Prima Secundae
Lecture 279: Judicial Precepts Concerning Foreigners, Warfare, and Domestic Life

Transcript
================================================================================

consider more correctly. St. Thomas Aquinas Angelic Doctor. Help us to understand all that you have written me. Holy Spirit, Amen. We're up to 105, Article 3. Okay. To the third one goes forward thus. It seems that the judicial precepts are not suitably treated as regards outsiders, I don't know, extraneous. For Peter says in the Acts of the Apostles, in truth, right, I find that God, right, is not an acceptor person. But in every nation that fears God and does justice, he is accepted to, is acceptable to him. But those who are accepted to God are not to be, what, excluded from the Church of God. Unsuitably, therefore, is it commanded, Deuteronomy 23, that the Ammonites and the Moabites, even after the 10th, what? Yeah. Will not enter the Church of God in eternal. And contrary to that is commanded about some Gentiles, that you should not, what? Abominate Eidomea, because he's your brother, nor the Egyptian, because you were a stranger in his land. If you look at the reply to the objection, then it might be a little easier. To the third, it should be said, yeah, that the men of no nation does the law exclude from the worship of God and from those things which pertain to the salvation of the soul. For he said in Exodus chapter 12, if one of the, what, travelers or strangers, right, wanderers, uh, colony, right, and make the, what, pass over to the Lord, uh, let every masculine, one of them, be circumscribed, right, and then to be celebrated by the right, and at the same time he will be, what, indigenous to the earth, and in temporal things as regards those things which pertain to the community of the people. They ought not, just anyone, to be admitted, right, at once, by reason said above, what, be in the body of the article, okay. But some in the third generation, the Egyptians and the Egyptians and the Idumeans, others perpetually are excluded in detestation of the old guilt, as the Moabites and the Ammonites and the Ammonites, uh, just for, just as one man is punished on account of the sin that he commits, that others would, what, fear and desist from sinning, so also on account of some sin of the, uh, race or city can be punished, right, huh, so that others are going to abstain from a similar, what, sin, huh, but it can be dispensive, dispensation, right, some to be admitted into the college of the people on account of the act of some, what, virtue, huh, just as Judas, huh, he said that Achior, the leader of the sons of Ammon, was, what, added to the people of Israel, and to every succession of his, what, family, uh, and similar to Ruth, the Moabite, huh, who was a woman of virtue, huh, wasn't there some prostitute who did something for them? Yeah, yeah, yeah, although it can be said that that prohibition extends to men, not to women, to which did not belong simply to be citizens, huh, put that in there, put that into the current debate, huh, the war on women, yeah, Mr. He replied in the first objection, where we learned that women are not simply citizens, it's a secundum quid, huh, what were those things which are not in our power, do not merit any, what, punishment, huh, but that a man be a eunuch, huh, or that he be, what, fornication, is not in his power, right, huh, therefore unsuitably is it commanded, Deuteronomy 23, that the eunuch and the one born from fornication will not enter the church of the Lord, huh, and down, down in the pro-life march ceremony, the women who, people who are born, you know, of rape, right, and so on, and, uh, and it's very, very dramatic, you know, don't have a right to be, you know, and so on. The second should be said, that as the philosopher says in the third book, The Politics, huh, in two ways, someone is said to be a citizen, in one way, secundum quid, huh, now simply, he's a citizen who is able to, what, do those things which pertain to citizens, as to give counsel, or to make judgment in the people, right, secundum quid, however, is a citizen, whoever inhabits the city, even vile persons, right, and boys, and old men, that's me, I guess, I'm a citizen secundum quid, I guess, of the, of the thing that they, yeah, who are not suitable to this, for this, that they have power, right, in those things which pertain to the commune, and therefore the, the spurious, huh, on account of the vileness of the origin, are excluded from the church, huh, that is from the college of the people, as far as the tenth generation, and likewise the eunuchs, to which it could not belong the honor, which is owed to, what, fathers, huh, and especially in the people, the Jews, in which the worship of God is conserved through the generation of the, what, flesh, for even among the Gentiles, who generated, the one who generates many sons, were given, what, yeah, as the philosopher says in the second book of the, what, politics, huh, well, gee, my daughter, my, yeah, nevertheless, as regards those things which pertain to the grace of God, huh, the eunuchs are not separated from others, just as neither, what, strangers, I guess, for it is said in Isaiah 56, uh, who adheres to God, by separation divide, the Lord divides me from my, from the people, and let not the eunuchs say, behold, I'm a, yeah, a withered, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha