Don't ask, Don't tell

Your case for lying is my case for all other moral issues. You are borrowing my view on morals by saying "it doesn't hurt people." Personal and private immoral people does not harm me thus should not be legislated. Homosexuals should be made illegal. However it is immoral.

By your standard, to "agree with God" means that all lying should be made illegal, or you are inconsistent.

I do agree with God, it is immoral. Yet, I also agree that not all lying should be immoral. I agree with God that all other religions are immoral and wrong. Yet, I also agree that not all other religions should be outlawed.

Your lying principle seems inconsistent with your attack on my position. You seem very inconsistent.

 

Would you be for them to be stoned/hanged/electocuted etc today if they will not repent of that sin?

 

The 10 commandments were judicial laws of the Old Testament. They were ratified. All 10 were judicial laws. As well, you saying that lying in some cases is against the moral law and in other cases are not is inconsistent. In fact, all Jewish people see this as a ratification of a nation.

 

Jesus applies the 10 commandments to the kingdom of God in the Sermon on the Mount. The kingdom of God is the Church. He does not apply it to the Roman Government or government at all, but to the church.

To that, I believe that the 10 commandments were applied to the church in a meaningful and special way. In Exodus 20, the commandments were given to a theocracy, Israel. This was both a state and a religion. Thus, this laid the foundation of the Church and all of God's people and while there are overlaps, you cannot assume any of them were applied to the state for legislation. However, while God will apply judgment to other nations because of the 10 commandments, Jesus showed these are still in force in God's kingdom, His Church. He never applied them to the State.

Thus, we must assume that the state, while it may have overlap, may not necessarily hold to the 10 commandments. We cannot automatically apply all the commandments to the state, Jesus clearly meant it for the kingdom of God (unless you take a Roman Catholic view of the state and church, I do not see this as being applicable).

Baptists historically desired for a smaller state and to be left alone. They even desired for freedom for atheists, many fought for such freedom. They saw a distinction between the kingdom of God and the state and wished to protect even those they disagreed with, those they believed were immoral.

God will apply this kingdom at the end times in a new theocracy when He brings in His kingdom, but right now the kingdom is the Church, not the state. To assume all the moral law applies to the State is not found in Scripture anywhere and must be assumed.

So, where do we get a theology of the state? The responsibility throughout Scripture is that the state is to protect the citizens and that it hopes we can live at peace with the state. The state is limited where the church begins (as Baptists stated) and vice versa. The State is limited where the family begins and vice versa. There is much written on this subject, but to boil it down, they should protect us and keep us, but they should not dictate to us a theocracy like Israel.

I oppose your moralism imposed by the state. While I did outline what I thought the state should regulate, I showed I am not an antinomian, but a Baptist. I also oppose moralism by showing that the state's inacting of moral code will not help our country any. Rather, moralism will destroy a country just as much as libertinism. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is the only message that will save.

You are the flip side of the emergent church. They hope to save the world through a moralistic code of social action. They input this into the government. When I oppose them I oppose them just as I do you. You hope to make this a "better society" through moralism that forces a stand against immoralism by using the state. The emergents cite Jesus' call to a compassionate ministry and caring for the poor and applies this to the state. Moralists cite a moral code and applies it to the state. Both should apply the Gospel to the Church which results in holy living and compassion ministries. Both are wrong and both applies a law to the state that will destroy more than point people to Christ.

Moralism without the Gospel, is an extremely destructive force. Thus, limiting government's role will help the church to flourish as it provides more clearly the only hope for mankind. Moralism makes people think they are good without the need of the Gospel.

 

I don’t have time to explain the principles of logic and fallacy to you other than to put it in a nut shell that it deals with the philosophical science of getting to the truth concerning premises, claims and issues. So when the “basic” premise is made that (A) “moral laws exist” and are “established by the government” in any “civil society” by the people that exist in that society, and “you” are part of that society. That is a true statement (T). (B) “You” and “all’ of the people in that society do in fact come to a conscientious decision of what is right and wrong in that society in which “you” live and moral laws are established and imposed on others based on the values of right and wrong from the people within that society. (C) Therefore, moral laws exist, are imposed; and furthermore are needed to maintain a civil moral society (the one “you” live in).

