Legal status of sin

[cubedbee]

I was offtopic in the Is it a sin for today thread, so I wanted to start a new thread to discuss it. Drew sums it up well.

I think cubedbee's general argument is quite strong. I am not specifically saying where I stand on the topic - I am not really sure. However, I am interested in the form of the argument.

Taking B3's argument as a point of departure, I would ask the following question: On what specific basis (i.e according to what meaningul criteria) do we divide sins into 2 disitinct categories:

1. Those that should be made illegal.
2. Those that should be legal.

Presumably we all agree idolatry is a sin, right? I suspect we all agree that idolatry should not be outlawed. Presumably we all agree that murder is a sin, right. Presumably we all agree that murder should be outlawed.

There must be some basis for categorizing sins this way. What is it, exactly?

On what basis should sins be outlawed? I think very few people would argue that every sin should be illegal. What criteria should we, as a Christian majority nation, use to determine which sins should or should not be legal?

It is of my opinion that the criteria should be whether or not the sin harms an innocent victim. Sins with victims should be illegal, sins without victims should be legal. My rational is that the legal system is set up to maintain order in society and guarantee that one person's exercise of freedom does not infringe on another persons rights. The legal system is not set up to make us moral people or to keep us from sinning.

 

[Scott]

Sins with victims should be illegal, sins without victims should be legal.

: ...every sin has a victim. See 1 Corinthians 6:18.

 

[cubedbee]

I didn't think people would get pedantic, but I guess I need to clarify. Sins with external victims should be illegal, sins which self-victimize should not.

 

[peace4all]

however, some sins with self injury, such as drug use, ( i would think that hte bible says somethign against that, i jsut havent read it) should be illegal. Because in a majority of cases, innocent victims get shot at, run down, left in a crappy home ect..

 

[antitox]

This thread started with just sin as a broad term with comparisons, but there are degrees or progressions of behavior where a line must be drawn in order to prevent lawlessness with a given activity.

On this issue of civil law, we originally had been much stricter on many things than we are today, but due to the re-conditioning of society as a whole and the progression of moral decline and relativism, the lines have been moved.
Sinful behavior in any form can be justified with relative thinking which is due to man's basic regressive condition (man's standard of right and wrong versus God's, -i.e., the tree of knowledge). This has been the case for some years now in modern civilized society and many are caught up in its current and follow the wide path that Jesus cautioned against.

A good deal of what follows in this argument is political correctness with justification by-compassion-only with no regard for the essentials of right and wrong and its effects. Those who stand up for what's right will always be labeled as "intolerant;" - a favorite term for discrediting those who believe in justice with accountability.

 

[Rick W]

Sins with victims should be illegal, sins without victims should be legal.

So we legalize marijuana (recreational drugs), dismiss seat belt laws, allow full automatic weapons possession, prostitution, gambling anywhere... the list goes on.

Can a society exist with the absence of "victimless crimes"?

 

[lovely]

Cubedbee,

It seems like you are arguing that immorality doesn't hurt people. I do not believe this is true. Immorality impacts the way an entire society thinks, and lives, and “progressesâ€Â.

I will use abortion as an example. For me it is not a victimless crime, but for others it is. At first, as a society, we understood abortion to be murder. It was illegal for the sake of the child in the womb. Now, because of a woman's right to choose, this child has become over the years something less than a child, a potential life, a cluster of cells, a research cash cow that will someday cure diseases...and so on. The immorality of a few, has impacted a nation, and now we have literally made killing your own child legal, and a choice, a viable option for birth control. One is performed every hour now, as opposed to only a few through illegal means. But, now we know that a corrupt medical system of abortion providers has not been honest about the effects of the procedure, nor have they been honest about truly counseling these young women. The facts are not presented fully, of how you will suffer immense grief, and guilt, after the procedure, about how you are more likely do develop breast cancer, cervical cancer, and even at risk of a hysterectomy in some cases. About how it increases your risk of miscarrying the next child, and they do not even go into what such a procedure does to the child. Their blood is on all of our hands. We pay tax dollars to support it even if we think it is murder.

I think you can make similar arguments for other immoral issues such as homosexuality, adultery, fornication (at any age), and others.

Blessings

 

[antitox]

Immorality impacts the way an entire society thinks, and lives, and “progressesâ€Â.

Now that sums it all up in one line. ;-)

 

[Drew]

It may be true that a case can be made that all sin, however seemingly "victimless". eventually will have a detrimental effect on others in a society. However, we have a very real practical problem - what sins should be illegal. In another thread long ago, "Dave" stated outright that he would support making divorce illegal. While I disagree with this position, I at least respect him for his consistency.

