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

[zaangalewa]

... Women to this day can not become priests. ...

I regret this very much. I was my whole life fighting for women. Nevertheless I see more and more indicators why this is not as trivial as the most people seem to think today. If I imagine for example a Nazi-army full of women, then I feel not very comfortable on my own. How to fight against such an army? No chance! Fortunately it never was in this way. Sure such a thought seems not to be very real - but I feel much more comfortable if women are not fighting soldiers. Perhaps it's also not bad if they are not priests. For sure I do not like to misuse women now suddenly as a final contingent of fighters for the Christian faith. Perhaps the holy catholic church will need soon no priests any longer at all. We are able to change our traditions and our life-style - but we are also able to die. We will see. Perhaps our women will be able to become priests too, why not? Is anyone in hurry to find the best of all possible solutions for this problem?

 

[sparky]

Interesting paradox Brian

That morality has to hail from celestial sources vs. terrestrial has been debated since sun worshippers

But that's the hook you see....

Some chief , holy see , or whatever 'authority' interprets for the tribe, they pitch a virgin in a volcano, and it's all good

~S~

 

[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.

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?

Excellent. Yes, I agree with all you said except the historical note about early law in this country. I agree that natural law was the basis for those laws (in the same way a Hollywood film may be based upon a true story), but I question the success of the attempt, along similar lines as Lysander Spooner.

I am not familiar with the term “normalization of deviance”, but at first glance I suppose it to be what we see in the courts, whereby deviations from the spirit and/or letter of the Constitution establish precedence for future deviations, and create new platform from which to spring even further away from that document’s original intent. Is this in the ballpark?

I don't have the time to spare to watch this but through inspection the Constitution is powerless to stop a corrupt government from enacting unjust laws if there is a systemic breakdown of the checks and balances.

Normalization of deviance is when a standard is lowered and the deviation from the higher standard is normalized. The erosion of liberty and freedom is an incremental process.

I understand. The Spooner audiobook is somewhat dry, and written in the style of its day, but it outlines an irrefutable case for the invalidity of the Constitution, in my opinion. I have yet to hear valid refutations, in any case.

The problem with "checks and balances" is that they are all on one side of the table. It's a system of government governing itself. The only really check to government is an armed population with a revolutionary spirit, which is quite a drastic check, but works quite well. Even now in the U.S., though the spirit is largely subdued, the arms remain, and I submit that it's the only thing keeping this ambitious, aggressive government from racing headlong into tyranny. Now, there may be an economic check in the sense that it's more profitable to have a system of free-range debt slavery than one of violent domination, which is a dubious hope, but worthy of consideration.

A breakdown in governmental checks and balances is not an unfortunate happenstance, but an inevitability; because it runs counter to the motivations of ambitious power-mongers. The Constitution has failed because it must fail. Whenever you create a seat of power, gangsters, dominators, and other psychopaths will be first in line to sit upon it. The problem is that most people have a moral compass, and they find it difficult to understand the mindset of people who don't. They keep believing that if we can just get the right people into these positions, everything will be OK. But that can never be, because immoral, deceptive scoundrels will edge those people out every time. It's like hoping for a benevolent dictatorship. Freedom and justice can never be served by establishing an institution inherently defined by violent coercion and an inequality of rights.

 

[zaangalewa]

Interesting paradox Brian

That morality has to hail from celestial sources vs. terrestrial has been debated since sun worshippers

But that's the hook you see....

Some chief , holy see , or whatever 'authority' interprets for the tribe, they pitch a virgin in a volcano, and it's all good

~S~

In your logic the Supreme Court of the USA threw Norma McCorvey alias Jane Roe in a volcano and it's all good that every year a million US-Americans have to die because of this.

 

[forkup]

... Women to this day can not become priests. ...

I regret this very much. I was my whole life fighting for women. Nevertheless I see more and more indicators why this is not as trivial as the most people seem to think today. If I imagine for example a Nazi-army full of women, then I feel not very comfortable on my own. How to fight against such an army? No chance! Fortunately it never was in this way. Sure such a thought seems not to be very real - but I feel much more comfortable if women are not fighting soldiers. Perhaps it's also not bad if they are not priests. For sure I do not like to misuse women now suddenly as a final contingent of fighters for the Christian faith. Perhaps the holy catholic church will need soon no priests any longer at all. We are able to change our traditions and our life-style - but we are also able to die. We will see. Perhaps our women will be able to become priests too, why not? Is anyone in hurry to find the best of all possible solutions for this problem?

