Don't ask, Don't tell

[Ruiz]

Unless they are cheating on their "spouse"

Don't be fooled - there is plenty of potential security risk in our modern era - and to some extent - maybe even more

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.

 

[Ruiz]

You did not answer the questions. Do you, or do you not think the government in a civil society has a role in making the following actions with under-aged children illegal? Would you ever draw a line concerning civil moral issues? On this "very" issue?



If you will draw a line on when you would accept moral laws anywhere on any moral issue your "philosophy" is simply biased and does not logically hold to the truth.

What if a 14 year tells you you have no right to to tell them what to do with their body? What if a 10 year old tells you the same? Can you tell me you would not at some point support a moral law to make certain acts illegal? I contend you not drawing the line on homosexuality is simply having to do with your beliefs of tolerance on this subject and nothng to do with a solid stand on this philosphical position.

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.

 

[Benjamin]

Ben,

I have given you a clear outline of what I would allow for legalities sake.

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

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.

"Appealling to authority" is a logical fallacy.
.

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.

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. However, it would not be 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 private personal actions. The family's governmental role would include private personal actions to include shepherding a child and nurturing a right heart attitude from a child.

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!

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.

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

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 both other options dangerous... that is until Christ comes to reign forever.

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.

 

[freeatlast]

Benjamin,

Again, let me reiterate my position. As an ordained pastor, I stand solidly against homosexuality. It is a sin, an affront to a holy God. As well, I consider homosexuality a loss, a great harm to society spiritually and proof of our depravity.

Yet, because of my theology of the separation of powers between the three governments (as traditionally defined by most Protestants including Baptists), such moral behavior seems to be outside of the scope of Government's authority to limit or regulate. Just like lying, while some lying could be harmful and cause a loss (which is punishable by government), lying in and of itself should not be illegal. Lying is still an affront to a Holy and Majestic God, an evil. However, just because someone lies does not mean it is punishable or should be a crime enforced by law. Just like lying, homosexuality is an evil but it is not something government should regulate or give special privileges to.

Thus, my philosophy of government is that the government should not enforce laws that falls outside of the realm that I described in another post, even if the behavior itself is evil.

So, I see it as an evil, an affront to a holy and majestic God. However, I do not see Government's role as legislating such behavior.

[SIZE=+0]You seem to be a little confused here. This is not about government legislating the control of a behavior. This topic is about the government controlling the openness and willful expressing of an immoral behaviour. Should the government legislate the control of nudity? Should people be allowed to walk around naked? Using your philosophy there would be no laws against it.
However your philosophy is deeply skewed as I have no doubt that the God you claim to understand and follow would and does expect us to legislate morality as He gave us the example in times past. It is true that governmental laws will not change the heart, but they do keep immoral activities from becoming an open puss filled wound that is a blight on the society.
So to stand against legislation that controls this kind of behavior is to stand against God, but this discussion is not even about controlling the behavior, but rather the open proclamation and justification of it by flaunting it.
I would suggest that you abandon your philosophy and replace it with the standards of the God you claim you know and He did put in place governmental laws against immorality which any people who claim to know Him should adopt as their standard as well. If we who claim to know Christ are not going to seek to legislate morality then it is high time to remove the phrase "in God we trust" from anything related to the government as well as stop singing God bless America as our philosophy has nothing to do with a holy God.
Your kind of "philosophy" in people who claim to represent Jesus Christ is why our nation is in the decadence it is in. When we seek rights and freedoms above the morality of God for our own lives and/or our nation then we become a people who surrenders our right to name the Name of God as the One who we set our standards after and since we are a nation of the people by the people and for the people we have the responsibility to enact laws against immoral behavior that stands against the God we claim to follow.
[/SIZE]

 

[Ruiz]

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.
.

No, an appeal to an authority is not a logical fallacy. The actual logical fallacy is a "faulty appeal to authority." An appeal to an authority within the framework of that authority's expertise is not a fallacy. See this link and this link for more details. It is right to appeal to an authority, it is wrong to appeal to someone as an authority with no expertise in that area.

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!

I am saying that the moral law in the case of homosexuality and lying (where there is no loss) is under the realm of church government and family government, not state government. I am not avoiding the issue. If you read my post, I pointed out several times that this is not the area where state government has authority, but family government and church government does have authority. There was no dancing around the issue.

In a previous post, I outlined where the state's role began. It begins at a loss. Thus, I outlined that lying, while a violation of the moral law, is not illegal unless it causes someone a loss based upon that law. I explained that just because someone breaks the moral law, does not make it a state issue, there must be a loss to the party involved or a threat to a person.

My question to you, because you have not put forth a philosophy of government, should we prosecute all liars? SHould it be illegal to lie? Or, would you agree with me that just lying is not a cause to call it illegal behavior?

