All Forums | General Discussion

Christianity continued....

Participants:
Search
Views: 11626
Posts: 257
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #176
The Blurred Boundaries of Sin:
All people inherited from Adam that original sin. They have also inherited the natural law – the knowledge of good and evil. How does one definitively get at that natural law so as to discern what is good and right? Part of the difficulty is that the natural law cannot be directly accessed. It guides and directs, yet it is also shaped to some degree by culture and tradition.

When sin is committed, the Law convicts the transgression; however, there is also a counter-signal sent of pleasure and enjoyment. The two come in conflict and confusion results. There must be some criteria from outside one’s self that sets a framework from which moral judgments can be made. The “What ought to be?” question looms overhead and for there to be meaning in a person’s life, this question begs to be answered (I will explain this and give examples relating to this shortly).

Is there such a thing as a Moral Law? Before I get any further into the original question, I want to explore the concept of Moral Law.

Moral Law - treat others as you would like to be treated. There is a whole lot more to it than that, but this "Golden Rule" is right at the heart of morality. This is something that can be applied regardless of your cultural perspective. To fully grasp the concept of Moral Law, and to completely understand why it is there and why it is so important, I am going to examine two different aspects on how to approach this topic.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #177
1. The Moral Law is based on the premise that there is such a thing as right and wrong, and there are some things that you "ought" to do, and some things that you "ought not" to do. I think that everyone believes in a moral law. Even those who say they don't still get upset when their house is burgled. The question really becomes how to definitively tell that something is right or wrong. When I have discussed this with non-Christian friends, they normally use their feelings as their measuring stick. But when I point out that, for example, a serial killer might feel that what he was doing was right; the next standard put forward is society, or the law. But can society really define what is right? What if two different societies disagree? By a simple logic, it is obvious that they both can't be right.

Once it is established that there is a moral law, it follows that there must be a moral law-giver. Without this standard, then when two people disagree about a moral judgment, all you have is two conflicting opinions, with no way to decide the issue. Yet in reality, two contradicting things cannot both be right. It seems the only way to resolve the dilemma is for there to be a real, objective standard; God. And when you take away, or ignore, this standard, what you get is a relativistic or morally subjective society, which is what we are moving towards today (especially here in America). I think it is obvious that our society is becoming more and more violent, dishonest, crude, selfish and superficial.

A worldview that does not have an objective moral standard, one that has "values" instead of "laws," seems doomed to destruction. To put it another way; objective morality is not one among many moral options; it is the very definition of morality. "Subjective morality" is an oxymoron; it is no morality at all; it is a mere game. If I (or we) make rules, I (or we) can change them. If I tie myself up, I am not really bound. And a nonbinding morality is not morality, only some "good ideas." It has no laws, nothing with teeth in it; only "values." No matter how hard you try, you can't avoid the reality of a moral law. Our present-day culture is a novel experiment that is trying to prove that you can, but the experiment isn't working.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #178
2. The moral law provides extremely compelling evidence that we were created for a purpose and with an expectation of how we ought to behave. From this, we can deduce that our creator is "good" and is interested in also having us be "good." This is a God who is active and immanent in our lives, otherwise God would have no interest in our behavior. If our creator is interested in our behavior, it strongly suggests He wishes to have a relationship with us.

Perhaps one of the simplest and most often overlooked methods of learning about God rests within each one of us. There is something unique about our level of consciousness, self-awareness and ability to overrule our instincts. What do we learn when we look inside ourselves and reflect on the qualities which set us apart from animals?

We discover that there is something inside all of us which compels us to behave in a certain way. This compulsion is to do what society calls, "good." By nature, we desire to do decent, charitable acts and to avoid causing pain or suffering to anyone. We do not always comply with this desire, and when we fail to do so, we experience the odd sensation of guilt. Most commonly, people will call this a conscience, or we can call this desire, as C.S. Lewis did, the Moral Law.

We see dozens of examples of this moral law in effect every day. Accuse someone of doing something which is generally accepted as being "wrong" and the most common response you will get is either a denial or an excuse. The person will claim that you don't understand their extenuating circumstances, or that you've misunderstood what's really going on. They will defend to you how their actions do not constitute a "wrong."

But when confronted with an obvious wrongdoing, how often will someone reply, "What are you even talking about? Of course I did it and there's nothing wrong with it." It's extremely rare. Now, accuse someone of doing something very ordinary, such as eating lunch at noon, and that is exactly what they will say.

These everyday exchanges give us a glimpse of the moral law at work. Why does someone defend their actions in the first example but not the second? When you accuse your coworker of theft, why does he defend his self, but when you accuse another of eating lunch, he thinks you irrational. There must be some common standard of right and wrong about which we all, for the most part, agree. If this were not the case, no one would ever defend themselves. They would simply ask, "By what standard do you judge me?" Each time we defend ourselves we are acknowledging that indeed, there is a standard. It is God's moral law.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #179
If you are not shaking your head and saying, "We defend ourselves because we will be punished if we do not," then you might be right. It's true that we sometimes break laws with which we do not agree and then defend ourselves rigorously simply to avoid the punishment. But then you are confronted with the issue of how our government came to have laws at all. How can it be that every country on earth has a law against murder? You may be one of the few who thinks that murder is acceptable and will defend yourself against the charge to avoid jail, but then you still have to explain why it is that almost everyone else on earth emphatically disagrees with you.

With few, if any, exceptions, this moral law is relatively constant from nation to nation across the span of human history. For example, there has never existed a culture where it was generally and widely acceptable to force a woman to have intercourse against her will. Forget all your social conditioning for a moment and ask yourself why this should be the case. It's difficult to come up with an explanation for why rape is wrong, except to simply say that it is. It's self-evident to everyone.

Yet, there are rapists and murderers in our midst. Does this sink the argument for the moral law? On the contrary. Some people have become extremely adept at ignoring the desire to do good and the guilt which comes as a consequence of our failure to do so, but it remains that there was first something there to suppress. No one is born numb to the moral law; they must be taught this behavior by a parent who is already numb to it, or else circumstances cause them to suppress it over time. We instinctively feel that it is proper that we should have a conscience and are repulsed by anyone who lacks one.

