a mere housewife
Not your cup of tea
Note: it is possible to skip all of this and go straight to my husband's much more concise statement at #23.
Mark's words about 'the spirit of the law', and the Sabbath example in the Ends Justifying the Means thread raised a question for me -- Don spoke of those who were instructed to pray that their flight would not be on the Sabbath, as this would rob them of their Sabbath rest. (Edit: considering that this is open to various interpretations, perhaps a better example is the one Evie raises, posts 6&7 on this thread.)
I looked up the larger catechism and it instructs us that the sixth commandment requires the use of all 'lawful' means to preserve life. I am not sure whether fleeing was or was not 'lawful' from the human govt. standpoint (and I am not sure if the use of the word 'lawful' in the catechism has to do primarily with human govt. or with the wider realm of moral law). But even God's law would seem to be broken in such a case, in breaking the fourth commandment. (& though God may have used the means of their prayers to keep them from such an exigency: yet He seems to allow for it.)
My first question is how are we to interpret this: does the sixth commandment take precedence over the fourth? Or is the fourth still being kept -- since the 'Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath', fleeing for one's life in an extraordinary situation is still a way of keeping the Sabbath?
My second is, If you think that the sixth commandment takes precedence over the fourth, is this 'situation ethics'?
Or, If you think that the fourth is being kept in such a case, would *not* fleeing be Sabbath breaking, immoral? (In other words, could an overly rigid fixation on the externals of the normal situation in which the command makes actions moral/immoral lead one to deny the spirit of law -- and so miss the 'letter' in an abnormal circumstance?)
Is there some other interpretation of that passage/prayer?
I hope that isn't too confused. Thank you in advance.
Mark's words about 'the spirit of the law', and the Sabbath example in the Ends Justifying the Means thread raised a question for me -- Don spoke of those who were instructed to pray that their flight would not be on the Sabbath, as this would rob them of their Sabbath rest. (Edit: considering that this is open to various interpretations, perhaps a better example is the one Evie raises, posts 6&7 on this thread.)
I looked up the larger catechism and it instructs us that the sixth commandment requires the use of all 'lawful' means to preserve life. I am not sure whether fleeing was or was not 'lawful' from the human govt. standpoint (and I am not sure if the use of the word 'lawful' in the catechism has to do primarily with human govt. or with the wider realm of moral law). But even God's law would seem to be broken in such a case, in breaking the fourth commandment. (& though God may have used the means of their prayers to keep them from such an exigency: yet He seems to allow for it.)
My first question is how are we to interpret this: does the sixth commandment take precedence over the fourth? Or is the fourth still being kept -- since the 'Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath', fleeing for one's life in an extraordinary situation is still a way of keeping the Sabbath?
My second is, If you think that the sixth commandment takes precedence over the fourth, is this 'situation ethics'?
Or, If you think that the fourth is being kept in such a case, would *not* fleeing be Sabbath breaking, immoral? (In other words, could an overly rigid fixation on the externals of the normal situation in which the command makes actions moral/immoral lead one to deny the spirit of law -- and so miss the 'letter' in an abnormal circumstance?)
Is there some other interpretation of that passage/prayer?
I hope that isn't too confused. Thank you in advance.
Last edited: