Don't mix your pills with alcohol, or your politics with religion

A common criticism of conservative Christians in the US like, say, the Southern Babdist Convention, is that they spend too much time talking politics, even from the pulpit. We hear, "Don't mix politics with religion, you fundies!" and our ears perk up. Maybe they're right, we think.

But of course, this post is just to point out that the SBC is not alone in doing such. The numerous, numerous examples of Democrat politicians (Hillary Rodham and John F Kerry are perhaps the most famous examples) taking the pulpit in primarily African-American churches during their big campaigns can now be joined to the explicit and bold mélange of politics and religion found in the new-and-improved, liberal offshoot of the SBC, the Jimmy Carterists New Baptist Covenant. I'm halfway through watching these videos, and it's apparent that it's not the mixing of politics and religion that bothers liberals. It's conservative values and theology that bother them. So why the disingenuous rhetoric? Oh, wait, that's liberals' stock and trade...

Doctors aren't always right

This baby was a brilliant candidate to be aborted.
Why? B/c he wasn't good enough to live. He wouldn't be able to do the things other babies do.
And he probably wouldn't live long, so might as well kill him early. You know, make sure God doesn't forget or something.

"He was written off completely and we believed he was 100 per cent certain to be handicapped."

An urgent review into the case has been ordered by hospital chiefs because it is unclear if Brandon had the condition and recovered from it – or if the data was misinterpreted by hospital staff.

And this baby was 100% certain to be handicapped. How often is a much lower percentage sold to parents who, on the basis of that information, decide to murder their unborn baby?

Thank God for common grace. Thank God these parents did not take the doctors' depraved advice to murder their baby because they thought he might be handicapped.

Graded rights

merkur makes a good point about abortion.
I respond: Don't be so sure, man. Peter Singer is a famed bioethicist and he says it's OK to murder babies OUT of the womb up to a certain age.

But I agree 100% that this is the issue at hand. But if it's not an all-or-nothing affair, does the unborn baby develop certain rights at a certain age? At one month, more rights than at one week? At 8 months, more than at 7?

If so, why wouldn't that mean that an 80-year old fetus has more rights than a 79-year old one?

If not, when does the fetus have rights? Does it depend on something he DOES? A capability?

If so, why wouldn't that extend to 30-year old fetuses as well as unborn ones? The 4.0 honor student who is also an All-American linebacker at Wake Forest University has more rights than the 100-pound high school dropout? Or is there some other way of determining better capabilities, and thus, better rights? Who decides?
Yes, these are perhaps impossible questions to answer. But the anti-life side is the one advocating putting that whatever-it-is inside the mother to a horribly painful and unprovoked death. You'd think that the side willing to do that would have a pretty good reason.

Not murdering your baby means you're a bad person

Just a few reflections on the comments on this post entitled "Aborting Downs Syndrome babies is a moral obligation?"

I'm coming to find out that James White's comment about the nature of blog comboxes as "Internet Ignorance Aggregators" is right on the money, but sometimes they are instructive in their amazing blindness and foolishness.

Here's one comment that was appropriately bludgeoned by Peter Pike:

Could you please spare us your sanctimonious drivel?
It also says "thou shalt not kill".
Who listens to that? Do you?
After you jump down from your abortion soap box and someone asks you about a 20 year old boy killed in a nefarious conflict where the benefit is that a few Americans have their pockets greased, do you have a tendency to look down at your shoes?

And then a brilliant illustration of what I've often said on this very blog and elsewhere (like here, here, here, here, here, and here:

I bet Peter Singer would agree that such abortions should be obligatory.
The foundations of ethics are arbitrary. Ranting at each other over arbitrary things is like arguing over what your favorite color is.

Finally, one atheist who types like he really has his worldview figured out (though, as the Triablogger said, $1000 says he doesn't live that way):

I'm not saying I'm happy about this fact of arbitrariness, but I'm not going to lose my nerve like you and believe that ethical principles 'exist' the same way that, say, numbers exist. If you try to rob me, of course I'll try to stop you (but I wouldn't reproach you), but this impulse to stop you is only a subjective emotion in my head. It does not correspond to anything outside of that. If I ever behave 'ethically', I'm merely following the path of least psychological resistance. Don't try any of your Francis Schaeffer tricks with me. I'm not afraid to stare the ethical vacuum in the face.

