A question regarding imposing morality through legality...

[AetheriusLamia]

This question stems from my dismay about gay marriage laws in Tennessee (USA).

Basically, God gives us free will, correct? While God has placed negative repercussions into effect as a result of sin, to make us aware that the actions are in fact sinful, God does not actively stop us from doing it, right? Example: I can choose to steal from a store. I then experience guilt, our economy suffers, and prices rise. The entire affair is obviously detrimental to everyone involved.

If God does not take away our freedom of choice, what authority do we then have to take it away from each other? Consider the following analogy:

My parents have said they don't want my brother playing with this video game. I walk upstairs and see him playing it. I get angry and take it away and try to send him to his room. He becomes angry with me, asking me what I think I'm doing, and he goes and talks to Mom and Dad. They then scold me, telling me that "they're the parents, not me." They tell me next time he's doing it, to go and tell them and let them handle it.

Well? Why do we not do that here? Why do we insist on locking up someone who sins, rather than praying to God and letting God take care of it?

 

[Tissue]

The issue feels like it's probably larger than your post defines, so I apologize if I miss what you were going for.

As I see it, though, there are two types of kingdom: the kingdom of God, and the kingdom of humanity. For God, the only way to truly change someone is not through force (ie, the imposition of law, the threat of punishment), but through a change of the heart, and for this effect, God allows sins to happen. For humanity, the imposition of force has been listed as a necessity for society along the line of political philosophic thought. I'm not entirely certain whether or not it is possible for humanity to generate a kingdom styled after God's kingdom (a "power-under" kingdom, instead of a "power-over" kingdom), but that is the difference.

 

[tapero]

This question stems from my dismay about gay marriage laws in Tennessee (USA).

Basically, God gives us free will, correct? While God has placed negative repercussions into effect as a result of sin, to make us aware that the actions are in fact sinful, God does not actively stop us from doing it, right? Example: I can choose to steal from a store. I then experience guilt, our economy suffers, and prices rise. The entire affair is obviously detrimental to everyone involved.

If God does not take away our freedom of choice, what authority do we then have to take it away from each other? Consider the following analogy:

My parents have said they don't want my brother playing with this video game. I walk upstairs and see him playing it. I get angry and take it away and try to send him to his room. He becomes angry with me, asking me what I think I'm doing, and he goes and talks to Mom and Dad. They then scold me, telling me that "they're the parents, not me." They tell me next time he's doing it, to go and tell them and let them handle it.

Well? Why do we not do that here? Why do we insist on locking up someone who sins, rather than praying to God and letting God take care of it?

Hi, I'm not gonna touch the law you are talking about.

But what I would like to comment on, is someone's morals are placed on all of us, regardless of beliefs in God, non belief in God, beliefs of those two groups, etc.

Commonly in debate forums (discusson and debate), is asked why do you (meaning Christians impose your morals on us.)

And while whatever the topic at hand is is not critical to the discusson such as the law you are speaking about.

I say, why do you impose what you believe on us?

It works both ways, and no matter believer or non believer and many have different views no matter which they are, and all of us impose our morals on the other.

So, do i want kids taught anything goes in school? as pertains to sexual immorality.

No, personally I do not.

Is it occuring?

Yep!

Did I impose this on them?

Nope!

But if I don't want abortion to be legal, I am imposing my beliefs (while I am a believer, this can come from a non believer or believer) on those who wish it legal.

See, it's all tactics.

and while I would have nothing to do with a political church, I do thank God that such exists those who do stand up for things important to them. I don't agree with some of what some go after, as I don't see it as important at all, but we're it not for those who do such, and those organizations that come out of such, then there would be no voice for certain things.

And the ones who are against the above, also have a voice, and they too lobby and fight for what they believe to be right.

Is how it is.

So if you live in a country where murder, pedophilia, molestation of youth, stealing, and other things are against the law you are actually grateful for what you are saying should not be done.

I live in the USA and it is not a nation under God (meaning not a Christian nation)nor is it supposed to be, nor did Jesus command us to make it so.

But I thank God for what we have in America, I thank God for those who sacrifice their lives or/and sacrifice to protect us be it military, police, firemen, etc.

I thank God that it's still fairly safe where I live, tho live in a dangerous city, but I'm on the outskirts.

I thank God for those who fight for what they believe is right.

and the argument of one imposing on the other is a lie.

as those who are arguing such are imposing on the other in the same manner, but it's Christians get the blame.

It's how it is.

Time to turn it around.

 

[dayhiker]

Hi Tissue,
I think its great that you are thinking thru this stuff. Good anologies.
I'm only in favor of laws that help society deal with people that are really hurting others. Like murder, rape, stealing etc. I don't think laws against pot are good when we allow cigarettes to be smoked. Pot in my view does very little harm compared to murder. Yet we lock up thousands of our fellow Americans.
So I'm with you on the don't create laws where God hasn't.

dayhiker

 

[HypnoToad]

First, remember that God did set up a criminal justice system for Israel - certain crimes received punishment doled out by the community leaders, God never told them "I'll handle all the punishment Myself."

Second, both Jesus and Paul recognized the state's authority. Jesus - "give to Caesar what is Caesar's." Paul - "submit to the governing authorities." They have every right to make laws that aren't expressed in Scripture. And as long as they don't contradict God's law, we are to obey them.

 

[Apollo Celestio]

This question stems from my dismay about gay marriage laws in Tennessee (USA).