First and simply, you have attempted to avoid the basic premise of moral laws existing of which “you” take part of establishing and imposing on others in that society by appealing to the authority of separation of church and state (a three government system) to side step and deny yourself partaking and being under “any” moral laws, established by the government, in the society in which “you” and “all” the people in that society live and are under the rule of to apply to “you” ever having to support a moral law in that society. You then say “Christian legal experts happen to agree with me”. Sir, I don’t have to look up the fallacy of “appealing to authority” that you attempt to use to avoid the premise (A, B, C) to recognize your why you use this fallacious smoke screen to avoid the basic truth in the premise at hand; I understand very well what you are doing here with that kind of statement.

So, I make the claim that in fact you do and would support a moral law, established by the government, with a comparable sexual morality illustration of whether or not you would support and impose that (your) morality on another within the system of government we live under. You dance around and talk about moral rules in “your family” and again site (limitation by separation of church and state, three government role). That is very convenient for you to use that argument when “you” disagree (because of your bias) with supporting or imposing a moral law, established by the government, on another. So, I chase your rabbit and ask again while adding if you would support imposing this moral law (using the same illustration) but in regards to your "neighbors" child.

You also weasel that you would support imposing a moral law on others if there is loss while simultaneously failing to recognize the losses in our society of family values and the furthering of tolerance of sexual immorality (homosexuality rights) due to “your” biases on that issue. My illustration uses an example that same type of progression of tolerance (of sexual immorality) addressing drawing a line on when you would support imposing a moral law on a 14 year olds “rights” or even a 10 year olds “rights” to do with their own body as they wish! Again I have chased your rabbit and ask “IS THERE LOSS IN THIS KIND OF PERSONAL SEXUAL BEHAVIOR???” Enough for you to support imposing a civil moral law on others within this society?! Buddy, it only breaks down to where “you” will draw the line on sexual immorality, where “your” biases lie and where “you” will willingly tolerate and recognize loss concerning when “you” WILL impose your morality and support these laws on others, nothing more!

That is my point and you have failed miserably to support “your” philosophical position to justify supporting tolerance of one type of sexual immoral behavior and not the other, regardless of your obvious dodging with multiple fallacies the comparisons made in the illustration. Your personal bias is the only root you got left to hold on to your decision and it has nothing to do with your strict adherence to your beliefs in church and state three government position! It is as simple as ABC, and your choices in this matter of imposing moral laws on others are directly based on your personal biases and tolerances!

You now want me to chase your argument of whether or not other moral laws, such as against lying, should be imposed on others. Friend, I openly admit that I have my lines that I draw on when I am willing to impose my morality on others. Simply, I draw the line on homosexual immorality being tolerated to the degree that it is because I consider it an important enough “loss” and danger to our society to do so, and simply you would rather make excuses not to follow your convictions siting your philosophical position disallows you to do so. I believe homosexuals are predators on our society that have an agenda to spread and promote tolerance their immoral values in any way they can, including manipulating our children’s beliefs, even gathering support for their lifestyles from pastors like you, and are a danger to our society as they further this agenda. The problem is your claim of making a decision on this matter to be solely guided by your “philosophical position” doesn’t hold water and the “truth” is that you personally and freely chose “when” to impose your morality on others or not according to your biases and tolerances, nothing more.

 

They need to start having five separate arrangements for showers/barracks.

1. Straight male
2. Straight female
3. Gay male
4. Crooked female
5. Bi

Nobody should have to shower, share restrooms, or share sleeping arrangements with someone they have to worry about being physically attracted to or simply looked over.

Same as men and women have separate dressing rooms. Which really doesn't mean much anymore...it's a shame that we can't use public facilities without worrying about who may be gawking and looking at us the wrong way.

And the armed services? Yeah, you know how many people will be tempted to blow someone away for unwanted advances from a bunk mate?

That's so unfair to people. I'm wondering how many decent people we're going to have walk away from protecting us because they don't need the hassle of dealing with the degradation they're going to be surrounded with. I've been "hit on" by women and it's highly disturbing and gross, felt like taking a shower after. If I was in a place where I had to shower and sleep beside the person who did it, I'd leave.

Ew. This world is just plain NASTY anymore!

 

Gina has a valid point!

