Civil law and sin

[vz71]

Orionthehunter:

I’m sure that my “situation” or views above won’t sway you and that we should accept the civil authorities and societies views about parenting.

You are mistaken. I have been an advocate for the civil laws.
Specificly, the just ones. The unjust laws I believe you and I both agree should never be followed.
Why are you adding words to my viewpoint? Is there truly a simple misunderstanding here? Do you believe that my advocacy of the laws of the land constitutes an acceptance of their philosophies?
I have never, not would I consider, these ‘views’ on parenting to be any use. I often find them destructive, and contrary to good parenting in general. But that is also the “civil authorities and societies views about parenting.”

And as can be shown through another quick read of this stream, these views are not mine. The LAWS, however, are. At least where they are just laws and not unjust.

 

[vz71]

Orionthehunter:

I turn first to the Holy Spirit. That is why God gave me a conscience.

Great. Let’s all hope are consciences are as well informed.

Orionthehunter:

Your judgment notwithstanding that I will be wrong, I trust the Holy Spirit will aid me in my discernment on whether I’ll be right or wrong. Your judgment is not my guide, especially since you believe you can reach right decisions w/o your conscience.

My judgement? My apologies if you considered the statement a judgement against you. It was not. It was a simple statement of fact.
Perhaps I should have phrased it more clearly…“If the law is unjust, you will be wrong.”

Orionthehunter:

I found because of those examples one could be left w/ the impression that our civil authorities and their laws had so much weight that they could become a demi-god defining what is moral or immoral.

I must disagree here. The question was never if civil authority had authority over morality. The question had to do with what weight the civil law held in relation to God’s laws. Perhaps you found different meaning in the quotes from Aquinas?

Orionthehunter:

The Church is very clear that our first guide to what is moral is inscribed on our heart in our conscience and we are called to follow it always. I wanted to introduce other examples to show that we need to look to a higher authority first rather than just giving de facto sanction to the justness of a law. And never hesitate to stand up when moved to by our conscience (the voice of the Holy Spirit).

But it is also very clear that unless a law is an unjust law, we do not have the authority to disregard it.
I agree you have given great examples. But these examples also support the point concerning just laws and unjust laws.

Orionthehunter:

My question is who decides when it isn’t clear or the application opens moral issues not contemplated by the civil authorities. When making laws, it is hard to have them perfect in all situations. A law can be just but its application in this situation unjust (ie the employer situation).

And I am arguing that if a law (or its application) is truly unjust, it will be plainly obvious.

Orionthehunter:

LOL Your quote around conscience says alot about your view of conscience.

Your judgement against me placed aside for the moment.
The quotes were intended to show my distrust in the way conscience appears to be used as the ultimate authority in deciding matters of right and wrong.
I believe that when a matter is clearly written out within the Cathechism, I do not need to look any further.

Orionthehunter:

Conscience is a very concrete and fundamental part of our divine nature. It is how God talks to us. In my daily reflection, my time at adoration, how I interact with people and how I conduct my business affairs, I try to engage my conscience always. Just as the Church teaches that there can be no contradiction within the Word or the Teachings of the Church or its Traditions as they are all part of the same Truth, there can be no contradiction between our conscience and what the Church teaches as they too are part of the same Truth.

I see part of the problem right here. I do not view conscience in that same light. I believe that the conscience must be well informed in order to be any type of guide to us.
A wise man once told me “conscience does not work in a vacuum.”
There can be contradictions between our conscience and the church because the conscience may not be as well informed as it should be. I take this well into account, and as a result use the CCC (among other church publications) as reference material. Our conscience may not tell us when a law is unjust. It simply may not be informed.

Orionthehunter:

Granted there can be times that we in our sinful nature make erroneous judgments. But that is not a failing of our conscience but a failing to listen to our conscience. Our conscience is our preeminent guide.

As a wise man once said “conscience does not work in a vacuum.” It cannot be the preeminent guide when it does not have all the information.

Orionthehunter:

I have not once questioned your faith or your practice of it. Returning the charity would be appreciated.

It was an honest question. My apologies if it was taken the wrong way.
-and I have counted at least one judgement against me.

Orionthehunter:

I use the Catechism exactly as intended (catechesis). Catechesis is a critical element of forming my conscience to God’s. So is prayer, living a good life, receiving the sacraments, reading Scripture.

So after you learn something, you do not go back and reference the material again?
I ask because there seems to be a seperation here between catechesis and reference.

