POTD 5/24/2010

[WizardofOz]

I rejoice!

I honestly wish that Christians would stop trying to apply the laws given to theocratic Israel to sins committed outside of theocratic Israel. The nation of Israel, as a theocracy, came to its end about AD 70. It has not returned. Christianity is not a continuation of that theocracy - it is a religion of freedom in which the law of God is written on our hearts. And that law is a more perfect law, having been answered in full by the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. All eternal penalty for sin has been paid, and all temporal penalties for sin are found in natural consequence and those that governments set up.

Our government is one that protects the freedom of religious expression - within the bounds of lawful living. That means that Christians who think we need to set up our criminal justice system to match the one-time Israeli theocracy have no right to force that on those Christians who think we should let mercy guide judgment. It means that not all of your religious beliefs become law, and not all of my religious beliefs become law. We decide together - and that includes people of all religions who are citizens - what will and will not become law.

I hate legalism.

:first::cheers::thumb::banana::cloud9::the_wave::BRAVO:

Great post NM, on a very important and misunderstood topic!

 

[nicholsmom]

It's good to know I'm not alone

 

[Stripe]

Forget Israel. How about the law God gave to the entire human race in Genesis 9:6?

 

[nicholsmom]

Forget Israel. How about the law God gave to the entire human race in Genesis 9:6?

And what about the one He gave in the next verse? Have you obeyed that one? What's the penalty for that?

For that matter, what's the penalty for not executing the murderer?

Legalism :nono:

 

[Stripe]

And what about the one He gave in the next verse? Have you obeyed that one? What's the penalty for that?

Hardly comparable, NM!

For that matter, what's the penalty for not executing the murderer?

Nothing, in the law.

Legalism

Are you going to accuse of legalism anyone who promotes any law?

 

[chatmaggot]

There were some laws that preceded the Mosaic law and were added to it (like do not murder) and there were some laws that were unique to the Mosaic law (like don't wear clothing of mixed fiber).

It seems that people argue most about where "laws" fall. Was murder wrong because the Mosaic law said so? If so, since the Mosaic law does not determine how a Christian lives their life, is murder still wrong?

When people pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to live by and hold others to, that's when arguments arise.

 

[Stripe]

There were some laws that preceded the Mosaic law and were added to it (like do not murder) and there were some laws that were unique to the Mosaic law (like don't wear clothing of mixed fiber).

It seems that people argue most about where "laws" fall. Was murder wrong because the Mosaic law said so? If so, since the Mosaic law does not determine how a Christian lives their life, is murder still wrong?

When people pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to live by and hold others to, that's when arguments arise.

I figure we are all smart enough (except for Punisher1984) to realise that murder is wrong and should be against the law regardless of when God said what.

It seems NM has something against the death penalty and thinks its proponents are legalists. :idunno:

 

[nicholsmom]

Hardly comparable, NM!

Verse six was more of a proclamation concerning God's intent about murder and the importance of blood than it was a commandment. Verse 7 was a commandment. So you are right, they are not the same. So do you obey the commandment God gave to Noah? Do you take it upon yourself to enforce the intent of God concerning the penalty for murder?

Why did you even bring this passage to the discussion since it has no bearing on us and doesn't apply to my argument to which you seemed to be responding.

Nothing, in the law.

We agree. There is no penalty for not using the death penalty for murder.

Do you think that it is okay for Christians to cry for the dp for every sin for which it was used by theocratic Israel? Do you think that that is legalism? That was the point of my argument.

Re-read it. I think you will find that you agree more than you disagree. The post was taken from one concerning the use of the dp for adultery.

 

[nicholsmom]

There were some laws that preceded the Mosaic law and were added to it (like do not murder) and there were some laws that were unique to the Mosaic law (like don't wear clothing of mixed fiber).

It seems that people argue most about where "laws" fall. Was murder wrong because the Mosaic law said so? If so, since the Mosaic law does not determine how a Christian lives their life, is murder still wrong?

When people pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to live by and hold others to, that's when arguments arise.

I agree, but I wasn't arguing about sin, CM, I was making a point about the application of the theocratic Israeli penal system to sins committed outside of that nation (which no longer stands).

 

[nicholsmom]

I figure we are all smart enough (except for Punisher1984) to realise that murder is wrong and should be against the law regardless of when God said what.

It seems NM has something against the death penalty and thinks its proponents are legalists. :idunno:

No Stripe, I am opposed to the dp being used in the name of the long-dead theocratic Israeli penal system. Governments have the sovereign right to set up penalties as they see fit, it is Christians who call for the dp whenever it was called for in the penal system of that theocracy. Contemporary use of a penal system that was intended for a specific people for a specific purpose for a specific time, that time being well past, is legalism. That doesn't mean that governments shouldn't enforce laws, just that we who have the law written on our hearts shouldn't demand the death penalty for things like adultery and dishonoring your parents. Sin is better left in God's arena exclusively - or at most in the arena of close friends and family. Crime, on the other hand must be managed. That is the role of government.

