Ethics for Supporting the Helpless in Public

[Great Fiction]

Maybe i'm missing the point, but in this very delicate situation....the first and foremost thing for the church to do, is get on it's knees, and seek God. As sojourner for Christ stated we as the Body of Christ have a responsibility to be examples to the world, and our God has purposefully placed people in authority. But when we get on our knees and seek the face of almighty God, He can work in our behalf. In my opinion He is the only one that can open doors that need to be open or shut doors that need to be shut. And can change hearts.
Just my two cents

Thank you kindly Cturtle for your contribution

I must agree with your assessment on all points Cturtle. For we are not bound to the devices of evil men, and when the church suffers the onslaught of the wicked, our rescue and saving grace is in Him. Thus amidst our challenges we must remain a virtuous example in the great legacy of Christ Jesus; for it is His power that severs the throes of darkness.

Yet the analogy calls for an "ethical position" regarding "human law." For Christ himself demonstrated many public challenges regarding the law so that we could know the insurmountably importance of the law for our spiritual growth and protection, yet I do not compare my insignificant life to our Majestic Savior's historic example.

Thus this analogous church could be "advised" by us all, yet I offer a challenge, which is "what kind of just-law is needed to solve the problem?" For I advocate that Natural Rights Theory, supported by Christ's demonstration is the "ethical" solution.

Is it possible that "knowledge from the Spirit" regarding "ethics from the throne" can often times provide an ethical substrate for the church-bodies natural defenses? Is it possible that your analogous door that opens and shuts is often hinged by "spiritually revealed knowledge."

The two cents offered in your comment is like a superfluous mound of spiritual riches; for our safety and salvation is in Him, which you confirmed in your wise council.

 

[Cturtle]

This is opinion.. Having right to something does not mean anything.. That is not the criteria to look at to say which one is right here.. Word of God says this..

1 Corinthians 10:23-24 You say, “I am allowed to do anything”—but not everything is good for you. You say, “I am allowed to do anything”—but not everything is beneficial. Don’t be concerned for your own good but for the good of others

Commandments of Jesus makes it very clear.. Love your neighbor as you love yourself.. Though someone might say "I am right" doing it, it is not always beneficial.. When we say beneficial, not beneficial for self, but beneficial for others..

1 Corinthians 10:31 So whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

From this verse, we can see all things should be done for glory of God.. In the question you posted, I would pose these 2 criteria..

1) What would bring glory to God?
2) What would be beneficial for others, inspite of being right?

And that would give me the answer.. And this is the principle I would apply to look at the situation from Biblical perspective..

And 1 Corinthians 13:6 says love does not seek it's own.

 

[Cturtle]

Thank you kindly Cturtle for your contribution

I must agree with your assessment on all points Cturtle. For we are not bound to the devices of evil men, and when the church suffers the onslaught of the wicked, our rescue and saving grace is in Him. Thus amidst our challenges we must remain a virtuous example in the great legacy of Christ Jesus; for it is His power that severs the throes of darkness.

Yet the analogy calls for an "ethical position" regarding "human law." For Christ himself demonstrated many public challenges regarding the law so that we could know the insurmountably importance of the law for our spiritual growth and protection, yet I do not compare my insignificant life to our Majestic Savior's historic example.

Thus this analogous church could be "advised" by us all, yet I offer a challenge, which is "what kind of just-law is needed to solve the problem?" For I advocate that Natural Rights Theory, supported by Christ's demonstration is the "ethical" solution.

Is it possible that "knowledge from the Spirit" regarding "ethics from the throne" can often times provide an ethical substrate for the church-bodies natural defenses? Is it possible that your analogous door that opens and shuts is often hinged by "spiritually revealed knowledge."

The two cents offered in your comment is like a superfluous mound of spiritual riches; for our safety and salvation is in Him, which you confirmed in your wise council.

I herd a testimony of a pastor whose church purchased a mall. The city said that He could not preach, God instructed Him to pray, and gave him instructions as to what to do. Thus...as he did what God told him to do, which was read a scripture to the mayor. God opened the doors for him to preach.
One has to believe that God is able, and come to the conclusion and be settled in the fact that God's will, and ways are always better than ours. And complete obedience brings about the desired effect!
Blessings!

 

[Abdicate]

Abdicate I think you offer, not only this analogous church good advice but actual churches good advice. Yet may I have permission to dig further? For my goal in this analogy is to consider “ethics in the law coming from scripture,” for we now in many countries suffer an immoral permeation of unjust laws every year, and I must contend also that every one passed has correlations with this analogous dilemma. For with wisdom you pointed out its a real-world example in Dallas to similarity, yet all law is passed with “proposed legitimacy” coming from a source of authority. What is legitimacy for just-law according to Natural Rights from scripture?

For though God may intervene with power, wisdom and love to bring a solve in variance regarding circumstantial challenges, my goal here is to consider “ethics” from scripture. For when should we “support” the law, when should we “condemn” the law, or when should we “obey the law but also condemn it during a demonstration of obedience? For two contracts cause us a challenge, Natural Law from God for all mankind (justice) and our vertical contract of salvation which binds us in love (righteousness).

Civil disobedience is right for every American when the law infringes on our freedoms. Since our law is founded on the scriptures the issue remains that we must fight the injustices put in place by unclean men. If every Christian would fight for the rights of an unborn child I guarantee you the law would be repealed. Unfortunately we find ourselves in the position of which is the lesser of two evils. While you almost need a calling to run for office, it is my firm belief that the spirit of apathy has set into the church to where they have the idea “if it doesn’t affect me, who cares.” In fact, growing up I remember senior church leaders debating whether they should encourage their kids to join politics; 20 years later I say, “Yea! They should have.” My point is, if you don’t want to take care of the things in front of you how will you ever do what needs to be done for those things not seen?

