Post Edited (Sahid) : 3/29/2005 11:25:30 AM (GMT-6)

I would love to reply to everything, but there's a lot.  First, in general, I know that legislation is always based on some morality.  I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that that morality is never God's, not entirely.  Even the Torah made concessions to human fallenness.  Divorce is the one that Jesus pointed out.  Love is the only morality that matches God's.

Here's what I mean by love:  ⁴Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, ⁵does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, ⁶does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; ⁷bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. ⁸Love never fails;

If I, a Christian, use my vote to seek my own, take into account wrongs suffered, not bear all things, or not endure all things, then I am in rebellion against God.  Muz, of course the most powerful will have their morality inacted as law.  But whenever someone (or some majority) does that, they are being sinful rulers.  In America, the majority is king.  The people are the rulers as well as the ruled.  If we legislate (make into law with provisions for punishment) our "Christian morality" we can be sure that it is not Christian.  It is not loving.

What I stand by as a Christian given political power is to live with love.  I wont record wrongs or endorse with my vote those that do.  I wont seek my own or use my vote to endorse those that do.

This leaves me in a strange position: that of seemingly political inactivity.  But as sort of a middle axioms kind of approach I think it may be justifiable to support ever closer and closer approximations of God's love.  So a practical imposition to not impose is what I see as a halfway-point.  It's like a tutor that raises and teaches, until one is ready to live on one's own.

Now, I know that this would be legislation and therefore be unloving, but for the young or uneducated or disabled it seems unloving not to give some help.  And we live in a country and world where the people are just that.  You can graduate high school and college without ever even taking a logic class, and most do!  And in hindering only that which is harmful to a neighbor the law protects those who we, as Christians, are told to protect.  This sort of legislation would resemble, on the surface, Christian love, but would not have the depth of love required for real and lasting change.

Now, what haven't I talked about?....  Well the phrase, "You can't legislate morality."  I still think legislation will never be just.  The middle axioms idea is one that is taken from God's interaction with people so I think it's fairly safe....  "The government's place is to punish sins"  First of all the biblical passages that support this are shaky at best.  There is vast disagreement between conservative biblical scholars as to what is being said and to whom it is being said.  Second, if Christians live in a democracy, then they are the ones who, at least in part, are making the rules.  So we've got "it's our place as gov. to judge" and "don't judge lest you be judged."  Which one do we play down?  You can't have both.  I say we diminish our role as rulers and sustain our role as Christians.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 3/31/2005 1:36:29 AM (GMT-6)

Alan Rhoda said...
Ever heard that line? Maverick philosopher Bill Vallicella has this to say about it:

Of course, from the fact that all legislation is the legislation of morality, it does not follow, nor is it true, that all morality ought to be legislated. In other words, it doesn't follow, nor is it true, that everything morally impermissible should be illegal, or that everything morally obligatory should be legally required. I would say that drinking oneself into a stupor is morally impermissible, but if it is done in private, the state and its laws should not get involved. (But drive on public roads in that condition, and the whole force and fury of the state and its laws ought to come down on your head.) And I would say that maintaining oneself in good health through proper diet and exercise is morally obligatory, but I don't want to see any laws to that effect. State power cannot be allowed unlimited scope.

I think Vallicella hits the nail on the head. What do y'all think?

 

Alan

Is Vallicella saying that things done in private should be hands off for law?  I hope not... there are situations where I think they should get involved, such as in the case of children/juveniles and self-destructive behavior (drugs, alcohol parties) and some non-destructive behavior (hmm, my parents are working... I don't want to go to school for the 25th time this year... it won't affect anyone else) for example.

But as to all the other stuff Vallicella said, yup, I agree.   I think the nail has been thunked.  (Gotta love the smileys!)

Post Edited (Violin for God) : 4/6/2005 8:15:52 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (Violin for God) : 4/7/2005 10:46:38 PM (GMT-5)

Sahid,

Do you think that we can have moral knowledge? Can we know right and wrong? NOTE: I am not asking the following: Do we have a perfect knowledge of the moral law. No one disputes the fact that our knowledge is limited and imperfect. I am asking whether or not we can have knowledge that, say, "killing people because it's wednesday is wrong."

