This post is a continuation of the ‘Pizza and Sushi’ series that I am having with Fallible Father , but in it I am specifically responding to a comment by Russell Gold.”
I have absolutely no idea what point you intend to make with this post. To me, it seems to be all over the place. About the only think I see that is clear is your insistence on the command "honor your father."
But G-d actually said, "honor your father and mother." Why do you exclude the mother?
But, no, I don't actually mean, "measurable." Had that been my intent, I would have used that word. I said, "observable." I can observe, for example, that there are many grains of sand on a beach without being able to measure them. I can observe that a thunderclap is loud without having the means to record the actual decibels.
Observable simply means that there are objective tests which can be made to determine that something is happening or not happening, that a particular approach works or does not work.
You can sometimes observe that something consistently has good effects or bad effects; what you cannot observe, though, is whether it is right or wrong to do them.
For example, we can observe that a fraudster can increase his wealth by deceiving other people, and taking it away from them. We can also observe that it decreases the wealth and happiness of his victims. But how do you observe that it is wrong for him to do so, as opposed to arguing that it served them right for succumbing to their own greed or not sufficiently checking his credentials?
I know that you and I would agree that it is wrong, and so would most people in our society. It does not follow that every society agrees (including one particular society that allows these fraudsters to operate with impunity in their land).
>>how do you observe that it is wrong for him to do so
This seems like a category error. You can 'observe' the increase in his wealth... ie you can measure the amount of wealth he had before, and after, and calculate that it increased.
In order to observe the wrong, you would have to have a standard of wrong, and measure his actions against it.
So I would 'observe' by a) having a standard and b)measuring his actions against it.
Yes, you have to have a standard of wrong - but who says that your standard is the correct one? He has a standard, too, and claims that it is not wrong.
So all you are observing is that he is not acting in according with your opinion; that does not demonstrate that he is actually wrong.
No, I would be observing that he is not acting... or, rather, how much he is or isn't acting in accordance to the standard that I am measuring him by. I have, at one point, been measured in meters, but it isn't the standard I use.
If I am examining how well something works if people do or don't follow the standard I am proposing, it is exactly my standard that I need to use to measure that. It would make sense for him to measure me by his standard if he wished to make his case.
If I am arguing (as I am) that fathers are important, that their lack has effects, then I need to measure fathers (and their lack) and the effects that I propose their lack would have. If he says that people who don't murder virgins will have some effect or other, it is up to him to measure that.
>> No, I would be observing that he is not acting... or, rather, how much he is or isn't acting in accordance to the standard that I am measuring him by.
That's basically what I said. You've simply paraphrased - which is good, as it demonstrates that we are in agreement.
And here is the key: the standard that you are using is inherently your opinion, which I share. but that standard is not itself observable as a measure of morality.
>> If I am examining how well something works if people do or don't follow the standard I am proposing, it is exactly my standard that I need to use to measure that.
No, that's circular reasoning. If you do that, all you are measuring is the degree to which he follows your standard.
>> If I am arguing (as I am) that fathers are important, that their lack has effects, then I need to measure fathers (and their lack) and the effects that I propose their lack would have.
Agreed, but that doesn't justify rejecting G-d's words, which includes honoring mothers, and there is major difference between fathers not being present, and people not honoring them (however you have chosen to define honoring).
>>that standard is not itself observable as a measure of morality
Here is where I am very confused by what you keep saying. I can see *whether or not he follows the standard*. That is literally what I mean by 'measuring morality'. You seem to think that it makes some difference what he thinks. When a terrorist rapes and kills a baby, I measure his actions by *the* standard of morality without reference to what he thinks or claims he thinks. He will answer for that in front of a higher court than me.
BTW: Your whole 'mother' thing is a red herring. I use 'honour your father' because Fallible and I are both fathers, not for any other reason. I do happen to believe their are huge differences in how we are to honour our father vs our mother, but not because I reject any part of those passages.
You personally measure his actions by *your* standard of morality, which you and I ascribe to G-d.
The terrorist and his supporters clearly use a different standard of morality.
Can we agree on that much?
If so, I am asking for how you observe that we are correct and they are not?
---
My 'mother' thing may be a Jewish thing - that it is preferable to quote verses in their entirety. When you drop part of it, the suspicion emerges that you are picking and choosing which of G-d's commands you care about.
There are times when Russ, an Orthodox Jew and Von, a orthodox (small 'o') Christian run flat into a roadblock in their otherwise free-ranging and amicable discussions. And such we just did. When asked what to do if an individual believed that his religious authorities were asking him to do something that the individual believed was against God’s will. Russ replied:
To be sure, you could decide to ignore all human authorities and basically invent your own faith and do according to your own interpretations.
But... the Bible commands us to follow the appointed authorities. (see Deut. 17:8-13)
"I listened and did what they told me, and now You say they were wrong?" sounds like a pretty solid defense, as you would be clearly following G-d's instructions.
For those familiar with the teaching of the New Testament (and, I would argue, the Old Testament as well) these words represent a train wreck at a hundred miles an hour. Each train. As it is written:
Acts 5:28-29 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Keep in mind I am not and was not bringing up the option that these authorities convinced you. The question on the floor was,
…[we agree that] only His [God’s] opinion matters in judging 'morality' as well. And if you were forced to choose between doing what you thought He desired and what the court desired...
So, if after all of the discussion you were convinced that God wanted you to do X, and the court forbad you from doing X… or that God forbad you from doing X but the court ordered you to do it…?
Russ points us to:
Deuteronomy 17:8-13 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose;
And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment:
And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee:
According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.
And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.
And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.
Which, to my mind, doesn’t even apply. I didn’t say the question was too hard for me in judgment… I said I knew what God wanted me to do. And the court ordered me not to do it. I didn’t come to them all confused, I was out preaching the gospel or healing the sick or raising my family.
It isn’t like the Scriptures don’t have examples of leaders doing bad things.What would you have done if Nadab and Abihu had asked you to help them mix up some new-fangled incense? “We’ll have a hot time,” they might have said.
Leveiticus 10:1-2 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
If the question was not too hard for you, then that means that you had no doubts about what G-d decreed in this issue. If so, there should be no difference between your opinion and that of the court. If there is, in fact, a difference... then you were incorrect in believing that it was not too hard for you in judgement. Maybe you were being immodest.
That does not mean that leaders are infallible; it only means that the court has the authority to rule. It is all very well to say "we ought to obey G-d rather than men," but in practice, unless you are an actual prophet, the way you determine G-d's will is to ask the authorities. If you then act in accord with their instructions, you are acting as you should by definition.
