| Author | Topic | Shredhead
Junior Member
Australia
322 Posts |  Posted - 17 Aug 2007 : 18:49:09  
| While I agree that upholding existing laws , or creating new ones , wont change the heart of a sinner , I don't believe that is any reason for not doing it . Realistically , if we don't uphold Gods' moral standard , aren't we ourselves being disobedient , or in the very least negligent ? Doesn't our silence only point the sinner to damnation ?
quote:
Agreed. However, societal morality may not necessarily reflect Godly morality.
Also agreed . However , isn't that only because we've allowed Godly morality to become contaminated with societal morality ? Haven't we allowed morality to become defined by something less than absolute ?
I believe we started with a Godly standard , & allowed it be eroded , so that now , we fight to get back that which we once had .I believe society has digressed , not progressed .
To borrow from Ravis' metaphor . The lost don't even know that they've set sail , let alone that their boat has capsized .The reality is , they've set sail in shark infested waters , in an unseaworthy vessel , with faulty life preservers .For us to merely point out that they're drowning , is of no good to them , it's almost too late .
Someone should've told them about the sharks , the leaky boat , the absorbant life jackets . This is why we have laws , to protect their safety , not their freedom .
As we allow the continued watering down of Gods' standard , & the result it has on civil law or society in the name of personal freedom , we see more & more people in need of rescuing . The consequence of this is , & I say this carefully , the infestation of Gods' standard , the calling of unrighteousness , as righteous . Twenty years ago , did we have homosexual churches ? We had homosexuals ,but not " christian homosexuals " . We've allowed a society conducive to sin ,to breed . Remember in the movie Braveheart , Longshanks' plan for getting the Scots out of Scotland , to breed them out . We need a few more people not afraid to lose their life , before our loved ones are raped .
|
but some of you need to be awakened and slapped silly - William D Rauser |
Edited by - Shredhead on 17 Aug 2007 18:53:59 |  |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 06:54:26   
| The quote function appears to be inoperable so I will use quotation marks...
"Yes, there are laws that are necessary for a moral climate. Yet, "laws" are not the only way to challenge evil and raise a standard;"
While I fully understand this I must also observe the woeful ineffectual success of those avenues in a diluted weak and splintered Christianity by virtue of your later point:
"However, the contribution to that disrobing from those with good intentions, but bad judgement, with regard to religious conviction, cannot be overstated."
this is the very reason that I begin to feel that it would be better to risk death by the sword than the societal sewage that will ensue via rampant permissiveness.
Is it better to be vexed and marginalized like Lot was? This is why Christianity is faltering in our day. >>> The unsavory are unwwilling to face the consequences of what they SHOULD do and so... we progress ever further down the prophetic path. I am not saying that prophesy should not come to pass but simply that it is aware of men's nature.
I don't pretend to have all the answers but I for one would rather risk trying to stand for what is right (and the consequenses of it) than to stand by and watch the whole nation/planet continue to turn into a cesspool. I realize that our society has likely already traveled too far down the permissive path and the effects of that will reside within our ranks which may mean that it is already too late to attempt any such action at this point. We have already nurtured too much filth to attempt to purge it. The degree of severity of punishments that we see demonstrated in th Old Testament were likely due in part to the understanding that it would be wiser and possibly more merciful (in respect to scale and scope) to deal severely with sin and disobedience at it's root rather than to let it fester and increase the number of individuals that it would destroy.
It seems to me that either path (permissiveness or restriction) leads to the same eventual end and I am not claiming to KNOW anything except that we who know what is right should stand for that (individually and possibly governmentally) while we exist in such a position that we are privilidged enough to have a voice in it.
I cannot help but wonder if we have not fallen prey to the misrepresentation of the Establishment Clause of the first ammendment which deals specifically with LEGISLATIVE restrictions placed upon Congress in passing laws dealing with the subject of organized religious institutions but not the expression of individual liberties by men outside of government (or within).
Whether we proceed down the path before us as willingly bound and vexed by-standers or as victims of the misuse of laws that we had designed to squelch the acceptability of sinful behavior in our society is ultimately an issue of means and not a decisive factor of the eventual end state.