Now consider what happens when we obey the moral law. Most people will agree that doing good makes us feel good. Performing acts of kindness and charity rewards us with a deep and lasting sense of joy and peace. It's true that we can also find some happiness from breaking the moral law, such as if we were to embezzle money and spend it on a nice new car. Yet, beyond the initial guilt, most criminals find that their happiness is fleeting and hollow. When we pursue happiness through breaking the moral law, a constant level of happiness becomes elusive, as we have to sink further and further into depravity to maintain the same level of happiness. It's a downward spiral into misery.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #180
We also find that this moral law defines all naturalistic explanations. It could only have derived be means of evolution if it served to further the species. Such a "naturalistic law" if it existed would place the highest value on preserving any healthy life which is capable of reproducing. Yet, we find the moral law sometimes compels us to place other values above life. For example, we will send our young men to fight a war and risk their lives for the principles of freedom and righteousness. Furthermore, a "natural" law as opposed to a "moral" law would place almost no value on lives which are unhealthy, cannot reproduce or cannot contribute to society. Such a law would not compel us to care for the elderly, sick or crippled, yet we find the moral law obliges us to do exactly that. A young woman will fight to the death to save her baby, yet her instincts if guided only by a consideration of the survival of the species would prescribe that she save herself and then go on to have more children.

To further see just how different a "natural" law would be from our actual moral law, consider the example of a nation where the government puts to death all of the crippled, unintelligent or sterile people among them. Most of us would feel justified in waging war to topple this heinous government; it is exactly what the moral law would compel us to do. Yet consider for a moment that what this government is doing is exactly what a "natural" law, - one arisen solely from evolutionary processes - would compel them to do. If this were all the moral law consisted of preserving the young and healthy among us - then we would be violating our own "natural" law by sending people to die at the hands of a government which was doing only what was natural. So, clearly, the moral law is something far more than an instinctive desire to preserve our species. It cannot have purely evolutionary roots, since preservation of the species is precisely what concerns evolution.

If you find this example far fetched, consider the historical example of WWII where something very much like this actually happened. Though their campaign of mass execution began with the person, the Nazis ultimately had their sights set on any man or woman who did not fit their genetic ideal. The Nazis wanted to bring about a race of supermen through a campaign of purging and purification. 

In their defense at the Nurnberg trial following the war, the Nazis asked how another nation could presume to impose their morality on another sovereign nation. Where do we get the moral laws that transcend the society, they asked? They argued that no such transcendent law exists and accused the allies of imposing their morality arbitrarily simply because they were the victors in the war. The judges disagreed. There is, they contended, just such a moral law and the Nazis had violated it. For the most part, the rest of the world agreed as witnessed by the massive, worldwide opposition to the Nazi's atrocities.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #181
When dealing with such a broad topic such as religion, morality, culture, society, etc., many different kinds of arguments are formulated to fit what the arguer is trying to get across. The argument below has much relevance on the original topic we have been covering, saying that "morality" is the result of a particular culture. This particular argument states:

1. If cultures differ about morality, then morality is not objective, but is actually subjective and relative.
2. Cultures do differ about morality.
3. Therefore morality is subjective and relative.

1. If cultures differ about morality, then morality is not objective, but is actually subjective and relative.
One might argue that different cultures have different views on what is bad and really bad, and therefore it would be impossible to have an overall moral law for these reasons (for example, Islam fundamentalists and their acceptance of violence for religious principles). If morality is truly relative, or truly dependent on culture, then one would have no right to say that Islamic fundamentalists are wrong to use violence for religious purposes. I am sure that most people would say that the violent actions by Islam fundamentalists are wrong. But by critiquing Islam in that manner would be saying that there is some higher standard to judge their values against. By saying this, one would be agreeing that there is an objective Moral Law, a morality that exists despite what different cultures think.

One might counter by saying that Muslim fundamentalists see no wrong in killing people for religious reasons, but that we do (aka Different cultures, Different morals). To me, this situation is a bit like believing in Father Christmas (this might sound silly, but bear with me for a minute). No matter how sincerely you believe in Father Christmas, you can't make him really exist. And no matter how sincerely the extremist Muslims might believe that killings for religion is OK, they can't change the fact that it is not. This is an example of one culture's morality (ours) being closer to the Moral Law than another's.

The same person might continue arguing by saying that if there was an overall objective morality, and since we are judging them wrong by our culture's morality and not the Islamic culture's morality, which one would it judge right? But there IS an objective morality, and it judges that the extremist Muslim approach is wrong, because they fail in this example to recognize the self-evident rights and dignity of human beings. 

The problem with this first premise is that apparent differences about morals can just be because one or other of the cultures is mistaken. Cultures can be wrong, just like individual people can. Aztec society thought that human sacrifice was good. Again, this is similar to what we have already looked at. Societies make mistakes, just like people do. The Aztecs weren't just helplessly trapped in their culture; they were mistaken about how they ought to live. You must agree that the Aztecs were not infallibly right to sacrifice children. If they were right, then we should still be doing it now. The thing that really is relative to culture is opinions about what is right and wrong.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #182
2. Cultures do differ about morality.
I'll start off by saying that I agree that the morality we see around us is based in part on Western ethics. But that doesn't mean that there is not some objective morality that transcends our own cultural worldview. Also note that I am not talking about "the law" in a legal sense, but rather about the reality that some things are truly right and some things are truly wrong, for all people in all places at all times.