And so it will be there for the law permits, Deuteronomy 23, that you lend money to aliens. Are you sure? Thank goodness. To the third should be said that to take usury from aliens who was not according to the intention of the law, but from a certain permission on account of the proneness of the Jews to avarice, and that they might more peacefully have themselves to the strangers from which they what gained wealth. Make a little go around. It's kind of like Moses' law, allowing the divorce, yeah, because they were kind of cruel and they might kill their wife to get rid of this addiction. They never. Soon they'll be dead. Yeah, they didn't quote this part in the Second Medical Council talking about the Jews. No, no, no. Learned by them about immigration, refugees, and border security. That's what this question is. Women says that's incidental, but it's interesting because it really addresses a lot of us. The first thing was trying to put forward a Catholic case for being approved of the immigration, but it's quite amazing how so many of the bishops have thrown caution to the wings. My mother used to say, charity doesn't mean you've got to be stupid. Okay. Much more do they approach us men than trees, huh? But to those who are near us, right, we more owe affection, right, and to bestow upon them the effect of love, right? According to that of Ecclesiastes 13, every animal loves what is like itself, just as every man his neighbor. And so be there for the Lord commands that of the cities of the enemies, those captured, right, all should be killed. Nevertheless, the trees should not be cut down. To the fourth it should be said that about the cities of the enemies, a certain distinction should be applied. For some are remote, not of the number of those cities that were, what, promised to them? In such cities, being attacked, the men are, what, killed, who fought against the people of God, but one takes pity on the woman and the infants, but in the cities nearby, which were promised, or are commanded to be killed, on account of the, what, prior iniquities of them, right, to which punishing the Lord sent the people of Israel, as it were, carrier-outs of the divine justice, because they acted impiously, coming, entering the air. When you go in, wipe them out. Yeah, wipe them out, yeah. Tough talk here, huh? Yeah. Richard Dawkins refused to debate that phenomenal Catholic philosopher and publicist Dr. Daniel Craig on his very point, and Dr. Craig came up with an answer, which seems to be akin to St. Thomas', which is not a surprise. He may have got it partially from St. Thomas, but so this is actually a big issue in the big atheist debates. You know, there's divine justice, the Israelites being the executors of divine justice in this kind of way. But the fruit-bearing trees, right, are commanded to be reserved, and account of usefulness to that people, whose city and territory were subject to their... Better not have us asking the questions at the debate tonight, huh? The Republican debate tonight shouldn't have us asking the questions, I don't think. I think it would be personae man gratis from then on. Okay. Moreover, the common good, according to virtue, should be preferred to the private good by each one, right? But in war that is committed against enemies, the common good is sought, right? And so to be therefore is it commanded that the battle being imminent, some should be what? Sent home? To it, those who built a new house, who planned a vineyard, and who married a... took a wife. This is funny, isn't it, huh? Yeah, yeah, yeah. To the fifth, therefore, it should be said that the new builder of a house, or the planter of a vineyard, the one joined to a wife, are excluded from battle on account of two things. First, because those things which a man newly has, or at once is prepared to having, he's more accustomed to love, and consequently to fear their, what? Loss. Loss. Whence it is probable that from such a love, more death would be feared, and death would be less brave to fighting, huh? Uncle Jim there, he said, well, he had volunteered for the First World War, and then he volunteered for the Second World War. He said, I'm a bachelor, so I should go in, because I'm not a father, you know. If I get killed, it doesn't... For the family. Secondly, because, as the philosopher says in the Second Book of Physics, it seems unfortunate, right, when someone approaches some good, to having some good, if afterwards he'd be impeded, what? From it, huh? And therefore, unless the, what? Those close remaining are more saddened about the death as such, huh? Because they were not able to, what? Enjoy the goods prepared for them, and also people considering this were an oar. These men, therefore, were sequestered, right, huh? The subtraction from the battle, from the fear of death, huh? Moreover, from guilt, well, not to, what? Get some commodity, right? Some advantage. But the man who is, what? Fearful and, you know, just afraid in the heart, is culpable, right, huh? For this is contrary to the virtue of fortitude. And soonly, therefore, from the labor of battle, should be, are excluded the, what? Fearful and those having a weak heart, huh? To the six, it should be said that the timid are sent back to the house. Not that they would get some benefit from this, right, huh? But that's the people from their presence would, what? Get something not suitable. Because