Posted on 05/16/2009 11:56:08 AM PDT by Maelstorm
Why that would be an excellent idea. Along with advocacy for bestiality, murder, pedophilia (primarily a homosexual disease), and other abominations.
What other messages or ideas need to be censored in society? And who decides which messages are sufficiently poisonous to call for banning?
God's Word. Don't pretend that we live in a vacuum. The old landmarks have been established and there is life in those that live in them, and destruction and misery in those that walk contrary.
Proverbs 22:28 Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.
Ok. Suppose I stood in front of my state capitol with a sign reading "Alaska has it right- lower the age of consent to 16." Since the age of consent in my state is currently 18, I would be advocating in favor of legalizing what is currently defined as criminal sexual activity with an underage person. Also note that my sign doesn't say "criminalize all sex between non-married persons", so a lot of people would find my sign immoral no matter what age I chose.
Should I be thrown in jail for this kind of protest?
What if the sign said "I hate black people because they are black. We should deny them jobs.". Almost every person would find that sign deeply offensive and immoral. It expresses a distinctly un-American and un-Christian viewpoint. Should this kind of protest be banned as well?
God's Word. Don't pretend that we live in a vacuum. The old landmarks have been established and there is life in those that live in them, and destruction and misery in those that walk contrary.
Who's interpretation of God's Word? There are quite a few sects in the US. Is there one "correct" church we should all be made to follow, or do we simply put it up to a vote of all believers?
There is only one Word of God. It is upon which Western Civilization has based its foundation for the past 2000 years. It is not too hard to figure out what is right or wrong if you spend the time to open it and read it.
There may be different interpretations on how one is baptized; on the meaning of the bread and wine during communion; and the process of salvation...
But sin is clear. We are all sinners and we are called to repentance and faith in our Saviour - by whose Righteousness we've been washed clean.
As I've written before -- we do no one a favor by telling someone that sin is acceptable. It is corrosive to society, but even worse - it is damnation to the precious soul who is trapped in sin. There is a way out. A way to escape the coming eternal fire. Only by faith in our Lord Jesus Christ - knowing that HE paid for our sins. And what did our LORD say to the woman caught in adultery - when HE shamed her accusers? Was it, 'You have a right, and 'freedom' to do as you will?'.... No, it was:
John 8:11b ...And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Alright, I'll set aside for a moment the very real disagreements people of faith have on matters such as alcohol consumption, contraceptive use, and "social justice". In other words, I'll assume everyone is on the same page as far as sin is concerned.
Racism is unquestionably sinful and is very corrosive to society. Gluttony is also a sin and also causes a lot of harm in society.
Should the government be empowered to fight both racism and gluttony? Should the government also be empowered to penalize anyone who questions the laws on race relations and personal diet, since these critics would be arguing for the social acceptance of sinful behavior?
I'm curious - which Chapters and verses do you use to define these sins?
Should the government be empowered to fight both racism and gluttony? Should the government also be empowered to penalize anyone who questions the laws on race relations and personal diet, since these critics would be arguing for the social acceptance of sinful behavior?
The examples you note are fairly self-policing. Adultery might be a rampant sin -- but it is still treated as shameful (except perhaps in Hollywood), and we don't see parades with people celebrating this sin. Nor do we see parades for rapists, drug addicts, or thieves. Nor do we see people demanding their rights to be racists and gluttons. People may be fallen in these sins - but they don't celebrate it. And when societies do celebrate them - as did Nazi Germany when they exulted the 'ideal' of the 'Master Race' -- it would not have been a bad idea for society, and the government, to have stepped in and taken the position that this idea was an abomination (I'm not going to quote you the verse -- because I want to see what verses you find to show that this is a sin) and that these celebrations were unacceptable. It might have saved a certain amount of unpleasantness that took place in the 1930s and 1940s.
Sin is to be opposed at every opportunity. We're sinners by nature - and once you begin to tolerate it and excuse it - it destroys. Society and the individual.
None really. I'm far from a Biblical scholar. After a little searching, I've found the following sites with quite a few Biblical citations relating to racism an gluttony.
On racism: See here and here.
On gluttony: See here
Based on what I read on those sites, I would define the sins as follows:
Racism- treating someone of another race as less than a human being or not deserving of the same fair treatment as everyone else solely because of that person's race.
Gluttony- being completely unrestrained in satisfying one's natural appetites, eating far more than is necessary to maintain one's health, and putting your own appetites ahead of the needs of your family, friends, or community.
Are these fair definitions?
The examples you note are fairly self-policing...
With racism perhaps, but it's taken a few hundred years to get to this point. As for gluttony, well, have you read about the obesity rates in this country?
... Nor do we see parades for rapists, drug addicts, or thieves. Nor do we see people demanding their rights to be racists and gluttons. People may be fallen in these sins - but they don't celebrate it.
There are people who celebrate racism. There's your obvious groups like the KKK, Black Panthers, etc. and there are also rap "artists" and comedians who frequently use racist language and themes as a part of their act. I guess the latter don't really "celebrate" racism but they are a factor in social acceptance of racism. Heck, even the gluttons have various "fat acceptance" groups to advocate on their behalf. Not to mention all the advertisements for all-you-can-eat buffets and national eating competitions.
