Is It Possible That All "societal Ethics" Should Derive From Property?

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by Great Fiction, Jun 14, 2014.

  1. Though ethics manifesting in civil society provide the formulated and recognized moral construct for personal behaviour in the confines of the law, is it possible that the formulation should be based on property, which is forged from natural rights theory?

    As Christians we do indeed in variance apply "Christian ethics" to our own personal walks, but of course we do not, or at least by my perspective, should not use compulsory law to force others to walk as we personally choose to walk. For ambiguous morality is impossible to legislate without despotism.

    Can we also ponder in this consideration that "societal ethics" given enough time, will usually translate historically to " brutal despotic force" in the the confines of the law when its pragmatic? Thus property is not only superior in my suggestion, but would suggest also that its scriptural.

    Where is the Messiah and TezriLi say Amen and like this.
  2. All I can say is this.......

    Luk 12:15 And he said to them, "Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions."

    Being rich toward God is all that matters, and is the only thing that is lasting.
  3. I will agree with you whole heartedly that at salvation we surrender all our property to Him, putting every possession upon an alter of obedience to His direction. Yet is this not our Christian ethic?

    What about societal ethics? Would you agree that it would be wrong for Christians to make laws against covetousness, less we end up having the police kick in doors of innocent people for looking too closely at an online sales listing for store products?
  4. I agree, we already have those laws written on our hearts which supersede the laws of man. :)
  5. Our natural rights stem from God, and there are many examples do God allowing individuals access to these rights, even as they go wrong.

    If God has offered this and even granted their ability to go right or wrong, then we ought not infringe unless our own natural rights are being infringed.

    And as Christians, we also have a responsibility go have each person use their free will in the direction of Christ.
  6. As Christians and Americans according to the laws we have established as a nation, we should not judge the prosperity of others as to restrict their rights. We have laws that protect our economy against unfair commerce and greed that harms the overall populace. Whatever we do as believers in Christ, we should do in honesty and sincere conscience before the Lord. Some are trying to pervert the gospel, as to make it an excuse for socialistic programs and to restrict the liberty of others. I disagree with this and know these people have no right or part in the gospel of Jesus Christ, but are enemies of the truth.
    christianbacktobasics and TezriLi say Amen and like this.
  7. I must agree with incredible enthusiasm, as we have a higher obligation to God than man.

    Though we submit to ruling authorities in government by demonstrating Godly obedience to our civil laws, can it also be scripturally sound that we also submit to Christ as our "highest power" to support a "societal ethic" that protects the innocent from unjust law coming from despotic men?

    Also is it possible that this societal ethic derives from "ethical property ownership" supported in scripture?

    CCW95A your posts exude the kindness of Christ.
  8. To follow:
    Are you basically saying then that it is man's natural delegated right to sin or to obey God, unless they violate another’s right to choose sin or righteousness?

    Also that societal ethics should support this premise?
    Is there scripture to support it?

    Please forgive me if I am putting words in your "post" for which I have no licence
  9. What laws are you referring to that protect our economy against unfair commerce?
    Also how is unfair defined?

    I agree sir
    It seems many people believe that you can legislate personal Christian ethics in scripture
  10. Well I am not a lawyer but I know enough history and enough about the economy to know there are a library full of laws that relate to this issue. And these things are defined by the laws, as they are written.
  11. Why any law in any society if it's left up to society. Without the foundation of scripture, you'll always have tyrants and dictators... as much as that society will permit that is. In the U.S. homosexuality was illegal, now it's not. Marriage used to be one man with one woman, now it's not. Soon polygamy will be permitted legally and then the end of any marriage at all. Mark Twain once said it takes a city to raise a child. Today if you dare even speak to a child that parent will sue you or the police will think you a pedophile. Any “controversy” will be dealt with in the most liberal form. Guns will eventually go away – if not by laws outright, hidden laws – buying up bullets so they can’t be bought without major cash, or make gun sales so hard to do no one will want to sell. Euthanasia used to be illegal and now it’s coming around. Risqué scenes used to be illegal, now they’re in commercials. And when a society gets this way God’s judgment comes and a reset is done – look at the south after the civil war, only later to be called the Bible Belt. Just a thought…
  12. I find that many of our laws are highly immoral, though many Christians, and myself included will subject ourselves to them scripturally.

    I think natural rights theory or "ethics that derive from property" which come from scripture provide the ethical line for when civil laws are "just" or "unjust", even though we subject ourselves personally in scripture to obey both.