 

[Orionthehunter]

vz71:

You are mistaken. I have been an advocate for the civil laws.
Specificly, the just ones. The unjust laws I believe you and I both agree should never be followed.
Why are you adding words to my viewpoint? Is there truly a simple misunderstanding here? Do you believe that my advocacy of the laws of the land constitutes an acceptance of their philosophies?
I have never, not would I consider, these ‘views’ on parenting to be any use. I often find them destructive, and contrary to good parenting in general. But that is also the “civil authorities and societies views about parenting.”

And as can be shown through another quick read of this stream, these views are not mine. The LAWS, however, are. At least where they are just laws and not unjust.

I used the words regarding “intrusive and restrictive” and you were sarcastic (sarcasm is ok as you were trying to make a point. I’m not offended). I guess I should have used the word “destructive.”

There could be a misunderstanding. I’ve always said that just laws MUST be followed and I advocate that unjust laws should be disobeyed and unjust application of just laws resisted. I just don’t ascribe to the attitude that if it is illegal, it is immoral or if it is legal it is moral. We should ask first if it is right and then consider the legality.

When I was a teen, alcohol consumption was allowed under parental supervision w/ little restriction. I turned 18 early in my senior year and it was legal for me to drink beer. Those 9 months prior to going to college allowed my mother to supervise and correct me when I abused alcohol. They were critical to my right understanding when I went to college (I stayed home and studied why my peers were drinking several nights a week) and I believe critical to my capacity to not have succumbed to it as my father did (he died at 62 a fall down drunk and was raised in a tee-totaling house). Now the law is such that my daughter will be a junior in college before she can legally drink outside my home. Thank you very much Society for removing the opportunity to supervise and teach my daughter about alcohol so she can learn it from her peers at college!

When my son was younger, he and I often spent a Saturday hunting geese in the morning and then walking fence rows hunting pheasants. After we were done, we’d stop and have a steak at a steakhouse and I’d let him have a couple of beers. I got to treat him with respect and like that responsible young adult he had become. Other hunters would come up and ask how we did, where we hunted, etc. My son was treated as an adult by these other men too. We both look back on those days as some of best bonding days. He shared intimately in that environment what was happening in his life and he was open to my counsel. When he comes home now (he is married and has a son), Saturday afternoons (even if it isn’t hunting season) are usually such that we go for a drive in the country, stop at a bar for a steak and beer and we talk as two fathers (except I always pay ). As we age, we both have come to see important this “tradition” is and our wives just know it is “our time.” Our wives and my two daughters spend the time going to a movie and then having dinner. I lament that my wife can’t let the girls have a glass of wine and teach them about responsible drinking thru observation AND participation. But that is illegal.

I apologize that my recent examples are about alcohol. Earlier I used a child labor situation and curfew (and non-parenting issues like the employer situation). I only use them as they are indicative of a new philosophy permeating the laws that the state knows better than parents. As a Catholic (but I respect those who differ from me), I believe we need to push back by trying to change such laws (they are well beyond just alcohol) that usurp parental teaching authority and when we feel it necessary to disobey.

I won’t get a second chance to raise the two girls still at home. And I’m just not comfortable in my conscience to use the excuse, “well I followed the law.”

As you might have figured, I’m a bit of a civil disobedience advocate. I know it isn’t always the right approach but neither is acquiesance. The world needs all kinds. Anyway, I’ll tell you a story.

I’m in situation where a police officer is being rough and disrespectful to the dignity of a older teen under arrest. Without thinking, I intervene (verbally) on his behalf and end up in jail. Fortunately for me, there were cameras that recorded the event. At the end of the story, no charges were filed against me, the Sheriff apologized and thanked me, and the deputies were suspended w/o pay.

If I had the attitude of deference to civil authorities, I’d have kept my mouth shut. But it was my attitude to always question them that made me open to hear the Holy Spirit urge me to act.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From VZ: I see part of the problem right here. I do not view conscience in that same light. I believe that the conscience must be well informed in order to be any type of guide to us.

Our Concsience as used in the Catechism and taught by the Church is perfect as it is from God. It is becuase of failure to listen to our conscience (as defined by the Church) that we make erroneous judgments.

From VZ: There can be contradictions between our conscience and the church because the conscience may not be as well informed as it should be.

You are confusing common vernacular use of conscience as something made by the the invidual and the use by the Church in that it is the very voice of God. It is impossible for there to be conflict in our Conscience and the Truth. Please read very closely this discussion in the CC. There is a distinction between what we normally use in non-theological circles and what the Church means by Conscience.