Do you realize that with this post, you not only acknowledge that the Bible isn't the source of equality you say it is. But that you realize this and choose to follow the principles of humanism when it really comes down to it?

 

[Humorme]

Religion tries to make politics passable.

Politics is a way more honest way to regulate society than religion is. Politics at least starts from a rational point. Religion on the other hand doesn't need such grounding. Faith is a terrible starting point for societal issues.

Give me a reason for equal rights.

Humanism, science. On the other hand religion advocates inequality.

You don't have any idea what you are speaking about. The only historical source for equal rights is the bible. There is no other source. Without Jews and Christians the world where we live in is unthinkable, is even unimaginable.

Slavery was condoned in both the NT and the OT. Women to this day can not become priests. People who don't believe go straight to hell according to it. The only real theocracies today are some of the most unequal societies there are. So pray tell what Bible have you read?

And slavery is still condoned today. If you live in America, then YOU are a slave. And who is advocating for a theocracy?

 

[defcon4]

But that's the hook you see....

When some people cannot see further than their nose.

 

[forkup]

Politics is a way more honest way to regulate society than religion is. Politics at least starts from a rational point. Religion on the other hand doesn't need such grounding. Faith is a terrible starting point for societal issues.

Give me a reason for equal rights.

Humanism, science. On the other hand religion advocates inequality.

You don't have any idea what you are speaking about. The only historical source for equal rights is the bible. There is no other source. Without Jews and Christians the world where we live in is unthinkable, is even unimaginable.

Slavery was condoned in both the NT and the OT. Women to this day can not become priests. People who don't believe go straight to hell according to it. The only real theocracies today are some of the most unequal societies there are. So pray tell what Bible have you read?

And slavery is still condoned today. If you live in America, then YOU are a slave. And who is advocating for a theocracy?

The premise of the OP. If you give a binary choice between laws written by man and laws written by god, one of the options is a theocracy.

 

[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?

Excellent. Yes, I agree with all you said except the historical note about early law in this country. I agree that natural law was the basis for those laws (in the same way a Hollywood film may be based upon a true story), but I question the success of the attempt, along similar lines as Lysander Spooner.

I am not familiar with the term “normalization of deviance”, but at first glance I suppose it to be what we see in the courts, whereby deviations from the spirit and/or letter of the Constitution establish precedence for future deviations, and create new platform from which to spring even further away from that document’s original intent. Is this in the ballpark?

I don't have the time to spare to watch this but through inspection the Constitution is powerless to stop a corrupt government from enacting unjust laws if there is a systemic breakdown of the checks and balances.

Normalization of deviance is when a standard is lowered and the deviation from the higher standard is normalized. The erosion of liberty and freedom is an incremental process.

I understand. The Spooner audiobook is somewhat dry, and written in the style of its day, but it outlines an irrefutable case for the invalidity of the Constitution, in my opinion. I have yet to hear valid refutations, in any case.

The problem with "checks and balances" is that they are all on one side of the table. It's a system of government governing itself. The only really check to government is an armed population with a revolutionary spirit, which is quite a drastic check, but works quite well. Even now in the U.S., though the spirit is largely subdued, the arms remain, and I submit that it's the only thing keeping this ambitious, aggressive government from racing headlong into tyranny. Now, there may be an economic check in the sense that it's more profitable to have a system of free-range debt slavery than one of violent domination, which is a dubious hope, but worthy of consideration.

A breakdown in governmental checks and balances is not an unfortunate happenstance, but an inevitability; because it runs counter to the motivations of ambitious power-mongers. The Constitution has failed because it must fail. Whenever you create a seat of power, gangsters, dominators, and other psychopaths will be first in line to sit upon it. The problem is that most people have a moral compass, and they find it difficult to understand the mindset of people who don't. They keep believing that if we can just get the right people into these positions, everything will be OK. But that can never be, because immoral, deceptive scoundrels will edge those people out every time. It's like hoping for a benevolent dictatorship. Freedom and justice can never be served by establishing an institution inherently defined by violent coercion and an inequality of rights.

