Question for believers: Are we within God's jurisdiction?

[usmbguest5318]

Who has the ultimate right to speak the law?

Man, of course, because God speaks "Burning Bush" and other arcane languages that are ambiguously comprehended by men.

 

[playtime]

Give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and unto God the things that are God's

We are expected to follow laws UNLESS they go against God's Laws....then God's Laws are paramount

there are some real whackjobs out there that 'do' things in the name of god that are against the law.

 

[ding]

The etymology of the word "jurisdiction" is as follows:

Middle English: from Old French jurediction, from Latin jurisdictio(n-), from jus, jur- ‘law’ + dictio ‘saying’ (from dicere ‘say’).

Jurisdiction means to speak the law. So who has the ultimate right to speak the law? Is it God, or is it man? Whose jurisdiction are we living under?

Man's law - governmental law - claims the right to authoritatively speak law which supersedes all others. If man's law conflicts with God's law, government claims the right to ignore God's law and punish by its own standards. But that is their claim. Where do you believe authority resides in your own life?

A man cannot have two masters. If you believe that man's law holds authority, then it must take precedence over all other law, including God's. If you believe God's law holds authority, then it also must take precedence. If one takes precedence as the authority which may dictate to you the appropriate standard of behavior, the other is obviated entirely, and ceases to exist as authority. Where the two coincide, one is redundant - a hollow echo - and that which is redundant cannot dictate behavior, as it contributes no content of its own. And so again, it ceases to exist as authority.

An authority must be primary to act as a standard; for its role is to judge all behavior, and all other standards of behavior. There can only be one standard in the primary place, and all others have no authority over it, or the being which lives by dictates of the primary standard. The logical implication is that if a person is to honor God's law as the primary authority, they can have no obligation to obey man's law, or to even recognize it as authority. If one does not recognize it, it is wrong for them to support it as such, and to impose it upon themselves, their family, their neighbors, and the world at large.

It appears conclusive that no person can both support government's claim to authority, and be a person of God.

Why must they be mutually exclusive again?

As our forefathers sought to build “one nation under God,” they purposely established their legal codes on the foundation of Natural Law. They believed that societies should be governed, as Jefferson put it, by “the moral law to which man has been subjected by his Creator, and of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him. The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature accompany them into a state of society,… their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation.” (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 3:228)

Throughout the first century of US. history, natural law was upheld as a key principle of government by the American people and their leader, not only by Presidents and the Congress, but also by the Supreme Court.

In the view of the Court, its members were to decide cases by exercising “that understanding which Providence has bestowed upon them.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186-87, 1824). Since the laws they adjudicated were based on “the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature,” (The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 532, 1848), they relied less on judicial precedent than on “eternal justice as it comes from intelligence… to guide the conscience of the Court.” (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 39 U.S. 210, 225, 1840).

Cicero defines Natural Law as “true law.” “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” (The Five thousand Year Leap, p. 40)

In 1764, Massachusetts patriot James Otis defined Natural Law as “the rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws; the will of God revealed to man through his conscience.” (Annals of America, 2:11)

Natural Law: The Basis of Moral Government - National Center for Constitutional Studies

“The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law, called also the law of nature.” (Sir Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case in The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke)

“…as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority...from this original. "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law 1723-1780)

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.” (James Wilson “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Signed U.S. Constitution)

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and unto God the things that are God's

We are expected to follow laws UNLESS they go against God's Laws....then God's Laws are paramount

there are some real whackjobs out there that 'do' things in the name of god that are against the law.

As to your signature, I would argue that everyone is above the law. To suggest that the scribbles of lawmakers takes precedence over human beings is, quite honestly, repulsive. In matters of outright violation of inherent natural rights, all persons have the right of self-defense to protect those rights, making law redundant and unnecessary in these cases. In all other cases, the law is immoral, by definition, being outside the scope of defending rights.

That being said, Trump, like any president (i.e. dominator of his fellow man), is a deplorable scoundrel.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and unto God the things that are God's

We are expected to follow laws UNLESS they go against God's Laws....then God's Laws are paramount

there are some real whackjobs out there that 'do' things in the name of god that are against the law.

There are whackjobs everywhere

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and unto God the things that are God's

We are expected to follow laws UNLESS they go against God's Laws....then God's Laws are paramount

there are some real whackjobs out there that 'do' things in the name of god that are against the law.

There are whackjobs everywhere

Someone has to explain this to me...