Matt

Post Edited (Violin for God) : 4/9/2005 11:40:19 PM (GMT-5)

I'll get to what I can.  It's late even for me, and there's church tomorrow.

Matt:  I think there may be some category confusion here.  "Killing people because it is Wednesday is wrong" is a true statement in my opinion.  I can't prove it though.  It's my moral hunch.  I don't have much respect for my hunches, they can be good starting places, but they are usually horrible ending places.  Given my working morality, killing people at all is likely wrong.  Whether or not there is "a time to kill" is another issue, but to answer your question, yes.  We can have moral knowledge.  What we can't know is whether or not our morals are correct.  Theoretically, you could even hold an "evil demon" argument in heaven.

Violin:  I'm sorry for my tone.  That was wrong.  You said they broken them.  You didn't say they stole them.  Was I to assume that?  In your example the teens were bad.  Still, do you want to pick rulers by some sort of insurance table?  Which person is more likely to do a good job?  Adults have controlled this world for at least 6000 years, and somehow they haven't ruined it completely but not for lack of trying.  I'm not saying teens would be good rulers.  I'm just saying that adults as a group have proven, at best, their incompetence, and at worst, their maliciousness.  Maybe none of us have any place acting as lord over another.  Maybe that's part of what Jesus taught.  Maybe the stronger, smarter, and more experienced we are the more humility we should exercise.

What was the point you were making about spitting?  That it's stupid to do for fun?  First of all, so what?  Second, prove it.  Adults do much stupider things: Dresden, selling mustard gas to Saddam, child abuse, divorce, spend God's money on stained-glass windows, genocide, buying SUV's, voting for Nixon, breast augmentation...  If we're going to get into a "keeping records of evil" "spitting contest," adults have a lot for which to answer.  I don't want to be the one to defend adults against the charge of stupidity.  It's an impossible task.  It is my opinion that adults have not demonstated more wisdom than teens.  Confucius (or Yoda, take your pick) say, "Age alone does not a wise man make."

Correlation suggests causation?  Really?  What about literacy and drug dependence?  Is there causation, or do people have moral responsibility?  What do you mean by "suggests"?  Violinists are typically right handed.  Does the correlation suggest causation?  In which direction?  One of the first things taught in the most basic psychology classes is that where people are concerned, correlation does not imply causation.  I'm not sure what you mean by "suggest," but I can't think of a meaning that would allow me to agree with your statement.

As to the scriptures, I'll look at what you've got, just not now.  Not enough time.  You may have me on that one.

Alan:  If all there is is the material world, then my position would be called anarchy, yes.  But, if I believed all there was was the material world, I seriously doubt I would hold my political position.  I believe that God exists and that he is the only one with a proper "right" to judgement.  I think it is possible to do a fairly good job of encapsulating all of Christianity in the story of Man taking the knowledge of good and evil from God and then God persuading Man to give it back.  God has the "right" to decide all things political.  Not me, not you, not a king, not a majority.

"If someone really thinks it's OK to kill people with cars, well, he's got the right to try to change the laws to reflect his viewpoint"

This is where we disagree.  By what authority do you say that "he's got the right"?  Maybe a de facto right if we forget that God is sovereign, but certainly not a de jure right!  I put it to you: prove that  "he's got the right."  It's something that good little American boys and girl are socialized to believe, because it gives those in power fewer headaches, but that doesn't make it true.

Post Edited (Sahid) : 4/10/2005 2:33:43 PM (GMT-5)

Sahid: Prov 4:1 "Hear, O sons..." This is a command to children, not to adults.

VFG:  The whole verse states: “Listen, my sons, to a father's instruction;  pay attention and gain understanding.”  So is it telling the son to listen to the father or to instruct the father?  Who is supposed to be the one giving instruction?  Then, who would have permission to give instruction, the son or the father?

Sahid: Prov 13:24 "He who withholds his rod..." You got me! I'm convinced. Let's hit our kids with rods! Should we go with the original rule of thumb that said you can only beat your wife with a stick the width of your thumb? WWJD? Better yet, what did Jesus do? How many people did he ever strike? "You have heard it said... but I say to you." What about 20:2? Are king's right to kill those who anger them?