All of that being said I am merely stating the case for a position that is less permissive of just watching this or any society spiral down the toilet without attempting action when the power to do so is within grasp. I also believe (like Axe) that you cannot force morality although I do believe that you can construct conditions that create an environment that encourages it and discourages sinfulness. We are talking about both legal and religious influences on society and there are some who believe that those two can remain completely exclusive of each other. I do not. The power endued to our government and therefore it's authority originate from on high. To believe that a secularized society is capable on it's own, without moral guidance, to achieve a path of righteousness is (in my opinion) flawed logic. Whether we wish to exist in a sinful society and not have any direct effect on it's laws or we feel compelled to act is an individual thing. I truly do believe that we will end up in the same place at the end of the day... either via the usurping of laws intended to do good or the gradual descent into complete societal breakdown. We may have (by dilution) already lost the unity required within the church and the strength of numbers of Christians nationwide to really effect anything anyway. As an analogy - Once (God forbid) you let your kid start smoking it will become much more difficult to make him quit.
"All of the above are immoral and sinful. But I wouldn't put cussing or gay sex in the same categoriy as criminal acts"
Again oversimplified... Laws are defined and enforced by severity and degree... There is the ability to legislate in such a way that discourages and even penalizes such behaviors without altogether outlawing them...
"I cannot help but wonder if instead of a scorpion, we gave our sons bread?"
True... but bread is only valuable to those who recognize their hunger in the first place... an alcoholic's body and mind are so twisted that he couldn't swallow bread even if he wanted to. He would just sell the bread to buy a drink to ease the pain.
There are times when more direct intervention is called for...
"The legislative process is certainly one tool in a society's toolbox, but you shouldn't use a wrench when a hammer will would be more efficient and appropriate. Maybe the wrench will[/i] get the job done, but you may find that you have ruined the wrench, and cannot use it when you need it."
and..... depending on the degree of corrosion it could be too late for a wrench too...
I'm not trying to be difficult... I understand your point(s)... I am merely expressing another view... one that I am not even completely sold out to but does seem to hold some merit... There comes a time (in governmental terms) when inaction will lead to inability to act at all... Have we passed that marker yet?
|
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 07:18:46
| Ro:5:20: Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
Ro:6:1: What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
The Law casts the Light on the sin --- that it is known to be sin.
Can we really secularize to the degree that we seperate the Creator that endows men with their inalienable rights from the laws established under His authority and in His name?
To expect secular men, without defined and absolute laws, to prevent complete societal breakdown apart from morality is folly. |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 07:36:58
| | Grime -- regarding your well-reasoned earlier post --- I'll take it even one step further... as you aptly stated pertaining to physiological "life" being in the blood I am sure we would all agree. To the point of our spirit being created not only prior to conception but referenced to in the creation account in Genesis I am sure we all agree as well. I would further reason that therefore "life" and the right of an individual to exist in this present physical arena exist prior to conception and thus even prior to the advent of a circulatory system. You probably already inferred this but these were just my thoughts on it... |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 07:40:39
| P.S. --- I'm really learning to like Australia...
Legislating for the stupid and all (sounds like a good idea to me!)... |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 14:45:02
| The fear of reprisal that prevents legislative moral restraints will result in the vast breeding ground of wicked men who will rob you of your liberties when they come to power anyway...
That which you fear will come upon you !!! |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts | Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 17:14:57
| quote:
To believe that a secularized society is capable on it's own, without moral guidance, to achieve a path of righteousness is (in my opinion) flawed logic.
I read, with great interest, the whole of you combined posts, but I did see this quote, as it sums up my basic outlook.
It seems to me that but of us are traveling to the same destination, but from different sides of the interstate. But it is with this single sentence that we converge. You all are correct in your assertions that;
#1) We, as Christians, cannot stand aside while the world perishes as the result of error;
#2) Eventually, one must make a clear delineation in the sand regarding right and wrong;
#3)God will judge all men in regard to sin, and there will be a terrible price to pay for those found wanting;
#4)The world will not accept God's plans, precisely because, well, they're God's plans.
Let me make some things very clear: I do not disagree with any of that. Neither do I think nor imply (not saying anyone has accused me of this) that we should stand aside while the world goes to Hell in a handbasket. I do not believe in inactivity. The Scriptures do not tell us to stand aside and do nothing.And, as long as certain societies (such as the United States, as well as other democracies) have provision for the people affecting change, then we should stand up, vote our consciences, and certainly example our convictions by the way we live among those who are lost. There is no substute for (as Ravi Zacharias pointed out once) a life well lived.
You're right, how can a secular society without moral guidance achieve a path of righteousness? There is clearly no way possible.
quote:
"I cannot help but wonder if instead of a scorpion, we gave our sons bread?"
True... but bread is only valuable to those who recognize their hunger in the first place... an alcoholic's body and mind are so twisted that he couldn't swallow bread even if he wanted to. He would just sell the bread to buy a drink to ease the pain.