 

[Stripe]

Verse six was more of a proclamation concerning God's intent about murder and the importance of blood than it was a commandment. Verse 7 was a commandment.

That's a different way of looking at it..... lain:

So you are right, they are not the same. So do you obey the commandment God gave to Noah?

There was a law given to all mankind. That's the one we are discussing, right?

Do you take it upon yourself to enforce the intent of God concerning the penalty for murder?

I don't know what you're asking. :idunno:

We agree. There is no penalty for not using the death penalty for murder.

There probably are very severe consequences.

Do you think that it is okay for Christians to cry for the dp for every sin for which it was used by theocratic Israel?

Nope.

Do you think that that is legalism? That was the point of my argument.

That might be legalism. Who have you met that does such a thing?

Re-read it. I think you will find that you agree more than you disagree. The post was taken from one concerning the use of the dp for adultery.

I think adultery should be a crime.

 

[Stripe]

It is Christians who call for the dp whenever it was called for in the penal system of that theocracy.

Like who?

Contemporary use of a penal system that was intended for a specific people for a specific purpose for a specific time, that time being well past, is legalism.

But some things should still be capital crimes today. That would be fine even if such a law lined up with a historical one.

we who have the law written on our hearts shouldn't demand the death penalty for things like adultery and dishonoring your parents.

Why not?

Sin is better left in God's arena exclusively - or at most in the arena of close friends and family. Crime, on the other hand must be managed. That is the role of government.

Adultery should be a crime.

 

[nicholsmom]

But some things should still be capital crimes today. That would be fine even if such a law lined up with a historical one.

I don't disagree. I am unconvinced of the efficiency of the death penalty as it is applied in the USA, and add to that the trouble with error that will occur whenever humans are involved, and you have something that makes me pause. Other errors can be undone to some extent, but not the death penalty. Is it a deterrent? Are other deterrents as good? I am not morally opposed to use of the death penalty for violent criminals who pose a very real and deadly danger to society - or even for those whose victims are particularly helpless and vulnerable who live through the crime but may be left with horrible scars, both physical and psychological. So it isn't a moral objection, but rather a practical one.

Concerning the dp for adultery:

Why not?

Desire for the death penalty for nonviolent crimes (those where the criminal does not pose a significant danger to society) shows two things:
(1) We don't trust God to supply an adequate punishment - that's not to say that crimes ought not be punished, they should absolutely.
(2) We want to rein in the free will of those who chose sin.

These both stem from self-centeredness rather than God-centeredness. God, in the form of the Holy Spirit is the convicter of sin, not us. We are to hold each other accountable as Christians, but that doesn't mean that we demand holiness out of the unredeemed. We ought rather to expect unholiness out of them.
We must, as a society, manage criminal activity to ensure safety and liberty. The penal system is bogged down enough with crimes that threaten those (safety and liberty) without adding to it the sins of the flesh which we have no right to impose as crimes upon the unredeemed.

Adultery should be a crime.

Why is it not enough that it is a sin?

What should the criminal penalty be for adultery? How about for homosexuality? Fornication? Dishonoring parents? Incest?

 

[Stripe]

I don't disagree.

I am unconvinced of the efficiency of the death penalty as it is applied in the USA, and add to that the trouble with error that will occur whenever humans are involved, and you have something that makes me pause. Other errors can be undone to some extent, but not the death penalty. Is it a deterrent? Are other deterrents as good? I am not morally opposed to use of the death penalty for violent criminals who pose a very real and deadly danger to society - or even for those whose victims are particularly helpless and vulnerable who live through the crime but may be left with horrible scars, both physical and psychological. So it isn't a moral objection, but rather a practical one.

Yeah. Changing how people do things for the better ain't always easy.

Concerning the dp for adultery:

Desire for the death penalty for nonviolent crimes (those where the criminal does not pose a significant danger to society) shows two things:

Adultery is very destructive to society.

(1) We don't trust God to supply an adequate punishment - that's not to say that crimes ought not be punished, they should absolutely.

Uhm .. it works better if I argue the other side. Applying punishment in obedience to God's word is not distrust in God. :nono:

(2) We want to rein in the free will of those who chose sin.

Uh huh. And...?

These both stem from self-centeredness rather than God-centeredness.

It is never wrong to do the right thing, regardless of your motives.

God, in the form of the Holy Spirit is the convicter of sin, not us.

I thought you said people "absolutely ought" to be punished?

We are to hold each other accountable as Christians, but that doesn't mean that we demand holiness out of the unredeemed. We ought rather to expect unholiness out of them.

Christians should be held accountable to the law of the land just like anyone else. Why are you creating some sort of distinction here?

We must, as a society, manage criminal activity to ensure safety and liberty. The penal system is bogged down enough with crimes that threaten those (safety and liberty) without adding to it the sins of the flesh which we have no right to impose as crimes upon the unredeemed.

Prisons aren't further populated by people who are executed.

Why is it not enough that it is a sin?

Because, without the law to guide them, people do not care about sin.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yeah. Changing how people do things for the better ain't always easy.