    Thus we subject ourselves to unjust law often with "personal scriptural ethics", yet I must campaign in kindness that "societal ethics" have fallen to construed distortions in order to plunder many.
  13. I just posted this in another thread, but It goes along with this topic to...I think. :)

    Rom 13:1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
    Rom 13:2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
    Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,

    The "authorities" have been set by God to stop the spread of evil. As long as the "authorities" are not against God,s laws which were set before man's laws we should obey them. The "authority" is not in a person, but in an office set by God. Once that person leaves office that authority stays. The authority was never in a person but in the office that person held. We are to pray for those in office so we might live a quiet life on earth. I think what we have missed is the fact when we know someone in office is not doing Godly things, and using devilish wisdom, we are not suppose to pray to God to them Godly Wisdom so we might live quiet lives. That would be the same as praying to God to give the devil Godly Wisdom!!! We are to pray to remove them from office not keep them there. There are many kinds of prayer, we should bind the powers of darkness from operating from these positions and pray for their removal.
  14. Well I don't know what you mean by those terms? They could mean a thousand things to thousands of people...we as Christians are not called to take the rich mans dollar to feed the poor, we are called to work in all honesty and in the blessing of the Lord to give to those in need. I believe there are in justices in many things and where we can speak out as Christians and citizens we should, but the gospel itself is not a social movement of the flesh of man, but it is a spiritual Kingdom that changes the hearts of man, by the Spirit of God.
    christianbacktobasics likes this.
  15. I understand your concern, yet may I offer some expanding perspective for discussion?

    Which scripture shall serve as the foundation; for context is most critical.

    Can it be possible that some scripture is dedicated to the delegation of all mankind?

    Yet also is not some scripture dedicated to a nation in the mosaic covenant as compulsory political/economic law for Israel?

    Yet also is not some scripture dedicated to the church as an organization or institution?

    Yet also is not some scripture dedicated to the individual?

    So is it your position that civil laws from earthly men should manage homosexuality, adultery, and marriage using a “societal ethic from scripture?” Where is the “societal ethic” in scripture to license arbitrary violence for sin?

    However I will agree with you quickly that scripture is clear unto “personal ethics”, that we should remain pure, to reject all sexual promiscuity, and abstain from creative marital configurations.

    Can we agree that the modern socialist, collectivist, and communist will often say, “Its take a village to raise a child?” Yet please know that I do not accuse you of anything for simply quoting Twain, and will only point out that this kind of terminology originated in the confines of Hegelian dialectical materialism and radical socialism to dis-empower parents lawfully from raising their own children. Can Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin all be guilty of removing children from their parents, with a notion to intervene despotically?

    I will agree here with urgency, for our “natural rights” are given by God to defend our own person, and will agree with you that they are being diminished despotically, yet can we agree that it is “just law” to restrain governments to “not” diminish our personal defences, like-similar to the second amendment?

    I will agree here also with furthering urgency that Euthanasia is despotic, for who is worthy to kill another? Yet shall natural rights theory guard all people regardless of age, gender, race, creed or religion.

    I should note your keen vigilance in scripture to point out who owns the right to judge punitively regarding non-aggressive ambiguous sin, “God”.

    Can we agree that man is not worthy to judge sin unless the sin is despotic with violent aggress, in which Christ Himself demonstrated to bring separation.
  16. I cannot agree with you more my friend, your response permeates this forum with wisdom

    A nineteenth century economist once said in a competition for defining "what is" government; then gave his answer using a polite sarcastic sophism,... “The State is the great fiction through which everyone endeavours to live at the expense of everyone else.”

    Should it be critical that we take your prudent advice that scripture attends to sanctification in the spirit, and civil justice in the natural world.
  17. May I follow your logic for discerning Romans 13 with increasing detail? For its a great response for discussion.

    For I would propose possibly to your agreement that “personal ethics” is given for us to “obey” ruling authorities “unconditionally”, so long as government is “just”, which I would argue comes from “scriptural - natural rights theory”. However what of evil despotic government? Shall we always obey even when evil men in power demand we disobey God? I should agree with you that the “precedent for obedience” is then removed in Romans by default, if we are forced to disobey God. Thus can support for despotic government be "disobedience to God?"

    Yet can strategies be considered in the confines of despotism to still obey? Shall our obedience as victims of legal plunder often provide good opportunity to right-example the virtues of the kingdom using measures of kindness, temperance and patience, yet to each person in their own objective walk can then be lead of the spirit for wise action?

    Thus can I ask you a question from your quote, what do you reason is the “evil (described in context) that will not spread by the delegation of government/ authorities?” In short, is government used to restrain all ambiguous sin or just despotism in form of "just-law?"

