RP>I would also note in passing, because of your allusion in an earlier
RP>post to stoning adulterers, that Jesus affirmed *all* such laws of God,
RP>including the death penalty even for the tough to handle case of whoever
RP>curses father or mother (Matt 15:3-9).
I seem to recall that when he was confronted with the actual possibility
of an adulterer being stoned to death, he cordially invited anyone
who was without sin to start the proceedings.  IOW, he criticized
a rigid doctrinal with the words in a book (biblical literalism?)
and consistently argued that a fundamentalist insistence on rules
was inferior to bringing God into the world, and the love and mercy
that result from it.
Please note that the above is a good illustration of the fact that
there are as many ways to interpret 'God's law' as there are human
beings.
RP>If you truly believe as you claim that Jesus was God incarnate, should
RP>you not then believe His witness concerning scripture, or are the
RP>traditions of men, like those for which He condemned the Pharisees, more
RP>important to you than the words of God?  |-)
To make this vaguely topical....
In the traditional Augustinian hierarchy, there is God's law,
then natural law, then human law.
The Constitution is definitely human law, and I think that is
what bothers you about it.  The First Amendment prevents laws
being made not only in favor of particular Christian sects, but
Christianity in general, since Christianity in general is "an
establishment of religion."  If Buddhists or Moslems or Hindus
show up here, and agree with the basic ideas of American liberty,
and agree to abide by them, they have as much right to be here
as we do.
The Constitution is very definitely human law -- an attempt by human
beings to define a state that includes both individual liberty and
overall order.  I think you believe that your interpretation of
'God's law' must rightfully take precedence over this human law.
As far as I can tell, you believe that 'God's law' can be found
unambiguously in a book containing the doings and sayings of
people 3,000 years ago.  I disagree very strongly.  I believe
that that book is a wonderful and occasionally inspired record of
the heroic struggles of one culture to survive.  There are places
early in the book where Yahweh says that it is good and right to
slaughter the women and children in a city.  Do you believe that
we should apply this "God's law' to modern heathens, or do you
think that this was perhaps a rationalization by a desperate
people who needed a homeland?
And then there is the one person in the book who I think was
actually enlightened, an incarnation of God, and this longhaired
troublemaker consistently offends the scriptual literalists
around him, e.g., man was not made for the Sabbath, but rather
the Sabbath was made for man.
The point of all this is that if 'God's law' is to take precedence
over the masterpiece of human law that is the Constitution, somebody
is going to have to decide what how 'God's law' is actually
interpreted.  You believe that a Christian interpretation should be
the law of the land, as opposed to a Buddhist or Hindu interpretation.
But even there, you believe that a book embodies the word of God,
whereas I think that book was written by humans, some of them inspired.
And the one who I think was an incarnation of God constantly disagreed
with the biblical literalism of his time.
Christian values are a good thing.  But the values of good people
abywhere on this planet are a good thing too, even if they differ
in particulars.  They are the various ways human beings have
struggled to make order out of chaos.  The US Constitution is
an attempt to generalize these values in a way that can apply to
all humans, regardless of race color or creed.  And if you think that
'God's law' is rightfully supreme over this magnificent codification
of decency and common sense, you are going to have to explain how
your particular interpretation of 'God's law' is absolutely true
while all others are false.
If 'God's law' is to be made supreme over paltry human law, then it
follows that adulterers must be stoned to death.  That is simple
biblical literalism.  I asked you this once before: do you believe
adulterers should be stoned to death?  (Pardon me if I remind us
that Christ seemed to suggest that biblical literalism was
superseded by direct contact with love, mercy, and forgiveness.)
 * SLMR 2.1a * .   If ignorance isn't bliss, I don't know what is.
--- PCBoard (R) v15.4/M 5 Beta
(1:301/45)
---------------