Nadav and Avihu were under the authority of their father Aaron the High Priest and should have consulted him.
1) If I disagree with the court, then I am by definition wrong.
2) But the court could be wrong.
3) But if the court is wrong, and I disagree with the court then I... could be right.
4) Which I can't be,. See (1)
5) I'm confused.
You can find this teaching in the minor prophets as well, but the NT states it rather clearly: Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Russ says that unless we are prophets (by which I assume he includes leaders more generally) the way we determine God's will is to ask the leaders. Who can be wrong. Who can be disastrously and destructively wrong.
This is the opposite of what the NT tells us to do. And I think the OT has a lot to say about it as well. When our leaders go the wrong way, it is our duty to oppose them.
I don't really see a difference between the OT and the NT in this, but it could be that this verse changed things:
1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
No, if you _defy_ the court, you are by definition _rebellious_:
"And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee:
According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.
And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel."
The law is what the court says it is, because they are Divinely empowered to rule on it.
First of all, as I said earlier, that text begins with the idea that I didn't know what the will of the Lord was, and came to ask them.
Secondly, the word 'presumptuously' seems to modify the situation a good deal.
It seems to me (especially in the light of so many other passages) that this sentence is speaking of a particular judgment... a given case... brought to the court to choose between person A and person B.
In the NT much is made of not foolishly running off to court. Perhaps for this very reason: that you might end up with an oppressive judgement of an evil court.
Obviously as a Christian I have an authoritative judgement on this matter, so my only issue here is trying to square the circle you have presented me as to your view. You seem to be saying both that they could be wrong (ie they could be going against the will of God) and that they are right (they are pronouncing the will of God). Now what you might be saying is that if they are wrong they will be judged for it, but you won't be. Or do you think that if they (intentionally, with malic aforethought) pronounce false judgement that they won't be judged?
>> Obviously as a Christian I have an authoritative judgement on this matter
Can you explain this comment?
>> What I am saying is that G-d gave them the authority to rule, and accepts their rulings. There are procedures for when they discover that they have erred (for example, they have to bring a communal offering, and compensate the parties injured by their ruling), but in general this is what authority means.
If they were to judge dishonestly, that would certainly be an issue. That's why it's not a single judge. In monetary matters, you need three, and that goes up to 70 iirc for capital cases.
The passage I posted earlier from the new Testament is authoritative for us. There may be some quibble around the edges as to how we are to apply it, but there is no question that The we are to obey God, rather than men when faced specifically with the Jewish Court is authoritative for us.
We are obliged to follow the dictates of our own conscience, even when it sets us up against authorities. Now I think there’s a lot of issues in the way you have to apply that, but that is the fundamental underlying rule.
Jer 7:2 Stand in the gate of the LORD'S house, and proclaim there this word, and say, Hear the word of the LORD, all ye of Judah, that enter in at these gates to worship the LORD.
Jer 7:3 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, Amend your ways and your doings, and I will cause you to dwell in this place.
Jer 7:4 Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, are these.
Jer 7:5 For if ye throughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye throughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbour;
Jer 7:6 If ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt:
Jer 7:7 Then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever.
A constant theme of the (true) prophets is to call out the people for failing to keep the Torah - or at least, those are the parts that those who canonized these books chose to record from among their prophecies.
Here, Jeremiah is calling out the people who think that bringing offerings is all they need to do. He is also denouncing the false prophets, who claimed that "the temple of the LORD" would never be destroyed as a result of the people's failures to live up to the proper standard, because it was actually His House.
Yes - prophets are not necessarily judges. It is specifically the authorized courts that one must obey, not anyone who claims, for example, to be a prophet.
Isa 56:9 All ye beasts of the field, come to devour, yea, all ye beasts in the forest.
Isa 56:10 His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.
Isa 56:11 Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.
Isa 56:12 Come ye, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and to morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant.
I appreciate the continuation, especially based on Russell's comment, which I found a useful observation.
With that said, I am somewhat lost by this post. He said observable, not measurable. I can observe the sun is up, without measuring lumens or solar energy, or any number of things. I can observe that the temperature outside is below my comfort range, without measuring whether it is 36 degrees or 52 degrees.
Well and good. But if the objection is 'we can't observe morality', then what is meant? Cause I 'observe' morality all day every day. I see people being kind and being mean, being truthful and lying. It doesn't seem to make sense (especially as a parent) to say we 'can't observe morality'; so my guess was that he meant we couldn't measure it... to observe in a scientific way.
Cause if one scientist were to come in and say, 'Wow, that is a pretty sunset", and the other were to say, 'Pretty is not observable', my guess would be he meant 'we can't measure it'... we have no 'pretty-ometer'. I can observe (as a nurse) that a person is in pain (and I've seen them fake it, too) and I have felt pain... but from a medical standpoint it is not measurable. I have no devise that will 'observe' it in a scientific way.
What is meant is that we cannot observe *G-d's definition of morality.* The only way to get it is via revelation. What you are observing is people behaving in ways that *you judge* to be moral.
>>What is meant is that we cannot observe *G-d's definition of morality.*
Nor can we observe God's definition of Gravity. Indeed,it is easier to observe His definition of morality than His definition of Gravity, as He has had that one written down.
We don't need to observe His definition of Gravity. We can observe gravity as He created it. We can conduct experiments to explore its effects on balls and buildings and ballistas.
We cannot observe morality as He created it. We can observe human behavior and use *our own opinions* as to whether they are acting morally, according to our own understanding of what moral behavior should be.
If I say that gravity will cause a particular object to move in a particular direction, and you disagree, we can devise a test that will prove at least one of us wrong.
If I say that it is immoral to do a particular action and you disagree, there is no test that we can make to determine if either of us is correct.
>>If I say that gravity will cause a particular object to move in a particular direction, and you disagree, we can devise a test that will prove at least one of us wrong.
And if I say that this or that immoral action will cause this or that (or maybe this other) result in the individual, family, church, or nation that performs it, we can do a study to see how accurate my prediction is.
>>If I say that it is immoral to do a particular action and you disagree, there is no test that we can make to determine if either of us is correct.
And if I say that it was gravity that produced such and such reaction, and you disagree, there is no test we can use to determine which of us is right. Because we would be arguing over the definition of gravity
There are ways that we can argue over morality. We do it all the time. There are ways we can judge whether something was right or wrong. We do it all the time.
There is a disconnect both between our understanding of gravity, and God's. And our understanding of morality... and Gods'. Both of these will one day be cleared up. See through a glass darkly and all that.
And there are ways we can measure the results of particular actions which both you and I, but perhaps not Fallible Father, consider immoral.