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s - so what exactly is Caesar’s? The coin with his face on it seems reasonable. I would agree that money belongs to the government in some sense, as it is manipulated by government and not a true representation of value. Perhaps the mistake is in allowing money to represent labor and value in the first place (as anyone who understands how the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking works will surely agree).

But who here will say that the labor itself, which we (perhaps foolishly) allow to be represented by money, belongs to Caesar? If so, precisely how much? Caesar claims the right to dictate how much without consulting you, or God’s law, on the matter; so if he demands 100%, we are obliged to give it, as per the words of Jesus Christ? This would mean Jesus is condoning delivering yourself into outright slavery - the theft of the human body and its labor. Considering that theft is explicitly denounced by God, this is not a reasonable position.

 

[ding]

Give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and unto God the things that are God's

We are expected to follow laws UNLESS they go against God's Laws....then God's Laws are paramount

there are some real whackjobs out there that 'do' things in the name of god that are against the law.

There are whackjobs everywhere

Someone has to explain this to me...

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s - so what exactly is Caesar’s? The coin with his face on it seems reasonable. I would agree that money belongs to the government in some sense, as it is manipulated by government and not a true representation of value. Perhaps the mistake is in allowing money to represent labor and value in the first place (as anyone who understands how the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking works will surely agree).

But who here will say that the labor itself, which we (perhaps foolishly) allow to be represented by money, belongs to Caesar? If so, precisely how much? Caesar claims the right to dictate how much without consulting you, or God’s law, on the matter; so if he demands 100%, we are obliged to give it, as per the words of Jesus Christ? This would mean Jesus is condoning delivering yourself into outright slavery - the theft of the human body and its labor. Considering that theft is explicitly denounced by God, this is not a reasonable position.

No. Rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s means laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice. A commitment to justice carries with it an obligation to disobey unjust laws.

Do you agree or disagree that laws are valid only insofar as they are grounded in justice?

 

[zaangalewa]

The etymology of the word "jurisdiction" is as follows:

Middle English: from Old French jurediction, from Latin jurisdictio(n-), from jus, jur- ‘law’ + dictio ‘saying’ (from dicere ‘say’).

Jurisdiction means to speak the law. So who has the ultimate right to speak the law? Is it God, or is it man? Whose jurisdiction are we living under?

Man's law - governmental law - claims the right to authoritatively speak law which supersedes all others. If man's law conflicts with God's law, government claims the right to ignore God's law and punish by its own standards. But that is their claim. Where do you believe authority resides in your own life?

A man cannot have two masters. If you believe that man's law holds authority, then it must take precedence over all other law, including God's. If you believe God's law holds authority, then it also must take precedence. If one takes precedence as the authority which may dictate to you the appropriate standard of behavior, the other is obviated entirely, and ceases to exist as authority. Where the two coincide, one is redundant - a hollow echo - and that which is redundant cannot dictate behavior, as it contributes no content of its own. And so again, it ceases to exist as authority.

An authority must be primary to act as a standard; for its role is to judge all behavior, and all other standards of behavior. There can only be one standard in the primary place, and all others have no authority over it, or the being which lives by dictates of the primary standard. The logical implication is that if a person is to honor God's law as the primary authority, they can have no obligation to obey man's law, or to even recognize it as authority. If one does not recognize it, it is wrong for them to support it as such, and to impose it upon themselves, their family, their neighbors, and the world at large.

It appears conclusive that no person can both support government's claim to authority, and be a person of God.

Exactly.

Paris Newsletter (1535): « Apres les exhorta, et supplia tres instamment qu'ils priassent Dieu pour le Roy, affin qu'il luy voulsist donner bon conseil, protestant qu'il mouroit son bon serviteur et de Dieu premierement. »
"Afterward he exhorted them, and besought them very earnestly to pray to God for the King, that He should give him good counsel, protesting that he died his good servant, and God's first."
Thomas More

 

[zaangalewa]

... What does the Bible day [=say] about abortion ... ?

"You shall not kill"

 

[zaangalewa]

Give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and unto God the things that are God's

We are expected to follow laws UNLESS they go against God's Laws....then God's Laws are paramount

there are some real whackjobs out there that 'do' things in the name of god that are against the law.

There are whackjobs everywhere

Someone has to explain this to me...

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s - so what exactly is Caesar’s? The coin with his face on it seems reasonable.

¿Money is reason? Sounds a little crazy in my ears.