 

[Robine]

I am not good in theorizing but here are my ideas.
I think that if it is possible, we should obey and respect our authorities and try to live in peace with non-believers around us – as long as it is not in conflict with our duty to spread good news about salvation.
I think that the hypothetical church could do this:
1) They can think about a better place where these helpless people could live. The church could establish more complex social ministry than just giving them food. It would be more educational if these helpless people had to do some work to receive food and help.
2) If the church plans this social work, then it is possible to ask businessmen for financial help. If they want their street clear of the helpless people, they can participate on it.
3) The church can ask authorities for help. Once this social ministry is established, it is easier to receive some exceptions or to suggest better laws.
It is not easy and it cannot be done without truly devoted people who feel that this is what God wants from them.

Few years ago I came to know about a Slovakian catholic priest Marian Kuffa and his ministry to poor people. He built a house for homeless people, former prisons, criminals, alcohol or drug addicts, prostitutes, disabled and other lost people. He lives there with around 200-300 such people. All of them who are able to work have to work, build new buildings and care for the helpless. After he built up his ministry so people in this house are able to maintain order, he started to help to homeless people who live in slums.
He often talks about his experiences with secular authorities such as this: He wanted to build a small one-roomed house from bricks for needy family. He found out that it will take at least 6 months to obtain all permissions required to build it. But the winter was coming and the family would really suffer without that house. So he took his helpers, went and built the simple house in 3 days.
If they try to penalize him for his actions, they come across the fact that he himself has no money. All they could take from him is that house where his needy people live.
(You may find a documentary “All my children” about his ministry and some of his sermons with tittles on youtube.)

 

[Great Fiction]

I herd a testimony of a pastor whose church purchased a mall. The city said that He could not preach, God instructed Him to pray, and gave him instructions as to what to do. Thus...as he did what God told him to do, which was read a scripture to the mayor. God opened the doors for him to preach.

One has to believe that God is able, and come to the conclusion and be settled in the fact that God's will, and ways are always better than ours. And complete obedience brings about the desired effect!

Blessings!

That is an incredible testimony, thanks be to Christ Jesus for His divine intervention

Thus based on this comment do you believe Christians should abstain from supporting law and should simply function with the laws that the unbeliever puts in place, or do you believe that we should as the body of Christ “involve” ourselves in a spirit of love to influence how the law is created or managed?

For example: If the analogous “Smithtown” were to have a city council who voted on removing the homeless from all over the city, would you as a local citizen “support” or “not support” the city councils decision to make this a law or regulation?

If you support it, how would you support it?
If you don't support it, then how would you not support it?
Most importantly “on what ethical grounds from scripture” would you support it or not support it?

Or do you believe we as Christians should not participate to support the law-creation process one way or another and only pray?

 

[Great Fiction]

Civil disobedience is right for every American when the law infringes on our freedoms.

I agree Abdicate, for many in the new testament would disobey with civility when the “Natural Right to free speech” was condemned. Jesus also defended Natural Rights.

Since our law is founded on the scriptures the issue remains that we must fight the injustices put in place by unclean men. If every Christian would fight for the rights of an unborn child I guarantee you the law would be repealed.

It was John Locke a puritan Christian in Europe who wrote the Two Treatise of Government who was first to give strategic credence to scriptural Natural Rights Theory, and in the U.S. it was Franklin, Jefferson and Adams, who were highly influenced by his contributions. Many of the U.S. founders were Lockean in their political positions, yet not all, and also many compromised severely.

I find that Madison's Bill of Rights is the most “scriptural” and that the rest of the U.S. 1989 ratification in variance “supports and rejects” scriptural ethics from Natural Rights and Natural Law.

Unfortunately we find ourselves in the position of which is the lesser of two evils.

So true my friend. Not saying that you do personally, but do you feel that we as Christians have a scriptural mandate to never support the lesser of two evils? Or any evil?

While you almost need a calling to run for office, it is my firm belief that the spirit of apathy has set into the church to where they have the idea “if it doesn’t affect me, who cares.” In fact, growing up I remember senior church leaders debating whether they should encourage their kids to join politics; 20 years later I say, “Yea! They should have.” My point is, if you don’t want to take care of the things in front of you how will you ever do what needs to be done for those things not seen?

I agree, for apathy is often the churches natural death-sentence upon the earth. If the church suffers a natural death or suffers violent despotism, then it is disabled by measure to reach the lost.

Thus action of some kind is needed, yet what kind of action? According to this analogy of “Smithtown,” do you feel that a Christian citizen should say, “the business' have a Natural Right from scripture to request the homeless to be removed because the helpless is forcing them a loss,” or should the Christian citizen support the homeless and say, “The homeless have a scriptural Natural Right to stand on the public sidewalk at will?”

Yet this is a complex scenario, thus a different set of questions could be asked:

Should a Christian citizen see this problem in their community and say, “Ethically the city council should make a law to enforce Natural Rights for one group or the other.” or should it be said “Ethically from scripture the city council is not able to make a law because both sides have Natural Rights in this matter, for Natural Rights collide against each other and a law would remove Natural Rights from one group.”

If you will allow it I would love to exchange in detail, for I would contend that getting to the bottom of what is Natural Rights in this analogy is the solve for all societal-law according to scripture.

I am deeply grateful for the participation my friend.

 

[Great Fiction]

I am not good in theorizing but here are my ideas.

Christ gave us a template for being humble and kind, and now you operate accordingly, thus you may be offering me more in-depth truth than I can hope to share.

I think that if it is possible, we should obey and respect our authorities and try to live in peace with non-believers around us – as long as it is not in conflict with our duty to spread good news about salvation.

Thank you so much Robine

I deeply agree

May I explore your position to detail?

