Think about it from our perspective. The Supreme Author of the Universe tells you not to do something which mere men order you to do. Who's the higher authority?
Give the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor... or something. The problem with the Author of the Universe telling you not to do something is that it's not a falsifiable claim. Anyone can claim that God has told them to do something, or not to do something. Similarly, anyone can claim to write the words of God, but if someone claimed to do so these days, very few would actually take the claims seriously. Or, in the words of Siddhartha Gautama:
"Believe nothing just because you have been told it, or it is commonly believed, or because it is traditional or because you yourselves have imagined it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings - that doctrine believe and cling to and take as your guide."Take Shadrach, Mishach and Abednigo for example, violating Babylon's decree to bow to a statue of Nebuchadnezzar. They were thrown in a furnace so hot it killed the guards that threw them in. Yet they came out unscathed.
While there are many crazies out there that use "God told me to do it!" as a reason they should get away with murder, the Bible tells us Christians to "test the spirits, and make sure they are from God." As I have said before, it's when "Christians" stray from the Bible that things go horribly wrong, not when they hold to it.
And how exactly does one verify that? The main problem I have with theistic religions is that they feel the need to justify simplest things as commandments from above, when there's no need to do so.
If you for example take the golden rule in whatever form and evaluate it logically, it can be found to be very sound principle of life with no need for it being divine in origin.
That's why I coloured red the parts that are, in function if not in words, similar in these two quotes. If one wants to assume that God is what is "conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings", then it's the same as testing the spirits to make sure they are from God. Unfortunately, a lot of things in Bible and elsewhere suggest that the God we're talking about is not any of these things.
So here's an interesting question - what need is there to mix divine beings to something that should be common sense?
Considering that forgiveness seemed to be about the only thing that got any kind of reaction out of the guy on the video, I can kinda understand what Saul of Tarsus (and note that I make a distinction between what authors of a book write and what is the suppsoed God's will and word) says about burning coal... And that quote doesn't mean that you should turn the other cheek (oh wait, that's elsewhere on the same book) have an eye for eye (oh wait that was on the older edition) ignore the criminal actions and leave them without any consequences of their actions, it just says you should forgive them for they do not know what they are doing (oh wait, that was elsewhere again).
At that time, he was known as Paul. Get it right XD. And Herra, Paul made the distinction of when he was writing from his own mind and when he was writing words inspired by God, also. You should look into that. How does that quote not mean you should turn the other cheek? It tells you not to be overcome by evil, and to, as much as it depends on you, avoid conflict. How can you say this contradicts Christ's words of "Do not resist an evil man," and "turn the other cheek?"
Names are overrated anyway. People are what they do, not what they're called. About the distinction, again comes the question, why believe that something someone says is from God? If testing the spirits equals to what Mr. Gautama said about examining things, does it follow that everything that is conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings comes from God? Or is it just otherwise worthy food for thought?
Anyway, the way I see it, forgiveness does not equal to allowing bad things to happen to you if you can prevent them. It means you shouldn't retaliate, and I interpret the other cheek thing in a similar fashion - it means that people should be given a second chance instead of for example hitting them back, but doesn't really mean that you should literally just stand there taking a beating.
About not resisting an evil man - well, the principles of Aiki pretty much mean the same thing when you think about it. It's better to evade than block, and it's better to use the evil man's strength against them that pit your own strength directly against them. And running away is a viable option as well, if you don't need to defend anyone else...
As far as the Eye for an Eye thing, Christ absolved that. First of all, He is God, He has the authority to do that sort of thing.
So he says. To me he was a man in a story who said a lot of wise things that people should think about rather than believe in them since he was the one who said them.
Now, you may argue, "your so-called God is supposedly unchanging, why would He do this?"
Actually I may not. Placing limitations like that to concept of omnipotent being makes even less sense than the concept of omnipotent being itself.
You see, The way it works is, sin = death. Period. This is drilled into the Israelites time and again with their guilt offerings and sacrifices made to be reconciled with God.
To me, the concept of sin I equal to actions that bring harm to others. Death is the absence of life, or the moment when my human mind stops to function permanently. I suspect in your context sin=death means that if you sin you will die for good, and if you're freed of sin your soul won't die when your life ends, and that's where our views of word are different.
I do not know if there is anything after death, but it seems unlikely to me. It would be cool, but nothingness would be perfectly acceptable as well. The concept of immortal soul I actually find disturbing. Since I'm not expecting anything after death, in my view of world this life is everything I know for sure I have, and I try to make most out of it, which includes trying not to harm others.
But Paul answers this in Hebrews 9:
1Now the first covenant had regulations for worship and also an earthly sanctuary. 2A tabernacle was set up. In its first room were the lampstand, the table and the consecrated bread; this was called the Holy Place. 3Behind the second curtain was a room called the Most Holy Place, 4which had the golden altar of incense and the gold-covered ark of the covenant. This ark contained the gold jar of manna, Aaron's staff that had budded, and the stone tablets of the covenant. 5Above the ark were the cherubim of the Glory, overshadowing the atonement cover.[a] But we cannot discuss these things in detail now.
6When everything had been arranged like this, the priests entered regularly into the outer room to carry on their ministry. 7But only the high priest entered the inner room, and that only once a year, and never without blood, which he offered for himself and for the sins the people had committed in ignorance. 8The Holy Spirit was showing by this that the way into the Most Holy Place had not yet been disclosed as long as the first tabernacle was still standing. 9This is an illustration for the present time, indicating that the gifts and sacrifices being offered were not able to clear the conscience of the worshiper. 10They are only a matter of food and drink and various ceremonial washings—external regulations applying until the time of the new order.
The Blood of Christ
11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death,[c] so that we may serve the living God!