I would agree that money belongs to the government in some sense, as it is manipulated by government and not a true representation of value. Perhaps the mistake is in allowing money to represent labor and value in the first place (as anyone who understands how the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking works will surely agree).

The picture of the imperator of the roman empire was a picture of a human being who was a god, a pharaoh. Jews were not allowed to serve a Pharao any longer. This was/is not compatible with the own tradition. So they were not allowed to touch coins with a picture of a human being who says "I am [a] god".

But who here will say that the labor itself, which we (perhaps foolishly) allow to be represented by money, belongs to Caesar?

No one thought in such a way in this days of history. It was an US-American president in the 20th century who replaced the gold-binding of the US$ (and all other currencies in the world). The material of the coin was in this days the money. Gold was not in Fort Knox - it was in the coins.

If so, precisely how much? Caesar claims the right to dictate how much without consulting you, or God’s law, on the matter; so if he demands 100%, we are obliged to give it, as per the words of Jesus Christ? This would mean Jesus is condoning delivering yourself into outright slavery - the theft of the human body and its labor. Considering that theft is explicitly denounced by God, this is not a reasonable position.

I'm not sure what you like to say with this last words here. Karl Marx said once "Eigentum ist Diebstahl" = "Property is theft". I'm not sure whether he was right or not to say so. If no one owns nothing then no one is able to be a thief. But for me it's not a problem if someone owns whatever he likes to own. It's a problem if someone is a criminal. But perhaps we should no one allow to be super-rich (=not to be able to become poor again). "Super-rich" is perhaps a new "pharaonic" quality.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Perhaps 'god' leaves his jurisdiction from time to time if he's in high speed pursuit.

 

[playtime]

Give unto Ceaser what is Ceaser's and unto God the things that are God's

We are expected to follow laws UNLESS they go against God's Laws....then God's Laws are paramount

there are some real whackjobs out there that 'do' things in the name of god that are against the law.

There are whackjobs everywhere

yep. but when deplorable things are done

now get this next part, m'k?

in the name of god

that kinda lifts it to different level.

 

[Taz]

The etymology of the word "jurisdiction" is as follows:

Middle English: from Old French jurediction, from Latin jurisdictio(n-), from jus, jur- ‘law’ + dictio ‘saying’ (from dicere ‘say’).

Jurisdiction means to speak the law. So who has the ultimate right to speak the law? Is it God, or is it man? Whose jurisdiction are we living under?

Man's law - governmental law - claims the right to authoritatively speak law which supersedes all others. If man's law conflicts with God's law, government claims the right to ignore God's law and punish by its own standards. But that is their claim. Where do you believe authority resides in your own life?

A man cannot have two masters. If you believe that man's law holds authority, then it must take precedence over all other law, including God's. If you believe God's law holds authority, then it also must take precedence. If one takes precedence as the authority which may dictate to you the appropriate standard of behavior, the other is obviated entirely, and ceases to exist as authority. Where the two coincide, one is redundant - a hollow echo - and that which is redundant cannot dictate behavior, as it contributes no content of its own. And so again, it ceases to exist as authority.

An authority must be primary to act as a standard; for its role is to judge all behavior, and all other standards of behavior. There can only be one standard in the primary place, and all others have no authority over it, or the being which lives by dictates of the primary standard. The logical implication is that if a person is to honor God's law as the primary authority, they can have no obligation to obey man's law, or to even recognize it as authority. If one does not recognize it, it is wrong for them to support it as such, and to impose it upon themselves, their family, their neighbors, and the world at large.

It appears conclusive that no person can both support government's claim to authority, and be a person of God.

Oh no, not another fucking Muslim.

 

[ding]

Perhaps 'god' leaves his jurisdiction from time to time if he's in high speed pursuit.

The moral law is about what we ought to do, not what we do. The fact that you believe a moral imperative exists, that we don't always follow but can't seem to get rid of ought to raise some suspicion.

I am afraid that you have let the cat out of the bag that you believe in a moral law. Otherwise, you would say, the hell with your invisible law of common decency. But you can't.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Perhaps 'god' leaves his jurisdiction from time to time if he's in high speed pursuit.

The moral law is about what we ought to do, not what we do. The fact that you believe a moral imperative exists, that we don't always follow but can't seem to get rid of ought to raise some suspicion.

I am afraid that you have let the cat out of the bag that you believe in a moral law. Otherwise, you would say, the hell with your invisible law of common decency. But you can't.