I suggest that right and wrong are not culturally based, but transcend cultures. There is an underlying morality that applies to all cultures. There may be cultures that have differences between their moralities, but there is nothing like a total difference. If you compare the moral teachings of such diverse groups as the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, you will see that they are in fact very similar to each other and to the morality of our own culture. Here is an example of a morality free from cultural bias: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." This can be applied to any culture. I can't think of any culture that has taught that honesty, justice, courage, wisdom, co-operation, self-control and hope were all evil, or one that has taught that lying, theft, murder, rape, cowardice, stupidity, addiction, despair and selfishness were all good. This means that there is a common morality that goes beyond cultural boundaries.

The problem with this second premise is that while cultures do differ in some of their moral opinions, there is an underlying morality that applies to all cultures. As i mentioned earlier, no two cultures have ever existed which taught a totally different set of values, as you can see when you think about how they respond to things like honesty, justice, courage, theft, murder and rape.

3. Therefore morality is subjective and relative.
Given the problems we have discovered with the above premises, the conclusion is wrong about morality being subjective and relative.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #183
When dealing specifically with morality and a culture, one might argue and say, "If raised or even trying to think without a cultural base, it becomes apparent there is no morality but that which we (society) have created. Therefore there could be no morality without the cultural input; and to take it to the next level, it could be said morality is a product of culture as well."

I would have to disagree with that statement. Our opinions about morality might be a product of our culture, but morality itself is not. Virtually the entire world, regardless of circumstance and upbringing, thinks that Hitler was evil and that Mother Teresa was good. The fact that almost the entire world can agree on what is evil in a case such as this, is strong evidence that there is a common, culturally independent morality. No matter where you live or how you were brought up or what the culture is like, you would still feel upset if someone were to walk up to you, hit you with a baseball bat, and steal your wallet. Every reasonable person knows in their conscience that that sort of thing is just plain wrong.

Do you think that the morals of the culture and circumstances that you live in are perfect? Because if you think they are not perfect, then you have just proved that your own moral standards are not based upon your culture but are based on something else, something higher. And even if you do think our cultural morals are perfect, society itself disagrees with you, as can be seen by the continuous introduction of new laws to try to improve things.

This brings us to an important point: morality is not something we make. It is something we discover. For example, if you see your friend being raped and decide to help her, are you making the rules of morality or obeying them? If morality is a product of culture, then you can make rape wrong by opposing it. And that means that you could make rape right by loving it. But nothing you can do changes the fact that rape really is wrong, so when you decide to try to rescue your friend, you are simply doing what you ought to do, according to the Moral Law. Similarly, if our country were to pass a law saying that murder, theft, perjury, rape, treason, torture and adultery were all good; would such a law actually change the reality? It might help some people to feel less guilty about what they do, but it doesn't change the fact that they still should feel guilty.

And one more point along these lines: if this conclusion is true, then when slavery was outlawed in the American south after the Civil War, at that instant slavery changed from being right to being wrong, because the prevailing cultural opinion changed. But right and wrong don't just instantaneously reverse themselves like that - slavery has always been wrong, but it just took some Americans a while to realize that.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #184
Many people feel that our moral opinions are conditioned by our society and culture. But there are several things wrong with that point of view. The first, which I have already touched on, is that society doesn't give us morals; it just gives us opinions about morals, opinions which aren't necessarily correct. The second is that culture does not condition us like lab rats, it teaches us like human beings. We have a brain and a conscience and we can use them to make our own moral judgments. The fact that there is disagreement within society about all sorts of moral issues (i.e. abortion, genetically modified food, euthanasia, etc.) means that we are not conditioned by society and are free to form our own opinions. The third thing is that some of the opinions that we hold may actually be objectively true. The opinion that Aztecs are wrong sacrificing humans could be an example.

This particular argument is saying that there is no way to decide which is right in any conflict of moralities. But this would imply that there was no moral reason for the Allies to oppose Adolf Hitler in WWII. Was Germany's genocide OK because that was just their culture? I am sure that we would have a preference if we had to choose between the Nazis and the Allies. We then must realize that this preference is not because of our upbringing, but because the Nazi aggression really was bad.

Meaning must be measured by that which is good, not necessarily by what is. As we have already seen in the above paragraphs, culture does not always provide an adequate paradigm for what is good. Some cultures may be judged as better than others, but no culture is without its share of problems. Now that we see that sin promotes moral confusion and self worship, we must turn to the Scriptures to make meaning of the conflict between the law and sin.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #185
The Biblical Indictment:
Moses summoned all Israel together and emphasized the importance of the covenant that they had made with the Lord God. Those who forsake the covenant will bring upon themselves God’s wrath. Their land will be like the land of the cities of the plain; total destruction will be apparent to all who view it (Deuteronomy 29:23). Again, in Deuteronomy 32:32, this passage deals with God’s anger toward the children of Israel who had served other gods. They provoked the wrath of God.

I might have explained Ezekiel 16 in a previous response, but even so, I believe I should explain it again here. Ezekiel set forth an illustration of the birth of a girl who was then discarded from the moment of birth. No one would take her in and care for her, so she was raised by the Lord. When she came of age, God entered into a covenantal relationship with her and gave her every gift and blessing. Yet, she forsook that intimate relationship and became a prostitute to any who would pass by. She willingly sacrificed her own children. This beautiful woman turned prostitute was named to be Jerusalem. Her sisters were Sodom and Samaria.

The girl Ezekiel spoke of had been saved from certain death and became a prostitute. She had rejected her husband, the Lord God. What made this abomination more serious was not whether or not they had been committed, but that they had been committed in violation to a sacred covenant established between Jerusalem and the Lord God.

The very first issue addressed by Paul in Romans 1, was the human alienation from God and the wrath of God directed toward people who have ignored Him and followed their own desires – human wickedness. Even Jesus (In Matthew 10, 12; Mark 6; Luke 10, 17) illustrated the profound judgment that will come upon those who reject the Gospel.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #186
God’s Law:
Moses received the Law from the Lord and gave it to the people. What the Law contained were not take-them-or-leave-them propositions. They were commands, injunctions, marching orders. They defined who the people of God were and God’s expectations of them. They made the people of God distinct from the pagan civilizations surrounding them. The Law was intended to enhance their lives.