You want me to come out and say that "all of the moral law is outside the state government." HOwever, I can't because some moral law fits into my category of what falls into the state. For example, Adultery is a violation of an established covenant. Government is charged with keeping contracts. Therefore the spouse of the adulterer would have rights to sue in court for adultery.

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

I strongly disagree. You have offered no philosophy on the other side and your illustration misunderstands the three governmental roles. I think you are over your head in this discussion and have no idea what you are talking about. A good book to begin with is "The Church" by Dr. Clowney. I do not think you really read my statement because you offer no rebuttals to them, rather you just say "I nailed your bias." That is not only irrational, it fails to engage in a rational manner. Oh, you called what I did a logical fallacy, but it was not.

Show me where my thoughts are wrong. That you have not done, you just stereotyped my arguments. Engage them instead of appealing to your own logical fallacy called

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.

There is no smokescreen. You have not engaged my posts, you simply call it names. That is, my friend, poor debate tactics and calling the posts names without interacting with the post and showing it's errors in detail, is beneath you.

In my posts I have explained the following:

• When a state should make things legal and illegal
• The three different forms of government
• where each of the three forms of government have their authority
• why the state has no authority in private issues
• why the family has their authority in moral and private issues
• why states have no authority to overstep their bounds
• why something can be immoral but still legal

I addressed your issues. You just refuse to read or interact with the issues in my posts or you just don't understand.

 

[Ruiz]

[SIZE=+0]You seem to be a little confused here. This is not about government legislating the control of a behavior. This topic is about the government controlling the openness and willful expressing of an immoral behaviour. Should the government legislate the control of nudity? Should people be allowed to walk around naked? Using your philosophy there would be no laws against it.

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:

However your philosophy is deeply skewed as I have no doubt that the God you claim to understand and follow would and does expect us to legislate morality as He gave us the example in times past. It is true that governmental laws will not change the heart, but they do keep immoral activities from becoming an open puss filled wound that is a blight on the society.
So to stand against legislation that controls this kind of behavior is to stand against God, but this discussion is not even about controlling the behavior, but rather the open proclamation and justification of it by flaunting it.

I would suggest that you abandon your philosophy and replace it with the standards of the God you claim you know and He did put in place governmental laws against immorality which any people who claim to know Him should adopt as their standard as well. If we who claim to know Christ are not going to seek to legislate morality then it is high time to remove the phrase "in God we trust" from anything related to the government as well as stop singing God bless America as our philosophy has nothing to do with a holy God.

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.

Your kind of "philosophy" in people who claim to represent Jesus Christ is why our nation is in the decadence it is in. When we seek rights and freedoms above morality then we become a people who surrenders our right to name the Name of God as the One who we set our standards after and since we are a nation of the people by the people and for the people we have the responsibility to enact laws against immoral behavior that stands against the God we claim to follow.

[/SIZE]

[/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.

 

[Ruiz]

You did not answer the questions. Do you, or do you not think the government in a civil society has a role in making the following actions with under-aged children illegal? Would you ever draw a line concerning civil moral issues? On this "very" issue?

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?

 

[freeatlast]

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.

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.[/QUOTE]

You mentioned the Roman empire. In its centuries of existence, Roman civilization shifted from a monarchy to an oligarchicrepublic to an increasingly autocraticempire. It was never a republic with a democratic form of government by the people so your example is none responsive.
Even under the law the legislated moral structure of the law never made anyone moral. That was not the intent. What is did do was keep the puss filled mindset of the lost from dishonoring they God served and protected the innocent from having their minds polluted with debauchery.

There is only one reason I can think of why anyone who claims to be a Christian would argue against Christians seeking to legislate the moral standards of God into the government is because they want to freedoms to carry out at least some of those immoral standards without being concerned about judicial actions taken against them.

Do you feel that the moral standards of God are good for a society or evil? Would God's moral standards trend to elavate a society or tear it down?
Let me be specific. Using your logic/philosophy should the law against indecency be repealed? Should people be allowed to walk around naked using your logic about government laws? By the way this was legal in Parts of Cal. until about 20 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Martinez Your argument is the same as the young man in the link.

 

[Ruiz]

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?

_______

 

[Ruiz]

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.

 

[Ruiz]

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.

You mentioned the Roman empire. In its centuries of existence, Roman civilization shifted from a monarchy to an oligarchicrepublic to an increasingly autocraticempire. It was never a republic with a democratic form of government by the people so your example is none responsive.
Even under the law the legislated moral structure of the law never made anyone moral. That was not the intent. What is did do was keep the puss filled mindset of the lost from dishonoring they God served and protected the innocent from having their minds polluted with debauchery.

There is only one reason I can think of why anyone who claims to be a Christian would argue against Christians seeking to legislate the moral standards of God into the government is because they want to freedoms to carry out at least some of those immoral standards without being concerned about judicial actions taken against them.