>> And if I say that this or that immoral action will cause this or that (or maybe this other) result in the individual, family, church, or nation that performs it, we can do a study to see how accurate my prediction is.
Maybe. Human society is very complex, and immoral actions can often have no impact. But it isn't the same thing, as all you are showing is that the action will have a particular impact. That does not prove that it is moral or not. It only addresses efficacy. And even efficacy requires an opinion of what would make society better.
>> And if I say that it was gravity that produced such and such reaction, and you disagree, there is no test we can use to determine which of us is right. Because we would be arguing over the definition of gravity
What alternative definition of gravity are you proposing? And what experiments are you citing that support your definition.
You keep using that word, and I'm not at all sure what you mean by it.
EF'FICACY, noun [Latin efficax.] Power to produce effects; production to the effect intended; as the efficacy of the gospel in converting men from sin; the efficacy of prayer; the efficacy of medicine in counteracting disease; the efficacy of manure in fertilizing land.
I would be perfectly willing to argue, indeed to quote most of the book of Proverbs, that moral causes have effects. They produce effects. They are efficacious at producing effects.
I would also be willing to argue, indeed produce most of Scripture as evidence, that obeying (or disobeying) the will of God (our agreed defintion of morality) produces effects. It is efficatious. Thus morality (obeying the will of God) produces effects. It is indeed efficacious. And we can measure those effects (albeit with great difficulty, as I mention in the post above).
Meaning, what? That you reject authority? That you declare yourselves to be your own interpreters of the Law?
How does that address my question:
>> Are you saying that every Christian interprets everything the same as every other Christian? If not, how can two who understand an issue differently possibly be both obeying G-d?
--
To which I will probably respond in a post but, for this thread... meaning Daniel. And Shadrack. And Paul. And Peter. And, for that matter, Moses. And Wycliffe. And Luther.
The consistent teaching and practice of orthodox (small o) Christian theology throughout the ages is that every individual, group, and heirarchy is capable of sin, including sin in judgement.
Deu 16:19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.
And it is likewise the duty of every individual, group, and heirarchy to follow the Word of God... alone if need be. To death if need be. 'But if...'. To stand up against unrighteous and perverted courts, rulers, prophets, and armies and follow God. As for me and my house.
It tends to be a rare thing (Romans 13) for the individual to be right, and the courts to be wrong. Most of the time the courts deal with theives who have really stolen, and murderers who have really killed. But it does happpen that the righteous are unjustly put in prison (see... like... practically all of the prophets) and their leaders to be in the wrong.
To go along with the wrong under the excuse that your leaders told you to, that it was 'the law'... well, we've seen how that worked out.
Dan 3:18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.
29.This is the sum of their answer, It is lawful for them, nay, they ought to prefer God before men. God commandeth us to bear witness of Christ; therefore it is in vain for you to command us to keep silence. But I have declared before in the third chapter, when this sentence taketh place, that we ought rather to obey God than men. God doth set men over us in such sort with power, that he keepeth still his own authority safe and sound. Therefore, we must obey rulers so far, that the commandment of God be not broken. Whereas power and authority is lawfully used, then it is out of season to make comparison between God and man. If a faithful pastor do command or forbid out of the Word of God, it shall be in vain for men which are stubborn to object that we ought to obey God; for God will be heard by man. Yea, man is nothing else but an instrument of God. If a magistrate do his duty as he ought, a man shall in vain say that he is contrary to God, seeing that he dissenteth in nothing; yea, rather the contrary rule is then in force. We must obey God’s ministers and officers if we will obey him. (269) But so soon as rulers do lead us away from the obedience of God, because they strive against God with sacrilegious boldness, their pride must be abated, that God may be above all in authority. Then all smokes of honor vanish away. For God doth not vouchsafe to bestow honorable titles upon men, to the end they may darken his glory. Therefore, if a father, being not content with his own estate, do essay to take from God the chief honor of a father, he is nothing else but a man. If a king, or ruler, or magistrate, do become so lofty that he diminisheth the honor and authority of God, he is but a man. We must thus think also of pastors. For he which goeth beyond his bounds in his office, (because he setteth himself against God:) must be despoiled of his honor, lest, under a color or visor, he deceive. The office of a pastor is very excellent, the authority of the Church is great, yet so that no part of God’s power and Christ’s mastership be diminished. Whence we may easily gather that the pride of the Pope is ridiculous, who, when as he treadeth under foot the whole kingdom of Christ, and doth set himself openly against God, will yet, nevertheless, lie hid under the name of Christ. (270)
(269) “Eadem in parentibus et dominis ratio,” the same holds in parents and masters, omitted in the translation.
>>or assuming that it is impossible for human beings to set up a just system.
This! Oh, yes, a thousand times yes! This. From the beginning of the Scriptures to the end (the book of Revelation :) ) if there is anything that is clear it is that... any system that involves human beings will involve injustice, unrighteousness, etc etc. Beginning at the third chapter of Genesis. "That woman you gave me!!"
David ( a man after God's own heart, no less) sending Uriah to his death to cover up his own sin (indeed, crime!), Solomon (known for his wisdom) letting his heart be perverted by foreign wives.
Yes, yes, a thousand times this. The thundering evidence of history and Scripture is... any system involving humans will involve injustice. In this sinful world. Not 100% injustice 100% of the time, but the possibilty is always there.
Recall that laws in most nations are human-created, and therefore often unjust. The laws that the courts described in Deu 17 are those of the Torah as revealed by G-d. That makes those laws *by definition* just.
Recall that, it’s not the laws I am complaining about. It’s the unjust judges of the laws. It’s the judges of the laws that have dedicated themselves to pervert justice. It’s the evil and idolatry and blasphemous judges of the law. That is the discussion here, not the law itself. We both agree that the law of God is perfect. The people of God not so much.
Indeed, this makes it worse. If a judge perverts a human-made law, given that the human-made law might be unjust itself, his perversion might make it better. Or at the very least no worse.
However any perversion of God's Law is, by definition, wrong, unjust... immoral. Observably so ;)
I will be replying, in general and for this, to the main thread. For some reason both my phone and my computer really hate nested comments, and I have to scroll down, open thread, no, its not that one, next thread...
Do you realize that you can get a link to a specific comment by clicking on the associated time stamp? It is much easier to find it that way than by hunting through the main thread.
It took me five minutes to find this post and figure out what question. Assuming it is this one:
>>>> Are you saying that every Christian interprets everything the same as every other Christian? If not, how can two who understand an issue differently possibly be both obeying G-d?