Somewhere 'god' is laughing his ass off. Don't chu hear good?

 

[ding]

Perhaps 'god' leaves his jurisdiction from time to time if he's in high speed pursuit.

The moral law is about what we ought to do, not what we do. The fact that you believe a moral imperative exists, that we don't always follow but can't seem to get rid of ought to raise some suspicion.

I am afraid that you have let the cat out of the bag that you believe in a moral law. Otherwise, you would say, the hell with your invisible law of common decency. But you can't.

Somewhere 'god' is laughing his ass off. Don't chu hear good?

He most certainly has an excellent sense of humor. He puts up with us.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Why must they be mutually exclusive again?

As our forefathers sought to build “one nation under God,” they purposely established their legal codes on the foundation of Natural Law. They believed that societies should be governed, as Jefferson put it, by “the moral law to which man has been subjected by his Creator, and of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him. The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature accompany them into a state of society,… their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation.” (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 3:228)

Throughout the first century of US. history, natural law was upheld as a key principle of government by the American people and their leader, not only by Presidents and the Congress, but also by the Supreme Court.

In the view of the Court, its members were to decide cases by exercising “that understanding which Providence has bestowed upon them.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186-87, 1824). Since the laws they adjudicated were based on “the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature,” (The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 532, 1848), they relied less on judicial precedent than on “eternal justice as it comes from intelligence… to guide the conscience of the Court.” (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 39 U.S. 210, 225, 1840).

Cicero defines Natural Law as “true law.” “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” (The Five thousand Year Leap, p. 40)

In 1764, Massachusetts patriot James Otis defined Natural Law as “the rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws; the will of God revealed to man through his conscience.” (Annals of America, 2:11)

Natural Law: The Basis of Moral Government - National Center for Constitutional Studies

“The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law, called also the law of nature.” (Sir Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case in The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke)

“…as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority...from this original. "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law 1723-1780)

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.” (James Wilson “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Signed U.S. Constitution)

What a great elucidation of natural law. Thank you so much for that.

The reason why God's law and man's law are mutually exclusive has to do with their inherent nature as primary authorities. Neither admits exceptions for competing standards of behavior. Where the two diverge, the primary must take precedence in all cases, or it ceases to be an authoritative standard. Where the two are in agreement, one is but a hollow echo of the other, and thus its existence has no effect at all, It's fairly clear how one must take precedence when the two laws prescribe opposing actions, but where they are in alignment requires a bit more examination.

In cases where both God's law and man's law prescribe or prohibit the same action, it is not overtly apparent which standard is primary (the person must reveal it - if they even know themselves - or it will be revealed by their choice of action). If the two standards never diverge, the point is rather moot, but this is not the same as saying they both share the primary place (which can never be, since should a divergence ever occur, one must emerge as the primary, or both must be disregarded entirely).

For example, God's law prohibits theft, as does man's law - the two are in agreement. If the person refrains from stealing, one of these laws acted as authority upon the person, and the other was irrelevant. Even if the person considered both, and enjoyed knowing both were served by his action or inaction, the primary standard was sufficiently authoritative to prohibit the theft, and the other standards had absolutely no effect on the directing the person's action. If the other standard did not exist, nothing would be different. It contributes no content of its own, being redundant, and thus does not exist as an authoritative force on the person.

So both claim to be primary standards for behavior, and only one can actually be primary. This is why they are mutually exclusive. Have I demonstrated that to your satisfaction? If not, please let me know where you believe the argument fails.

Of course, we must keep in mind that is very common for neither standard to be primary, as the person just does whatever they want on a case by case basis, or sometimes follows one or the other, but not all the time. And also keep in mind that failure to fulfill the requirements of the standard is not the same as it not acting as a standard; it must be purposefully be disregarded for it to no longer be a standard.

 

[ding]

Why must they be mutually exclusive again?

As our forefathers sought to build “one nation under God,” they purposely established their legal codes on the foundation of Natural Law. They believed that societies should be governed, as Jefferson put it, by “the moral law to which man has been subjected by his Creator, and of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him. The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature accompany them into a state of society,… their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation.” (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 3:228)

Throughout the first century of US. history, natural law was upheld as a key principle of government by the American people and their leader, not only by Presidents and the Congress, but also by the Supreme Court.

