ChristiansUnite Forums

note: In order to comply with rules given to me by blackeyedpeas, I will not be debating about a specific type of sin. So this debate is more of a general debate about sins. I am NOT trying to debate about two types of sins specifically, as in a previous debate. I am speaking about all "victimless" sins.
When I say "victimless" I don't mean to imply that their are no victims. Obviously, indirectly their are victims to every sin. What I mean "victimless" to represent are those things that are sins against God and the person/people committing the sin.
I would rather not use the word "victimless", because I really don't want to get into a debate about how nothing is victimless, but I don't know of any other way to ask the question, and still comply with rules set forth by blackeyedpeas. So please just bear with the word "victimless".

Should Christians be involved in punishing others for their "victimless" sins?

I vote no. I think that it's God's job.

I am in no way defending sin. Sin is wrong without question. Neither did Jesus in any way defend sin. The hypocrites of His day probably counted what He did as defending sin, but we know that's not what He did. He did however defend sinners from punishment. That is the basis for my position. If Jesus defended sinners from punishment, then should we still be involved in punishing?

NO, that is Gods job. We should be praying for their salvation. I also disagree with the title of, "victimless" sins." For all who sin fall short, of the glory of God. There is no such thing as a "victimless" sins."

JitC,

You still don't have a premise for your argument, even after removing your intended topics. First, you already have it right that there are NO victim-less sins or victim-less crimes. This should be more than enough but there is much more.

Answer these questions and you will have all your answers without any mumbo jumbo or theological distortions:

Does the Holy Bible authorize government and laws of men?
(Obviously YES - Specifically)

If the government and laws of men include Biblical teaching, does the Holy Bible teach there is anything wrong with this?
(Obviously NO)

So, the above answers a plethora of questions, especially considering that many of man's laws were and are based on Biblical teaching. It's not much of a secret that Biblical teaching adopted by government and society works very well. In the case of America, many of our laws actually listed Chapter and Verse from the Holy Bible as the authority for the law.

You've twisted the question around so that it isn't recognized. You have veiled the real question, and here it is:

Can the government of states and countries make laws that are based on the Holy Bible and enforce them? Can this government exact a punishment or fine for a violation of these laws. The obvious answer is YES!!! and YES!! Lastly, is there anything in the Holy Bible that even HINTS that government can't do this?  The obvious answer is NO!!!

Further, you won't find any requirement in the Holy Bible for governments to accept, tolerate, and OK evil. That's where you really wanted to go originally, but it was pretty upside-down and inside-out.

Tom

Well said, BEP. ATA!!!

Also, it is not Christians who punish others...it is society, and as well noted by BEP, society and its laws are deriviations of God-ordained authority.

Rom 13:1
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Yes, in the old covenant for the Israelites. During the time of the old covenant, God did not give laws to anyone, except through Moses as part of a covenant to the Israelites.

Even if people copy the words of Moses’ laws, they are still man’s laws, because the laws that are copied are laws for the Israelites during the old covenant.

There are laws that we should live by, but they are not the type of laws that allow us to condemn others. Paul wrote: “Of course, I myself have laws. I follow the laws of Christ.” - (1 Cor 9:21) (i.e. not the laws of Moses, but of the New Covenant)

Jesus said not to judge others.  - (Matt 7:1)

When the scribes and Pharisees brought to Jesus a woman who had committed adultery, they said “Now Moses, in the law, commanded us…” (John 8:3) They didn‘t feel she should be let off the hook. She was a sinner, and she should be punished. But Jesus knew we shouldn’t be the ones to punish others, at least not now that there is a New Covenant. He spoke of people being condemned for sins, but not by people. He spoke of God condemning them. So He told them that if they were without sin, then they could punish her. But nobody is without sin. So we have no God given right to condemn others. Not even Jesus was willing to condemn her. He said: “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” - (John 8:11) After saying “sin no more”, He didn’t say “or else I’ll approve of them stoning you.”

We want to punish others. But it’s our want, not God’s.

The simple truth is that Jesus didn't condemn sinners, so neither should we.

JitC,

Maybe you can find a country with laws that you agree with, but I doubt it. I was a police officer for 25 years, and I agree with the laws for many reasons, many you wouldn't have a clue about. I was not the judge, jury, and executioner, but I did bring many to justice under the laws of our state and country. I didn't have any problems with the laws you want to do away with. In fact, the opposite is true, and I might add that a host of other Christian police officers felt the same way.

"Anything goes" and "If it feels good - do it" make for an ugly and disgusting place that isn't decent to raise children in. You can vote to legalize all kinds of things, and I can vote to keep the law or establish new ones. That's America, and you can take it to the bank that the vast majority of Christians will never rubber stamp evil as OK, "Anything goes", and "If it feels good - do it". If the law happens to be in agreement with the Holy Bible, that just makes for a bolder check mark for "YES" on the voting ballot for me.

JitC, you really don't have a point at all. Vote your conscience and however you feel led to vote, and I will do the same. In the meantime, I hope that you aren't expecting any type of grassroots movement among Christians to join you. Actually, the opposite will be true.

Tom

I think you're trying to make me out to be someone I'm not in order to turn the topic away from the fact that Christians aren't to judge. I didn't say I wanted to do away with laws. I simply think it's not a Christian's place to be involved in condemning others.
Again, you're trying to make it sound as though I agree with evil simply because I don't think it's a Christian's place to condemn others.

