ARCHIVE: Z Man asks... "what about grace?"

[Lighthouse]

Their sins, Knight, not their 'crime'. You guys said it yourselves, every crime is a sin, but not every sin is a crime. Since I do not believe homosexuality is a crime, I can argue which crimes should be legal or not.

:rotfl:

 

[Clete]

Z Man,
Sorry for the delayed response. There was a lot here to respond too and I got stuck doing inventory at work today so it had to wait till this evening. Sorry about the length but I thought I'd be as thorough as possible in hopes that we could break past the impasse on this very important issue.

No.

The only reason I brought up the law about executing disobediant children is because if you believe homosexuality should be a crime because it was made one by God in His law, then why not believe that all the laws should be crimes today?

Which I directly answered.

I wanted to know why you guys were so bent on enforcing the criminalization of homosexuality, but not disobedient children. Why draw the line between the two? That's all I wanted to know, and so far, I really haven't gotten a good answer...

You have too! I even conceded the point for the sake of argument and agreed that this particular law should be enforced. I don’t actually believe it should but we aren't here to debate whether or not this particular law should or shouldn't be enforced today but whether or not any of the Biblical law should be enforced and so it does no harm to my position to concede this singular point.

So I'm still left to wonder why you believe some laws should still be enforced strictly, why others are no longer valid? But as I continued to read your post, I think I found your answer.

You think you found it? If you've read my post at all you couldn't have possibly missed it! I answered the question at some length.

I'll get to that later in this post, but first:

Did not Paul write several letters on the issue of the law and it's relevance to Christians?

FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS SAKE Z MAN! The gospel of grace DOES NOT negate the criminal code! If it did then we aught to let murderers and rapists and the like walk the streets because otherwise we would be legalistic and wouldn't be extending grace to the murderer. That's just a ridiculous position Z Man. It is impossible for me to comprehend that this is what you actually believe.

He was an apostle to the Gentiles, and one of the main problems with the early church was the question of should Christians still obey the law or not?

The question wasn't whether they should be law abiding citizens of the respective nations but whether or not they had to follow the law for righteousness sake. The question was whether or not God required a person to follow the law in order to maintain a relationship with Him, as had been the case before the apostle Paul was given the Dispensation of the Mystery, a.k.a. the Gospel of Grace.

You must remember that the first Christians were Jews, and never saw themselves as separate from their fellow Jews. They just saw themselves as a continuation of Judaism. But it became apparent to them early on that the gospel was to be spread around the world, including the Gentiles. And as many Gentiles became saved, the Christian Jews immediately told them to become circumcised and obey the law. Paul spent a great deal of his life arguing against the idea of continuing to observe the law as Jews did, because it was fruitless. Christ's sacrifice saved us from the condemnation we received through the law.

Boy did you ever say a mouthful here! There's no way I can unpack everything there is to say concerning the transition period from the dispensation of law to the current dispensation of grace. What I will say is that Paul's efforts against Christians placing themselves under the law for righteousness sake were not simply incidental or reactionary and they were anything but fruitless. His efforts in this area were in fact was the very core of his ministry! The doing away with the law is the entire point of the gospel of grace. To suggest that his efforts were fruitless is to suggest that his entire ministry was a waste of time. This is obviously not the case, as I'm sure you'll agree.

In addition, it is confusing to me why this subject keeps coming up. The dispensation of grace has to do with the gospel message; that is it has to do with how we are saved. God has, by His grace, always saved some, but has not always had the same set of criteria by which that grace was extended. For instance, since Moses but prior to Paul people where saved if they believed God and obeyed the law. Doing so perfectly was, of course, impossible but God sees the heart and would extend grace to those who humbled themselves and made a faithful attempt to obey. So even the dispensation of law was undergirded by grace and it can quite accurately be stated that people even before Paul were saved by grace through faith. But now, the criteria are somewhat different. Now, we are to believe ONLY; Following the law is not only unnecessary, it is expressly forbidden!

