LAW IS NEITHER OBEYED DISOBEYED NOR BROKEN / AN EXISTENTIAL ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF OF LAW

[amadeus]

Amadeus;
Exactly, I sketch in hope of future realization and action by others.
I do have a question for you regarding one scripture you mentioned: Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin." John 19:10-11

Am I correct in thinking that "...he that delivered me unto thee..." is a reference to God the Father, and, thus, that Jesus is saying that God the Father hath sin? That would be radically heavy. I do not think Christ is referring to the Pharisees//Sadducees here...
Duane

No, Jesus is speaking with Pontius Pilate the Roman Governor before whom the Jewish leadership [the high priest, the Sadducees & Pharisees included] brought Jesus hoping to have him 'legally' killed. The Apostle Paul writes about the authority which men, such as Pontius Pilate and even the Roman Emperor, received from God:

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." Rom 13:1

"Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work" Titus 3:1

[Those verses, like many verses of scripture, may have more than one meaning which can include spiritual as well as carnal things.]

Jesus and Paul taught the need for people to be subject to the legal secular authority in place over them to the extent they could do so without opposing God. In the Old Testament for example men [the natural children of Jacob/Israel] wanted a king like the gentiles had, but their kings were anointed in that position by men of God. Both the first and second kings of Israel [Saul and David] were anointed by the prophet/judge, Samuel.

God let men go their own way and God anointed kings for them even though He had already warned them that it would not have a good ending. This happened then, but it all may be seen as types and shadows of what has happened since and even what is happening today. But... as I am sure you already know, all of the apparent Christians of today are not in agreement in all of these things. This last was also what was happening in Israel at the time Jesus walked as a man for the Sadducees and Pharisees were strongly opposed to each other, but they conspired together to have Jesus crucified!

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

No, Jesus is speaking with Pontius Pilate the Roman Governor before whom the Jewish leadership [the high priest, the Sadducees & Pharisees included] brought Jesus hoping to have him 'legally' killed. The Apostle Paul writes about the authority which men, such as Pontius Pilate and even the Roman Emperor, received from God:

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." Rom 13:1

"Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work" Titus 3:1

[Those verses, like many verses of scripture, may have more than one meaning which can include spiritual as well as carnal things.]

Jesus and Paul taught the need for people to be subject to the legal secular authority in place over them to the extent they could do so without opposing God. In the Old Testament for example men [the natural children of Jacob/Israel] wanted a king like the gentiles had, but their kings were anointed in that position by men of God. Both the first and second kings of Israel [Saul and David] were anointed by the prophet/judge, Samuel.

God let men go their own way and God anointed kings for them even though He had already warned them that it would not have a good ending. This happened then, but it all may be seen as types and shadows of what has happened since and even what is happening today. But... as I am sure you already know, all of the apparent Christians of today are not in agreement in all of these things. This last was also what was happening in Israel at the time Jesus walked as a man for the Sadducees and Pharisees were strongly opposed to each other, but they conspired together to have Jesus crucified!

Yes, of course, excellent extensive explanation Amadeus. Thank you.

 

[DNB]

@Duane Clinton Meehan
Humans are mammals endowed with the image of God. God instituted the law not to circumvent or desist sin, but to expose it.
You are speaking of things of which you lack the depth and insight to understand. Your proposal that with the abolishment of all law, that those with a disposition to do what is 'unanimously' accepted as good, will overwhelm those antagonistic to such ideals, and thus, eventually eliminate iniquity.
This is naive, as first of all, a trouble-maker is born every minute, and two, there are more iniquitously inclined humans than there are righteous (many are called, few are chosen). Thirdly, in such a secular environment, evil will always overwhelm goodness, as we see that this is the case throughout history, even unto today. If turning the other cheek is a transcendent ideal, it will have absolutely no efficacy in a purely secular society, or where there is no fear of God. For even those who are able to apply the lofty ideals of Christianity, expect to be persecuted, and earthly speaking, lose the battle. Righteousness does not prevail if all that we are, are homo sapiens, for even the animal kingdom teaches us that survival of the fittest , or the law of nature, is the only acceptable modus operandi.
And again, try to get three people to unanimously agree on what is considered to be acceptable behaviour, in any given circumstance, you won't be able to. Your proposal is naive and flawed.

Again, in the wisdom of God, he prescribed the law as a means to expose man's inclination to rebel and be enticed by fleshly desires. And thus, recognizes his hopelessness in living up to his morally endowed conscience, meaning, in the image of his Maker. His accountability has been divulged, and thus he is left in a predicament. God's mercy allows him to either repent and accept the grace of Christ, or deny his sinfulness and continue in his hypocritical existence, and consequently suffer the outcome of such cognizant defiance. That is, the law of treating others as you would yourself, is innate in all humans, and to transgress it, makes one a hypocrite, or one who perceives himself superior or more entitled than others. And this leads to injustice.
Thus, whether the law is written in script, or on one's heart, the spiritual realm that we live in, forces one to abide by one form of constraint or regulations, over another (or lack of). Discipline is always required in one form or another. For even well intending people will step out of line on occasion, potentially causing irreparable damage.
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

In other words, man's inherent knowledge of good & evil came first, thus laws were required to govern his actions, and to attempt to subdue his thoughts so that they conform to the universal and axiomatic, law of justice and love.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

@Duane Clinton Meehan
Humans are mammals endowed with the image of God. God instituted the law not to circumvent or desist sin, but to expose it.
You are speaking of things of which you lack the depth and insight to understand. Your proposal that with the abolishment of all law, that those with a disposition to do what is 'unanimously' accepted as good, will overwhelm those antagonistic to such ideals, and thus, eventually eliminate iniquity.
This is naive, as first of all, a trouble-maker is born every minute, and two, there are more iniquitously inclined humans than there are righteous (many are called, few are chosen). Thirdly, in such a secular environment, evil will always overwhelm goodness, as we see that this is the case throughout history, even unto today. If turning the other cheek is a transcendent ideal, it will have absolutely no efficacy in a purely secular society, or where there is no fear of God. For even those who are able to apply the lofty ideals of Christianity, expect to be persecuted, and earthly speaking, lose the battle. Righteousness does not prevail if all that we are, are homo sapiens, for even the animal kingdom teaches us that survival of the fittest , or the law of nature, is the only acceptable modus operandi.
And again, try to get three people to unanimously agree on what is considered to be acceptable behaviour, in any given circumstance, you won't be able to. Your proposal is naive and flawed.