Knowing what you originally had in mind before you began this topic, I can address it "Should Christians punish other for their 'victimless' sin." I guess what you meant by "victimless" sin are sins that don't harm other people. Is that right? Well, what these sins are are sexual sins. There are sins that can be committed outside the body and ones commited inside.


Sins commited outside the body usually hurt other people. It is sexual sins that hurt your own body.

Take real big note of this: it is so clearly evident that God is punishing sexual sins (or what you would be refering  to "victimless" sin)

Statistically, homosexuals take a large percentage of those who are affected with HIV and have AIDS. Multiple sexual partners greatly increase their chances of getting AIDS.

There are many many many dieseases that are transmitted sexually (STDs). And in most of those dieseases...does it not seem apparent that they sort of punish a person for being sexually immoral? For the most part, it would make the person regret what they did. Sexual sins hurt your own body, and so it is; the people are being punished by God.


BUT, as Christians we should admonish those who are committing sexual sins. "A man who despises the rod is foolish" -proverbs   Just like losing a part of your body is better than for your whole body to go to hell: it is better for a person to be punished externally than to suffer AIDS, a punishment they will suffer for the rest of their life. "God disciplines those he loves" As Christians -because we should have God-like love- should discipline those who are lost. Punishment is just negative way to say discipline in this case. We punish not out of anger, revenge, or personal gratification BUT out of LOVE.

Yes.
For the most part, yes. But there are others, like getting drunk for example.
Firstly, I think that is a much more acceptable aproach. More like preventing somebody from harming themselves, rather than punishing them for it. Hypothetically I might agree. But, at least with the prison conditions as they are today, preventing somebody from sinning by throwing them into prison where they will be far worse off just can't be called love.
Secondly, I don't know who "we" is refering to. Did you mean to put a "should" between "we" and "punish"?

Is this your main point? I think we can help you out with what you have in mind if you tell us what experience lead to this thought. As I have assumed in the previous, you are refering to sexually immorality. The events that could have lead you to this could be the Gay marriage controversy?? Correct me if I am wrong, but this is what lead you here.

First question is: Should Christians support laws against Gay marriage? Yes.

What you are asking is this...
Should Christians support laws that punish others for "victimless sins" (ie gay marriages)?
Should Christians punish others for their "victimless sins"?
Is it right for Christians to be proactively involved in a law that is against "victimless sins"?

If I said yes to those questions that would make Christians seem wrong. This is because these questions have the wrong connotations with the wrong implications. The answer is Yes.


Why should a Christian support laws against gay marriages? (This is the primary question) A Christian should support it because it is an abomination to God. A Christian should support it because he/she knows the consequences of Sodom and Gommorah. A Christian should support it because he/she knows that on earth Satan rules this world and Christians as the light of the world should do anything to thwart the plans of the devil.

A Christian would support it because it follows God's law. A Christian would support it because it will keep them from being tempted into that sin. A Christian would support it because it will prevent punishment from God for sexual sins. A Christian would support it because he/she loves their neighbor and knows that such a thing would destroy those who are lost.

 

Didn't catch that before, I see that there are many other things that can be classified as the "victimless sins." Again, those would be sins commited against the body. Seems that drugs and excessive acohol are bad for the body too and the person's punishment is readily appparent. I have not found a direct addressment to this in the bible, but I believe this is because with sexual immorality the person does not know that indulgence in their activity will have consequences. Whereas with substances such as drugs and acohol the health affects are known. In either way, a person suffers for commiting any of those.


I meant it as it was. 'We' is refering to Christians. I am sure that some Christians will judge and condemn people by using laws as their crutch and authority. God would not approve; that would not be Christ-like.

You were talking about prisons. It does not seem like love.

The government may seem harsh but to enforce most laws, there usually is no alternative but imprisonment or a money fine. EVen so, a law against gay marriages would more pratically be a ban against it so that it cannot be practice. It would be more like a 14 year old buying cigarettes. The minor would be unable to buy them. Or the seller would be punished for selling to a minor.    

A christian should support a law yet also pray/help those who violate it.

Hope this helps you!

Yes. Christians are to live by the laws of Christ. There are things we are supposed to do, and there are things we aren't. But I don't believe we are to be involved in condemning others.
After reading the New Testament over and over, I realized the vast amount of hypocrisy in todays churches. Combine that with the fact that I enjoy debate, and that's why I'm here.
No.

I don't believe Christians have a God given right to punish them for what they do, but I don't think they should get certificates of approval for it either.

BTW felix102, I just modified my previous post.

Perhaps you should study this passage a bit.  It states that not only are we to be subject to authority, but in fact support it.  Note that authority is an avenger of Gods wrath to wrong doers here.

Rom 13:1  Let every soul be subject to higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, but the existing authorities have been ordained by God.
Rom 13:2  So that the one resisting authority has opposed the ordinance of God, and the ones opposing will receive judgment to themselves.
Rom 13:3  For the rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the bad. And do you desire not to fear the authority? Do the good, and you will have praise from it;
Rom 13:4  for it is a servant of God to you for the good. But if you practice evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword in vain; for it is a servant of God, an avenger for wrath to the one practicing bad things.
Rom 13:5  Because of this, it is necessary to be subject, not only on account of wrath, but also on account of conscience.
Rom 13:6  For on this account you also pay taxes, for they are ministers of God, always giving attention to this very thing.