I'm not quite there yet. Government is a necessary evil but necessary nonetheless. The problem is not the government per se. The problem is with the people themselves. Not to worry though everything balances out in the end.

The checks are still in place and are still working. We the people are the last check but I doubt it will ever get to that because we the people will be humbled well before then.

 

[Humorme]

Give me a reason for equal rights.

Humanism, science. On the other hand religion advocates inequality.

You don't have any idea what you are speaking about. The only historical source for equal rights is the bible. There is no other source. Without Jews and Christians the world where we live in is unthinkable, is even unimaginable.

Slavery was condoned in both the NT and the OT. Women to this day can not become priests. People who don't believe go straight to hell according to it. The only real theocracies today are some of the most unequal societies there are. So pray tell what Bible have you read?

And slavery is still condoned today. If you live in America, then YOU are a slave. And who is advocating for a theocracy?

The premise of the OP. If you give a binary choice between laws written by man and laws written by god, one of the options is a theocracy.

America was founded as a constitutional Republic on Christian principles. The founders rejected the idea of a theocracy.

For the Christian the choice is clear:

If you have to choose between obeying people that expect you to violate the laws of the Bible for their favor, and remaining true to your convictions, that answer is clear for Christians:

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5: 29

"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" Joshua 24: 15

 

[Brian Blackwell]

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?

Excellent. Yes, I agree with all you said except the historical note about early law in this country. I agree that natural law was the basis for those laws (in the same way a Hollywood film may be based upon a true story), but I question the success of the attempt, along similar lines as Lysander Spooner.

I am not familiar with the term “normalization of deviance”, but at first glance I suppose it to be what we see in the courts, whereby deviations from the spirit and/or letter of the Constitution establish precedence for future deviations, and create new platform from which to spring even further away from that document’s original intent. Is this in the ballpark?

I don't have the time to spare to watch this but through inspection the Constitution is powerless to stop a corrupt government from enacting unjust laws if there is a systemic breakdown of the checks and balances.

Normalization of deviance is when a standard is lowered and the deviation from the higher standard is normalized. The erosion of liberty and freedom is an incremental process.

I understand. The Spooner audiobook is somewhat dry, and written in the style of its day, but it outlines an irrefutable case for the invalidity of the Constitution, in my opinion. I have yet to hear valid refutations, in any case.

The problem with "checks and balances" is that they are all on one side of the table. It's a system of government governing itself. The only really check to government is an armed population with a revolutionary spirit, which is quite a drastic check, but works quite well. Even now in the U.S., though the spirit is largely subdued, the arms remain, and I submit that it's the only thing keeping this ambitious, aggressive government from racing headlong into tyranny. Now, there may be an economic check in the sense that it's more profitable to have a system of free-range debt slavery than one of violent domination, which is a dubious hope, but worthy of consideration.

A breakdown in governmental checks and balances is not an unfortunate happenstance, but an inevitability; because it runs counter to the motivations of ambitious power-mongers. The Constitution has failed because it must fail. Whenever you create a seat of power, gangsters, dominators, and other psychopaths will be first in line to sit upon it. The problem is that most people have a moral compass, and they find it difficult to understand the mindset of people who don't. They keep believing that if we can just get the right people into these positions, everything will be OK. But that can never be, because immoral, deceptive scoundrels will edge those people out every time. It's like hoping for a benevolent dictatorship. Freedom and justice can never be served by establishing an institution inherently defined by violent coercion and an inequality of rights.

I'm not quite there yet. Government is a necessary evil but necessary nonetheless. The problem is not the government per se. The problem is with the people themselves. Not to worry though everything balances out in the end.

The checks are still in place and are still working. We the people are the last check but I doubt it will ever get to that because we the people will be humbled well before then.

You sound reluctantly resigned to the fact that government will lead us to a disastrous end, and though you don’t appear to like it, you see us trapped by necessity. If this is so, that necessity damn well better be ironclad.

I don’t believe that it is. I want to draw a distinction between organization and government. We can have organization without government. Government is the “right” to rule. The only thing differentiating it from a mafia or foreign invader is that people believe it is their duty to obey. They believe their claim to power to be legitimate.