Basically, God gives us free will, correct? While God has placed negative repercussions into effect as a result of sin, to make us aware that the actions are in fact sinful, God does not actively stop us from doing it, right? Example: I can choose to steal from a store. I then experience guilt, our economy suffers, and prices rise. The entire affair is obviously detrimental to everyone involved.

If God does not take away our freedom of choice, what authority do we then have to take it away from each other? Consider the following analogy:

My parents have said they don't want my brother playing with this video game. I walk upstairs and see him playing it. I get angry and take it away and try to send him to his room. He becomes angry with me, asking me what I think I'm doing, and he goes and talks to Mom and Dad. They then scold me, telling me that "they're the parents, not me." They tell me next time he's doing it, to go and tell them and let them handle it.

Well? Why do we not do that here? Why do we insist on locking up someone who sins, rather than praying to God and letting God take care of it?

A certain command that we should hold each other accountable, and other commands saying the kingdoms are here for a reason and to obey the law. :/

 

[Ave Maria]

Nope, its never occurred to me before.

 

[Tissue]

I would just like to point out that I am not suggesting we should not create laws outside of Scripture. What about speed limits?

 

[bgrass1234]

The answer to your question as to why humans do this is because of arrogance and selfishness. We punish to get revenge and to discourage bad behavior to either protect ourselves or to control others because we think we know better than they do. This is why christians should be staying out of government unless they are there to shrink and get rid of it. Government is violence. Everything government does is either violent, or backed by threats of violence. This is not a tool a christian should be using to get what they want. I believe the only use of violence that is acceptable for a christian is in defense of others.

 

[AetheriusLamia]

I don't know. I think we need government because there are too many stupid people that, left to their own devices, would cause trouble.

 

[FaithLikeARock]

It depends.

There are sins that aren't directly and permanently harmful to others(such as homosexuality (in most peoples opinion), lying in most circumstances, sex before marriage) and then there are some that are (murder, rape, etc.)

The law is based around protecting people from death and injury. What a person does is their own business so long as it doesn't affect anyone else (at least physically). Obviously some of God's commands have to be enforced because otherwise it flaws God's plan (because God doesn't plan things like murder). But others that don't affect anyone other that the individual(s) "committing" them, shouldn't be enforced through human authority.

 

[Stinker]

If Christians wanted to impose their morality on the nonbelievers in a community, State, or Country, a good example would their passing a law against any kind of pornography. If a nonbeliever is reported by a mailperson that a certain individual has been receiving porn magazines via the U.S. Mail, that person's home could be legally raided.

Would this be moral for anyone?

 

[Danyc]

If Christians wanted to impose their morality on the nonbelievers in a community, State, or Country, a good example would their passing a law against any kind of pornography. If a nonbeliever is reported by a mailperson that a certain individual has been receiving porn magazines via the U.S. Mail, that person's home could be legally raided.

Would this be moral for anyone?

Not in the slightest.

 

[ladyt28]

Make no mistake - the reasons given may be moral bu tI believe the REAL reason for outlawing gay marriage is that it would cost someone to expand the legal rights of insurance & inheritance to a whole new segment of society. Saying it is immoral is just a way to make it an emotional issue that is easier to sell rather than the blatant greed that I think underlies the entire movement.

 

[UNKN0WN]

Most of the things we claim are immoral we claim so out of ignorance.

People are more important than 'sin'.

 

[dayhiker]

I agree UNKNOWN

 

[Nadiine]

Make no mistake - the reasons given may be moral bu tI believe the REAL reason for outlawing gay marriage is that it would cost someone to expand the legal rights of insurance & inheritance to a whole new segment of society. Saying it is immoral is just a way to make it an emotional issue that is easier to sell rather than the blatant greed that I think underlies the entire movement.

I disagree. I believe the real issue is that we don't want to undermine the foundation of the "traditional family".

The foundation is that marriage & the family unit are accepted as male & female - 2 parents of the opposite sex and their offspring.

It dismantles the traditional family unit and that actually has little to do with Christianity/religion! I know several hardcore atheists & agnostics who detest the homosexual agenda and embrace traditional moral standards.
I get tired of people blaming Christians for the rejection of gay marriage - many seculars dislike it as well.

 

[Nadiine]

If Christians wanted to impose their morality on the nonbelievers in a community, State, or Country, a good example would their passing a law against any kind of pornography. If a nonbeliever is reported by a mailperson that a certain individual has been receiving porn magazines via the U.S. Mail, that person's home could be legally raided.

Would this be moral for anyone?

Let's make no mistake about this - everyone "imposes" their moral beliefs on both sides! Immoral people want to promote immorality and moral people want to promote morality.
It's a matter of public acceptance or not. If immoral people want to push their immorality on society, I have equal right to push morality - the difference is, I have God's approval behind mine.

In the end, people can sin all day long - all they want. But God has the last word at judgment. We will all stand before Him to give account for every word & act.

 

[Tissue]

Let's make no mistake about this - everyone "imposes" their moral beliefs on both sides! Immoral people want to promote immorality and moral people want to promote morality.
It's a matter of public acceptance or not. If immoral people want to push their immorality on society, I have equal right to push morality - the difference is, I have God's approval behind mine.

In the end, people can sin all day long - all they want. But God has the last word at judgment. We will all stand before Him to give account for every word & act.

Defining something as immoral can only be done from a singular moral standpoint: your own. From their position, something might not be immoral.

Your argument collapses on itself into nothingness.

 

[Stinker]

"....I have God's approval behind mine."

Most people may agree that the morals taught in the New Testament are of the highest in our world. The problem is that so many people do not see it as God's words to us. So it all goes back to what Tissue said in post #19