All those objections are appropriately dealt with in the post's combox so I won't rehash them here, but in honor of Sanctity of Human Life Sunday, I just invite you to reflect on how pathetically lame the arguments FOR abortion are. Whether political, moral, psychological, practical, none of them work! If you think they do, I invite you to peruse Randy Alcorn's book on life.

But anyone is welcome to present their best argument for abortion in the combox. Grace us with your best one; maybe you can convince someone that murdering a baby is perfectly OK!

A prayer for judgment

(Originally posted at Beggars All, but I like it so much I'll drop it here too.)
I think I've caused a bit of a stir when I said:

I pray that God will have mercy on many unknowingly in the darkness of RCC and cause Mary to be elevated to the title of a person of the Divine Quadernity.

Apparently my previous explanation was not sufficient.
Let me try something else.

Romans 1:18-32

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;
and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done.
They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips,
slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

What relevance does this passage have to the topic at hand and my expressed hope?
RCC is, to many people, a viable option when it comes to Christian churches. Why? For the same reason that the Word of Faith and Oneness Pentecostal heretics like TD Jakes are seen that way - they use the words "Jesus", "Holy Spirit", "forgiveness", "grace", "faith", "love", "God", "church", "Bible", etc. They quote from the Bible. They have crosses (usually) in their buildings and around their necks.
Insufficient differentiation between them and that which is truly biblical has taken place, and that's of course partly the fault of the true people of God. But it's also the fault of those who wish to take some of the labels of the biblical faith upon themselves and cut out other parts they find less convenient.

I want this mixing, this near-syncretism, to be eradicated, so that the difference between truth and error may be clearly visible. I join my tiny voice to the bold voice of the Scripture - "come out from them and be separate" (2 Cor 6:17) - and to Jesus' own words in Matthew 16:6-12 -

Jesus said to them, "Watch and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 7And they began discussing it among themselves, saying, "We brought no bread." 8But Jesus, aware of this, said, "O you of little faith, why are you discussing among yourselves the fact that you have no bread? 9 Do you not yet perceive? Do you not remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 10Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many baskets you gathered? 11How is it that you fail to understand that I did not speak about bread? Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." 12 Then they understood that he did not tell them to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Now, why the boldfaced print in the Rom 1 passage above? It is to point out that a fair amount of the perverted actions that are described in the passage are results of God's judgment on those who had already rejected God's revelation and the worship of God. They went from bad to worse, from rejection to perversion, from lust to homosexuality, from self-hurt to other-hurt as well, because God took what was in their hearts and caused it to be amplified, to distinguish it further from that which is good, to carry out further judgment and receive glory for His justice.

Our RCC friends will of course object, but all are invited to take a look at the three recent posts on that very topic and decide for themselves just how relevant the "images of mortal man" part of Romans 1 is to RCC practice, as well as the many references to Mariology/Mariolatry that have gone before on this blog.
Thus my prayer is that the institution of the church will go from bad to worse, from blasphemy to serious blasphemy, from implicit rejection of biblical truth to explicit, etc. I pray that individual people in great numbers would come out from the church, and that others would be swayed against joining her because the dogma is just too blasphemous for even the most clueless to accept.
And of course it should always be our prayer that God be glorified in all things. He has chosen to glorify Himself through such judgments visited upon blasphemous institutions. Glory to God in the way He chooses His glory to come. And may God have mercy.

A discussion on eternal security

I'd like to point out a thread where I'm participating on the topic of eternal security, and the discussion is interesting.

Here's my most recent post, responding to 'momesansmom' who has a tendency to make strange, extensive, and peripherally-relevant comments on God's non-temporal nature. I'm perplexed as to why she thinks that the Reformed viewpoint puts God into time, but hey, if you don't hold to the biblical view on stuff, you'll inevitably get messed up. My comment follows:


All of what you've said about temporality and such I agree with, except for your (to me) cryptic references to "encounter with the exalted Christ". I'm not following you on that one.
Part of the problem is that I express the same things but use diff words. Yes, God lives in the eternal NOW.
Yet you agree that God intervenes in time. Jesus CHrist is the same, period, but He is not always DOING the same things. He is not eternally dying on the cross - where would be the resurrection, then?
And I hasten to remind you that Romans 8 uses the words foreknowledge and predestination. What are "fore" and "pre" if not temporal statements? Sthg is being communicated there, and I think you need to acct for it.