This is helped along by the illusion of the democratic process. It’s amazing how much stock people place in voting, when its child’s play for wealthy, powerful misanthropes to hijack this process. Plus you vote every 2-4 years and have no control in-between. How this satisfies, I have no idea, but when the culture dissuades a recognition of individual self-ownership, I suppose it’s not surprising.

Almost everything is run on a voluntary basis, or has private, voluntary alternatives. Business, research and technology, charity, protection, education... what is that key factor that government brings to the table that you deem so incredibly necessary that it justifies the infringements on personal liberties and hundreds of millions of bloody bodies that it’s wracked up throughout history?

All government does is steal people’s money and redistribute it (after taking a huge amount off the top to pay for politician’s lifestyles, and service the debt to big bankers, and a million other things that don’t benefit the people). They produce nothing, create nothing. They punish bad guys, but we can do that. There are far fewer bad guys than people suppose. Mostly they just get in the way with their prohibitive regulations and notorious inefficiency and wastefulness.

What do you suppose they’re doing that’s so essential?

 

[forkup]

Humanism, science. On the other hand religion advocates inequality.

You don't have any idea what you are speaking about. The only historical source for equal rights is the bible. There is no other source. Without Jews and Christians the world where we live in is unthinkable, is even unimaginable.

Slavery was condoned in both the NT and the OT. Women to this day can not become priests. People who don't believe go straight to hell according to it. The only real theocracies today are some of the most unequal societies there are. So pray tell what Bible have you read?

And slavery is still condoned today. If you live in America, then YOU are a slave. And who is advocating for a theocracy?

The premise of the OP. If you give a binary choice between laws written by man and laws written by god, one of the options is a theocracy.

America was founded as a constitutional Republic on Christian principles. The founders rejected the idea of a theocracy.

For the Christian the choice is clear:

If you have to choose between obeying people that expect you to violate the laws of the Bible for their favor, and remaining true to your convictions, that answer is clear for Christians:

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5: 29

"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" Joshua 24: 15

2 things. Firstly since the founding fathers went to some lengths to separate church from state it is highly debatable that it was founded on Christian principles. In fact the FIRST amendment handled exactly that.
Secondly if you claim that you ought to obey God instead of man and the bible says slavery is moral do you think we should allow it?

 

[ding]

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?

Excellent. Yes, I agree with all you said except the historical note about early law in this country. I agree that natural law was the basis for those laws (in the same way a Hollywood film may be based upon a true story), but I question the success of the attempt, along similar lines as Lysander Spooner.

I am not familiar with the term “normalization of deviance”, but at first glance I suppose it to be what we see in the courts, whereby deviations from the spirit and/or letter of the Constitution establish precedence for future deviations, and create new platform from which to spring even further away from that document’s original intent. Is this in the ballpark?

I don't have the time to spare to watch this but through inspection the Constitution is powerless to stop a corrupt government from enacting unjust laws if there is a systemic breakdown of the checks and balances.

Normalization of deviance is when a standard is lowered and the deviation from the higher standard is normalized. The erosion of liberty and freedom is an incremental process.

I understand. The Spooner audiobook is somewhat dry, and written in the style of its day, but it outlines an irrefutable case for the invalidity of the Constitution, in my opinion. I have yet to hear valid refutations, in any case.

The problem with "checks and balances" is that they are all on one side of the table. It's a system of government governing itself. The only really check to government is an armed population with a revolutionary spirit, which is quite a drastic check, but works quite well. Even now in the U.S., though the spirit is largely subdued, the arms remain, and I submit that it's the only thing keeping this ambitious, aggressive government from racing headlong into tyranny. Now, there may be an economic check in the sense that it's more profitable to have a system of free-range debt slavery than one of violent domination, which is a dubious hope, but worthy of consideration.

A breakdown in governmental checks and balances is not an unfortunate happenstance, but an inevitability; because it runs counter to the motivations of ambitious power-mongers. The Constitution has failed because it must fail. Whenever you create a seat of power, gangsters, dominators, and other psychopaths will be first in line to sit upon it. The problem is that most people have a moral compass, and they find it difficult to understand the mindset of people who don't. They keep believing that if we can just get the right people into these positions, everything will be OK. But that can never be, because immoral, deceptive scoundrels will edge those people out every time. It's like hoping for a benevolent dictatorship. Freedom and justice can never be served by establishing an institution inherently defined by violent coercion and an inequality of rights.