Answer: They can't. I would add an exegisis of Romans 14 in here, but maybe later. For now I would add... When a human court orders you to do something that is clearly in violation of God's Law, will you be obeying God if you disobey His law because they told you to?
Answer: No.
It is a known doctrine that different understandings (usually because of the perversion of sin. No, I would be willing to say always because of the perversion of sin. Big thing, sin.) will lead to different actions, some of which will be therefore wrong and against the will of God. However these understanding can happen at any level: the individual, the family, the church, and the nation. At each of these levels someone can misunderstand or even deliberately disobey God. At each of those levels those obeying them could find themselves in the position of saying, "But if..."
Dan 3:18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.
Yes, the conversation has clearly gotten unwieldy. Returning to the top each time we get 3 levels deep doesn't appear to suffice.
I think you've made two different points in this answer:
1. You've said that if two Christians interpret things differently, they cannot both be obeying G-d. I have a minor nit to pick on that answer, but consider the implication. We have two well-meaning Christians, each trying to obey G-d, but reaching incompatible conclusions. Isn't that a problem? It would suggest either that His instructions are not humanly comprehensible, or that one or both Christians is insufficiently expert in His revelation. Surely the latter is far more likely? And if so, doesn't it make sense to defer to the experts, unless you have some clear reason to suspect them to be corrupt? And it would seem rather egotistical to declare oneself more expert than the experts in most cases.
2. You ask "When a human court orders you to do something that is clearly in violation of God's Law, will you be obeying God if you disobey His law because they told you to?"
That is not the question that I had thought we were discussing. I would agree that if their directions are *clearly in violation* then you cannot obey it, as the court is either stupid or corrupt.
The question I'd thought we'd been discussing is when the court orders you to do something, and it is a plausible interpretation, but you don't happen to agree.
>>It would suggest either that His instructions are not humanly comprehensible, or that one or both Christians is insufficiently expert in His revelation
Sin. I believe that I have mentioned that before. It suggests... sin.
Whoa, I can see that we are miles apart, here. I suspect that we need an entirely new topic. I would suggest: why did G-d create the world and Man? I'm guessing that as the likely ultimate source of our different approaches.
>>The question I'd thought we'd been discussing is when the court orders you to do something, and it is a plausible interpretation, but you don't happen to agree.
I don't think that is the situation that Daniel, Shadrack, Peter, or Paul found themselves in, no. And I certainly didn't use those words. (I can't imagine myself saying, "I didn't happen to agree'.) What I quoted was, "Dan 3:18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up." I think that's pretty clear.
I would also be willing to discuss issues of jurisdiction.
1) I did not limit this principle to 'a rabbinic court'. Is there a strongs number for this word in Hebrew?
2) Nor did I say 'that they didn't agree with'.
The examples I brought forward were Daniel and Shadrack with a king, and Peter and Paul. I guess I would need to ask you about the Greek if we were to discuss that.
The passage I cited (Deut. 17:8was talking about a rabbinic court (or at least, that is what we would call it today).
>> If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose; And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment
Note: "the place which the LORD thy God shall choose"
Nothing here specifies any other type of court. This does not apply to king's decrees or whatever the Roman (not Greek, I expect) authorities were.
And if you are limiting your application to a properly constituted rabic court, do you believe that any such exist today? And if any such do do you believe that they have any jurisdiction over a Christian living in South Texas?
Depending upon your answer to those, I would say that reading back through your comments, many of them would need to be changed. Everywhere where you said, something like “expert“ or “leader“ you would have to substitute that for properly constituted rabbinic court. And everywhere where you seemed to address Christians you would sort of have to delete because you would be saying that we have no properly constituted rabbinic court with authority over us to decree , whatever.
There are such courts, yes. Conflicts between Jews are supposed to be brought before a rabbinic court, not a secular court. They tend to deal with conflicts between individuals, such as business deals, divorces, inheritance, and so on. In practice, one who refuses to accept the ruling of such a court is often placed under a ban.
Litigants must explicitly accept the ruling of the court (I believe that US law requires it); these courts claim no authority over non-Jews. From my study, I cannot recall a single case in which they did.
When I used the term leader, I have generally qualified it as "political leader." That is a very different kind of authority from a rabbinic court.
So then, if there are no courts that fall into the jurisdiction that you were talking about, in other words, if there are no courts that fall under Deuteronomy 17 that apply to Christians, why were you surprised that I wasn’t willing to bow to their authority? What choice do you leave me except the one that I have taken?
Even assuming, which I do not grant, that Rabbinic courts had some kind of authority to tell me what God’s will was, in the general sense, not a specific legal ruling between me, and someone else, since they don’t apply to me, why would that matter? They would literally never issue a ruling, which affected me.
>>And you also appear to be assuming that lots of individuals all making their own judgements would somehow be more just. Why would that be?
No, not quite. What Christian doctrine (and military doctrine, actually) teaches is that there are times when the individual needs to take responsibility for their own action, and is not allowed to follow a leader who is actively asking them to go against God's Law (or military law, etc.). This is actually a pretty common doctrine... maybe it comes from Christianity. "I was just following orders" is a known no-no.
Sin can happen at the individual, family, church, or national level (and business, etc. Any level. Any group. A chess club.). Sin needs to be resisted at every level. See: The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_magistrate
Dan 3:16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.
Dan 3:17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.
Dan 3:18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.
I have absolutely no idea what point you intend to make with this post. To me, it seems to be all over the place. About the only think I see that is clear is your insistence on the command "honor your father."
But G-d actually said, "honor your father and mother." Why do you exclude the mother?
But, no, I don't actually mean, "measurable." Had that been my intent, I would have used that word. I said, "observable." I can observe, for example, that there are many grains of sand on a beach without being able to measure them. I can observe that a thunderclap is loud without having the means to record the actual decibels.
Observable simply means that there are objective tests which can be made to determine that something is happening or not happening, that a particular approach works or does not work.
You can sometimes observe that something consistently has good effects or bad effects; what you cannot observe, though, is whether it is right or wrong to do them.
For example, we can observe that a fraudster can increase his wealth by deceiving other people, and taking it away from them. We can also observe that it decreases the wealth and happiness of his victims. But how do you observe that it is wrong for him to do so, as opposed to arguing that it served them right for succumbing to their own greed or not sufficiently checking his credentials?
I know that you and I would agree that it is wrong, and so would most people in our society. It does not follow that every society agrees (including one particular society that allows these fraudsters to operate with impunity in their land).
>>how do you observe that it is wrong for him to do so
This seems like a category error. You can 'observe' the increase in his wealth... ie you can measure the amount of wealth he had before, and after, and calculate that it increased.