To those who seem to be arguing against B3's criteria, do you or do you not think sins like the following should be outlawed: idolatry, divorce, pre-marital sex (between adults)?

And now to really stir the pot: What about over-eating (gluttony in other words)? We have a massive gluttony problem in N. America. Gluttony is a sin. I know this may be a controversial point and I am open to being corrected by experts, but I simply do not believe that people get obese by "genetics" - it is overeating that makes us fat, pure and simple. About half of adults in N. America are obese (I believe). Do we charge people with a crime for over-eating?

I think that some version of cubedbee's suggestion is the only workable one (so, no, I do not think gluttony should be outlawed).

 

[Vic C.]

Are YOU the victim or the crime?

Victim Or The Crime
Lyrics: Gerrit Graham
Music: Bob Weir

Patience runs out on the junkie
The dark side hires another soul
Did he steal his fate or earn it
Was he force-fed, did he learn it
Whatever happened to his precious self control

Like him I'm tired of trying to heal
This tom-cat heart with which I'm blessed
Is destruction loving's twin
Must I choose to lose or win
Maybe when my turn comes I will have guessed

These are the horns of the dilemma
What truth is proof against all lies
When sacred fails before profane
The wisest man is deemed insane
Even the purest of romantics compromise

What fixation feeds this fever
As the full moon pales and climbs
Am I living truth or rank deceiver
Am I the victim or the crime
Am I the victim or the crime
Am I the victim or the crime
Or the crime

And so I wrestle with the angel
To see who'll reap the seeds I sow
Am I the driver or the driven
Will I be damned to be forgiven
Is there anybody here but me who needs to know

What it is to face this fever
As the full moon pales and climbs
Am I living truth or rank deceiver
Am I the victim or the crime
Am I the victim or the crime
Am I the victim or the crime
Or the crime

 

[lovely]

Drew wrote:

I think that some version of cubedbee's suggestion is the only workable one.

Well, some version of it is what we already have, but I guess I was saying that I don't believe the case can be made that we can not legislate morality at all, and say that those particular crimes do not have victims.

 

[antitox]

It may be true that a case can be made that all sin, however seemingly "victimless". eventually will have a detrimental effect on others in a society. However, we have a very real practical problem - what sins should be illegal. In another thread long ago, "Dave" stated outright that he would support making divorce illegal. While I disagree with this position, I at least respect him for his consistency.

I agree with you that divorce should not be illegal.

To those who seem to be arguing against B3's criteria, do you or do you not think sins like the following should be outlawed: idolatry, divorce, pre-marital sex (between adults)?

Idolatry: This is still along the lines of freedom of religion. It should not be illegal. My position has been that a religion itself does not call for censorship, but only the specific activities it may propagate in unlawful behavior or immoral behavior that is destructive to the community.

Divorce & premarital sex: These are not currently against the law and I would not say that should be either. You cannot legislate morality. All we can do are preventive measures that address those issues that can have a direct cause and effect.
If we were to legislate against divorce and premarital sex, we would then be removing personal freedoms from individuals, and it would eventually spread in the control of other areas of their lives. In the end, it would do more damage than good. If you tell people they can't divorce, they would probably never get married.
Personal restrictions on individuals carries a sense of violation with it. That, in itself, says enough.

And now to really stir the pot: What about over-eating (gluttony in other words)? We have a massive gluttony problem in N. America. Gluttony is a sin. I know this may be a controversial point and I am open to being corrected by experts, but I simply do not believe that people get obese by "genetics" - it is overeating that makes us fat, pure and simple. About half of adults in N. America are obese (I believe). Do we charge people with a crime for over-eating?

That's really ridiculous. Are we going to police everybody's personal lives where they can't make a simple personal choice anymore? I felt that way when they came up with the seat belt law. Now they want to outlaw cellphone use in vehicles. I'm against all such laws.

I think that some version of cubedbee's suggestion is the only workable one (so, no, I do not think gluttony should be outlawed).

The suggestions I oppose are those that pose a direct effect on the degradation of society. There has to a line that we don't cross before it reaches the point of becoming contaminating to the community, or then a threshhold is reached that essentially says it doesn't matter anymore.

 

[lovely]

Thought about this thread yesterday.

I think that adultery should have a penalty, and that a divorce should be granted for only a real reason, and not easily. Pre-marital sex is hard, because it would be difficult to enforce, but I think the government should at least frown upon it. The thing is, with the "education" we have on these subjects, the government never says, "do not do them" because they impact our society...people do things without thinking, or caring, of the consequences, and no one is pointing them out unless they have an immediate effect like a sexual disease.