Again, in the wisdom of God, he prescribed the law as a means to expose man's inclination to rebel and be enticed by fleshly desires. And thus, recognizes his hopelessness in living up to his morally endowed conscience, meaning, in the image of his Maker. His accountability has been divulged, and thus he is left in a predicament. God's mercy allows him to either repent and accept the grace of Christ, or deny his sinfulness and continue in his hypocritical existence, and consequently suffer the outcome of such cognizant defiance. That is, the law of treating others as you would yourself, is innate in all humans, and to transgress it, makes one a hypocrite, or one who perceives himself superior or more entitled than others. And this leads to injustice.
Thus, whether the law is written in script, or on one's heart, the spiritual realm that we live in, forces one to abide by one form of constraint or regulations, over another (or lack of). Discipline is always required in one form or another. For even well intending people will step out of line on occasion, potentially causing irreparable damage.
Ephesians 6:12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

In other words, man's inherent knowledge of good & evil came first, thus laws were required to govern his actions, and to attempt to subdue his thoughts so that they conform to the universal and axiomatic, law of justice and love.

DNB;
Your response is sincerely appreciated. You exhibit some self-inconsistencies which I will describe later; for now you supply us the opportunity to reflect somewhat upon and examine the notion of "sin", which, surely, is a vast consideration. However to me "sin" boils down to being a state of affairs wherein we humans vainly attempt to go against the very way we are structured as living beings, e.g., killing is the most wholly fundamental conduct whereby we maintain and preserve our existence; stealing is an inveterate human characteristic which is ineluctable; reducing other human beings to slavery is a primal human conduct; nonetheless, we absolutely do not have the intestinal fortitude to live face to face with these multiplicity ugly human conducts, which in fact constitute our being as humans, and, we name said characteristics "sin", or "crime", etc., etc., when, in fact these manifold human conducts are absolutely indelible and cannot possibly be dissolved/obviated. Dubbing our apparently unacceptable behavioral traits as '''sin", as those conducts which are shameful and to be boycotted is the epidemy of naivete, and, of impossibility. Our entire religious and jurisprudential endeavor is spent in an irreal attempt not to be precisely what we are.
What I am proposing is that instead of continually attempting to shelve and avoid the ineluctable behavioral traits which constitute our being, we engage and employ our traits precisely for the sake of constituting a civil civilization, for the traits are, so to speak, indespensible God-made/God-given tools which are actually efficacious for man and, for having and maintaining a civil human civilization. Thus the notion of "sin", whereby we hide from ourselves and refuse to come fully face to face with the horror that we in fact are, is standing in the way of our possessing a civil civilization wherein we, at the same time, live precisely and openly what we are as beings. If I can freely kill you on account of misconduct toward me you will not misconduct yourself, you will absolutely maintain civility, thus, killing is indispensable, and, jurisprudence/law posited against killing is an inadvertant dishonest con, whereby one series of humans eats-out /steals the substance of all the others, and, contradictorily, exercises killing in the form of capital punishment...
Sincerely, Duane

 

[brakelite]

DNB;
Your response is sincerely appreciated. You exhibit some self-inconsistencies which I will describe later; for now you supply us the opportunity to reflect somewhat upon the notion of "sin", which, surely, is a vast consideration. However to me it boils down to being a state of affairs wherein we humans vainly attempt to go against the very way we are structured as living beings, e.g., killing is the most wholly fundamental conduct whereby we maintain and preserve our existence; stealing is an inveterate human characteristic which is ineluctable; reducing other human beings to slavery is a primal human conduct; nonetheless, we absolutely do not have the intestinal fortitude of live face to face with these multiplicity ugly human conducts, which in fact constitute our being as humans, and, we name said characteristics "sin", or "crime", etc., etc., when, in fact these manifold human conducts are absolutely indelible and cannot possibly be dissolved/obviated. Dubbing our apparently unacceptable behavioral traits as '''sin", as those conducts which are shameful and to be boycotted is the epidemy of naivete, and, of impossibility. Our entire religious and jurisprudential endeavor is spent in an irreal attempt not to be precisely what we are.
What I am proposing is that instead of continually attempting to shelve and avoid the behavioral traits which constitute our being, we engage and employ them precisely for the sake of constituting a civil civilization, for they are, so to speak, indespensible God given tools which are actually efficacious for man and, for having and maintaining a civil human civilization. Thus the notion of "sin", whereby we hide from ourselves and refuse to come fully face to face with the horror that we in fact are, is standing in the way of our possessing a civil civilization wherein we, at the same time, live precisely and openly what we are as beings. If I can freely kill you on account of misconduct toward me you will not misconduct yourself, you will absolutely maintain civility, thus, killing is indispensable, and, jurisprudence posited against killing is a dishonest con whereby one series of humans eats-out /steals the substance of all the others, and, contradictorily, exercises killing in the form of capital punishment...
Sincerely, Duane

