Sahid,

Precisely what is it you disagree with?  I assent with much of your last few posts with the exception of your blanket statement that it’s not moral for Christians to legislate.

But before I address that, first let me point out that I disagree with those that suggest “all” legislation is about morality.   For example, in what direct way does highway legislation impact morality?   

Second, I have attempted to distinguish how we can only legislate against immorality and that it’s ultimately God himself that commands moral virtues that convicts the will of the heart.  Good will is intrinsically good; its value is wholly self-contained in the will of the heart that is manifested by choosing to follow (or suppress) the moral law that is written on the conscience of all moral agents. Deontology construes that moral systems cannot persuade moral action or be regarded as a bases for moral judgments against others, because the imperatives they are based on rely too heavily on subjective considerations utterly independent of its external relations to a maximized good of the masses.  In other words, an individual’s desire isn’t necessarily deterred from doing wrong simply by a duty or obligation towards the good of the masses.  Why, because immoral desires are driven by ones own pleasure and self interest.  With that said, knowledge however can have a significant impact on our perception of what’s truly in our best self-interest.  

But anyways, to get back to your remark, where is it Biblically stated that we are commanded not to legislate against immorality?   Check out the book of Numbers, it’s filled with civil laws against immorality.  Furthermore, the Bible is filled with stories about the consequences of breaking covenants and not upholding to the law.  I’m not advocating consequentialism, but on the other hand, I would not deny that the actions we choose have no consequences. Personally, I prefer to be guided by God, which might be why I lean more towards Aretaic moral theory, where we find epistemology, character and excellence of virtue being emphasized.

Peace,

Mark

It sounds like you’re describing abuse not punishment.

“Open my eyes that I may see wonderful things in your law.”- Psalm 119:18

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 11/17/2005 7:36:56 PM (GMT-6)

Jeff, I think Zach has to acknowledge your point to some degree, check out his quote: "Similar people raised under different rules can grow to be very different."

Would crippling and blinding a man qualify?  Saul of Tarsus was crippled and blinded by Jesus.

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 11/19/2005 12:01:47 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (jefscott) : 11/19/2005 7:29:34 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (Sahid) : 11/19/2005 9:30:47 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (jefscott) : 11/20/2005 8:08:42 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (jefscott) : 11/20/2005 6:31:44 PM (GMT-6)

Why do you believe this?  Is it biblical?  Even with your understanding of Romans 13 all you have is a reason for paying "good" governments.  How do you justify withholding taxes from the bad ones?

To interpret verse six this way you must ingore verse one.  All authorities are established by God, and every person is to be subjected to them.  Every... All...  Not some. 

Verse 2:  Every person who resists authority (not qualified) resists God, and brings condemnation on himself. 

Verse 3:  This is because rulers (once again, not qualifed) are not a cause of fear for good behavior but for evil.  This is an amazing, almost unbelievable statement!  All rulers, even the Romans, are established by God, and even the Romans are not a cause for fear for good behavior.  These are the Romans who were complicit in killing Jesus and Stephen.  Do you want to have no fear of authority?  Just do good and you will be praised by authority.  It's not as though Paul had not known of evil rulers.  He was raised on stories of Antiochus and Manasseh.  It's not as though he was unaware of history.  He knows the facts of life and still writes this.

Verse 4:  We don't need to fear, because the authorites serve God (he doesn't say they are aware of this).  But to the evil, they serve God by showing wrath.  While God is justified in showing wrath, this is exactly what Christians are forbidden from doing.  Love is the Christian's command.  Any definition of love that includes wrath renders both terms meaningless.  God shows both love and wrath, but to say both are really the same thing is nonsense.  God's wrath is informed by love, but love works for restoration, and wrath is rarely (if ever) motivated by restoration.

Verse 5-6:  Therefore, both the evil and the good must be in subjection.  One out of fear of wrath, and one out of an understanding that ALL (not some) authorities are God's servants.

Where we disagree is whether this passage is describing the action of government or prescribing the appropriate action of government.  I think it's more than clear that the statements made about authorities are declarative.  What is prescriptive is the Christian's subjection to ALL authorities, because ALL serve God.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 11/20/2005 7:41:09 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (jefscott) : 11/21/2005 6:49:46 AM (GMT-6)

Just so I've got this, you say that you accept consequentialism because it is the only way to read the Bible's talk about goodness in a meaningful way?  I propose that "goodness" at it's most basic level cannot be an objective principal.  There are, as far as I can tell, two ways of using "good."  The first is obviously subjective.  Lots of people think seafood is good, but I disagree.  There really is no further discussion possible.  We just disagree, and there is no way of finding out who is right.  In fact speaking about this goodness in terms of right in the sense of 'corresponding to objective reality' doesn't even make sense.  In speaking of goodness neither seafood lovers nor I are speaking of objective reality; we are merely communicating subjective reality.