VFG:  If we read material that was written 3000 or so years ago, should we forget about the historical context?  Is this passage giving a moral principle or a “do it exactly this way” principle?

Sahid: Prov 22:6 "in the way he should go" not in whatever the parent feels is right. Big difference. The very next verse says "the rich rules over the poor and the borrower becomes the lender's slave." You can find an excuse for virtually anything in Proverbs. That's what makes it great for source texting. There is no context from which to take it out.

VFG: In this verse, does “should” imply using one’s best judgment or does it give explicit information about how to carry this out?  Also with reading Proverbs, these “proverbs” should be read as a list, not a story.  Proverbs are generally “bits of wisdom”, not an allegory. 

Your claim, “You can find an excuse for virtually anything in Proverbs” is pretty bold.  Can you support your claim?  Show me how “train up a child in the way he should go and when he is old he will not turn from it” applies to “everything” such as picking berries.  Sounds absurd, doesn’t it?  Please support your claim.

Sahid: Prov 22:15 "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child" but not there exclusively. Matt 15:14.

VFG: I’m not sure what you’re getting at.  Can you clarify what you mean?

Sahid: Prov 23:12-15 - Once again, directed at the ruled, not the ruler.

VFG: Yes, I didn’t have enough time to look for all references, so I just looked up “children” and found the verses related to that.

Sahid: "actually, there's a lot in the book of Proverbs." Including the merits of bribery, tyranny, and slavery.

VFG: Where?  The verses that I listed, are they referencing that?  If so, how?

Sahid: Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 5:16 - This is a command to children, not to parents.

VFG: So?

Sahid: Deut 4:10, Deut 6:4-8 - I am firmly in favor of teaching children. I'm not arguing with you.

VFG: Your post a while ago asked the question: “By what right does the majority tell a 17 year old what to ingest? Does believing I'm right give me the authority to force others live like me?”  I’m showing that the Bible is giving the parents the right/permission to tell their children what to do.  That is the point of this discussion, isn't it?

Sahid: Deut 7:3-4 - So, I'm allowed to buy and sell daughters? I'll pass.

VFG: This is simply showing who is given the authority between the parents and the children.  Again, it’s important to read with the historical perspective in mind.  (Additionally, though it’s irrelevant to this discussion, I don’t see anything having to do with buying or selling in this passage.)

Sahid: Deut 32:45-46 - That's a good one. I like that one. The problem is it doesn't say what to do when they disobey.

VFG: So what are the parents to do when the children disobey?  Let them off or make a judgment call?  If you don’t like using rods (which I will also not use on my children), what do you do?

Sahid: "There's a lot in Deuteronomy too." Agreed. Deuteronomy condones genocide, holy war, and involuntary marriage too.

VFG: So should we throw out the book of Deuteronomy because you don’t like it? 

Sahid: Also especially Ephesians 6:1-4 - "Children, obey" Agreed. They should obey. That doesn't address what parents should do. "Fathers... bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord." What is the discipline and instruction of the Lord? Is it "Make people be good" or "Turn the other cheek?"

VFG: I agree, what should they do since there is no explicit “if the child does X, then parents should do Y”?...throw out all guidance and instruction?

Sahid: "All these passages and more are about training up a child in the way he/she "should go"." Yes, but many do not say how, and those that do say you should either use rods or do so in the Lord. Do you think Jesus would beat his kid with a stick? The closest he ever came was using a whip on lifestock. What the woman caught in adultery did was a lot worse than spitting off a balcony, but Jesus didn't follow the Old Testament law and beat her to death with rocks. He didn't even give her a disciplining crack with a rod. He just said, "Go, and sin no more." I say we make Jesus our example!

VFG: Did Jesus say, “ah, so your child took your car for a joy ride?  Don’t do anything about it.”?  What would you do if you had a child that stole your radio and threw it off the balcony just to see it break?  Let the child off?

Post Edited (Violin for God) : 4/10/2005 9:46:45 PM (GMT-5)

The bible says that slaves should obey their masters.  That doesn't imply that slavery is ok.  At least I don't think it does.  Passages like this in the New Testament are often parallel to "children obey your parents" instruction.  If we make this imply that parents have a right to rule, then we've made a pretty nasty exegetical problem for ourselves.

