Don't ask, Don't tell

Salty,

I have worked with the government and have had security clearances because of my work alongside the military. Yes, there are various things you are investigated for before getting a higher security clearance. For instance, in Vietnam, if you ever had an STD, you could be eliminated from certain duty assignments.

Yet, homosexuality is not necessarily a disqualifier nor is it necessarily one that compromises your keeping of national secrets. Yes, if you are doing other things that can compromise you then they are addressed. Yet, homosexuality is not necessarily an issue.

We could add issue upon issue to make you a higher risk, but homosexuality does not necessarily make you a higher risk according to research.

 

Ben,

I have given you a clear outline of what I would allow for legalities sake. I have quoted and cited Christian legal experts who happen to agree with me. I have also cited Historic Theology precedent for this issue. Thus, to call me illogical is ludicrious and until you can put for something logical, you are really grasping for straws.

Now, let me address the 14 year old. If you study Historic Theology you understand that there are three governments in society as established by God. The first is the state, the second is the Church, and finally the family.

Each three governments are limited. There is a separation of church and state, state and family, and family and church. The state should not overstep it's boundaries into the other areas, nor the other areas into the state's authority. As an example I use when lecturing on this subject, education was given by God to family, not the state. Thus, the state oversteps it's boundaries by demanding families report if they homeschool and by demanding requirements from homeschoolers. This is beyond the realm of government and thus is a legitimate area where one could disobey government. This is the same as government telling homosexuals you can't practice in private this lifestyle.

However, if my child came to me and said that I could not tell them what to do with their body, I would object. First, as the ordained government of the family, I certainly do have the right to tell my child how they will behave in my family. However, the state does not have the right to tell me how I should run my family nor what I should do with my body. The state would be outside of their jurisdiction but not outside the family's jurisdiction. The moral law code would still be in place in my family. Government, however, has a more limited role and that role does not include governing private personal actions. The family's governmental role would include private personal actions to include shepherding a child and nurturing a right heart attitude in your child. Moral lessons are taught in the family.

The same is with the church. A member says they are now a homosexual and are unrepentant. The Church has the right to enact church discipline on that person. The state does not have the right to punish the person and the family does not have the right to kick you out of a church. However, the church has the right to declare you "a non-Christian" and outside God's ordained church. The state has no right to override that decision nor do they have the right to tell the individual they should change their personal habits in this area. The lines are clearly drawn and the other entity should not overstep their boundaries.

So your illustration falls far short of my illustration of why I think this issues is outside of the state realm because I am only talking about one Government entity, the state. The state has no rights over the church or the family (except in clear cases of harm, neglect, etc where the government is responsible for protecting the citizenry). Both the church and the family have clear roles, but the role of government is not all inclusive to include these other areas. If the state is responsible for personal actions and morals, it will eventually overtake the family and the church as the sole authoritarian.

The position I just outlined is a solid historic Baptist position and is it tenable. In fact, I would challenge you to find a conservative Baptist Theologian who disagrees with the three government theory. Most hold to it to some degree, though some do believe we should fight for a theocracy (church over state) or a state over church situation. However, I find these other options dangerous... that is until Christ comes to reign forever and He is truly the Prophet, Priest, and King.

 

Not clear at all, and you have avoided the issue I raise about drawing the line due to bias.

"Appealling to authority" is a logical fallacy.
.

Are you, or are you not saying that you would support a moral law, established by the government, against your neighbors child being allowed to do whatever with there body?! You continue to avoid the issue of whether or not you would ever support civil morals laws! You are simply dancing around the issue (my contention) with smoke screens; another logical fallacy!

My illustration clearly nails your philosophy to the wall and exposes your bias in the matter.

Simply part of your smokescreen which avoids the issue of my contention. I assure those same theologians have a line to draw when voting on moral issues.

 

While the nature of this discussion is related to private behavior, I do allow for decency ordinances in public places. Yet, the focus of our discussion is on illegal behavior utilizing the moral law, to which I have stated the general philosophy. My basic premise is this:

I do not think God would stand against such views of the law. Note, that in the Roman Empire homosexuality was rampant among the military and prostitution and homosexuality among the citizenry. I find it amazing that while the Bible condemns these in the culture, it does not ask for legislative action. These are all horrible, but NEVER does the Bible command us to change these laws.

Can you show me where in the Bible, outside of a theocracy, God asks for legislative change? Do you support a theocracy like the Old Testament? Do you think the Church should be over the State? If so, we will merely disagree. However, if you hold to the tradition of separation of church and state as defined by the Baptists throughout history (not the perversion many on the left or many on the right today make it) then you have a dilemma. If you legislate personal behavior because it is immoral, then you need to legislate all immoral behavior or define which moral behavior should be legislated.

Thus, you would need to legislate against all lying. You would need to legislate against all extra-marital sex. You would also need to legislate against all other religions. The list goes on and on and on.

However, if you believe, as I do, that while all other religions are evil but they should still have the right to worship freely, then you have joined my philosophy. Because something is immoral does not mean it should be illegal.

Thus, would you agree with my premise that not all immoral behavior should be illegal? If so, I think we have room for discussion. If not, then I think you are advocating a form of either state-ism or theism. I reject, as do Baptists historically, those ideas.

[/quote]

God is not that impotent. The reason we are in the state we are in is because the churches are in dissarray, the preaching is horrible, and we have compromised. If the churches were not in such a mess, I believe we would have been much better off.

You cannot save a nation through the government. Thinking so is foolish. We compromised the Gospel as the church and replaced it with moralism, liberalism, modernism, and post-modernism. That is why we are in the state we are in.