I left Bally's Fitness in 2000 because the gym in Riverside, CA was becoming increasingly homosexual. I was hit on every time I was in the showers, and even after reporting it to management, it didn't let up. My friends and I were always conscious of the gawking, leering looks being cast our way, and one day, while rinsing shampoo off my hair (eyes closed to keep me from being stung by the soap film) I hand reached in and touched me (I don't need to tell you where it was he touched me)!

I felt humiliated! I felt victimized and deeply and emotionally filthy! It was a sick feeling, and I never wanted to go through this again!

All I could do was scream, "Hey!" However, because of the soap, I couldn't get my eyes opened soon enough to see who it was.

This was absolutely my last day at Bally's.

A few months later, while at my new gym (LA Fitness), I was talking to another member, a cop that left Bally's too, and he told me that particular gym was a number one on line pick up spot for gays.

I feel bad for any service man or woman who has to experience this kind of intimidation, because they can't simply cancel their membership and find a new gym. They are stuck in the den of immorality! Unable to get out of the pit of filth and licentiousness. This is a real shame, and believe me, now that it is an open and acceptable environment for gays in the military. It will get worse before it gets better.

And I do see the military going back to the old "Don't ask, dont' tell!" mentality. At least what you didn't know couldn't hurt you, because the perps would be dishonorably removed from miltiary service.

 

Besides your quote, it is the church. I invite you to read Dr. Edmund Clowney, and Dr. Michael Horton. Even George Ladd who tried to differentiate between the kingdom and the church, still believed that the church witnesses of the kingdom and the people of the church are the kingdom. The differentiation between the kingdom and the people of the kingdom is such a minutia, that even those who disagree with him, believe he is grasping at straws. Grudem notes that we should not see it as merely futuristic (See Matthew 16:19.

Matthew 16:19 says that the keys of the kingdom are the church's, they are intrinsic to the church itself. Thus, my exegesis, even if you disagree, still remains tightly related to the church and His people, not to the State.

Thus, the put-down still relates to the church, not the state. For sake of argument, the Kingdom of God doesn't have to be the Church, my exegesis still remains true that it does not refer to the state.

 

I will put it into a nut shell. You said an appeal to authority was a fallacy. You neither showed here or elsewhere it was a faulty appeal to an authority. So, I await an explanation of how mine was a faulty appeal to authority.

Secondly, I never said the moral law was established by Government. In fact, that is against my view. I believe law transcends government but is derived from God himself. To say law is derived from government is to create a logical fallacy of circular reasoning. I would invite you to review the philosophical ethics of Gregory Bahnsen in his debate with Gordon Stein. I believe if logic, morals, or anything else is derived by Government then it will fall by majority rule.

I do derive moral philosophy from God. However, I do not believe all moral law is to be sustained by Government, but only that which was attributed to it by God. Government is not to maintain a morality, but peace. They are not arbiters of moral behavior, and only has been seen to be in theocracies. Why? They are not instruments of the Gospel, the church is the instrument of the Gospel

I am not sidestepping or deny partaking under a system of moral law. I belong to and a member of a church. If I fell out of line, that church would enact church discipline. Thus your premise about me is entirely false. The three government system does not allow me to become antinomian or a libertine, but the church is the one who is the sustainer of holiness. When the state becomes the arbiter of holiness, it does so in a vacuum without the Gospel, thus making moralism the goal, not the Gospel. Moralism destroys while the Gospel is the true source of hope.

Appealing to authority is not denying anything, it merely is saying that there are other arbiters of the Gospel that produces morality. Your fallacy is that you fail to recognize that I am not throwing out morality, but that I am uplifting the church and the Gospel.

You have a gift of saying a lot of nothing. Yet, I am stating that Government only has the authority given to it by God. No more, no less. The moral law is not given to the state, never has been given to the state. I have asked for an example, none has been given. Thus, you attack me but have provided no support for your contentions. You just attack me.

Okay, I bite on this question. Do you think we should criminalize 15 year olds from having sex with 15 year olds? Would you outlaw all lying? Why or why not?

There is a loss of personal sexual behavior, but it is not a forced loss on others. I think you should have the right to cause yourself harm, but not harm to others.

Based upon your contention, we should outlaw obesity because it causes me a loss. Your philosophy says we should outlaw McDonald's Happy Meals because they are causing others a loss and our health industry.

