Is this really true?

[someperson555]

Just because something doesn’t implicate sin doesn’t mean we shouldn’t obey it as a prudential matter to ensure the smooth functioning of society.

As far as obscure town statutes from the 1800s that say it’s illegal to yodel on a wednesday or whatever…common sense would apply here, I think

I think humans are only bound by the natural law which comes from God. It is simply not true that God “ordains” Human authority. If it were the case we would have a much more peaceful world. So my point is that we needn’t listen to human laws. Because the natural law encompasses everything.

Example. The civil laws say it’s illegal to speed. But it’s not always a sin. It’s a sin to be reckless and endanger others. But if you’re not putting anyone in danger then it’s not a sin. So my point is the natural law already has everything we need. Not just for salvation, but for a peaceful society too. Saying that people must obey civil laws based on some flawed outdated notion, or some romanticized respect for authority is just laying unnecessary burdens on people

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

But we accept civil laws because we need to have an orderly administration of justice. We can’t just have people appealing to their own sense of morality in disputes. We need to provide some predictability and regularity in adjudicating disputes/punishing bad conduct.

I mean, yes, it would be nice if the civil law perfectly reflected the natural law, but…

In your example, it’s just not workable to have a law that just says “don’t go faster than is prudent” at least not in most situations. We can’t spend the time and money, as a society, to figure out what was prudent in each and every situation by exhaustively examining weather conditions, traffic patterns, tire condition, driver ability, etc. each time someone gets a speeding ticket. We’d have to have the equivalent of a trial every time.

And it wouldn’t be good for drivers. The value of speed limits as civil law is that it provides some predictability. If the speed limit if 45 mph, I can be reasonably sure I won’t be pulled over if I don’t go over 45. But what if the speed limit was just “don’t be reckless.” Well, how do I conform myself to that standard? Is it what I think is reckless? Or what the cop pulling me over thinks is reckless?

 

[PJH_74]

Deuteronomy, especially parts of 22 are great examples of laws not to be followed. The ones are especially egregious towards women:

22:13-19 False accusation of female virginity bride, cruelly proven by displaying bloody sheets, the man’s punishment is no divorce.
22:20-21 Non-virgin women, execution.
22:23-24 Raped female shall be executed if she failed to scream out / report it.

 

[St_Francis]

I think humans are only bound by the natural law which comes from God. It is simply not true that God “ordains” Human authority. If it were the case we would have a much more peaceful world.

God created the world. God created humanity to finction in a certain way, which we call natural law. One of the features of natural law is auhority: humans function best in a situation which has rules, etc., and people to make and to mediate those rules.

The fact that the world is not peaceful is not God’s fault; it is the disobedience of people to both God and to the natural law that causes conflict.

So my point is that we needn’t listen to human laws.

I think I see your problem. We are obliged to follow just laws, but we do not necessarily sin if we disobey a law.

Because the natural law encompasses everything.

Here is an example of why we need authority in addition to natural law: natural law tells us that people in vehicles should all be following the same rules about direction of movement, because the danger of injury is so much more than when we are walking. Authority tells us whether to drive on the right side of the road as the Americans do or the wrong side of the road as the British do (Just kiddin’ around!).

Now, it is illegal to drive on the wrong side of the road, and if I drive on the wrong side of the road on a major highway when there are a lot of cars on it, it would also be a sin, because of the danger to others.

However, I would not say that swerving to the other side of a two-lane highway to avoid an animal or large object when I am the only car for miles is a sin.

Example. The civil laws say it’s illegal to speed. But it’s not always a sin. It’s a sin to be reckless and endanger others. But if you’re not putting anyone in danger then it’s not a sin. **So my point is the natural law already has everything we need. Not just for salvation, but for a peaceful society too. ** Saying that people must obey civil laws based on some flawed outdated notion, or some romanticized respect for authority is just laying unnecessary burdens on people

Why would you say that natural law has everything needed for peace (you’re wrong about salvation), but God’s ordination of authority is insufficient because there are problems in the world?

 

[mikekle]

But we accept civil laws because we need to have an orderly administration of justice. We can’t just have people appealing to their own sense of morality in disputes. We need to provide some predictability and regularity in adjudicating disputes/punishing bad conduct.

I mean, yes, it would be nice if the civil law perfectly reflected the natural law, but…

In your example, it’s just not workable to have a law that just says “don’t go faster than is prudent” at least not in most situations. We can’t spend the time and money, as a society, to figure out what was prudent in each and every situation by exhaustively examining weather conditions, traffic patterns, tire condition, driver ability, etc. each time someone gets a speeding ticket. We’d have to have the equivalent of a trial every time.

And it wouldn’t be good for drivers. The value of speed limits as civil law is that it provides some predictability. If the speed limit if 45 mph, I can be reasonably sure I won’t be pulled over if I don’t go over 45. But what if the speed limit was just “don’t be reckless.” Well, how do I conform myself to that standard? Is it what I think is reckless? Or what the cop pulling me over thinks is reckless?