There are times when more direct intervention is called for...
Even the alcoholic won't try to eat the scorpion. And, yes, you're right, the alcoholic may very well still try to sell the bread for a drink...does that mean we shouldn't offer the bread? Recognition on the part of the recipient is not a prerequisite for the giver to do the right thing.
But, while I agree that sometimes more direct intervention is needed, we have to be careful that we don't exacerbate the problem further. It makes no sense for a brain cancer patient to be operated on by a proctologist. I think we would all agree that;
#1) The patient needs immediate care;
#2) The Proctologist is a surgeon;
#3) Surgery is needed.
All of those statements are true, but it still leaves a lot of room for error, does it not?
It would seem that if we are to change our world (in whatever limited capacity that may be)then we need to apply the appropriate salve.
quote:
"All of the above are immoral and sinful. But I wouldn't put cussing or gay sex in the same categoriy as criminal acts"
Again oversimplified... Laws are defined and enforced by severity and degree... There is the ability to legislate in such a way that discourages and even penalizes such behaviors without altogether outlawing them...
I am not certain how I am oversimplifying. Yes, there is an ability to legislate in such a way that discourages bad behaviors. Sometimes, that is by not legislating at all. "The Government that governs least, governs best," as it has been said, and I agree.
Now, before anyone blasts me to quickly for that, allow me to quote John Calvin;
quote:
It is bad to live under a prince who permits nothing, but much worse to live under one who permits everything.
I am not of the mind that our society should be a "free-for-all", while Christians stand aside and watch the pitiful "unwashed masses" (to quote Dennis Miller) slide into the Abyss. But, neither am I of the mind that we should place hinderances upon questionable and debateable issues, legislatively speaking, of course. I agree that we should push, stand for, and inspire laws that help protect society from being adrift in immoral seas.However we feel about justice, it should always be tempered with mercy, a fact we Christians sometimes allow to be blurred by our piety. Jaime Cardinal Sin, speaking at a Prison Fellowship International conference in Nairobi, Kenya, in 1986, said;
quote:
Justice without mercy is tyranny, and mercy without justice is weakness. Justice without love is pure socialism, and love without justice is baloney.
We must take stock, Christians, in the fact that, while the is a God-given provision bestowed upon governmental authorities, many do not live up to those standards (and I defy anyone to point to one, including the United States, that has ever met them).We must understand that, while the intent of law is to provide liberty, laws can also be used to strip liberties. Much like the reaper's sickle can cut down both the wheat and the chaff in a single stroke.Likewise, although many Christians understand and live to follow the standards that God has established, and good intentions abound, we can quickly substitute our personal agendas for God's, and use His laws as our justification. As a mtter of fact, that was the biggest single issue the Pharisees has against them.
I would agree that lowering the standards causes culture to break from it's "moorings" (a term that I lifted, yet again, from the great Ravi Zacharias), but I do get concerned when we elevate certain immoral acts and call them criminal. Let us remember that, under Jewish Law, the woman with the issue of blood was not only unclean, but anything she touched was considered unclean. And she went and she touched Jesus anyway. Of course, the issue of blood was not her deliberate fault, but her touching others was. By law, she made Jesus unclean, right? Of course, I am being obtuse and absurd. But I do it to illustrate that we must be careful of the sweeping applications that we make when it comes to applying the legislative, because that kind of attitude can very well come back to bite us.
Jesus made clear moral distinctions, and yet He dealt with crtain immoralities with what would appear as inconsistencies.On the one hand, he treated the woman caught in adultery quite benignly, while he soundly whipped and chased the money changers out of the Temple, almost with malevolence (if you could apply that term to Jesus). With one case of clear immorality, He acted tenderly, even though the law demanded stoning. With another He acted punitively. Both were clear cases of immoral behavior, but the immediate application of discipline and order were applied. I have to say that it may be better, at times, to use the tender arm of restoration, rather than the rigid rod of correction. Both are wonderful and useful tools, but wisdom makes the distinction, does it not?
However, all of this has become a conversational tributary that has drifted from my original thesis. Let me ask it this way: A Catholic doctor may very well refuse to offer to provide a vasectomy, out of religious conviction. Another doctor, say a Baptist, may insist the procedure be done for the exact same reason. I have no problem with either physician's personal convictions. But one of them is wrong, in my opinion. Okay, theologians, which one would it be? Or is it neither? |
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" | |
| AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts | Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 17:57:56
| quote:
"The Government that governs least, governs best," as it has been said, and I agree.