I think Hollywood, and the freedom they have been given over the years, has made the biggest, and worst impact on society. The images, the speech, the acceptable thoughts and ways of life, and the violence that is up on that screen shapes, and molds, the character of an entire world, and it shapes the way we process information in our minds. Media, including books, news, radio, etc. is really where the root of this is. My niece visited last week, and she was dressed exactly like the ads. I went shopping with her, and she never once wanted to think about if something was modest, practical, or feminine, or on sale...she wanted what everyone else had, no matter what the cost was.

The law is really what society accepts, not what is written, because we change our laws to reflect what is socially acceptable. For a believer the laws that are acceptable to them should be those that would please God.

Blessings

 

[cubedbee]

Sins with victims should be illegal, sins without victims should be legal.

So we legalize marijuana (recreational drugs),

Absolutely. Why should it be illegal to ingest something into your own body? What needs to be illegal, and strictly punished, is any violence, theft, or other crime that occurs by those under the influence of or trying to obtain drugs. We would also need a legal age, since drugs are potentially harmful and should be kept away from children.

dismiss seat belt laws, allow full automatic weapons possession,

There's nothing sinful about not wearing a seatbelt or owning an automatic weapon. This ventures away from the question about legislating sins, and into the question about legislating the use of dangerous consumer goods. Personally, I disagree with seatbelt laws and agree with automatic weapon bans, but I'd rather not discuss these in this thread.

prostitution, gambling anywhere

Yes and yes. It's no more sinful to have sex with someone for money that it is to have sex outside of the confines of marriage. The latter is legal, why should the former be outlawed? Is there really a qualitative difference between a prostitute who takes cash for sex and a woman in a bar who gets free drinks all night and then goes home and sleeps with the guy?

As for gambling, I think it's debatable if gambling is even a sin, and if it is, why should it be illegal? What's the difference between the stock market, bingo, a state lottery, and illegal gambling? Not too much---except the first three are legal.

 

[cubedbee]

Cubedbee,

It seems like you are arguing that immorality doesn't hurt people. I do not believe this is true. Immorality impacts the way an entire society thinks, and lives, and “progressesâ€Â.

I will use abortion as an example. For me it is not a victimless crime, but for others it is. At first, as a society, we understood abortion to be murder. It was illegal for the sake of the child in the womb. Now, because of a woman's right to choose, this child has become over the years something less than a child, a potential life, a cluster of cells, a research cash cow that will someday cure diseases...and so on. The immorality of a few, has impacted a nation, and now we have literally made killing your own child legal, and a choice, a viable option for birth control. One is performed every hour now, as opposed to only a few through illegal means. But, now we know that a corrupt medical system of abortion providers has not been honest about the effects of the procedure, nor have they been honest about truly counseling these young women. The facts are not presented fully, of how you will suffer immense grief, and guilt, after the procedure, about how you are more likely do develop breast cancer, cervical cancer, and even at risk of a hysterectomy in some cases. About how it increases your risk of miscarrying the next child, and they do not even go into what such a procedure does to the child. Their blood is on all of our hands. We pay tax dollars to support it even if we think it is murder.

I think you can make similar arguments for other immoral issues such as homosexuality, adultery, fornication (at any age), and others.

Blessings

Abortion is a tough issue. I too see it as having a victim, the unborn child. However, the right to control one's own body is a basic right which I do not believe the government should be able to infringe upon. However, I do not see how you can make the same argument regarding any of the other sins you mentioned. The unborn child is a clear unwilling victim in abortion---there is no such victim in homosexuality or fornication. Adultery does have a victim, and to some degree the victim can be compesated through divorce settlements, but surely you don't think that adultery should be a criminal offense deserving of jail time?

 

[antitox]

Abortion is a tough issue. I too see it as having a victim, the unborn child. However, the right to control one's own body is a basic right which I do not believe the government should be able to infringe upon.

This isn't about controlling one's own body. That is the liberal excuse to waste a baby for personal convenience. For anyone who claims to be a Christian and support such a blatantly selfish disregard for life is appalling at the least.

The bottom line is human life. And what your argument brings to the situation is personal preference and convenmience over human life. You're, in effect, saying that the convenience of an individual is of greater importance than the human life they sustain.

We know the argument, and it is selfish human pride for which there is no excuse.

However, I do not see how you can make the same argument regarding any of the other sins you mentioned. The unborn child is a clear unwilling victim in abortion---there is no such victim in homosexuality or fornication. Adultery does have a victim, and to some degree the victim can be compesated through divorce settlements, but surely you don't think that adultery should be a criminal offense deserving of jail time?

You are taking two completely different moral issues with totally different criteria with regard to human welfare and making them an equally based comparison. How misapplied can you get?

One is human life and the other is moral degradation. You can't call them the same or treat them the same. Stop the liberal spin.