There is no question that I believe that those who participate in sexual activities with people of the same gender are participating in sin. I don't think I've left any room for doubt there. I have purposely left that side out of the "same-sex marriage" debate because that concept fails before it ever gets to the question of "Is it moral?", but I think I've been quite clear that homosexual behavior is a sin. This stance begs the question: "So ... now what?"
There are a variety of directions, possibilities, and viewpoints here. Some might say, "We ought to make it all illegal!" And I can see their logic. It once was. (In some places it still is, although that falls in the category of unenforced law. Kind of like the law here in Glendale, AZ, where it's illegal to tie an alligator to a fire hydrant.) I see the logic ... but I don't agree with it. Of course, the other side argues (and is actively lobbying) for the criminalizing of my statement. That is, there are those who believe that I should not be allowed to either have or express my view that the activity is a sin. So I guess it's tit for tat.
Some argue that it shouldn't be legislated out of existence, but it should be set aside. No, let's not pass laws; let's just not talk about it. These don't want it on their television screens, their movies, their news articles, their streets (read "Gay Pride Parades"). They adopt the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" perspective that the military is about to lose. "Yeah, yeah, they may do that kind of thing; I just don't want to know about it." And there are shades of possibilities in the spectrum of options.
Me? I have two competing concerns to deal with. First, it is important to me that we do not, as a society, call evil good (Isa 5:20). And make no mistake; we're there. You'll find no end of people who would label me "homophobic" (a lie) because I hold that the Bible is clear about this particular sin. (Why is it not "phobic" to hold that murder, child molesting, or rape is sin?) American society largely considers me out of touch rather than those who declare it not merely acceptable, but good. So I remain open and "loud" about it. On the other hand, I do not believe that passing a new law will fix the problem. The problem isn't actually that people are engaging in homosexual activities. The problem is that people are engaging ... in sin. That would include all sexual relations outside of marriage, stealing, and murder. People are "lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God" (2 Tim 3:2-4). Well, you can see that "a law against homosexual behavior" isn't going to solve this problem. Nor would it be practical to pass laws against all the things on this list.
You see, a primary concern to the Christian is the Gospel. The Gospel begins with the bad news that we are sinners. From there it goes on to the Good News of a solution to the problem, and that's our big message. Now, if we let that which truly is sin get renamed to something acceptable, even beautiful, then where do we stand. "You're a sinner in need of salvation!" "No, I'm not! I'm not doing anything wrong." Now what?
I still stand on this position: Homosexual behavior is a sin. It is a sin along with a host of other things. Not worse. Only more visible because it is the current battlefield where society is trying to call evil good. I need to remain in this position, standing firm, so that I have the real problem in view for which Christ is the answer. That is, I will continue to stand here because I care enough about people who are sinning. Masking their problem -- "You know, maybe it's not so bad what you're doing" -- is not going to remedy the problem of sin any more than passing laws against it. No, what is needed is the Gospel, repentance, a new heart, a relationship with Christ. That's my answer to "Now what?" "You need Jesus." And if I express that with either fear or hate, I'm doing it wrong.
56 comments:
Here in Illinois, the state legislators just passed a civil unions bill that awaits the signature of the governor, who supports the notion. In both houses, the bill passed with a small majority which was aided by the "yes" votes of too many Republicans. (My rep, for example, Suzi Bassi, was one. Her replacement has not yet taken office. Another "lame duck" attack.) Three Republicans interviewed for a story on the subject in today's paper spoke of knowing homosexuals and it was that emotional tie to specific people, rather than facts and truth about the practice and gov't's role in supporting the traditional, that lead to their votes. I really hate this state.
Now, closer to the point, obviously it is true that the behavior is sinful. I truly no longer care what I am called for insisting on that truth. Unfortunately, it does not rank as a legitimate argument in the public square. So while I have no problem repeating that truth within Judeo/Christian circles, in the wider realm I go with the fact that it is mental dis-function. You think the name calling is severe over references to sin, try that out in the open. But it's every bit as true to anyone who is honest.
I don't think the current mood is to make the behavior illegal. Frankly, after losing the attempt to persuade, I don't much care what others do in the privacy of their own homes as long as they don't bring children into it. But the legislation the proponents of the movement seek are far more troubling to our culture than any that ever existed that legally demonized the practice.
And I'd feel a whole lot better about losing the battle over civil unions and such if their arguments were at least based on something akin to facts.
They (the "homosexual community") call heterosexuals "straight" and homosexuals "queer". Doesn't that say something about what's "normal" ... and they know it?
Stan said: "On the other hand, I do not believe that passing a new law will fix the problem."
I see your point here, and I agree a law, cannot be passed making all the things on the list illegal, not even in puritan times would that be possible.
That said, laws have ramifications even if no one abides by them. One example of a ramification, and I think perhaps the most important one, is what is taught in the public school system, which is, as far as I'm concerned, the front lines in the cultural wars. Satan knows that what is taught there will be the thinking in the next generation, no matter if that thinking is "there is no God", or "evil is good and good is evil; bitter is sweet, and sweet is bitter".
It amazes me in light of the homosexual fight for SSM that the seemingly prominent question of today is "is marriage obsolete?". With that in mind, it has been my contention all along that homosexuals do not want to be able to marry as much as they want to be able to teach children that their behavior is normal and good, and they can't very well do that if it is not even legal. And parents could not put the brakes on them doing so in our public institutions if it IS legal.
It is for this reason I am of the belief that to some degree: laws matter; even if no one abides. And it is also for this reason that, while everything on Paul's list cannot be outlawed,--i.e. the love of money--the things that can be ought to be.
Still, the fact that they are not is not a reflection on our government. It is a reflection on the people who vote for that government. This points to many things, not the least of which are the successes that have been seen by parents outsourcing the education of their children to the government, a government that previous generations trusted a little too much, the warnings not to do such a thing be damned.
So, Dan (and this is just a question, not a challenge), would you favor a law that made it illegal to be openly homosexual?