Frequently today people say that one must either accept all of the prohibitions contained within the books of the Law, or they have no applicability at all. One should not be afforded the luxury of picking and choosing certain laws to the neglect of others. Different people would find different laws applicable.

The Law is not subject to the individual’s discretion to determine what is in and what is out. No human has that authority if this is in fact God’s Law. A person feeling threatened or condemned by a certain passage does not constitute the grounds for neglecting it all together. The knowledge of sin comes by means of the Law (Romans 7:7). The feeling of being threatened or condemned by the Law may be an indication that sin IS present. Rather than the Law being disregarded, the sin should be examined.

The Call to be Distinct:
While it is true that the Law functions to make and keep the Israelites separate from their neighbors, what was the point of that separation? The Israelites were already different from those nations surrounding them. They wore a sign of the covenant upon their flesh. They were called to be a holy people even as God is holy (Leviticus 19:2). The Hebrew understanding of holy, qadosh, was to be set apart. At its very basic level, holy means to separate, to withdraw, to dedicate. The injunction to be holy not only separated the people from foreigners, but it separated them from what God considers unholy.

The moral law was not given solely that the children of Israel would be distinct from their neighbors. Rather what the pagans did was offensive to God and He would not have His people performing the same sort of acts that were abhorrent to Him. An abomination is not just something that God deems necessary to guarantee the uniqueness of His people; the word describes an act or object that God finds detestable and hates.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #187
Holiness:
God is the Creator. There is none other like Him. He created the world as distinct from His very nature, yet sustained by it. Human beings were created in the image of God. God called people to live holy lives. Does not the origin of holy mean set apart, distinct, different? Yes. Something can be set apart for a variety of functions. Ash trays and dog dishes are set apart from dinner dishes, yet they would not be regarded as holy. Holiness is more than being distinct and different. It is doing what God has commanded and desires His people to do. To do otherwise is sin.

The human ability to conform to God’s intention may be debated. Surely each and every person is incapable of maintaining or achieving the level of holiness or perfection to which they have been called. The Law shapes human behavior in acceptable ways. The inadequacy and inability of people to attain to the standards that God has set forth is laid bare by His Law. Human fallibility does not dismiss people from the responsibility of striving for what God would have them to do.

Moral Implications:
Not saying you specifically are saying this (though some people argue this), but to disregard the prohibition against the Ten Commandments on the grounds that the stipulation served merely to make the Israelites dissimilar to her neighbors and therefore it has no relevance for today’s society, carries other implications. Lines of moral behavior still get drawn, but where they get drawn varies since there is nothing to anchor or define morals. Were the entire Law to be abolished, then human behavior would be open to any sort of action that a person deems satisfying or appropriate. Picking and choosing among the Law those things which fit only one’s personal views or preferences leaves one open to the charge of subjectivity.

Other people argue that these laws come in a bundle: They all must now be obeyed, or none of them hold any authority. That is done on the basis that they are all cultic laws. Expectations of moral behavior must have no bearing on the matter. That is the only possible way to circumvent the requirements of these laws. It is the only way for a person to rationalize that immoral behavior is now permitted. It is the only way to “get off the moral hook.”

A society that totally abandons all concepts of morality become their own god by designating what is good and evil. Love becomes the ultimate goal, but love of what? Self? Pleasure? Whatever became of sin – God’s expectations, regardless of what we desire or think is right?

To disregard the moral law returns one to the confrontation in the Garden. As in the Garden, the lies come forth: You will not die. Your eyes will be opened. You will be like God. You will know right from wrong. Standards and expectations can give sway to one’s own personal preferences without any external restraints other than the current legal codes which can be changed or ignored without fear of violating God’s laws.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #188
Opening the Floodgates:
The flip side of claiming that whatever was forbidden is now outmoded is the notion that any behavior whatsoever is now justifiable and morally acceptable. If two people are of legal, responsible age and consent to act, what could be wrong with incest? Or what about a man and a dog – a faithful, loyal, devoted dog? What could possibly be wrong with that?

It should be evident that once certain morals are disregarded as antiquated, the floodgates to immorality swing wide open without any constraining influence. Once these “cultic” laws are considered no longer relevant, appropriate sexual relationships (in reference to the two examples above, but can be applied to the original topic) can only be properly defined by the persons involved.

But, some would argue, sexual intimacy between humans and animals is not a relationship among equals. How equal is equal? Identify a married couple who is truly equal in every regard. Animals serve humans already in a multitude of capacities. They plow, hunt, shepherd, guard, provide company, become the eyes for the blind, etc. they often get treated better than people living in poverty.

Having removed all moral restraints, what then would be wrong with using an animal for a sexual companion or merely for a sexual release so that another person would not have to be involved? Repugnant? By whose standards? By whose values? If one person finds sexual relations with animals objectionable, why should another person be prohibited from the act if a “need” is being met? The slippery slopes of decadence are greased by the attitude of “you do what you want and let me do what I want. It’s okay if those involved say it’s okay.”

If moral laws are purely subjective, then what might seem repugnant and evil today may seem acceptable and good tomorrow. It might even be encouraged and taught to our children as soon as they enter school.

There are ritual laws in the Law – laws that have no moral basis at all. How does one distinguish between a moral law and a ritual law? One way to do this would be to compare it to God’s intention in creation. Another way would be to compare it to the Ten Commandments. God has standards and expectations. The Law was given to do more than maintain the unique character of a nation called to be the children of God. It provided order for their lives. It protected them in a variety of ways. It was a means through which God blessed the people. Granted, the Law exposes one’s own sin, yet, it is at the same time holy, just, and good (Romans 7:12).
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #189
The Character and Impact of Jesus:
Matthew 5: 17-20 says, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all in accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Let’s consider the things that Jesus said, and then discuss the implications of His death and resurrection upon the Law of the Old Testament. From the outset it is obvious that Jesus was a very moral person. Few people attempt to dispute that issue. Even people of other religious backgrounds acknowledge Jesus as at least a great moral teacher, perhaps even a prophet. The author of Hebrews says that Jesus was tested in every way and yet was without sin (Hebrews 4:15).