through their fear and flight, right, also others would be provoked to fear. Yeah. Kind of funny now, huh, because they're trying to allow a woman now into battle now. And some men, you know, who are not really, you know, even, you know, they can do some good things in the army, right? They're even opposed to it, right? Because this gets in the way of the kind of courage that you need in the battle field, huh? The kind of bonding of men, you know, where they're doing well to give their life for another person. So it doesn't look like a good idea, you know? The Israelis tried it. It was, it proved to be such a bad idea because the men would do stupid things to try to save the women. Yeah. And that day they stopped. Yeah. That's interesting. That's good, yeah. That's a good example. Example, yeah. Well, then that's where you should get the APAC group down in Washington to convince the military leaders we tried this and didn't work. Yeah, yeah. It's funny how they've had this information. is now about the Israeli experience and yet, you know, you still want to see it. Aren't the Israelites the ones who are the best as protecting the airplanes, you know, from the terrorists, right? The terrorists. To get into those airplayings. But again, this is what is said by divine wisdom, right? Proverbs 8. Write are all my sermons and all my words. There's nothing depraved, reverse in them, right? Yeah. I think it should be said that with strangers, right, there can be a way of behaving of men in two ways, right? In one way, pacificia, yeah? Peacefully. Peacefully, I think it's the word pacific, yeah? In another way, hostility, right? Maybe now the Pacific Ocean got its name, right? That's what, it sounds like the old translation we have. Yeah. One of the kind of peace-offering sacraments is called pacifite. It makes peace. Do you know how the word paper came from? What? Iris? Yeah, yeah. And I guess paper was actually invented in China. It's, yeah. I'm reading a world history now. The Susie Bay Library's got this, you know, some books you can buy in a dollar. Here's this world history, a $40 book. One dollar. He says, okay, I'll get it. So it's kind of reading it for my music. And he's talking about that, huh? When people was brought in from China, right, and you're doing the same thing you did in papyrus, except that it's a different thing entirely, that's how they started calling it paper after papyrus. So it's kind of a misname, you know, something different than papyrus. But it's interesting. It's a valuable thing you pick up from history books, you know. It's all right. I was trying to see how he was going to divide world history differently than MacNeill, huh? The Rise of the West, which is probably the best history in the world. But, you know, the division of history that we had, ancient, medieval, and modern, is a good division of European history, right? But it's not the best division of world history as a whole, right? And the way that MacNeill did in his book, right, divided the world history into three parts, right? But the first part, up to about 500 B.C., is the part where civilization begins in the Middle East, right? And kind of spreads out from there, right? But kind of, you know, it's kind of leader, right? And then the middle period, from 500 B.C. to 1500 A.D., right, is called the Eurasian Cultural Valance by him, right? Because there's four main centers of civilization, one in the old Middle East, one in Europe, right? One in India, one in China. Some lesser ones, but those four main ones. But they're kind of developing, kind of independent of each other. And sometimes one is advancing more than the other ones. And then starting in the 1500s, you have the rise of the West, right? And not only colonially, but, you know, eventually the Western technologies, you have to accept that or else you get to get to the North. So I said, I wonder if this guy's going to do it any way different, right? And sure enough, his middle chapter is about, you know, he doesn't use the term, Eurasian Cultural Valance. He's talking about the divergent of civilizations, right? Which means they're independents one of another to some extent, right? Well, the first part is dominated by, you know, discussion of Sumeria and Iraq and Egypt and so on, and it's spread out from there. And then the last part, you know, is going to be the same. So you can't really improve upon that, right? That's a better division of world history than ancient, medieval, and modern. That makes division, you know, it's a division to three even there, you know. That makes sense for European history, but not for world history. I also found out about paper from Super Pirates. I mean, you know, so I found out all kinds of little bits of information that I can, yeah. Good investment point. Yeah, yeah. I remember my friend Roy Monroe used to have a book on income, right? I guess they had kind of like a planned economy, right? And at a certain time, everybody would get a pair of shoes handed down, you know, and a pair of pants handed down, right? Well, maybe, you know, I wear out my pants more than you do, and you wear out your shoes more than I do, or something like that, or something like that. And so down at the bottom, you had to have some trade, you know, you know, a pair of shoes, I need a pair of pants, well, here you go, but it kind of shows the only way that the planned economy can exist is by some