DNB offered an excellent response to your proposal of lawlessness. And in what you considered a rebuttal, in reality confirmed his, and others' Christian ethos. Sin is not a contruction used to inadequately explain behaviour, but as you accurately suggested, a reflection and fruit of an innate character incapable of doing good. Which leaves you with a problem. If law is incapable of governing society ( and I agree with your thesis here) and humans incapable of doing good because they are innately bent towards wickedness and selfishness, then where to from there? Hence cometh the Saviour.
You see, what you are proposing is not original. Before this world was created society in heaven was governed by love. Love was the foundation of God's throne. Until one of the guardians of that throne thought he could establish a society based on selfishness. This resulted in war in heaven and he was cast out to the newly created earth where he managed to bring his ideals here. Do away with law, live according to natural inclination, survival of the strongest, and all will be well. The wickedness you attest to in America is a direct result not of Law, but of it's death.
The written commandments on stone were not offered to Israel as a recipe for good behaviour, but a reflection of their inability to live in harmony with that law being a transcript of his character... And man, having originally been made in that image, had fallen so far from that perfection of character as you so eloquently describe, can not by attempting to obey that law attain to righteousness, but as one poster said previously, being born again. Receiving a new character that is created in the former image of its Creator, minds changed, lives transformed by grace through faith, and sin conquered.
The flaw in your argument lies not in the incapability of the law to change people... It can't. The flaw in your argument lies not in man's incapacity on his own to obey the law... He can't. Where you err is leaving out the supernatural power of God to transform lives to such an extent that human beings, both men and women, can live in harmony with those ten commandments... And it begins with the justification of man through the death of God's Son... That's the gospel.
Like I said. Your idea isn't original. Lucifer first proffered that concept in heaven... The result of that little exercise in futility you witness all around you.
Your utopian society where the fear of reprisal will govern and steer people toward righteousness will last only so long as there arises none that thinks himself more worthy than others, and has the power to back it up, to rule. I would give such a society a life span of approximately 3 minutes before it divides into factions and tribes that war against one another for power and survival.
Oh, look....

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

DNB offered an excellent response to your proposal of lawlessness. And in what you considered a rebuttal, in reality confirmed his, and others' Christian ethos. Sin is not a contruction used to inadequately explain behaviour, but as you accurately suggested, a reflection and fruit of an innate character incapable of doing good. Which leaves you with a problem. If law is incapable of governing society ( and I agree with your thesis here) and humans incapable of doing good because they are innately bent towards wickedness and selfishness, then where to from there? Hence cometh the Saviour.
You see, what you are proposing is not original. Before this world was created society in heaven was governed by love. Love was the foundation of God's throne. Until one of the guardians of that throne thought he could establish a society based on selfishness. This resulted in war in heaven and he was cast out to the newly created earth where he managed to bring his ideals here. Do away with law, live according to natural inclination, survival of the strongest, and all will be well. The wickedness you attest to in America is a direct result not of Law, but of it's death.
The written commandments on stone were not offered to Israel as a recipe for good behaviour, but a reflection of their inability to live in harmony with that law being a transcript of his character... And man, having originally been made in that image, had fallen so far from that perfection of character as you so eloquently describe, can not by attempting to obey that law attain to righteousness, but as one poster said previously, being born again. Receiving a new character that is created in the former image of its Creator, minds changed, lives transformed by grace through faith, and sin conquered.
The flaw in your argument lies not in the incapability of the law to change people... It can't. The flaw in your argument lies not in man's incapacity on his own to obey the law... He can't. Where you err is leaving out the supernatural power of God to transform lives to such an extent that human beings, both men and women, can live in harmony with those ten commandments... And it begins with the justification of man through the death of God's Son... That's the gospel.
Like I said. Your idea isn't original. Lucifer first proffered that concept in heaven... The result of that little exercise in futility you witness all around you.
Your utopian society where the fear of reprisal will govern and steer people toward righteousness will last only so long as there arises none that thinks himself more worthy than others, and has the power to back it up, to rule. I would give such a society a life span of approximately 3 minutes before it divides into factions and tribes that war against one another for power and survival.
Oh, look....

brakelite;
Thus far I have only read a few sentences of your first paragraph, and, I am not maintaining that we humans are incapable of doing "good"; I have written elsewhere that we possess an inherent sense of right conduct...that deep down we know what is decent... I will read and reflect upon the remainder of your response and respond thereafter...
I am not per se proposing lawlessness, I am proposing living authentically what we are as human beings, which is prior to all law..
Duane

 

[brakelite]

brakelite;
Thus far I have only read a few sentences of your first paragraph, and, I am not maintaining that we humans are incapable of doing "good"; I have written elsewhere that we possess an inherent sense of right conduct...that deep down we know what is decent... I will read and reflect upon the remainder of your response and respond thereafter...
I am not per se proposing lawlessness, I am proposing living authentically what we are as human beings, which is prior to all law..
Duane

We may know inherently what is right and wrong, but are incapable of living according to that knowledge, due to a fallen human nature that is wholly corrupt.
How far back do you need to go 'before law' to find a society devoid of violence? Tooth for tooth? Why is the second tooth removed any more righteous than the first?
True righteousness... True love... Is self sscrificial, not self preservation.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

