Don't ask, Don't tell

So you admit you are biased. Thanks

The three roles of government is in several theology books and outlined theologically. Check out Edmund Clowney's book called "The Church." There is a great defense of this view. You think it is based on my bias, but rather it is based upon my study. I actually was biased against Clowney but it was compelling.

 

What part about you only selectively following “the three roles government” in regards to imposing moral laws on others in society or not, ...and my points concerning your intellectual dishonesty for the merely selective and convenient use of it to defend homosexuality and not being man enough to admit your own bias in this matter don’t you get?

 

That is the point, it is not about God. You can't say that I am opposing God in my standards when I see that moralism is dead (as he said in Romans 2) and that it is all about the Gospel. If you are against the Gospel being advanced by the state, you must acknowledge that moralism will not help.

As a Christian, we must be predisposed that all moral systems are roads to destruction. Only Christ and His Gospel gives life. Thus, I can hold onto a minimalist view of government's role understanding that much more would do harm no matter if it agrees or disagrees with me. Moralism is destructive, only the Gospel is good.

 

I hope it is not about justice, or we are all condemned. If it is not about the Gospel, we will perish. I am not saying holding to morals is evil, I am saying it is death and cannot save or even help. Morals without the Gospel will lead to destruction. Moralism will not delay our decay, it may increase it.

Only the Gospel can halt our society's decay.

God will judge everyone at a later time. I am comfortable in letting God judge and I am comfortable in preaching for God's standards of marriage, showing sex should be confined in marriage. However, I show that this is the case because of the Gospel. Morals are irrational without the Gospel, thus trusting a non-Christian government to uphold morals without God is a slippery slope to vast immorality.

 

Again, you take me completely out of context. I do want accountability, but not through secular government. I want accountability through the church and I do not want the state to take the place of the church. I advocate church discipline, not because I want to avoid accountability, but I believe in accountability.

The State is made up of people who have no reason to keep me accountable for Biblical holiness. Rather, they are a bunch of ignorant and self seeking people. Why should a bureaucratic keep us accountable, why let the secular judge the righteous? No, it should be the church that judges the righteous.

In Titus 3, Paul describes the nature of government by saying we should submit to them. Yet, he shows the distinction between that government in that Paul describes us as once being like them, "for we ourselves were once foolish...." I don't want a foolish government to keep me accountable, but I do want wise Pastors and a loving church to keep me accountable.

We should not delegate the church's role to the government, it will have great harm to the church.

 

You are wrong, when the state overtakes the responsibility of the church, you will lose greatly. When the state took away welfare from the church and individuals, we loss greatly. This is about the church and the role they play.

However, your statement was that I didn't want accountability. That is false, I do want accountability, I just don't want it from the secular government, I don't want Obama to dictate my morals. I want God, I want the Church.

BTW, when were we ever more peaceful and better off because of our great morality? Was it after the Revolutionary War when there was chaos on whether we would survive as a nation? What about the war of 1812? I don't see that. What about the economic catastrophe's in the panic of 1819 and 1837. What about the lead up to the Civil War, the Civil War, and Reconstruction? While I do not think the 1870's was a depression like some used to believe, do you think it was the late 1800's with the rise of regionalism? Or the early 1900's with the rise of globalism, WWI, and some of the most corrupt governments had yet to see? The 1920's with the rise of cultural immorality and the mafia? What about the 1930's and 40's? What about our Cold War and the rise of modernism throughout the 20th Century that was brought forth in Woodstock?

When was this golden age of America? I think we find that it was noticeable that in the early 1800's, visitors noted the absence of Government, the complete and utter absence in comparison to Europe. One noted quotation from a visitor said that you could barely perceive there was a government. If that was the golden years, that falls into my philosophy.

If I had to go back in time, I would have gone back to the 1730's, before our founding. But that is me.

When was this golden age in America?

 

The role of government and laws created do cover some areas of safety and morality.

Speeding is a safety rule. The previous laws making sodom* illegal is a health and safety rule. It is illegal to lie in many situations. That is a moral rule. The previous rule of cheating on a spouse being grounds for a divorce against the cheating spouse was moral. (and now counts for NOTHING)

You can't say our government shouldn't and doesn't make laws based on some type of moral code. The issue is that the basis for that moral code is fluid and changes. It did start out with a good foundation though!

 

I solidly oppose the repealment of the don't ask don't tell, but from a different perspective. Whether or not it is the government's place to enact/enforce such laws is not the main issue for me. The main issue for me the impact upon mission readiness. Fortunately, a caveat to the repealment was that any type of homosexual behaviour will not be tolerated in combat zones, so this will have a minimal impact upon my company as we are deployed right now.

Now, from a christian standpoint, I am fully against homosexuality being allowed anywhere. As for whether or not it is within the scope of government to regulate, the jury is out for me.

What I am also concerned about is the legal battles that will be coming soon. As it is still illegal for homosexuals to be married, then they won't be entitled to housing allowances, separation pay, etc. This is going to be an area of contention for a while. On the flip side, "contract marriages" between a male and a female are common in the military, so that they may get out of the barracks and cash in on money. Once homosexual marriage is legal, I already know of soldiers talking about getting same-sex contract marriages so that they can get extra money and then get out of the barracks. So, it's going to be a mess.

When I protested to a soldier that they'd get in trouble for two heterosexual men getting married contractually, he asked, "And how is that different from a gay guy getting married to a woman right now to get out [of the barracks]?" And so, he has a point. Like I said, it's about to get messy legally.

 

Don't you mean downgraded to more liberal lack of values?

 

Eh, I was thinking from the perspective of those who passed the "ice breaker" law in the first place and how they "cleverly" managed to upgrade it and fulfill their agenda by saying it was now a bad law. Otherwise, yes, the truth is our society's values have been downgraded; how'd you know that was what I meant?!

 

I don't know what purpose it serves to ask someone what they're sexual preference is. Do homosexuals and lesbians make worse military people than sexually normal people?

Personally, the only reason I can see for wanting to know someone's sexual preference is if you're looking for a mate. Otherwise, I couldn't care less--unless they're looking for a job in a church.

 

So, would you be OK with men and women housing together in common barracks and utilizing the same showering/toilet facilities?