They're teaching kids in school that Evolution is right and anyone who says otherwise is a dolt. (They're defining Evolution as "no God".) They're teaching them "tolerance" of the variety that suggests, "You need to agree with (not merely be tolerant of) people whose moral values differ from yours." They're teaching kids in school that it's evil for parents to use corporal punishment. I think parents need to be much more vigilant than "pass a law against homosexuality". (And that is not to denigrate your concern because it is indeed valid.)
We agree that you can't, for instance, pass a law against greed ("the love of money"). I'm pretty sure that "love thy neighbor as thyself" will not be showing up on the law books any time in the foreseeable future. There are, therefore, moral laws that will not make it to the books. How do we determine which ones should and which ones shouldn't?
I know in these days its difficult to grasp a society that grasps the importance of the family and objective truth enough to outlaw immoral behavior. But you know that this has not always been our way. Up until 2003, states did have Sodomy laws on the books. That is until an orchestrated arrest was made in Texas so that the law could be challenged. The case was Lawrence v Texas. It went to the Supreme Ct and anti Sodomy laws were deemed unconstitutional.
This was similar to the Scopes Monkey Trial in Dayton Tennessee. It was orchestrated by the ACLU and is now the center piece for, not what CAN be taught in schools as was the original cause, but rather, now, what will not be tolerated in pubic schools, no matter how compelling the evidence.
The teaching on tolerance, or any other contrived morality, is a natural outflow from evolution because evolution is, and only ever was, a euphemism for anthropocentrism.
I tend to think that if the enemy of our souls thinks it is important to do away with a law, then I am of the thought that those laws must be important.
What I am not saying is that if laws are on the books then people would not behave in that way. But on the same token, just because some people flout laws, that does not mean that those laws are not necessary.
I suppose my ultimate point is that laws have ramifications and that we should not be so ready to just let them be expunged. We may not see or understand Satan's strategy in his attack on man in wanting a certain moral law that the average person doesn't even know exists be repealed.
I also say again that laws do not change the heart of man and that our laws ultimately reflect the society and not the other way around.
oh...
yea...
almost forgot....
Peace
"I tend to think that if the enemy of our souls thinks it is important to do away with a law, then I am of the thought that those laws must be important."
I see your point.
Why stop at merely outlawing homosexuality?
How about going for capital punishment for homosexuals, as described in the OT (according to some)? If "the enemy of our souls" doesn't want us to kill gays, then killing them must be a good, perhaps?
I was trying to make some sense out of this. I know you don't believe that any such biblical prescription exists. I can only assume you mean it as a taunt.
You see, it could be that you are admitting that the Scriptures are clearly opposed to homosexual behavior, and the passages that obviously read that homosexual activity is punishable by death are real, but that would put you on the wrong side of Scripture.
Or it could be that you are responding from the idea "Well, you believe it is biblical, so why not call for the biblical penalty?" But that one baffles me entirely. You say, for instance, that you believe that abortion is a sin, but wouldn't want to pass a law against it (or restore the previous existing laws). So why would you suggest it from that perspective? Apparently you believe that if a person believes that the Bible is against something, it would be wrong to argue that it's wrong -- wrong to call for biblical views and attitudes. So I'm baffled.
I'm mostly baffled, however, because I wrote that I'm not in favor of passing such a law and here you are suggesting we go further. Strange. Very strange.
So, what would you suggest? "If you believe that the Bible actually teaches that homosexuality is punishable by death, you should lobby for such a law." No, I'm pretty sure that's not the case. "If you believe that the Bible actually teaches that homosexuality is punishable by death, ignore it. It's no longer applicable today." That seems quite odd. Maybe it's "No reasonable person should think that the Bible teaches against homosexuality." In that case, taunting those less sane than you is just cruel, don't you think? Nope. Not getting it. Not getting it at all.
Sorry, the question was for Other Dan, who seemed to be suggesting that it's a good idea to outlaw homosexuality (as has been discussed in Sudan, I think, where you could be imprisoned for being gay).
So, no, it wasn't a taunt. It was a serious question. IF you truly think it good to outlaw it, what would the consequences be? Imprisonment? Death? Lashing?
It's a totally serious question to what I think is a totally preposterous proposal. If someone is going to advocate outlawing a behavior, I'd think they should be prepared to flesh out what they're calling for.
You haven't cleared anything up for me at all. Here's the real dilemma. Let's assume that Dan thinks that it is biblically sound (or, perhaps, commendable) to outlaw homosexual behavior. Your question seems ... no, is intended to call such a position "preposterous". So, either Dan (and anyone else who thinks the Bible teaches such a thing) is "preposterous", or, in your view, it is "preposterous" for anyone to be in favor of agreeing with biblical law.
So, either Dan (and anyone else who thinks the Bible teaches such a thing) is "preposterous", or, in your view, it is "preposterous" for anyone to be in favor of agreeing with biblical law.
No, not just any OT law. I don't think it preposterous to want to outlaw theft, and it is contrary to biblical law. I think it preposterous to presume that each and every biblical law ought to correspond to modern law. The mere appearance (or APPARENT appearance) of a law against a given behavior in the OT is not due cause to outlaw the (presumed same) behavior in today's culture.
I'd say that criminalizing being disrespectful, growing mixed crops, "men laying with men,' or other culture-specific (or unclear) behaviors simply because WE THINK that the Bible was speaking about something is a poor idea.
We criminalize behavior not because some people think it offends God, but because that behavior causes harm to someone. Right?
I would suggest we would be engaging in all manner of goofiness if we start trying to criminalize all behavior that we think is offensive to God. What do you think?
I'll start with the easiest first.
Dan Trabue: "What do you think?"
I think I already answered that in my post.
