Of course, you could follow a good "law," such as the command to love one another (for instance, refusing to kill someone in war) and end up in jail or worse. So you wouldn't have "freedom" in the literal sense, but you would be free in a spiritual sense. (I believe Victor Frankl writes about this.)

Ultimately, the "law" of God DOES lose its fixed, lawlike character by the incarnation of Christ. Jesus is the fulfillment of the law. God sent us (who are in the Jewish tradition) the Law and the Prophets, but we didn't get it, so he send his own flesh and blood to teach us and to die in our (deserved) place. Thus the "New Covenant" does not demand the following of laws, but rather the acceptance of the Spirit of Christ (for some reason the image of "swallowing God" comes to mind) within which creates in us the desire and ability to do what is right. (I know that's a lot right there, and not well explained...)

Fruits typically come from roots...so I'm wondering why James is focused on the fruits but not that interested in the roots? Does he ever try to define God or recognize him as being at the roots of all good fruits?

Regarding the "Euthyphro Dilemma," both of the articles you quoted ended up resolving the "dilemma" satisfactorily to my mind. (The second author is from Glastonbury...someone you know?? : ) )

Some of this makes my head spin around and am tempted to just plead Psalm 131 (the second shortest chapter in the Bible):

Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty: neither do I exercise myself in great matters, or in things too high for me.

Surely I have behaved and quieted myself, as a child that is weaned of his mother: my soul is even as a weaned child.

Let Israel hope in the Lord from henceforth and for ever.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:43 PM, Jesse Raber <jesse.raber@gmail.com> wrote:

"The Psalmist seems to have encountered some kind of "law" that, rather than restrict freedom, actually BESTOWS it."

I think James would be sympathetic to this idea. But he'd probably insist that the law is good *because* of the fruit of freedom that it bestows ... meaning that if it stopped bestowing that fruit, it would no longer be good. If the fruit of freedom is really paramount, we therefore have to allow ourselves the possibility of abandoning the law in the name of that fruit. Once this caveat is admitted, the law loses its fixed lawlike character.

This train of thought is related to Plato's famous "Euthyphro dilemma." Many Christian apologists have addressed Euthyphro's dilemma; one example is here.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Ruth Raubertas <ruthraubertas@gmail.com> wrote:

I just realized I made a significant typo a few days ago in posting this:

(me)...Just wondering what folks think about whether James successfully shows that religion is "wholly debunked by science."

...I do understand that James is NOT trying to debunk religion, quite the opposite, but anyway the conversation continues.... Sorry for the confusion.

(Jesse) Religion, too, must accept the common standard of judging beliefs by their fruits. According to that standard one can never be bound by eternally fixed commandments or creeds. ... You might say, then, that for James science and religion humble each other (or "unstiffen" each other, to use a Jamesian word.)

Can fruits inform commandments, and can commandments produce fruits? For instance, Jesus said "This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." (John 15:12) One could argue which came first, love or the commandment to love, but can't it still be an "eternally fixed commandment"?

I like the idea that science and religion can "humble" or "unstiffen" each other. The word "commandment" perhaps turns people off because it does have a "stiff" sort of sound to it. But listen to Psalm 119:45-48:

I will walk about in freedom,
    for I have sought out your precepts.
^{I will speak of your statutes before kings}    and will not be put to shame,
for I delight in your commands
    because I love them.
I reach out for your commands, which I love,
    that I may meditate on your decrees.

The Psalmist seems to have encountered some kind of "law" that, rather than restrict freedom, actually BESTOWS it. He goes on and on, for 176 verses, singing the praises of the "law" of God. In James 1:25 we also read: "But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do." So, again, it is possible for "law" to produce freedom (whereas "freedom" to do whatever we like can sometimes lead to enslavement, another subject).