moral positioning of christianty (Jesus, America, churches, sin, Christianity)

[robtex]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFSlQ...search=atheism

This fella Robert states that the moral position of Christianty is that Jesus died for man's sins and thus the burdon and guilt of sin is deferred from mankind. He further points out that this system of justice is incomptable with the american legal justice system. Is he correct in this statement and if so than it is reasonable to say the Christianty has no place in the american justice system. Futhermore how reasonable is it for a religion (any religion) to defer injust acts from its people to its God?

[James the Persian]

Originally Posted by robtex

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFSlQ...search=atheism

This fella Robert states that the moral position of Christianty is that Jesus died for man's sins and thus the burdon and guilt of sin is deferred from mankind. He further points out that this system of justice is incomptable with the american legal justice system. Is he correct in this statement and if so than it is reasonable to say the Christianty has no place in the american justice system. Futhermore how reasonable is it for a religion (any religion) to defer injust acts from its people to its God?

He's correct for a certain portion of Christianity, but by no means for all. The eastern churches do not teach substitutionary atonement and even within the western churches that do, the idea that man is no longer guilty for sin does not necessarily follow.

James

[bigvindaloo]

Originally Posted by robtex

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFSlQ...search=atheism

This fella Robert states that the moral position of Christianty is that Jesus died for man's sins and thus the burdon and guilt of sin is deferred from mankind. He further points out that this system of justice is incomptable with the american legal justice system. Is he correct in this statement and if so than it is reasonable to say the Christianty has no place in the american justice system. Futhermore how reasonable is it for a religion (any religion) to defer injust acts from its people to its God?

Robert "points out" that Western justice is incompatible with a Christian system of justice but this is not a valid way of invalidating a Christian notion of justice. Modern notions of justice have assumed a secular content for the last couple of centuries. Prior to this a natural law prevailed, where the ruler of a nation was assumed by the populace to be acting in God's image. Therefore whatever moral character their rule assumed, it was taken generally to be just. Since the Enlightenment, law has taken on a defense of an individual holder of rights (and reciprocal responsabilities) accorded by the state against the possibility of state interference, as its subject matter, rather than defense of God's laws as manifest in the personality of a monarch. Under natural law, the monarch assumed untouchable Godlike qualities. Under modern law, the individual (including the monarch) is accountable to society. Christian morality continues to absolve individuals of misdeeds by advocating sacrifice of the weak. However, this is not the morality of law. Modern law only intersects with morality when it is a practice of a culture that certain moral criteria should be incorporated in law. In Western societies, morality is far from a necessary criteria in law, although it may be if recognition is accorded to it.

Robert describes a discontinuity between Christianity and modern law. Seems obvious to me.