In the view of the Court, its members were to decide cases by exercising “that understanding which Providence has bestowed upon them.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186-87, 1824). Since the laws they adjudicated were based on “the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature,” (The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 532, 1848), they relied less on judicial precedent than on “eternal justice as it comes from intelligence… to guide the conscience of the Court.” (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 39 U.S. 210, 225, 1840).

Cicero defines Natural Law as “true law.” “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” (The Five thousand Year Leap, p. 40)

In 1764, Massachusetts patriot James Otis defined Natural Law as “the rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws; the will of God revealed to man through his conscience.” (Annals of America, 2:11)

Natural Law: The Basis of Moral Government - National Center for Constitutional Studies

“The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law, called also the law of nature.” (Sir Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case in The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke)

“…as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority...from this original. "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law 1723-1780)

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.” (James Wilson “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Signed U.S. Constitution)

What a great elucidation of natural law. Thank you so much for that.

The reason why God's law and man's law are mutually exclusive has to do with their inherent nature as primary authorities. Neither admits exceptions for competing standards of behavior. Where the two diverge, the primary must take precedence in all cases, or it ceases to be an authoritative standard. Where the two are in agreement, one is but a hollow echo of the other, and thus its existence has no effect at all, It's fairly clear how one must take precedence when the two laws prescribe opposing actions, but where they are in alignment requires a bit more examination.

In cases where both God's law and man's law prescribe or prohibit the same action, it is not overtly apparent which standard is primary (the person must reveal it - if they even know themselves - or it will be revealed by their choice of action). If the two standards never diverge, the point is rather moot, but this is not the same as saying they both share the primary place (which can never be, since should a divergence ever occur, one must emerge as the primary, or both must be disregarded entirely).

For example, God's law prohibits theft, as does man's law - the two are in agreement. If the person refrains from stealing, one of these laws acted as authority upon the person, and the other was irrelevant. Even if the person considered both, and enjoyed knowing both were served by his action or inaction, the primary standard was sufficiently authoritative to prohibit the theft, and the other standards had absolutely no effect on the directing the person's action. If the other standard did not exist, nothing would be different. It contributes no content of its own, being redundant, and thus does not exist as an authoritative force on the person.

So both claim to be primary standards for behavior, and only one can actually be primary. This is why they are mutually exclusive. Have I demonstrated that to your satisfaction? If not, please let me know where you believe the argument fails.

Of course, we must keep in mind that is very common for neither standard to be primary, as the person just does whatever they want on a case by case basis, or sometimes follows one or the other, but not all the time. And also keep in mind that failure to fulfill the requirements of the standard is not the same as it not acting as a standard; it must be purposefully be disregarded for it to no longer be a standard.

Thank you. Natural Law was the basis for our laws well into the 1800's before legal positivism arose. They are only mutually exclusive when man's law becomes unjust. A government's moral inconsistency from Natural Law will inevitably doom any society to failure. When one begins with an unjust "law", results that are unjust are a matter of course. Let's use slavery as an example. It is wrong to treat any human being as property to be disposed of at the will of its owner. In that case Natural Law and man's law were mutually exclusive, but it was man's law which led to an unjust outcome. Do you agree?

 

[ding]

Why must they be mutually exclusive again?

As our forefathers sought to build “one nation under God,” they purposely established their legal codes on the foundation of Natural Law. They believed that societies should be governed, as Jefferson put it, by “the moral law to which man has been subjected by his Creator, and of which his feelings, or conscience as it is sometimes called, are the evidence with which his Creator has furnished him. The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature accompany them into a state of society,… their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation.” (Writings of Thomas Jefferson, 3:228)

Throughout the first century of US. history, natural law was upheld as a key principle of government by the American people and their leader, not only by Presidents and the Congress, but also by the Supreme Court.

In the view of the Court, its members were to decide cases by exercising “that understanding which Providence has bestowed upon them.” (Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 186-87, 1824). Since the laws they adjudicated were based on “the preexisting and higher authority of the laws of nature,” (The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix, 47 U.S. 507, 532, 1848), they relied less on judicial precedent than on “eternal justice as it comes from intelligence… to guide the conscience of the Court.” (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 39 U.S. 210, 225, 1840).

