You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Week 6 debate topic - Spirit vs Letter of the law
So why were the Pharisees rebuked then? Can you explain in more detail what Christ was trying to get at when he rebuked them? What was the purpose or reasoning behind the rebuke?
In short, because they followed the law to the letter but ignored the spirit. They 'cleaned their bowls and hands' but had wickness and greed in their hearts.
they kept most of the money and neglected the true spirit of Love and Justice of God.
read Woes on the Pharisees and the Experts in the Law - Luke 11:37-54 and Matthew 23:1-39 . I think it is
Seems pretty clear to me he speaks of thinking for ourselves, and worry not about even the letter of the law in the face of truth.
wow, I sorta love this! They did the physical act but did not read into it enough, and therefore used it to their advantage. This is a good example. What is keeping the courts from using the definitions and word of law in the same way? They could be doing great injustices of spirit, but are still following the law. hmmmm.
Yes. I've seen many cases where people are speaking in court and due to their own ignorance spoke of words in the wrong context or misunderstood their meaning. The judges see it, but don't ask to clarify. Instead they use their ignorance against them. The judges too are supposed to protect the vulnerable, but they don't. Lawyers are the same way, which does not surprise me as judges were once lawyers. What moral responsibility do they have if they witness ignorance? Are they there to teach or just pass judgement? I think we all have a duty and obligation to confront people's ignorance.
Yet it should not matter the words being spoken, it is the meaning behind the words, as they are believed to be by the man speaking them, that count. That was part of common law. So a judge who chooses not to take the words in the spirit that they were meant, but instead uses their lack of knowledge against them is going against the common law.
You cannot unknowingly break a law, because there has to be intent for that law to be broken. This is why someone who does not know the culture of the people and unknowingly breaks their laws is called an idiot and cannot and should not be punished for his or her ignorance.
Ecellent, i'm so pleased you remembered this - there are 3 parts to breaking a law,
All three need to be proved for a guilty verdict in court of law. In a common law court, you are innocent until proven guilty, and in an administrative court with acts and statutes, you are automatically guilty until you prove your innocence. Not knowing the difference between the two courts and which jurisdiction you are in can see you loosing lots of money especially on lawyers. Lawyers that have taken an oath to the bar and who's first obligation is to the court and not the client. If you know what you are doing in court , a judge will run two courts at the same time which can be confusing if you don't know if you are a man or a person. And just to explain the term idiot that you used for the other readers, it comes from the Greek idios which originally translated as "personal, private," properly "particular to oneself." before it was changed with new meanings to what we now believe is something akin to fool.
I'm a bit of topic for the debate but
Is a guilty mind truly required ? I have never heard that and will have look into it.
The problem with this is so many offenders don't have a guilty mind in fact lack of remorse is common.
Unless it means intent in which case I understand
See if i can remember the Latin,
i believe all 3 must be proved in common law. Please check definition of Actus Reus in a dictionary, this should help.
Looks like you got it right. I'm going to really enjoy our conversations brother! hahahaha. I love it when somebody know their stuff! Welcome to the debate. Now if we can keep it on topic, that would be wonderful! ;)
I agree. They used the letter of the law to trick, manipulate and hoodwink people to feed their own greed, lust for control, power, rape and pillage. However, even they knew that if they followed the spirit of the law, they could not engage in this manner.
@klevn From our conversations on your post I would suggest that the disdain shown for the hypocrite in Mark and Luke would fully extend to those lacking what I called a spiritual faith.
However luke 12:57-59 is more like Jesus giving legal advice that coming to agreement with our accuser may be better than putting it before a judge that may issue a harsher punishment feels like he recomends out of court settlements.
God set up the law in the first place out of His abundant love for us - to teach us, to guide us, and most importantly as a key to knowing Him. That's the spirit of the law. However, the Pharisees used the letter of the law to load people down with burdens they could hardly carry and ignored the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy, and faithfulness. They not only had taken away the key to the knowledge of God but also had hindered those who were entering the kingdom of God.”
Just to clarify, the common law of the land is the King James Bible and has been the law of the land since 1614 - taking over from Magna Charta 1215 which took over from the Triad. Although the Magna Charta can still be pleaded in court as the common law. The King James Bible has 613 commandments/laws, (i believe 3 have been removed) and of those 613 commandments/laws we have the 10 commandments/laws that good people choose to follow. Other faiths follow more of the commandments/laws than Christianity. Commandments are written by man yet inspired by God. Remember God created man not a person or mankind. i don't wish to offend your faith or the faith of others as long as that faith is for moving love and happiness to all i'm happy for you, as a Heathen, it's not whether i believe or not, it's that the courts believe.