We are to support it in subjection and tax.  Does this make us partakers in condemnation in our support?   Me thinks it does, and Paul says to do it.

Grace and Peace!

Great post 2T. ;D

JitC,

You did that all by yourself without any help from anyone. "Punish" in our society is done by due process of man's law and man's government, not by Christians. In reflection of the deleted threads and the one who has already been banned, I know exactly where you were going and where you want to go. It won't be done here.

If you have no desire to get rid of man's laws, there is no purpose for this discussion. Civilization 101 concerns man's law, man's government, and man's attempt to have a decent place to live and raise a family. There is no irony at all that Civilization 101 is a subordinate topic to Bible 101 for Christians. For us, the two go together, and the Bible clearly states they go together. Those who do evil don't like either one of them.

If you ever raise a family, I doubt you will want any rules in your home. After all, that would be a Christian judging a child, assuming that you are a Christian. Others here will remember the deleted threads and will have two possible conclusions:

1 - You are a Christian, but you are either horribly confused or a babe.

2 - You are a troll masquerading in Christian clothes that don't fit.

I learn toward #2.

Tom

Ok. I agree with what your interpretation of this surely is.
I agree here too. King Saul was evil, but still ordained by God.
Here’s one I don’t understand. There are countries where it’s illegal to become a Christian. I believe Egypt is one. China doesn’t allow people to have bibles, unless they are issued by the government. And the government produces so few that most people can’t have them. But as far as the laws that there is nothing wrong with obeying, yes, we should obey them. I don’t know of any law in America today that should be disobeyed.
OK.
Ok. The authorities, whether evil or not, are from God. Many, if not most, are not Christians, but they are still appointed by God, and we should obey them. Some evil people serve God, they just don’t know it, and they will be punished for it.
OK
OK.

These passages show that we should obey those who condemn others. I agree. But they don’t say we should voluntarily join them and condemn others.

And what if you're a christian who works for the government, say as a police officer?

What if you're a Christian who is a judge?

What if you're a Christian who is selected for jurry duty?

What if you're a Christian who is a jailer?

What if you're a Christian who is a parent?

What if you're a Christian who is a soldier?

and on and on and on and on and on.


I agree with BEP.  Please don't feed the trolls.   8)

Grace and Peace!

EDIT TO ADD, not as in condemn, but as far as punish and uphold laws.

Professing Christians are involved in punishing. The scribes and Pharasees wanted to punish the woman in accordance with the law. They had every legal right to. But it was still wrong to. And neither did Jesus condemn her.

Blackeyedpeas, you continue to say that you don't think I'm a Christian. I honestly think the same of you. Except that I have a biblical reason to think so:

Jesus: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations…teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.” - (Matt 28:19-20)

Jesus: “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” - (John 14:15)

Jesus: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." - (Matt 7:1)

Jesus: "But why do you call Me "Lord, Lord,' and not do the things which I say?" - (Luke 6:46)

John: “Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. He who says, ‘I know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” - (1 John 2:3-4)

If in your job you are required to disobey Jesus, then you have a choice: obey Jesus, or disobey Him.

You can't say something is right just because it's your job. If your job is to drop a bomb on a hospital full of children, are you actually going to claim it's ok because it's your job?

If you don't want to obey Jesus, then fine. But don't call yourself a Christian.

JitC,

Well, it appears that your last post is void of logic and sanity. Please do us a favor and don't attempt to raise any children until you figure things out.

Agreed!


Agreed

But don't forget...

Rom 13:4  for it is a servant of God to you for the good. But if you practice evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword in vain; for it is a servant of God, an avenger for wrath to the one practicing bad things.

Rom 13:6  For on this account you also pay taxes, for they are ministers of God, always giving attention to this very thing.

So thus, administering penalties against various laws, by servants of God (Christian or non), is GOOD!  Avenging Gods anger on the wrong!  Practising BAD THINGS!   Not practising good things?   ???   Christians don't practise bad things.   If my job tells me to do something wrong I won't.   If it tells me to sentence a murderer to jail, I will.   This is after all a just thing.  

I once sat on a jurry and sent a man to jail for molesting his own daughter.   While I had pitty on his soul, I did not pitty his actions.   It was my just right, to condemn his actions against Gods word and state laws.  Its Gods right to condemn his soul to hell should he not repent and ask forgivness.   I just sent him to jail, not hell.  BTW, I still call myself a Christian too.   ;D

Grace and Peace!

LOL

I voted ~> NO...

This is Because we are NOT to Judge one another at all, Matthew 7:1.  

Jesus also said this to the men that were about to stone a women to death for her sins, Jesus said , "He who is without sin cast the first stone" .

None of the men could cast any stones as they seen in themselves that they also have sin in their lives. Anyone who says they are not a sinner anymore and don't sin is a liar!

God gave us a free Will, with that free will came lying.  There is none as Holy as God in Heaven at all, NO ONE!!!


