poppet2 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Perhaps it shouldn't exempt us, but that doesn't alter the fact that it does and always will. Like I asked before, isn't that what God expects? Yes, although the Redemption is there for all mankind because we are not perfect and will fail, the important thing is, we all have the choice to excercise whether we want to keep the rules and commandments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Yes, although the Redemption is there for all mankind because we are not perfect and will fail, the important thing is, we all have the choice to excercise whether we want to keep the rules and commandments. A vital point! It's essential, in any legal system, that one has the choice to obey or not. We're not automata and nor should we be. Doing good and law-abidingness must be approved but pre-suppose the power to do bad and be law-unabiding. No-one ought to be rewarded for doing good (or punished for doing bad) when there's no alternative available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 A vital point! It's essential, in any legal system, that one has the choice to obey or not. We're not automata and nor should we be. Doing good and law-abidingness must be approved but pre-suppose the power to do bad and be law-unabiding. No-one ought to be rewarded for doing good (or punished for doing bad) when there's no alternative available. When you state 'when there's no alternative', would this apply to lack of choice under conditions of war, when a soldier is commanded to kill or tourture others', but failure to carry out such orders would result in the soldier being killed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 No- force majeure is a reasonable defence, as is self-defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 My example was to show that a person cannot expect to continue in their wrong-doings intentionally on the pretext that they will be rewarded at the end of the day without any effort on their part.Agreed, but awaiting the judgement of God who is prepared to forgive us and redeem us of all our sins should we repent isn't comparable to continually taking our parents for granted or continually committing acts which are deemed criminal or unacceptable as only God is willing to redeem those of us who some might describe as scum of the earth. We just don't have the capacity to forgive some things, just as we don't have the capacity to resist temptation.. which is why we're offered redemption I suppose. Posted by poppet2 We will all receive redemption, but we are expected to make an effort to follow the rules that have been written and abide by them. Otherwise why have rules and commandments? you're asking- why have the rules?, I'd say your question should be- Why does God offer us redemption in spite of the rules? And in my opinion, he offers it because as much we think we should be perfect and free of sin, he knows we're just not capable of achieving it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Yes, although the Redemption is there for all mankind because we are not perfect and will fail, the important thing is, we all have the choice to excercise whether we want to keep the rules and commandments.Yes, that's exactly what I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Convict Edd Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Problem: morals are manmade and therefore malleable. A lot like religion then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 A lot like religion then. Yes- if your religion's manmade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Most legal systems- inc. English law- base liability on intention. English law deals with mens rea, Latin for 'guilty mind'. This can be generally summarised as 'the intention to do an action, deliberate or deemed so because of negligence, which action is specified as a criminal act'. There are some variations- e.g. certain acts are criminal in themselves irrespective of intention [e.g. food hygiene laws] and others are transplanted intentions [e.g. if A intends to commit only GBH but kills the victim, the intention is sufficient as a basis for a murder charge]. What's this got to do with the thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 What's this got to do with the thread? Maybe you do not understand the concept of 'law' and 'rules'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.