Do you believe that there are any limitations on obedience? For example: if a government was not causing a conflict to spread the gospel but was killing and slaughtering the innocent, would you still support or obey? Are we to operate to pure pacifism or are we allowed to protect our families or the innocent from despotic violence by deploying self-defense or defense of the innocent?

Please know that I am deeply grateful for the participation, for it takes time to do so.

I think that the hypothetical church could do this:
1) They can think about a better place where these helpless people could live. The church could establish more complex social ministry than just giving them food. It would be more educational if these helpless people had to do some work to receive food and help.
2) If the church plans this social work, then it is possible to ask businessmen for financial help. If they want their street clear of the helpless people, they can participate on it.
3) The church can ask authorities for help. Once this social ministry is established, it is easier to receive some exceptions or to suggest better laws.
It is not easy and it cannot be done without truly devoted people who feel that this is what God wants from them.

These are incredible suggestions and I would contend that a church and businesses would be wise to accept your council, yet what if they will not and are divided as this analogy suggests? As a Christian citizen of “Smithtown” what kind of “law or regulations would you support or reject.” Would you involve yourself at all, or remain benign?

On point number (3) you mention that the church could suggest “better laws.” What kind of societal law are we allowed to support according to scripture?”

I will contend that Natural Law from the throne of heaven is the only kind of law we have an ethical right to support, yet with a complex scenario like Smithtown how will this be applicable?

Keep in mind that Natural Law, which is the Lords delegated construct on earth is equipped with Natural Rights, which basically says “that every individual on earth is conceived with an embodied natural right to have authority over their own “life, liberty and honest property.” Now no man or woman can use force, violence, religion, business, institutions or government to “ethically” take them away. Yet history discloses thousands of individuals, churches, businesses and governments who take them in every generation.

Few years ago I came to know about a Slovakian catholic priest Marian Kuffa and his ministry to poor people. He built a house for homeless people, former prisons, criminals, alcohol or drug addicts, prostitutes, disabled and other lost people. He lives there with around 200-300 such people. All of them who are able to work have to work, build new buildings and care for the helpless. After he built up his ministry so people in this house are able to maintain order, he started to help to homeless people who live in slums.

He often talks about his experiences with secular authorities such as this: He wanted to build a small one-roomed house from bricks for needy family. He found out that it will take at least 6 months to obtain all permissions required to build it. But the winter was coming and the family would really suffer without that house. So he took his helpers, went and built the simple house in 3 days.

If they try to penalize him for his actions, they come across the fact that he himself has no money. All they could take from him is that house where his needy people live.

(You may find a documentary “All my children” about his ministry and some of his sermons with tittles on youtube.)

I believe this man did nothing wrong according to the the virtuous foundation of Natural Rights from scripture. However would you agree that “if” in his personal relationship with God, that “if” the Spirit led him to obey unjust government, then he should do just that?

Thus he stood upon the first and delegated contract of “Natural Rights Theory” because no entity on earth has just-authority to tell him what he can do with his own property without his consent. However in the contract of “salvation” we are often required to obey unjust government as the Spirit requires. Yet I will contend we are never to “ethically support” unjust law even though we submit to unjust law.

Thus again, he stood innocent upon the substrate of Natural Rights Theory from scripture, but only he knows if he in his “contract of salvation” was required to be obedient to unjust laws; for that is between him and God. For we are not privy to his position of the heart, and he may or may not be aligned with the Spirit; also according to Natural Rights from scripture, we are “ethically” unable to use unjust law to hold him accountable one way or another unless he voluntarily contracts to obligation.

thoughts?

 

[Cturtle]

That is an incredible testimony, thanks be to Christ Jesus for His divine intervention

Thus based on this comment do you believe Christians should abstain from supporting law and should simply function with the laws that the unbeliever puts in place, or do you believe that we should as the body of Christ “involve” ourselves in a spirit of love to influence how the law is created or managed?

For example: If the analogous “Smithtown” were to have a city council who voted on removing the homeless from all over the city, would you as a local citizen “support” or “not support” the city councils decision to make this a law or regulation?

If you support it, how would you support it?
If you don't support it, then how would you not support it?
Most importantly “on what ethical grounds from scripture” would you support it or not support it?

Or do you believe we as Christians should not participate to support the law-creation process one way or another and only pray?

Oh i'm so glad that you asked these questions. First thing i would do is pray and ask God how he would have me to vote (phil. 4:6) Then i would vote only as God instructed.

I believe that God wants us as a Body of Christ to be praying for our leaders (1 Timothy 2:1-4) and praying for God to guide what goes into law, or regulations. Daniel did that and was involved in making laws, as he was in a government office (Daniel 4, 6)

Romans 13 tells us "let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For their is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority, resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgement upon themselves.....and you can read to vs.7

now i realize that not all authority are godly, a lot are carnal. But they fall under the authority that God has set up (Romans 13:4). So we must obey them, and be praying for their protection, and especially for their salvation (1 Timothy 2:4), and if there is corruption, then for it to be exposed. The Bible says that there is nothing hidden that will not be brought to the light Lk 8:17 & Mark 4:22.

The responsibility to the homeless is also a Christian's responsibility according to Romans 13: 10, and Matt 25:44-45. Soooooo if the city decided that the homeless had to be removed, then i would be praying for God to provide a way to go and get them, a place to house them, and feed them, and for many Godly people who would love them, and care for their spiritual needs as well. As Jesus said it is not the well that need a doctor, but the sick. And many of the homeless, are sick in heart and spirit.

Just my 2 cents
Blessings!

 

[Robine]

Do you believe that there are any limitations on obedience? For example: if a government was not causing a conflict to spread the gospel but was killing and slaughtering the innocent, would you still support or obey? Are we to operate to pure pacifism or are we allowed to protect our families or the innocent from despotic violence by deploying self-defense or defense of the innocent?

