Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

you cannot legislate morals


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members
<br /><br /><br />Such as?<br />
<br /><br /><br />

If I may reply to this.

I suppose something such as Westboro church protesting and holding up signs at the funeral service of our soldiers, remember, our soldiers families have no right to expect to have a peaceful funeral services without the likes of Westboro Church disturbing their peace while burying their loved one.

Remember John, the new American way is that our country has not the authority to tell anyone what they can or can't do, remember, its a free country, and they cannot overrule the minority.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Homosexuality is a societal concern. Anyone who has been a student of history knows that when homosexuality became a part of the warp and woof of a society, that society was lost - not just spiritually, but conquered.

Aids was first called Grids: Gay Related Immune Deficiency Syndrome. There was a good reason for that. The actions of gays creates an immune deficiency in their bodies (I'm not going to go into details - it's gross. But you can look it up and check out the veracity) which becomes contagious. Via sexual contact, intravenous needle use and through bodily fluids coming into contact with open membranes of the body: mouth, open sores, etc.

Aids is now a scourge, affecting many people who do not use drugs, have gay sex, etc. But from blood transfusions as well. So, yes, homosexuality is very much a community concern, and local communities and states very much have a right and a responsibility to legislate about it.

Prostitution spreads other diseases. So, it is a societal concern. It also contributes to marital prOBlems (I know, if someone visits a prostitute, there are already prOBlems...but imagine if a man did, got a disease and then gave it to his wife - it happens).

Drug usage affects people other than the user. My best friend when I was 18 years old was in the laundromat of her apartment building doing laundry one night. Her hubby was at home. A young man high on a couple of different drugs and some beer went in there and tried to rape her at knife point. When he wasn't able to, he began smashing her head against the concrete floor - later testifying at the trial that he remembered laughing as he smashed her head. The casket was closed because her head looked like hamburger meat: and she was still alive, in pain (OBviously not during the funeral - she lived for 8 hours after the attack). Yes, drug usage is a moral issue that needs to be legislated (btw - for those who think marijuana is harmless, he'd had a couple of reefers that night...).

I hate alcohol, and would love to see it eradicated. It had part to do with my best friend's murder; it was instrumental in my natural father trying to kill my mother; my grandfather almost destroyed his family because of it; my step-dad almost destroyed our family over beer...But I know alcohol won't be eradicated. It's been tried and wasn't successful (via prohibition) except for those towns where Billy Sunday preached and the taverns closed down because people got saved. Granted, many of those towns have them back now, but the gospel closed 'em down for a while! If churches stayed right, they'd stay closed. Anyway - alcohol is legislated. And rightly so. There are countries where there are no restrictions, and alcoholics start at a very early age...

All that to say: there are a number of issues about which people say there should be no legislation because it's a private matter. But, really, things like what I've mentioned aren't private. They do affect others and so others do have a right to a say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Great post LuAnne!

As the saying goes, no man is an island, and what many want so desperately to call "personal matters" do indeed have a negative impact upon society at large.

And that's a good question amblivion because polygamists, pedophiles and advocates for beastiality have all been major supporters of the fight to legitimize and legalize homosexuality and homosexual "marriage". If such becomes law, it's only a matter of time before that precedent leads a judge to rule that the same "rights" can't be denied to all other sexual perversions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Are Christians expected to abide by such today or does the concept of freedom mean these are all personal choices that Christians can pick and choose from and support all others doing the same?



1.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.


2.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.


3.

Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.


4.

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.


5.

Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.


6.

Thou shalt not kill.


7.

Thou shalt not commit adultery.


8.

Thou shalt not steal.


9.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.


10.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If such becomes law, it's only a matter of time before that precedent leads a judge to rule that the same "rights" can't be denied to all other sexual perversions.


Ummmmmm.....I hate to be the one to break the news, but it is already legal in a number of states. That horse has left the gate!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

CPR - knowing trc, I'm sure it was at least partially tongue in cheek. I think his initials stand for "Tongue in my Right Cheek." :nuts:

Just a comment to John's statement that groups are waiting for national legislation - I believe some are, but that is where the legislation line has to be drawn. The federal government has no jurisdiction over the private lives of American citizens. Legislation dealing with perversions such as you mentioned (I know you know this) belongs in the local communities and possibly the state, if the citizens of that state so desire.

That is one of the reasons the referendum in CA has such significance. Gay marriage is already legal in Mass. If the referendum is defeated at the SCOTUS level (which, constitutionally, it should never have gone to a federal judge because this was a matter dealing with the voters of CA, and would not affect commerce with other states nor would it be a national security issue) it will be considered a great victory, and precedent will be set that the SCOTUS created "new law" that can't be fought in the states (just like with Roe v. Wade...). It actually can be fought in the states, by nullification, but too many people are ignorant of what nullification is.

We the People of this country (and Christians have, unfortunately, taken the lead) have allowed those who hate the liberty and the freedoms that liberty grants to manipulate and convince us that the Constitution says what it doesn't and allows what it doesn't.

God's grace many times shines brighter when there is more darkness. Spiritual darkness has descended on this country, and it is getting darker all the time. Christians need (and I include myself in this) personal revival so that we have the boldness that is needed to spread the Light for those trapped in darkness. That Light is what enabled our founders to give us a Constitutional federative Republic, with liberty such as has never been seen before in the world. We can elect Constitutionalists to office (and we should), but until Christians get our priorities right, the darkness won't be lifted from our country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



Such as?