frantic exchange at the bottom. It's always accompanied by a black mark. Yeah. So we can be at peace with them, or hostility there. Siffiche with Germany now, and hostility back in the Second World War there. As he guards both ways, right? Ordering both ways, the law suitably contains what? Suitable, contains suitable precepts, huh? For in three ways, huh? It's offered to the Jews, the occasion that they might, what? Commune with the extraneous peacefully, right? First, when the, what? The extraneous ones made a, what? Passage through their land, as it were, wanderers, huh? Another way, when in their land they came, inhabited as immigrants, huh? As he guards both, the law of, what, mercy, was proposed as precepts, huh? The law proposes precepts of mercy, I should put that way. Before I said, Exodus 22, advenum non contrista visa, don't sadden the immigrant, huh? And you're not no less the, what? Yeah. So I said to the Indian woman, I opened the door for the church, and I said, and I said, it's just came to mind, I said, you must be a Thomas Christian. She said, yes. I was like, one Indian boy, I said one time in the church, and I said, are you a Thomas Christian? No. She said, no. She said, yes, she is. So I'm being kind, you know, to these Indians that are, from the Indian parish. Third, when some extraneous people are wholly, what? in their consortium, in their right, yeah. And in these, a student order is to be observed, huh? For not at once have they received as citizens, like Obama wants to do, so they can start putting a democratic in it. Is Obama a citizen? That's another question. I think it's a kind of a displacement where you're doing. He wants to be accepted, and that's why he wants all of them to be accepted. To displace himself. Just a proud citizen? Oh, just as among some, what, Gentiles have established that ought to not regard as citizens except the one who are so from a grandmother or a grandfather or a great-grandfather or something like that. As the philosopher says in the third book of the politics, huh? And this because if at once the extraneous coming in received to treating those things to other people, there are many dangers that can happen, right? For the extraneous not having yet a firm love, right, for the public good, huh? They might some things against the people. Yeah. And therefore, the law established that about some are from some nations, right? Yeah. Having some affinity to Jews, to wit of the, what, Egyptians, among whom some were, what, born and nourished, and of the Medians, the sons of Esau, the brother Jacob, in the third generation would be received in the, what, consortium of the people. Some, however, had themselves in a hostile way, right, as Ammonites, the Mabites, never would be admitted into the, what, consortium of the people. The Ammonites, however, who were adversaries, and of whom they had no, what, agreement of, yeah, it's a word, perpetual enemies were to be had, right, okay. For it is said in Exodus 17, the war of God will be against Avalok from generation to generation. That's pretty certain. Yeah. You know, with these, Mohammedans over there, you know, who want to kill all us, you know. Well, everybody, really. Yeah, that's, that's, that's my, that's one of the things I think that's relevant to the refugees who are most of us, we have to be very close, because we can't judge them. Yeah. That's if we can't decide what's realist on what isn't. Yeah. That's their business. But then we have sufficient reasons to exclude a lot of them because of this issue. It's a national security issue. Well, people on the left that I've spoken to in the past quite often don't see culture as being an issue at all. They see everything boiling down to economics. So that all these people want is just a fair shake, a chance to make a good living, looking for opportunity. And it's a very Marxist sort of view of humanity. Especially since the last year. If you're shooting in California, you could say, well, that's obviously not the case. I mean, that's, that's the easy point of the fact. Of course, the facts are irrelevant. Exactly. So that's the peaceful activity. And similarly, it regards the hostile communication. That's a nice way of shooting at the end of the day, shooting at the end of the day. It's hostile. My cousin that's in the Navy, you know, he knew some guys in the hillbilly country, you know, and they began to let us back home, you know, and talking about shooting at a neighbor's home like that. I mean, it's kind of funny to hear this, you know, just because, you know, David, you know, what did I ever say? What was going on? First, it instituted that war would be justly, right, entered into. For as commanded, Deuteronomy 20, that when one approaches to attacking the enemy, one offers them first, what, peace. Second, he instituted that they fortidere, carry out the, you know, they bravely carry out the war, right, having confidence in God, right, and for this to be observed better, he instituted that the war approaching the priests would, what, strengthen them, promising the aid of God, of God. Theory commanded that the impediments of war would be removed by sending back to the house, who could give some impediment to it, right? Secondly, that victory would be moderately used, having mercy on the woman and the little ones, and also on the trees, not cutting them down. Yeah, so I don't know if you approve of that