Now to the substance. You have still not cleared up my confusion about your point. Here, let me explain. The section in which we find the law that makes "men lying with men" a death-penalty offense includes such things as adultery and bestiality. Your argument -- "I'd say that criminalizing being disrespectful, growing mixed crops, 'men laying with men,' or other culture-specific (or unclear) behaviors simply because WE THINK that the Bible was speaking about something is a poor idea" -- would mandate that we remove any laws against bestiality, adultery, public nudity, and human sacrifice (all included in that same text). These are all just as "clear" and "culture-specific". Are you, for instance, in favor of removing rape laws on the same basis? No, of course not. And neither are you in favor of having the same consequences for rape that God calls for in the Bible. I think that says something.
More to the point, it appears to be your view that it is wrong for people to have strong belief in Scripture. The idea appears to be "Well, you're certainly free to believe that yourself, but don't try to put any of it on anyone else." Admittedly, that's a common perspective. It is irrational, but common.
Stan...
Your argument... would mandate that we remove any laws against bestiality, adultery, public nudity, and human sacrifice
Then I apologize for being unclear. Let me try again:
My argument is that we ought not criminalize a behavior simply because WE THINK the Bible calls it a sin. Does that make sense?
I think that the Bible calls Christians engaging in warfare sinful, but I don't think we ought to criminalize such behavior. It is a matter of debate within the church and for consideration within the lives of each Christian and church, NOT a matter of public policy.
I think what we CRIMINALIZE as a nation ought to be those behaviors that cause harm to others or reasonably potentially cause harm to others. We criminalize drunk driving because of the great potential for causing harm to others, NOT because the Bible tells us so. We criminalize speeding, pollution, theft, bribery, child pornography, bestiality, etc, because it potentially or definitely causes harms to innocents, NOT because "the Bible tells us so."
So, I can think that the OT laws to the Israelis 4,000 years ago might have criminalized adultery or bestiality or child abuse or murder and REGARDLESS of what my hunch is on the Bible, I can still come out for or against a modern law based NOT on what my hunch on God's opinion is, but on what is reasonably considered harmful to others.
Does that make more sense?
My saying that laws ought to be based on what causes harm does not mean that we must support or oppose a biblical injunction, it just recognizes that our hunches about God's opinion on behavior is not a sufficient reason to criminalize a behavior.
As I said before, "I think that says something." What it tells us is that you do not believe that we ought to base any laws on what God says or what the Bible says or even what we believe to be right, but on what you would consider to "cause harm to others or reasonably potentially cause harm to others." It tells us that you do not believe that the moral values offered in Scripture were on the basis of things that cause harm, but on some more arbitrary basis (making for a more capricious God). It tells us that you do not believe that laws ought to be based on what the Bible calls sin (read "biblical morality"). Ultimately it tells us that I was correct in my conclusion that you believe that we're certainly free to believe what we want, "but don't try to put any of it on anyone else."
In other words, if Danny believes that it is harmful to children (and adults I would guess) to make homosexual behavior appear as normal in our society, he ought to shut up and keep his "preposterous" opinion to himself because no one should make such ridiculous suggestions ... at least not in public.
I, on the other hand, would disagree with Danny's position that we should outlaw it ... because, as you demonstrate, we're way beyond that. Kind of like closing the barn after the cows have left.
I have a question for Dan T. In the past you have stated that you think homosexuality is okay, so long as men are not lying with men...so here is the question: do you support the fact that all states (as the other Dan mentioned) since 2003 have removed all sodomy laws? If yes, why? I thought you said having homosexual sex was wrong?
If you do agree that sodomy laws were wrong and thus should have been removed...then I'll simply quote something the other Dan said above:
"I tend to think that if the enemy of our souls thinks it is important to do away with a law, then I am of the thought that those laws must be important."
Dan (T)...are you an align with the enemy of our souls on this? Sure seems like it...
Actually, I think you've got my position correct (minus the snarkiness). In a diverse society, I don't think we ought to criminalize behavior merely because we believe it to be sinful. "We" might be wrong, after all, about what God does and doesn't like.
I do think we can reasonably criminalize behavior that causes harm to others.
Are you suggesting that you think that each and every notion that Stan thinks is sinful ought to be criminalized?
For the record, I DO think that the Bible, rightly understood, when it's talking about sinful behavior, it is talking about behavior that causes either physical or spiritual harm. Greed, for instance, I am firmly convinced causes spiritual harm to a soul. Envy, lust, etc, these DO cause harm to folk, I believe.
However, I don't think it wise to try to criminalize these sins. Rather, when greed materializes itself in theft (which causes direct physical harm), then that THEFT ought to be criminalized. Why? Because it is causing actual physical harm to others.
Trying to criminalize those attitudes that are sinful is a bad idea, it seems to me. Also, trying to criminalize those behaviors that we merely "feel" are actually harmful (but lack any significant evidence in the real world) is a bad idea.
Do you think we ought to criminalize behaviors that someone (Other Dan, for instance) "feels" like are harmful (homosexuality, for instance) even though there is no significant real world evidence of harm to others that can be attributed to that behavior?
You've already said that you don't think homosexuality ought to be criminalized, and I agree, of course (albeit for different reasons). Can you point to any sinful behavior that you'd criminalize that doesn't cause provable harm?
In other words, if Danny believes that it is harmful to children (and adults I would guess) to make homosexual behavior appear as normal in our society, he ought to shut up and keep his "preposterous" opinion to himself because no one should make such ridiculous suggestions ... at least not in public.
No, of course not. IF "Danny" can make a reasonable case that "homosexual behavior" (whatever that is) CAUSES actual harm, then that is EXACTLY cause for criminalizing a behavior. We WANT to stop behavior that damages the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
What's ridiculous is the notion that "homosexual behavior" does that in any substantial way, differently than "heterosexual behavior."
But yes, IF Danny can make the case, then Danny has an obligation to do so, for the protection of our common rights.
"then that THEFT ought to be criminalized."
Except when it's a poor immigrant stealing food.
Dan Trabue: "Are you suggesting that you think that each and every notion that Stan thinks is sinful ought to be criminalized?"
You see, Dan, this is why it's so difficult to converse with you. The entire point of my post is that criminalizing sinful things is not the answer. So ... if you're not going to read or understand what I write, why are you going to argue with me?
