiful some see righteousness as beautiful and the female bird sees what it’s attracted to as beautiful. And says so with its response to the show of the male. Because of the promise of fulfillment desired and or valued.
And beautiful being affording keen pleasure to the senses generally, especially that of hearing; delightful. In modern colloquial use the word is often applied to anything that a person likes very much, e.g. ‘beautiful pears,’ ‘she makes beautiful soup,’ ‘a beautiful ride.’

Hence the female bird is attracted finding the male beautiful, then by experience the male bird knows.