I believe you are talking out of both sides of your mouth on this question. On the one hand you talk a great line about eternality and non-temporality and all that. But then you say this about asking questions about the diff between our free will choices to leave Jesus now vs after death:

Once a saint has exited time completely, there will be no falling away for him or her because he or she is in eternity. This isn't loss of "freedom" but it is the end of changeability in time.

So we're NOT living in eternity right now? Great - we're in agreement. This is what I'm saying. God has made it this way and uses language to express TO US certain concepts.
I said that in response to David Bryan's assertion that it's apparently unthinkable that our free will could be limited in such a way as to prevent our falling away once we are truly justified.

All that said, I still don't think that you've dealt with the fact that Rom 8 says that God foreknew AND JUSTIFIED those who will be glorified. Or, to be more proper (properer) and to comply better with what you've been saying about temporal language, it's that He foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified. All in the past tense. And all the same "those", the same people.
Romans 5:1 (on which you missed the point) says that we were already justified. It's an aorist tense - it's completed. Paul apparently thought he could talk in terms of an "us" who have been justified and which action of justification has been completed. Thus, all the same those of whom he is speaking, their destiny is to be glorified. None will fall away since it's the same "those" justified and glorified in Rom 8.

justification can be in a sense described as a done deal, but salvation is not a matter of a moment when one is justified, it is a matter of a life lived in Christ.

There are at least two biblical uses of the word "salvation", but it is several times used as an equivalent to justification, which is the point at which an exponentially much greater number of things occur in changing the rebel enemy of God sinner to a friend, an adopted son, a lover, a holy one, of God. Thus this is most properly labeled as salvation, though salvation in a broader sense includes justification, sanctification, and glorification, all.

John 3:16, John 11:25-26 and so many other passages make it clear that it is "he who believes" that shall never die.

Yes, of course.
God will guard those in faith who are justified.
If someone dies in unbelief, they never believed. It's not that hard.

If you read 1 John 2:19 the way you're using it, then you are forced to assume that all phony Christians will eventually leave the faith.

Not at all - it doesn't say that. It says that those who left were never of us. But that doesn't mean that ALL who are not of faith WILL leave. Matt 7 obviously indicates that there will be some who persist in false profession until death, as you pointed out.

As regards Heb 6, you said:
And those who DO come back obviously CAN, so they obviously are not the ones to which this passage refers.

Sorry, but that's seriously a case of special pleading.
The psg says that those who fall away CAN'T COME BACK. So the choice is:
1) Believe that those who fall away once are screwed forever.
2) Believe that Heb 6 is not referring to a loss of salvation, and thus abandon it as a prooftext against eternal security.


1 Cor 9 - thanks for posting those words from those men. But their arguments don't change the force of John 10 and the fact that they obviously failed to take into account the many evidences for eternal sec in the NT. All I can do is parse what they said and the fact that 1 Cor 9 makes multiple references to the prize, the reward. Salvation is not strictly speaking a reward; it's a gift, can't be earned (Rom 4:4-5). Paul is speaking of sthg he CAN earn - eternal rewards.


You didn't deal with John 10:28-29 at all, and that's disappointing. Let me remind you of the issue here. It's pretty simple.
Jesus says that His sheep will never perish. Forget the questions about who can snatch.

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me.
26 "But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.
27 "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
28 and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.

You said:
The promise in John 10:28 can quite easily be seen to describe our condition once we are totally free from the bonds of time.

Read it again. No it can't - the sheep are sheep IN THIS LIFE, else quite a lot in that psg wouldn't make any sense.
And the consequence of your position means that we can never be His sheep until we die. Is that really what you believe?
So, please let me ask you to comment again on what it means that His sheep will never perish. If they fall away and don't come back, will they not perish?