From VZ: So after you learn something, you do not go back and reference the material again? I ask because there seems to be a seperation here between catechesis and reference.

You absolutely need to always go back to re-examine. This was my point when I said that even in our erroneous judgment, we can hear our conscience judge us. This is part of the beauty of examination of conscience before confession. It is our conscience that tells us what is right or wrong before we commit and act and it is what tells us that which we have done was evil after we have committed the act.

But I will stress that the CC is only one of the tools for properly forming our conscience to God. Scripture, prayer, worthily receiving the sacraments, living a holy life, avoiding sin, fasting, and penance are also critical. In fact, compared to the ones I just listed, I’d consider the CC the least important.

I take you back to CC 1781 . . . If man commits evil, the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good, at the same time as the evil of his particular choice. The verdict of the judgment of conscience remains a pledge of hope and mercy. In attesting to the fault committed, it calls to mind the forgiveness that must be asked, the good that must still be practiced, and the virtue that must be constantly cultivated with the grace of God

P.S. You noticed my avoidance of St. Thomas’ words. I’ve learned that I adhere much closer to the Augustinian approach vs. the Thomist approach and so I tend to be careful when discussing a particular Thomist point. And this too might be the heart of the problem. St. Thomas was educated via the civil law and it permeates his theology while St. Augustine was educated via a rebel’s life and it permeates his theology. The Church embraces both traditions and thoughts w/o preference.

 

[vz71]

Orionthehunter:

I used the words regarding “intrusive and restrictive” and you were sarcastic (sarcasm is ok as you were trying to make a point. I’m not offended). I guess I should have used the word “destructive.”

There could be a misunderstanding. I’ve always said that just laws MUST be followed and I advocate that unjust laws should be disobeyed and unjust application of just laws resisted. I just don’t ascribe to the attitude that if it is illegal, it is immoral or if it is legal it is moral. We should ask first if it is right and then consider the legality.

The word ‘destructive’ would have implied for me that the law was an unjust one. So perhaps there is a misunderstanding.

Civil authority must be obeyed, but (as is written within the CCC) civil authority must recognize the family, and the basic inalienable rights of the individual. If the civil authorities fail that, are they exercising any authority at all?

God gave these individuals the authority, but God did not give them authority to violate the family, or basic rights of the individual. That is where I believe the concept of unjust law comes into play.

There are several examples you site that I cannot agree with, but then I do not have the authority to stop you.

There is a basic difference here, I do not view the various laws over alcohol to be restrictive to my parenting authority, I view them as simple condition to live with. I believe I can teach my children a healthy respect for alcohol without worrying about disobeying the civil authorities.

Correct me here, but it sounds to me like you believe a law that governs activities between parent and child you believe unjust. Is this correct? If so, why?

 

[vz71]

Orionthehunter:

P.S. You noticed my avoidance of St. Thomas’ words. I’ve learned that I adhere much closer to the Augustinian approach vs. the Thomist approach and so I tend to be careful when discussing a particular Thomist point. And this too might be the heart of the problem. St. Thomas was educated via the civil law and it permeates his theology while St. Augustine was educated via a rebel’s life and it permeates his theology. The Church embraces both traditions and thoughts w/o preference.

I have spent a good chunk of my life studying St. Thomas.
'nuff said?

 

[Orionthehunter]

vz71:

The word ‘destructive’ would have implied for me that the law was an unjust one. So perhaps there is a misunderstanding.

Civil authority must be obeyed, but (as is written within the CCC) civil authority must recognize the family, and the basic inalienable rights of the individual. If the civil authorities fail that, are they exercising any authority at all?

God gave these individuals the authority, but God did not give them authority to violate the family, or basic rights of the individual. That is where I believe the concept of unjust law comes into play.

There are several examples you site that I cannot agree with, but then I do not have the authority to stop you.

There is a basic difference here, I do not view the various laws over alcohol to be restrictive to my parenting authority, I view them as simple condition to live with. I believe I can teach my children a healthy respect for alcohol without worrying about disobeying the civil authorities.

Correct me here, but it sounds to me like you believe a law that governs activities between parent and child you believe unjust. Is this correct? If so, why?

The underlined comment is probably a use of words. To me anything that restricts or intrudes on my obligation to teach my children to be holy in mind, body or soul is by definition destructive.

The bolded comment does conform to Fix’s earlier post by St. Thomas. I don’t think it excludes but actually supports my assertions. But you helped me see wisdom in a teaching of St. Thomas. Thanks.