I'm not quite there yet. Government is a necessary evil but necessary nonetheless. The problem is not the government per se. The problem is with the people themselves. Not to worry though everything balances out in the end.

The checks are still in place and are still working. We the people are the last check but I doubt it will ever get to that because we the people will be humbled well before then.

You sound reluctantly resigned to the fact that government will lead us to a disastrous end, and though you don’t appear to like it, you see us trapped by necessity. If this is so, that necessity damn well better be ironclad.

I don’t believe that it is. I want to draw a distinction between organization and government. We can have organization without government. Government is the “right” to rule. The only thing differentiating it from a mafia or foreign invader is that people believe it is their duty to obey. They believe their claim to power to be legitimate.

This is helped along by the illusion of the democratic process. It’s amazing how much stock people place in voting, when its child’s play for wealthy, powerful misanthropes to hijack this process. Plus you vote every 2-4 years and have no control in-between. How this satisfies, I have no idea, but when the culture dissuades a recognition of individual self-ownership, I suppose it’s not surprising.

Almost everything is run on a voluntary basis, or has private, voluntary alternatives. Business, research and technology, charity, protection, education... what is that key factor that government brings to the table that you deem so incredibly necessary that it justifies the infringements on personal liberties and hundreds of millions of bloody bodies that it’s wracked up throughout history?

All government does is steal people’s money and redistribute it (after taking a huge amount off the top to pay for politician’s lifestyles, and service the debt to big bankers, and a million other things that don’t benefit the people). They produce nothing, create nothing. They punish bad guys, but we can do that. There are far fewer bad guys than people suppose. Mostly they just get in the way with their prohibitive regulations and notorious inefficiency and wastefulness.

What do you suppose they’re doing that’s so essential?

Not really. I'm resigned that humanity will be unable to break the cycle that has existed since the beginning of humanity.

 

[sparky]

Interesting paradox Brian

That morality has to hail from celestial sources vs. terrestrial has been debated since sun worshippers

But that's the hook you see....

Some chief , holy see , or whatever 'authority' interprets for the tribe, they pitch a virgin in a volcano, and it's all good

~S~

In your logic the Supreme Court of the USA threw Norma McCorvey alias Jane Roe in a volcano and it's all good that every year a million US-Americans have to die because of this.

One of many examples one could point to , there's how many on death row? Seems we had a commandment around for that

But i digress , that 'hook' i speak of goes a lot deeper...

'Bible' stands for 'many books' in Latin , but there's quite a few that didn't make it to press time, because those council(s) of nicaea politicized it to their liking

And it was all 3rd hand when they got ahold of it

My point is , the 'word of God' has literally gone through the campfire circle of interpreters , ends up in the lap of the modern religious hiearchy , and folks want the gub'mit to enforce it as a moral benchmark.

This is why i claim religion and faith mutually exclusive , if not inversely opposed in this day and age

Yes i have faith

But i'll be dipped in sh*t before i bow down to some GubMit official telling me what God wants me to do

thks for playin!

~S~

 

[zaangalewa]

... Women to this day can not become priests. ...

I regret this very much. I was my whole life fighting for women. Nevertheless I see more and more indicators why this is not as trivial as the most people seem to think today. If I imagine for example a Nazi-army full of women, then I feel not very comfortable on my own. How to fight against such an army? No chance! Fortunately it never was in this way. Sure such a thought seems not to be very real - but I feel much more comfortable if women are not fighting soldiers. Perhaps it's also not bad if they are not priests. For sure I do not like to misuse women now suddenly as a final contingent of fighters for the Christian faith. Perhaps the holy catholic church will need soon no priests any longer at all. We are able to change our traditions and our life-style - but we are also able to die. We will see. Perhaps our women will be able to become priests too, why not? Is anyone in hurry to find the best of all possible solutions for this problem?

Do you realize that with this post, you not only acknowledge that the Bible isn't the source of equality you say it is. But that you realize this and choose to follow the principles of humanism when it really comes down to it?