Do you feel that the moral standards of God are good for a society or evil? Would God's moral standards trend to elavate a society or tear it down?
Let me be specific. Using your logic/philosophy should the law against indecency be repealed? Should people be allowed to walk around naked using your logic about government laws? By the way this was legal in Parts of Cal. until about 20 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Martinez Your argument is the same as the young man in the link.

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.

 

[freeatlast]

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?

I went back and looked and this post has the only question I see and here is the answer. I advocate the same moral laws that God ordained, nothing more nothing less.

 

[Ruiz]

I advocate the same moral laws that God ordained, nothing more nothing less.

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.

 

[JesusFan]

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!

 

[freeatlast]

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, you want one.

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

First I already am under a theocracy as a Christian. My desire is His will in everything. Just because a government does not legislate the same laws the same way that God has does not free me from His standards. I am still obligated to His moral standards. It is too bad you are not under His theocracy and do not want it. That alone tells me you are in serious trouble with your theology. I strongly suggest you re-think your position as grace does not remove me from His rule. It only allows me to choose to be under it, but it does not allow me to reject it.

As to those questions;

Question;
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.


I would have no problem with our governmental laws having the same conditions to pre-marital sex that God has.

Are you suggesting that God's law on moral standards goes too far? What is your objection to His moral standards?


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


No, as there is no such moral law


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


Coveting does not fall under moral laws. While it is sin it is not something immoral.


Question;
You would criminalize all lying.


We are already obeying God in this one as lying is already criminalized when it effects standards of legality which falls under moral standards.


Your statement;
"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."


The truth is you do not agree with the moral law if you do not want it applied the same way it was given, as God gave it. It is not possible to agree with something that you stand against and you stand against the implementing of God's standards. So it is not about us disagreeing but about you disagreeing with God.

 

[JesusFan]

First I already am under a theocracy as a Christian. My desire is His will in everything. Just because a government does not legislate the same laws the same way that God has does not free me from His standards. I am still obligated to His moral standards. It is too bad you are not under His theocracy and do not want it. That alone tells me you are in serious trouble with your theology. I strongly suggest you re-think your position as grace does not remove me from His rule. It only allows me to choose to be under it, but it does not allow me to reject it.

As to those questions;

Question;
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.


I would have no problem with our governmental laws having the same conditions to pre-marital sex that God has.

Are you suggesting that God's law on moral standards goes too far? What is your objection to His moral standards?


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


No, as there is no such moral law


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


Coveting does not fall under moral laws. While it is sin it is not something immoral.


Question;
You would criminalize all lying.




We are already obeying God in this one as lying is already criminalized when it effects standards of legality which falls under moral standards.


Your statement;
"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."


The truth is you do not agree with the moral law if you do not want it applied the same way it was given, as God gave it. It is not possible to agree with something that you stand against and you stand against the implementing of God's standards. So it is not about us disagreeing but about you disagreeing with God.

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!

 

[Ruiz]

First I already am under a theocracy as a Christian. My desire is His will in everything. It is too bad you are not under His theocracy and do not want it. That alone tells me you are in serious trouble with your theology. I strongly suggest you re-think your position as grace does not remove me from His rule. It only allows me to choose to be under it, but it does not allow me to reject it.

As to those questions;

Question;
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.


I would have no problem with our governmental laws having the same conditions to pre-marital sex that God has.

Are you suggesting that God's law on moral standards goes too far? What is your objection to His moral standards?


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


No, as there is no such moral law


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


Coveting does not fall under moral laws. While it is sin it is not something immoral.


Question;
You would criminalize all lying.


We are already obeying God in this one as lying is already criminalized when it effects standards of legality which falls under moral standards.


Your statement;
"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."


[SIZE=+0]The truth is you do not agree with the moral law if you do not want it applied the same way it was given, as God gave it. It is not possible to agree with something that you stand against and you stand against the implementing of God's standards. So it is not about us disagreeing but about you disagreeing with God.[/SIZE]

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.

 

[Ruiz]

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 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.

 

[JesusFan]

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!

 

[freeatlast]

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 don't think it is accurate to include coveting as a moral issue as defined, but I would have no problem against it as a judicial law as long as it held the same judicial punishment as God gave. As to lying we already have laws against that and again as long as the law carried the same consequences as God gave it should not be a problem. What was the consequences for general lying? By they way what was the punishment for coveting? There was no judicial punishment from God! So your argument is baseless.

I am neither concerned or expressed what some professed scholar says or what may or may not be a Baptist position although I would hope the Baptist position would be in agreement with the Lord. I am only concerned with what is right in the mind and heart of God. If you feel that God's moral laws are not right for a nation that is your choice. I choose to stand with His moral standards for government.