There is no reason to doubt that Jesus’ lifestyle was anything but exemplary. As a matter of fact, theological problems arise if He is not perfect. Granted, being a moral person does not imply that a person is without sin. On the other hand, a sinless person would by definition be a moral person. Immorality is one aspect of the many facets of sin just as being a moral person is one product of striving to avoid sin.

On one occasion some Pharisees came to test Jesus about the lawfulness of divorce (Matt. 19: 3-12 and Mark 10: 2-12). Jesus could have restated what was said during the Sermon on the Mount – that divorce except on the grounds of unchastity was sin (Matt. 5:31). He concluded this conversation in the same way. However, prior to doing that, He referred back to God’s intention in creation:

“Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh?’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.” (Matt. 19: 4-6)

Jesus stressed the moral order. He underscored the intentionality of creation in which God created human beings as male and female. This was no accident. It was not an arbitrary decision. All people are thoroughly corrupted by sin. Merely assuming that a person was created in a certain way with certain inclinations and desires does not justify or exonerate those tendencies. Granted, all are born into sin; all have corrupt natures. That does not, can not, and will not excuse people from the sin that is manifest in their lives. Jesus died to lift the burden of sin. But that does not give people a free rein to continuing sinning as if there were no accountability or consequence for their actions.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #190
Repentance:
Perhaps a distinction needs to be made between sin and living in sin. All people still sin, but a person ought not to make sin a way of life as if there were nothing wrong with what is being done. For the Christian sin requires repentance, not the shrugging of shoulders and saying, “Well, this is the way God made me and we are all sinners after all.”

Repentance is an interesting word. It goes beyond a person feeling sorry for what has happened. Often when repentance is due, true repentance does not occur. William Barclay illustrates this point, “We are very apt to confuse two things – sorrow for the consequences of sin and sorrow for the sin. Many a man is desperately sorry because of the mess that sin has got him into, but he very well knows that, if he could be reasonably sure that he could escape the consequences, he would do the same thing again. It is not the sin that he hates; it is its consequences.”

True repentance involves not merely expressing sorrow or contrition for the actions or its results. It is turning away from the sin and turning to God. It involves a total change – both in thought and in behavior.

Let’s consider for a moment the Ten Commandments. They are an example of apodictic (as opposed to casuistic) law. The Ten Commandments are a perfect law. They govern every aspect of our lives. The difficulty comes from the fact that we are sinful creatures and cannot live up to their requirements. The general nature of the law leaves room for rationalization to excuse whatever transgression that a person feels needs omission. The rabbis of old wrote numerous other laws detailing just what it was that the Ten Commandments required. But even those interpretations needed interpretation, and at last, volumes of books were written to delineate the expectations of the law. Those commentaries on the law should have been unnecessary; yet given human nature, they were.

Just so, Paul named blatant, grievous sins against one another and against God. By no means did he exhaust the list. He did not propose to be all-inclusive in order to cover precisely every sin that a person could commit. There has to be some expectation that the people to whom he addressed these letters understood God’s expectations. One of the reasons that Paul wrote the letter to the Corinthians was to address several sins which they had allowed to remain in their presence (1 Cor. 5:1).
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #191
Forsaking the Covenant:
God is a jealous God who will not share the devotion due Him with anyone else. “I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other gods before me!” Through the prophets that covenant is portrayed in terms of a marital covenant of faithfulness. Since God always will be faithful, then it is only on the part of the people that infidelity can arise.

In Jeremiah 31: 31-34, the divine covenantal language was again used which has God assume the role of a husband even though the wife is faithless. Despite the sin and infidelity of the people, God was willing to forgive their iniquity and forget their sin. The old covenant, which was impossible to keep completely, would be replaced with a covenant for which God takes total responsibility.

Jesus compared the generation of His time as evil and adulterous (Matt. 12:39, 16:4; Mark 8:38). Evil can take a variety of forms, but adulterous? Who had they committed adultery against? Each other? Other nations? God? Within the context of these verses, the adultery can only be committed against God. The people were seeking a sign from Jesus, no doubt, to gain some sort of assurance that He was not a fake. Jesus knew that if they didn’t believe His words or the miracles that He had performed, neither would they put any credence in a sign. Displaying one sign would soon be met with a demand for another, then another, and another. The adultery against God was being committed by not accepting God in human flesh (John 12:44).

James equated unfaithfulness to God with spiritual adultery (James 4:4). Loving the world, the things of this world, more than God becomes hatred of God. Some people reason, “I love God, but I love these other things as well.” Remember, God created the things of the world, but people through sin have distorted and perverted that which was created good. If any of those things get between a person and God, then those particular aspects of creation have had an evil influence on the person.

God is jealous of His people – jealous with a righteous jealousy. Jealousy can smother and kill; it can stifle and repress. That is not a righteous jealousy. Jealousy can have another function. It can let the other know that they are loved and special. Jealousy can accentuate the belief that affections are meant to be preserved and cherished within that particular relationship. Spiritually adulterous people become enemies with God. They disregard the divine covenant.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #192
The Re-Imagining Conference:
The battle between good and evil, sin and righteousness, is not a modern struggle. It has been waged since that fateful moment of decision in a garden long ago. There is a great deceiver in the world who blinds the eyes of people. Capital punishment was the penalty for homosexuality according to the Levitical law. We are now under a new Law. The old Law found us all already condemned. It found us dead in our sins. But the believer in Christ has been made new already, not that sin or its influence or worldly consequences have been terminated, but rather that through the cross of Christ we have been called saints. That is a gift – a free gift.