Blessings,   \o/

MsGuidedAngel

Well, I have JUDGED that my youngest daughter's room is a MESS! And she has JUDGED that there will be punitive actions if it's not remedied today.  ;D

Why-for how-come you've never replied to my posts about how Jesus wasn't teaching us not to judge, but how to judge in that passage?  BTW, when He told them that those who were sinless to cast the first stone, it had nothing to do with judgment.  She had been caught in the act, and the punishment was given in the Law.  If anything, they were following what God had commanded them to do...except the purpose wasn't obedience to God, but to trip up His Son.  Jesus wouldn't have been tripped.  So He did what only God could do.  He showed mercy.  BTW, He judged the woman there.  He told her to go and "sin no more."  The judgment wasn't the problem.  The hearts were.   :)

If I hadn't read the bible I might believe that. But Jesus said "do NOT judge." You say that He didn't teach "NOT to judge", but how to. Those two conflict, and I'm going to have to go with what Jesus said. Too many people twist the bible to mean what they want it to mean. And I'm not saying people do it consciously. It seems that it's just human nature to subconsciously think that way. We need to make a conscious effort to ignore our own wants, otherwise our own wants and wishes will creep in and corrupt our understanding of the bible.
That's not true. Jesus told us to have mercy too. (Luke 10:37) And Paul said: "Having then gifts...let us use them...he who shows mercy, with cheerfulness." (Rom 12:6-8) If only God could show mercy, Jesus wouldn't have told us to show mercy. If only God could show mercy, Paul wouldn't have told us it was a gift to us.

This is a perfect example, thanks SH.

If my child disobeys, should I as a christian father be involved in chastening, or punishing him?   If your answer is yes, then why?

Grace and Peace!

The obvious should be mentioned if it hasn't already. When Jesus spoke of judgement he was speaking of condemnation, not of discernment.

Anyway...



Yes. As I responded to felix102 before:



If you punish your child out of love for him, then you wouldn't be condemning him, you'ld be helping him. But nobody can throw rocks at a woman until she's dead, and say it was out of love for her. Likewise, if you punish somebody, then it should be out of love, which makes it a loving act, and not condemnation.

JiTC,

Beg to differ.  That's exactly what Jesus was teaching.  Let's look at the passage, and from your point of view, you answer me a couple of questions... :)


1st question: what are the "speck" and the "log" symbols of?
2nd question: why would Jesus tell us to first take the log out of our eye BEFORE we take the speck out of our brother's eye?


Amen!  But what good is a biblical understanding do that applies only to self, deals only with self, and is never applied to the body as a whole?  


Beg to differ again.   :)  Yes. We are to have mercy.  But in the context of the passage I was debating, the Law stated to stone an adulterer to death.  That was Law.  They were under that Law.  To do so would have been Lawful.  Yet what did Jesus, the One Who gave the Law, say?  He passed on the prescribed judgment.  He showed mercy.  He gave us an example to follow.  We can show mercy.  But I was speaking contextually of this passage in reference to Jesus' actions.   :)  Make sense?

I’m sure that you’ve read the NT, and know that Jesus often went from one topic to another without even seeming to make the transition. Sometimes the topics were similar, and sometimes not.

“And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye…” (Matt 7:3)
I believe “and” is used here because He went on to talk about another topic that was similar, but not exactly the same. We need to take care of the bulk of our sin (the log) before we are able to help someone else not to sin (the speck) through our love for them. If we don’t do it out of love, then we are just condemning them. Love is everything that Jesus stood for.


If love is not applied to the body as a whole, then I doubt there is much understanding.


The law you are speaking of is that of Moses, not Jesus. Jesus fulfilled the law of Moses. The law of Moses was part of the Old Covenant, which was broken by the Isrealites. So God made a New Covenant. In the New Covenant are the laws of Christ. If I fulfill a contract with somebody, the contract isn’t done away with, it’s just fulfilled. Christ didn’t do away with the law of Moses, He fulfilled it. And the New Covenant, with the new laws, were started when Jesus began his ministry. The old law, that of Moses, was only until John the Baptist: “The law and the prophets were until John. Since that time the kingdom of God has been preached…” (Luke 16:16)

People try to back up the laws of Moses by quoting Jesus as having said: "...till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled." (Matt 5:18) But in order to think that the laws of Moses justify our judgement of others, one must ignore Luke 16:16 (quoted above).

Sin always has a victim.

I don't beleave so! In all reality I don't beleave that anyone has the right to punish anyone for anything. We are all sinners, and we all mess up!!

 ;D  - Well, this must be the Twilight Zone.

(DoDoDoDoDoDoDoDODODO)

Let me get this straight.... If a five year old child is raped, Christians should look that child in the eye and tell them that nothing will be done? If the rapist is a neighbor that the child will have to see regularly then we shouldn't condemn that person but lovingly show him mercy?

If the attacker and the victim are both unsaved, then where's the loving mercy for the victim?

I think I'm going with Tom on this one.  Please.  Don't propogate...

sincereheart, did you not read the first post I made? This discussion is about sins that don't directly wrong any innocent person. If you'ld like to start a discussion about sins that DO wrong innocent people, then go ahead. Please don't hijack this one. I know if I did that I would be called a troll...again :)

 Sincereheart was responding to pixies post my friend,



...not the topic of your thread in general.

