Should Christians punish others for their "victimless" sins?

[JitC]

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.

…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?

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

…the Law stated to stone an adulterer to death.  That was Law.  They were under that Law.  To do so would have been Lawful.

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).

[Reba]

Sin always has a victim.

[Pixie]

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!!

[nChrist]

   - Well, this must be the Twilight Zone.

(DoDoDoDoDoDoDoDODODO)

[sincereheart]

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?

[Allinall]

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.

…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?

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

…the Law stated to stone an adulterer to death.  That was Law.  They were under that Law.  To do so would have been Lawful.

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).

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

[JitC]

Let me get this straight...

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

[Bronzesnake]

Let me get this straight...

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,

Posted by: Pixie  Posted on: Today at 01:41:19am  
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!!

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

Bronzesnake

[Pixie]

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...

[musicllover]

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?

     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 . 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

Musicllover  

[JitC]

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.

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?

[Shammu]

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.

[JitC]

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?

  When did you ask me that?

My understanding of the Bible is, there is no victimless sin. Sinning is a sin, under my Lord Jesus Christ.

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.

[sincereheart]

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

 

[sincereheart]

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