A1="to be a reasonable human being"
A2="to speak English"
=> A1 ∩ A2 = {}

Give me the oldest concrete text which you know for the first equal rights you ever heard from. And do not forget please. "Equal" means not really "equal" - it means "equivalent". For example are men and women "equal" if women have much more and bigger public toilets than men. Otherwise women, specially mothers, will be underrepresented in public. In the "lex baiuvariorum" - a middle age law of the 5th/6th century for example - men were punished twice has hard, if they had wounded or killed a woman. The reason: Women are weaker, men have more muscles - so the laws had to protect women in a better way. This made men and women "equal". And in those days existed not this what the people today call "humanity".

 

[forkup]

... Women to this day can not become priests. ...

I regret this very much. I was my whole life fighting for women. Nevertheless I see more and more indicators why this is not as trivial as the most people seem to think today. If I imagine for example a Nazi-army full of women, then I feel not very comfortable on my own. How to fight against such an army? No chance! Fortunately it never was in this way. Sure such a thought seems not to be very real - but I feel much more comfortable if women are not fighting soldiers. Perhaps it's also not bad if they are not priests. For sure I do not like to misuse women now suddenly as a final contingent of fighters for the Christian faith. Perhaps the holy catholic church will need soon no priests any longer at all. We are able to change our traditions and our life-style - but we are also able to die. We will see. Perhaps our women will be able to become priests too, why not? Is anyone in hurry to find the best of all possible solutions for this problem?

Do you realize that with this post, you not only acknowledge that the Bible isn't the source of equality you say it is. But that you realize this and choose to follow the principles of humanism when it really comes down to it?

A1="to be a reasonable human being"
A2="to speak English"
=> A1 ∩ A2 = {}

Give me the oldest concrete text which you know for the first equal rights you ever heard from.

Solon - Wikipedia
Greek Lawmaker who first invented Democracy. It predates Christianity by 600 years and considers equal rights as only applicable to FREE males,just like the bible does. Plato and Socrates talked about it to. A better question is, how is this relevant to anything we are discussing?

 

[Humorme]

You don't have any idea what you are speaking about. The only historical source for equal rights is the bible. There is no other source. Without Jews and Christians the world where we live in is unthinkable, is even unimaginable.

Slavery was condoned in both the NT and the OT. Women to this day can not become priests. People who don't believe go straight to hell according to it. The only real theocracies today are some of the most unequal societies there are. So pray tell what Bible have you read?

And slavery is still condoned today. If you live in America, then YOU are a slave. And who is advocating for a theocracy?

The premise of the OP. If you give a binary choice between laws written by man and laws written by god, one of the options is a theocracy.

America was founded as a constitutional Republic on Christian principles. The founders rejected the idea of a theocracy.

For the Christian the choice is clear:

If you have to choose between obeying people that expect you to violate the laws of the Bible for their favor, and remaining true to your convictions, that answer is clear for Christians:

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5: 29

"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" Joshua 24: 15

2 things. Firstly since the founding fathers went to some lengths to separate church from state it is highly debatable that it was founded on Christian principles. In fact the FIRST amendment handled exactly that.
Secondly if you claim that you ought to obey God instead of man and the bible says slavery is moral do you think we should allow it?

You're getting to go down that silly ass rabbit hole of trying to say things that have never been said by me NOR the founders in the context you presented.

Let's begin the side debate...as if it don't get done weekly on this board:

1) The phrase separation of church and state is absent in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States

2) The phrase separation of church and state originated with Thomas Jefferson in a private letter to the Danbury Baptists. It is NOT an issue the founders concerned themselves with

3) When Jefferson uttered those words, it must be remembered that the education of children came under the jurisdiction of the church. As a matter of fact, the first teaching tool in the United States was the New England Primer which was in use from 1690 up until the early 19th century. According to Mary O'Neill:

The New England Primer followed a tradition of combining the study of the alphabet with Bible reading. It introduced each alphabet letter in a religious phrase and then illustrated the phrase with a woodcut. The primer also contained a catechism of religious questions and answers. Emphasis was placed on fear of sin, God's punishment and the fact that all people would have to face death.

Here are some examples of alphabet rhymes that teach moral values as well as reading.

A In Adam's Fall
We sinned all.
B Thy Life to Mend
This Book Attend.
C The Cat doth play
And after slay.
D A Dog will bite
A Thief at night.
E An Eagle's flight
Is Out of sight.
F The Idle Fool
Is Whipt at School.