 

Do I think sex with underage children should be illegal? Yes. However, that is not the issue because that fits in my paradigm. Do I think the state should legislate against pre-marital sex and that all sex by a 15 year old become a crime? No! Why? We acknowledge that there are predators who can also manipulate unsuspecting people. That is a part of the role of protecting the citizenry from predators. However, this has nothing to do with adults who consent and are privately consenting. I see no role for government.

My philosophy simply says that not all immoral behavior should be illegal. As noted, if you believe other religions should have the freedom to worship, then you believe that not all immoral behavior should be illegal. The question I have for you, where do you draw the line. I explained where I draw the line. What about you?

As or my own children, they are under my rightful rule and I can tell hem what to do with their body. However, I don't think government should make it illegal for a 15 year old to have sex with a 15 year old. It would be immoral, but it should not be illegal.

Are you advocating criminal charges for a 15 year old having sex with a 15 year old? Why or why not?

 

When reading through the posts, the attacks on me seems not only out of line, but I think avoids the topic. Here are my questions for the other side. I will answer my questions in another post.

1. Do you believe all immoral behavior should be made illegal? Yes, go to #2. No, go to #3.

2. If you believe all immoral behavior should be legislated, you believe in a theocracy and believe we should legislate who people should worship (a violation of the first four commandments) and perhaps, if you view infant baptism as evil, that paedo baptists should be outlawed. I think the debate is over. You would legislate premarital sex, making it a crime. We just disagree. This really is where everything ends.

3. You answered no. What litmus do you apply to every situation in order to convey what should be illegal and what should be legal?

4. Would you outlaw all pre-marital sex, making it a crime? Would you outlaw all other religions? Why or why not?

_______

 

My answers.

1. Not all immorality should be illegal

2. N/a

3. Defined prior, but that which causes loss and harm to another person should be illegal. That which is personal and private should remain legal, though still immoral.

4. I would not outlaw other religions nor premarital sex. These are personal and private and would not harm others. Other religions violate 4 of the 10 commandments, but I would not outlaw them.

 

I have answered your questions already, you have not answered those I pose to you. Please take the time to answer them so we can actually have a dialog rather than a one sided conversation. As well, I answered your question about indecency in my last post. Remember, my focus is different but I acknowledged decency ordinances. Yet, please answer my questions so this is a two sided conversation. From what I perceive, you want to outlaw all other religions except Baptists because they all violate the moral law or two 15 year olds who have premarital sex. However, I am trying to get clarification from you before possibly bearing false witness. Thus, I need your assistance to know what you really believe and why you differentiate between morals.

 

From your answer, I gather that you would outlaw all other religions as they violate the first 4 commandments (a part of the moral law).

From your answer, I gather you would outlaw all pre-marital sex as it violates the 7th commandment. You would criminalize two 15 year olds who had sex or engaged in petting.

You would criminalize a parent who disciplined their child in anger, as that violates the moral law.

You would criminalize coveting, as it violates the 10th commandment.

You would criminalize all lying.

I agree with all the moral law, however, I do not believe all the moral law should be legislated and made a crime. We simply disagree.

Thank you for taking the time to answer and showing that you want a theocracy. We just strongly disagree, I do not want a modern day theocracy like you.

BTW, I would not call yourself a Baptist, this is against historic Baptist beliefs.

 

he seems to be advocating USA being set up and ran under OT Law, JUST the same way isreal was under Old covenant with God...

problem with that vie wis that God ONLY gave that way of governing to Isreal, as we now are under the Cross and Grace of the Lord!

You see how well that works by looking at Muslim nations under law today...

Would work under a Perfect King and rule, but THAT will have to wait until return of Christ!

 

The OT Law and all of its provisions to govern a nation though ONLY given by God unto Isreal under Old Covenant...

In the new Covenant, we are under the Grace of the Cross, and our nations are free to govern and rule their peoples as they deem fit!

USA was based upon/ founded by Christian principles and beliefs, so that would be fine for today during this current dispensation of Grace!

 

I do agree with the standards of God's moral law, your insistence that I do not is lying and goes against all I have said. I, however, do not think that all the moral law should be state law, a difference you seem to disagree with but still gives no excuse to your false witness of my position. I noticed you avoided the issue of religious liberty and you make the 9th commandment not a moral law, separating it from all the other 10 commandments. Lying and coveting are moral, but not all lying and coveting should be illegal. You seem to believe coveting is not a moral issue nor all lying, that goes against 2,000 years of Biblical scholarship. However, all this is moot as you seem to clearly identify that other religions should be criminalized. You ignore parts of the 10 commandments you think should not be moral (coveting and aspects of lying) while embracing parts that you believe should be. There seems to be no basis for this separation of the 10 commandments, you seem very arbitrary.

You take a radical viewpoint and I would invite a scholar who agrees with you, and without a doubt there are some who want to enact Old Testament Moral law today, but I find their scholarship still lacking for a number of reasons. If requested, I have cited scholars who agree with me and could cite more.

As well, your view is not a Baptist view, it violates one of the key tenants of Baptist belief.

 

I honestly did not think he would go as far as he did and attempted everything before I called him out on his radical moralistic principles. In fact, I told him what I was thinking and gave him plenty of opportunities to refute my thoughts by clarifying his view, thinking I must have misunderstood his view. However, he never did refute so I believe he is truly as radical as I had feared.

 

How ironic and sad that a person saying that he is "free at last" would want to go back under the Bondage of the OT law, the thing that Jesus death on the Cross brought us freedom from being under, as we are NOW under the new Covenat, not the One isreal was under!