So, I got your position correct. I don't know if you noted it, but I also said that yours was the common, but irrational position. But then, that's because of what appears to me to be clearly irrational in your very words. "I DO think that the Bible, rightly understood, when it's talking about sinful behavior, it is talking about behavior that causes either physical or spiritual harm" over against "trying to criminalize those behaviors that we merely feel are actually harmful (but lack any significant evidence in the real world) is a bad idea." But, I suppose that all comes from the position that genuine truth is determined by "significant evidence in the real world".
SF asked...
In the past you have stated that you think homosexuality is okay, so long as men are not lying with men...so here is the question: do you support the fact that all states (as the other Dan mentioned) since 2003 have removed all sodomy laws? If yes, why? I thought you said having homosexual sex was wrong?
1. I don't think that homosexual sex is wrong in and of itself, any more than I think heterosexual sex is wrong in and of itself. I think sexuality is a gift from God to be enjoyed in the proper context which I happen to think is a committed, faithful adult relationship (ie, marriage).
2. RE: Sodomy laws: Perhaps you missed where I stated that I don't think we ought to criminalize behaviors simply because we think they are sinful. I think we ought to limit criminalizing behaviors to those behaviors which cause (or reasonably potentially cause) direct harm to innocent bystanders.
Thus, we criminalize drunk driving and theft and child prostitution. We don't criminalize adultery or various sex positions (ie, sodomy) engaged in with consenting adults.
Is it your position that you would like to criminalize all behavior that starflyer considers sinful, even those sinful behaviors which you can't demonstrate any reasonable harm caused?
Would you criminalize adultery?
Would you consider certain sexual positions (ie, sodomy - or are you defining sodomy differently than anal/oral sex)?
Would you criminalize lying? Bearing false witness? Gossip? Slander?
Would you think that the Amish ought to strive to criminalize cars and air conditioners?
Where would you draw the line?
The problems with those who'd like to criminalize every behavior that they think is sinful is, 1. They presume too much to speak for God and 2. They'd create a MASSIVE nanny gov't (ie, not conservative at all) that would reach into our bedrooms, our doctors offices, our heads, even, and every facet of our lives.
Seems to me.
SF...
are you an align with the enemy of our souls on this? Sure seems like it...
Well, that would be in God's hands. I know it is not my intent to do anything but follow in God's ways and I shall fall on God's grace in those areas where I make a mistake and hope that my fellow Christians can show that same grace.
Stan...
this is why it's so difficult to converse with you. The entire point of my post is that criminalizing sinful things is not the answer. So ... if you're not going to read or understand what I write, why are you going to argue with me?
Well, I AGREED with your notion that criminalizing that which we consider to be sinful is not the answer. I DID read it.
But then, you began mocking my position that we ought to limit criminalizing behavior to that which causes harm and so I asked what I consider to be a reasonable follow up question.
We appear to agree that criminalizing behavior is not the answer. The difference appears to be the reasoning. You APPEAR to be saying, "what's the point?" in criminalizing what you consider sinful behavior because, as you stated, "we're way beyond that. Kind of like closing the barn after the cows have left."
Whereas my reasoning (which, as noted, is NOT what you THINK my reasoning is) is that criminalizing behavior ought to be limited to that which causes harm because that is the proper place for laws. We are always going to be a diverse society that does not agree on every sinful behavior and we have no good helpful reason to try to get into the MASSIVE job of telling a gov't a list of "sins" to criminalize.
Recognizing that gov't is a flawed human institution, I think it most reasonable and in fitting with our constitution to limit it to those behaviors which cause harm. Man, it would be scary to have a bunch of leaders in charge (Dem, Republican, socialist, what EVER flavor) who would begin the laborious process of trying to criminalize all perceived "sinful behavior."
So, we agree on the idea, just for different reasons. Is that a reasonable conclusion?
Stan...
I suppose that all comes from the position that genuine truth is determined by "significant evidence in the real world".
Genuine Truth is Genuine Truth. It is that which is True. Period.
However, being flawed human beings, we are not ever going to "get it" right 100% of the time on understanding Genuine Truth. Gov't's role, as I see it then, is to criminalize that behavior which can be reasonably show to cause harm and not get into the business of trying to decide "Genuine Truth" and institute it as law.
Trying to do that would reach beyond the function and ability of gov't.
Do you think gov't is able to and ought to try to define all "Genuine Truth?" I don't think you do and, thus, I imagine we agree on that point.
Of course, another reason it's hard to discuss with you is the sheer volume of stuff you put out.
Note, by the way, that using quotes has more than one possible purpose. One might be to mock, to be sure. But there is another obscure, not-very-well-known usage. In my uses here I've used it almost exclusively to ... quote ... not mock. (I'm trying to accurately reflect your comments by using your words exactly as you did.)
I'm unsure of the intent of your last comment, all that about quotes and mocking. If there was some point to it, I missed it.
Thanks for helping me wade through this a bit with you all. It helped me clarify how best to talk about this "So now what" sort of topic. It helped clarify for me that the reason we don't criminalize all perceived sinful behavior is that doing so is beyond the rightful scope of gov't.
Which I suspect is a point with which we can all agree, but maybe not. You tell me.
Anyway, if for nothing else, I find these conversations helpful. Thanks!
Stan...
another reason it's hard to discuss with you is the sheer volume of stuff you put out.
Ha! Sorry about that. Words are the medium we must use in this context and perhaps I need to learn to communicate in briefer spurts. The problem seems to be that people have a hard time understanding and thus, I add more explanation hoping for more clarity.
My apologies. I shall work on brevity, hopefully without losing clarity or understanding!
Dan Trabue: "I'm unsure of the intent of your last comment"
It was in response to "But then, you began mocking my position that we ought to limit criminalizing behavior to that which causes harm ..." I don't recall nor did I intend mocking.