I am not for pacifism or supporting of such governments. I think that we are allowed to work against these authorities and we have to search for God’s voice to know whether or how should we behave in these situations. I think that possibilities and decisions are clearer when things get to the point.

As a Christian citizen of “Smithtown” what kind of “law or regulations would you support or reject.” Would you involve yourself at all, or remain benign?

On point number (3) you mention that the church could suggest “better laws.” What kind of societal law are we allowed to support according to scripture?”

I will contend that Natural Law from the throne of heaven is the only kind of law we have an ethical right to support, yet with a complex scenario like Smithtown how will this be applicable?

I think that we should involve ourselves in supporting or creating better laws if it is in our power. Yet it demands to be dedicated to specific problem, to gain experiences and understanding.

It is clear that the church should support such laws that solve that poor situation of helpless people. Firstly we should support laws or regulations that solve the cause of the situation to prevent more people falling in this helplessness. Then we can think of a functional way for the helpless to become self-sufficient. I think that if we want to know what specific laws would help, we have to involve ourselves in the problem deeply. It is needed to understand the causes and the ways how to solve it. It could be for the worse without this knowledge - we can see many social laws that were meant for good but work badly in reality.

I am not sure if I answered sufficiently your questions concerning the Natural Law...

However would you agree that “if” in his personal relationship with God, that “if” the Spirit led him to obey unjust government, then he should do just that?

Yes, I believe that if God leads us to obey unjust laws, we should obey God

Thus he stood upon the first and delegated contract of “Natural Rights Theory” because no entity on earth has just-authority to tell him what he can do with his own property without his consent. However in the contract of “salvation” we are often required to obey unjust government as the Spirit requires. Yet I will contend we are never to “ethically support” unjust law even though we submit to unjust law.

Thus again, he stood innocent upon the substrate of Natural Rights Theory from scripture, but only he knows if he in his “contract of salvation” was required to be obedient to unjust laws; for that is between him and God. For we are not privy to his position of the heart, and he may or may not be aligned with the Spirit; also according to Natural Rights from scripture, we are “ethically” unable to use unjust law to hold him accountable one way or another unless he voluntarily contracts to obligation.

As I wrote above, I believe that these decisions are much clearer when you are “on battlefield”. But God’s guidance is really needed.

 

[Great Fiction]

Oh i'm so glad that you asked these questions. First thing i would do is pray and ask God how he would have me to vote (phil. 4:6) Then i would vote only as God instructed.

I admire your attitude towards authority and it resonates because you give “respect” to the apparatus that is the law. Also you offer wise council to seek God first and foremost in all things, thus I find it expeditious to follow your example.

For furthering perspective, do you think its possible that scripture has “already” given us a very detailed set of guidelines for how we should vote? Is it possible that the first delegation by God which is Natural Rights, already provides us detailed criterion for how we are allowed to vote? Is it possible that must vote ethically for law that is void of all aggress?

Example: If the city council in “Smith-Town” passes a law that causes “any” kind of violence to be forced to even a single person, then are we by scripture allowed to support those laws as a Christian citizen “ethically?” Are we ever allowed to support “any” violent aggress in any form or measure, though we remain obedient to arbitrary forces.

I believe that God wants us as a Body of Christ to be praying for our leaders () and praying for God to guide what goes into law, or regulations. Daniel did that and was involved in making laws, as he was in a government office (, )

I agree

Do you think that Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego who all served under Nebuchadnezzar suffered despotism from a despotic king who would violate their Natural Rights (freedom of worship)?

Also do you believe that all four men chose to “non-violently disobey government” on the grounds that they were not free to worship, only then to be thrown to lions and a fiery furnace? Also is it possible that we may benefit by their example?

Though God being the “Supreme Owner of the earth” with the “most authority” is able to intervene with the just and the unjust as He sees fit to establish and confirm His word, we are bound to Natural Rights.

tells us "let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For their is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority, resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgement upon themselves.....and you can read to vs.7

now i realize that not all authority are godly, a lot are carnal. But they fall under the authority that God has set up (). So we must obey them, and be praying for their protection, and especially for their salvation (), and if there is corruption, then for it to be exposed. The Bible says that there is nothing hidden that will not be brought to the light & .

Do you believe that if a despotic government violates our Natural Rights that we are to always obey? Is there anything government can do to us that would give us scriptural grounds to disobey?

Do you believe that the “book of Romans” was a letter written “to the Romans” and also do you believe that Paul was offering a template to Rome for what is “good government?” For Nero was a despotic madman killing Christians for pleasure. Do you believe that Romans 13 communicates that we should obey “despotic government” or “good government?” For it cant be all government for the disciples and Christ Himself would often disobey government with civility in a non-violent manner.

The responsibility to the homeless is also a Christian's responsibility according to Romans 13: 10, and . Soooooo if the city decided that the homeless had to be removed, then i would be praying for God to provide a way to go and get them, a place to house them, and feed them, and for many Godly people who would love them, and care for their spiritual needs as well. As Jesus said it is not the well that need a doctor, but the sick. And many of the homeless, are sick in heart and spirit.
Just my 2 cents
Blessings!

Your scriptural rescue mission of the homeless demonstrates the love of Christ and I would agree quickly that our inclinations should follow your incredible example to reach out with love.

May I be allowed to take this even further with your participation? For it is here that the cross-roads of scriptural “ethics” can be discovered.