Does this mean that we advocate anarchy and forbid the government from enforcing criminal justice? NO! "Why not?", seems to be the question you are asking. The answer is, because the gospel, in any dispensation, has nothing to do with criminal justice! It's an entirely different topic all together!

Now, I'm not suggesting that we have no law today.

Biblically that is precisely what you are saying - whether you intend to be saying it or not. That is the only possible logical conclusion that one could arrive at using your train of thought.

This seems as good a place as any to explain the purpose behind why God instituted criminal justice in the first place. It too has to do with the various dispensations which are presented in Scripture.

In the beginning man was innocent. This period is appropriately referred to as the Dispensation of Innocence. When man fell God removed him from the Garden but did not prescribe any laws to govern his passions and was left to do whatever was right in his own eyes. This period is known as the Dispensation of Conscience. This period ended when the all the thoughts of man were evil continually and God destroyed the Earth with water. Immediately after the flood waters receded, God put laws in place in order to stay the evil intents of man's heart. As an example, God said, "Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man" (Genesis 9:6). This ushered in what is known as the Dispensation of Human Government and it is a dispensation that is still in effect today and will continue to be in effect until this current Earth no longer exists.

Now note two important points here....

First, these laws were not given as part of some portion of a gospel message. Observing these laws had nothing to do with some system that God set up by which one could come to have a saving relationship with God. It didn't have anything to do with that. It had to do with preventing people from getting back to the point of thinking nothing but evil thoughts continually, as happened when there was no such law.

And second, these laws were not given to the Jews! They were given to every living human being that existed on the planet at the time.

Now, please bear in mind that what I've just said hardly even counts as a rough outline of what is an extremely complex and varied field of theology known as Dispensationalism. There have been countless volumes written on each of several of the specific points I've brought up and so please don't go trying to poke holes in every detail of what I've said here. Instead take this as a whole and understand it to be an attempt to give you as complete an understanding as I am able to give you in this context of my Biblical paradigm, which is effectively what you are asking for in this thread. There is simply no way to effectively answer you without at least touching on the basic principles of dispensational theology (or at least no way that I can think of).

But I am suggesting that we no longer define crimes as that which was so severely punished in the Mosaic law. Today we should define a crime as anything that takes away from someone else's rights or securities. I do not believe homosexuality is a crime - a sin, yes, but not a crime. It does not violate my rights if two men want to have sex with each other. I think its perverted and a disgusting sin, but they'll pay for their penalty when they get to heaven for their immorality.

My response to this is simply this.

Why should anyone care what you think should or should not be a crime?

And I don't ask that in order to be insulting. It's a real question (although a rhetorical one). The point being that it isn't up to you. All authority comes from God and the Bible couldn't be any clearer about the fact that the government in particular gets its authority from God and God alone (i.e. not from the people). It is equally clear that this delegated authority does not give the government carte blanche to do whatever it sees fit with the power its been delegated. God will hold the governing official responsible for his actions and a nation responsible for its laws.
Effectively what I'm getting at here is that if you discard the criminal justice system (i.e. the moral aspects of the Mosaic Law) then by what authority do you do so and by what authority do you propose a replacement moral code?

Incidentally, on that particular point, your standard of "anything that takes away from someone else's rights or securities" is effectively the same as God's. The problem is that you disagree with God concerning what is and what is not harmful to others. And what's worse is that you have no basis for doing so other than your mere opinion (uninformed as it is) about whether or not homos do any harm to the society which tolerates their presence.

You brought up suicide earlier. I believe that should be a crime because it's a selfish way to take yourself away from others. If someone 'murders' themselves, they've taken away the security and rights from those who loved them. It's a selfish act against other people, even though you may have taken your own life, and therefore no different from murdering someone else.

So then you agree that one can do harm to others in an indirect manner which is significant enough to constitute making a law against it. Good! God agrees with you and even beat you to the punch by about 3500 years or so.