No, I am talking about a direct loss. You make no arguments against my viewpoint except to say that I am avoiding the topic, all while stating my answer to your questions.

The Bible attributes to the state the right to hear grievences people have personally had with others. Thus, I do see that as a legitimate role. God gave them the right to wage war, that is clear in scripture. God gave them the right to enforce police protection. That is clear in Scripture. Each of these is to prevent loss or to reconcile loss. Yet, God never gave them the right to enforce morality. There was never a call to enforce morality in the Government. NEVER.

You have not proven there is.

My contention has been that the Bible never gave it to the government to do it in the first place. I cannot prove a negative in Scripture, you must prove the positive. For that fact, you have not done so. The best that has been done is a quote of a theocracy in the Old Testament. I stated in another post that a theocracy is part church and part state. If we do not have a theocracy, we must decide what does and does not belong to the state and church. I noted that these all were given to the church. We know that the first four commandments were not given to the state and it seems clear the New Testament applies the 10 commandments to the church, not the state. Thus you have the burden of proof.

Since a negative is impossible to prove, I have simply stated that NOWHERE in Scripture are you seeing that the government

You position does not see morality or sin in light of God. You have arbitrarily picked certain sins you want to impose and not impose. Thanks for the honesty.

Since you admit that yours is arbitrary, I thank you for being honest that it is not Biblical or philosophically consistent.

 

Seems to me that the reason for all the contention in this thread is that we as citizens of the US have forgotten that our "government" is not just some entity, but is us. This nation was founded on a principle that the government is composed of "we the people". We ARE the government and as such our laws should be a reflection of our morals. To try and separate 'us' from 'it' is to forget the principles this country was founded upon.

 

If you believe we are a Democracy, I oppose such ideas. I do believe we the people formed a Government, which is a Republic form of government. We are not the Government, we formed a Government called Republicanism.

If we ever did attempt to become a pure democracy, I would oppose such with all my might.

 

But only when it is convenient to your biases do you follow your stated guidelines. We (Christians) all make our judgments/decisions on morals and on whether or not to support and/or impose those morals values in/on society based on our Christian principles and beliefs and use the government to enforce them. We vote etc. You make excuses for not imposing moral laws and values on society, by the use of these governmental laws (as if this doesn't exist, again only when it is convenient to your biased opinions do you follow your guidelines), and in fact will ("throw out morality") when it suits your cause which you only then site and fall back on your "philosophical position". I have based my argument presenting your weaseling tactics on your stated standards which you will selectively use to support your position on homosexuality and despite your intellectual dishonesty and smokecreening in this matter have shown this to be logically true therefore my point has been made.

 

Salty,

This year I spent extra time studying the founding of our country from a theological/religious history perspective--taking into account all the beliefs present in that day about our founding (beginning with Jonathan Edwards and continuing to Lincoln).

I say that to say that except in the United States, theologians were rather united that our move was unBiblical and harmful. John Wesley, George Whitfield (Whitfield started off for the Revolution, until he visited America and realized the harm), and many others wrote and preached against our move to form a Republic form of Government. What is scary, much of what they predicted has come true and many ramifications they underestimated.

Deidrich Bonhoffer's view of our Republic when he visited America was not favorable at all, but rather scathing.

My point, our system was opposed by everyone, theologian and otherwise, except in the United States because of theological reasons. A democracy, however, is much worse than a Republican Government. So, I do oppose such.

Now, I do not know of the details of the towns you mentioned and I may move to such a town. However, the philosophy has dire consequences. I may move there, but like living in America, I understand the negatives of living in such a place and teach the negatives to my children.

Now, the obvious question is, if a Republican form of Government is that bad, what do I advocate? I do not know. My study took me to studying the Stone Lectures of Kuyper, Schaeffer, Calvin, and others. To be honest, I don't know the solution outside of saying that my goal is to live at peace with the government. I see they hold a few vital roles as defined by theologians. But outside of those roles, I want them to get out of everything else so I know I can live peacefully with them. I see them as the greatest threat to our peace as Christians, as citizens.

Would I live in a Democracy? Yes, but I would not like it and would like it less than living in a Republic.

Even so dear Jesus, come!