In order to observe the wrong, you would have to have a standard of wrong, and measure his actions against it.
So I would 'observe' by a) having a standard and b)measuring his actions against it.
Yes, you have to have a standard of wrong - but who says that your standard is the correct one? He has a standard, too, and claims that it is not wrong.
So all you are observing is that he is not acting in according with your opinion; that does not demonstrate that he is actually wrong.
No, I would be observing that he is not acting... or, rather, how much he is or isn't acting in accordance to the standard that I am measuring him by. I have, at one point, been measured in meters, but it isn't the standard I use.
If I am examining how well something works if people do or don't follow the standard I am proposing, it is exactly my standard that I need to use to measure that. It would make sense for him to measure me by his standard if he wished to make his case.
If I am arguing (as I am) that fathers are important, that their lack has effects, then I need to measure fathers (and their lack) and the effects that I propose their lack would have. If he says that people who don't murder virgins will have some effect or other, it is up to him to measure that.
>> No, I would be observing that he is not acting... or, rather, how much he is or isn't acting in accordance to the standard that I am measuring him by.
That's basically what I said. You've simply paraphrased - which is good, as it demonstrates that we are in agreement.
And here is the key: the standard that you are using is inherently your opinion, which I share. but that standard is not itself observable as a measure of morality.
>> If I am examining how well something works if people do or don't follow the standard I am proposing, it is exactly my standard that I need to use to measure that.
No, that's circular reasoning. If you do that, all you are measuring is the degree to which he follows your standard.
>> If I am arguing (as I am) that fathers are important, that their lack has effects, then I need to measure fathers (and their lack) and the effects that I propose their lack would have.
Agreed, but that doesn't justify rejecting G-d's words, which includes honoring mothers, and there is major difference between fathers not being present, and people not honoring them (however you have chosen to define honoring).
>>that standard is not itself observable as a measure of morality
Here is where I am very confused by what you keep saying. I can see *whether or not he follows the standard*. That is literally what I mean by 'measuring morality'. You seem to think that it makes some difference what he thinks. When a terrorist rapes and kills a baby, I measure his actions by *the* standard of morality without reference to what he thinks or claims he thinks. He will answer for that in front of a higher court than me.
BTW: Your whole 'mother' thing is a red herring. I use 'honour your father' because Fallible and I are both fathers, not for any other reason. I do happen to believe their are huge differences in how we are to honour our father vs our mother, but not because I reject any part of those passages.
You personally measure his actions by *your* standard of morality, which you and I ascribe to G-d.
The terrorist and his supporters clearly use a different standard of morality.
Can we agree on that much?
If so, I am asking for how you observe that we are correct and they are not?
---
My 'mother' thing may be a Jewish thing - that it is preferable to quote verses in their entirety. When you drop part of it, the suspicion emerges that you are picking and choosing which of G-d's commands you care about.
>>If you do that, all you are measuring is the degree to which he follows your standard.
That is, indeed, precisely and exactly what I am desiring to measure.
And then I measure the *results*. And then I look for correlations. Etc.
Oh, and the other reason I use 'honour your father' is because that is the data I am correlating.
Interestingly the 'mother' data does not correlate in anything like the same way.
There are times when Russ, an Orthodox Jew and Von, a orthodox (small 'o') Christian run flat into a roadblock in their otherwise free-ranging and amicable discussions. And such we just did. When asked what to do if an individual believed that his religious authorities were asking him to do something that the individual believed was against God’s will. Russ replied:
To be sure, you could decide to ignore all human authorities and basically invent your own faith and do according to your own interpretations.
But... the Bible commands us to follow the appointed authorities. (see Deut. 17:8-13)
"I listened and did what they told me, and now You say they were wrong?" sounds like a pretty solid defense, as you would be clearly following G-d's instructions.
For those familiar with the teaching of the New Testament (and, I would argue, the Old Testament as well) these words represent a train wreck at a hundred miles an hour. Each train. As it is written:
Acts 5:28-29 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
Keep in mind I am not and was not bringing up the option that these authorities convinced you. The question on the floor was,
…[we agree that] only His [God’s] opinion matters in judging 'morality' as well. And if you were forced to choose between doing what you thought He desired and what the court desired...
So, if after all of the discussion you were convinced that God wanted you to do X, and the court forbad you from doing X… or that God forbad you from doing X but the court ordered you to do it…?
Russ points us to:
Deuteronomy 17:8-13 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose;
And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment:
And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee:
According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.
And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.
And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.
Which, to my mind, doesn’t even apply. I didn’t say the question was too hard for me in judgment… I said I knew what God wanted me to do. And the court ordered me not to do it. I didn’t come to them all confused, I was out preaching the gospel or healing the sick or raising my family.
It isn’t like the Scriptures don’t have examples of leaders doing bad things.What would you have done if Nadab and Abihu had asked you to help them mix up some new-fangled incense? “We’ll have a hot time,” they might have said.
Leveiticus 10:1-2 And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the LORD, which he commanded them not.
And there went out fire from the LORD, and devoured them, and they died before the LORD.
If the question was not too hard for you, then that means that you had no doubts about what G-d decreed in this issue. If so, there should be no difference between your opinion and that of the court. If there is, in fact, a difference... then you were incorrect in believing that it was not too hard for you in judgement. Maybe you were being immodest.
That does not mean that leaders are infallible; it only means that the court has the authority to rule. It is all very well to say "we ought to obey G-d rather than men," but in practice, unless you are an actual prophet, the way you determine G-d's will is to ask the authorities. If you then act in accord with their instructions, you are acting as you should by definition.
Nadav and Avihu were under the authority of their father Aaron the High Priest and should have consulted him.
So, let me get this straight:
1) If I disagree with the court, then I am by definition wrong.
2) But the court could be wrong.
3) But if the court is wrong, and I disagree with the court then I... could be right.
4) Which I can't be,. See (1)
5) I'm confused.
You can find this teaching in the minor prophets as well, but the NT states it rather clearly: Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Russ says that unless we are prophets (by which I assume he includes leaders more generally) the way we determine God's will is to ask the leaders. Who can be wrong. Who can be disastrously and destructively wrong.
This is the opposite of what the NT tells us to do. And I think the OT has a lot to say about it as well. When our leaders go the wrong way, it is our duty to oppose them.
I don't really see a difference between the OT and the NT in this, but it could be that this verse changed things:
1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
No, if you _defy_ the court, you are by definition _rebellious_:
"And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the LORD shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee:
According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left.
And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel."