God’s Word is a lamp to guide the feet of the believer and a light to illumine the path (Psalm 119:105). This Psalm delights in the Law of the Lord. The Law should serve to protect and provide for the person who trusts in the Lord. As the closet door is penetrated by the Light of the Word, the Law will convict the heart and the Gospel of Christ will empower the sin to be conquered by the power of the cross and the grace of God. The God of love will not abandon us in this life-long struggle. There is hope for everybody – hope that may exist beyond one’s ability to grasp but within the grace of God to offer. God supplies grace to overcome, not merely to exist. He gives the power to be victorious, not merely to hang on.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #193
Now that the foundation has been set, let's breakdown the original question, and answer each specific sentence.

1. Most Christians claim that Jesus fulfilled the law of the Old Testament and therefore they are no longer under it:
John 8: 2-11 says, “Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him and he sat down and began to teach them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him, ‘Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?’ They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, ‘Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’ And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ She said, ‘No one, sir.’ And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again.’”

A Life in the Balance:
Jesus illustrates this call to righteousness as He dealt with the woman who was caught in the act of adultery. The scribes and Pharisees had brought a woman to Jesus for the purpose of yet another attempted entrapment. According to the Mosaic Law this woman should be killed, but not her alone. The man who committed adultery with her was likewise to be put to death. Where was he? Jesus saw through their scheme and opted to ignore them. As they persisted in questioning Jesus, His response was certainly not anticipated. They left and Jesus was the only person remaining to acquit or indict the woman.

The law which this woman had violated can be found in Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22. Jesus’ dealing with this woman and her transgression may be indicative of His dealings with other people who had violated other portions of the Law. The Law condemns. It sets forth the penalty for offenses. It exposes sin. The Gospel frees people from bondage to the Law. It gives life and gives it more abundantly.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #194
Christ held both the Law and the Gospel together as He addressed the one standing before Him. He did not condemn, though the right to do so was clearly His. Even the scribes and the Pharisees had given that authority to Him. Yet, neither did He excuse the trespass. He did not say, “And neither do I condemn you. Go in peace.” To do so would have been to banish the Law and to replace it with a vacuum. The fact that Jesus charged this woman to sin no more is evidence that what she did and her transgression of the Law was sin.

If immorality was part of her lifestyle, one would find it hard to believe that this woman would not have been changed by an encounter with the Man who gave her life back when it justifiably could have been taken. Those moments with Jesus surely remained with her for as long as she lived: Life in the place of death, freedom in return for bondage, and hope exchanged for despair.

As Jesus talked with Nicodemus in the dark of the night, He spoke of the need to be born again; not physically, but spiritually. This woman likely experienced a new birth. She had been forgiven by the only One with the authority to do so. Yet, she was charged to sin no more: caught, accused, found guilty, condemned by the Law, acquitted, freed to continue life, charged to live a life apart from sin. This person embodied what every person who becomes a Christian also experiences.

The Law as a means of salvation is null and void. Its authority over the believer to condemn has been removed. The Gospel takes precedence and has abolished those functions of the Law; however, the Law has not been set aside altogether. The fact that Jesus could say, “Go and sin no more,” means that sin is still a present reality that a person must strive to avoid. Paul’s insistence that Christians live ethical, moral lives demonstrates that this understanding continued even after Jesus’ death and resurrection.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #195
The Law Meets the Gospel:
Jesus came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it. Sin remains sin and God is opposed to it. Jesus, however, treats the Law differently from all those who have gone before Him. He overcame the Law with the Gospel. 
1. His death on the cross once and for all eliminated the need for the myriad of sacrifices necessary for people to be right with God. He was the final sacrifice; all sacrificial laws are removed. 2. He claimed authority over the laws governing the Sabbath by allowing heads of grain to be picked (Luke 6: 1-5) and healing a man with a withered hand (Luke 6: 6-11). 
3. He makes it known that what defiles a person is not what goes into the mouth, but rather what comes from the heart (Mark 7: 1-8, 14, 15). 
4. Laws of cleanliness are set aside for lives of holiness (Luke 11:39). 
5. He declared all types of food to be clean (Mark 7:19). 
6. Laws governing the clean and unclean are canceled as demonstrated by Peter’s vision on the housetop (Acts 10: 9-16, 10: 44-48). 
7. The covenant mark of Judaism, circumcision, was negated. “Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but obeying the commandments of God is everything.” (1 Corinthians 7:19)

Herein lays the decisive question: If Christ has done away with or fulfilled the Law, what “commandments of God” remain to be obeyed? Is it the Law of love? Of faith, hope, and love, love is the greatest (1 Cor. 13:13). Jesus gives the commandment to “do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matt. 7:12) Jesus affirms the Ten Commandments (Matt. 19: 16-19; Mark 10:19; Luke 20). He states, “’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.” (Matt. 22: 37-40)

These are indeed the greatest commandments, but they do not instruct a person how to live, only what ought to govern that life. Jesus provides parable after parable to convey the notion of loving another person as one’s self. How does that affect one’s understanding of morality? Are marriages necessary any longer? Why not let people live together in a  loving, committed, monogamous relationship until they get tired of one another, then they can leave without any hard feelings or commitments, and pursue another similar relationship? That was the intention of the idea of “free love” which was prominent a few decades back and which still emerges from time to time.

Though Jesus set aside laws governing rituals, cleanliness, sacrifices, Sabbath observances, etc., He strengthened the moral law. That is significant! Much of Matthew chapter 5 explains this:

You have heard that it was said to those of ancient time, “You shall not murder”; and “whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.” But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, “You fool,” you will be liable to the hell of fire… You have heard that it was said, “You shall not commit adultery.” But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart… Again, you have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, “You shall not swear falsely, but carry out the vows you have made to the Lord.” But I say to you, Do not swear at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King… You have heard that it was said, “And eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also… You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…

In Romans, when Paul affirms the moral law of the Old Testament, obviously Jesus had not annulled it. He claimed to be in continuity with God’s original intentions. Moral and ethical laws were not dismissed. They were intensified. What a person does is secondary to what is in the heart.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #196
Set Free to Live Righteously:
As I have discussed a little earlier, Christ has freed Christians from the bulk of the Law without negating the moral law. Paul was not free to have sexual intercourse, for example, outside the bounds of a marital covenant with anyone at anytime. “The body is not for fornication [porneia – immorality].” Yet he claimed that all things are lawful – all things, that is, except for sin. To build on this idea of sexual conduct, a sexual relationship is good and right; it has its own time and place and Paul soon addressed that as well. The fact that we are sexual beings does not permit us to be driven by sexual desires (this concept can also be correlated and applied to practically every aspect of our lives). Esau relinquished his birthright for a bowl of pottage because he came home hungry one day. The blessing that was to be his was surrendered on account of a few hunger pangs. He was unable to wait for the usual meal to be prepared. Likewise, many people forfeit the blessing and gift of salvation (just one of many examples) that has been reserved for them for the pangs of sinful desires.