I'm not suggesting that there are no cases where child molestation did lead to a homosexual lifestyle. I just simply refuse to believe that ALL, or even the majority of people who are homosexuals were molested or abused as children.

Then you are intentionally blind to the obvious facts. Homos themselves don't even deny this simple fact. I don't have access to detailed numbers but it’s more than simply a majority of homos (male homos) that were molested as children. In fact, having your first sexual experience before the age of eight with a member of the same sex is the number one determining factor in whether or not someone will grow up to be a homo. Now it is important to keep in mind that I am not saying the converse is true. It is not the case that the majority of molested children will become homos but only that the VAST majority of homos were molested as children. Similarly it is not so that the majority of homos molest children but it is a fact that most child molesters do molest children of their own sex (not necessarily exclusively because of the superficial anatomical similarities of small children). It may sound harsh and of course it is meant to be harsh but it is nonetheless true that homos reproduce by molesting children.

Further, being a homo takes some 30+ years off your life expectancy (assuming that you don't die of AIDS then its more like 37 years if memory serves correctly). In fact, most homos don't die of AIDS, most of them die of drug overdoses, suicide, or domestic abuse. In fact, while its been a few years now since I've seen these stats I seem to recall that the leading cause of death among fomos (female homos) was (and perhaps still is) domestic abuse; that is, they beat each other to death. The homo "lifestyle" is not even that, it’s more like a deathstyle.

If you believe that and promote it as truth, you need evidence. Just telling us that it's out there on the internet isn't good enough. I want to know where YOU got this garbage from.

If you really wanted to know you wouldn't have rendered the judgment that it is garbage before having been shown it.

Can you point me directly to the findings that you have researched, and in which have lead you to conclude that child molestation is the MAJOR cause of homosexuality?

I'll give you what I've still got immediate access too although I really shouldn't. This stuff is almost common sense and your refusal to believe it has nothing to do with my sources or lack thereof.

A few posts back I linked to an old thread of mine where there are 59 different ways to ruin a child listed. That list was compiled in a book by Paul D. Meier, a prolifically published writer of more than one best selling book on the subject of childhood development. It is the only book remaining in my home library although I used to have several, all of which gave basically the same information. At any rate, in the book that the list of 59 ways to ruin a child is given, Meier cites his sources in the a one paragraph footnote that is about 12 lines long where he cites about thirty different studies from which the list was "culled" as he puts it. The citings having to do with the first 14 points on the list read as follows...

"These influences have been culled from a wide variety of studies. See Brenner (1967), Chefetz, Blane, and Hill (1971), Hoffman (1970),McNichol (1970), Nichtern (1973), Schuckit (1972) and Valliant (1971) on drug and alcholhol addiction. See Gundlock (1972), Seigelman (1973), and Carson, Butcher, and Coleman (1988) on homosexuality."​

And the list goes on from there about studies concerning the sociopath, schizophrenia, anorexia etc.

Know anything more than you did before?

Are you suggesting that there were laws that only Israel were to follow?

Of course! There were dozens of laws that only applied to the Jew. In fact, obeying these laws is what made you a Jew. If you were a Jew by birth and you disregarded the law then you were cut off from the nation of Israel (this usually meant you were executed) and conversely if you were a gentile and became circumcised and practiced the ceremonial laws of Israel you were a proselyte Jew. If were not a Jew then no one expected you to get circumcised (for religious reasons anyway), or observe the Sabbath, or celebrate the feasts etc. but if you were a Jew these things were not optional, not according to the government and not according to God either.

I don't understand this. If God is the true God of all humanity, why would He only expect the Jews to follow His rules?

Because He was going to bring the Messiah to the world through Israel and thus save the world through them. The ceremonial laws were given to Israel for two main reasons. First to separate them from the rest of the world (which was important for various reason, not the least of which was preserving Abraham's blood line through David etc). And secondly to symbolize the Messiah Himself so that they could recognize Him when He came (or so that they would be without excuse if they did not recognized Him - either way God's word does not return void).