IDK, common sense should be used more often in laws, I mean, is it really sensible to sit at a red light if you are the only car in sight (given that you can see far enough both ways to ensure no cars are coming)? this is just an example but applies to other laws as well.

 

[someperson555]

But we accept civil laws because we need to have an orderly administration of justice. We can’t just have people appealing to their own sense of morality in disputes. We need to provide some predictability and regularity in adjudicating disputes/punishing bad conduct.

I mean, yes, it would be nice if the civil law perfectly reflected the natural law, but…

In your example, it’s just not workable to have a law that just says “don’t go faster than is prudent” at least not in most situations. We can’t spend the time and money, as a society, to figure out what was prudent in each and every situation by exhaustively examining weather conditions, traffic patterns, tire condition, driver ability, etc. each time someone gets a speeding ticket. We’d have to have the equivalent of a trial every time.

And it wouldn’t be good for drivers. The value of speed limits as civil law is that it provides some predictability. If the speed limit if 45 mph, I can be reasonably sure I won’t be pulled over if I don’t go over 45. But what if the speed limit was just “don’t be reckless.” Well, how do I conform myself to that standard? Is it what I think is reckless? Or what the cop pulling me over thinks is reckless?

I understand where you’re coming from. But I can answer all of your objections. You need to understand that the role of the state is to keep public safety and order. For this we make laws. But these laws are not recognized by God. Here’s an example.
A person who robs a bank has no moral obligation to turn himself in. But at the same time the police have a right before God to pursue him. This is because of self defence. The robber has a right to flee authorities because no human has a right to judge and punish another. But at the same time the police ( who represent the community) have a right to neutralize the threat. Do you want understand? No human has any authority over anyone just because they are given a rank or a title by other humans.

 

[someperson555]

God created the world. God created humanity to finction in a certain way, which we call natural law. One of the features of natural law is auhority: humans function best in a situation which has rules, etc., and people to make and to mediate those rules.

The fact that the world is not peaceful is not God’s fault; it is the disobedience of people to both God and to the natural law that causes conflict.

I think I see your problem. We are obliged to follow just laws, but we do not necessarily sin if we disobey a law.

Here is an example of why we need authority in addition to natural law: natural law tells us that people in vehicles should all be following the same rules about direction of movement, because the danger of injury is so much more than when we are walking. Authority tells us whether to drive on the right side of the road as the Americans do or the wrong side of the road as the British do (Just kiddin’ around!).

Now, it is illegal to drive on the wrong side of the road, and if I drive on the wrong side of the road on a major highway when there are a lot of cars on it, it would also be a sin, because of the danger to others.

However, I would not say that swerving to the other side of a two-lane highway to avoid an animal or large object when I am the only car for miles is a sin.

Why would you say that natural law has everything needed for peace (you’re wrong about salvation), but God’s ordination of authority is insufficient because there are problems in the world?

Your reasoning is very flawed. We don’t have to have societies. Societies are social constructs. No human has a right to tell another human what to do.
Exemple. Did you know know that in all states publix urination is illegal. So if you were stranded in the middle of the forest, and you needed to relieve yourself you would be committing a mortal sin. Because you’d be breaking the law. And don’t tell me excuses like " oh it’s an emergency " because according to the Bible, Jesus would rather have you die than commit a sin. " if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off, etc ". So in that situation you would literally have to let your bladder burst to remain in a state of grace. Just for the record, I’m an atheist. I don’t believe in God. But whenever I read about stuff like this, it just confirms my stance. This is like the final nail in the coffin. I’m just arging from a Catholic point of view.

 

[Katherine438]

I think humans are only bound by the natural law which comes from God. It is simply not true that God “ordains” Human authority. If it were the case we would have a much more peaceful world. So my point is that we needn’t listen to human laws. Because the natural law encompasses everything.

Example. The civil laws say it’s illegal to speed. But it’s not always a sin. It’s a sin to be reckless and endanger others. But if you’re not putting anyone in danger then it’s not a sin. So my point is the natural law already has everything we need. Not just for salvation, but for a peaceful society too. Saying that people must obey civil laws based on some flawed outdated notion, or some romanticized respect for authority is just laying unnecessary burdens on people

If you speed, you are putting your own life in danger … hence that would be a sin.

 

[Katherine438]

Your reasoning is very flawed. We don’t have to have societies. Societies are social constructs. No human has a right to tell another human what to do.
Exemple. Did you know know that in all states publix urination is illegal. So if you were stranded in the middle of the forest, and you needed to relieve yourself you would be committing a mortal sin. Because you’d be breaking the law. And don’t tell me excuses like " oh it’s an emergency " because according to the Bible, Jesus would rather have you die than commit a sin. " if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off, etc ". So in that situation you would literally have to let your bladder burst to remain in a state of grace. Just for the record, I’m an atheist. I don’t believe in God. But whenever I read about stuff like this, it just confirms my stance. This is like the final nail in the coffin. I’m just arging from a Catholic point of view.

If you are an atheist, why are your concerned with what is and is not a sin?