You've helped clarify something for me as well. You can't criminalize attitudes, but only actions. On the whole "homosexual" thing, for instance, even if laws were enacted, they couldn't say, "It is illegal to have desires for people of the same gender" even though the Bible says this it is wrong to do so (Rom 1:26-27). It could only be illegal to act on those desires ... as it has been for much of history.
I did not intend to mock your position that only that which causes harm should be criminalized, but I do indeed disagree with it. Thus, I would also disagree with your argument that it is outside the scope of government to criminalize sinful behavior ... as the government in the Old Testament did precisely that and most governments have also done so. (It was fairly recently, for instance, that adultery laws were removed from the books.)
Thus, I would also disagree with your argument that it is outside the scope of government to criminalize sinful behavior
Okay, then we fully disagree on that point. Could you clarify for me, then, when you would and wouldn't criminalize all sinful behavior?
You have already stated you wouldn't criminalize homosexuality or even homosexual behavior (if I'm understanding you correctly). Would you criminalize lying? Gossip? Slander? These are all sinful actions, would you criminalize them and, if not, why not?
I'm genuinely curious on what basis you think we can reasonably criminalize "sin," if not on the basis of actual harm?
Dan Trabue: "Would you criminalize lying? Gossip? Slander? These are all sinful actions, would you criminalize them and, if not, why not? I'm genuinely curious on what basis you think we can reasonably criminalize sin, if not on the basis of actual harm?"
Well, since I believe that sin causes actual harm, I can't see the distinction you're shooting for.
I would not favor criminalizing sins that have not been criminalized by God. In the theocracy that was Israel in the Old Testament, God made the laws. He didn't criminalize, for instance, gossip. "False witness" (which I'm not convinced is "all lying") was against the Ten Commandments (and, thus, sin), but I don't find any penalty for it, so I'm not sure I'd consider that "criminalized". I do believe that God criminalized those things that do the most damage, but I think He did it knowing what that was while your approach would do it on an extremely limited ("we all agree that it harms" and "harm is how we define it") basis. As an example, our lax and ultimately loss of laws regarding sexual purity has led to today's divorce rates and rife sexual immorality. Passing the laws today would be like trying to pass Prohibition again. The damage is done. "Ladies and gentlemen, the cows have left the building. Please close the barn doors."
Hmmm. I don't know that I "get" the whole "damage is done" approach. I don't know that I see a biblical precedent for it. It seems that if I thought a sin ought to be criminalized, I'd push for it to be criminalized, regardless of what society thought about it.
Are you saying it is your opinion that God would like societies to criminalize, for instance, oral or anal sex (ie, sodomy) but you're not willing to stand up in support of such a law in order to follow God?
Or is it the case that you don't really think God wants you to stand up for laws that God would like to see implemented, IF the law is so far removed from what the culture wants.
I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble finding the reasoning.
But I really do appreciate the answer, it helps me to understand your position.
For instance, it helps to understand that you think God had different "levels" of sin (my interpretation of your comments, not your words) - some that could reasonably be enacted as law and others that weren't to be implemented as law.
For my part, I don't think God wants societies to criminalize oral sex, for instance, and wouldn't support such a law because it seems just a bit silly and not worthy of a law, plus it seems extremely intrusive and beyond gov't's scope.
At any rate, it appears that we agree that not every sin ought to be criminalized, am I understanding you correctly there?
One other question: There is clearly an OT law (ie, not "just" a sin) that outlaws being a disrespectful child and sexual activity (even in marriage) while a woman is menstruating. Would you advocate those sorts of laws today, or do they fall into the "out of the barn" category for you?
Thanks.
I'm sorry, could I ask for one more clarification? Where you say...
In the theocracy that was Israel in the Old Testament, God made the laws. He didn't criminalize, for instance, gossip. "False witness" (which I'm not convinced is "all lying") was against the Ten Commandments (and, thus, sin), but I don't find any penalty for it, so I'm not sure I'd consider that "criminalized".
...does that mean the standard for you for what can rightly be criminalized today is only those actions which are 1. Condemned as wrong AND 2. Carry a penalty with them?
And then, from there, you're saying it's okay NOT to push for criminalization of those actions which carried a penalty but would not be embraced by the society in which you live?
Again, thanks.
Dan Trabue: "Are you saying it is your opinion that God would like societies to criminalize, for instance, oral or anal sex (ie, sodomy) but you're not willing to stand up in support of such a law in order to follow God?"
If you could, please show me in Scripture where God criminalizes sodomy (oral/anal sex). I cannot offer an answer to your question since my premise was that I would not favor criminalizing things that God has not criminalized (which is different than calling something sin).
And, yes, I think God would like our government to criminalize sodomy but I think He's a dolt for holding such a position and I'll tell Him so to His face! Come on, Dan, be reasonable. Why would you even ask such a silly question?
No, indeed, not all sin is criminalized by God, so not all sin ought to be criminalized. And, in fact, although I didn't say it nor intended to imply it, I do believe there are "levels of sin". (Thus we read things like "It will be more bearable on the day of judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you.") No, what I meant was that laws (operated by humans) can be effective with some things, but not with others. (For instance, just try to enforce a "Love your neighbor as yourself" law.)
Oh, and the "damage is done" statement was more of frustration and distress for the nation in which I live than a method of analyzing the question "What sins should be criminalized?" I don't think our government will, in any foreseeable future, consider biblical laws, so the point is moot.
Dan Trabue: "There is clearly an OT law (ie, not 'just' a sin) that outlaws being a disrespectful child and sexual activity (even in marriage) while a woman is menstruating. Would you advocate those sorts of laws today, or do they fall into the 'out of the barn' category for you?"
So, at what point do you stop the red herring questions (like the one you started this whole line of comments with)? You just love that whole "disrespectful children" thing, for instance, which you toss out on its ear as manifest stupidity. The fact that no one in history ever did carry out that law is irrelevant. The point of the law is irrelevant. The point of the menstruation rule is equally irrelevant. Your actual question is, "Can I get you to make a fool of yourself by coming out in favor of the most stupid rules I ever found in the Bible?" And you think I'll play that game.