This makes your argument much clearer. Now I understand your point of view. However, I disagree. For several reasons.

1) Where do you get the idea that some laws were religious and symbolic in nature, while others were for everyone because it was moral? What basis do you just pick which laws are which?

No! I already explained that there Biblical ways to determine which are which, although there are some which are admittedly more difficult than others, like the disobedient child law for example.
First of all there are several that the Bible comes right out and tells us are symbolic. Circumcision is the biggie on that list followed closely by the dietary laws and religious ceremonial laws. All of which the Bible comes right out and tells us have been done away with and that they do not apply any longer. In fact, Paul says that if you become circumcised (as a religious ritual) you are cursed! And it is important to note that since circumcision was the first of the ceremonial laws given, it stands as symbolic of all of the ceremonial laws as a whole.

Secondly, for those laws which aren't expressly removed you can also tell which laws are symbolic and which are moral in nature by putting the law to the conflict test. If a law can conflict with another then that's pretty close to proof that it is not a moral law. The principle that one has to keep in mind when utilizing this test is that the law was made for man not man for the law. And so if you have a law that states "Do not work on the Sabbath" and a man is starving and needs food, you don't sit and watch the man die in order to keep from breaking the Sabbath. Generally, conflicts of this nature only happen with symbolic laws. You wouldn't, for example, ever find yourself in a situation where you had to rape someone in order to keep from having to murder them, or to defraud someone in order to keep from molesting their kids, to give a couple of extreme examples.

2) If you believe homosexuality should be a crime today simply because God destroyed Sodoma and Gomorrah, then you should believe that murder is not a crime. Why? Well, David was a murderer (and an adulterer), but God never destroyed him or his kingdom. On the contrary, God blessed David. Solomon was an adulterer, but never recieved judgement based upon God's strict Mosaic law. Jesus forgave a prostitute on the spot. He also allowed his disciples to 'work' on the Sabbath.

By this logic, nothing should ever be a crime or a sin at all.
I do not believe that homosexuality should be a crime today SIMPLY because God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. That isn't even remotely close to what I said or to the point I was making. I believe that homos should be executed today because God said they should be executed and because that law is a moral law not a symbolic one intended only for Israel. The fact that God destroyed Sodom only stands as proof that the law was not exclusive to Israel. It was not presented as the exclusive reason why we should enforce that law today. You asked for proof that it wasn't a symbolic law and I gave it to you - that was the only intended point in having brought up Sodom.

We know the Mosaic law says homosexuality is a sin and punishable by death, but there were several other laws that had severe consequences as well. The main question in this debate is whether homosexuality should still be a crime or not. You say yes because it was a moral law for everyone, proved by the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. But to that I ask, if murder too was a sin punishable by death in God's law, why weren't many Jews, such as David, destroyed by God's judgement in the same manner as Sodom? Why did Jesus not execute God's wrath on those who disobeyed His laws in His own presence?
I believe it is in grave error to base your opinion on why homosexuality should be a crime on the events that took place in Sodom.

There are many possible reasons Z Man but don't you get that if your point here is a valid one then we shouldn't have murder as a crime or adultery or anything else. You don't even believe that! Even for your own position to be at all coherent you must concede that whatever God's reason were they did not negate the criminal justice system. People were justly put to death for murder after David and adulterers were justly executed after Jesus out smarted the Jews who wanted to pin an unlawful execution (by Roman law) on Jesus. Even the criminal on the cross next to Jesus said that he and the other criminal deserved what they were getting and Jesus didn't argue the point. You simply don't have any grounds upon which to argue that the criminal code was in any way affected by God exercising His absolute right to forgive any sin (including crimes) when and if He sees fit to do so for whatever reason. Trust me, God is not unjust, no one ever has or ever will get away with any sin or any crime. All sins will be justly paid for in one manner or another and God, from whom all power and authority flows has the absolute right to determine when, where and how.