The law is what the court says it is, because they are Divinely empowered to rule on it.
Well, no.
First of all, as I said earlier, that text begins with the idea that I didn't know what the will of the Lord was, and came to ask them.
Secondly, the word 'presumptuously' seems to modify the situation a good deal.
It seems to me (especially in the light of so many other passages) that this sentence is speaking of a particular judgment... a given case... brought to the court to choose between person A and person B.
In the NT much is made of not foolishly running off to court. Perhaps for this very reason: that you might end up with an oppressive judgement of an evil court.
Obviously as a Christian I have an authoritative judgement on this matter, so my only issue here is trying to square the circle you have presented me as to your view. You seem to be saying both that they could be wrong (ie they could be going against the will of God) and that they are right (they are pronouncing the will of God). Now what you might be saying is that if they are wrong they will be judged for it, but you won't be. Or do you think that if they (intentionally, with malic aforethought) pronounce false judgement that they won't be judged?
>> Obviously as a Christian I have an authoritative judgement on this matter
Can you explain this comment?
>> What I am saying is that G-d gave them the authority to rule, and accepts their rulings. There are procedures for when they discover that they have erred (for example, they have to bring a communal offering, and compensate the parties injured by their ruling), but in general this is what authority means.
If they were to judge dishonestly, that would certainly be an issue. That's why it's not a single judge. In monetary matters, you need three, and that goes up to 70 iirc for capital cases.
>>Can you explain this comment?
The passage I posted earlier from the new Testament is authoritative for us. There may be some quibble around the edges as to how we are to apply it, but there is no question that The we are to obey God, rather than men when faced specifically with the Jewish Court is authoritative for us.
We are obliged to follow the dictates of our own conscience, even when it sets us up against authorities. Now I think there’s a lot of issues in the way you have to apply that, but that is the fundamental underlying rule.
Who was speaking these lying words?
Jer 7:2 Stand in the gate of the LORD'S house, and proclaim there this word, and say, Hear the word of the LORD, all ye of Judah, that enter in at these gates to worship the LORD.
Jer 7:3 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, Amend your ways and your doings, and I will cause you to dwell in this place.
Jer 7:4 Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, The temple of the LORD, are these.
Jer 7:5 For if ye throughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye throughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbour;
Jer 7:6 If ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt:
Jer 7:7 Then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever.
The false prophets.
A constant theme of the (true) prophets is to call out the people for failing to keep the Torah - or at least, those are the parts that those who canonized these books chose to record from among their prophecies.
Here, Jeremiah is calling out the people who think that bringing offerings is all they need to do. He is also denouncing the false prophets, who claimed that "the temple of the LORD" would never be destroyed as a result of the people's failures to live up to the proper standard, because it was actually His House.
So, going against these false prophets was what individual Israelites should do.
Dan 3:16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.
Dan 3:17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.
Dan 3:18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.
Yes - prophets are not necessarily judges. It is specifically the authorized courts that one must obey, not anyone who claims, for example, to be a prophet.
Who are these shepherds?
Isa 56:9 All ye beasts of the field, come to devour, yea, all ye beasts in the forest.
Isa 56:10 His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.
Isa 56:11 Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.
Isa 56:12 Come ye, say they, I will fetch wine, and we will fill ourselves with strong drink; and to morrow shall be as this day, and much more abundant.
Late Isaiah tends to be hard to pin down, and the commentators disagree on whether these are false prophets or corrupt political leaders.
I appreciate the continuation, especially based on Russell's comment, which I found a useful observation.
With that said, I am somewhat lost by this post. He said observable, not measurable. I can observe the sun is up, without measuring lumens or solar energy, or any number of things. I can observe that the temperature outside is below my comfort range, without measuring whether it is 36 degrees or 52 degrees.
This seems an odd conflation.
Well and good. But if the objection is 'we can't observe morality', then what is meant? Cause I 'observe' morality all day every day. I see people being kind and being mean, being truthful and lying. It doesn't seem to make sense (especially as a parent) to say we 'can't observe morality'; so my guess was that he meant we couldn't measure it... to observe in a scientific way.
Cause if one scientist were to come in and say, 'Wow, that is a pretty sunset", and the other were to say, 'Pretty is not observable', my guess would be he meant 'we can't measure it'... we have no 'pretty-ometer'. I can observe (as a nurse) that a person is in pain (and I've seen them fake it, too) and I have felt pain... but from a medical standpoint it is not measurable. I have no devise that will 'observe' it in a scientific way.
What is meant is that we cannot observe *G-d's definition of morality.* The only way to get it is via revelation. What you are observing is people behaving in ways that *you judge* to be moral.
Well yes, and I am watching apples fall in the direction that I judge to be down. So what?
>>What is meant is that we cannot observe *G-d's definition of morality.*
Nor can we observe God's definition of Gravity. Indeed,it is easier to observe His definition of morality than His definition of Gravity, as He has had that one written down.
We don't need to observe His definition of Gravity. We can observe gravity as He created it. We can conduct experiments to explore its effects on balls and buildings and ballistas.
We cannot observe morality as He created it. We can observe human behavior and use *our own opinions* as to whether they are acting morally, according to our own understanding of what moral behavior should be.
If I say that gravity will cause a particular object to move in a particular direction, and you disagree, we can devise a test that will prove at least one of us wrong.
If I say that it is immoral to do a particular action and you disagree, there is no test that we can make to determine if either of us is correct.
>>If I say that gravity will cause a particular object to move in a particular direction, and you disagree, we can devise a test that will prove at least one of us wrong.
And if I say that this or that immoral action will cause this or that (or maybe this other) result in the individual, family, church, or nation that performs it, we can do a study to see how accurate my prediction is.
>>If I say that it is immoral to do a particular action and you disagree, there is no test that we can make to determine if either of us is correct.
And if I say that it was gravity that produced such and such reaction, and you disagree, there is no test we can use to determine which of us is right. Because we would be arguing over the definition of gravity
There are ways that we can argue over morality. We do it all the time. There are ways we can judge whether something was right or wrong. We do it all the time.
There is a disconnect both between our understanding of gravity, and God's. And our understanding of morality... and Gods'. Both of these will one day be cleared up. See through a glass darkly and all that.
And there are ways we can measure the results of particular actions which both you and I, but perhaps not Fallible Father, consider immoral.
>> And if I say that this or that immoral action will cause this or that (or maybe this other) result in the individual, family, church, or nation that performs it, we can do a study to see how accurate my prediction is.
Maybe. Human society is very complex, and immoral actions can often have no impact. But it isn't the same thing, as all you are showing is that the action will have a particular impact. That does not prove that it is moral or not. It only addresses efficacy. And even efficacy requires an opinion of what would make society better.