DNB offered an excellent response to your proposal of lawlessness. And in what you considered a rebuttal, in reality confirmed his, and others' Christian ethos. Sin is not a contruction used to inadequately explain behaviour, but as you accurately suggested, a reflection and fruit of an innate character incapable of doing good. Which leaves you with a problem. If law is incapable of governing society ( and I agree with your thesis here) and humans incapable of doing good because they are innately bent towards wickedness and selfishness, then where to from there? Hence cometh the Saviour.
You see, what you are proposing is not original. Before this world was created society in heaven was governed by love. Love was the foundation of God's throne. Until one of the guardians of that throne thought he could establish a society based on selfishness. This resulted in war in heaven and he was cast out to the newly created earth where he managed to bring his ideals here. Do away with law, live according to natural inclination, survival of the strongest, and all will be well. The wickedness you attest to in America is a direct result not of Law, but of it's death.
The written commandments on stone were not offered to Israel as a recipe for good behaviour, but a reflection of their inability to live in harmony with that law being a transcript of his character... And man, having originally been made in that image, had fallen so far from that perfection of character as you so eloquently describe, can not by attempting to obey that law attain to righteousness, but as one poster said previously, being born again. Receiving a new character that is created in the former image of its Creator, minds changed, lives transformed by grace through faith, and sin conquered.
The flaw in your argument lies not in the incapability of the law to change people... It can't. The flaw in your argument lies not in man's incapacity on his own to obey the law... He can't. Where you err is leaving out the supernatural power of God to transform lives to such an extent that human beings, both men and women, can live in harmony with those ten commandments... And it begins with the justification of man through the death of God's Son... That's the gospel.
Like I said. Your idea isn't original. Lucifer first proffered that concept in heaven... The result of that little exercise in futility you witness all around you.
Your utopian society where the fear of reprisal will govern and steer people toward righteousness will last only so long as there arises none that thinks himself more worthy than others, and has the power to back it up, to rule. I would give such a society a life span of approximately 3 minutes before it divides into factions and tribes that war against one another for power and survival.
Oh, look....

The entire series of billions of human beings who make up our world sociosphere is not going to, person per person, accept Christ; however, they will accept the possibility of learning to responsibly openly live the structure of their being, which being is an absolute ontological freedom.
By learning what the structure of that human absolute ontological freedom is, and by learning to authentically exercise human absolute ontological freedom, humans can, via the pattern of the structure of their own existence, advance the human world unto a civil world civilization...

 

[brakelite]

they will accept the possibility of learning to responsibly openly live the structure of their being, which being is an absolute ontological freedom.

True, not everyone will accept Christ. But there is a hatred for light because their deeds are evil and they love the darkness. While mankind may know subconsciously right from wrong, their corrupt human nature forbids them from living in any way other than selfishly.
KJV Jeremiah 17
9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

We may know inherently what is right and wrong, but are incapable of living according to that knowledge, due to a fallen human nature that is wholly corrupt.
How far back do you need to go 'before law' to find a society devoid of violence? Tooth for tooth? Why is the second tooth removed any more righteous than the first?
True righteousness... True love... Is self sscrificial, not self preservation.

DNB offered an excellent response to your proposal of lawlessness. And in what you considered a rebuttal, in reality confirmed his, and others' Christian ethos. Sin is not a contruction used to inadequately explain behaviour, but as you accurately suggested, a reflection and fruit of an innate character incapable of doing good. Which leaves you with a problem. If law is incapable of governing society ( and I agree with your thesis here) and humans incapable of doing good because they are innately bent towards wickedness and selfishness, then where to from there? Hence cometh the Saviour.
You see, what you are proposing is not original. Before this world was created society in heaven was governed by love. Love was the foundation of God's throne. Until one of the guardians of that throne thought he could establish a society based on selfishness. This resulted in war in heaven and he was cast out to the newly created earth where he managed to bring his ideals here. Do away with law, live according to natural inclination, survival of the strongest, and all will be well. The wickedness you attest to in America is a direct result not of Law, but of it's death.
The written commandments on stone were not offered to Israel as a recipe for good behaviour, but a reflection of their inability to live in harmony with that law being a transcript of his character... And man, having originally been made in that image, had fallen so far from that perfection of character as you so eloquently describe, can not by attempting to obey that law attain to righteousness, but as one poster said previously, being born again. Receiving a new character that is created in the former image of its Creator, minds changed, lives transformed by grace through faith, and sin conquered.
The flaw in your argument lies not in the incapability of the law to change people... It can't. The flaw in your argument lies not in man's incapacity on his own to obey the law... He can't. Where you err is leaving out the supernatural power of God to transform lives to such an extent that human beings, both men and women, can live in harmony with those ten commandments... And it begins with the justification of man through the death of God's Son... That's the gospel.
Like I said. Your idea isn't original. Lucifer first proffered that concept in heaven... The result of that little exercise in futility you witness all around you.
Your utopian society where the fear of reprisal will govern and steer people toward righteousness will last only so long as there arises none that thinks himself more worthy than others, and has the power to back it up, to rule. I would give such a society a life span of approximately 3 minutes before it divides into factions and tribes that war against one another for power and survival.
Oh, look....

I am not maintaining that we can attain civilization via love, for two thousand years that tack has not constituted a world-wide civil civilization. I am suggesting we, at the level of each and every single solitary person, be and live the stark outrage that we in fact individually are, for the sake of constituting civil civilization simply by authentically being precisely what we are ontologically tooled to do; and, that is an absolutely original proposal...

 

[brakelite]

I am not maintaining that we can attain civilization via love, for two thousand years that tack has not constituted a world-wide civil civilization.

That track was never intended to accomplish a world wide civil society. It was intended to constitute a body of believers living by faith and expressing through their works
God's love for mankind.