salting of the Carthage just so well there. Yeah, that's pretty good. Well, that was exciting, though. They're going to find out for domestic prisons, huh? Now I've got to pull back and propose it to your place. to the fourth one goes forward thus it seems that the old law edited precepts laid down precepts about domestic persons for the servant that which he is is of his lord or master as the philosopher says in the first book of the politics but that which is of something is to be what perpetually of him therefore unsuitably does the law command that the servants or slaves in the seventh year should be what seventh year that's interesting seventh year symbol of wisdom right Thomas Aquinas died at the age of what yeah Thomas says that the square of a number has the same significant symbolism that the first number does right so seven times seven but the Greeks kind of divided the ages into sevens you know so seven times seven makes forty nine really very much for the wise men right the mass this morning had the wisdom there for Thomas yeah but Aristotle says the mind was best at forty nine so you know how far that I've got from my best the decrepit way out of here so at least say seven is the age of reason right so you kind of moreover just as some animal as an ass a cattleman and a possession of the lord so also it's a possession of the lord the master so also the slave or the servant but about animals it's commanded in Deuteronomy 22 that they be what returned to their owners if they are found to be what wandering right there are here comes the Latin word for it to wander right yeah Christ is that word too in the gospels in the Greek the word wander from the Greek yeah you wander he says knowing neither the power of God yeah so I define error as a disordered movement of the mind right wandering there's one guy saying get back there he said let your mind wander once in a while well maybe that's as soon as that can be said you know but therefore unsuitably is it commanded Deuteronomy 23 you shall not what return the servant to his master the one who flees to you so why return his animal not return his slave right yeah especially if you fling up north you know you sit them back there where they belong yeah seems very interesting more were the divine law ought more to what provoke us to mercy than the human law right but according to human laws those people are gravely punished who exceedingly what yeah they'll reflect servants or their servant girls okay but that is most bitter affliction from which follows what death therefore unsuitably is it established exodus 21 that who strikes his servant or his what handmaid with what rod if in one day he lives he will not be subject to punishment because he is his what money possession of him I guess pecunia what did you translate pecunia there it says because it is his money yeah it's like his wealth or something yeah yeah so if they survive one day you're beating them oh my goodness you should look at some of the replies here before we go on for a while get lost look at the third objection to the third it should be said that about the beatings inflicted upon servants the law seems to have considered whether it was certain or uncertain now if the injury was what certain the law applied a punishment right for the mutilation the what the forfeiture yeah who is commanded right to be given his liberty right for death over the punishment of what yeah since the servant in the hand of the lord beating him right died but if the injury was not certain but had some appearances the law inflected no punishment on what his own servant as when the servant struck did not at once die but after some days because it's uncertain whether he died from the yeah it's kind of strange because if he had yeah thus that not at once did he die but that he could walk upon his cane yeah he would not be what guilty of homicide the one who was struck even if afterwards he died but these are held to expenses I guess which the one is made with his doctors right but this in the his own servant has no place because whatever the servant had and also the person the servant himself is a certain possession of the lord and therefore for a cause to sign wherefore he is not subject to the punishment of what because he is his money let's be strange let's go back and look at one and two here before we go on what about not seeing him back to the second should be said that that commandment is understood about the servant who was sought by his what yeah or for some the ministerial he serves as some sin yeah my text can tell me though they're capitalized they shouldn't be capitalized I don't think what the first therefore we'll go back to the first objection to freedom to the first therefore it should be said that because the sons of Israel were liberated by the lord from what slavery and to this they were what in service the lord did not wish that they would what be forever servants right whence it is said Leviticus 25 if you were what by poverty compulsive and sold to your what you you Brother, you would not, what, oppress him with the slavery, but as were a mercenary or a sojourner. For you are my servant, son, and I brought you out of Egypt, come under the condition of servant, son. And therefore those who were, what, not simply servants, but secundum quid a certain time being diminished or finished with the domestic liberal son. Okay, now we come to