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
16In the case of a will,[d] it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, 17because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while the one who made it is living. 18This is why even the first covenant was not put into effect without blood. 19When Moses had proclaimed every commandment of the law to all the people, he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people. 20He said, "This is the blood of the covenant, which God has commanded you to keep."[e] 21In the same way, he sprinkled with the blood both the tabernacle and everything used in its ceremonies. 22In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
23It was necessary, then, for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ did not enter a man-made sanctuary that was only a copy of the true one; he entered heaven itself, now to appear for us in God's presence. 25Nor did he enter heaven to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood that is not his own. 26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.
I really hope you're willing to read all of that, as it's what I believe, and is a must to even begin to understand my argument.
So basically the text says that before Jesus, priests used sacrifices to seemingly clean themselves and others repeatedly again and again, and Christ did it once and for all when he gave his life away?
That's a really strange way to deal with such concepts. Why exactly does Christ's blood wash away the sins of mankind and why do those who believe in this story get to be benefactors? What exactly in this is conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of
all beings? Instead of just those who happen to have the right kind of faith?
I forget who said it, exactly, but there's a quote: "holding on to anger and bitterness towards someone else is like swallowing poison and hoping they die." Why make yourself suffer? And if you don't think forgiveness matters to the criminals, watch that serial killer's reaction again when that old man says "you are forgiven." That was obviously the most emotionally painful part of the whole thing. Not "Damn you to Hell, I hope you die long and slow you fiend!!!" He stared them all down stone-faced.
Also, engaging in acts of vigilantism to exact revenge upon a supposed killer of someone close to you is a good way to ruin your own life in addition to the victim(s) of the killer. The emotional basis for revenge is easily understandable but logically easy to dismantle and show as what it most often is - misguided protective instinct (the need to do the right thing "for the victims"), and secondarily . Instinct to protect one's offspring and companion in life in addition to pretecting oneself runs deep in most beings, and failing in that self-imposed task makes people angry and frustrated, and it would feel that destroying the source of it all would take the pain away, but usually it doesn't, since the damage is done, the victim(s) won't come back - or in fact, gain anything from your act of violence - and after the killer is dead, what's left for you? Becoming roommates with a big guy called Bubba?
Once again, you look at the established laws (established by imperfect men, btw) to be the highest order of authority.
Not really, I'm chaotic or neutral good, not lawful good. Established laws should be followed when they don't contradict what I think is right. If I think something is worth doing despite the risk of legal consequences, I do it. And so do most people (just look at prohibition and how little success it met).
And of course, no matter what the opinion of Bible's divine origins is, it is also ultimately established by imperfect men and considering that as highest authority as such just because it says so is... disturbing to me.
Think about it this way - if you were killed or murdered (which are not quite the same thing), would you want your parent to kill the one responsible (I'm assuming here that they would even get the right person, which isn't even certain) and end up in jail for the rest of their life?
I certainly wouldn't want that.
Forget jail. Them having to live with the fact that they deprived some other group of people of their friend/father/mother/son/daughter/uncle, etc etc etc. would be FAR worse IMO. At least, once they came to the realization that this person they'd killed was a human being also.
That too.
Incidentally, the same guy that G0atmaster quoted also claims God to have claimed that he'll exact vengeance as he sees fit (some consider this as God claiming exclusive right to vengeance), so I guess there goes the loving God image campaign crashing down again... 
If God were not Just, He would not be Perfect. The love comes in to play when God exacts His justice on a substutionary atonement sacrifice that chose to stand in my place - Himself.
And since he's Perfect, he must obviously be Just as well... something doesn't add up here.
How exactly can it be verified that God is Perfect? I mean, you can believe in it, and if you define God as a Perfect being I guess that works too, but what if it isn't true after all? If the assumption of God being Just hangs by the supposition that he is also Perfect, then it becomes necessary to establish that perfectness in one way or another. Which is, of course, impossible without Faith, which I do not have (though ironically I have faith that if God really exists he can forgive me for my lack of faith... after all if he exists I must assume I'm the way I am because he wanted it.
).
Even so it wouldn't really be trolling, it would be a logical argument about the matter, but if you do not put much faith in Old Testimony, good for you. The New Testimony does hold 
more human ideas and it's basic message is a good one, and that part of the book isn't demeaned by the fact that ignoring the spiritual part it's basically the same message that Confucius and other great philosophers before Jesus had to give to people, and following that tenet should not be a matter of faith but logical thought.
Except for, you know, the part where Christ claimed to be God, which means that he was either a liar, and not suitable to be a teacher of high moral law, or a lunatic, which also would do the same, or a demon, once agian invalidating any moral teaching he put forth. Furthermore, you would need to ignore the whole multitude of miraculous phenomena that were witnessed and recorded by the multitudes.
Does Jesus actually somewhere directly claim that he
is the God, or is that just a theological interpretation of later times? He does speak of his Father that is in Heaven, but that would apply to all people if the supposition of God's existence is assumed to be true. Or, you could ask if everything credited to Jesus actually came from his mouth. The recordings of miracles I do not find fully credible due to same reason I don't find Silmarillion to be a credible history of Earth - the story was told by people, to people so I cannot ignore the possibility of it being fiction or having elements of fiction in it. Whether supposed miracles really happened I cannot know, and again I find myself unable to place my faith in printed word just because it's centuries old story about events that might've been misinterpreted, exaggerated or invented.
What one does not wish for oneself, one ought not to do to anyone else; what one recognises as desirable for oneself, one ought to be willing to grant to others.
In contrast, Christ says to His desciples:
"As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father's commands and remain in his love. I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete. My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends if you do what I command. I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name. This is my command: Love each other.
I find that quote to be conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings. Now, why does that require a divine being to speak the words for them to become so?
