Components of Law

[Guest]

Hello, Homer,

Thank you for your posting.

What do you say a person should do if one commandment conflicts with another, e.g. telling the truth vs. saving a life? Would a person sin regardless of what they did?

What conflict? Where, for example, is the commandment to save a life? Shall we serve falsehood to preserve life? In the end, we will not have saved it, but betrayed it. Lives come and go, and remaining in this world is not the most important concern. But falsehood be damned.

I believe Jesus took a hierarchical position regarding the commandments as exemplified by His application of David and the showbread.

A fascinating passage, which I am not sure I fully understand. If all Jesus is saying here is "But David did it...", then we have a pretty feeble and immature argument - all the more so since the priests were massacred shortly thereafter (which could be seen as judgment for the improper disbursal of the showbread). So there may be more going on here than meets the eye.

But Jesus would be wrong if he were suggesting that it would not be better to die than to disobey. And if we are to believe the Hebrew bible, God provided manna to the liberated slaves, and Elijah received sustenance in the wilderness. David was in no need of the showbread, and his failing in lack of faith is not a legitimate pretext for our own failures.

I'm also interested in knowing which books of the Old Testament you consider legitimate (inspired, authoritative) and by what citeria you determine this?

I don't consider books in the Hebrew bible to be inspired/authoritative. I give attention to oracles preserved within the books, on a somewhat independent basis. Books like Proverbs, which lack a claim to be the quotation of God, are useful but not oracular. Historical narrative, without being quoted of God, is useful but not oracular. So I would lay a baseline by saying that if it is not quoted of God, then it is not necessarily to be taken as the word of God. That which is not of God is human witness, and of varying usefulness and reliability. It may feature gradations of inspiration, depending on how the human has received divine wisdom, etc., but it is not necessarily perfect.

Beyond this, those passages which claim to be oracular should be gauged in light of their source, circumstances, and relative correspondence to other revelation.


Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hi Emmet,

I am just curious, did you come to your religious convictions on your own, or did someone teach or disciple you? Also, what do you think a man has to do to have a right standing before God?

Thanks Bro.

[Guest]

emmett wrote:

What conflict? Where, for example, is the commandment to save a life? Shall we serve falsehood to preserve life? In the end, we will not have saved it, but betrayed it. Lives come and go, and remaining in this world is not the most important concern. But falsehood be damned.

do you really mean this? if a person is hiding from someone who intends to kill them or do grievous bodily harm, and i know the hiding place, am i obligated under the law to tell the killer, when he asks me, where the person is hiding? i dont get that.

TK

[Guest]

Hello, Brody,

I am just curious, did you come to your religious convictions on your own, or did someone teach or disciple you?

I have had numerous teachers and professors over the years, from various theological perspectives. Where they have been convincing, I have been influenced. I have also drawn from a wide range of literature, both devotional and scholastic. But I am a constructive theologian, and not simply an inheritor.

Also, what do you think a man has to do to have a right standing before God?

The doing is derivative of the being. A man must be fundamentally available to fulfill the design of God.

A woman on the other hand, needs to marry such a man in the Nauvoo temple.

[just kidding - it's the same for womenfolk, too]


Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, TK,

Thank you for your reply!

if a person is hiding from someone who intends to kill them or do grievous bodily harm, and i know the hiding place, am i obligated under the law to tell the killer, when he asks me, where the person is hiding?

It would appear that in such a situation you should seek to avoid telling them the truth. But that does not mean you should lie.

You might choose to tell them nothing; then you have neither facilitated sin nor embraced falsehood.

Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, Brody,

I am just curious, did you come to your religious convictions on your own, or did someone teach or disciple you?

I have had numerous teachers and professors over the years, from various theological perspectives. Where they have been convincing, I have been influenced. I have also drawn from a wide range of literature, both devotional and scholastic. But I am a constructive theologian, and not simply an inheritor.

Also, what do you think a man has to do to have a right standing before God?

The doing is derivative of the being. A man must be fundamentally available to fulfill the design of God.