Also, first appearing in the New England Primer was the Children's Prayer beginning "Now I lay me down to sleep..."

https://www3.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/neprimer.html

The First Amendment does not mention any separation of church and state. It merely prohibits "respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof" One only need to look at all the earliest state constitutions to see that the word "respecting" did not mean states could prohibit nor require you be part of an established religion. Shall I quote the earliest state constitutions on this point?

Now, to your second issue:

The laws of God, if applied, would allow me to take you as a slave and work you to pay off a debt if you stole from me or wronged me. Depending upon the crime, you would have to pay me two to five times the value of what you took (depending on what the item was.) If you could not pay, you would be work for me until that amount was paid off.

Today, you can break into a man's home, steal everything of value in it and if you're caught, you will go to jail for a couple of years. IF the homeowner is lucky enough, insurance (which was paid by the homeowner) will cover a portion of the costs to replace what was stolen. In other words, thieves could become slaves for their crimes and that is much better than not requiring thieves to make restitution for their misdeeds. Are you being facetious OR does that tell you what my answer would be?

 

[zaangalewa]

... Women to this day can not become priests. ...

I regret this very much. I was my whole life fighting for women. Nevertheless I see more and more indicators why this is not as trivial as the most people seem to think today. If I imagine for example a Nazi-army full of women, then I feel not very comfortable on my own. How to fight against such an army? No chance! Fortunately it never was in this way. Sure such a thought seems not to be very real - but I feel much more comfortable if women are not fighting soldiers. Perhaps it's also not bad if they are not priests. For sure I do not like to misuse women now suddenly as a final contingent of fighters for the Christian faith. Perhaps the holy catholic church will need soon no priests any longer at all. We are able to change our traditions and our life-style - but we are also able to die. We will see. Perhaps our women will be able to become priests too, why not? Is anyone in hurry to find the best of all possible solutions for this problem?

Do you realize that with this post, you not only acknowledge that the Bible isn't the source of equality you say it is. But that you realize this and choose to follow the principles of humanism when it really comes down to it?

A1="to be a reasonable human being"
A2="to speak English"
=> A1 ∩ A2 = {}

Give me the oldest concrete text which you know for the first equal rights you ever heard from.

Solon - Wikipedia
Greek Lawmaker who first invented Democracy. It predates Christianity by 600 years and considers equal rights as only applicable to FREE males,just like the bible does. Plato and Socrates talked about it to. A better question is, how is this relevant to anything we are discussing?

Read again, answer again. I had not finished my words while you had answered with this very pale words here. My perception of time is not compatible with the perception of time in the English speaking world.

 

[forkup]

Slavery was condoned in both the NT and the OT. Women to this day can not become priests. People who don't believe go straight to hell according to it. The only real theocracies today are some of the most unequal societies there are. So pray tell what Bible have you read?

And slavery is still condoned today. If you live in America, then YOU are a slave. And who is advocating for a theocracy?

The premise of the OP. If you give a binary choice between laws written by man and laws written by god, one of the options is a theocracy.

America was founded as a constitutional Republic on Christian principles. The founders rejected the idea of a theocracy.

For the Christian the choice is clear:

If you have to choose between obeying people that expect you to violate the laws of the Bible for their favor, and remaining true to your convictions, that answer is clear for Christians:

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." Acts 5: 29

"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord" Joshua 24: 15

2 things. Firstly since the founding fathers went to some lengths to separate church from state it is highly debatable that it was founded on Christian principles. In fact the FIRST amendment handled exactly that.
Secondly if you claim that you ought to obey God instead of man and the bible says slavery is moral do you think we should allow it?

You're getting to go down that silly ass rabbit hole of trying to say things that have never been said by me NOR the founders in the context you presented.

Let's begin the side debate...as if it don't get done weekly on this board:

1) The phrase separation of church and state is absent in the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United States

2) The phrase separation of church and state originated with Thomas Jefferson in a private letter to the Danbury Baptists. It is NOT an issue the founders concerned themselves with

3) When Jefferson uttered those words, it must be remembered that the education of children came under the jurisdiction of the church. As a matter of fact, the first teaching tool in the United States was the New England Primer which was in use from 1690 up until the early 19th century. According to Mary O'Neill:

The New England Primer followed a tradition of combining the study of the alphabet with Bible reading. It introduced each alphabet letter in a religious phrase and then illustrated the phrase with a woodcut. The primer also contained a catechism of religious questions and answers. Emphasis was placed on fear of sin, God's punishment and the fact that all people would have to face death.