Ooops, I didn't further explain my rationale.
There are Presidential candidates, right now, running for office, and many of them, in particular Democrats (I really want to steer clear from political partisanship, but I have to say this) who are running on the appearances of moral issues, i.e.; Helping the poor, providing education, providing healthcare for all, cleaning up the environment, protecting the safety of our troops in harm's way, immigrant rights, etc, etc.
Now, all of those things are good and who, in their right mind, would stand against helping the poor? Well, let me tell you, hiding behing morality is the work of people who crave power and control over others.
Take Universal Healthcare: I have been to Europe and have seen how dismal a failure U.H. is. But the reason why many liberal politicians are pushing for it is bacuase it increases the tax base, to the point of confiscatory rates. That is a consolidation of power, and when that is pointed out, all our vaunted politician has to throw in our faces is, "Whatabout those who can't afford health insurance?" And they will always finish off the logic by saying, "We can't leave this mess for our children!" And thus, hidden behind the moral facade is the real agenda.
Take homelessness. What a real issue that is, and it is sad. But, when a politician wants to help the homeless, usually it is with your tax dollars, not his/her personal finances.
What about education? In this country, more money is spent per student per annum than most countries have in their total GDP. Yet we have poor performances in our public schools, as a result of failed policies that indoctrinate children rather than educate them. And it all comes under the guise of "for the children." Who is going to argue against that? When fiscal responsibility is demanded, then all we hear is appeals to the morality of taking money away from children.
And there are many other examples of growing Federal Government that wants to restrict more and more of our personal freedoms. Governament never does with less, like you and I have to. And anytime the Beauracracy is challenged, they hide behind morality.
I found it utterly amusing and ironic that Hillary Clinton appeals to Scripture when it suits her politically, but then casts it aside when it doesn't. Many politicians use the Scripture to push forth an ageda, appealing to morality, and then when they're confronted with the judgements that appear in it, insist that personal faith is just that, personal. Well, personally, I find it a clear violation of Scripture to steal from people, regardles of how much money they have, and yet we still have a large portion of our population who think that it is okay to confiscate someone's belongings and earnings, just because they can afford it.
I am sure you are all aware that many churches supportted the awful practice of owning slaves. And many supported it by Scripture (they used extremely loose interpretations, but they did). Many believed it was moral to take other human beings as slaves, treat them harshly, discriminate against them, and all under the guise of religious conviction. And it was the law of the land.
Are we sure that we wish to allow more intrusion of the Federal Government into the personal lives of American citizens? I cannot speak for the Aussies, nor the Bits, but that sets a dangerous precedent. |
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 21:00:59
| First... let us be clear that in the examples using Jesus' dealings with others... in neither case did He suggest that laws governing such behaviors should not exist... it had more to do with mercy/chastisement regarding His judgement about existing laws/policies... Jesus even defined the laws more stringently than they had been previously understood. He did not aquiesce righteousness in the harlot's case but forgave sin that had been made manifest by the light of the law. I mean, He even referenced the law when He said "Go and sin no more". In the case of the money changers he was addressing those religious who had allowed deterioration of public temple practices for their own gain. It really makes no difference to me at this point what anyone else thinks... although we probably should not defend preserving "a right to sin" using Jesus' mercy as our reasoning... sure we all sin... and.... yes we cannot make everyone/anyone righteous with a law... especially one that they don't respect in the first place. We can make sin unpopular/less attractive. Without laws and penalties sinfulness becomes enboldened. We must understand mercy in the context that it is applied: in loving response to judgements prescribed as defined by established law. Ultimately we will simply exist in the environment that we (as Christians, Americans and as co-habitants of the planet) allow to develop. I am not happy about this situation but it exists none-the-less. I believe people's hearts are growing cold because they are becoming numb in their collective consciences to the unrestrained ever-increasing unrighteousness that they witness daily.
In response to your physician question... neither is wrong... it would be the one seeking advice who takes that which goes against his own conscience toward God that would ultimately be in error.
When we see children as the blessing that scripture tells us that they are and not in terms of the nuclear family model it would seem that we should want our quivers filled to overflowing. If we believe it is true that the righteous will not be seen forsaken nor their seed begging bread. In that light the Catholic physician could be considered more "right". |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 21:08:24
| | If we don't stand for something... we will fall |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 21:10:13
| | The government that governs the least is anarchy ! |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 21:47:25
| quote:
Even the alcoholic won't try to eat the scorpion.