How about commiting adultery in your heart--i.e. lusting after someone. Or hating your brother. Of course, you have already argued that no man is an island and I would agree with you, so perhaps there is no sin that doesn't have consequences for others, even indirectly.

But at root what CPR is saying here is that some sins should be made illegal and some shouldn't. And we can see that this is already the case and has been the case in both the US and the UK for a very long time when we look at the 10 commandments you posted:

1. Not illegal.
2. Not illegal.
3. Not illegal.
4. Not illegal.
5. Not illegal.
6. Illegal.
7. Not illegal.
8. Illegal.
9. Illegal sometimes.
10. Not illegal.

So out of the 10, only two are unarguably illegal. Bearing false witness can be an offence of sorts in that you can be done in a civil court for libel. You could also argue that 4 is illegal if you considered Sunday to be the modern equivalent of the Sabbath, for there are laws restricting trade and business on Sunday (in the Uk at least). Blaspheming was a punishable offence in the UK until recently but no longer. So most of the 10 commandments are not illegal.

So if CPR is wrong, then should all 10 sins being spoken of in the 10 commandments be made illegal? On the other hand, if he is right in principle but wrong on the specifics, by what basis should we judge which morals to legislate?

To make it easier to discuss I'm going to ask some questions about just one commandment: the commandment against coveting.

Should coveting be made illegal?
If not, why not?
If so, what penalty should it carry and why?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members



How about commiting adultery in your heart--i.e. lusting after someone. Or hating your brother. Of course, you have already argued that no man is an island and I would agree with you, so perhaps there is no sin that doesn't have consequences for others, even indirectly.

But at root what CPR is saying here is that some sins should be made illegal and some shouldn't. And we can see that this is already the case and has been the case in both the US and the UK for a very long time when we look at the 10 commandments you posted:

1. Not illegal.
2. Not illegal.
3. Not illegal.
4. Not illegal.
5. Not illegal.
6. Illegal.
7. Not illegal.
8. Illegal.
9. Illegal sometimes.
10. Not illegal.

So out of the 10, only two are unarguably illegal. Bearing false witness can be an offence of sorts in that you can be done in a civil court for libel. You could also argue that 4 is illegal if you considered Sunday to be the modern equivalent of the Sabbath, for there are laws restricting trade and business on Sunday (in the Uk at least). Blaspheming was a punishable offence in the UK until recently but no longer. So most of the 10 commandments are not illegal.

So if CPR is wrong, then should all 10 sins being spoken of in the 10 commandments be made illegal? On the other hand, if he is right in principle but wrong on the specifics, by what basis should we judge which morals to legislate?

To make it easier to discuss I'm going to ask some questions about just one commandment: the commandment against coveting.

Should coveting be made illegal?
If not, why not?
If so, what penalty should it carry and why?


I don't know of any attempts by Christians to say sins of the heart should be legislated.

However, governments are attempting to do such under liberal and socialist doctrine with "hate crimes" laws.

Scripture tells us what should be matters of governmental law. If you are so inclined, you can read of such there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't know of any attempts by Christians to say sins of the heart should be legislated.

However, governments are attempting to do such under liberal and socialist doctrine with "hate crimes" laws.

Scripture tells us what should be matters of governmental law. If you are so inclined, you can read of such there.


Then perhaps you are more in agreement with CPR than you imply by your own line of questioning. He suggested that not all moral issues should be legislated against and he called those that shouldn't "personal moral issues" and appeared to define such as this: "The individual can make decisions that violate God's law, but that is between them and God."

You also believe that not all sins should be legislated against and you believe that sins of the heart are those that shouldn't. At least that's what I've taken from your words--sorry if I've misunderstood.

Thanks for pointing out that scripture tells us the answer. I don't pretend to know scripture very well and I pray I will never take issue with a endorsement to read it. But at the same time we are here discussing these issues aren't we? The answer, 'go and read the Bible' could be applied to all questions to the extent that the entire forum is made redundant. But clearly we all feel it is worth talking and asking questions or we would not be here. For my part I've learned much by doing so, especially as a new Christian.

Thanks again

Carl

P.S. I'd be interested in hearing from others who are happy to expand more on what John has said--i.e. what scripture tells us about which sins should be legislated against and which shouldn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Ok, I don't know where I woke up today, but it must have been in Sodom and Gomorrah, and not the United States. And God delivers his people out of Sodom and Gomorrah.

All the last commandments are illegal in this country. Adultery is illegal, and sodomy is illegal - even though a poster said they weren't. Coveting - meaing to desire something illegally, is illegal (OBviously), such as conspiring to defraud my neighbor out of it, sleep with his wife, etc.

So have the other ones been at the founding. People forget in arguments with athiests we had infidelity laws in this country long after its founding. Blasphemy would go under OBsceneity laws and may still be rightfully persecuted, Sabbath laws have been awhile around and you'll hear seventh day adventists talk about them all the time.

When our courts have the ten commandments traditionally displayed, the bible used to swear people in traditionally, and its completely part of our common law, don't let the present lukewarm generation sell off your birthright - our court system doesn't work unless you have God's judgement involved in godly judgement. And the court system is in fact completely broken.

Edited by MaxKennedy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...