I am suggesting we, at the level of each and every single solitary person, be and live the stark outrage that we in fact individually are, for the sake of constituting civil civilization simply by authentically being precisely what we are ontologically tooled to do; and, that is an absolutely original

Precisely what we are are liars, murderers, thieves, power hungry violent selfish godless worshippers of self. And the society you think will result from abandoning those strictures if law and justice is all around you. While the law cannot change the evil heart, it does go some way in restricting the outward manifestation and expression of that evil heart. A selfish evil society results from ignoring those strictures... Abandoning them altogether will result in only one thing. But God will not allow that to happen in the future Amy more than He allowed it in the past...
KJV Genesis 11
5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

That track was never intended to accomplish a world wide civil society. It was intended to constitute a body of believers living by faith and expressing through their works
God's love for mankind.

Precisely what we are are liars, murderers, thieves, power hungry violent selfish godless worshippers of self. And the society you think will result from abandoning those strictures if law and justice is all around you. While the law cannot change the evil heart, it does go some way in restricting the outward manifestation and expression of that evil heart. A selfish evil society results from ignoring those strictures... Abandoning them altogether will result in only one thing. But God will not allow that to happen in the future Amy more than He allowed it in the past...
KJV Genesis 11
5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

The dialectical movement of history does not allow any one innovation to be constituted purely as wished/intended. You have not, understandably, read this entire exchange between members; I have already declared that I am purposely adopting a radically extreme position, knowing that antithetical positions will resist, unto attaining a meaningful compromise; thus, law will not evaporate just because I have demonstrated the reason it is an inefficacy among men, some intermediate vehicle will upsurge.

I still have to study and respond to your first response to me...
Duane

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

That track was never intended to accomplish a world wide civil society. It was intended to constitute a body of believers living by faith and expressing through their works
God's love for mankind.

Precisely what we are are liars, murderers, thieves, power hungry violent selfish godless worshippers of self. And the society you think will result from abandoning those strictures if law and justice is all around you. While the law cannot change the evil heart, it does go some way in restricting the outward manifestation and expression of that evil heart. A selfish evil society results from ignoring those strictures... Abandoning them altogether will result in only one thing. But God will not allow that to happen in the future Amy more than He allowed it in the past...
KJV Genesis 11
5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.
6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

"That track was never intended to accomplish a world wide civil society. It was intended to constitute a body of believers living by faith and expressing through their works God's love for mankind."
"Mankind" is a reference to all persons. Do you know Paul's hopes/intentions!? There are now billions of Christians worldwide; however, civil society via love will not become universal, while, all the while, human freedom is universal and the objective is to lift all persons up to having a reflective knowledge of the modus operandi of the ontological freedom which they now exercise merely pre-reflectively, i.e., without knowing/understanding how their freedom transpires from moment to moment.
The vast majority of human beings do not act as horridly as you paint them via your Biblical weltanschauung...Most persons only occasionally act questionably, and, some, never...
Duane

 

[Duane Clinton Meehan]

DNB offered an excellent response to your proposal of lawlessness. And in what you considered a rebuttal, in reality confirmed his, and others' Christian ethos. Sin is not a contruction used to inadequately explain behaviour, but as you accurately suggested, a reflection and fruit of an innate character incapable of doing good. Which leaves you with a problem. If law is incapable of governing society ( and I agree with your thesis here) and humans incapable of doing good because they are innately bent towards wickedness and selfishness, then where to from there? Hence cometh the Saviour.
You see, what you are proposing is not original. Before this world was created society in heaven was governed by love. Love was the foundation of God's throne. Until one of the guardians of that throne thought he could establish a society based on selfishness. This resulted in war in heaven and he was cast out to the newly created earth where he managed to bring his ideals here. Do away with law, live according to natural inclination, survival of the strongest, and all will be well. The wickedness you attest to in America is a direct result not of Law, but of it's death.
The written commandments on stone were not offered to Israel as a recipe for good behaviour, but a reflection of their inability to live in harmony with that law being a transcript of his character... And man, having originally been made in that image, had fallen so far from that perfection of character as you so eloquently describe, can not by attempting to obey that law attain to righteousness, but as one poster said previously, being born again. Receiving a new character that is created in the former image of its Creator, minds changed, lives transformed by grace through faith, and sin conquered.
The flaw in your argument lies not in the incapability of the law to change people... It can't. The flaw in your argument lies not in man's incapacity on his own to obey the law... He can't. Where you err is leaving out the supernatural power of God to transform lives to such an extent that human beings, both men and women, can live in harmony with those ten commandments... And it begins with the justification of man through the death of God's Son... That's the gospel.
Like I said. Your idea isn't original. Lucifer first proffered that concept in heaven... The result of that little exercise in futility you witness all around you.
Your utopian society where the fear of reprisal will govern and steer people toward righteousness will last only so long as there arises none that thinks himself more worthy than others, and has the power to back it up, to rule. I would give such a society a life span of approximately 3 minutes before it divides into factions and tribes that war against one another for power and survival.
Oh, look....

brakelite;
As I have pointed out several times before in this forum, the American patriot Paul Revere in his "Common Sense", reports that immediately after the American Revolution, when there was no law, society transpired peacefully, because, commerce had to function for the sake of human survival. Look at the history of Australia wherein your country was and is populated with convicts and the descendants of convicts, transported from England because they were deemed unfit to live among civilized people; nonetheless, the Australian sociosphere has always transpired predominantly peacefully.
Most of what you discuss in your first post to me is pure Christian idealism grounded in scripture and rings even more infeasible than my particular imaginings, and, is as nauseating to me as my views are to you. However, what I have done is demonstrate the ontological unsuitability of our language of law for supervising persons, in an attempt to show how intently we are kidding ourselves, and, have structured a sociosphere which is entirely out of sync with the very structure of our human being, as is Christianity with its timid habit of hiding from the shocking killing conduct which we are built to be ready to continually enact.