Augustine...did not seize the chance to elaborate "and they will never perish" as anything more than a taunt to his unbelieving audience, who would perish.

Fine, but what does it mean that they will never perish? How could it be a taunt if His sheep will indeed perish?

and that this sustains me even in my own faithlessness, even turning my sin into opportunity for grace as I live a life of continual repentance thanks to his faithfulness.

Then what's the problem with the idea of eternal security? Is it not part of your convictions that YOU MUST LIVE THE LIFE or else fall away and perish?

John 15. "Every branch IN ME that does not bear fruit He takes away."

Of course. And did He not take away the branch of the unfruitful Jewish nation? Does He not prune His church thru church discipline (not that Orthodox are strong in that area, I'm talking NT teaching here)?

He does not, in some pretemporal "era," choose some and reject others (this is truly the attitude that is not "God-honoring").

I don't believe that either, but IF IT WERE THE TRUTH, you as a mere mortal have NO call to judge God thusly. It is your responsibility to submit to what He has ordained. Talking back to Him and saying "What you've done is no good!" is the very definition of not-God-honoring.

Peace,
Rhology

Terrible song lyrics

I have to give this band props for a pretty cool name, but the lyrics to the song are atrocious.

Hyper Static Union - "Praying For Sunny Days"


The thunder echoes from the mountains to the waves
Sometimes I wish I could tell the clouds to behave
Calm the stormy seas just by stretching out my hand
But I am just a man, only a man so I'm


Chorus: Praying for sunny days to return to me
Seeking the warmth of the solar rays
I'm not just seeing the grey skies in front of me
Praying for sunny days

This torrential downpour has my brain in a trance
I'd get up and move, but I just can't dance
Lord, You know that I've done all that I can
But I am just a man, only a man so I'm


Rain, rain go away, I have faith that you won't stay
I don't care what doubters say, sunny days will come my way
Then the birds come out to play by the light of one sun ray
Now I kneel me down to pray, please God give me sunny days


Oy, I think I'm going to be a bit ill.

The voice of faith

Fundamentalist Chris unveils this gem of a comment:

Rhology: Diff kinds of dogs are examples of MICROevolution.
I'm looking for a dog turning into a human. Something like that. Lizards into birds.

So, Rhology. Here's how I see your definitions. Microevolution is evolution that can be observed over a human lifetime. Macroevolution is evolutions that happens over considerably more than a human lifetime.

Then, you declare that there's no proof for macroevolution because nobody has ever seen it happen over a human lifetime!!!!

Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant.

Little further comment is needed, I should think.

Abiogenesis and alchemy, again

G-man remonstrated:

I explained to Rho that enough information exists about alchemy for us to know that it is invalid. The same is not true of abiogenesis - this should be hugely obvious.

Since they're the same in quality, naked assertions to the contrary don't do alot for me.

abiogenesis is the best scientific theory out there for the origins of life.

Then so much the worse for science.
Here's another example where a claim to supernatural activity exists and the scientific evidence points the other direction but G-man has the gall to say that abiogenesis is the best "scientific" explanation. Cracks me up.
Spontaneous generation is bunk - wasn't that disproven in the 19th century?
No one has ever observed life arising from non-life in a natural environment.
No one has even been able to get close to creating life in a closely-manipulated lab environment with intelligent design all over the place.

They speak out of both sides of their mouths - sometimes life is extraordinary, beautiful, wonderful, awesome, complex... but when it comes to being pressed about their alchemic beliefs about abiogenesis, they say "Well, we've caused some amino acids to come together in a lab environment!"


That doesn't even begin to suggest that we have enough information about the early earth to invalidate abiogenesis.

You'd better hope so b/c the early earth environment as it's usually thought of is hostile to life's forming out of non-life and hostile to terran life in general.

Alchemy: we know it is invalid.
Abiogenesis: We can't know that it is invalid yet. See? Drop the analogy.

Since abiogenesis IS alchemy, why should I?


'Life' is just a word humans use to communicate.

Retreating to "it's just semantics!" is often an abandonment of the original field of argument. White flag acknowledged.

To say metaphysics - rather than science - has the answer is incorrect.

Which I never claimed - I don't know where you got that.