Regarding the way you choose to teach your children about alcohol, I support your decision. What is best in one house is not best in another. Romans 14 at the beginning talks of this difference.

Regarding your final question. No and yes.

No: I think that the state (it is ordained by God and affirmed in the CC under the sites you have mentioned) has a legitimate interest in protecting children.

Yes: I’ve given specific examples where the law may be unjust in certain circumstances as it usurps rights primarily bestowed on parents. One in choosing to follow or disregard the law has to be very careful and thoughtful of other lessons that may be taught. I’m sure that there will be times I’ll make erroneous judgment but I contend that those who adhere blindly to the law will sometimes also erroneously not make the right decision. In the end, when we are truly present to our conscience, we will know when to obey and when to disobey our civil authorities. That is God’s promise to us.

 

[vz71]

Orionthehunter:

Yes: I’ve given specific examples where the law may be unjust in certain circumstances as it usurps rights primarily bestowed on parents. One in choosing to follow or disregard the law has to be very careful and thoughtful of other lessons that may be taught. I’m sure that there will be times I’ll make erroneous judgment but I contend that those who adhere blindly to the law will sometimes also erroneously not make the right decision. In the end, when we are truly present to our conscience, we will know when to obey and when to disobey our civil authorities. That is God’s promise to us.

Then laws that you believe to be usurping the authority of the parent would be considered unjust?
I would agree should the laws attempt to govern what I should and should not teach my children. But if the law only places conditions on this, I am not so certain.
There are reasons most of the laws are written. These reason often break down within the intimacy that is the family. But wouldn’t this teach a disregard for the law rather then give some other lesson?
In the example you site, your son and you view a time as your ‘best bonding days.’ Would this be because of the beer, or because of the time spent together. Would the tradition not have served the same purpose in obedience of the civil authorities?
I am not so certain I would be able to look at the underage drinking laws as unjust. Even in light of the possible interference to the family tradition.

 

[Orionthehunter]

vz71:

Then laws that you believe to be usurping the authority of the parent would be considered unjust?
I would agree should the laws attempt to govern what I should and should not teach my children. But if the law only places conditions on this, I am not so certain.
There are reasons most of the laws are written. These reason often break down within the intimacy that is the family. But wouldn’t this teach a disregard for the law rather then give some other lesson?
In the example you site, your son and you view a time as your ‘best bonding days.’ Would this be because of the beer, or because of the time spent together. Would the tradition not have served the same purpose in obedience of the civil authorities?
I am not so certain I would be able to look at the underage drinking laws as unjust. Even in light of the possible interference to the family tradition.

When my son and I did this, it was legal for me to buy him a beer in a restaurant/bar. Now the law is that I can’t until they are 21. Now the state has determined that it is a better teacher and loves my child more than me.

The point of the hunting experience is that I treated him like an adult the entire day including in sharing in a local custom of joining other hunters for some sharing of stories, etc. To then say at the end of the day, you are child defeats the entire exercise. It was a form of bridging the gap between son-child to son-adult.

I refer you back the First Things article and juvenilization of budding adults and adults and the harms it does. I believe that it is unrealistic to expect people to act like adults at the age of 21 when everythign we do prior to 21 is to assert they are children. Maturity is a process and not something that arbitrarily happens when one passes a certain age. It requires teaching, giving rope, correction, more teaching. And I, not the state, is primarily responsible for it.

I understand all the issues that you describe (different methods of teaching the same thing, the dilemma of not following the law and that lesson) and consider them deeply. But in the end, I am the one accountable and I have to make the decisions I deem best. The state isn’t responsible and you my neighbor will not be held accountable. What is right for my family is probably different for your family. That is the point of the lesson in Romans 14.

And yes it might teach a wrong idea about the law. Or it might teach one to have a legitimate skepticism of accepting what is “normal” or “accepted”. These too are needed in society or else the government will become a demi-god. Let me tell you another story.

My daughter is in literature class a few years ago (she attends a Catholic H.S.). The teacher is describing a character who was obese and a glutton said somethign about him being the type “unable to drive by a McDonalds.” In the class were a couple of girls w/ severe weight problems (one of whom she knew to have a medical condition causing the problem). My daughter exploded at the teacher. She ended up a the principals office. We were called. We discussed it that night but had yet to decide on punishment (wisdom of the Holy Spirit must have held us off). The next morning we got called to the school. We figured she was going to be expelled or suspended.

