Grace v Law

Christians need balance and wisdom in applying law and grace to present legislation. The Christian view (the kingdom of heaven) is not enshrined and enforced State Law as being edicts from God, which is the primary principle in view in some other major religions where law equates as of more value than the person. Law must serve society for best social order and not society serve the absolutes of the law. Compare what the apostle John says (John 1: 18), “The law was given (to Israel) by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus the Christ”. The focus of the good news from God as revealed through Jesus, is that God loves and values all men equally above the justice of the law and is willing to forgive the vilest offender of His law.

The Christian view is: humans by nature are imperfect, therefore absolutes of religious law must not be enforced otherwise it violates a persons worth and dignity. The Christian view for relationships is that, sacrificial love is voluntarily and not enforced. Those in the kingdom of God live in the Spirit, and do not violate the principles of good relationships, otherwise confession and forgiveness applies. Love for God and neighbour is the character that guides those in the kingdom of God - not law. The Divine graces cannot be enforced as law. Law deals with a violation of an accepted standard of behaviour other than perfect. Under the perfect standard of divine graces we have all failed, therefore some level of penalty applies to the pain we caused. Because we have violated God’s perfect relationship we now require a greater level of tolerance as acceptable within society.

The fact is a Christian world-view places the value of the person over the justice of the law. It is the basis of a Christian view that a person is innocent till a court proves his guilt, unlike other tribunal systems where the offender is guilty and he must prove his innocence. The Divine value of humanity itself influences the Christian formation of State law

Grace of God toward law breakers

Australians have previously been influenced by the words of the Christian “Our Father” community prayer as taught by Jesus, “we forgive those who have offended us”, which demonstrates a level of tolerance and our release of persons causing us pain. It is a grace of tolerance to turn the other cheek when falsely accused. This is the demonstrated behaviour of Christ who when reviled did not revile back, and at his crucifixion said, “Father forgive them because they do not understand what they do”. The intolerant Judaist lawyers were enforcing the punishments for their religious law of blasphemy upon Jesus because his speech had violated their law. Judge Higgins please recognise Jesus was put to death for his words.

The religious vilification tribunals established in Victoria upon the recommendation of the Multicultural Foundation do not equate to a Christian world-view of freedom and the grace of tolerance for an offending individual, i.e. verbal vilification has now become an offence, whereas Jesus encouraged us to forgive such false verbal accusations made against us. Matthew 5:11 “Blessed are you, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake”. Jesus was condemned to death by the lawyers of the ancient Judaist religion because they believed his words were blasphemy. Islam has adapted this Mosaic and Talmud law and view Shari’ah law as more important than the person

Philo the problem with your theist is that whenever a Christian theocracy has implemented a justice system it does not look anything like what you’ve said. Christians have been just as zealous in killing people it don’t like. Western style Christianity has been shaped and quietened by the rise of secular humanistic ideas.
BOAZ_DAVID there were many incorrect “truth” that were not challenged during the dark ages of Christian ruled Europe like the flat Earth?
The point that needs to be remember about old Flavius works of Jewish history and while it indeed an excellent source, it does contains many errors and omissions.

http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/JOSEPHUS.HTM

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.htm

After all that's been said, I still find it refreshing to be able to imagine Christians who don't assume an entitlement to insert themselves into other adults' sex lives, or to interfere in other people's families (and family size) and who don't try to twist biblical fundamentalisms to serve their own political dogmas.

Pity this forum seems to be more of a magnet for argument than agreement. Note: before any of the usual suspects here purse your lips and tap out a finger-pointing riposte at me, let me say I include myself in that. I certainly didn't start posting here with a view to being pursuaded by your numerous posts to a dogmatic position that says it's OK (even morally virtuous) for you to interfere and impose your mantras on me.

To Aslan (10 May, 12.32) - All writing (regardless of the writers' intentions) is subject to interpretation by everyone who reads it. If you mean that only someone like YOU can interpret passages of the bible correctly, unlike someone like ME - well isn't THAT a convenient argument. You win!

And you ask me how I interpret Rom 1:26-27 - well I don't. It's writing. Not evidence. No contest. No-one wins!

Best of all, your opinion that "by telling Boaz not to impose, [I am] imposing on Boaz". Yep, if that's what 'imposing' privacy rights and respecting private lives means. But let's examine this concept: if I insist (as I do) on respecting some stranger's privacy and I refuse to barge into his 'house' without his/her? permission, do you seriously believe I am imposing more than that stranger who wants to barge in on mine. You gotta be kidding! But I'll be generous - you win!

I don't envy your certitude, but two-out-of-three ain't bad!

Oliver,

Yes, there were numerous other "gospels" but these were rejected because they conflicted with the OT scriptures, were clearly occultic, conflicted with the gospels that no-one disputed, were totally contradictory to long established tradition and practice etc etc. See the standard reference works on the NT Canon by FF Bruce and Bruce Metzger.

You said: "Truth is allusive. Essentially, a Greek construct"

Consider this statement: "It is always wrong to torture babies for fun."

Is this statement true - or is it a "construct"?

Bosk,

I don't read fundy books. And I was never referring to testimonium flavium which I agree is highly likely to be a fake. Boaz already referred to the passage about Jesus' brother James.

Kenny,

you said: "whenever a Christian theocracy has implemented a justice system it does not look anything like what you’ve said. Christians have been just as zealous in killing people it don’t like. Western style Christianity has been shaped and quietened by the rise of secular humanistic ideas."

Not sure what you mean by Christian theocracy. However, a Christian worldview established the legal systems of England, USA, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. Our own constitution acknowledges the blessings of God.

Persecution by Christians is extremely rare in history. You have it the wrong way around: the greatest amount of killing was done by non-Christians. RJ Rummell in his book "Death by Government" docouments that 170+ million people were killed (conservative estimate) by their own governments. The ideas that led to this slaughter did not come from Christianity - most of them came from Socialism and Secular Humanism. And Rummell didn't count all those babies murdured in their mother's wombs...

And very few educated people - Christian or not - believed in a flat earth. That is historical nonsense invented by fiction writer Washington Irving. The British Historical Society noted that this is one of the biggest historical fallacies of all time.

Kenny, you really need to check your facts before you post because otherwise you just end up looking very silly.

Dear Boaz

I said NOTHING about any addition to Josephus during the middle ages. It seems you need reading glasses. Nor did I identify Myself as a follower of Marx. Does everyone who oppose you & your ideas have to be left wing? As a matter of fact I believe that the binary oposites of right wing & left wing are obsolete in today's political climate. My opposition to your views springs from the fact that I used to be a fundie. I was the bigot's bigot. Yes Boaz even moreso than you & Aslan. That is until I started to study ancient history (I hold a Master's in it), & Logic (An honours). Care to debate? I can assure you the sources you refer to are disreputable in the extreme. But then I've found, to My great regret at the time, so many fundie publications, Josh McDowel, Harold Hill, et al quite deliberately twist their information to suit their theological views.

Remember i WAS a fundie. I've read, & regretably believed, the stuff that your quoting now. How can this be? Because most fundie books are incestuous. They quote each other endlessly & rehash each others ideas.

Bosk the humble & all knowing :)

Thanks for reminding me.

PS: I can refer you to the book number of Josephus if you like. However I would like to ask how you intend to look it up since you seem to be getting your information from excerts in a christian apologetics book. Pssst. How do you know their ideas aren't just misinformation unless you look it up yourself? Just like I did.