By this statement you quoted, “if the city decided that the homeless had to be removed” you mentioned you would pray and participate for a strategic rescue, but what of “ethics” from scripture? Would you “support that law” or “reject that law, and on what grounds?” Meaning: would you in a spirit of love “communicate” and “vote” publicly that this law is “unjust” according to Natural Rights from scripture, because it “violates” a homeless person's “Natural Right” to stand on public property, or would you in a spirit of love “support” the city council with “communication” and by “voting” that they have “just-authority” to rule out “natural rights” for the homeless?
OR
You could take another path and say that “standing on public property” is not a natural right because public property is not “their property (not belonging to the homeless).” Yet if so then “whose” property is it, and is the property honestly owned? For property ownership is the key to understanding “natural rights from scripture.” For Natural Rights is simply ownership under God, regarding a persons “life, liberty and honest property.”

I contend that Natural Rights from scripture is a most complex dynamic regarding real-world applications, yet if we as the body can know and understand Natural Rights, then we will “ethically” know how to vote and support our nation and liberty “ethically.” For ultimately God is the highest authority and He has “delegated” authority to us in the form of Natural Rights. Thus the city-council, the homeless, the church, and the businesses are all at play regarding “just-authority from God” regarding the “public property” usage rights in question.

 

[Great Fiction]

I am not for pacifism or supporting of such governments. I think that we are allowed to work against these authorities and we have to search for God’s voice to know whether or how should we behave in these situations. I think that possibilities and decisions are clearer when things get to the point.

Please forgive me Robine if I am coming across to vague or too unclear. Its a very complex variable.

I also am not a pacifist, and thank you again for your detailed contribution.

To threaded precise focus, I am wanting to know “what kind of law” is ethical for us to support. I contend that only “just-law” is ethical for a Christian to support. There are over 40 thousand new laws being created every year here in the U.S. alone, and will contend that almost all of them are “unjust” because they abandon Natural Rights from scripture.

Natural Rights is a fortification of non-violence to person or property. Thus in this analogy what decisions can a city council make in Smith-Town that would remain non-violent to life, liberty and property for every citizen?

I contend that the city council in Smith-Town is quite constricted to do anything. I also contend that the public street is the heart of the problem; for no person owns it. For if the church owned the street the problem is ethically solved. If the businesses owned the street then the problem is ethically solved.

Natural Rights operate in the confines of “just and honest property.” I contend the solve is to have the streets become “private or participatory-public-property (joint ownership of property allocated for public consumption).” Thus just-rules, just-action, and just-usage will naturally flow. For if a “group” of people in a country “organized to political means using violence” they will commandeer streets to be managed by illegitimate authority which the church is often ethically subjugated to follow to perversion.

Some may say, yes but what about democracy, is not a majority sufficient to allocate ethical authority to the city-council to clear the helpless or force the business' cooperation? I would contend that the answer is no; for if a democracy functions by majority to harm “any” person or their property then that democracy is “immoral.” Thus a referendum is only “just” outside the confines of violence to person or property. Thus government by majority must operate reactively to a trespass, and not protectively using arbitrary power to trespass.

What of our real world? Many will say quickly, our world operates on every level to violate Natural Rights in almost every corner of society; are we to not support anything? I would say, obedience and support are two different things, and we should never support aggress/violence anywhere, anytime, or in anyway, yet we are by default poised by scripture to obey the apparatus that is the law. Yet again we are not obligated by scripture to obey despotism unless the Spirit requires it.

Thus I obediently pay taxes, but I reject taxes “ethically” as despotic trespass against property according to Natural Rights from scripture. I also embrace obedience to my State officials because Christ has mandated that I do so, yet in my conviction from scripture I am to condemn all taxation and ambiguous compulsory law as violence. For we should in our unanimity “support” just-law only, so that our posterity will hopefully not suffer the same violence.

I am a strict ethicist proposing that we should support and vote for an “ethical government.”

I think that we should involve ourselves in supporting or creating better laws if it is in our power. Yet it demands to be dedicated to specific problem, to gain experiences and understanding.

It is clear that the church should support such laws that solve that poor situation of helpless people. Firstly we should support laws or regulations that solve the cause of the situation to prevent more people falling in this helplessness. Then we can think of a functional way for the helpless to become self-sufficient. I think that if we want to know what specific laws would help, we have to involve ourselves in the problem deeply. It is needed to understand the causes and the ways how to solve it. It could be for the worse without this knowledge - we can see many social laws that were meant for good but work badly in reality.

If the Smith-Town city-council mandates that the businesses for example are to financially help the helpless, then is that violence to individual business property? Or what if the City council mandates that every citizen contribute one hour of their time to help the helpless, would that also be violence to individual liberty? On what grounds from scripture can the city council demand participation or require financial penalty?

If a government declares an edict that will “harm” a persons life, liberty or property, are they “moral” or “ethical” according to scripture to do it? Thus is the city-council in violation of “trespassing” life, liberty and property to “rule against any persons life, liberty or property if a citizen has created no trespass themselves?

I contend that government has only one function,...

“To react justly” to a trespass of life, liberty and property according to Natural Rights Theory.” Thus government authority is “never” ethically permitted to operate in the confines of ambiguous compulsory law. Yet they do all the time and we are subject to the perversions.

Is it possible according to scripture that government only has one job to simply “react” to despotism foreign or domestic?

I am not sure if I answered sufficiently your questions concerning the Natural Law...

Yes, I believe that if God leads us to obey unjust laws, we should obey God

As I wrote above, I believe that these decisions are much clearer when you are “on battlefield”. But God’s guidance is really needed.

I agree, for I too am often required to obey unjust law as the Spirit requires it.

 

[Cturtle]

Great fiction, i know that you probably already covered it, but could you define natural rights for me? Thanks

 

[Great Fiction]

Great fiction, i know that you probably already covered it, but could you define natural rights for me? Thanks

Its my deepest pleasure Cturtle

Its a "premise" from scripture that all "aggress or initiated violence" to person or property is ethically immoral (thus non-aggression is a global mandate). Scripture in Genesis bears this out, as God rejected murder, and violence, and delegated the earth and everything in it to mankind’s dominion, ownership, sovereignty and authority.