Saints and Sinners:
Without laws and rules, there is nothing to judge for no violations are possible. The consequences of one’s actions are just that – the direct result of their actions. For example, one’s leg might be broken as a consequence of falling out of a tree, but climbing the tree was neither right nor wrong. Consequences are thought to be merely arbitrary. They are unable to improve the individual, society, or one’s relationship with God.

As Paul wrote his first letter to the people living in the Greek city of Corinth, it is interesting that he began his letter by calling them saints (1 Cor. 1:2). And yet, by the tenth verse, he was already addressing the serious problems that had beset the church in Corinth. How is it that a group of people who were divided among themselves, who identified themselves with their favorite evangelist, who tolerated and engaged in immorality, who sued one another, who failed to understand the marital covenant, who judged one another as to whether or not it was acceptable to eat meat that has been sacrificed to idols, and so forth, were called saints?

Give attention to the second verse of the first chapter which reads, “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours.” First, notice that they are the church of God, not a social club. Next, notice that they had been sanctified in Christ Jesus. The word sanctify comes from the word holy and implies that something is separated for a holy use. That was precisely Paul’s question in the beginning of the sixth chapter of Romans, “How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6: 2-4)
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #197
Sanctified in Christ Jesus doesn’t merely mean that people are forgiven and then permitted to live in whatever manner their sinful desires dictate. Instead, being sanctified requires a conforming to the image of Christ. Paul exhorts, “Flee immorality! Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?” (1 Cor. 6: 18-19) Now that is a novel concept: We are not our own. We belong to God, and that being the case, it is He that we need to please and obey.

It must be remembered that Jesus laid aside the many rules and laws that kept the people bound in a legalistic system. While He freed us from the burden of the Law, He never dismissed the moral law. If the moral law remains, then judgment must occur. Who then is qualified to do the judging? The world? No, the world does not accept the Word of God, so how can it discern the Truth therein? The Church is the one that should be able to recognize both the moral law and hold people to it.

2. They claim now to be under grace:
There are differences in opinion between the concept of universal salvation whereby everyone will be saved, regardless of what they believe, and salvation through Christ alone. Universal salvation promotes the “live and let live” philosophy. If Christ has saved everyone regardless of what they believe, then what does it ultimately matter if someone if living in sin if they are happy and no one else is harmed? On the other hand, are there sins which would harden one’s heart to God and thus place salvation in jeopardy? Is it possible that a prodigal can run away from home and be dead and lost apart from the Father? Is judging imposing one’s values on another and quibbling over things that don’t matter, or is it essential to restoring relationships and maintaining order?

I am convinced that the Bible teaches that we are saved only by the grace of God through faith in the risen Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. There is no other path to heaven. Jesus claims His crucial and exclusive role in salvation saying, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)

It is also productive to consider Jesus’ role in judging. In His conversation with Nicodemus, Jesus states, “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” (John 3:17) And again, “If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.” (John 12:47) Long ago God could have condemned the world outright for its sinfulness, but sent His Son instead to redeem it.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #198
The flip side of God’s patience is that the day is coming when Jesus will return to judge the world (John 9:39, 12:31, 16:8, 11; Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10). A person’s salvation is then the paramount consideration for Christ. He can deal with the sinful areas of one’s life while not condemning them of their sinfulness. He can redeem the darkest life. He can restore that which is lost.

To demonstrate this, consider two encounters that Jesus had where judgment upon the individual had already been rendered. As discussed earlier, the woman caught in adultery had been already judged and found guilty by those who brought her to Jesus. They had proclaimed a death sentence upon her and wanted Jesus’ concurrence. Did Jesus judge her? Did He condemn her? By the fact that Jesus told her to “Go and sin no more” is evidence that He judged her actions to be sinful. At the same time He extended God’s grace to her by disarming her opponents and allowing her to go free. He demonstrated judgment and grace while neither condemning her nor condoning her actions.

Earlier in John’s Gospel (Chapter 4), Jesus was sitting by Jacob’s well while His disciples went to buy food, when out of the city came a woman to draw water. Her reputation was evident by the fact that she was out at noontime to draw water when no one else would likely be there. Most folk drew the water in the morning or evening due to the heat at midday. Her character was revealed when Jesus told her to go get her husband and she replied that she had no husband. Jesus answered, “You have well said, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly.” (John 4: 17-18)

With divine accuracy, Jesus cut through the smoke screen and touched the core of this woman’s sin. Before the conversation ended, Jesus had made known His true identity to her and she told those in the city about Him. The end result was that many of the Samaritans in the city believed in Jesus. Judgment and grace were mingled and salvation resulted. Mere condemnation of this woman’s lifestyle could not have accomplished such a change of heart.

On the other hand, Jesus blasted the scribes and Pharisees of numerous violations of the heart of the Law (Matt. 12: 1-14, 15: 1-9, 16: 1-12, 23:13). They had gotten in the trap of judging apart from God’s grace. They began to nit-pick the common folk over a variety of petty offenses which those people had no clue they were committing.
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #199
Freedom to or Freedom from?
Through the first five chapters of Romans, Paul demonstrated how all people are condemned by the Law and are justified only through the grace of God by faith. That is what Christ has done for the believer. It is not something that they can somehow merit, earn, or to which they can make a contribution. Then, as if he anticipated his readers next thought, he asked the question, “What then are we to say? Should we continue to sin in order that grace may abound?” (Romans 6:1) He responded to his own question with the Greek words, me genoito, meaning, “by no means,” “far from it,” or “God forbid.” It expresses Paul’s absolute abhorrence of such a false conclusion.