Instead, she and the heavy girl who was offended were going to be re-assigned to another class/teacher. Our daughter was to be given only one day detention and didn’t even have to sit out and upcoming athletic contest. We were shocked by the leniancy until the Vice Principal told us.

“We are really sorry that we even have to give her one day detention but she did swear. We can’t tolerate that here and I know you understand. But we wish we had more students who were so willing to stand up for others so selflessly. You really should be proud of your daughter.” The VP then said that she advised that the only punishment we should give her is to talk about maintaing proper decorum in the classroom (not swearing), explain the point the teacher was trying to make (and could have made better/differently) and let it drop.

While I don’t know as it has never been discussed in this context, maybe she learned a lesson from my night in jail. In my family, we don’t have a lack of sins of commission but I suspect we don’t have our share of sins of ommission.

 

[Orionthehunter]

I’ve further reflected on your question:

Originally Posted by vz71
Then laws that you believe to be usurping the authority of the parent would be considered unjust?

Regarding yoru first question about the state usurping my teaching authority, I think I’ve answered this question several times. The definition of usurp is to take power by force. Isn’t that what the state does when it exerts itself over the family? Since the family is preeminent over the state, it is almost by definition unjust. But to answer the question directly: Unequivocally yes.

Reflect on these words and instead of Communists, Jews, etc. substitute the idea: First the government took away this parental right but I didn’t care about that one or the next until I had none left and they took my child.

“First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.” by Rev. Martin Niemoller (a German Lutheran minister),1945

I admit I’m like a grizzly mom and her cubs. The world is at war with me regarding my family. Christ told us that so I’m not surprised. But, frankly, I’ll defend them first and ask questions second. I do not presume the world has their best interests at heart.

 

[vz71]

Orionthehunter:

I admit I’m like a grizzly mom and her cubs. The world is at war with me regarding my family. Christ told us that so I’m not surprised. But, frankly, I’ll defend them first and ask questions second. I do not presume the world has their best interests at heart.

No one is stating that the world has your best interests at heart.
Believe me, it doesn’t.
But just because my best interest in not the concern at any given time does not mean that the law would be unjust.

I am certain that I personally was not the subject of consideration when most of the traffic laws were put into effect. But nevertheless, they are just.
While the world may be at war with the family, not every move made by the world would be unjust.

I feel like your example just doesn’t quite cut it.
Yes, the laws made can readily be interpreted as interfering with family tradition. But is that really unjust?

 

[Orionthehunter]

vz71:

No one is stating that the world has your best interests at heart.
Believe me, it doesn’t.
But just because my best interest in not the concern at any given time does not mean that the law would be unjust.

I am certain that I personally was not the subject of consideration when most of the traffic laws were put into effect. But nevertheless, they are just.
While the world may be at war with the family, not every move made by the world would be unjust.

I feel like your example just doesn’t quite cut it.
Yes, the laws made can readily be interpreted as interfering with family tradition. But is that really unjust?

The state is subordinate to the teaching authority of the family. This is clear in the CC. If they usurp that what is the perogative of the family, it is unjust.

 

[vz71]

Orionthehunter:

The state is subordinate to the teaching authority of the family. This is clear in the CC. If they usurp that what is the perogative of the family, it is unjust.

But the law did not interfere with teaching of any type.
It did place conditions on it, but is that really the same?

 

[Orionthehunter]

vz71:

But the law did not interfere with teaching of any type.
It did place conditions on it, but is that really the same?

Do I have to answer the same question again? YES. I will let my conscience be my guide. You do the same. We are each accountable to God. Romans 14 is the appropriate lesson. You and I are not going to agree. I respect your position. Do you respect mine?

 

[Al_Masetti]

vz71:

But the law did not interfere with teaching of any type.
It did place conditions on it, but is that really the same?

It is possible to over-discuss a topic. And if that happens, then that raises ANOTHER question: what is our motive in keeping a discussion going?

It is worth reading Fr. Grisez’s book “Difficult Moral Questions” to get an expert’s (name removed by moderator)ut.

Us laypersons can discuss a topic but we may not get it absolutely right in all its various manifestations and umbras and penumbras… we may fall prey to not capturing all the right nuances.

And sometimes there just is no right or wrong answer.

 

[vz71]

Orionthehunter:

Do I have to answer the same question again? YES. I will let my conscience be my guide. You do the same. We are each accountable to God. Romans 14 is the appropriate lesson. You and I are not going to agree. I respect your position. Do you respect mine?

I can respect that you have a position.
But I cannot agree with it.

Agreed it seems that we are going in circles.
I’ll endeavor to change that.