>> And if I say that it was gravity that produced such and such reaction, and you disagree, there is no test we can use to determine which of us is right. Because we would be arguing over the definition of gravity
What alternative definition of gravity are you proposing? And what experiments are you citing that support your definition.
>>It only addresses efficacy.
You keep using that word, and I'm not at all sure what you mean by it.
EF'FICACY, noun [Latin efficax.] Power to produce effects; production to the effect intended; as the efficacy of the gospel in converting men from sin; the efficacy of prayer; the efficacy of medicine in counteracting disease; the efficacy of manure in fertilizing land.
I would be perfectly willing to argue, indeed to quote most of the book of Proverbs, that moral causes have effects. They produce effects. They are efficacious at producing effects.
I would also be willing to argue, indeed produce most of Scripture as evidence, that obeying (or disobeying) the will of God (our agreed defintion of morality) produces effects. It is efficatious. Thus morality (obeying the will of God) produces effects. It is indeed efficacious. And we can measure those effects (albeit with great difficulty, as I mention in the post above).
Russell Gold asked:
---
Meaning, what? That you reject authority? That you declare yourselves to be your own interpreters of the Law?
How does that address my question:
>> Are you saying that every Christian interprets everything the same as every other Christian? If not, how can two who understand an issue differently possibly be both obeying G-d?
--
To which I will probably respond in a post but, for this thread... meaning Daniel. And Shadrack. And Paul. And Peter. And, for that matter, Moses. And Wycliffe. And Luther.
The consistent teaching and practice of orthodox (small o) Christian theology throughout the ages is that every individual, group, and heirarchy is capable of sin, including sin in judgement.
Deu 16:19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.
And it is likewise the duty of every individual, group, and heirarchy to follow the Word of God... alone if need be. To death if need be. 'But if...'. To stand up against unrighteous and perverted courts, rulers, prophets, and armies and follow God. As for me and my house.
It tends to be a rare thing (Romans 13) for the individual to be right, and the courts to be wrong. Most of the time the courts deal with theives who have really stolen, and murderers who have really killed. But it does happpen that the righteous are unjustly put in prison (see... like... practically all of the prophets) and their leaders to be in the wrong.
To go along with the wrong under the excuse that your leaders told you to, that it was 'the law'... well, we've seen how that worked out.
Dan 3:18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.
John Calvin:
29.This is the sum of their answer, It is lawful for them, nay, they ought to prefer God before men. God commandeth us to bear witness of Christ; therefore it is in vain for you to command us to keep silence. But I have declared before in the third chapter, when this sentence taketh place, that we ought rather to obey God than men. God doth set men over us in such sort with power, that he keepeth still his own authority safe and sound. Therefore, we must obey rulers so far, that the commandment of God be not broken. Whereas power and authority is lawfully used, then it is out of season to make comparison between God and man. If a faithful pastor do command or forbid out of the Word of God, it shall be in vain for men which are stubborn to object that we ought to obey God; for God will be heard by man. Yea, man is nothing else but an instrument of God. If a magistrate do his duty as he ought, a man shall in vain say that he is contrary to God, seeing that he dissenteth in nothing; yea, rather the contrary rule is then in force. We must obey God’s ministers and officers if we will obey him. (269) But so soon as rulers do lead us away from the obedience of God, because they strive against God with sacrilegious boldness, their pride must be abated, that God may be above all in authority. Then all smokes of honor vanish away. For God doth not vouchsafe to bestow honorable titles upon men, to the end they may darken his glory. Therefore, if a father, being not content with his own estate, do essay to take from God the chief honor of a father, he is nothing else but a man. If a king, or ruler, or magistrate, do become so lofty that he diminisheth the honor and authority of God, he is but a man. We must thus think also of pastors. For he which goeth beyond his bounds in his office, (because he setteth himself against God:) must be despoiled of his honor, lest, under a color or visor, he deceive. The office of a pastor is very excellent, the authority of the Church is great, yet so that no part of God’s power and Christ’s mastership be diminished. Whence we may easily gather that the pride of the Pope is ridiculous, who, when as he treadeth under foot the whole kingdom of Christ, and doth set himself openly against God, will yet, nevertheless, lie hid under the name of Christ. (270)
(269) “Eadem in parentibus et dominis ratio,” the same holds in parents and masters, omitted in the translation.
(270) “Dei,” of God.
>>or assuming that it is impossible for human beings to set up a just system.
This! Oh, yes, a thousand times yes! This. From the beginning of the Scriptures to the end (the book of Revelation :) ) if there is anything that is clear it is that... any system that involves human beings will involve injustice, unrighteousness, etc etc. Beginning at the third chapter of Genesis. "That woman you gave me!!"
David ( a man after God's own heart, no less) sending Uriah to his death to cover up his own sin (indeed, crime!), Solomon (known for his wisdom) letting his heart be perverted by foreign wives.
Yes, yes, a thousand times this. The thundering evidence of history and Scripture is... any system involving humans will involve injustice. In this sinful world. Not 100% injustice 100% of the time, but the possibilty is always there.
Yes. This.
Recall that laws in most nations are human-created, and therefore often unjust. The laws that the courts described in Deu 17 are those of the Torah as revealed by G-d. That makes those laws *by definition* just.
Recall that, it’s not the laws I am complaining about. It’s the unjust judges of the laws. It’s the judges of the laws that have dedicated themselves to pervert justice. It’s the evil and idolatry and blasphemous judges of the law. That is the discussion here, not the law itself. We both agree that the law of God is perfect. The people of God not so much.
What court structure and procedures are you assuming that enables these unjust judges?
Indeed, this makes it worse. If a judge perverts a human-made law, given that the human-made law might be unjust itself, his perversion might make it better. Or at the very least no worse.
However any perversion of God's Law is, by definition, wrong, unjust... immoral. Observably so ;)
>>What court structure and procedures are you assuming that enables these unjust judges?
I make no assumptions other than that they involve human beings.
There are Jewish courts today; can you point to a few unjust rulings that they've made in the past century or so?
It seems to me that you are either judging based on secular courts, or assuming that it is impossible for human beings to set up a just system.
And you also appear to be assuming that lots of individuals all making their own judgements would somehow be more just. Why would that be?
I will be replying, in general and for this, to the main thread. For some reason both my phone and my computer really hate nested comments, and I have to scroll down, open thread, no, its not that one, next thread...
You realize, BTW, that you still didn't actually answer the question.
posted to main thread.