    I should now readily follow your pace to say that evil government full of despotism then forces the Christian to ponder the lines of civil obedience (as Christ and Paul both demonstrated), to denounce despotism, but also giving unmoving support to “just-law.”

    I should think it prudent to reason that Romans thirteen provides a template for “government” as much as it provides a template for the “individual.” “Personal and societal ethics” both are in play; government is charged by inversion to be good and not evil with societal ethics, and the individual is charged directly to obey good government. Thus what is good government using scripture?

    Can we also embrace the harsh reality that government is often times in history, a brutish, harsh, and evil power that will crush the slightest move to retain personal Godliness? Thus can it be rational to ponder that Christ and many of our New Testament examples became highly “strategic” to survive their moral positions before despotic ruling authorities?
  18. I'm sadden you believe my quote of Twain was an innuendo to communism. Twain and my comments are that the butcher, when seeing a child misbehaves, will call the child out to cease, or contact the parents. That is what is meant. Today you're more likely to suffer a lawsuit than to "get involved" and that only leads to more despotism and more chaos and more confusion.

    Furthermore, I'm not keen on some of you subtile vocabulary nuances to really fathom what you're trying to say. I do not know what classifications of society or theories you're quoting, I'm a simple man and use the scriptures to know what is right and what is wrong.

    We may not be worthy to judge but God appoints rulers over men, therefore men are charged with ruling men.

    1 Corinthians 2:14-16 (KJV)
    But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

    Only true holy and surrendered Christians can rightly judge (the word for "gods" below in both Hebrew and Greek) truly and correctly.

    Psalms 82:6 (KJV)
    I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.

    1 Timothy 2:1-2 (KJV)
    I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and [for] all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

    2 Timothy 3:16-17 (KJV)
    All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

    My biggest problem with unadulterated sin as is society today is that they flaunt it and I have to see it. Man's laws are built on the morals of society. Everything Hitler did was by man's law. That doesn't make it right. I do not subscribe that a Christian should not get involved with the governments - we are supposed to. It is up to us, through the Holy Spirit, now on earth, to mold society, and since we are not (which is even our right as citizens of a once "free" nation), we get the society and government we sowed. If we sow to evil, evil we will reap. If we sow to righteousness, righteousness we will reap. There is cause-and-effect to all actions - the law of sowing and reaping. That's all I'm saying.

    Does that mean we should push them back into the closet? You bet!

    1 Corinthians 6:3 (KJV)
    Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
  19. Please forgive me Abdicate, it was not my intent to move your spirit to sadness, as it is so clear that you are deeply moved for the sake of innocent children, which provides a testament for what is virtuous for our cause in Christ. If more of the world were moved in the spirit as you are moved, we would have a much better world.

    However may I please be critical of Twain alone, who would intercede for the poor, but would also wish for compulsory forces to intervene with those who had the tangible means to help, instead of advocating the removal of the compulsory forces that would already impoverish? Can we also see in like-manor that Marx was a proponent to solve poverty as well, but used an even worse prescription from the depths of hell that would cast every society into a natural despotic damnation?

    Thus can evil measures be examined from power-hungry men who are empowered with despotic authority and also supported by poor strategies from writers who cry out for a compulsory despotic rescue of the poor? For legal compulsion is not warranted to solve, and free people shall rescue them if they are not trampled by compulsory fairness.

    With kind sincerity, how may I bring more clarification to something specific?

    Is it possible that the early church who were in that city famous for legendary immorality had fallen to doctrinal decay, and then Paul with Sosthenes, wrote the church at Corinth to challenge Godly integrity with these verses you quote? Can you agree that Paul's mission in these verses was a challenge for the Corinthians to use good-judgement and sound examination, and to trust that the words they were saying were true, even if they did not understand them? For there was much doubt that the Corinthians adhered to sound doctrine when Paul wrote.

    The word "judge" in these verses
    means to “examine, inquire or evaluate” - which was Paul's challenge to the Corinthians about the integrity of the message by receiving it in the Spirit.

    For the judgement you mention here is a challenge of “evaluation” for the church to consider regarding Paul's message by being in the Spirit. Thus what does this “evaluation” have to do with the “punitive judgement” that I reference coming from evil men on despotic thrones forcing unjust law upon the innocent?

    Yet though we are children of the most High, are we not forbidden to judge punitively regarding non-despotic sin, less it be measured to us personally or the church for doing so?

