First I would like to say that as followers of Jesus, must be praying for our leaders, our government, our officials (1 Timothy 2:1-7). I speak first to myself, as I do not pray for our leaders as I should, but that does not change the command that we should be praying. God give us grace to pray.
One question to raise: -Matthew 23:1-3 “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you — but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.”
In this Scripture I would conclude that the Pharisees and Scribes sitting on “Moses’ seat” would be a reference to thier judging and interpetation of the Law. My point here is that Jesus states that although they do not follow or practice the law themselves, they still preach the law, and in a manner that Jesus tells the crowds and His disciples to follow what they say.
Is this a good interpretation of this Scripture, and if so does it to apply to a homosexual being able to act as a Supreme Court Justice?
At the same time I completly agree with the statement E.J. made quoting Luke 6:45b “…for out of the abundance of heart his mouth speaks.”
The only thing I am left with is what I first stated, we must being praying for the salvation of those in leadership. Only then can we be confident that righteousness will be on their hearts and minds.
The moral values of Israel in the OT were clear as the society was in essence a Theocracy. This country was founded on the principle of natural law. This idea of natural law was first put forth by Thomas Aquinas and inherited via Locke by Thomas Jefferson. At that time it seemed apparent that we are all “hard wired” if you will with the moral law. It was believed that this moral law transcended most cultures.
The problem appears to be, that what was once taken as an obvious violation of moral law has now become blurred. How? By imbibing bad philosophy, not in some classroom, but from the media that surrounds us.
I would submit, that if you have a Supreme court Justice that can no longer perceive the legitimacy of the moral law in one area, there is no guarantee, that they will perceive it in other areas.
Clarification of last response:
The moral values of Israel in the OT were clear as the society was in essence a Theocracy. The United Statses was founded on the principle of natural law, so as to avoid a Theocracy. This idea of natural law was first put forth by Thomas Aquinas and inherited via Locke by Thomas Jefferson. At that time it seemed apparent that we are all “hard wired” if you will with the moral law. It was believed that this moral law transcended most cultures.
The problem appears to be, that what was once taken as an obvious violation of moral law has now become blurred. How? By imbibing bad philosophy, not in some classroom, but from the media that surrounds us.
I would submit, that if you have a Supreme court Justice that can no longer perceive the legitimacy of the moral law in one area, there is no guarantee, that they will perceive it in other areas.
Those holding any public office, but especially a judge, should be of the highest moral character. By definition a practicing homosexual is not of the character required for high public office. Would it be OK to have a judge who was a practicing adulterer? If not then it is not OK to have a practicing homosexual judge either.
First I would like to say that as followers of Jesus, must be praying for our leaders, our government, our officials (1 Timothy 2:1-7). I speak first to myself, as I do not pray for our leaders as I should, but that does not change the command that we should be praying. God give us grace to pray.
One question to raise:
-Matthew 23:1-3 “Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, so practice and observe whatever they tell you — but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice.”
In this Scripture I would conclude that the Pharisees and Scribes sitting on “Moses’ seat” would be a reference to thier judging and interpetation of the Law. My point here is that Jesus states that although they do not follow or practice the law themselves, they still preach the law, and in a manner that Jesus tells the crowds and His disciples to follow what they say.
Is this a good interpretation of this Scripture, and if so does it to apply to a homosexual being able to act as a Supreme Court Justice?
At the same time I completly agree with the statement E.J. made quoting Luke 6:45b “…for out of the abundance of heart his mouth speaks.”
The only thing I am left with is what I first stated, we must being praying for the salvation of those in leadership. Only then can we be confident that righteousness will be on their hearts and minds.
The moral values of Israel in the OT were clear as the society was in essence a Theocracy. This country was founded on the principle of natural law. This idea of natural law was first put forth by Thomas Aquinas and inherited via Locke by Thomas Jefferson. At that time it seemed apparent that we are all “hard wired” if you will with the moral law. It was believed that this moral law transcended most cultures.
The problem appears to be, that what was once taken as an obvious violation of moral law has now become blurred. How? By imbibing bad philosophy, not in some classroom, but from the media that surrounds us.
I would submit, that if you have a Supreme court Justice that can no longer perceive the legitimacy of the moral law in one area, there is no guarantee, that they will perceive it in other areas.
Clarification of last response:
The moral values of Israel in the OT were clear as the society was in essence a Theocracy. The United Statses was founded on the principle of natural law, so as to avoid a Theocracy. This idea of natural law was first put forth by Thomas Aquinas and inherited via Locke by Thomas Jefferson. At that time it seemed apparent that we are all “hard wired” if you will with the moral law. It was believed that this moral law transcended most cultures.
The problem appears to be, that what was once taken as an obvious violation of moral law has now become blurred. How? By imbibing bad philosophy, not in some classroom, but from the media that surrounds us.
I would submit, that if you have a Supreme court Justice that can no longer perceive the legitimacy of the moral law in one area, there is no guarantee, that they will perceive it in other areas.
Those holding any public office, but especially a judge, should be of the highest moral character. By definition a practicing homosexual is not of the character required for high public office. Would it be OK to have a judge who was a practicing adulterer? If not then it is not OK to have a practicing homosexual judge either.