Is it moral to be legalistic in ones morality?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrJuniper
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BrJuniper

Guest
The question concerns the requisite knowledge for a mitigation of culpability in the person acting (actor) in relation to the action. EG Doctrine is changeable Dogma is absolute, must one KNOW the difference before one may be held accountable?

A legalist would care not for the intention but care much for the letter of the Law, making little, if any, distinction between Dogmae and Doctrines. On the other hand one may not ignore the Law(s) in deference to individual understanding of intent. Thus, is it moral for anyone to impose a stricture upon anyone who chooses to seek Good?

See Individual Right Agency of John Dun Scotus.
 
Every “Law” must be understood in the context of that upon which all of the Law is based. In the case of Christianity, Christ tells us that all of the Law and all of the Prophets are based on two commandments.
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 22:36-40[/BIBLEDRB]
Therefore, every act needs to be judged on how it conforms to the Law of Love.

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
Every “Law” must be understood in the context of that upon which all of the Law is based. In the case of Christianity, Christ tells us that all of the Law and all of the Prophets are based on two commandments.
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 22:36-40[/BIBLEDRB]
Therefore, every act needs to be judged on how it conforms to the Law of Love.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Meaning?
 
BrJuniper said:
The question concerns the requisite knowledge for a mitigation of culpability in the person acting (actor) in relation to the action. EG Doctrine is changeable Dogma is absolute, must one KNOW the difference before one may be held accountable?

A legalist would care not for the intention but care much for the letter of the Law, making little, if any, distinction between Dogmae and Doctrines. On the other hand one may not ignore the Law(s) in deference to individual understanding of intent. Thus, is it moral for anyone to impose a stricture upon anyone who chooses to seek Good?

See Individual Right Agency of John Dun Scotus.
Click to expand...
I don’t really understand the question. The law itself (i.e., the natural law) does not exclude intentions from consideration of the ethical character of an act.
 
sw85 said:
I don’t really understand the question. The law itself (i.e., the natural law) does not exclude intentions from consideration of the ethical character of an act.
Click to expand...
Were the interrogatory concerning natural Law it would be moot, as that is intrinsic, ergo it is Ecclesiastical and/or moral Law(s).
 
BrJuniper said:
Love, an English word having three Greek counterparts. Do you mean in Filios?
Click to expand...
Yes, there are three Greek terms that are translated “Love” but if you look at the Greek for the passage I quoted, you will find that the term is Agape.

Agape is also the form of Love used in 1 John 4:8 in describing the very essence of God.

It is a Love that wills the highest good for the other.

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
Every “Law” must be understood in the context of that upon which all of the Law is based. In the case of Christianity, Christ tells us that all of the Law and all of the Prophets are based on two commandments.
[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 22:36-40[/BIBLEDRB]
Therefore, every act needs to be judged on how it conforms to the Law of Love.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
And Judaism adds to this: and all the rest of the Law is commentary on these two commandments. All acts are accompanied by intentions, and often provoked by them. Thus while fasting on Yom Kippur is mandatory for adults (with certain exceptions based on illness, pregnancy, etc.), if the fast is not accompanied by penitence, it is characterized as a hollow fast. The deed may have been accomplished, but it is a sham since it is not founded on pure intention. In other instances, however, while noble intention is preferable, lacking it is still better than inaction. An example is doing a good deed for another grudgingly. Although this is not commendable, it is better than doing nothing at all.
There is also the idea, according to Judaism, that behaving contrary to one’s feelings may at times be essential since we cannot, and should not, always be dependent on doing things according to our human emotions or moods or even faith; sometimes we do things due to our obedience to G-d even if our heart may not be in it at the moment. Judaism has this orthoprax, rather than orthodox, perspective.
 
JRKH said:
Yes, there are three Greek terms that are translated “Love” but if you look at the Greek for the passage I quoted, you will find that the term is Agape.

Agape is also the form of Love used in 1 John 4:8 in describing the very essence of God.

It is a Love that wills the highest good for the other.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
OK. That begs the question…Can humans actually agape anyone? it would seem to me that the history and theology are clear, but often clear to me is muddled to others. After all, even Jesus came down to Filios for Peter in the garden.
 
BrJuniper said:
OK. That begs the question…Can humans actually agape anyone?
Click to expand...
The answer to this MUST be yes since we are commanded to do so by Christ (John 13:34-35) and that it is by this love (agape is again used) that men will know that we are His disciples.
Jesus would not give such a command if humans were not actually able to do this.
it would seem to me that the history and theology are clear, but often clear to me is muddled to others.
Click to expand...
While I’m not sure what you refer to by “history and theology” being clear on the matter, but I DO understand having an understanding of something that one just can’t quite manage to explain to others…
After all, even Jesus came down to Filios for Peter in the garden.
Click to expand...
Could you explain what you mean by “…came down to Filios for Peter in the garden”?