Could you please tell me what you mean when you use the word "criminalize"?
In Scripture, there are a host of laws from God -- over 600 I'm told. All have eternal consequences. Some have temporal consequences. When I used the word "criminalize", I used it in the sense that the human authorities of the day could use the law. We know, for instance, that God's law is to "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might." So, say King David catches one of his people not loving the Lord with all his heart. He arrests him immediately for a violation of the undeniably clear law of God and ... what?
I referred to "criminalize" in the sense that the human government entities had instructions from God that there would be specific penalties for this or that violation. (And, I'm sorry, but I haven't a clue what your follow on question means.)
You know, Dan, the longer you talk, the more you push me toward recanting. Maybe, indeed, Dan (the other) was right and maybe, indeed, Von (another blogger) the theonomist is right and maybe, indeed, what I really ought to be pushing for in all aspects at all times in all places is a full-on reinstitution of biblical laws. Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm playing games ... like you are.
No games, brother. Merely trying to understand your (and Other Dan and Starflyer) positions. That is why I ask questions.
What would you have me do if I am trying to understand your position?
The "game" to which I'm referring is your propensity to "Well, that doesn't set well with my way of thinking, so that can't be what the Bible means when it says ..." I know ... I didn't say that with all the charity I should, so please interpret it as intended rather than how it might have felt. When you read, for instance, that God commanded the deaths of the Amalekites, you say, "That doesn't fit with my understanding of children (and their innocent nature) and justice and what God is like, so that can't be what it means." That, of course, is a game because it is clearly what it says. So you have to invent a biblical category of literature -- the "epic" -- that no one else has seen and explain it away as ... I don't know ... "Warning about how stern God might be ... somehow"?
My primary concern is the souls of those around me. I'm not too concerned with making the rules in my country correct. I'm not a great believer in the salvation of politics. I'm pretty sure that even if we got every law right, too many people would be going to Hell. So the effectiveness of such laws is of real question to me. That was my point in the post. But if God wants His laws (Old Testament) to be our laws today, then I ought to be in favor if that regardless of the effectiveness of such laws.
So, you should stop trying to interpret Scripture by your flawed preconceptions and interpret it by what it says instead, and I should stop trying to rationalize why we shouldn't have laws that God wants simply because they would be ineffective. Games.
When I use "criminalize," I mean the standard English definition: To make illegal.
If a nation criminalizes sodomy, that nation makes it illegal/against the law to engage in oral/anal sex, for instance. (And, by the way, obviously the Bible doesn't criminalize or condemn sodomy. Other Dan brought up that term, not me. I was just acting on the presumption that Other Dan and perhaps others think sodomy is reasonably to be criminalized, since, you know, that's what he said.)
And now, if I'm understanding you correctly, your position is:
A gov't today can reasonably make illegal/criminalize behaviors that are condemned in the OT AND that have a penalty associated with them.
The one area where I'm not clear on why you hold your position is the whole "out of the barn" problem. If you think God would want a nation to criminalize adultery, why wouldn't you want to try to legislate it?
That is only a question meant to seek understanding of your position, naught else. No mocking, no games, just a question.
By the way, where you say...
No, what I meant was that laws (operated by humans) can be effective with some things, but not with others. (For instance, just try to enforce a "Love your neighbor as yourself" law.)
I agree. I think those areas where laws can be effective is in the criminalization of actions that cause harm to others. I DON'T think that criminalizing actions that have no obvious harm to others is a wise idea or a purview of gov't.
How would you criminalize lying (outside of the obvious courtroom testimony examples)? Gossip? These things, in fact, DO have harm, but the harm done doesn't usually arise to the level of needing legal intervention. Adultery obviously causes harm, but it's more of a complex and private level of harm and not an appropriate arena for gov't intervention.
I just think a gov't that tries to criminalize non-harmful activities in this fallen world is going to be more fascist than we'd want. Do you really want Obama criminalizing his notion of "sins"? George W. Bush?
Not me, brother.
Stan...
you should stop trying to interpret Scripture by your flawed preconceptions and interpret it by what it says instead...
Amen (that is, "Amen, we should ALL be striving to follow God, not our flawed perceptions - not mine, not yours, Amen!"
Stan...
and I should stop trying to rationalize why we shouldn't have laws that God wants simply because they would be ineffective.
Well, here is where we disagree, but that happens. I don't know that you (or me, or Obama, or Bush) KNOW well enough what laws "God wants" in order to try to get in the business of criminalizing sins that "ought to be" criminalized. I'd suggest we just stick to those actions that cause harm. You disagree. Ah, well, such is life.
@"out of the barn" ... I answered that:
"The ... statement was more of frustration and distress for the nation in which I live than a method of analyzing the question 'What sins should be criminalized?' I don't think our government will, in any foreseeable future, consider biblical laws, so the point is moot."
Yes, I saw that you addressed it. I just didn't find it a very compelling answer. As I said, we disagree. It happens.
Thanks for the many helpful answers.
It wasn't an answer. It was an exclamation of frustration, not a way of analyzing the question.
How hypocritical of you Dan T. You say we should criminalize actions that are harmful to others or potentially harmful to others, but you remove homosexuality from it, yet lump bestiality in with criminal. In what way does bestiality harm others? By your standard, it shouldn't be outlawed, and yet you say its good that it is. From what I know about you from your responses, you'd be all for open borders with everyone, and yet that would be potentially harmful to others. How does that make any sense? If you're going to legalize or criminalize something, you really should set the same standard across the board, not apply the rules schizophrenically.
Now, I agree with Stan, we can't criminalize homosexuality because we are way beyond that point now, since we have slowly allowed it as a society. Of course, I've also given up on this country and its moral direction. Everyone accuses this nation of being a "Christian" nation, but there is nothing Christian about this country. We mock those that hold to "Judeo-Christian" ethics. We advocate sinners and push for the allowance of sinful actions. As a powerful nation, I believe we're on our way out because of our acceptance of sin, and the acceptance of homosexuality as normal and healthy is just a sign of the depth of our depravity. There is so much more that is has gone downhill before we can get to this point. I would suggest that churches need to uphold Scripture and not allow people living in a lifestyle (ie unrepentant sinfulness) to become members or hold any office in them. And this wouldn't be exclusive to homosexuals, I'm talking any unrepentant lifestyle, like unrepentant adultery, stealing, or lieing, etc. But since we can't do that as a Church, its no surprise that has free reign in our society.