Then there is the goodness that apparently refers to something objective.  Even here I don't think we can speak of a truly objective good.  If there is a disagreement on the goodness of a chair, we can test it to see if it is actually good.  But what we really mean to test is whether it is good for something.  Same thing with the seafood.  We can test it to see if it's good for sustaining humans.  Even with a good person it is a matter of good at conforming to some ethical standard.  The problem is whenever we speak of goodness in terms of some aim, we've begged the question.  We've made 'good' to be a synonym of 'effective,' and now we are left with the utilitarian question of the goodness of the aim.  In order to say that good has objective meaning, we must show that these aims are themselves good.  So why is rest in a 'good' chair good?  Why is sustenance of humans good?  Why is conformity to an ethical standard good?  When I keep asking 'why?' I eventually run into a wall.  At the bottom it's something like "Just because" or "Because that's the way God made things."

So as far as I can tell, the closest we can come to objective good is good that is subjectively good to God.  We can come at it from another way too.  Doc (in Letters from a Skeptic) talks about the supreme 'force' in the universe being personal, because personal creation cannot come from an impersonal source.  I don't know if I really buy that line, but as far as ethics goes I think the logic works.  If we are to honestly speak of an "objective" ethical standand of good, I think we are assuming a personal root or God upon which that ethic is based.  This is because 'good' is a subjective quality.  Subjective good based on God can appear objective to creation for the most part, but it is still subjective.

That was the long way of getting to the point, which is I believe the Bible can speak of goodness in a meaningful way without basing it on the physical consequences.  We can speak of goodness as conformity or obedience rather than effectiveness.  In the case of Jesus we are obedient and conformed to the teachings and example that Jesus set for us from the time of his birth to his death.

To answer your question: I don't think God is indifferent to the benevolent quality of the consequences of our actions.  I just don't think he judges us good or bad based on them.  He sees the heart.  In Matthew 12 Jesus talks about a good tree being revealed by its good fruits and says that what makes those fruits good is the goodness of the tree.  It is the motivation that justifies the action, not the action which justifies the motivation.  I think Matthew 12 speaks directly against consequentialism. 

I believe God is concerned about the consequnces of our actions, but I also think he has the long view in mind.  He has given us a standard in the life of Jesus which is to be followed even if it seems stupid or bad.  We are to keep to this because we have faith that God knows what he's doing.  From what I can tell, if Abraham were to follow consequentialism, he would not be the father of the faith.  He would have qualified God's command to kill his son somehow.

Sorry that went so long.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 11/21/2005 1:54:09 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (jefscott) : 11/21/2005 9:07:14 PM (GMT-6)

Zach: He has given us a standard in the life of Jesus which is to be followed even if it seems stupid or bad.

Jeff: Yes, but "seems" is the operative word.

Zach:  Yes.  So the consequentialist can't say that submission to government and renunciation of its methods is bad, just because it seems stupid or bad.  I'd agree that apart from faith and Christ's teachings it does seem both stupid and bad.

I looked it up and found this:  "Consequentialism is the belief that what ultimately matters in evaluating actions or policies of action are the consequences that result from choosing one action or policy rather than the alternative."

According to this definition I am a consequentialist.  However, I don't believe that we can or should forsee the total consequences of our actions and so we must have faith that following Christ's teaching we lead to the best consequences.  Basically, I agree with consequentialism, but when we must choose between (1) an action with apparently good consequences which is opposed to the teachings of Christ and (2) an action with apparently bad consequences which is in accord with the teachings of Christ, the Christian must choose (2).  The reason we choose (2) is that we have faith that it will ultimately bring the best consequences.

This is precisely what we have with the question of Christian legislation.  Christ commands us to be as slaves (an action with apparently bad consequences).  Didn't he know that one day Christians would have the opportunity to wield power?  Didn't he realize that there was good to be done in legislation?  I believe he did.  Given that belief, he must have an even better reason for commanding us to be like slaves.  There must be some good consequences that we can't see.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 11/22/2005 3:51:42 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (sparknheart) : 11/22/2005 11:12:38 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (jefscott) : 11/22/2005 9:30:53 PM (GMT-6)