Adams posterity became violent and were wiped out. After Noah landed God reinstated His delegation of the earth, and then warned about furthering harm and violence.

Basically, no person may commit an act of aggress "initiated violence" to a person or their honest property, and the only exception for violence is self-defence. This is true for individuals, groups, businesses, churches, religions, institutions, governments, races, and nations. Any violation is "despotism."

Despotism – (in this context) – An act of violence committed against a person's life, liberty or honest property.

Yet we as Christians are not only subject to Natural Rights we are also subject to the Spirit in our contract of salvation, which requires a lot more than the simple abstention of aggress to person and property.

 

[Cturtle]

Its my deepest pleasure Cturtle

Its a "premise" from scripture that all "aggress or initiated violence" to person or property is ethically immoral (thus non-aggression is a global mandate). Scripture in Genesis bears this out, as God rejected murder, and violence, and delegated the earth and everything in it to mankind’s dominion, ownership, sovereignty and authority.

Adams posterity became violent and were wiped out. After Noah landed God reinstated His delegation of the earth, and then warned about furthering harm and violence.

Basically, no person may commit an act of aggress "initiated violence" to a person or their honest property, and the only exception for violence is self-defence. This is true for individuals, groups, businesses, churches, religions, institutions, governments, races, and nations. Any violation is "despotism."

Despotism – (in this context) – An act of violence committed against a person's life, liberty or honest property.

Yet we as Christians are not only subject to Natural Rights we are also subject to the Spirit in our contract of salvation, which requires a lot more than the simple abstention of aggress to person and property.

Thank you for taking the time! I'm still thinking on how to answer your questions.....however the one thing that i keep coming up with is that in my life prayer is first and foremost. And some of the questions that you ask depend upon how God would instruct me to act, if it was other than what is stated in the Word as walk in love and forgiveness at all times.

I believe the Bible is very clear about obeying the laws of the land. And praying trusting God to change things, is the way that i choose to be. However if i were ever put in the position to make a law or what have you, then you can bet your bottom dollar that i would be praying about how to write it.

In 1 Corinthians 13:5 it says to not seek our own. And in this hypothetical city and questions one has to think seriously about what is best for ministering to the homeless's whole person. Is it right to fight for their supposed rights to stand on public property, ignoring what damage could be done to their emotions by the people who may be rude to them, because they have less than others? Many homeless people are already suffering in their emotions due to whatever has caused them hurt in the first place. So if taking them to another place to minister to their whole person.....and allowing them to heal from their wounds, would be better for them.....then to me that is the the desired outcome and the better way all around. Let God be God and deal with those who hate, judge or treat others who have less, as less. God is big enough!

Now if i were givin the ultimatum, of worship their god or die, well for me that's a no brainer....could be litterally i suppose sorry just couldn't resist.

I'm sure this is different that what you are looking for but it's all i have for now.
Blessings of peace and joy to you

 

[Cturtle]

This might be a silly statement, but in all reality sometimes it is better to give up our "rights" to keep peace with everyone.

Can you give the scriptural references to the quote below? Thanks!

********"Thus I obediently pay taxes, but I reject taxes “ethically” as despotic trespass against property according to Natural Rights from scripture. I also embrace obedience to my State officials because Christ has mandated that I do so, yet in my conviction from scripture I am to condemn all taxation and ambiguous compulsory law as violence. For we should in our unanimity “support” just-law only, so that our posterity will hopefully not suffer the same violence."*******

 

[Robine]

To threaded precise focus, I am wanting to know “what kind of law” is ethical for us to support. I contend that only “just-law” is ethical for a Christian to support. There are over 40 thousand new laws being created every year here in the U.S. alone, and will contend that almost all of them are “unjust” because they abandon Natural Rights from scripture.

Natural Rights is a fortification of non-violence to person or property. Thus in this analogy what decisions can a city council make in Smith-Town that would remain non-violent to life, liberty and property for every citizen?

I think that it is not possible to have clearly just laws in the world of fallen people. We try to protect good people against evil people and that's why we make laws. But as we cannot know which people are good and which evil and who is telling the truth, these good laws are unjust in some situations.

There are also some provision in the Old Testament about how to behave to poor people (e.g. Leviticus 25:35-55). In my opinion, these laws were not very just. Why should we help to people who became poor by their on fault? But God commanded so and I like it.

I contend that the city council in Smith-Town is quite constricted to do anything. I also contend that the public street is the heart of the problem; for no person owns it. For if the church owned the street the problem is ethically solved. If the businesses owned the street then the problem is ethically solved.

It seems to me that it would be better to make some compromise in this case even if the street belonged to one of the mentioned people.
Imagine that businessmen own the street and they force the helpless people to go somewhere else. Then the same problem will happen in another place with another people who will not be happy having helpless people in their street. If we allow this story to continue in the same way, we could easily find the helpless living in slums somewhere outside the city in terrible conditions after short time. That is not what we want although it is happening in reality. Of course, this story is only my hypothesis.
In the second case the church owns the street and decides that helpless people will stay here. More of them will come because it is allowed and some help is here for them. Businessmen have two choices - to leave the place or to start to fight against the helpless. That is not what we want as well.
Therefore I think that it is needed to find some golden mean although it "is not just". It seems that things are not only black or white in our world.

Natural Rights operate in the confines of “just and honest property.” I contend the solve is to have the streets become “private or participatory-public-property (joint ownership of property allocated for public consumption).” Thus just-rules, just-action, and just-usage will naturally flow. For if a “group” of people in a country “organized to political means using violence” they will commandeer streets to be managed by illegitimate authority which the church is often ethically subjugated to follow to perversion.