David...
How hypocritical of you Dan T. You say we should criminalize actions that are harmful to others or potentially harmful to others, but you remove homosexuality from it, yet lump bestiality in with criminal. In what way does bestiality harm others?
Not a great way to win friends and influence people, to begin a conversation this way, brother.
Hypocritical, how?
Yes, I say we should criminalize behavior that causes harm to others, specifically to other innocents. To those who have no say in your actions.
Do you disagree with that generality?
It is criminal (we have decided, and rightly so, I say) to engage in sex with a minor - EVEN IF you could get that child to consent. Why? Because that child is not in a position to give permission. It is taking advantage of an innocent.
For a similar reason, we criminalize sex with animals - because the animals are not in a position to give permission for such behavior.
So yes, by my standard, it should be outlawed.
Where is the hypocrisy in any of that?
You go on to ask...
From what I know about you from your responses, you'd be all for open borders with everyone, and yet that would be potentially harmful to others. How does that make any sense?
"Opening borders" in and of itself causes no harm to others. SOME WHO COME ACROSS the border with intent to do harm, THOSE cause harm to others, but it is not the opening of the borders itself that causes harm. Thus, I lean towards a more open border relationship (although I think we can reasonably discuss reasonable restrictions), yes. But there is no hypocrisy in that, either, since "open borders" in and of itself causes no harm.
Fair enough, brother?
I have read very little of this discussion, but I did catch Dan's challenge as to why not make homosexuality a capital offense.
This is of coarse a tactic. It is subjecting objective truth to the tyranny of the times. It avoids the question of what is right in the sight of God while seeking to make me look like the hateful Phelps? But my question is: If God at one time decreed homosexuality a capital offense--which he clearly did--then how is that same God perceived today in the eyes of a people fine with the fact that those convicted of heinous crimes like molesting, torturing and killing a child are defended against capital punishment while tens of millions of other children are dismembered then thrown out with the trash with their approval? My thoughts? Not very well. And nor are those who truly seek to serve Him.
Hi Other Dan. Thanks for the response. You said...
This is of coarse a tactic. It is subjecting objective truth to the tyranny of the times.
In fact, it is not a "tactic." It is a reasonable question.
If someone is proposing to criminalize a behavior (or a group of people), then it is a reasonable adult question to ask, "What will the penalty be for this behavior if we criminalize it?" Other reasonable questions include,
1. Are you speaking of criminalizing merely BEING homosexual, or only certain homosexual "acts?"
2. Assuming you're only speaking of criminalizing homosexual acts, a reasonable question we'd want to know is WHICH acts? Only sexual activity, or even something like holding hands or kissing?
3. If holding hands and/or kissing, does it have to be "seriously in love" sorts of holding hands/kissing or would you outlaw holding hands between male friends, too?
If you're going to speak seriously of criminalizing a behavior, you need to be prepared to answer these sorts of questions. It's not a "tactic" to want to know what in the world you're talking about.
Other Dan...
If God at one time decreed homosexuality a capital offense--which he clearly did
Well, that is the question, isn't it? YOU think God did. I don't.
Shall we create law based only on what Other Dan thinks God did in a culture 6,000 years ago, or on what the majority of people think God may have done in a culture 6,000 years ago, OR do we limit it to that behavior which actually causes harm, which I believe comes closer to a reasonable standard within the purview of what gov'ts can do? I say, limit it to that which causes harm.
You seem to be calling for a massively intrusive gov't, Other Dan, is that your intent?
Come on, Dan (T), you're going to ask silly questions like "would you outlaw holding hands?" and call that "a reasonable question"? That's why Dan called it "a tactic". Your asking questions in an attempt to ridicule an idea you don't like, not get at anything genuine. (I mean, seriously, is "holding hands" in any way remotely like "lying with a man as with a woman"?)
David, I'm not sure "hypocritical" is the word you were looking for. Inconsistent, maybe.
Dan, I'm fascinated that you intend to provide protection for poor defenseless animals who have no means of giving their permission for sexual behavior but no protection for the unborn who have no means of choosing life and you consider this moral and consistent.
Stan...
you're going to ask silly questions like "would you outlaw holding hands?" and call that "a reasonable question"?
Yes. Entirely.
If Dan appears to be calling for outlawing homosexuality, then yes, these are reasonable questions. No jibes intended, no "tactic." I ask the question to clarify an answer. That's generally why I ask questions.
You all are too cynical, it seems to me, suspecting people of all manner of sneakiness. Sometimes a question is just a question. Lighten up, fellas.
Stan...
you intend to provide protection for poor defenseless animals who have no means of giving their permission for sexual behavior but no protection for the unborn who have no means of choosing life and you consider this moral and consistent.
I believe that I'm consistent in that I don't want gov't to make medical decisions for families. I believe that parents are generally the best ones to make those sorts of calls.
Again, you all seem to be in favor of massive gov't intervention in the lives of people - hardly conservative as it is normally defined.
Nice try, Dan T. "Sometimes a question is just a question." Yes, indeed. But there is no way that "Do you want to outlaw hand-holding?" can be remotely construed as such. No one has suggested it. No one has mentioned it. There is no biblical precedence. There is no reason in the least to even think of it. It's not even sex, Dan T. Can't even be connected to the source that has been cited -- the biblical references. Stop.
And when "killing defenseless children" becomes "medical decisions for families" and defending those children becomes "massive gov't intervention in the lives of people", we've lost all sense of reality here. More to the point, you've lost all credibility here.
(And since that used to be the law of the land, "conservatives" would want to retain that law. What's so strange about that?)