Ummm... don't be too sure of that Axe... I see some pretty clueless alcoholics in my line of work.... |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts | Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 23:53:51
| quote:
quote:Even the alcoholic won't try to eat the scorpion.
Ummm... don't be too sure of that Axe... I see some pretty clueless alcoholics in my line of work....
Yeah, I had to think about that after I posted it. Maybe the alcoholic would try to put the scorpion in a blender, then drink it?
quote:
If we don't stand for something... we will fall
I do not disagree with that.
quote:
The government that governs the least is anarchy !
No, the government that doesn't govern at all is anarchy.Lawlessness is anarchy.I am not arguing the Libertarian view. No man is an island, I realize that. However, the best way that a government can provide a secure social fiber is to get out of the way. And I do not refer to an eradication of government or enforcement of law. Clearly, we need law to maintain an ordered society. But an ordered society is not necesarily a moral society, although the two are not mutually exclusive. Certainly they work together as both sides of a pair of scissors.
But what I am referring to is an all-intrusive government, that seeks to derive it's power through cradle-to-grave entitlements, confiscatory taxation, and laws that are unsupportive of the faith foundations of this nation. There is Scriptural precedent for what happens when the State seeks to replace God as the driver of men's destinies, and in doing so becomes a competitor for men's hearts and minds. We read this in Daniel, where the king, knowing full well that Daniel served Jehovah, instead allowed himself to be put into a dilemma that pitted the royal authority against God's. So he agreed to enact a law, while being deceived by members of his court (who were jealous of Daniel), that really played to the king's ego. Although the king knew Daniel was a wise man, productive to his kingdom, and openly served Jehovah, the king simply regarded Jehovah as any other "god" of Persia.Although the king probably recognized Daniel's devotion to his God, the king made no personal acknowledgement of Jehovah, and thus, had no regard for God to have a place in his kingdom plans. When the State wishes to bestow upon itself more power, God simply gets in the way. And the intrusion is usually incremental, yet far reaching. T.S. Eliot wrote;
quote:
If you will not have God (and He is a jealous God),you should pay your respects to Hitler and Stalin.
To that list I would add Mao Tze-tung, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez.
quote:
First... let us be clear that in the examples using Jesus' dealings with others... in neither case did He suggest that laws governing such behaviors should not exist...
And neither do I. However, I must point out that I was trying to illustrate how Jesus dealt with two dissimilar, yet clear immoral acts. However, allow me to illustrate it this way, with regard to comparing Jewish law and culture, and U.S. law and culture:
Jesus made it plain (in Matthew 7, I believe) that any man who even looks at a woman with lust in his heart, he has committed adultery. Clearly, for all of us involved in this lively discussion, this is Law, and there is no debate. However, because this is obviously a moral issue, should we,the United States, therefore enact some kind of "no leering" law, that is so broad brushed that any kind of looking or regard for a woman is now illegal? That sounds strikingly like Islamic Sharia law. Here we have a morality issue, but where actual legislation can actually create more harm than good. Am I oversimplifying? Probably overgeneralizing, to be more accurate.However, you see my point. There may be moral implications for the lustful, but you cannot criminalize that act. Precisely because you are likely to prosecute a man who innocently looked in the direction of a pretty woman. Maybe he even noticed her form (and any man who denies that his attention isn't caught by a woman's form is either gay or lying). Now we have an ethical dilemma.
You can allow the culture to marginalize that act (lust). You can allow the Church to be an influence for proper behavior. You can let families train up children to be self-controlled (a trait much lacking in our permissive society today) and responsible. But use the legislative process? Dangerous precedent, indeed.
What has begun to happen is the legislative process has been, and is being ,used to marginalize, erode, and redefine those pillars of society; the Family, the Culture, and the Church.
quote:
Without laws and penalties sinfulness becomes enboldened.
Even Scripture says so, as Paul says in Romans, "The Law was added to make sin utterly sinful."
I am not pleading for no laws. I am pleading for good laws. Perhaps a different tack is in order. There has been a trend to to try and ue legislation against obesity. Obesity is definitely bad for health. I do tend to think in certain cases, it is even a moral issue. However, I cannot see how you could make a law against obesity. How are we going to regulate how much a person eats, based on the immorality of gluttony? Immoral, sure. Criminal? I don't think so.
quote:
I believe people's hearts are growing cold because they are becoming numb in their collective consciences to the unrestrained ever-increasing unrighteousness that they witness daily.