Some may say, yes but what about democracy, is not a majority sufficient to allocate ethical authority to the city-council to clear the helpless or force the business' cooperation? I would contend that the answer is no; for if a democracy functions by majority to harm “any” person or their property then that democracy is “immoral.” Thus a referendum is only “just” outside the confines of violence to person or property. Thus government by majority must operate reactively to a trespass, and not protectively using arbitrary power to trespass.

This is the problem with democracy. If majority decides anything, the "rights" of minorities can be violated by that and it is not "just".

If the Smith-Town city-council mandates that the businesses for example are to financially help the helpless, then is that violence to individual business property? Or what if the City council mandates that every citizen contribute one hour of their time to help the helpless, would that also be violence to individual liberty? On what grounds from scripture can the city council demand participation or require financial penalty?

If a government declares an edict that will “harm” a persons life, liberty or property, are they “moral” or “ethical” according to scripture to do it? Thus is the city-council in violation of “trespassing” life, liberty and property to “rule against any persons life, liberty or property if a citizen has created no trespass themselves?

I believe that if we want to live in society, we have to accept certain limitations and there is no harm in this fact. It depends on every single group of people what limitations they choose (but it is not a defense of unjust laws).

Is it possible according to scripture that government only has one job to simply “react” to despotism foreign or domestic?

This is kind of relative problem. In my simplicity I consider God's ten commandments as the best model of law. Was it given only to react to evil? Not only. Is it just in every situation? How can we judge that it is just?

If I misunderstood some parts of your post or if my post is not understandable, it may be caused by my poor English.

 

[Great Fiction]

Thank you for taking the time! I'm still thinking on how to answer your questions.....however the one thing that i keep coming up with is that in my life prayer is first and foremost. And some of the questions that you ask depend upon how God would instruct me to act, if it was other than what is stated in the Word as walk in love and forgiveness at all times.

I totally understand

Do you think God would ask us “obey” a contradiction in His word; or more importantly would He ask us to obey Him “differently” regarding many commissions?

Example:
If the scripture says, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” is there any person who may be called to stay put and not preach? To your wise assertion we are indeed “led” of the Spirit to “reach out” as He would “instruct us to act;” for it may be that silent meditation, and intercessory prayer is primary to one persons ministry. For the scripture also says “to intercede.” Therefore I am in agreement with you about obedience, yet let us consider “dogma” versus our “commissions” as Christians.

Dogma - Thou shalt not kill – this is a rigid mandate from scripture

Is there any place in scripture where the born again Christian is allowed, permitted, or commissioned to murder using violent aggress? Thus my point of “supporting just-law” is not premised on “individual commissions as we are led” but is instead “dogma/ mandates” that we are to be “non-violent (void of aggress)” in “all things.”

I believe the Bible is very clear about obeying the laws of the land. And praying trusting God to change things, is the way that i choose to be. However if i were ever put in the position to make a law or what have you, then you can bet your bottom dollar that i would be praying about how to write it.

I also agree that we have a default in place to “obey the law of the land,” yet I am quick to point out that most of our laws are “immoral” because they are predicated on violence which rejects scriptural ethics.

Example:
Paul “under Roman law” commissioned slaves to obey their masters.
Paul “under Roman law” commissioned Christians to not be in debt
Paul “under Roman law” condemned bondage

Thus deduction is in order. Does Paul “endorse slavery” as being “good or moral?”
Of course not but he does endorse the law of the land and contractual integrity to pay our debts. Thus slavery and debt is “immoral,” yet he also commissioned Christian-slaves to honor their predicament, an obedient obligatory contract of debt which caused their slavery.

Thus if a law exists, and if we are required by the Spirit to obey it, that does not make that law in of itself “moral” and we also are not to “ethically” in our communication and political action support "slavery" or "violence."

In it says to not seek our own. And in this hypothetical city and questions one has to think seriously about what is best for ministering to the homeless's whole person.

Which do you believe is more effective to help the helpless, “Christians operating in obedience on the non-aggression principle from scripture with an honest prosperous method in a free society, or a secular city council who is elected, and deployed to operate on a precedent of violence where people are not free?

I contend that socialistic violence secures the helpless to increase their numbers and dis-empowers the church from helping them.

Is it right to fight for their supposed rights to stand on public property, ignoring what damage could be done to their emotions by the people who may be rude to them, because they have less than others? Many homeless people are already suffering in their emotions due to whatever has caused them hurt in the first place. So if taking them to another place to minister to their whole person.....and allowing them to heal from their wounds, would be better for them.....then to me that is the the desired outcome and the better way all around. Let God be God and deal with those who hate, judge or treat others who have less, as less. God is big enough!

I understand your reason, for the homeless may be in more harm being ridiculed in public, yet is it “moral” to move them; for by “what authority” does the city council move them? For public property is proposed as “all peoples property.” If the street is “all peoples property,” then Natural Rights apply and to move them by arbitrary decree is violence. Yet to allow them to stay is also violence to the businesses, thus its a contradiction.

Now if property owners could “compete” to have their own streets then one could say, purchase the street also for your church or your business' and manage it as you see fit, then an option for ethical operation is present. However if the law of the land says, “all streets are not allowed to be owned and unregulated in town by a church or business,” then the city has secured themselves a position of violence to manage all streets, then by violence the streets can only exist, and by violence they are managed. Thus “just-law” is absent, null and void in society regarding who, how and when people can use the street. For compulsion is the manager and compulsion over unowned property is “despotism.” Thus Socialism is born.

Property ownership is the right ethic regarding “all property.” For the “Tragedy of the Commons” is a reoccurring nightmare of despotism in society for thousands of years.

