The law of the land.

**slap_j** · 05-10-2003, 10:02 AM

13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.
18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. 20But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
22"He committed no sin,
and no deceit was found in his mouth."[1] 23When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. 25For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.
1 Peter 2:13-25

Following the law of the land. Yes. But here is my own problem.

A few Christian friends of mine use marijuana. I try to persuade them from doing it. So, first I throw the old, your body is a temple, thing at them. Marijuana has carcinogens. They say they use marijuana vaporizors (allows you to inhale only the THC). So then I give them the law of the land thing. Verses posted above. They say that the laws against recreational marijuana use are unjust, and therefore they should break them in civil disobedience to get something done about it.

So my question to you guys is. When are we justified in breaking the laws of the land? Were my reefer tokin' friends justified?

Chico · 05-10-2003, 10:18 AM

no. i think we will all agree that God's law is above any other law. i don't believe there is any law of God's stating that we should smoke the reefer. therefore the law of the land stands. now, there are people here that will say when it says to submit, it just means be willing to accept any penalty that goes along with breaking the law. i disagree with this.

chris

**slap_j** · 05-10-2003, 10:23 AM

Before anyone else posts. I found this website to be interesting.

http://www.iahushua.com/T-L-J/MariC.htm

Chico · 05-10-2003, 10:29 AM

my question to them would be why do they so adamantly want hemp to be legal? if we got the true answer, i believe it would probably be because they like getting high. how spiritual.

chris

Chrysostom · 05-10-2003, 11:15 AM

(slap_j)A few Christian friends of mine use marijuana. I try to persuade them from doing it. So, first I throw the old, your body is a temple, thing at them. Marijuana has carcinogens. They say they use marijuana vaporizors (allows you to inhale only the THC). So then I give them the law of the land thing. Verses posted above. They say that the laws against recreational marijuana use are unjust, and therefore they should break them in civil disobedience to get something done about it.

(Me) How on Earth are the laws unjust? This is absurd. They're making a pitiful excuse of self-righteousness to justify their own sin.

**slap_j** · 05-10-2003, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mustbenothing
(Me) How on Earth are the laws unjust? This is absurd. They're making a pitiful excuse of self-righteousness to justify their own sin.

Here's how they justify it.

1. Alcohol is much more dangerous and it's legal

2. They cite all of the beneficial aspects of marijuana. Anti-emetic, expectorant, etc.

3. They say how it's virtually harmless when smoked in a herb varporizer

4. They say the laws against it were created from racism against Mexican immigrants in the "Reefer Madness" era.

Chrysostom · 05-10-2003, 11:53 AM

(Previous) How on Earth are the laws unjust? This is absurd. They're making a pitiful excuse of self-righteousness to justify their own sin.

(slap_j) Here's how they justify it.

1. Alcohol is much more dangerous and it's legal

(Me) No, it's not. There is no permanent damage from Alcohol in moderation.

(slap_j) 2. They cite all of the beneficial aspects of marijuana. Anti-emetic, expectorant, etc.

(Me) So the government now has a duty to make anything legal if it's beneficial in any way?

(slap_j) 3. They say how it's virtually harmless when smoked in a herb varporizer

(Me) How does this make the law unjust, again?

(slap_j) 4. They say the laws against it were created from racism against Mexican immigrants in the "Reefer Madness" era.

(Me) Of the above arguments, here is their only hope, and it's so ship-shod, I don't even know where to begin. To start out with, if they're going to call a law unjust, they'd better have a great deal of surety. Second, if they're going to be involved in civil disobedient, they had better:
1. Do it in public, because that's the whole point of civil disobedience. I, for one, would love to watch them get arrested, then cry to the cameras about how it's "civil disobedience," then plead their case in court that the laws are unjust. If they're willing to to that, then then really try to fight against a law they find unjust. If they're not, it's just rationalization
2. Be fighting against a great injustice

Regarding the derivation of marijuana laws: the 1914 Harrison Act was the start of drug limitation, and this increased over the next few decades. The Boggs Act and the Narcotics Control Act of the 50s was the decisive attack on marijuana, however, and the problems with Mexican immigrants to which they are referring occurred in the 30s.

**slap_j** · 05-10-2003, 11:59 AM

Well, my main question is when is it ok, in terms of our Christianity, to break the laws of the land? When our personal safety is involved? When we feel a law is unjust?

I'll use myself as an example. I find it safer to "go with the flow" of traffic than to maintain the speed limit. This almost always means speeding. I usually travel around 70-75 mph. This is breaking the law, but I feel much safer. Especially with people who tailgate and cross lanes without using thier signals, etc.

Chico · 05-10-2003, 12:30 PM

again, your primary source of knowledge and law is scripture. if anything deviates from that, scripture takes priority. that doesn't mean you won't still be punished for doing something, but i don't think it is sinful if you follow what i just said.

chris

brown07 · 05-10-2003, 01:21 PM

As for speeding, the intent of the law isn't to keep everyone going at a maximum of 65 mph, 55 mph, etc. The intent of the law on the interstates is to create a reasonable distribution of speeds among cars to make the interstates safer and more efficient. In order to keep the distribution from skewing too high or low to one side or the other, they give tickets both for going too fast and too slow.

Dr. Doom · 05-10-2003, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by brown07
As for speeding, the intent of the law isn't to keep everyone going at a maximum of 65 mph, 55 mph, etc. The intent of the law on the interstates is to create a reasonable distribution of speeds among cars to make the interstates safer and more efficient. In order to keep the distribution from skewing too high or low to one side or the other, they give tickets both for going too fast and too slow.

so i can speed? or what?

**slap_j** · 05-10-2003, 06:15 PM

So, is there an answer to the question?

Chrysostom · 05-10-2003, 06:22 PM

(slap_j) Well, my main question is when is it ok, in terms of our Christianity, to break the laws of the land? When our personal safety is involved? When we feel a law is unjust?

(Me) If a law is grossly unjust, I would break it. Otherwise, I would do my best to follow the law.

As for the "intent of the law": there are two ways that such an argument can be used. In one sense, it can be used to say that a certain law intends to get a result, but we should use a drastically different method than prescribed in order to get that result. It can also be used to say that the law was originally intended to be followed in a certain way, so the method prescribed is "technically" different than you use, but you're doing what you're really supposed to do. The latter is acceptable, the former is wrong.

(slap_j) I'll use myself as an example. I find it safer to "go with the flow" of traffic than to maintain the speed limit. This almost always means speeding. I usually travel around 70-75 mph. This is breaking the law, but I feel much safer. Especially with people who tailgate and cross lanes without using thier signals, etc.

(Me) The laws have been interpreted (thus, their meaning is) such that these kinds of things are OK.