Cicero defines Natural Law as “true law.” “True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions…. It is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it, and it is impossible to abolish entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not look outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it. And there will not be different laws at Rome and Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator, and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment.” (The Five thousand Year Leap, p. 40)

In 1764, Massachusetts patriot James Otis defined Natural Law as “the rules of moral conduct implanted by nature in the human mind, forming the proper basis for and being superior to all written laws; the will of God revealed to man through his conscience.” (Annals of America, 2:11)

Natural Law: The Basis of Moral Government - National Center for Constitutional Studies

“The law of nature is that which God at the time of creation of the nature of man infused into his heart, for his preservation and direction…the moral law, called also the law of nature.” (Sir Edward Coke, Calvin’s Case in The Selected Writings and Speeches of Sir Edward Coke)

“…as man depends absolutely upon his Maker for everything, it is necessary that he should, in all points, conform to his Maker's will. This will of his Maker is called the law of nature...This law of nature...dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority...from this original. "Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws should be suffered to contradict these." (William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Law 1723-1780)

“Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is Divine…Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants.” (James Wilson “Of the General Principles of Law and Obligation”, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Signed U.S. Constitution)

What a great elucidation of natural law. Thank you so much for that.

The reason why God's law and man's law are mutually exclusive has to do with their inherent nature as primary authorities. Neither admits exceptions for competing standards of behavior. Where the two diverge, the primary must take precedence in all cases, or it ceases to be an authoritative standard. Where the two are in agreement, one is but a hollow echo of the other, and thus its existence has no effect at all, It's fairly clear how one must take precedence when the two laws prescribe opposing actions, but where they are in alignment requires a bit more examination.

In cases where both God's law and man's law prescribe or prohibit the same action, it is not overtly apparent which standard is primary (the person must reveal it - if they even know themselves - or it will be revealed by their choice of action). If the two standards never diverge, the point is rather moot, but this is not the same as saying they both share the primary place (which can never be, since should a divergence ever occur, one must emerge as the primary, or both must be disregarded entirely).

For example, God's law prohibits theft, as does man's law - the two are in agreement. If the person refrains from stealing, one of these laws acted as authority upon the person, and the other was irrelevant. Even if the person considered both, and enjoyed knowing both were served by his action or inaction, the primary standard was sufficiently authoritative to prohibit the theft, and the other standards had absolutely no effect on the directing the person's action. If the other standard did not exist, nothing would be different. It contributes no content of its own, being redundant, and thus does not exist as an authoritative force on the person.

So both claim to be primary standards for behavior, and only one can actually be primary. This is why they are mutually exclusive. Have I demonstrated that to your satisfaction? If not, please let me know where you believe the argument fails.

Of course, we must keep in mind that is very common for neither standard to be primary, as the person just does whatever they want on a case by case basis, or sometimes follows one or the other, but not all the time. And also keep in mind that failure to fulfill the requirements of the standard is not the same as it not acting as a standard; it must be purposefully be disregarded for it to no longer be a standard.

Are you familiar with the concept of normalization of deviance?

 

[toobfreak]

The etymology of the word "jurisdiction" is as follows:

Middle English: from Old French jurediction, from Latin jurisdictio(n-), from jus, jur- ‘law’ + dictio ‘saying’ (from dicere ‘say’).

Jurisdiction means to speak the law. So who has the ultimate right to speak the law? Is it God, or is it man? Whose jurisdiction are we living under?

Man's law - governmental law - claims the right to authoritatively speak law which supersedes all others. If man's law conflicts with God's law, government claims the right to ignore God's law and punish by its own standards. But that is their claim. Where do you believe authority resides in your own life?

A man cannot have two masters. If you believe that man's law holds authority, then it must take precedence over all other law, including God's. If you believe God's law holds authority, then it also must take precedence. If one takes precedence as the authority which may dictate to you the appropriate standard of behavior, the other is obviated entirely, and ceases to exist as authority. Where the two coincide, one is redundant - a hollow echo - and that which is redundant cannot dictate behavior, as it contributes no content of its own. And so again, it ceases to exist as authority.

An authority must be primary to act as a standard; for its role is to judge all behavior, and all other standards of behavior. There can only be one standard in the primary place, and all others have no authority over it, or the being which lives by dictates of the primary standard. The logical implication is that if a person is to honor God's law as the primary authority, they can have no obligation to obey man's law, or to even recognize it as authority. If one does not recognize it, it is wrong for them to support it as such, and to impose it upon themselves, their family, their neighbors, and the world at large.

It appears conclusive that no person can both support government's claim to authority, and be a person of God.

Your thread is meaningless and stupid: Man has finite vision and ability to define only finite jurisdiction as is seen and applies to man himself. Man cannot even begin to estimate the jurisdiction of God, let along our place in it.