Do you realize that you can get a link to a specific comment by clicking on the associated time stamp? It is much easier to find it that way than by hunting through the main thread.
For example, https://vonwriting.substack.com/p/a-pound-of-pizza/comment/44887219 is where I am guessing that you responded, here.
I certainly can on my computer, but I’m finding it tricky to do on my phone.
It took me five minutes to find this post and figure out what question. Assuming it is this one:
>>>> Are you saying that every Christian interprets everything the same as every other Christian? If not, how can two who understand an issue differently possibly be both obeying G-d?
Answer: They can't. I would add an exegisis of Romans 14 in here, but maybe later. For now I would add... When a human court orders you to do something that is clearly in violation of God's Law, will you be obeying God if you disobey His law because they told you to?
Answer: No.
It is a known doctrine that different understandings (usually because of the perversion of sin. No, I would be willing to say always because of the perversion of sin. Big thing, sin.) will lead to different actions, some of which will be therefore wrong and against the will of God. However these understanding can happen at any level: the individual, the family, the church, and the nation. At each of these levels someone can misunderstand or even deliberately disobey God. At each of those levels those obeying them could find themselves in the position of saying, "But if..."
Dan 3:18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.
Yes, the conversation has clearly gotten unwieldy. Returning to the top each time we get 3 levels deep doesn't appear to suffice.
I think you've made two different points in this answer:
1. You've said that if two Christians interpret things differently, they cannot both be obeying G-d. I have a minor nit to pick on that answer, but consider the implication. We have two well-meaning Christians, each trying to obey G-d, but reaching incompatible conclusions. Isn't that a problem? It would suggest either that His instructions are not humanly comprehensible, or that one or both Christians is insufficiently expert in His revelation. Surely the latter is far more likely? And if so, doesn't it make sense to defer to the experts, unless you have some clear reason to suspect them to be corrupt? And it would seem rather egotistical to declare oneself more expert than the experts in most cases.
2. You ask "When a human court orders you to do something that is clearly in violation of God's Law, will you be obeying God if you disobey His law because they told you to?"
That is not the question that I had thought we were discussing. I would agree that if their directions are *clearly in violation* then you cannot obey it, as the court is either stupid or corrupt.
The question I'd thought we'd been discussing is when the court orders you to do something, and it is a plausible interpretation, but you don't happen to agree.
>>It would suggest either that His instructions are not humanly comprehensible, or that one or both Christians is insufficiently expert in His revelation
Sin. I believe that I have mentioned that before. It suggests... sin.
Whoa, I can see that we are miles apart, here. I suspect that we need an entirely new topic. I would suggest: why did G-d create the world and Man? I'm guessing that as the likely ultimate source of our different approaches.
On my computer, which has an older operating system and thus browswer, clicking on the time stamp does NOT always bring me to the comment, btw. :(
>>I would suggest: why did G-d create the world and Man?
Awesome topic! Are you going to write the post???
Hmm... I haven't actually created a substack yet. I suppose I could write it up if you'd accept it as a guest post.
Along with the standard disclaimer, "The opinions in the following post... yada yada', a little author bio, a link to this discussion... sounds good.
>>The question I'd thought we'd been discussing is when the court orders you to do something, and it is a plausible interpretation, but you don't happen to agree.
I don't think that is the situation that Daniel, Shadrack, Peter, or Paul found themselves in, no. And I certainly didn't use those words. (I can't imagine myself saying, "I didn't happen to agree'.) What I quoted was, "Dan 3:18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up." I think that's pretty clear.
I would also be willing to discuss issues of jurisdiction.
In which cases are you suggesting that they received a ruling they didn't agree with from a rabbinic court?
1) I did not limit this principle to 'a rabbinic court'. Is there a strongs number for this word in Hebrew?
2) Nor did I say 'that they didn't agree with'.
The examples I brought forward were Daniel and Shadrack with a king, and Peter and Paul. I guess I would need to ask you about the Greek if we were to discuss that.
The passage I cited (Deut. 17:8was talking about a rabbinic court (or at least, that is what we would call it today).
>> If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose; And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment
Note: "the place which the LORD thy God shall choose"
Nothing here specifies any other type of court. This does not apply to king's decrees or whatever the Roman (not Greek, I expect) authorities were.
So are you limiting your principle of obedience to authorities only to properly constituted courts according to Deuteronomy chapter 17?
Yes
And if you are limiting your application to a properly constituted rabic court, do you believe that any such exist today? And if any such do do you believe that they have any jurisdiction over a Christian living in South Texas?
Depending upon your answer to those, I would say that reading back through your comments, many of them would need to be changed. Everywhere where you said, something like “expert“ or “leader“ you would have to substitute that for properly constituted rabbinic court. And everywhere where you seemed to address Christians you would sort of have to delete because you would be saying that we have no properly constituted rabbinic court with authority over us to decree , whatever.
There are such courts, yes. Conflicts between Jews are supposed to be brought before a rabbinic court, not a secular court. They tend to deal with conflicts between individuals, such as business deals, divorces, inheritance, and so on. In practice, one who refuses to accept the ruling of such a court is often placed under a ban.
Litigants must explicitly accept the ruling of the court (I believe that US law requires it); these courts claim no authority over non-Jews. From my study, I cannot recall a single case in which they did.
When I used the term leader, I have generally qualified it as "political leader." That is a very different kind of authority from a rabbinic court.
So then, if there are no courts that fall into the jurisdiction that you were talking about, in other words, if there are no courts that fall under Deuteronomy 17 that apply to Christians, why were you surprised that I wasn’t willing to bow to their authority? What choice do you leave me except the one that I have taken?
Even assuming, which I do not grant, that Rabbinic courts had some kind of authority to tell me what God’s will was, in the general sense, not a specific legal ruling between me, and someone else, since they don’t apply to me, why would that matter? They would literally never issue a ruling, which affected me.
>>And you also appear to be assuming that lots of individuals all making their own judgements would somehow be more just. Why would that be?
No, not quite. What Christian doctrine (and military doctrine, actually) teaches is that there are times when the individual needs to take responsibility for their own action, and is not allowed to follow a leader who is actively asking them to go against God's Law (or military law, etc.). This is actually a pretty common doctrine... maybe it comes from Christianity. "I was just following orders" is a known no-no.
Sin can happen at the individual, family, church, or national level (and business, etc. Any level. Any group. A chess club.). Sin needs to be resisted at every level. See: The Doctrine of the Lesser Magistrate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_magistrate
Dan 3:16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, answered and said to the king, O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter.
Dan 3:17 If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O king.
Dan 3:18 But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up.