You have to present a better argument, or be able to explain why other laws were not enforced by God in the same manner upon others, even the Jews to whom He gave the law!

Off the top of my head I would say that God chose to do (or not to do in these cases) certain things because they affected things of greater importance than the enforcement of an Earthly statute. But the point is that it flat out doesn't matter why God chose not to have David executed because even by your own admition, the laws against murder should still be on the books! And what's more the whole point, as I've already stated, of my bringing up Sodom in the first place was only to show that the law against homoism was not a law that was exclusive to Israel for symbolic or religious purposes. It was and remains a law that is moral in nature or else it would have been unjust for God to wipe out that city because of their homosexuality.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Yorzhik]

You must spread some rep before giving it to Clete again...

That was a complete answer Clete. Well done.

 

[Z Man]

Nice post Clete.

You were honest and straight-forward, and you took your time to be as clear as you could be. There were some things that I still don't agree with, or understand, but overall I see the reasons for your opinion more clearly.

I apologize in advance for only responding to some of your post. I know you took a great deal of time and effort in responding to mine so thoroughly, but I just want to get to the core and eliminate any bunny trails that may tend to lead our argument astray.

Why should anyone care what you think should or should not be a crime?

And I don't ask that in order to be insulting. It's a real question (although a rhetorical one). The point being that it isn't up to you.

Good question. I never meant to suggest that my opinions on what a crime should or should not be, be enforced. I merely believe that since Christ's sacrifice, the law was wiped out. I never meant to imply that the moral law too was made invalid. Of course its still wrong to kill, rape, steal, lie, and commit fornication (homosexuality being one of them). But since Christ has paid our sins, I think we need a new way apart from the old Jewish tradition, of defining exactly how to go about punishing certain wrongdoings, if they even need to be punished at all. Of course murder should be a crime and punished, but should homosexuality? I see no reason why it should. It's a sin and it's wrong, just like murder, but should homos be executed just like murderers? I don't agree.

All authority comes from God and the Bible couldn't be any clearer about the fact that the government in particular gets its authority from God and God alone (i.e. not from the people).

I'm interested to know what you think about democracy? Our American Revolution was fought to eliminate a government that claimed to have direct authority from God and not the people. After winning the war, the United States set up a government for the people and by the people. Our government recieves its authority from the people.

Unless you were speaking rhetorically. Of course we all know that know one would be in charge or could even breathe if it wasn't for God allowing us to. Is that what you meant, or were you really advocating for an absolute monarchy?

I believe that homos should be executed today because God said they should be executed and because that law is a moral law not a symbolic one intended only for Israel.

Here is the heart of our debate, and the core of why you believe what you do.

I really don't have a rebuttal, and, I don't have the time to post one if I did (I have to go to work now!!!). All I can really say is that if that is what you believe, so be it, but I just don't see that in the Bible. I do not believe there were two distinct type of laws - moral and symbolic. I believe they were all serious, real laws that should be followed. Christ's sacrifice obliviated the law, but of course, not moral standards. We should base crimes on which 'sins' are more damaging or violating of our rights, not based simply on which ones are more 'sinful'.

I gotta go. Sorry I couldn't explain more. Maybe later. God bless.

 

[GuySmiley]

This is a good website with stats about homos and molestation.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/

 

[Clete]

This is a good website with stats about homos and molestation.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/

Thanks for the link GS!

The first thing I found on the site was the pamphlet on Child Molestation and Homosexuality. Here's a link to that specific pamphlet - Child Molestation and Homosexuality

It deals with the facts in a straight forward enough fashion but it makes one critical error that it seems is universal among such articles. It fails to take into consideration the fact that a man can molest a young boy or girl and get essentially the same perverted experience from it either way. What little bit of anatomical differences there are between boys and girls below the age of eight can be pretty easily ignored if one is motivated enough to do so and someone who is interested in such things, it seems to me, might choose a girl over a boy just because he can then comfort himself in the knowledge that at least he's not compounding his perversion of child sex with the perversion of homosexuality. I know that in our minds such a consideration seems ridiculously trivial but we don't have a psychological disorder either.