Bronzesnake

I beleave that justice is on it's own. We as Christians have no room to judge or punish anyone. If it is victimless or not. This is how I feel...

     Maybe there should a distinction between punishment and judgement here. Punishment is being in troulbe paying your dues to society if that is jail or a fine, probation etc etc etc. punishment is meant to correct, God punish those he loves, man punish those who break the law,  where God's judgement is final. Man can't judge eternal only for a while here on earth, we have to have laws, and those that uphold the laws of the land.

     Then There are sins, even tho God doesn't have a sin scale I do believe that there are diff kinds of sin. Sins of ommission, sin of comission......is there more I can't remember ......can some help me out.......And then the little white lie for example no one goes about punishing and imposing fines or jail sentences for those sins, probably people don't even thing to much about those good lies :P. Where does that sin lay?

  Man has the power to punish those who break the laws, the bible put those  persons into authority, if the authorities are working it all wrong they will be judged accordingly, if we break the law then we will be judged accordingly as well, but we can't run around thinking well the laws are messed up so why bother to obey them, we still have to obey the laws of the land.
   If the time come that a sin causes a person to stand before the bench and they are found guilty then yes, Man does have the right to judge according to the laws of this land.  
 So you have the sins that the authorities punish for, and yes I do believe we do have the right to do so, and then you have the sins that God will bring judgement on. If those intertwine I suppose the poor soul is in for a rude hot bath.
     We have those sins that are forbided in the bible. As Christians I believe we must up hold the word, if the word says thou shall not, and someone does then we have right to judge only as far as the word says. But not For their eternal judgement that is God job.

    Maybe I'm not understanding what victimless sins are, but sin is sin is sin as we say. Isnt punishment meant to bring correction, given in hopes that the "sin" won't happen again? So how in the world are you NOT suppose to punish and keep the word? Again, punishement and judgement are 2 different things, but defiantly if punishment doesn't happen then judgement will eventually follow.
   I hope I made sense by headache will NOT go away. Over load on the temporal loab and what few brain cells I have get confused easy ;D

Musicllover  

Musicllover, in the quote above you said "as far as the word says." Do you mean that we shouldn't punish others any more than what the laws of Moses prescribe?

I am still waiting for an answer JitC. After all this time you are not going to answer me are you.
I wanted to know what, you think is a victimless sin?
My understanding of the Bible is, there is no victimless sin. Sinning is a sin, under my Lord Jesus Christ.

 ??? When did you ask me that?


All sins are sins against God, and against the sinner, and against anybody voluntarily involved in the sin (if any). Some sins are also against innocent people. So there are victims. I explained in my first post in this thread that "victimless" didn't mean there were no victims. It just meant that there were no innocent victims other than God. For example, if somebody gets drunk, they are sinning against themselves and God. Both are victims, but no innocent person is a victim.

For example, if somebody gets drunk, they are sinning against themselves and God. Both are victims, but no innocent person is a victim.

Unless they drive. Or if they have children and a wife who see. Or if he's all alone and accidentally burns his house down.

Myth: Everybody reacts the same to alcohol.
Not hardly. There are dozens of factors that affect reactions to alcohol - body weight, time of day, how you feel mentally, body chemistry, your expectations, and the list goes on and on.

Myth: Drugs are a bigger problem than alcohol.
Alcohol kills 6 ½ times the number of people killed by cocaine, heroin, and every other illegal drug combined. Ten million Americans are addicted to alcohol. Alcohol is the No. 1 drug problem of today's youth.

Myth: Alcohol makes you more sexy.
The more you drink, the less you think. Alcohol may loosen you up and make someone more interested in sex, but it interferes with the body's ability to perform. And then there's pregnancy, AIDS, sexual assault, car crashes and worse, to worry about. Not sexy at all.

Myth: People who drink too much only hurt themselves.
Every person who drinks has a mother, grandfather, sister, aunt, best friend, boyfriend or girlfriend who worries about them. Each of the 12 million problem drinkers in this country affects four other people.

http://www.madd.org/under21/0,1056,1157,00.html (http://www.madd.org/under21/0,1056,1157,00.html)

 ::)

Alcohol misuse is linked to many harmful consequences for society as a whole and for others in the drinker’s environment. Sometimes referred to as the social consequences of alcohol use (Österberg 1996; Klingemann and Gmel 2001; Rehm 2001), these negative outcomes are reflected in the diagnostic criteria of alcohol abuse given in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM–IV) (American Psychiatric Association [APA] 1994). The DSM–IV defines alcohol abuse as alcohol use that results in:

Failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home (e.g., repeated absences or poor work performance, neglect of children or household)

Continued drinking even in situations where it is physically hazardous (e.g., driving an automobile or operating machinery)

Recurrent alcohol–related legal problems (e.g., arrests for disorderly conduct while drinking)

Continued drinking despite persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems it may cause (e.g., arguments with spouse, physical fights).

Some of these consequences might appear to affect only the drinker; for example, unintentional injuries such as falls often involve only the person who has been drinking. Ultimately, however, these events have an impact on society as a whole insofar as they affect economic productivity or require the attention and resources of the criminal justice or health care systems, or of other social institutions. A review of the research on each of these specific harms is followed by an examination of the methodological issues involved in investigating the consequences of alcohol use.