    Though Paul offers yet another great challenge for prayer that may separate the evil that prevails in spiritual strongholds, also to pray fervently for ruling authorities and citizens alike, where is there support for us to judge ambiguous non-despotic sin using despotic civil law?

    For I would challenge this is great scripture to fortify “what is” good government, one that is void of all despotism? For men are not worthy to assault society regarding their personal non-despotic sin, and should focus on their own spiritual status. Yet shall despotism in action then require a “just” separation, to separate the despotic from the non-aggressor, as Christ would demonstrate several times.

    Yet is it possible that when we are saved we enter into a contract? A contract of “ownership”, where we through our free-will then give back in full what was delegated to man for a natural lease of temporary self-ownership on earth? Is it not then that all obedience from our blessed covenant in Christ Jesus is then our voluntary and joyful burden to be transformed into the mind of Christ? Thus is this not Paul's advice to young Timothy to strive for perfection within the faith?

    Let us consider societal ethics?
    Though the drug user or gambler may be in sin, they must be “allowed” to make the choice to abandon evil that besets them by choosing Christ, and if we the church are to fortify the land with thousands of punitive despotic laws to choke it out of them with violence, shall we not only reap judgement in return as a church, but shall we also remove the delegation from God for the sinner to choose. However if the drug user is to commit destruction, to kill or steal against others, then shall despotism be committed, and then shall civil society and the church have “just cause” for the law to intercept the despotic behaviour (Romans 13). For ambiguous compulsory law falls to brutish unclear causes that are not justified in scripture, yet clear reactive law (just law) which responds to despotism is our mandated burden.

    For what is sin to you and what is sin to me, when despotism is not present? Shall our interpretive hermeneutics vary, and shall each denomination be the proof that we are diverse in our understandings; thus shall it be wise to know that the law can only side with one person or one church, as all others are thrown despotically in jail for striving for virtue or apathy.

    Can we read the beginning of context in its entirety for better perspective?

    New Living Translation (NLT) -
    1. When one of you has a dispute with another believer, how dare you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter instead of taking it to other believers!

    2 Don’t you realize that someday we believers will judge the world? And since you are going to judge the world, can’t you decide even these little things among yourselves?

    3. Don’t you realize that we will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disputes in this life.

    4. If you have legal disputes about such matters, why go to outside judges who are not respected by the church?

    5. I am saying this to shame you. Isn’t there anyone in all the church who is wise enough to decide these issues?

    6. But instead, one believer sues another—right in front of unbelievers!

    7. Even to have such lawsuits with one another is a defeat for you. Why not just accept the injustice and leave it at that? Why not let yourselves be cheated?

    8. Instead, you yourselves are the ones who do wrong and cheat even your fellow believers.

    9. Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,

    10. or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.

    11 Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

    Let us realize first that Paul condemns these immoral acts listed in verses 9 and 10, while also stating the eternal consequences, yet is it not his challenge that the Corinthians should “not” legislate or use punitive lawful solution for these activities? Even the sin of theft was challenged to stay out of court when its manageable, even though its a form of despotism.

    Let us consider your comment “to mold society”? Is it not Oliver Cromwell who with great motivation to cleanse the land of all sin became a ruthless despot when molding it? For Cromwell started out a Puritan Christian seeking religious freedom in good standing, till power to “mold” the law became within his reach. How many were slaughtered just on a bad report of sin? Thus can history show that in order to “mold” others, one must have despotic power to mold, and when is it moral to mold another without their consent as a non-aggressor?

    Let us agree to your point that our nation was “once” free, yet can we also agree that it was only till the mid 1800s that we started legislating ambiguous non-despotic sin, wretched fairness and arbitrary safety, which helped usher in the interventionist progressive era. Is it possible that our U.S. founders understood the non-punitive judiciary measures of Christs example better than their children/grandchildren 75 years later? Is it possible that our “lost” freedom, in part, is from sown seeds of legislated violence for ambiguous sin? For if the evil thing is eager to be empowered to remove its own vile things with compulsion for an authoritarian gain, will it not also remove our liberty for another authoritarian gain?

    Abdicate – I must apologize for my forthrightness, as it does cut to much criticism, yet please know my heart is not vested to marginalize, and also know that I recognize your amazing challenge to promote righteousness in Christ, which exculpates your position with resonating purity. To your point we are amidst much decay and the church is commissioned to address it, but can we agree unto vigilance that it must be done scripturally in prayer where forces of darkness in the spirit can be diminished, while we refrain from empowering arbitrary forces of men to trample that which precious into the mud?

Share This Page