These groups may not have the numbers or the media attention of gay rights activists but they are still out there trying to get the rest of society to accept sin. So should the government categorize their behavior as criminal, even if it decides not to expend too many resources prosecuting them?
As another example, consider the trend of immodest dress among young people today. It's a trend that's celebrated in magazines and on tv shows. Is that something else the government should criminalize?
...And when societies do celebrate them - as did Nazi Germany when they exulted the 'ideal' of the 'Master Race' -- it would not have been a bad idea for society, and the government, to have stepped in and taken the position that this idea was an abomination
It's hard to argue against getting rid of the Nazis. IMO though, for every instance of a vigilant and noble government agent quashing a nascent fascist movement there's probably going to be 100 instances of corruptible and small-minded government agents quashing movements that might deserve to see the light of day.
Sin is to be opposed at every opportunity. We're sinners by nature - and once you begin to tolerate it and excuse it - it destroys. Society and the individual.
Would you say then that any sinful activity, once it becomes celebrated or tolerated in society, should be criminalized?
If so, how do we decide once things have reached the "tipping point" where government action is needed? Do we leave that decision up to the democratic process or is there some other way?
Sorry for the late reply. Work buried me after my last message - but at least I made it to the long weekend.
Actually if anyone claims to be a 'Biblical scholar', I'd look at them in suspicion. Its good to be a Bible reader, and student - but 'scholar' implies some sort of expertise that none of us possess when held up to the bright light of this subject. The Bible was written by an infinite mind. Its been compared to an incredible sea of water. Endless in breath, yet safe, and healthy, for a child to wade through it. And at the same time, the most skilled scuba diver could never completely explore its depths.
Internet search engines are good - I certainly use them a lot - and the examples you cited seemed reasonable. Nonetheless, I was trying to get you to crack open the Book itself. It is unique. It is a living Book. The Holy Spirit resides in the pages. HE will bring life to the person that searches for HIM with his whole heart (Jeremiah 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.). And if reading seems too hard (time consuming) - we have the blessing of MP3 players nowadays -- just get a recording of the Bible and listen to it an hour a day (there's plenty of 'dead' time in the day: driving, at the Gym, etc).
But your take on the sins of racism and gluttony seem OK to me.
I'd have left racism as a sin against God. Man is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) - therefore to hate another man is to hate the image of God (1John has several references here - of which this is one: 1 John 4:20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?).
And racism not only means hating someone else, it is also idolatry (that 'Master Race' thing again). Man is very prone to idol worship which is why John ended his first Epistle with this warning: 1 John 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols. Amen.
And the references you made regarding Gluttony are also fine. I have mixed 'feelings' about this one because Gluttony is not clearly defined. I suspect that in the eyes of the starving in Africa and India that 99% of Americans would be considered gluttons. They have a point -- but again, I'd take this as a sin of idolatry. As long as one doesn't make food and drink their focus and obsession ... they're probably not gluttons.
Now I think God is making reference to gluttony when HE is highlighting Sodom's sins in Ezekiel:
Ezekiel 16:49-50 Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good.
But again, I'm not sure exactly what 'fulness of bread' means. Gluttony yes, but where 'well-fed' ends and 'gluttony' begins, is not exactly clear. Anyways - I agree that 'gluttony' is sin.
I agree with the content of the rest of your reply -- however I believe we differ in what we mean by declaring something 'criminal'. By all means, I support the government rejecting permits for parades/demonstrations that celebrate homosexuality (as well as the other sins noted).
But to 'criminalize' them? No - we are all sinners. We are all criminals - saved only by the Grace of God who sent His only begotten Son to pay for our sins (the payment which was eternal wrath for us) at Calvary. He paid the price -- man cannot throw sinners in jail because we'd all be in jail.
BUT - I would not want anyone encouraging me to continue in my sins, nor would I want to encourage anyone to continue in their sins. This is the ultimate hatred. To pretend to be 'nice' (the PC word today is 'tolerant') and to tell someone that sin is 'OK' is to hate that person's soul. Again, Jesus' response to sinners was to love them - AND to change them. "Go and sin no more". "Thy faith has save thee, go in peace". It was never to wink at their sin.
So I'm with you that Government cannot declare 'some sins' as criminal. Although the line certainly does get 'fuzzy'. Murder is the taking of life - so sure that is a crime. Theft - yes. Homosexual practices that produce and release vile viruses and pathogens into the world? I'd say not - because if one is living an upright, monogamous life, this should not be a problem ... but it isn't quite accurate to call this a 'victimless' crime either. But that gets into another tangent -- my intent was not to brand homosexuality as a crime - but I support the rejection of providing permits to those that advocate perversion:
A: It is good to encourage the sinner to leave that path of sin.
B: It is good that society is not left with the delusion that sin is OK.
We are all sinners but we are also told:
Leviticus 20:7 Sanctify yourselves therefore, and be ye holy: for I am the LORD your God.
Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
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.