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/52-62.htm (http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/arh27-1/52-62.htm)

 ::)

JitC,
     The laws of the OT were replaced thru the blood of Jesus, NOT removed but fullfilled and made perfect, I'm not killing animals to make attoinment for my sins..... I believe in Jesus,and all that he did on the cross....  

 We have the several example of how Jesus forgave through out the bible,  still Jeuss forgiveness did not stop the punishment of the thieves on the cross..... Had Jesus met these thieves before the cross, would he have forgave them, Jesus always forgives.....but does that stop punishment not always, does it stop judgement, it can.  

   If a person sins against me, we are taught to forgive, but the laws of the land are not null and void because I forgave. If for some reason the law doesn't convict or punish, or maybe the wrong is never known about this wrong is still judged by God in the end.  
     The standard for judgement is Gods word, the measuring rod if you will. As a christian I uphold that word, I uphold those standards....I don't judge the sin for condemnation but I judge the sin to keep myself from doing it, and possilbe my children, my grandchildren, etc etc etc..
     If the laws of this land can detour any person from that sin then we have to have the laws, and we have to have punishment to make those laws applicable to life. What good is it to have laws but no consiquences for wrong doing.
musicllover  

WOW!! Alcohol and dope are plagues of mankind. The list of destruction would be staggering, but a few on the list should lead to common sense thinking on the much larger list:

Up to 80% of all crimes.

Long-term physical and psychological torture of spouse, children, and family.

Broken homes.

Violence.

Death.

Health care.

Robbery of peace.

The list goes on and on, including the teaching of the Holy Bible. There is no irony that many other sins also have lists of casualties, death, destruction, and woes to entire societies. They are, in fact, tools of the devil to give mankind misery, assault God, and lead mankind into darkness and eternal destruction. The devil's ways have been very effective over thousands of years, and there will always be willing vessels to help him. However, God has an appointed time for the devil's destruction and all who follow him.

Tom

I think JitC forgets that one of Love's attributes is that it is Just.

Is letting a murderer go a loving (Just) thing to do?   Is it a loving thing to do for the would be innocent victims?

Note:

Num 35:30  Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die.
Num 35:31  Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death.
Num 35:32  And ye shall take no satisfaction for him that is fled to the city of his refuge, that he should come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest.
Num 35:33  So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.
Num 35:34  Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the LORD dwell among the children of Israel.

A curse on the land would be brought about by releasing murderers into our communities.  

You will also note that Jesus and Paul both affirm judgement and punishment, even death where its appropriate...

Act 25:8  Defending himself, Paul said, Neither against the Law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I sinned in anything. (all basis covered here)
Act 25:9  But desiring to show a favor to the Jews, answering Paul, Festus said, Do you desire to go up to Jerusalem to be judged before me there about these things?
Act 25:10  But Paul said, I am standing before the tribunal of Caesar where I ought to be judged. I have wronged the Jews in nothing, as also you very well know.
Act 25:11  For if I indeed do wrong and have done anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die. But if there is nothing of which they accuse me, no one can give me up to them. I appeal to Caesar.

It does not appear Paul has any problem for punishment even that of death where appropriate, against someone who does wrongs against the laws of God,  or Govenment.

Mat 15:3  But answering He said to them, Why do you also transgress the command of God on account of your tradition?
Mat 15:4  For God commanded, saying, "Honor your father and mother," Ex. 20:12; Deut. 5:16 and, "The one speaking evil of father or mother, by death let him die." Ex. 21:17
Mat 15:5  But you say, Whoever says to the father or the mother, A gift, whatever you would gain from me;
Mat 15:6  and in no way he honors his father or his mother. And you annulled the command of God on account of your tradition.
Mat 15:7  Hypocrites![......]

Crime deserves punishment.  Repentance deserves forgivness.  These are the simple principles Gods Love and mercy.   God doesn't love and forgive blatent crime, he loves a humble and repentant heart, and extends his mercy to those who call on his name.   Those who don't will face (the long arm of the law and) his righteous wrath.    This is how we should model his statutes, as we cannot improve on them.

But if you practice evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword in vain; for it is a servant of God, an avenger for wrath to the one practicing bad things. (Romans 13)

Grace and Peace!

2nd Timothy,

So which sins should a Christian be involved in punishing someone for? Should it be based on something arbitrary like opinion? Where would you draw the line? Would there be a line, or should Christians support punishing people for ALL sins?

None

No
Should I would draw the line, if I did I would be judging others. That is not my job, to judge others. That is the work of the Lord.
Christians should not support punishing people for their sins. That is the work of the Lord, not people of the planet.

If the sin happens to be against the law, the people decide what is against the law through a representative and elected form of government. That would be the case in America. What you are really doing is asking an inside-out, upside-down question. If the sin is against the law, the punishment and/or fine is also prescribed by a law of the people in America. If a sin is also against the law in other countries, the same would be true. It's called civilization, and God specifically allows government and law. Further, obedience is directed.

Blackeyedpeas, I take it from your answer that you think as long as it's the law of the land, then it's ok for a Christian to be involved in punishing someone for breaking it. Is that correct?

Did someone say "law"?

I couldn't be left out of this one...