the, what, these first three objections are about your master and the servant, right, or slave. Now we go to the father, I guess, and the son, right, huh? Moreover, other, the fourth objection, moreover, other is the, what, the rule of the master to his servant, slave, and of the father to his, what, son. That's where Aristotle raises a nice proportion there about the emotions, right? Should reason rule the emotions, I guess, master rules the slave. Or like the, what, yeah, yeah. You know, I was talking to my cousin Don about that, he was talking to that with some psychologist, right? And I guess this is kind of the source of a lot of psychological problems, right? In that your reason is ruling your emotions, like a, what, slave, yeah. But this, what, pertains to the rule of a, of a master or a servant that someone is able to, what, sell his servant or his servant girl? Okay. And so it will be, therefore, that is law permit that someone sells his, what, daughter as a servant or a late servant, huh? Yeah. Yeah. To the fourth it should be said, as has been said, that no Jew, huh, was able to, what, sell his servant, huh? There's a distinction between the sempliciter and secundum quit. But he was a, what, servant secundum quit, as it were someone under pay, you might say, a mercenary, huh? With quite a tempest at some time, huh? We had that in America, right? Didn't he have an indentured servant, or what do they call him? Yeah. The more when you're a certain number of years. Yeah. And in this way, the law permitted that poverty, you know, forcing one, someone could sell his son or his, what, daughter, huh? Never thought of that one. You should reconsider and contact the children and say, look, your mother and I need some extra cash. Yeah. They've got so many kids they could sell a few, you know? They could sell a few, you know. Sure. It's temporary. It's temporary. It's just until we decide to retire. Really. And this also is the words of the law itself, right? Sure, right? For it says that if someone sells his daughter into servitude, right, he will not, what? Maybe encilladure is more like a simpichitare, right? And famula is more lesser, yeah. And in this way, not only the son, but also himself, someone could, what, sell. Never thought of selling myself. But more as a mercenary than as a, what? Servant, right? Okay. According to Leviticus 25. If being compelled by poverty, right, one sells to himself, yeah. You will not oppress them with the servitude of servants. They were a mercenary, they were a mercenary, and they called it. Somebody's calling me that the colonial came from Columbus, huh? Because that was his name, huh? But this is before Columbus, so. But were it for colony? I don't know. This is Colonus. It says a purple line, a verse, a period, a line, a fragment. Number five. The son has power over his, what? The father has power over his son, right? But it's of him to punish, what, excess? The one who has power over the one sinning, huh? It's of him to punish, what, some excess? And so be therefore as commanded to Deuteronomy 21, that the father lead the son to, what, punishment by the senior son. Punish him yourself, right? Which is a place to train your children, right? You can't do it, huh? To the fifth, it should be said, but as the philosopher says in the Tenth Book of the Ethics, the paternal rule has only the power of admonition, right? Not, however, a co-active power, even though it does, to which they're able to depress the rebellious. And the, yeah. And therefore, in this case, the law commands that the son who is contumax, how do you translate that, contumax? Stubborn. Okay. Be punished by the princes of the city, right? Didn't Scripture have something there about killing the son if he insults the parents, the mother, the father? He's really strong, isn't it? This is right. That was my aunt. I had it coming, too. I was spitting these, these toxinous seats we had in those days. She says to the person who came in to get this Coke or something, you know, this little boy has been doing these, spitting these things all day. So, well, we can put them in jail for a game, he says. My mother always joked, like, I really sobered up you after that. But I don't think my aunt Helen realized how much she had sobered me up. Save me from the gallows. Now, the sixth argument here, right? With aliens, what not, not to what? Into marriage, I guess? And those joined should be what? Separate? My goodness. Separate, that's been the wife. And so be there for in Deuteronomy, it's conceded that they might take, what, captives and make wives of them, right? Take the fun out of them. To the sixth, it should be said that the Lord prohibited aliens in matrimony to be led on account of the, what, danger of seduction, lest they be led into idolatry. That's what happened to the wife. You heard that story about Aristotle, you know, where he was supposed to be telling Alexander, you know, that this, he was letting this woman have too much, you know, influence over him, right? So the woman got annoyed at this, so she had to tame Aristotle, right? So she tamed him that she could ride him around the room on the back, right? So Alexander comes in, and the first horse put up the arm. And he said, well, what's this he says? You were telling me about, you know? He said, well, he said, well, he said, well, he said, well, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what