You cannot say for sure that in a state of affairs wherein we live in accord with our stark ontological selves that general warfare would ensue; I think the steadfastly misbehaved persons would quickly be eliminated, yes, and, then, the majority, of a peaceful bent, will live peacefully as the requirements of commerce dictate.
Duane

 

[brakelite]

brakelite;
As I have pointed out several times before in this forum, the American patriot Paul Revere in his "Common Sense", reports that immediately after the American Revolution, when there was no law, society transpired peacefully, because, commerce had to function for the sake of human survival. Look at the history of Australia wherein your country was and is populated with convicts and the descendants of convicts, transported from England because they were deemed unfit to live among civilized people; nonetheless, the Australian sociosphere has always transpired predominantly peacefully.
Most of what you discuss in your first post to me is pure Christian idealism grounded in scripture and rings even more infeasible than my particular imaginings, and, is as nauseating to me as my views are to you. However, what I have done is demonstrate the ontological unsuitability of our language of law for supervising persons, in an attempt to show how intently we are kidding ourselves, and, have structured a sociosphere which is entirely out of sync with the very structure of our human being, as is Christianity with its timid habit of hiding from the shocking killing conduct which we are built to be ready to continually enact.

You cannot say for sure that in a state of affairs wherein we live in accord with our stark ontological selves that general warfare would ensue; I think the steadfastly misbehaved persons would quickly be eliminated, yes, and, then, the majority, of a peaceful bent, will live peacefully as the requirements of commerce dictate.
Duane

The French revolution I think would be a stark demonstration when people remove the restraints of law. For example, remove the laws governing road safety and speed, what do you think would happen?

 

[Willie T]

brakelite;
As I have pointed out several times before in this forum, the American patriot Paul Revere in his "Common Sense", reports that immediately after the American Revolution, when there was no law, society transpired peacefully, because, commerce had to function for the sake of human survival. Look at the history of Australia wherein your country was and is populated with convicts and the descendants of convicts, transported from England because they were deemed unfit to live among civilized people; nonetheless, the Australian sociosphere has always transpired predominantly peacefully.
Most of what you discuss in your first post to me is pure Christian idealism grounded in scripture and rings even more infeasible than my particular imaginings, and, is as nauseating to me as my views are to you. However, what I have done is demonstrate the ontological unsuitability of our language of law for supervising persons, in an attempt to show how intently we are kidding ourselves, and, have structured a sociosphere which is entirely out of sync with the very structure of our human being, as is Christianity with its timid habit of hiding from the shocking killing conduct which we are built to be ready to continually enact.

You cannot say for sure that in a state of affairs wherein we live in accord with our stark ontological selves that general warfare would ensue; I think the steadfastly misbehaved persons would quickly be eliminated, yes, and, then, the majority, of a peaceful bent, will live peacefully as the requirements of commerce dictate.
Duane

Your reasoning is often so limited, that I thought I would take a look to see how peaceful Australia really may have been. A short search quickly turned up this list:

17th century[edit]
1629: The Dutch East India Company sailing ship Batavia struck a reef near Beacon Island off the Western Australian coast. A subsequent mutiny and massacre took place among the survivors.

18th century[edit]
1790–1816: Hawkesbury and Nepean Wars

• 1795: Battle of Richmond Hill
• 1797: Battle of Parramatta

19th century[edit]
1804: Castle Hill convict rebellion

• 1808–1810: Rum Rebellion
• 1821–1827: Bathurst Wars
• 1824: Bathurst massacre
• 1828: Cape Grim massacre
• 1828–1832: Black War
• 1830s–1840s: Wiradjuri Wars
• 1830: Bathurst Rebellion
• 1833 or 1834: Convincing Ground massacre
• 1834: Battle of Pinjarra
• 1838: Waterloo Creek massacre
• 1838: Myall Creek massacre
• 1838: Faithfull massacre
• 1839: Murdering Gully massacre
• 1839: Campaspe Plains massacre
• 1840: Battle of Yering
• 1843: Warrigal Creek massacre
• 1840–1850: Gippsland massacres
• 1845: Battle of One Tree Hill
• 1849: Avenue Range Station massacre
• 1850s: Richmond River massacres
• 1851–1854: Eureka Rebellion
  • 1851: Forest Creek Monster Meeting
  • 1853: Anti-Gold Licence Association
  • 1853: Bendigo Petition
  • 1854: Ballarat Reform League
  • 1854: Battle of Eureka Stockade
• 1857: Hornet Bank massacre
• 1857–1858: Massacre of the Yeeman
• 1860–1861: Lambing Flat Riots
• 1861: Battle of Yindurupilly
• 1861: Cullin-La-Ringo massacre
• 1865: La Grange expedition
• 1867: Goulbolba Hill massacre
• 1868: Flying Foam Massacre
• 1873: Battle Camp massacre
• 1874–1875: Blackfellow's Creek massacre
• 1874: Barrow Creek massacre
• 1879: Cape Bedford massacre
• 1884: Battle of Battle Mountain
• 1880s–1890s: Arnhem Wars
• 1890: Speewah massacre
• 1891: Australian shearers' strike

 

[Willie T]

continued:
20th century[edit]
1914–1918: First World War

• • 1914: Battle of Cocos
• 1915: Battle of Broken Hill
• 1915: Mistake Creek massacre
• 1916: Mowla Bluff massacre
• 1916: Liverpool riot
• 1918: Darwin rebellion
• 1919: Red Flag riots
• 1920: Broome race riots
• 1923: Victorian Police strike
• 1924: Bedford Downs massacre
• 1926: Forrest River massacre
• 1928: Coniston massacre
• 1929: Rothbury riot
• 1932–1934: Caledon Bay crisis
• 1939–1945: Second World War
  • 1941: Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran
  • 1941: German submarine U-862
  • 1942: Townsville mutiny
  • 1944: Cowra Breakout