I do too. Clearly, the Bible tells us that in the last days, men's hearts will wax cold and iniquity will abound. Despite that, we must still do the right thing. I am not for allowing an environment of immorality to fester. That would be injustice. Neither am I willing to trample on the rights of those who choose to walk away from God. That would be tyranny. |
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" |
Edited by - AXEMAN2415 on 18 Aug 2007 23:56:45 | |
| Shredhead
Junior Member
Australia
322 Posts | Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 02:49:41
| quote:
Neither am I willing to trample on the rights of those who choose to walk away from God
But where do you draw the line Will ? Without God , why are your rights of higher value than theirs ? Is it their right to come & take what is yours ? Certainly not , why ? Thou shalt not steal . Your country as well as mine , were founded on Christian beliefs . In other words , all that our country's could be , is because of Christian ethics .All that our country's are not , is because those ethics have been compromised . Why should either country make allowances for contrary beliefs ? Surely , that would be a country divided against itself .
In my , " 4 person kingdom " , I won't allow a non-believer to tell me how to govern it , as it was with Daniel . Realistically , we should've stopped this slow descent a long time ago , now , I believe all we can do is cling to whatever is left of our heritage .
While I agree that no man is able , nor should be able to judge the inner workings of anothers' heart , surely that is reserved for God . However , when those inner workings manifest themselves so that they seek to usurp the authority of Gods' standard , then we should be instigating laws to stop that happening . |
but some of you need to be awakened and slapped silly - William D Rauser |
Edited by - Shredhead on 19 Aug 2007 03:30:07 | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 16:02:38
| I know that I am in need of mercy yet I understand mercy to only exist in response to required judgement as it relates to the law.
Mercy cannot manifest in the absence of judgement and judgement
cannot manifest in the absence of law.
I don't know if anyone else has ever noticed this in our society but it seems that it is usually those who in irresponsibility recklessly abuse their freedom the most who are the first to complain when they feel they are being infringed because they live on the edge of it.
|
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 16:06:32
| | Conversely... Those who do not push the limits of their freedom hardly notice changes in them... |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| Captain Blasto
Cappuccino Junkie
USA
212 Posts | Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 16:11:16
| ? ...until it's too late ?
Maybe he who abuses freedom values it more because it enables...
and he who takes it for granted.... does not value it enough.... |
President of the
Juan Valdez fanclub
Kirk Out | |
| AXEMAN2415
Guitar Weenie
USA
740 Posts | Posted - 19 Aug 2007 : 17:00:38
| quote:
I don't know if anyone else has ever noticed this in our society but it seems that it is usually those who in irresponsibility recklessly abuse their freedom the most who are the first to complain when they feel they are being infringed because they live on the edge of it.
Just a drive by post, cause it's almost church time, but yes, I too have noticed this.
Outside of the subject at hand, do ya'll think we'll make it to four pages? lol!
|
"C'mon Dave, Gimme a break!" | |
| AnonJr
Absent-minded Webmaster
USA
621 Posts | Posted - 20 Aug 2007 : 20:00:05
| quote:
Originally posted by AXEMAN2415
Outside of the subject at hand, do ya'll think we'll make it to four pages? lol!
Only if you're not allowed to edit.  |
There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you.
- Will Rogers | |
| Grime
Starting Member
USA
26 Posts | Posted - 28 Oct 2007 : 03:47:18
| At the risk of resurrecting a dead conversation...
A final thought from me is that God gave us The Law to prove to us how sinful we were. There was no way Man could live by God's perfect Law, and it causes us to face our inadequacy. Through The Law we come to terms with the fact that we can not make it to Heaven without God's grace.
Man's laws are simply incapable of curbing our bad behaviors. If you begin to legislate morality, you begin to create more creative sinners. The Mosaic law outlawed walking more than a thousand steps from your home on the Sabbath, because walking was an exertion of energy and therefore work. The Jewish definition of your home was the place where you kept your household goods, so people began keeping their stuff in many places around their hometowns to overcome this limitation. Suddenly they had many people breaking the Sabbath, but not breaking the law.
Keep in mind, Judaism and Christianity have both found their greatest growth under societies that were at least pagan, if not completely anti-Judeo-Christian. We Americans can not continue to believe that we are a Christian nation anymore. More than 50% of our society do not go to church. We can not expect to change our society by using the society's tools. We will have to change it using the unconventional methods. Ministry and education are the tools we have, not legislation and judgment. |
If your dream is not worth your life, then you are dreaming too small. | |
| | Topic | |
|
Media