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
The answer to this MUST be yes since we are commanded to do so by Christ (John 13:34-35) and that it is by this love (agape is again used) that men will know that we are His disciples.
Jesus would not give such a command if humans were not actually able to do this.

While I’m not sure what you refer to by “history and theology” being clear on the matter, but I DO understand having an understanding of something that one just can’t quite manage to explain to others…

Could you explain what you mean by “…came down to Filios for Peter in the garden”?

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Scripture Jesus to Peter paraphrase

Do you Agape me. Yes, I filios. Feed my sheep
Do you Agape. Yes I filios. Feed my Sheep
Do you Filios. Yes Lord you know I filios. Feed my Lambs.

Our human condition, as intended by God, means we strive for agape but live in filios. We are always conditioned, and that condition is what makes us human.

I think you have the wrong antecedent in your exegite.
 
Clarification.

Is legalism moral? Legalism is defined as a denotative approach to theology which concentrates on the form of practice and ignores the reason for said practice(s).

Example…A preference for a delineation of mortal sins over the use and understanding of free will and conditions for mortal sin. (tense intentional)
 
BrJuniper said:
Scripture Jesus to Peter paraphrase

Do you Agape me. Yes, I filios. Feed my sheep
Do you Agape. Yes I filios. Feed my Sheep
Do you Filios. Yes Lord you know I filios. Feed my Lambs.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification. Though actually this was on the sea shore and not in the Garden…(just being nit-picky.:p)…
This is an interesting point. I’m no Greek Scholar…so will have to ponder on this exchange a bit and maybe ask others here who are more knowledgeable than I about it.
Our human condition, as intended by God, means we strive for agape but live in filios. We are always conditioned, and that condition is what makes us human.
Click to expand...
Interesting…
I might rephrase it a bit to say that we strive for agape, but begin in filios.
I think you have the wrong antecedent in your exegite.
Click to expand...
You keep making me have to look up new words…😃 However I did not find the word “exegite” think you might have meant, in my exegesis.

In any event…I will go with the terms used in the Scriptures along with the way that Holy mother Church calls us to Love, that is to desire the highest good for others. This is the most foundational of understanding what it means to love others as we love ourselves.

Regardless of how one wishes to clarify or split hairs over meanings and such, Christ Himself, as it is recorded in Spirit inspired Scripture, says that Love (agape) is the root of the law and the prophets. Therefore, in order properly understand and apply any rule it must be seen in the context of this root. Otherwise if simply becomes an empty exercise.

Peace
James
 
BrJuniper said:
Clarification.

Is legalism moral? Legalism is defined as a denotative approach to theology which concentrates on the form of practice and ignores the reason for said practice(s).

Example…A preference for a delineation of mortal sins over the use and understanding of free will and conditions for mortal sin. (tense intentional)
Click to expand...
In the manner described above - no legalism is not moral.

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
Thank you for the clarification. Though actually this was on the sea shore and not in the Garden…(just being nit-picky.:p)…
This is an interesting point. I’m no Greek Scholar…so will have to ponder on this exchange a bit and maybe ask others here who are more knowledgeable than I about it.

Interesting…
I might rephrase it a bit to say that we strive for agape, but begin in filios.

You keep making me have to look up new words…😃 However I did not find the word “exegite” think you might have meant, in my exegesis.

In any event…I will go with the terms used in the Scriptures along with the way that Holy mother Church calls us to Love, that is to desire the highest good for others. This is the most foundational of understanding what it means to love others as we love ourselves.

Regardless of how one wishes to clarify or split hairs over meanings and such, Christ Himself, as it is recorded in Spirit inspired Scripture, says that Love (agape) is the root of the law and the prophets. Therefore, in order properly understand and apply any rule it must be seen in the context of this root. Otherwise if simply becomes an empty exercise.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
In every exegesis involves an exigite. Exigite is the verb.
 
JRKH said:
hhmmmm…

I wonder why when I tried to look exigite up at Dictionary.com, I got no results? 🤷

Instead it asked if I meant exegete…

Peace
James
Click to expand...
Sorry, I agree with Patton; any who spell words the same way every time show a distinct lack of creativity. My flaws are many.
 
BrJuniper said:
Sorry, I agree with Patton; any who spell words the same way every time show a distinct lack of creativity. My flaws are many.
Click to expand...
heeheehee…
It reminds me of the times when I’ve tried to read something written in Ye Olde English. The spellings etc are just soooo creative…

Peace
James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top