Here are some examples of alphabet rhymes that teach moral values as well as reading.

A In Adam's Fall
We sinned all.
B Thy Life to Mend
This Book Attend.
C The Cat doth play
And after slay.
D A Dog will bite
A Thief at night.
E An Eagle's flight
Is Out of sight.
F The Idle Fool
Is Whipt at School.

Also, first appearing in the New England Primer was the Children's Prayer beginning "Now I lay me down to sleep..."

https://www3.nd.edu/~rbarger/www7/neprimer.html

The First Amendment does not mention any separation of church and state. It merely prohibits "respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof" One only need to look at all the earliest state constitutions to see that the word "respecting" did not mean states could prohibit nor require you be part of an established religion. Shall I quote the earliest state constitutions on this point?

Now, to your second issue:

The laws of God, if applied, would allow me to take you as a slave and work you to pay off a debt if you stole from me or wronged me. Depending upon the crime, you would have to pay me two to five times the value of what you took (depending on what the item was.) If you could not pay, you would be work for me until that amount was paid off.

Today, you can break into a man's home, steal everything of value in it and if you're caught, you will go to jail for a couple of years. IF the homeowner is lucky enough, insurance (which was paid by the homeowner) will cover a portion of the costs to replace what was stolen. In other words, thieves could become slaves for their crimes and that is much better than not requiring thieves to make restitution for their misdeeds. Are you being facetious OR does that tell you what my answer would be?

-If the first amendment is clearly designed to give equal rights under the law for someone who practices Voodoo instead of Christianity you are in fact separating church and state. The language is completely unambiguous. What's more the supreme court, the people designated to interpret the constitution have verified this on multiple occasions.
- And debt slavery wasn't the only type of slavery described in the OT. Sexual slavery was allowed to. I can't say I really care, that you try to draw the insane parallel that the imprisonment of thieves is a form of slavery. It just compounds the problem of Gods morality since the Bible punishes actual criminals way harder then imprisoning them, up to and including stoning people to death for crimes like 'sodomy or adultery" what is the modern day equivalent for those " moral punishments," if you want to try justifying?
-What I find interesting that you use 2 paragraphs for a simple yes or no question.
- I suggest if you find me a bit flip, to reread your own post and judge the tone you strike with me, I dare say if looked at objectively one would be able to construe it as being just as facetious.

 

[forkup]

... Women to this day can not become priests. ...

I regret this very much. I was my whole life fighting for women. Nevertheless I see more and more indicators why this is not as trivial as the most people seem to think today. If I imagine for example a Nazi-army full of women, then I feel not very comfortable on my own. How to fight against such an army? No chance! Fortunately it never was in this way. Sure such a thought seems not to be very real - but I feel much more comfortable if women are not fighting soldiers. Perhaps it's also not bad if they are not priests. For sure I do not like to misuse women now suddenly as a final contingent of fighters for the Christian faith. Perhaps the holy catholic church will need soon no priests any longer at all. We are able to change our traditions and our life-style - but we are also able to die. We will see. Perhaps our women will be able to become priests too, why not? Is anyone in hurry to find the best of all possible solutions for this problem?

Do you realize that with this post, you not only acknowledge that the Bible isn't the source of equality you say it is. But that you realize this and choose to follow the principles of humanism when it really comes down to it?

A1="to be a reasonable human being"
A2="to speak English"
=> A1 ∩ A2 = {}

Give me the oldest concrete text which you know for the first equal rights you ever heard from.

Solon - Wikipedia
Greek Lawmaker who first invented Democracy. It predates Christianity by 600 years and considers equal rights as only applicable to FREE males,just like the bible does. Plato and Socrates talked about it to. A better question is, how is this relevant to anything we are discussing?

Read again, answer again. I had not finished my words while you had answered with this very pale words here. My perception of time is not compatible with the perception of time in the English speaking world.

So you mean Germans have a different perception of time?