• 1942: Battle of Brisbane

• 1942–1943: Battle for Australia
  • 1942–1945: North Western Area Campaign
    • 1942: Bombing of Darwin
    • 1942: Attack on Broome
    • 1942: Koolama
    • 1942: Shelling of Newcastle
    • 1942: Attack on Sydney Harbour
• 1979: Star Hotel riot
• 1996: Parliament House Riot

21st century[edit]
2004: Redfern riots

• 2005: Cronulla riots
• 2005: Macquarie Fields riots
• 2012: Sydney anti-Islam film protests

 

[brakelite]

Your reasoning is often so limited, that I thought I would take a look to see how peaceful Australia really may have been. A short search quickly turned up this list:

17th century[edit]
1629: The Dutch East India Company sailing ship Batavia struck a reef near Beacon Island off the Western Australian coast. A subsequent mutiny and massacre took place among the survivors.

18th century[edit]
1790–1816: Hawkesbury and Nepean Wars

• 1795: Battle of Richmond Hill
• 1797: Battle of Parramatta

19th century[edit]
1804: Castle Hill convict rebellion

• 1808–1810: Rum Rebellion
• 1821–1827: Bathurst Wars
• 1824: Bathurst massacre
• 1828: Cape Grim massacre
• 1828–1832: Black War
• 1830s–1840s: Wiradjuri Wars
• 1830: Bathurst Rebellion
• 1833 or 1834: Convincing Ground massacre
• 1834: Battle of Pinjarra
• 1838: Waterloo Creek massacre
• 1838: Myall Creek massacre
• 1838: Faithfull massacre
• 1839: Murdering Gully massacre
• 1839: Campaspe Plains massacre
• 1840: Battle of Yering
• 1843: Warrigal Creek massacre
• 1840–1850: Gippsland massacres
• 1845: Battle of One Tree Hill
• 1849: Avenue Range Station massacre
• 1850s: Richmond River massacres
• 1851–1854: Eureka Rebellion
  • 1851: Forest Creek Monster Meeting
  • 1853: Anti-Gold Licence Association
  • 1853: Bendigo Petition
  • 1854: Ballarat Reform League
  • 1854: Battle of Eureka Stockade
• 1857: Hornet Bank massacre
• 1857–1858: Massacre of the Yeeman
• 1860–1861: Lambing Flat Riots
• 1861: Battle of Yindurupilly
• 1861: Cullin-La-Ringo massacre
• 1865: La Grange expedition
• 1867: Goulbolba Hill massacre
• 1868: Flying Foam Massacre
• 1873: Battle Camp massacre
• 1874–1875: Blackfellow's Creek massacre
• 1874: Barrow Creek massacre
• 1879: Cape Bedford massacre
• 1884: Battle of Battle Mountain
• 1880s–1890s: Arnhem Wars
• 1890: Speewah massacre
• 1891: Australian shearers' strike

continued:
20th century[edit]
1914–1918: First World War

• • 1914: Battle of Cocos
• 1915: Battle of Broken Hill
• 1915: Mistake Creek massacre
• 1916: Mowla Bluff massacre
• 1916: Liverpool riot
• 1918: Darwin rebellion
• 1919: Red Flag riots
• 1920: Broome race riots
• 1923: Victorian Police strike
• 1924: Bedford Downs massacre
• 1926: Forrest River massacre
• 1928: Coniston massacre
• 1929: Rothbury riot
• 1932–1934: Caledon Bay crisis
• 1939–1945: Second World War
  • 1941: Battle between HMAS Sydney and German auxiliary cruiser Kormoran
  • 1941: German submarine U-862
  • 1942: Townsville mutiny
  • 1944: Cowra Breakout

• 1942: Battle of Brisbane

• 1942–1943: Battle for Australia
  • 1942–1945: North Western Area Campaign
    • 1942: Bombing of Darwin
    • 1942: Attack on Broome
    • 1942: Koolama
    • 1942: Shelling of Newcastle
    • 1942: Attack on Sydney Harbour
• 1979: Star Hotel riot
• 1996: Parliament House Riot

21st century[edit]
2004: Redfern riots

• 2005: Cronulla riots
• 2005: Macquarie Fields riots
• 2012: Sydney anti-Islam film protests

Interesting research. And that's not even close to the half of the problem...The killing times: the massacres of Aboriginal people Australia must confront

 

[DPMartin]

The motivational intelligibility of law within an attendant climate of punishment, purportedly efficient to make and maintain decent interpersonal conduct, is questionable in terms of the incorrectness of scholars of jurisprudence in regard to a putatively conduct-originative law linguistic, whereby language of law is mistakenly deemed to be a conduct-determinative causal force among men, thus, both jurisprudential scholarship and extant language of law exhibit vacuity in regard to the actual ontological mode whereby a human act originates; hence all current jurisprudence/law clearly appears to be theoretically unintelligible at the level of the ontological mode of the origination of a human act, and therefore, law, as a mistakenly presupposed determinative efficacy among men, is exposed as subject to being discarded as a non-viable means to having and doing civilization:

LAW IS NEITHER OBEYED DISOBEYED NOR BROKEN / AN EXISTENTIAL ONTOLOGICAL DISPROOF OF LAW

No person in fact ever determines to act or forbear action on the basis of given published language of law, and, therefore, language of law, absolutely without originative connection with intentional human action/inaction, can, actually, be neither obeyed, disobeyed, nor broken.