Proverbs talks about many things.  If what it says in your verses goes without question, then so do the others (unless you come up with a very creative hermeneutic).  Personally, I think we can't really take Proverbs at face value (as perceived by us today).

I don't want to throw out Deuteronomy, but I honestly don't no what to do with God commanding genocide.  It seems down-right Satanic to me.  I trust that there are answers, but I don't know what they are.  But for our purposes here it doesn't matter.  All we need to know here is that we shouldn't (and can't because the book is apparently contradictory in places) do everything it says.  If we did we would be killing non-believers, not loving them.  (Hopefully that's what we are doing.)

Sorry that it’s taken so long to get back to this… been extremely busy and tired.

Sahid: The bible says that slaves should obey their masters.  That doesn't imply that slavery is ok.  At least I don't think it does.  Passages like this in the New Testament are often parallel to "children obey your parents" instruction.  If we make this imply that parents have a right to rule, then we've made a pretty nasty exegetical problem for ourselves.

VFG: What is wrong with parents ruling their children? 

Proverbs talks about many things.  If what it says in your verses goes without question, then so do the others (unless you come up with a very creative hermeneutic).  Personally, I think we can't really take Proverbs at face value (as perceived by us today).

VFG: I agree about not taking it at a literal "face value" (such as an if-then method), but we can't throw it out altogether either.  As with the other books of the Bible, it's important to take the genre and the historical context of Proverbs into concideration and then apply it accordingly.

I don't want to throw out Deuteronomy, but I honestly don't no what to do with God commanding genocide.  It seems down-right Satanic to me.  I trust that there are answers, but I don't know what they are.  But for our purposes here it doesn't matter.  All we need to know here is that we shouldn't (and can't because the book is apparently contradictory in places) do everything it says.  If we did we would be killing non-believers, not loving them.  (Hopefully that's what we are doing.)

VFG: If I have time, I’ll get to this later. 

Sahid: I agree completely.  If we shouldn't adhere to the instruction in 3000 year old material exactly, to what extent should we adhere to it?  Do you claim to know?  The clear teaching is to beat your child with a big stick.  To what extent are we to nuance that?  Do we get rid of the stick, but keep the beating?  Do we get rid of the beating, but keep the stick as a threat?  Do we make the punishment stronger than just a beating?  If the Bible is not authoritative as it's written, what is it?  I'm not just taking cheap shots; I really struggle with these problems and would love some answers.

VFG:  In this passage, first we should take into consideration the culture and historical context.  It seems that you view it as a “how to discipline precisely guidebook” whereas I see it as a “moral principle” (that is, if you don’t discipline your child, however the method of discipline is of the current culture may be, then the child will be spoiled.  I.e., we shouldn’t avoid disciplining our children.)  The rod was the method of punishment for that culture at that time.  It still is the method of punishment in at least Asian and Mid-eastern countries.

Sahid: Well, we don't have exact parallels, we do have a lot from the gospels.  A sin worse than theft and vandalism would justify a stricter punishment, right.  I'd say adultery is worse.  Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you."  I'd say murder is worse.  Jesus said, "Father forgive them."  He forgave a thief on the cross.  Zaccheus was a thief.  Jesus never punished him.  Instead he was treated as a friend.  Zaccheus came around on his own in response to free grace.  It's easy to follow Jesus when he merely repeats what we'd like to hear.  When he leaves adultery, murder, theft and (I'd venture to guess) vandalism unpunished, he's pretty hard to swallow.  The gate is narrow.

VFG: Just because adultery might be worse, this doesn’t mean we should throw out disciplining our children.  We also shouldn’t use Zaccheus as the only example of how Jesus treated sinners.  There were the money changers in the temple, and Jesus used a whip.  There were the Pharisees who got some pretty harsh words from Jesus.  “Feel-good love” wasn’t the only type of love Jesus showed to people.  There was also “tough love”, and some came around, some didn’t.  Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s important for parents to practice their best wisdom when it comes to disciplining because sometimes it’s better to “pick your battles”, but I don’t think it’s good practice to throw out discipline altogether.