DiscussMormonism.com

Post Reference

Brackite,

First, your additional biblical quotations beg the question. Second, you falsely assume I am unfamiliar with the additional biblical quotations.

If the second reference in John is correct, the first in Deuteronomy is wrong. You must assume Jesus, as you quoted, overwrites God in Deuteronomy. Doing that marginalizes any or all references to God and the commands of God in the Old Testament. Is that your position? Or, are you a cafeteria sampler taking some Old Testament as correct/true and some as overwritten by the New Testament? You appear to be the latter. What, for example, did God command in the Old Testament that is not made irrelevant by a New Testament script?

Now let’s consider what your additional biblical citing does to our generally accepted system of law. It eviscerates it. Galatians 3:23-24 deprives a society of law. You state: “the law is no longer in charge.” Is that what you advocate? Do you advocate the dissimulation of law? You appear to in the additional biblical citing you offer. Either one standard is God claimed or another standard is God claimed. It’s not possible to have both wherein there is unequivocal contradiction between two (or more) opposing claims.

You cited:

Matt 5:38 (When injured, turn the other cheek)
Matt 7 (to avoid judgment, stop passing judgment)
Matt 20:1-14 (the laborers in the vineyard: the last shall be first, and the first last)
Matt 25-35-40 (The Last Judgment: what you do to the least among you, you do for Me)
Luke 6:35-37 (love your enemy and do not condemn)
Luke 15:11-32 (the Prodigal Son)
John 1 (the law was received through Moses; grace came through Jesus Christ)
Acts 7:60 (Stephen's martyrdom)
Romans 7:4 (we are "dead" to the law through the body of Jesus Christ)
Romans 12:14-19 (vengeance is to be left to God)
Galatians 3:23-24 (by virtue of faith in Jesus, the law is no longer in charge)

My previous reference to the Roman Catholic Church was in the context of the topic of this thread. It was not to suggest that the RCC position was correct over other positions or over law within any given cultural group. Rather, it was a statement of RCC position. The importance of the RCC (as I addressed it) is in its claim to the numerical adherents to its dogma/doctrine. The RCC is officially opposed to the death penalty (as you state). That RCC position is not respected by any states or nations which exercize the death penalty. The RCC is opposed to war, except for the “just war.” And, the “just war” is just a war the RCC approves after the fact, not before.

It’s not my intent to defend the RCC or any other organized religious institution.

Your citing above is overwritten by law as a matter of practical and realistic social convention. That is, present law in the USA does not respect Matt 5:38. On the contrary, law extracts what is some consensus on appropriate penalty for the one who commits the injury. The law passes judgment. The law does not love enemies within a given cultural/social system which attempts to extract justice.

The God of the New Testament as you have aptly cited is a contradiction to the God of the Old Testament. If one is correct the other is not. As a matter of “law,” we do not leave “vengeance” to ”God.” Further, we in the USA have a different extraction of penalty for wrong doing than does Canada or European countries or Eastern countries. Even where Christianity is the predominate religion, “laws” vary as does “judgment” and the passing of judgment. Prisons house those whom the law has not forgiven.

As a result of these various multiple notions of justice and “judgment,” Christians are conflicted on “justice.” They are conflicted on “judgment.” And, in general, they do not respect Galatians 3:23-24 as you cite “…the law is no longer in charge.” The law is in charge.

And in keeping with the topic title, the RCC is opposed to any sexual contact or activity outside marriage including anything the RCC defines as “adultery” or “masturbation” or sexual contact of any sort with which the RCC has explicit prohibition.

In conclusion, Brackite, I addressed your post as it stood previously. In the additional post, you introduce new material. While I have no objection to that, I object that you assume I didn’t know it because I didn’t address it prior to its introduction. I addressed your post as it stood.

The “law” in so characterized Christian countries is no respecter of particulars of any of the multiple Christian doctrines. The “law” is selective. The “law” does judge, and the “law” is influenced by politics, culture, provocation, and tangentially by religious notions. The same can be said for predominately Muslim countries or predominately Buddhist countries.

JAK

harmony wrote:

marg wrote:So a person then is responsible for their own decisions rather than to blindly accept religious authority.

What about blindly accepting legislative authority? federal government authority? employer authority? police authority? professorial authority? a Dean's authority?