JitC, there are 2 laws (at least) that we as Christians are obliged to keep.  One is the law of the land, and this is conditional on whether this law is in line with Gods law.  If the law of the land tells us to kill our kids (I had this awful dream the other night about that), then we should resist.  The other is the law of Messiah, and this only applies to the body of Messiah.  The latter law is what Paul is talking about when he tells the to expel a person who was in a sexual sin-


We also have instruction that believers should not eat with one who claims faith, but lives in sin-


Read the rest of 1 Cor. chapter 5.

This is an area I believe the church is lacking, that is adjudication.  I have watched the churches I have been in expel people who are in obvious sins, but Paul states that the church should have judges to settle all disputes instead of taking them to a secular court in 1 Cor. 6.

I have never seen people resolve disputes in a church such as property damage, or any other civil issue, but I believe that is what Paul had in mind.  Instead I have seen in several cases, the church hide problems (especially child mollestation, and youth leaders flirting or hooking up with youth).  This hasn't only happened in the Catholic church, although I think it is more prevelant there due to the celibacy that is enforced.

Regarding the verse you quoted earlier with the adultress caught in the act, people point to that and assume that the issue is Jesus forgives / the law condemns.  That misses the issue in that story.  First of all, for her to be put to death in the first century, they had to catch her in the act.  Second, the Torah specifies that the MAN and WOMAN were to be stoned to death.  If they caught her in the act, why didn't they bring out the man too?  Jesus then invokes another Torah precept- all things must be established with 2 or 3 witnesses.  Jesus statement "he who is without sin throw the first stone" doesn't mean without any sin at all, but without any sin in the matter at hand.  They all had messed up since they didn't bring the man!!

This shows that Jesus upheld the law while they tried to use the law to trap Jesus.

Another reason the law has been neglected is that the church at large has relegated all civil matters to secular courts, and relied on the state to heavily in this regard.

Well, that is my 3 cents worth...

'

There are no contextual grounds for such a belief. It's mere speculation.

I don't support the letting go of murderers. Not that I don't think it would be the loving thing to do in some cases, but I think the law of the land should be left for non-Christians to shape. Jesus was passive, even to death. I think we should look at him as more of a role model than we currently do. He never tried to change the law of the land, only spiritual laws.

Hey!  I'll ask a quick question since everyone seems to be.  JiTC?  What exactly is your point?  Because if ya don't mind my simple-minded observation...you haven't got much of a one.   :) ;D ;)

Hmmm, I'm being deceptive?  Lets see what I really said....

I think JitC forgets that one of Love's attributes is that it is Just.

Leaving out the context of what I said changes the meaning doesn't it?  Something you seem prone to.

JitC-

My reply was simply...Is not one of Loves attributes being Just?   Not to say that stoning someone is loving them, but is letting them continuing to sin or break laws loving them?  Is letting a murderer go loving them?  Is letting my child escape punishment for lying loving him?  Is letting a drug dealer go unpunished loving him?  How does one love a criminal?   Maybe not by stoning him, but Certainly not by letting the offense go un-punished either.  Christians should love, but being Just, IS and attribute of Love.

I think my point was clear and certainly not deceptive, you just have a knack for poor interpretation  ;)

Grace and Peace!

My point is that people who call themselves Christians shouldn't condemn others. They should either stop condemning others, or stop calling themselves Christians.

However, people who are actually Christians aren't involved in condemning others. There are plenty of people who call themselves Christians, but that doesn't mean they are. Those who condemn others are disobeying Jesus, plain and simple. And John wrote that people who disobey Jesus are not Christians. (1 John 2:3-4)

Lets back up to the original question, as the thread has drifted in and out of focus me thinks.


Apart from speaking truth to said individual (for shame sake), punishment belongs to Gods in this case.

As for civil laws and penalties, we have plenty of scriptural ground to stand on as far as punishing crime.

No gound whatsoever to condemn a person on a spiritual level.


Grace and Peace!

How about bringing them the word of God. As some of you know I have done that to, my wifes murderer. Now he is a believer in prison, working in the church there.

What do you mean by "a spiritual level"? Is not condemnation still condemnation, regardless of what it's for?

Yes DW.  A very good point.

Grace and Peace!

Wow, that's awesome that you're showing him love when most people would feel hatred towards him. Very honorable.

I almost want to adopt your ideology about it never being a Christians place to do something to somebody that could be considered punishment (in other words, always be physically passive). I have a few reservations, but it's definitely something to think about.

Is it even within a humans capacity to condemn someone spiritually?  Only God can do that.

Grace and Peace!

That's exactly what I was thinking. So if we can't condemn somebody spiritually, then when Jesus said not to condemn people he wouldn't have meant spiritual condemnation.

In order to be this way, be physically passive you have to give yourself to God, 100%. There are times thoug when I almost loose it, but I remember my Lords will. I open my Bible and find the peace I am looking for.  Jesus Christ will, will be done.

Well,

I see this thread as MUCH to do about absolutely NOTHING.

Society does not condemn, as if society was God, when they punish or fine a person for breaking the law. Most people have no clue what it would be like if there were no laws of society. I DO! I saw it and fought it for 25 years.

Without the law, the first to be victimized are the weak, the sick, women, children, and the elderly. After all, it would be a jungle mentality, and only the strongest would survive. The entire place would be a sewer of evil and darkness. If a Christian opened their mouth, they would be killed. The devil would reign without opposition, and you would either join the evil or die.