I hope you don't mind me jumping in on this NM :e4e:

As to the above, yup, and pompous judgemental arrogance is one of the least effective tools in such regard.

Adultery is very destructive to society.

How is it "very" destructive to society? Has it occurred to you that the application of the OT laws you'd have us returned to would simply encourage the marriage rate to plummet and for people to simply 'live in sin'?

Uhm .. it works better if I argue the other side. Applying punishment in obedience to God's word is not distrust in God. :nono:

For crimes yes. Adultery is not a crime no matter how much you'd like to see it reinstated as one.

Uh huh. And...?

It is never wrong to do the right thing, regardless of your motives.

I thought you said people "absolutely ought" to be punished?

For crimes Stripe. The dynamics of people's personal and private lives are none of your business unless an actual crime is being committed such as rape or domestic abuse and violence.

Christians should be held accountable to the law of the land just like anyone else. Why are you creating some sort of distinction here?

I don't think NM is doing what you describe. Rather the standards applying to sin and not crime.

Prisons aren't further populated by people who are executed.

No, and neither can children replace a parent or spouses be reunited with each other when draconian bloodthirsty mobs are out baying for blood over the private lives of other people. Still, I suppose we could follow LH's suggestion and give the 'offended party' first dibs on killing their partner. How 'civilized'. lain:

Because, without the law to guide them, people do not care about sin.

So what else is on the list to turn into a crime? Cussing? lain:

 

[Stripe]

I hope you don't mind me jumping in on this NM :e4e:

"Do me a favour, Hippy. Stay off my side."

As to the above, yup, and pompous judgemental arrogance is one of the least effective tools in such regard.

Who are you talking to? How about you turn around, go outside and come back in when you've got something useful to say. :wave2:

 

[Arthur Brain]

"Do me a favour, Hippy. Stay off my side."

Hippy? :rotfl:

Who are you talking to? How about you turn around, go outside and come back in when you've got something useful to say. :wave2:

You, and anyone else who would bring us back to the dark ages. Other peoples private lives are none of your business and adultery is not a crime. Deal with it. :wave2:

 

[Stripe]

Hippy? :rotf: You, and anyone else who would bring us back to the dark ages. Other peoples private lives are none of your business and adultery is not a crime. Deal with it. :wave2:

Yeah, whatever, dude.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yeah, whatever, dude.

Um, ya, thanks for the screenplay. Not as good as The Terminator or Aliens IMO but not bad as it goes.

And the 'whatever' would apply to you. What you advocate would destroy marriage as an institution because people wouldn't risk it under a police state. Thankfully that just won't happen Stripe as society won't tolerate such a barbaric infringement on human rights. At least in the West at any rate.

:e4e:

 

[nicholsmom]

Adultery is very destructive to society.

I agree, but so is any sin.

Uhm .. it works better if I argue the other side. Applying punishment in obedience to God's word is not distrust in God. :nono:

Which word? The one where he tells His theocracy how to run their unique government? If we had a theocracy, then I'd agree that application of the dp for adultery etc was the right thing to do. Since we have something far, far removed from it, we cannot take those commands, which were given for the running a theocracy, as applicable to our republic.

Uh huh. And...?

The exercise of free will is at the core of our government here in the USA. I would add that God has made provision for free will in this world, only reining it in for His theocracy and then only for a specific time which does not include now. Witness the words of Paul in 1 Cor 6:9-20 where he disdains sexual immorality. Does he say that they ought to hang the sexually immoral? Nope. He pleads with them and reasons with them, but leaves them free.

It is never wrong to do the right thing, regardless of your motives.

True, but what is the "right thing" in this case? Paul did not advocate criminalizing sexual sin except within the church (1 Cor 5:11-13) and even then the penalty is to not "associate" (identify) with the immoral ones - they are outside the church and not to be called brothers in Christ.

I thought you said people "absolutely ought" to be punished?

For crimes, yes, but not for other sins. Shall we set up the theocracy here in the USA? No. The Holy Spirit will convict them of their sin. In addition, no punishment we mete out here on Earth will serve to diminish or ameliorate the ultimate punishment given by Him.

Christians should be held accountable to the law of the land just like anyone else. Why are you creating some sort of distinction here?

Because Paul does. See above.
This doesn't mean that we ought not to prosecute crimes as defined by our government. Are you being purposely obtuse?

Prisons aren't further populated by people who are executed.

You and I both know that it isn't that simple. Nor should it be - this is a punishment that cannot be undone, so we should, at the very least, exercise extreme caution in its use.

Because, without the law to guide them, people do not care about sin.

And if we name all sins as crimes punishable by law, we lose our free society, overcrowd our jails, overburden our justice system, and lose sight of doing the right thing simply because it is right.

Legalism takes our eyes off of our Savior, off of our own need for that Savior, off of forgiveness and its benefits, off of mercy. It makes us see people as sinners instead of people in the bonds of sin. It makes it hard to love them or to impress upon them the beauty of redemption and love and mercy.