Stan...
Your asking questions in an attempt to ridicule an idea you don't like, not get at anything genuine. (I mean, seriously, is "holding hands" in any way remotely like "lying with a man as with a woman"?)
Just to further clarify:
1. My asking the question was NOT (NOT NOT NOT) an attempt to ridicule Other Dan's position. IF that is what you are reading into what I asked, then you are misreading my question. Now, I have clarified it. Twice. No ridicule intended in asking the question (well, I mean, if he answers the question in a ridiculous way, then there would be some self-ridicule happening, but that was not the intent of asking the question).
2. It was an attempt to clarify what he means by "outlaw homosexuality," IF indeed that's what he's talking about (you asked him directly if he "would... favor a law that made it illegal to be openly homosexual?" and his answer was not a straightforward Yes or No, so I was seeking to clarify his answer.
3. For some people, same gender folk holding hands and kissing would indicate that they are "openly homosexual." Am I right? And so, IF he was calling for outlawing being "openly homosexual," I was wondering would that mean that if two folk of the same gender held hands or kissed, would that be enough to arrest them.
How is that unreasonable any way at all?
If Dan said something that would remotely make you consider that holding hands would be outlawed, I'd like to know what it was. Dan claimed that God decreed homosexual behavior as a capital offense. You ask him about holding hands. No connection. (That is, there is no place in Scripture that God declares hand-holding as a capital offense.)
You further make a leap that not everyone else is making. While Romans 1 says that passion for the same gender is a problem, it is not "outlawed". There is no penalty except the penalty that all sin carries. The only place (back to the whole "criminalize" question) that makes it a criminal act is when it is an act, indeed, a specific act of "lying with a man as with a woman". Two leaps, then. First, you assume "homosexual" is a condition rather than an act. Second, you assume Dan might want to outlaw things not prescribed in Scripture. Now, with your first leap, outlawing what you call "homosexuality" (a condition) would be as stupid as outlawing the desire for alcohol during prohibition. They outlawed alcohol, not the desire for it. And the second is an obvious problem. So your questions may not be a "tactic" (I still am not sure I believe you), but they are neither charitable nor reasonable. You are assuming idiocy. Don't.
Stan...
If Dan said something that would remotely make you consider that holding hands would be outlawed, I'd like to know what it was.
I tried once to explain my reasoning. Again...
1. Other Dan said..
It is for this reason I am of the belief that to some degree: laws matter... And it is also for this reason that, while everything on Paul's list cannot be outlawed, the things that can be ought to be.
2. STAN asked Other Dan directly...
So, Dan... would you favor a law that made it illegal to be openly homosexual?
3. Other Dan wandered around with the question for a while then said...
I suppose my ultimate point is that laws have ramifications and that we should not be so ready to just let them be expunged. We may not see or understand Satan's strategy in his attack on man in wanting a certain moral law that the average person doesn't even know exists be repealed.
4. I did not see that to be an answer to whether or not it should be illegal to be "openly homosexual" (again, YOUR words, YOUR question).
5. The question having gone unanswered, I asked it a different way, "Would you want to criminalize two guys holding hands or kissing?" which IS a way of seeing that someone is "openly homosexual."
Perhaps the easiest way to resolve it would be for Other Dan to simply answer either direct question, directly.
A. WOULD Other Dan like for it to be illegal to be "openly homosexual?"
B. WOULD Other Dan like to criminalize two men kissing one another on the lips?
Regardless, whether or not YOU think it is a sincere question, the simple fact is that it IS a sincere question, one I'd like to know the answer to, in order to better understand Other Dan's position.
How do I KNOW that it's a sincere question? Well, because I'm the one asking it and I know my own heart on this matter.
Again, your misunderstanding. "Openly homosexual" in my vernacular is someone who practices sex with the same gender and it is known. (I don't believe in and don't care about "homosexual" in the sense that you use it to mean "attracted to the same gender" or, more likely, "the lifestyle of".)
And you may intend it as a "sincere question", but you are still assuming idiocy.
Stan...
I don't believe in and don't care about "homosexual" in the sense that you use it to mean "attracted to the same gender" or, more likely, "the lifestyle of".
Well, that IS the definition of "homosexual," whether you believe in it or not. So perhaps you could understand how some people, using the standard English definition of the word, might not have understood your alternate definition.
So, do you suspect that Other Dan just hasn't noticed the questions that could resolve this or is he just not willing to give a straight answer to your question - would you like to outlaw being openly homosexual (using either your definition that I guess would mean having gay sex in public, OR the standard English definition of being attracted to the same gender)?
Dan Trabue: "Well, that IS the definition of 'homosexual,' whether you believe in it or not."
No, that's your definition ... probably even the current popular definition. No first century writer, no Old Testament writer, no commenter up until the 20th century ever thought in those terms because it is a very new use of the idea. Every biblical use refers only to actions, not "orientation", "preferences", or "lifestyle". My "alternative" definition, then, is the original one and yours is the new, even if it is today perhaps the more prevalent.
I am pretty sure, knowing Dan (your "Other Dan"), that he hasn't answered your questions because 1) he's quite sure that they are "tactics", not sincere (yes, despite your repeated denial of such), 2) he knows that the answer is irrelevant (because regardless of what he says, it will make little difference to you or to anyone else), and 3) mostly that he doesn't follow this stuff as much as you (or I) do. Especially the third answer (note his "I have read very little of this discussion" comment).
Dan Trabue: "I guess would mean having gay sex in public"
Since you have assumed idiocy on Dan's part ("Would you outlaw holding hands even though there has never ever been any such thing in the Bible or Christendom at all?") and now idiocy on my part (Come on, Dan, is "gay sex in public" the only option you can come up with? Is it your view that every instance of premarital sex, adultery, incest, bestiality, and "lying with a man as with a woman" whatever you think that means and all those other outlawed sexual practices was done "in public"? Give me a break.), this conversation is ended and I will not post any further comments from you here.
Post a Comment