Posted on 12/16/2006 11:22:33 AM PST by Blackirish
You lead with a question like that?
Pray tell, where but from some cyber orifice of yours could you draw that implication from the words I posted?
29:And Levi made him a great feast in his own house: and there was a great company of publicans and of others that sat down with them.
30:But their scribes and Pharisees murmured against his disciples, saying, Why do ye eat and drink with publicans and sinners?
31:And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.
Book of Luke
Matthew 7
1:Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2:For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3:And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4:Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5:Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye
So while these "Christians" are busy condemning posters who refuse to play God and condem homosexuals, they should be ministering to the homosexuals that they feel are spiritually ill.
To take Christ's words regarding judgment in the Sermon on the Mount to mean that we are to suspend discernment and suppress wisdom is against the whole counsel of Scripture. "Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more matters of this life?" (I Corinthians 6: 2-3, NASB) The power that Christ gave the church to "bind and loose", the admonition of Paul to church discipline in I Corinthians 5, the "sword" given to the civil magistrate in Romans 13, the praise Luke gives to the people of Berea in Acts 17 for examining the Scripture daily all imply the power of judgment is in the hands of the Christian believers, the church, and the civil authorities.
The true context of the admonition in the Sermon on the Mount is with respect to unjust judgment. As an analogy, the condemnation of adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, etc., does not mean that the Christian faith is opposed to sex. Rather, it is commended within the bonds of traditional matrimony, even if condemned elsewhere.
You have provided us with the best definition of Shria Law, Christen style, now haven't you?
As I pointed out in earlier posts, the natural rights theory was outlined by the Catholic philosopher Thomas Aquinas, who was influenced by both Scripture and Aristotle, and developed by Protestant legal theorists in the 17th and 18th Centuries like Grotius, Locke, and Blackstone, who were the principal influences on the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers. The fact that this natural rights theory was accepted by the Founders, Christian or not, did not cause them to abandon English common law with respect to various forms of sexual misconduct. By and large, these laws remained on the books in all states until 1960. If the underlying principles of American government until about 45 years ago were the same as sharia law, then the implication is that all 50 states were authoritarian theocracies for most of our country's history.
As for the red herring you introduced about judgment and sharia law, perhaps a review of the definition of judgment is in order, in this case from Merriam Webster's Online Dictionary: "a formal utterance of an authoritative opinion b : an opinion so pronounced". Utterance of an authoritative opinion is not an exclusive role of government. Until recently, Bill Gates' opinion was authoritative in Microsoft. Pope Benedict XVI is clearly authoritative in Roman Catholicism. Einstein's scientific opinions have been authoritative among physicists. Microsoft, the Catholic Church, and the physicist community are not governments, yet they have had persons who speak authortiatively.
With regard to the Biblical citation, the judgment of the believers, as cited in Acts 17 or I Corinthians 6, have nothing to do with the civil government. The authority of the church, with respect to "binding and loosing" or church discipline, is within the body of believers and not the entire world. A church may fire a pastor or expel a member, just as a company may fire a CEO or an employee, but that has nothing to do with civil government. The "sword" of the magistrate in Romans 13 were made in the context, not of a government of Christian believers, but of the pagan Roman Empire. Paul was admonishing not the overthrow of the pagan authorities by Christians but their submission to these authorities. Paul's attitude and that of the Christians during 250 years of Roman persecution stand in stark contrast with Mohammed and the Muslims of the 6th and 7th Centuries AD, who spread their faith by fire and sword.
It's not your business what she does.
Amen!
And you're telling me that I'm full of hate?
"Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice" bump.
Always easy to win an argument when EV is on the other side.
Especially when he has to go hide behind JR.
That pretty much sums it up.
Do you believe that no one has a *right* to do what you believe is wrong?
As far as it goes, we still have laws that restrict sexual freedom: sex with underage minors is illegal in all states, as are polygamy, bestiality, and necrophilia. Sexual intercourse of any sort is prohibited in public places almost everywhere. Governments have prohibited certain sexual activities in most time periods and most places, not only in America but worldwide. Prohibition of public sex may be justifiable for the sake of public order, but there is no public order issue with respect to polygamy or pederasty.
The existence of state-imposed limitations is true with respect to other freedoms. If you say we have absolute freedom of speech, for example, please tell me the last time you saw an advertisement for Marlboro cigarettes. Political and religious speech have generally been protected since the foundation of the Republic, but commercial speech is regulated considerably, and more so than was the case prior to 1930. The questions should be: should any boundary be placed on sexual activity and, if so, where should they be set?
With regard to the issue of rights, we must also distinguish what are the natural rights of man and what is the proper sphere of government. The fact that there is no right to do wrong does not necessarily mean that there is justification for state intervention. For example, a private company may fire a well qualified, competent employee for a less competent one because the latter is favored by management for some reason or other. As long as there is no breach of contract on the part of the employer and existing labor laws are followed, the competent employee may be fired. The firing may be immoral, but in a capitalist society, it is not a matter for state intervention. A person could be guilty of gluttony or excessive drinking, actions, though while sinful to Christians and others, are not generally subject to state intervention, even though an indigent obese person or alcoholic may become a charge to Medicaid or Medicare.
In present day America, governments do prohibit certain forms of sexual activity, even though the laws that prohibit consensual homosexual sodomy have been repealed or overturned. Furthermore, even if natural law theory denies the existence of a "right" to do wrong and Judeo-Christian morality denounces certain activities as wrong, general practice in certain areas, such as labor relations and self-destructive behavior, has been for noninterference by the state.
Do you believe that there should be no restrictions on sexual activity of any sort, except possibly for sexual intercourse in public areas? Additionally, all legislation is based on some moral code, even those, such as in the former Soviet Union, that do not draw upon a religious viewpoint. What moral code should be the foundation for the law?
Do you want sodomy to be an illegal activity?
I think in some kind of winding way you have answered my second question - I think you are saying that *yes* people have the *right* to do what you think is wrong.( Which is the opposite of Eternal Vigilance's answer.)
I will wait for your answer - (just a yes or no is find) to my first question.
* Was pre-1960 America, where homosexual sodomy was illegal in all states, a union of 50 authoritarian theocracies similar to present day Iran or Saudi Arabia?
* Do governments have any justification for restricting sexual freedom? (While homosexual sodomy, adultery, and fornication are now legal, other forms of sexual activity remain illegal.)
* By what standard are the laws of a country properly based?
The other issue that I find of interest in your writing is I want to know whether you are advocating for a law against sodmomy.
Just as I don't agree that slavery was a good law - or the denial of voting rights to women - I see laws against sodmony as repressive.
As I have said in several posts - I advocate for the most freedom possible. That would include freedom to engage in acts that some disapprove of - as adultery, fornication, sodomy, divorce etc. I do not want to see such things a rape of children legal - or rape itself legal. I think consenting adults - that catch phrase - should be a guide in sexual activites.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.