Sex offender registries are the new Holocaust

Gamelot has diverted our discussion about the nature of legislation and morality as discussed here and has ventured into what can only be described as incredible territory.

That's what I was bringing into question.

Well, you haven't even interacted with my main arguments on the topic, so I'll move on just as you have and wait for you to deal with what I've said.

How often do we do that? How can we be sure we're not doing that now? I, for one, am absolutely convinced that we are.

I don't see how this is even applicable to our day, since we don't live in a theocracy.


Now, on sex offenders...
I just found that out about the sex offender laws, and I think it's kind of weird that public urination = sex offender registration.
At the same time, the sex offender search websites will often display the crime, and so you can tell whether the guy committed aggravated sodomy or urinated publicly.
On a side note, I don't have the least sympathy for that person. Don't get drunk in public. Not that freaking hard.

A man who is drunk and urinates in an alley is treated the same as a man who rapes 5-year-olds, as far as the sex offender laws are concerned.

No they don't.
At least some of the search websites list their crimes.
And the public urinators aren't published as harshly as pædophiles.


housing is impossible for sex offenders to obtain

Good.
In fact, I'm house-hunting, and we saw one that we really liked.
Oops, a sex offender (agg sodomy and indecent exposure with a child) lives 2 doors down.
If not for that registry, who knows what could have happened to my beloved 13 month old daughter?


Christ offers people a second chance. His followers do not.

This is the kind of wild-eyed generalisation that would do the worst of our national politicians proud.
Provide evidence that these laws you decry are driven by "Christ's followers". If you can't, you should withdraw your assertion.
How is alerting others to a potentially dangerous person by putting them on a list equivalent to not giving them a 2nd chance? Seems like you could say that if these guys were executed. But in this case, they're just limited in their options until they can prove themselves non-dangerous. Big deal - that happens all the time.
If people don't know the law and do such a disgusting thing as urinate publicly, what is your argument for giving them a 2nd chance? What would that look like? Just ignoring it?
Is ignorance of the law an excuse? Can I murder someone and then attempt to credibly claim I didn't know it was wrong? Why or why not?

I'm tempted to draw a parallel to the Holocaust

Dude, you don't want to do that.
Just stop and think, for a second how horrible that event truly was. I think that most people these days have lost their horror of it b/c all they know they've experienced thru a textbook or a movie.
I've experienced no more than that but I've cultivated the sense of horror in my heart so as never to lose the revulsion, the awfulness. To even MENTION it in the same breath is to do a ludicrous disservice and insult to the memories of those murdered. Don't go there.


The point remains, though, that the similarities are there.

The differences in degree AND in quality are so vast as to make the comparison absurd.
What did those murdered in the Holocaust DO? Nothing.
What do these 'sex offenders' DO? Something. And they get on a registry that usually describes the crime. The victims of the Holocaust were murdered along with their whole families. Get off it.

Bush est un Baptiste, pas un Méthodiste!

Un ami à moi m'a signalé cet article au sujet des Southern Baptists dans le quotidien Le Monde.

Je l'ai lu, et wow, quelle justice! Aucun préjugement là-bas!

-"enfin des baptistes blancs et noirs s'associent."
-minorent le statut des femmes, exècrent le divorce, l'avortement, les homosexuels. Leur monde a été créé en sept jours.

Vous plaisantez, n'est-ce pas?
De la preuve qu'il en existe le racisme dans la Convention, s'il vous plaît? Que nous haïssons les homosexuels au lieu de les appeler à se repentir de leurs péchés afin de se faire sauver? Que les déclarations bibliques au sujet du rôle de l'homme et de la femme touchent à la question de différence d'ontologie, quand d'autres versets (Galates 3, par exemple) nous apprennent l'opposé?

"promouvoir la liberté religieuse"

Eh bien sûr que les Southern Babdists veulent ôter la liberté réligieuse aux autres! C'est pas qu'on appelle les autres à se repentir personnellement de leurs péchés et à une relation d'amitié avec Jésus-Christ. Non non - faut que le gouvernement vous efforce à s'agenouiller, sinon, l'épée! Ils nous croient des jihadistes ou quoi?
C'est vraiment drôle - la vraie ménace islamique est bien évidente, mais il est beaucoup moins correcte politiquement de lui faire fâce. Attaquons alors les chrétiens! Ils sont imbéciles dangereux, après tout!

