ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
then why have laws against murder, rape, child molestation?
Trump sez: Transgenders B gone!
- Thread starter ok doser
- Start date
then why have laws against murder, rape, child molestation?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
my wife committed adultery and there were direct negative effects on me, our children, our families
as for homoosexuality, here's an obvious direct innocent victim:
not to mention the hundreds of millions of people directly impacted by the spread of aids, including the families of the victims
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
These laws are not made by our society for the purpose of enforcing righteous behavior (except in Muslim society). They are enacted and upheld in our attempt to enforce civilized behavior - hence civil law.
Some laws that we enact spring from an innate sense of justice and desire to protect the innocent. The Bible tells us that we are a curious blend of good and bad; made in the image of God with traces of His perfection, yet damaged in our ability (some say unable) to return to fellowship with Him unto salvation. If we were not made by Him, we would have no remnant of His characteristics attached to us and have no sense of justice, as is so with animals. Right and wrong and conscience, however skewed, is a part of the human condition; although nearly undetectable in serial killers, etc.
All this to say that regenerate and unregenerate humans have a built-in sense of their Creator's justice. Regenerate Christians just know the reason why we have it.
(Pardon me for answering a question not directed at me)
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
i'm working on a response to the larger question i asked, but let me just address this quickly:
i disagree - laws against murder, for example, in English common law, of which American law (and Canadian, and Australian, etc) is a direct descendant, have their roots in scriptural prohibition against murder. Those variants that existed in England in the past (especially the Danelaw) were not based in scripture and would be unrecognizable today
i think i understand what you're getting at, perhaps it would be better said that today's american laws are not recognized by most people as having had their roots in Biblical law
i disagree - laws against murder, for example, in English common law, of which American law (and Canadian, and Australian, etc) is a direct descendant, have their roots in scriptural prohibition against murder. Those variants that existed in England in the past (especially the Danelaw) were not based in scripture and would be unrecognizable today
i think i understand what you're getting at, perhaps it would be better said that today's american laws are not recognized by most people as having had their roots in Biblical law
Last edited:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
there's been a great deal of effort here on tol devoted to explaining the difference between ceremonial law (which applied to specific situations or peoples - the levites, for example} and universally applicable Biblical law, which would include proscriptions against rape, murder, theft, adultery
others (including JR) are better at explaining it than I
where does this idea come from, either scriptural or elsewhere - that things that affect others "directly" are validly regulated (and by extension, that things that do not affect others "directly" should not be regulated)?
they are that, for sure. They're also direct assaults against the integrity of our society, the trust we have of strangers, the fear of dark alleys, etc
prohibitions against murder and rape, when enforced correctly serve a much greater purpose than merely protecting the potential victims. They set societal norms and provide the basis for an orderly society. You miss this aspect when you argue to remove sinful behaviors from legal proscription.
what do you mean by "personal"?
what do you mean by "non-violent"? do you mean "consensual"?
Last edited:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
do you believe that "civil law" has any validity if it's not based on God's law?
do you believe that one can define "civilized" behavior without drawing upon scripture?
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
I will push back against this and say that, in the United States as an example, the law against murder was, yes, ported over from England but it also had to conform to the constitution. It found acceptance with both religionists and non-religionists alike because it 1. satisfied constitutional aims (inalienable rights) and 2. satisfied a common sense of what civil justice should look like and 3. it was a reasonable standard for keeping the peace.
You are right, this is a very good observation. But, in my opinion, it does not tell the whole story. Besides, there is a whole swath of Bible Belt Americans who do know this fact and, indeed, the patriotic community, Christian or otherwise who know the basics of the 10 commandments.
But I think you missed the most important part of my post 263 which is, perhaps the part you are working on.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Quick thought:
The reason I make the distinction is because the Bible tells us in no uncertain terms that we cannot keep the law. It's purpose was to convince us of that and seek mercy. All have sinned. But not all have transgressed the civil law.
glorydaz
Well-known member
glorydaz
Well-known member
my wife committed adultery and there were direct negative effects on me, our children, our families
as for homoosexuality, here's an obvious direct innocent victim:
not to mention the hundreds of millions of people directly impacted by the spread of aids, including the families of the victims
Had my husband committed adultery, I'd have been fortunate to get rid of him....but death? No, he should have to live with the consequences of his actions. Reaping and sowing works quite well, I've found.
The cake issue? Temporary loss for a greater gain.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
Yes of course. A good example is laws against slavery. We accept that all men are created equal. In fact, it is a no brainer that race does not exist for the Christian anyway. We are all descended from Noah a few thousand years ago. Non-believers have had a tough time catching up with the slavery issue but, I believe, they are being won over and, for perhaps different reasons, slavery has been abolished in western society. but it was never mentioned as a sin the Bible; just a way of life for some. In fact, the concept of bond-servant is essential for some Biblical teaching.
Some imaginary civilization somewhere could, perhaps, stumble upon the right recipe but it would not be easy. As I noted earlier, non-Christians have the imprint of God's handiwork upon them. they are just not yet forgiven. It is not surprising that they should somewhat gravitate towards that which rings true in their psyche which is created by God, however damaged by the sin factor.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
The most important consideration here is that God's law cannot be fulfilled here on earth except as it is fulfilled in Jesus Christ; and that by perfect love. It can never be fulfilled by exacting punishment from sinners, only by punishing the righteous. Fulfillment of the law was only, and always, meant to find it's end in the perfect lamb of God, the scapegoat, taking the penalty for the guilty because none other than the scapegoat had the ability to deflect the penalty for sin. The law was designed to drive us to God for mercy which is appropriated by faith.
The purpose of God's law is to show us our guilt before Him by teaching us what perfection is. The fulfillment of the law is to seek and find forgiveness at the cross and then to love God in return for His love to us by keeping His commandments. Keeping the law is not a collective, judicial exercise, it is a personal love relationship between the Creator and His son or daughter. This is how the end of the law is love.
The purpose of God's law is to show us our guilt before Him by teaching us what perfection is. The fulfillment of the law is to seek and find forgiveness at the cross and then to love God in return for His love to us by keeping His commandments. Keeping the law is not a collective, judicial exercise, it is a personal love relationship between the Creator and His son or daughter. This is how the end of the law is love.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
You do not understand the different types of slavery.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
he also conflates race with slavery
in fact, there's so much in his responses that is blatantly wrong that I just don't know where to begin
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
punishment of the guilty is certainly one reason to make and enforce laws
i would argue that the greater purpose is to set societal guidelines and expectations - boundaries around behaviors
and that when we fail to do that, as with killing children or failing to recognize perversion, etc, we do a gross disservice to our children
consider laws against rape
do you believe that there would be more rape or less rape if those laws were removed?
if adultery was a capital crime, swiftly enforced and punished, the chances that your husband (or my wife and her lover) would have even considered committing the act would be nil
You need to pick another tack for this argument.
Bringing up your adulterous wife again isn't going to put you in a good light.
Since you STAYED "married" to her for years afterward for monetary gain.
When money overcomes your concern for sin, you should shut up about her sin and stop bringing it up as if it helps your case any.
Then you lied.
George Affleck
TOL Subscriber
You will find that the countries where adultery is punished also adhere to customs we do not. Arranged and or forced marriages are necessary as part of the system.
If adultery was a capital crime in the west, no one would get married by choice. They would opt for non-contractual relationships.