Paul could not have expressed his opposition in a more succinct manner. God’s grace, infinite and unbounded as it is, does not give Christians the right and freedom to sin. Yes, all Christians do still sin and cannot escape from it; yet they are called to live and strive for holy and acceptable lives in Christ Jesus as empowered by the Holy Spirit. Is this another way or “earning” salvation? No, living as perfect a life as possible still leaves a person separated from God. The Christian calling is to live a life as God would have us to live. It is the recognition of the saint/sinner paradox in which the believer dwells. We are saints because that is the new creation that we have been made in Christ Jesus. We are sinners because our old nature dies hard. We are saints since we have been adopted as children of God. We are sinners because we fail to live as we ought.

The Wrath of God:
Throughout human history people have rebelled against God. God has attempted a variety of means to lead people back to Him. God neither entices nor compels people toward evil acts. Rather, Paul was suggesting that God had withdrawn protective grace. From their very actions and behavior people reap the results of their sin. Civilizations do not die because of violence, crime, immorality, and anarchy. These things are the evidences that death already is at work, a death brought on by disobedience to the revelation of God.

Paul did not stop with this condemnation upon humanity. He stated that person and Gentiles are both under the wrath of God. Sin, any sin, is a barrier between the mortal and the Divine. Christ came to give His life that this chasm created by sin – any sin – could be bridged. Paul had no qualms about pointing out the sin in people’s lives, but at the same time, he reaffirmed that the new life in Christ is a gift of God received through grace. That new life should lead people away from sin and not allow them to remain wallowing in it. Paul recognized sin’s powerful influence and claim upon all people. He fought its dominion over his own life (Romans 7: 14-25). But Christ set him free from the bondage to the law of sin and death. But there is hope for all trapped in any sin. There is the Holy Spirit and the new life in Christ Jesus.
 
 
All-Star
Participation Meter
Joined: Dec, 2009
Posts: 13235
Posted: #200
3. If that’s true, then why do you get so upset when someone tries to remove displays of the 10 Commandments from public places like courthouses and schools:

The Bottom Line:
The Law convicts and condemns every human. That is not pointing fingers – it is stating the human condition. The fact that all have sinned does not justify letting a person off the hook. Christians are called to live moral lives. They should strive for righteousness. Sinful thoughts may not be able to be avoided, but neither should they control one’s actions. Martin Luther said it like this: “Temptations, of course, cannot be avoided, but because we cannot prevent the birds from flying over our heads, there is no need that we should let them nest in our hair.”

Within our mother’s womb God formed us. Though we are tainted by sin, He can and will still use us for His purposes. We may consider our deeds futile and our efforts worthless, yet God will provide the strength to overcome any temptation and to subdue sin. It may not be easy. It may involve struggle and battling the forces of evil, but the long-term benefits are the rich blessings of God being poured out upon a servant who seeks first the Kingdom of God. Where does it all begin? In the hands of the One who made us. But that does not remove the stain of the sin which infects our very being. We are born with the capacity to learn and to grow, to make decisions on a wide variety of issues. Ultimately we become responsible for what we do and, yes, even what we think. Many times Scripture exhorts us to lay aside whatever causes us to forsake the covenant with God. The assurance we have is that even though the battle may not be easy, God is with us to provide the strength to overcome.

Shackling Justice:
The traditional picture of Justice is a robed woman standing blind-folded with a pair of scales in her hand. The implication is that before the law, all people are treated as equals – it matters not the race or religion, the nationality or the culture that people claim as their own. That image of blind justice is being challenged and altered. Justice is perceived with blinders which ignore many types of sin and wrongdoing. “Hate crime” legislation makes certain that Justice views particular crimes against selected minorities as “worse” than the same crime against other folk. In today’s culture at issue is not whether or not a person should judge another’s motives, but whether the actions of a person can be judged as right or wrong at all.

The latter portion of the 1990’s demonstrated that people are willing to accept the moral failings of a politician as long as that official works to obtain more benefits for them. What was amazing about the scandals which surrounded President Clinton was not the fact that some people thought that he was guilty of such offenses while others maintained that he was innocent of all charges and merely the victim of conservatives who were out to get him. No, what was surprising were the numerous polls that indicated that even if the allegations were true, the attitude of the general public was “So what?”

It is quite understandable how and why a person would lie under oath to protect their reputation and their innocence before their family. But there are also consequences for getting caught in a lie. We are living in a culture which is attempting to mitigate all potential consequences of sin. The end result will be anarchy. Laws with no teeth are pointless to enforce. Ask any school teacher whose principal will not back up the discipline that is expected at the classroom level. Pupils will soon learn that the teacher’s warnings are empty and they will push the limits of every boundary. The kids will rule, not the teacher who is the supposed authority figure.
All Forums | General Discussion
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
Our Team
Brand
Testimonials
Betting Guides
Sportsbook Reviews
Betting News
Podcasts
Responsible Gambling
Betting Sites
US Betting Sites
Canada Betting Sites
Canada Casinos
Best Betting Apps
Contests
Streak Survivor
King of Covers
Ultimate Race
Office Pools
The Covers community has
810,221
lifetime members worldwide
Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
Covers is the world
leader in sports
betting information.
21+
Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER
Help Privacy Privacy Choices Terms of Service Cookies Sitemap Forum
Covers is verified safe by:
Evalon Logo Logo GPWA Logo GDPR logo Logo GeoTrust logo Logo PCI DSS logo Logo
Covers Logo
Copyright © 1995 - 2026 Genius Sports. All Rights Reserved.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.