Recently on the local news, there was a single car accident. The driver and all passengers were killed.
The driver was 12. The passengers were all under 14.
Reportedly, the parents had taught this girl how to drive, and they had given her permission to be driving at the time of the accident.

The parents are going to jail.

Now, the law says that a 12 year old should not drive.
But you are telling me that the parental authority supersedes the law. So was there a sin involved here?
They were the parents. They did have the authority.

 

[Orionthehunter]

vz71:

I can respect that you have a position.
But I cannot agree with it.

Agreed it seems that we are going in circles.
I’ll endeavor to change that.

Recently on the local news, there was a single car accident. The driver and all passengers were killed.
The driver was 12. The passengers were all under 14.
Reportedly, the parents had taught this girl how to drive, and they had given her permission to be driving at the time of the accident.

The parents are going to jail.

Now, the law says that a 12 year old should not drive.
But you are telling me that the parental authority supersedes the law. So was there a sin involved here?
They were the parents. They did have the authority.

I didn’t ask you if you agreed with my position. I asked if you respected it. Your non-answer is clear. You don’t. You have judged me and my conscience to be in error. It is obvious that you have never considered the sovereignty of my conscience relative to yours, my views on the creeping usurption of parental rights and the harmful impact of the juvenilization of our young or the lesson of Romans 14. Besides being your Magisterium, you believe you to be mine.

LOL Now who is searching for extreme examples.

Parental authority does not supercede the civil law and civil consequences. The civil law (unlike God) can’t excuse ignorance or always require intent. To require that, the state would have to have the knowledge of God. All we know is that a law was violated and they were convicted by a judge or a jury of their peers.

But to answer your last question, I have no idea if they sinned. God knows and the parents (via their conscience) know if there was sin. Sin requires intent and knowledge. For it to be mortal sin, the matter must be grave. I have no idea what was in the parents heart and mind.

 

[vz71]

Orionthehunter:

I didn’t ask you if you agreed with my position. I asked if you respected it. Your non-answer is clear. You don’t. You have judged me and my conscience to be in error. It is obvious that you have never considered the sovereignty of my conscience relative to yours, my views on the creeping usurption of parental rights and the harmful impact of the juvenilization of our young or the lesson of Romans 14. Besides being your Magisterium, you believe you to be mine.

LOL Now who is searching for extreme examples.

I could not in good conscience respect a position that I consider morally wrong.
What appears obvious is that you have misjudged me, and my intent. I have never placed any type of judgement against you, and a quick read of the stream can confirm this.
I have placed a judgement against the decision that a just law can be broken without actually sinning. I consider that bad logic.

As far as searching for extreme examples, I did not have to search at all. It was broadcast on the news yesterday.

You have claimed me to believe I am my own Magisterium, but in the same paragraph claim you have sovereignty.
You have also accused me of trying to be your Magisterium. -A judgement I do not deserve.

Clearly this message stream has gotten way too personal for you. The personal attacks towards me are not justified.
I believe you should take some time and cool off.

 

[Orionthehunter]

vz71:

I could not in good conscience respect a position that I consider morally wrong.
What appears obvious is that you have misjudged me, and my intent. I have never placed any type of judgement against you, and a quick read of the stream can confirm this.
I have placed a judgement against the decision that a just law can be broken without actually sinning. I consider that bad logic.

As far as searching for extreme examples, I did not have to search at all. It was broadcast on the news yesterday.

You have claimed me to believe I am my own Magisterium, but in the same paragraph claim you have sovereignty.
You have also accused me of trying to be your Magisterium. -A judgement I do not deserve.

Clearly this message stream has gotten way too personal for you. The personal attacks towards me are not justified.
I believe you should take some time and cool off.

My conscience is soveriegn relative to your conscience. You have no authority over my conscience and no authority to judge it. You appear to have never read the lesson of Romans 14 and applied it to the different position I’ve reached. If you had, you wouldn’t be so judgmental regarding my position. Instead, you have decided what is morally wrong, you preclude alternative positions, and you project it in others.

In response to a statement that I made that it is our conscience that tells us if an act or thought is wrong, VZ responded: “No, my conscience did not. I determined it based on the facts given. The facts given stated that a child would die should the law be enforced. It does not take much to see justice there.” If it was a conclusion made by yourself and not your conscience, that is by definition your own magisterium determining what is right and wrong.

 

[vz71]

vz71:

Clearly this message stream has gotten way too personal for you. The personal attacks towards me are not justified.
I believe you should take some time and cool off.