DreamWeaver, my heart breaks for the loss of your wife, and I do understand how you are trying to deal with it. One of the reasons why the murderer is behind bars is to keep him from killing more innocent people. Had the murderer been sentenced to physical death, it would still NOT be society condemning him. Society has no method of condemning a person to eternal destruction. Only God can do that.

Back to JitC, it is beyond SILLY to suggest that our society has no law, no enforcement of the law, and no punishment or fine for violating the law. You probably wouldn't even be here to make this SILLY argument. By the way, the passive would be among the weak and would be the most popular targets. I could put you in places that do have law enforcement, and you wouldn't last 10 minutes. If you wanted to bring out your Bible, they would simply take more time in killing you and enjoy the moment.

JitC - in short - You don't have a clue. Further, what you are suggesting is against the teaching of the Holy Bible. Nobody would be raising a family in your dream society. Further, there wouldn't be any churches in your society. Christians would simply be hunted, and they will be one day.

Exactly. Nobody can condemn another the way God can. So when Jesus commanded us not to condemn, he must have been talking about the type of condemnation that we are able to do.


[sigh] You still don't understand what it is that I'm saying. I can see how it can be confusing, and I can see how I may not have explained it properly, so I'll try one more time...I'm not saying society should have no laws, etc. What I am saying, is that Christians should not be involved in punishing people. Not that Christians should be prevented from it, as if to be prejudice towards Christians. But that Christians should voluntarily not involve themselves. The first, and understandable thought, would be that without Christians punishing people, and implementing laws, society would be in chaos. However, in all practicality there is not a chance that everybody who calls himself a Christian will actually obey Jesus. Even if everybody who calls himself a Christian were to remain physically passive, there would still be laws, laws would still be enforced, and there would still be punishments for violation of the law. It would be inconceivable to think that even a totally non-Christian society would have no laws. Being that there will be laws, no matter what, we all are able to benefit. But just because those laws lead to positive things, doesn’t mean that it’s right to be involved in causing those positive things. Judas Iscariot was partly involved in the chain of events that lead to salvation through Christ. His actions resulted in positive things, but that certainly doesn’t mean he did something positive. Similarly, just because punishing people has positive results, it doesn’t mean that it’s a positive thing to punish people. Neither does it, alone, mean that it would be a negative thing. To know if it would be positive or negative for us, we have to look to what Jesus commanded us to do. He commanded: “Do not judge…” Clearly that means that we aren’t supposed to judge. The rest of his sentence is about what will happen if we do judge. He says: “…otherwise you’ll be judged.” I know I wouldn’t want Christ judging me. I would be condemned to hell for sure. And if anybody is honest with themselves, they will agree that the same is true for them also.

I know that many people will disagree and think that it’s ok to condemn people. But like I said, there’s not a chance that everybody will obey Jesus. That’s why He said: “Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46)

JitC.  How do you account for Jesus' apparent contradictory statement in John?

Joh 7:24  Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

Jesus' own words.

Grace and Peace!

If looking only at the quote above, it would seem that I’m wrong. But the context in which it appears should also be examined…

“And there was much complaining among the people concerning Him. Some said, "He is good"; others said, "No, on the contrary, He deceives the people." However, no one spoke openly of Him for fear of the Jews.
Now about the middle of the feast Jesus went up into the temple and taught. And the Jews marveled, saying, "How does this Man know letters, having never studied?"
Jesus answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority. He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who seeks the glory of the One who sent Him is true, and no unrighteousness is in Him. Did not Moses give you the law, yet none of you keeps the law? Why do you seek to kill Me?"
The people answered and said, "You have a demon. Who is seeking to kill You?"
Jesus answered and said to them, "I did one work, and you all marvel. Moses therefore gave you circumcision (not that it is from Moses, but from the fathers), and you circumcise a man on the Sabbath. If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath? Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” - (John 7:12-24)

…I went to Merriam-webster.com (http://www.merriam-webster.com) to look at just what the dictionary definitions were for “judge” (the verb). The first definition was “to form an opinion about”. That specific definition is certainly not the “condemnation” that I was referring to earlier. So, again, “judge” can mean condemning someone, or it can mean forming an opinion.

In the passage above, Jesus says “Why do you seek to kill Me?” Clearly they wanted to condemn Him. But more closely examining the passage makes it become clear that Jesus’ main point was not that they shouldn’t seek to kill Him, at least not specifically. It seems that what He is getting at is people should not form opinions based merely on appearance, but that people should form righteous opinions. Many of them formed opinions (or judged) wrongly. They said: “He deceives the people”. They said to Him: “You have a demon.” And Jesus points out that they were angry with Him. Clearly they were forming the wrong opinions. So when Jesus tells them to judge righteously, he was talking about forming righteous opinions. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean He was talking only of opinions. He could have been talking about opinions and condemnation/punishment. With only the passage above we can’t be sure. But when the rest of the bible is taken into account (and especially John 8:3-11), I think it becomes more clear that we are to form righteous opinions, but not to condemn/punish people. Many people in the New Testament punish people, and seek to punish people. But I think it is no coincidence that there is not a single Christian in the bible who tries to punish somebody.

Now THAT[/b] sounds vaguely familiar...


 ;D