Should Christians punish others for their "victimless" sins?

[musicllover]

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?

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  

[nChrist]

JitC Said:

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.

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

[2nd Timothy]

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!

[nChrist]

2nd Timothy,

AMEN BROTHER!

[JitC]

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?

[Shammu]

So which sins should a Christian be involved in punishing someone for?

None

Should it be based on something arbitrary like opinion?

No

Where would you draw the line?

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.

Would there be a line, or should Christians support punishing people for ALL sins?

Christians should not support punishing people for their sins. That is the work of the Lord, not people of the planet.

[nChrist]

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?

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.

[JitC]

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?

[Chesed]

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-

1Co 5:11 - Show ContextBut actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one.

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...

[JitC]

Jesus statement "he who is without sin throw the first stone" doesn't mean without any sin at all...

'

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

[JitC]

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.

[Allinall]

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.  

[2nd Timothy]

I think JitC forgets...
Is letting a murderer go a loving (Just) thing to do?

I think 2nd Timothy forgets that it's wrong to deceive people for your own gain. He knows that I don't support the letting go of murderers, but he doesn't mind if he causes other people to think that.

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-

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.

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!

[JitC]

What exactly is your point?

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)

[2nd Timothy]

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

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?

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!