Posted on 02/07/2003 7:21:09 PM PST by Notwithstanding
As if anyone can just look into the mind of Christ. It's funny how many pious atheists and other-worldly ideologues subscribe to a so-called Christian theocracy when they believe it mandates the toleration of evil.
When one steals, assaults, rapes or murders another their will has been violated and that is offensive whether the victim is religious, or not.
Morality laws are those that are designed to protect an individual from his own poor judgement, or lack of "religion."
As a religious person, I believe that God granted us our agency not because He expected us to make only correct choices, but because He knew that we might learn from our mistakes.
Liberty allows one to make the wrong choice, ie tobacco, alcohol, prostitution, etc. Protecting liberty seeks to protect one from the poor choices/judgement of another, ie, driving drunk, driving stoned, etc.
This is what is disingenuous about the anti-drug/anti-terrorist TV ads. It is the anti-freedom drug policies that have created a black market in which terrorists can profit from the drug trade to fund their terrorism. Not unlike inner city gangs who fund their weapons purchases using the artificially created economy of the underground drug market.
It is simple. A law is just when it preserves liberty for an individual, or society, from being deprived by another's actions.
Hardly. "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."
It’s a happy fact that many discussions of Natural Law take marriage as their starting point, as this is certainly the origin of all contracts and communal life. As I’ll point out later on, this beginning of human relationships is also the paradigm for our destiny and end.
You are aware of the complex inter-weaving of the concepts of sin, death, and law that Paul presents in his Epistle to the Romans. Jewish notions of freedom are all rooted in the Exodus, a journey out of bondage. Christ’s passion and resurrection fullfills and reveals the Jewish deliverance. Thus, the Exodus is no longer politics, but prophecy: Egypt is the land of bondage, but also the land of Death, from which the Israelites are delivered by the paschal event. Christian notions of freedom are all rooted in the fact of the Resurrection. You can’t be any less free than you are when you’re dead. You can’t be any more free than to be God, who’s subject to no law, and is preeminently, demonstrably not-subject to death. Thus, the closer to authentic freedom we get, the closer we are to God. For the soul to be free, conscience and will must be free. In order to be free, they must have access to truth. Christ’s teaching that “the truth shall set you free” must be understood not as political, but salvific.
God comes to man not as rapist, but as Bridegroom. Having created us free in will, having purposed us to partake of his own divine life, he seeks not the “Islam” of submission to irresistable will, but the “Yes” of a beloved Spouse. Many Orthodox theologians, whose liturgy encourages them to keep their eyes fixed firmly on the Resurrection with a vividness and immediacy seldom appreciated in the West, have a clearer understanding of how the New Covenant shatters the legalistic relationship, replacing it with marital intimacy, heirship in the Kingdom, and theosis: a direct taking-up and participation in the Trinitarian communion. Christos Yannaras in The Freedom of Morality presents a memorable explanation of how conventional ethics and moral law, if observed as the end of life in themselves, are actually an impediment to the trinitarian life. It’s a species of coercion that Paul Evdokimov calls a “terrorist” theology, utterly at odds with Jesus, who lays down his life not out of compulsion but of his own free will, of God who seeks but does not compel the “fiat” of the Virgin Mary.
I am not deeply read in theology, so be warned: I may be wandering off the reservation and not even know it. I expect to have some follow up comments, but want to think them over first. Hope this helps.
Someone quoted from Saint John Chrysostom, from his work: "De Sacerdotis," or, "Concerning the Priesthood." He wrote concerning the behavior of priests in the Church, and their relation to society. He cautioned that priests are not there to be rulers, to lord over the faithful.
Of course, he was writing in the 4th Century. There were no democracies then. Governments come and go, but the Church stands forever. The Church has to take a long-term view of society. Saint John Chrysostom, a Father of the Church, and a Patriarch of Constantinople, did not say that the laity, the faithful, should have no voice, though. We, the laity, have not only a right, but an obligation, to determine what sort of society we are to live in. We do this through the political process, through our votes, and through political discussions.
Has anyone ever said that people should give over their secular rule to Bishops or Cardinals? No. Religious leaders shouldn't be secular rulers of the country. The Church doesn't have a secular role. The Church and the secular are different. But that doesn't mean to say that the people themselves shouldn't enforce morality. People themselves have a right to say what kind of society they live in, what their children are taught, what behavior is acceptable or unacceptable.
When Archbishop Quinn of San Francisco wrote to the Superintendent of Schools, concerning the school board's plan to distribute condoms in the schools, the Archbishop offered the advice and wisdom of the Church, as a matter of discussion.
We have an obligation, (if we are lucky enough to be born in a moral society), to MAINTAIN that moral society for all future generations.
Excellent answer.
LOL! Christianity is not a physical characteristic or attribute. Those who would discriminate against Christians, say, the Hildebeast, or in favor of Christians, or Muslims for that matter, could easily argue they are merely enforcing "minimal civilized standards". How would you argue against them, when they are using your own argument?
Ooops.
The Taliban was merely enforcing its interpretation of "mininal civilized standards" and we return to the question posed at the start of this thread. Assuming you think this would be a bad thing, what is your argument against it?
Oh, that's right, I forgot - you support it fully, it's even part of your name, Jihad. You apparently support a holy war against your "cultural" enemies. Which places you in a pretty funny position with respect to discussion of morality. Do you support homicide bombings of those who disagree with you, in keeping with other Jihadists around the world?
(Note to self: must remember to keep in mind the intentions of Jihadists.)
Tell it to the judge.
If you engage in racial discrimination in the operation of a business open to the public, you're not innocent.
Hubris and self-worship go together.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.