I contend that “public operation” is only just when property rights are “not” in dispute, thus if many property owners “allocate” or “contribute” property to a city then they are “just to exist.” If property was “participatory and allocated to public consumption” then “justice” would flow naturally regarding property disputes. The city council, the police and the citizens would operate in respect to “clear” property rights. Thus public operation can operate “justly” and “scripturally.”

Now if i were givin the ultimatum, of worship their god or die, well for me that's a no brainer....could be litterally

i suppose sorry just couldn't resist.

I'm sure this is different that what you are looking for but it's all i have for now.

Blessings of peace and joy to you

Your kindness and compassion is also a no-brainer

 

[Great Fiction]

I think that it is not possible to have clearly just laws in the world of fallen people. We try to protect good people against evil people and that's why we make laws. But as we cannot know which people are good and which evil and who is telling the truth, these good laws are unjust in some situations.

You formulated the substrate of “justice” when you said, “We try to protect good people against evil people and that's why we make laws.”

Is it possible that your wise statement here is the “only” reason for mandated human-law to exist? To protect the innocent from despotism by reacting to despotism?

There are also some provision in the Old Testament about how to behave to poor people (e.g. ). In my opinion, these laws were not very just. Why should we help to people who became poor by their on fault? But God commanded so and I like it.

Would you agree that the Mosaic covenant was “compulsory” by contract, and that the “law-construct” rested on top of the delegation of Natural Rights as a consensual contract? Meaning the Israelites “was offered the contract,” “they chose to obey the contract” and they “ratified the contract” which then caused them to “denounce” their Natural Rights before God, yet not before other men outside the nation. Today we are in the same predicament regarding our contract of salvation; for we “give up all things to Him” and become a “slave to Christ,” yet we are not slaves to the world.

Thus Natural Rights is still in effect to the world, but we have a contract of extreme obedience to do “all” things we are commanded unto our commitment to Christ Jesus.

It seems to me that it would be better to make some compromise in this case even if the street belonged to one of the mentioned people.

Imagine that businessmen own the street and they force the helpless people to go somewhere else. Then the same problem will happen in another place with another people who will not be happy having helpless people in their street. If we allow this story to continue in the same way, we could easily find the helpless living in slums somewhere outside the city in terrible conditions after short time. That is not what we want although it is happening in reality. Of course, this story is only my hypothesis.

I am highly excited that you are hypothesizing the scenario, for it requires reason to envision what does not exist already to ethical application.

To your point I would imagine your scenario very likely, that businesses indeed would in large numbers eschew and force the helpless elsewhere. Thus let us explore praxeology (human purposeful action).

If we as the church are now in our current society vested in “unjust law,” yet also discover that unjust law is backed with violence falling to failure, and we also choose to abolish unjust law, then “how” would the church invest going forward in a “free society” to help the helpless?

I would contend that we would purchase property with intent to “solve” the problems of the homeless and the helpless, and there would be no “violent precedent” to obstruct it.

In the second case the church owns the street and decides that helpless people will stay here. More of them will come because it is allowed and some help is here for them. Businessmen have two choices - to leave the place or to start to fight against the helpless. That is not what we want as well.

Therefore I think that it is needed to find some golden mean although it "is not just". It seems that things are not only black or white in our world.

Very few people are familiar with Virtue Ethics from Aristotle to use the Golden Mean, and its to your credit that virtue ethics are compatible with scripture; for it was the Catholic church and many other denominations that would embody the method as a virtuous precedent to build individual character.

However may I explore the “application” of virtue ethics? For Aristotle offered the Golden Mean and Virtue ethics as an “application” for the “moral agent” and not for society at large.

If we apply for example "courage, truthfulness, and patience" to society using the law, then the law would become violent" to force these "golden mean compatible traits" upon society.

Natural Rights Theory is a “deontological” ethical substrate applicable to society, meaning that its a substrate holding in place a duty-bound “code” for what is “right or wrong.” Natural Rights Theory is a “duty-bound” rigid substrate that says “all aggress/ violence is not permitted” and “non-violence is not addressed, which is the delegation for the whole world. Yet our contract of salvation is far more complex, and deontologically we have a myriad of positive mandates and commissions to obey.

Thus if we use “virtue ethics” which is “judgment-based” reason for compromise, then it may or may not “trespass against Natural Rights from scripture.

This is the problem with democracy. If majority decides anything, the "rights" of minorities can be violated by that and it is not "just".

I could not agree more

I believe that if we want to live in society, we have to accept certain limitations and there is no harm in this fact. It depends on every single group of people what limitations they choose (but it is not a defense of unjust laws).

This is kind of relative problem. In my simplicity I consider God's ten commandments as the best model of law. Was it given only to react to evil? Not only. Is it just in every situation? How can we judge that it is just?

If I misunderstood some parts of your post or if my post is not understandable, it may be caused by my poor English.

I agree, we live where we live. I find that our suffering of unjust law in a spirit of love is key for any good change unless despotism matures to unrelenting violence to the body. For corrupt things will wear itself out, and upon an educated admonition warning society of unjust law permeating society, we may be able to replace in time what was corrupt and broken. Yet there are many societies that usher in “more unjust law” and are unable to conceive “ethics.”

I find your English quite articulated and well written.

 

[dUmPsTeR]

Just a couple of points that come to my mind.
1. No one truly owns anything. It all belongs to God.
2. Man made law is fiction fabricated and through acquiescence by coercion to deflect from the only true law that comes from above.
3. As was already mentioned, if the church entered into contract (301 C?), then it enters into consent to be controlled by government incorporated.
One thing I find disheartening; Example - When and where does God make something illegal without getting a license?
Okay, staying on topic and what I would do if it was for me to decide; I would feed the people in a near by public park and keep the church where it is.