All determination to action and inaction upsurges only on the basis of what is absent, is purely imagined, is an unaccomplished desideratum, and, has not yet intentionally transpired.

That human determination to action arises ex nihilo was first realized and enunciated by Baruch Spinoza (1632 -1677 ), as "...determinatio negatio est…" i.e., ...determination is negation...(1674); and was, subsequently, restated by G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) as "Omnis determinatio est negatio.", i.e., "All determination is negation."

Human beings are ontologically barred from being determined to action or inaction by given states of affairs.

J. P. Sartre’s (1901-1980 ) examination of the ontological structure of the upsurge of a human act exhibits comprehension of Spinoza's dictum: “No factual state whatever it may be (the political and economic structure of society, the psychological “state,” etc.) is capable by itself of motivating any act whatsoever. For an act is a projection of the for-itself toward what is not, and what is can in no way determine by itself what is not.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943). And, further: “But if human reality is action, this means evidently that its determination to action is itself action. If we reject this principle, and if we admit that human reality can be determined to action by a prior state of the world or itself, this amounts to putting a given at the beginning of the series. Then these acts disappear as acts in order to give place to a series of movements...The existence of the act implies its autonomy...Furthermore, if the act is not pure motion, it must be defined by an

intention. No matter how this intention is considered, it can be only a surpassing of the given toward a result to be attained. This given, in fact, since it is pure presence, can not get out of itself. Precisely because it is, it is fully and solely what it is. Therefore it can not provide the reason for a phenomenon which derives all its meaning from a result to be attained; that is, from a non-existent… This intention, which is the fundamental structure of human reality, can in no case be explained by a given, not even if it is presented as an emanation from a given.” (Being and Nothingness, 1943).

The intentional conduct of an individual human freedom cannot be determined and initiated by given law.

Civilization is currently predicated upon the putative rule of law and American civilization is founded upon the erroneous presupposition that language of law is determinative of both overt human conduct, and of human forbearance to act.

The venal jurisprudential attempt to monitor/control human conduct via language of law is a vain project unsuited to and in contradiction with the ontological structure of being a human being, wherein all determination is negation.

The world-wide presupposed efficacy of language of law as an originative determinative source of human conduct, is, when considered in the light of both Spinozas dictum, and, of the human ontological structure of the upsurge of an act, a completely nonsensical presupposition..


Human existential absurdity designates givens as cause/motive/determinant of one’s action, while, all the while, human action exclusively originates ex nihilo, via consciousnesses’ nihilative capacity.


Jurisprudential illusion is an instance of human existential absurdity wherein the illusion consists in blindly, mistakenly, presupposing given language of law to be determinative of human action and inaction; --- jurisprudential illusion is the ontologically unintelligible misconception of mistakenly presupposing given language of law determines one’s acts, and/or, that one determines one’s self to act, or forbear action, by given law.

America is currently suffering under radically rampant human misconduct, including daily mass mudrer, as a practico-inert consequence of attempting to constitute civilization via the ontologically unintelligible theoretical construct “law”; a “law” which is, in itself, defective and illusional human misconduct par excellence.

We Americans can exit practico-inert consequences of deeming law to be a means to civilization, and, actually achieve civilization by comprehending, and using, our human ontological structure as pattern for civilized adaptation to being human...

sounds like a whole lot of flowery horse dump to me.

law it simply agreement between two or more living beings able to do so. its contract if you like. even in the case of the law by the hand of Moses, the Lord their God required the children of Israel to agree to it. the garden of Eden was that God put man in the garden and commanded the man. the command was agreed to by the man by default even if not verbally, because Adam didn't seek to leave the garden under those conditions.

the constitution which supersedes all law of the US of A is a agreement between a gov. and its people. when it comes to law if you don't agree you may leave or stay and suffer consequences should you "break" the agreement on your part. because if you stay by default you agree and the gov has the power to enforce or forgive any infraction. the agreement of the household is the law of the household and the same applies.

 

[brakelite]

The dialectical movement of history does not allow any one innovation to be constituted purely as wished/intended. You have not, understandably, read this entire exchange between members; I have already declared that I am purposely adopting a radically extreme position, knowing that antithetical positions will resist, unto attaining a meaningful compromise; thus, law will not evaporate just because I have demonstrated the reason it is an inefficacy among men, some intermediate vehicle will upsurge.

I still have to study and respond to your first response to me...
Duane

I am familiar with the Hegelian dialectic but I refuse to play that game. Two error ridden extremes to gain a contrived result... Order of of chaos. I am not offering you Christian idealism. I offer you truth. Men are sinners... Not because they sin, but because they cannot help themselves. I don't need the Bible to inform me of this stark reality. History is recorded across the pages of time and written in the blood of its victims through the pens of the victors. Moral law is not a construction of society or the result of hit and miss evolutionary development. Add I said in a previous post, the ten commandments that God gave Moses at Sinai were a written transcript of God's righteousness... His character. The laws of nations regarding stealing and murder etc are an imperfect development of those same laws and totally necessary in order to give society some semblance of order. The people found to be in disharmony with those laws are generally people that secular society would shun and prefer to not have anything further to do with... Yet the institution that you repudiate, the church, when practicing that 'idealism' you find offensive, is the one institution offering forgiveness, hope, and a further chance at life. That also us the gospel. Your gospel does not include forgiveness... Your gospel says if someone comes to you with a knife them find a similar sized knife. (eye for eye) and have at it. Great until someone makes up for their lack in knife fighting skills and pulls out their 38 special. Then someone else goes for their 45. Then appears a Remington shotgun... An Uzi... Cannon... Them sometime hires a bigger person with a bigger cannon... Then an army...I think you get the picture.