Is that okay?

harmony,

I should like to see the context of marg’s remarks. You quote a single line. I’m sure her entire post is here, but I haven’t found it.

First, I cannot speak for marg. That said, I suspect that she would argue that we shouldn’t “blindly accept” much of anything. In the case of “legislative authority,” we have ample opportunity to research the rationale for that which is legislated. The same can be said for all the other examples you list above.

They differ in how we may interact with each. An “employer” is quite different from “police.” Requirements of an employee (by an employer) differ from requirement of the law as enforced by the police. The police did not make the law. But the employer may well have made the requirements for the employee. In the latter case, both law and employer may be involved in “requirements” for an employee.

What’s “professional authority”? Whatever it is, it appears to be non-parallel with that of employer or police or the federal government.

I’m skeptical that marg would advocate that we “blindly accept” those authorities to which you refer. At the same time, it seems to me that we have obligation to comply with employer requirements and with the law of any references which you make to law. In so doing, we are not necessarily “blindly” conforming. Since you are most general here, I think your questions could benefit from examples.

Often rules or laws are changed as a result of new understandings (evolution of thought).

For example: “Whites Only” was a sign in restaurants prior to desegregation. Restrooms were also so designated. It was the law. That law was challenged by violation in some cases. I’m confident you’re too young to have experienced this personally, but African Americans entered restaurants designated “Whites Only” and simply sat down at a counter or in a booth and waited. Some were arrested. The process of violation of the law (then) led to the change of the law. When African Americans did that, they did it peacefully. They didn’t shout or make demands. They just sat in a restaurant and waited to be treated just as whites were treated – no more and no less.

As a result of their action combined with a multitude of whites who felt segregation was wrong in principle, laws were changed. Challenge produced change.

There was an absence of “blind acceptance” and an assertion that all people be treated with equality.

Many other examples could be called up to demonstrate that change in requirement (law, employer guidelines, etc.) have come about as a result of various pressures for change.

When we stop at red lights, it’s not blind acceptance of law that we do that. We recognize the pragmatic way to address traffic flow is to stop even when we most want to go. So, we wait for the light to be green. Religion, on the other hand does not rely on pragmatic, rational consideration.

As I mentioned, I did not find the post with the complete statement from which you cited marg here. And, I don’t speak for her as I addressed your questions.

JAK

Post Reference

Brackite,

To this post of yours, I responded addressing the omission of details in response to your post.

Your post made extensive reference to the following:

Deuteronomy 22:22-24: (New American Standard Bible):

22 "(A)If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.

23 "(B)If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her,

24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor's wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.

To that and other biblical references, I asked you specific, detailed questions regarding your posture on just when you might consider “adultery” had occurred.

No response was forthcoming to any of the questions you were asked regarding your post above. Your response was evasive as it cited other biblical references. It was unresponsive to the questions I raised as a direct response to your post.

The evasion is curious. Why the evasion and the change of subject?

You began with the following biblical quotation:

Exodus 20:14: (New American Standard Bible):

14 "(A)You shall not commit adultery.

You followed it with these biblical quotations:

Leviticus 18:20: (New American Standard Bible):

20 '(A)You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor's wife, to be defiled with her.

Leviticus 20:10: (New American Standard Bible):

10 '(A)If there is a man who commits adultery with another man's wife, one who commits adultery with his friend's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

And finally you cited Deuteronomy 22:22-24 (restated above in this post).

That was the topic and the issue which I addressed in this response.

I further addressed your reference to Wikipedia and added another definition from that same source to evoke response from you on just what you regard as “adultery.”

Rather than address any of that, you falsely challenge that I am not “familiar” with new material which you introduce. In addition, rather that taking the entirety of my post and addressing it, you quote only one paragraph followed by a shift of subject which has nothing to do with what you previously stated and which I addressed in detail with full reference to your post.

All the analysis and questions directed to you on “adultery” in my response to your post have gone unanswered.

Why did you refuse to address my analysis and questions?

Why did you change the topic and subject?

I submit it is because you are unable or unwilling to address the challenge of my analysis and stay on topic, the very topic your post, this post of yours which was the focus of my response.

My rejoinder was this analysis.

At this point, I have addressed two separate posts of yours on two separate issues. I’ll look forward to an honest direct address of my analysis to your first post on “adultery.”

JAK