A woman on the other hand, needs to marry such a man in the Nauvoo temple.

[just kidding - it's the same for womenfolk, too]


Shalom,
Emmet

What does one have to do to fulfill the design? What does this entail?

[Guest]

if a person is hiding from someone who intends to kill them or do grievous bodily harm, and i know the hiding place, am i obligated under the law to tell the killer, when he asks me, where the person is hiding?

It would appear that in such a situation you should seek to avoid telling them the truth. But that does not mean you should lie.

You might choose to tell them nothing; then you have neither facilitated sin nor embraced falsehood.

How do you define "lie"? Is it simply making a statement which is false? Or is deceit the essense of lying? I think the latter!

I might make a statement which is literally true, while saying it in such a tone of voice as to deceive a person. Or suppose I am visiting a family at dinner time, and they ask me if I have had my dinner. I answer, "Yes, I have", meaning that I had it yesterday, but knowing full well that they mean today. Am I not lying in that I am deceiving them into thinking that I have already eaten my dinner today?

If I make a false statement unintentionally, believing it to be true, I am not lying. For I am not deceiving anyone. So the essence of lying, appears to be deceit.

Menno Simons (the Mennonites are named after him) while driving a coach, was stopped by an authority, who asked him whether Menno Simons was on the coach. Menno knew that the authority intended to arrest him, and that he would be killed. So he yelled down below, "Is Menno Simons down there?" There was no answer. "No," Menno answered the authority, "There's no Menno Simons down there." What Menno said was literally true, but yet he lied in that he deceived the soldier into thinking that Menno Simons was not on the coach.

But even cases of lying in which the words are false are upheld in Scripture. Rahab the Harlot lied to those who wished to kill the Hebrew spies, by saying they had been at her place, but that they had already left, when, in fact, she was hiding them.

The New Testament writer to the Hebrews includes her in the role of the heroes of faith in chapter 11.

By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given friendly welcome to the spies

This "friendly welcome" included lying to those seeking the lives of the spies, and thus saving them from death.

[Guest]

Emmet,

Please consider this scenario and give your assassment of what a righteous person should do:

Suppose you know of a family with a violent husband, known for abusing his family. One night you hear a knock at your door and opening it you find the the mother, beaten and bloody, pleading for shelter, with two small children. You escort them in and take them to a back room to attend to her wounds. She informs you her husband is threatening to kill them all. Then a knock at the door. You open it to find an angry husband and notice a gun protruding from the waist of his pants! He angrily demands to know if you have seen his wife and kids. Any hesitation may give them away. You quickly say no, they are not here, and he leaves. Did you sin? I think not! The law of love for your neighbor trumps the law of truth telling in this case. No exception is made to the norm of truth telling: it is not made void but there is an exemption in order to fulfill the higer obligation to save the lives of the mother and children.

And what would you say in a case where a parents demand that their children (say, teenagers) live as athiests. Do they love God or honor their parents?

[Guest]

Hello, Brody,

Thank you for your response.

[Re: A man must be fundamentally available to fulfill the design of God.]

What does one have to do to fulfill the design? What does this entail?

The design requires different fulfillment from different people, though naturally there are points of commonality. Each person may seek intimacy with God to discern their particular role in fulfilling his design.


Shalom,
Emmet

[Guest]

Hello, Brody,

Thank you for your response.

[Re: A man must be fundamentally available to fulfill the design of God.]

What does one have to do to fulfill the design? What does this entail?

The design requires different fulfillment from different people, though naturally there are points of commonality. Each person may seek intimacy with God to discern their particular role in fulfilling his design.


Shalom,
Emmet

Does this God have a name and a revealed will/plan that is written down? Believe me, I am not being sarcastic in the statement that follows, but it sounds to me like you are "shooting from the hip" or in other words, you are making this stuff up as you go.
Again, this is not to sound bad, or meant to offend. I thank you for the dialogue and hope it continues. God bless.

Also, what does a man have to do to be just in the sight of God?