Winchester Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 I'm going to retread something that last time ended in large capital letters trying to convince me I was wrong. Didn't work. At any rate, something being legislated illegal does not make it immoral. If tomorrow the government outlawed beer, it would not be immoral for me to drink it or produce it. If my lawbreaking led to deaths from bootlegging associated violence, that would be immoral. For us to follow a law, it must be just. I am not, for instance, morally obliged to not block abortion clinic entrances. Jesus is not, I repeat NOT, going to say "Gee whiz, the Supreme Court said you couldn't block the Woman's Fetus Removal and Anti-Consequence Clinic entrance and I see you did that..." then pull the Hell chute lever. Legislation does not morality make. We are obliged to follow those laws which are just. Further, being intelligent human beings, I propose some laws in their letter may be broken so long as intent of the law is observed, humans being imperfect they do not always write the most intelligent of laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Right. A law is not just simply because we say it is so. Just like laws in Nazi Germany were not right simply because German officials said they were good. You're appealing to principles of natural law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 [quote]Jesus is not, I repeat NOT, going to say "Gee whiz, the Supreme Court said you couldn't block the Woman's Fetus Removal and Anti-Consequence Clinic entrance and I see you did that..." then pull the Hell chute lever. [/quote] That actually, genuenly mad e me laugh outloud. Of course Winchester you are correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Agreed.... Is there someone who doesn't get this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Yeah ... who was arguing against this before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 I agree with caution. Romans 13 indicates that Governments are put in power by God. It seems to me that even the communists governments were given power by the Almighty. Most certainly the Government of Rome under which Paul wrote Romans 13 was not a just government and yet he said what he said. Most certainly there laws need to be just and moral to require our complete submission. But for instance if they decide the speed limit has to come down again we need to obey. Further when it does become neccessary to disobey a law we must be careful that the end justifies the means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 Thessalonian-- I think there are 2 issues here, First any Government only has Authority over certian things, you are never obliged to follow laws made over issues not within the realm of the Civil Authorities. 2nd all governments are not authoritive, a government can forfiet it's authority by making war on God, when such a event occurs one is morally justified in violating those laws wich keep those illegitement authorities in power ie. one is entitiled to rebel ( there are counciller statements supporting this) and obviously the act of rebellion violates many laws, however, one is still bound to obey those laws within the civil authority which do not require breaking for this purpose. For example a rebel might break the speed limit in during an active act of rebelion but does for example have the right to do so going to Church, or taking his children to school, as the speed limit is set to insure public safty and should be followed unless otherwise indicated. However, I would argue that intent of a law is relevent to the requirement to obey it, I drive the speed of traffic, if traffic is going en miles over then so do I, Texas DPS issued a study last year saying that driveing to slowly was the number one cause of accidents in Texas( the number one cause of fatalities was driving to Fast) one is not obliged to place oneself in danger to follow the speed limit. However one must have reasonable cause to violate such a law, and must use reason when disobeying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 [quote name='Winchester' date='Dec 10 2004, 08:41 AM'] I'm going to retread something that last time ended in large capital letters trying to convince me I was wrong. Didn't work. At any rate, something being legislated illegal does not make it immoral. If tomorrow the government outlawed beer, it would not be immoral for me to drink it or produce it. If my lawbreaking led to deaths from bootlegging associated violence, that would be immoral. For us to follow a law, it must be just. I am not, for instance, morally obliged to not block abortion clinic entrances. Jesus is not, I repeat NOT, going to say "Gee whiz, the Supreme Court said you couldn't block the Woman's Fetus Removal and Anti-Consequence Clinic entrance and I see you did that..." then pull the Hell chute lever. Legislation does not morality make. We are obliged to follow those laws which are just. Further, being intelligent human beings, I propose some laws in their letter may be broken so long as intent of the law is observed, humans being imperfect they do not always write the most intelligent of laws. [/quote] Exactly. Mayor Newsom was correct in marrying same-sex couples in California even though the law prohibited it. As was Mayor West in New York. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 " I drive the speed of traffic, if traffic is going en miles over then so do I, Texas DPS issued a study last year saying that driveing to slowly was the number one cause of accidents in Texas( the number one cause of fatalities was driving to Fast) one is not obliged to place oneself in danger to follow the speed limit. However one must have reasonable cause to violate such a law, and must use reason when disobeying it. " Individual objectivity is clouded by our corrupt human natures. We can always find "arguements" that support our position (as you are demonstrating quite nicely in the other thread where we are discussing freedom of religion) and our disobedience. We must be careful that the action we take with regard to our "opinions" about laws does not violate our God given directive to submit to authorities. Texas may well have a go with the flow law but when you hit the Louisana border and get stopped, I am sure the officer is going to let you off for 70 in a 55 because of Texas law. I would not recommend disobedience to such laws simply because you found a study somewhere that supports your driving habbits. Texas allows open container as well (for none drivers) at least last time I was there which was a while ago. Do you suppose you should disobey the laws of other states and allow our passangers to drink while we are driving because of this? Once again I am not disagreeing with the conclusions of the originator of this thread. I am just trying to highlite the GRAVE responsibility to make sure that when we do disobey a law it is for just reasons and not whims or conjured up reasons to support our opinions. Blessings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 laws that do not contradict the greater moral good obligate us to follow out of obedience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 [quote name='burnsspivey' date='Dec 10 2004, 12:43 PM'] Exactly. Mayor Newsom was correct in marrying same-sex couples in California even though the law prohibited it. As was Mayor West in New York. [/quote] Hardly. Breaking a just law to promote immoral actions is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qfnol31 Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 The speed limit is a just law.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burnsspivey Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 (edited) [quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Dec 10 2004, 12:17 PM'] Hardly. Breaking a just law to promote immoral actions is wrong. [/quote] *laughs* "I get to use this argument, but you can't." Please. I was simply trying to point out that the reasoning of the argument can be used in situations with which you disagree. If it's a question of morals you don't get to just use yours and assume that everyone else will as well. Just because you believe you have a handle on the absolute truth doesn't mean that everyone else agrees with you. Edited December 10, 2004 by burnsspivey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 [quote]The speed limit is a just law.... [/quote] agreed but one is not obliged to endanger ones life and the life of others to obey it. And no Texas doesn't have a go with the flow law, it doesn't have any grace at all for speeding, but the facts that driving significantly below the speed of traffic causes accidents cannot be disputed, one is not required [i]morally[/i] to endanger ones life or the lives of others to obey the speed limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted December 10, 2004 Share Posted December 10, 2004 [quote name='burnsspivey' date='Dec 10 2004, 12:54 PM'] *laughs* "I get to use this argument, but you can't." Please. I was simply trying to point out that the reasoning of the argument can be used in situations with which you disagree. If it's a question of morals you don't get to just use yours and assume that everyone else will as well. Just because you believe you have a handle on the absolute truth doesn't mean that everyone else agrees with you. [/quote] Yes, relativism is rampant around this country. And everyone seems to want to believe there are no absolute truths. But then they fail to realize that statement in and of itself is "an absolute truth", though a false one. One may beilve that if he drives his chevy impala 80 miles per hour in to a wall that he won't get hurt. He certainly may believe that but the consequences will not be lessoned because of his false belief. Our laws and our objectives in influencing them as individuals must consider proper morality of which God says it is implanted on all men's hearts such that none has an excuse in Romans 2:15. Going against God's laws is no less consequential than going against the physical laws of nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now