"INDIFFERENT" - QUOTE ME ON THAT
I was asked by my publicist to give a quote supposing Grokster will win and one supposing Metro-Goldwyn Mayer will win the P2P case currently before the Supreme Court. These quotes would be included in a GMA press release issued on behalf of Christians in the music industry.
The problem is I see the Court's decision as irrelevant. Regardless of man's laws, Christians have a higher LAW to uphold. If The Court ruled that sex with children was permissible it would not overturn God's prohibition against it. It's wonderful when man's law makes it more difficult to break God's. But the Spirit of God, fear of God, scripture, community and Church history are the real barriers between Christians and corruption - not rulings by human courts. So I find myself indifferent once again to my government's attempts at morality because mine is guided by citizenship in Heaven not America.
What do YOU think about the impending decision by the Court? When a law makes wrong-doing easier, are you more likely to do it? Let's talk.
For now, these are the only quotes I can offer:
IF GROKSTER WINS (And they will):
1) While the Supreme court has ruled that Grokster may stay in business as a file sharing service, God has not yet ruled that Christians may use it to take what they do not own.
2) In other words, the front door has been unlocked by Grokster and the Court but we Christians still cannot walk inside and take what is not ours. That is still stealing (Exodus 20:15). Copyright law and God's law requiring we obey it has not changed (Romans 13).
IF GROKSTER LOSES:
1) One door to the house has been locked now by the Court, but others will open. Regardless, Christians have an obligation to follow God's law of "Do not steal" which should prevent us from jiggling more handles in search of a new way to get in and take what is not ours.
2) The court has made it more difficult to disobey God now, but not impossible. It is still imperative that Christians behave like followers of Christ, consider others above themselves and their temporary desires for free music, obey man's laws when they don't conflict with God's, and heed God's law not to take was is not theirs.
Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or discuss this SHLOG on my message-board
The problem is I see the Court's decision as irrelevant. Regardless of man's laws, Christians have a higher LAW to uphold. If The Court ruled that sex with children was permissible it would not overturn God's prohibition against it. It's wonderful when man's law makes it more difficult to break God's. But the Spirit of God, fear of God, scripture, community and Church history are the real barriers between Christians and corruption - not rulings by human courts. So I find myself indifferent once again to my government's attempts at morality because mine is guided by citizenship in Heaven not America.
What do YOU think about the impending decision by the Court? When a law makes wrong-doing easier, are you more likely to do it? Let's talk.
For now, these are the only quotes I can offer:
IF GROKSTER WINS (And they will):
1) While the Supreme court has ruled that Grokster may stay in business as a file sharing service, God has not yet ruled that Christians may use it to take what they do not own.
2) In other words, the front door has been unlocked by Grokster and the Court but we Christians still cannot walk inside and take what is not ours. That is still stealing (Exodus 20:15). Copyright law and God's law requiring we obey it has not changed (Romans 13).
IF GROKSTER LOSES:
1) One door to the house has been locked now by the Court, but others will open. Regardless, Christians have an obligation to follow God's law of "Do not steal" which should prevent us from jiggling more handles in search of a new way to get in and take what is not ours.
2) The court has made it more difficult to disobey God now, but not impossible. It is still imperative that Christians behave like followers of Christ, consider others above themselves and their temporary desires for free music, obey man's laws when they don't conflict with God's, and heed God's law not to take was is not theirs.
Agree? Disagree? Post a comment here or discuss this SHLOG on my message-board
posted by Shaun Groves @ 6/27/2005
5 comments
5 Comments:
God's law is one of giving. Why focus on whether or not it is permissable to take? Shouldn't we be focused on giving?
What is your take on the loaves and fish?
I have to agree with you, Shaun. Nothing the Court does is going to make God's law any different.
jackson: They're taking without permission, which sounds a lot like stealing to me. We should be focused on giving, but we should make sure that we're giving legally.
About the loaves and fish: The boy gave over his food in some way, Jesus wouldn't have just snatched it out of his hands, even if the Bible says that Jesus took the food.
God's Law (Law of Moses to the Jews) and God's ethic (Law spoken by Jesus to all of His followers) are laws intended to make God's invisible character and supremacy visible. They are neither all giving or all taking - to use your terms.
The Law (Moses') was given to set the standard of human behavior at perfection so that we humans would sin and become convinced of our need for Christ as a result - the only hope of meeting the standard of perfection. Law was given to cause sin - before Christ.
Now Christ fulfills the moral Law of the Jews by making us perfect at heart. And so the ethic , new law, of Christ given in the Sermon on the Mount (matthew 5-7) now serves as a guide for living a life that reflects God's priorities, values, character etc to those who have not been made perfect at heart and to those who believe but do not follow.
The ethic of Christ is one that takes rights from Americans and replaces them with submission and obedience to God's character. In that sense God's new law, the ethic of Christ, takes. Jesus also teaches to consider others above ourselves and to feed the poor, take up the cause of the least etc so, in that sense, it is an ethic of giving.
If an artist chooses to give his music away he may, but it is not bread or water or clothing, so he as a Christian is not commanded to give it away. It is no one's need. And a Christian who wants it cannot take it for the same reason. It is not a need but a preferred amusement.
What do you think? Did I answer the question you're asking?
-SG
I'm not sure that downloading a song for free is so obviously afoul of transcendent law. It's certainly afoul of our laws, and so we shouldn't do it. Copyright law is a nice thing. Very American. I like America.
But if the Supreme Court had rendered a decision legalizing the practice, that could change the moral equation, no? People are entitled to opinions on that law, certainly, but how certain can we be that this practice universally violates fixed laws of God?
Is downloading Shaun's music, without paying for it, wrong? I'd say so! But shouldn't we have a bit more trepidation about equating our understanding of just copyright law with God's law written on our hearts?
Without getting too much into natural law here, it IS interesting that C.S. Lewis' own list of self-evidently moral/immoral behavior was pretty short. One can imagine a society wherein songs, once performed, are considered everybody's property. It wouldn't be obvious stealing. I wouldn't like it, but I'm not sure it would be complete dystopia.
Can we be so positive that downloading songs -- legally -- would be afoul of universal law? Is there such a thing as natural copyright law?
I'm thinkin' no, but I haven't thought about it that much...
Brant
I'm not asserting now, nor have I ever, that God recognizes copyrights - that not paying for a song is a law of God's. But it is man's law. And God has commanded His followers to obey man's law until doing so causes disobedience to Him.
Downloading music without paying for it DOES however cause offense to God if downloading for free is done with disregard for fellow believers and carried out because one's heart is contaminated with selfishness and greed. And only God knows the heart.
SG
Post a Comment
<< Home