Baptistes du Texas (BGCT), une association qui a fait sécession avec les Southern Baptists

Et oui, et on était plus ou moins content qu'ils s'en soient allés. Ils n'ont pas voulu se souscrire à la doctrine de l'infallibilité des Écritures. Amusez-vous bien en séparation! Bien que Jimmy Carter vous ait accompagné!
[soupir]

"La scission historique entre baptistes du Sud et du Nord a porté sur l'esclavage"

Oui, mais ceci porte quoi à l'histoire d'aujourd'hui?

une vision où toute évolution est perçue comme une offense à Dieu.

Je n'ai hônnètement aucune idée de ce que cela veut dire.

ces baptistes "dotés d'un agenda politique".

C'est pas que les politiques qui nous ont amenés a cette séparation, comme j'ai expliqué.
C'est un peu ça le danger de ces conversations - les deux côtés aiment bien mêler les politiques et la théologie, mais à la base de la séparation se trouve une question théologique.
Et pourtant la question d'avortement, par exemple, vaut bien la séparation, je dirais. Ceux qui ont oublié, perdu leur conscience et l'horreur du meurtre des petits par raison de convénient...

Le New Baptist Covenant veut "revenir à l'enseignement du Christ : refuser l'ordre des choses lorsqu'il porte tort à l'humanité".

Bon, l'humanité sauf ceux qui sont dans le ventre de leurs mères. Ces humains ne sont pas vraiment des humains.
Et bien sur qu'ils suivent l'ordre du Christ. Peut-être qu'ils ont oublié le fait que Christ avait un respect très élevé de la loi de Dieu.
Et si l'Écriture a des erreurs dedans, on ne sait pas du tout ce qu'a dit Jésus. Réflechissez un peu, les gars!

La guerre en Irak, la récession, la crise sociale et le déclin de l'administration Bush entraînent leur propre déclin", ajoute-t-il.

Quand ces événements politiques mènent a l'élevement de voix contre la bonne théologie et la fondation de notre connaissance de ce que c'est que l'Évangile, je répète que nous sommes contents qu'ils nous quittent.

"Je ne peux plus le supporter, dit-elle. Il fait honte à l'Amérique."

Bien évidemment, cette dernière phrase suit la thème de l'article en gros, et ne touche même pas à la vraie question. Mais qu'attendais-je du media français? De la justice?

Christ and legislating morality

An old friend of mine recently made the following assertion:

Christ never legislated anything. Rather, He seemed to take great offense with the Jewish leaders who did.

When we allow our nation to become a Theocracy, we start heading down exactly the same path as the ancient Jews.

Christ never legislated anything?
"I tell you, anyone who looks on a woman with lust has committed adultery with her in his heart."
"If you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift."
"But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
"But I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is(BM) the city of the great King. 36And do not take an oath by your head, for you cannot make one hair white or black. 37Let what you say be simply 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil."

Etc.

Of course He did.
What He criticised the Jewish leaders for was being hypocrites (Matt 23) and for adding their own human traditions to God's law (Mark 7). Yes, God's LAW.
But what else did He say about the Law?
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished." (Matt 5:17-18)

He had a pretty high opinion of the Law, since it came forth from God and all.

I didn't argue for a theocracy. I said that any law is a moral statement.
It's wrong to go faster than 25 mph in a school zone.
It's wrong to burn down someone's property.
It's wrong to hold up a bank.
It's perfectly fine to stick a scalpel into a nearly-born baby's brain and then dismember her and 'birth' her that way.
It's perfectly fine for the gov't to force me to give them lots of the money that I earned.
It's wrong to kidnap a woman in order to protect her baby from the scalpel at the abortuary to which she is en route.

Etc.
So the struggle in gov't of a nation is WHOSE morality will be imposed, not WHETHER it will be. EVERY law is an imposition of morality on everyone else. Even a nation that makes no laws makes a moral statement - it's not a high-enough moral priority to make any laws governing behavior.