When you add this consideration in it raises the numbers significantly. What such authors should do is compile the numbers of people who are child molester AND homosexual (or bisexual). Focusing totally on whether or not the molestation event was itself homosexual in nature skews the numbers in a downward direction. I think that it is probably more accurate to say that the 1%-to-3% of adults who practice homosexuality account for between a third and half of all child molestation. That is admittedly a guesstimation but just imagine if all you had to do to drop the molestation rate by one third was to get rid of the homos, why wouldn't you not only agree that homosexuality is harmful but actively advocate its recriminalization?

Further, dropping the molestation rate by a third only accounts for the cases which are directly attributable to homos. The mere fact that we permit them to exist has ramification that indirectly affect the molestation rate as well (including the heterosexual molestation rate). So, in other words, the rate would drop further than one would expect by simply looking at statistics of cases directly caused by the homos themselves.

Further still, if we obeyed God's law and turned off the sexual over stimulation of the American public by recriminalizing adultery and pornography, not only would child molestation go almost completely away but so would teen pregnancy (and therefore abortion), and teen suicide. The divorce rate would plummet, as would the murder rate, the rape rate, drug usage, and all the various violent crime associated with it. The benefits just go on and on and on! All because of the enforcement of a tiny handful of laws which God put in place some 3000 years ago.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

I never meant to suggest that my opinions on what a crime should or should not be, be enforced. I merely believe that since Christ's sacrifice, the law was wiped out. I never meant to imply that the moral law too was made invalid. Of course its still wrong to kill, rape, steal, lie, and commit fornication (homosexuality being one of them). But since Christ has paid our sins, I think we need a new way apart from the old Jewish tradition, of defining exactly how to go about punishing certain wrongdoings, if they even need to be punished at all. Of course murder should be a crime and punished, but should homosexuality? I see no reason why it should. It's a sin and it's wrong, just like murder, but should homos be executed just like murderers? I don't agree.

Well you're giving us nothing to go on here but your own mere opinion. If, as you suggest, we need a new way of defining what the criminal justice system should be then why do you suppose that God failed to put that in the Bible? You agree, do you not, that the government's authority to execute judgment against the criminal comes from God and that God doesn't leave us to read the tea leaves in order to know His will. All things concerning faith and practice are to be solely Biblical. So where do we read of a modified criminal code or the modification of any of the moral laws contained within the Mosaic Law?

I'm interested to know what you think about democracy? Our American Revolution was fought to eliminate a government that claimed to have direct authority from God and not the people. After winning the war, the United States set up a government for the people and by the people. Our government receives its authority from the people.

Unless you were speaking rhetorically. Of course we all know that know one would be in charge or could even breathe if it wasn't for God allowing us to. Is that what you meant, or were you really advocating for an absolute monarchy?

Democracies are expressly unbiblical and ungodly. Mankind is evil and thus any government which pretends to derive its powers from man will be likewise evil. The government that the founders of this nation rebelled against was also evil but for different reasons. There is no "divine right of kings", for example. The Biblical model is a what would be called in today's vernacular a "constitutional monarchy". Such a nation would have a king but his power would be limited by the law which is given by God. In other words, the king would have no power to make laws by fiat but only policies based on laws which have already been laid down by God. Thus there is a king who acts as the supreme judge while the rule of law is preserved.

I think that this might qualify as one of those bunny trails you mentioned though so lets save any further discussion on this topic for another thread.

Here is the heart of our debate, and the core of why you believe what you do.

I really don't have a rebuttal, and, I don't have the time to post one if I did (I have to go to work now!!!). All I can really say is that if that is what you believe, so be it, but I just don't see that in the Bible. I do not believe there were two distinct type of laws - moral and symbolic. I believe they were all serious, real laws that should be followed.

But earlier you seem to acknowledge that there were separate aspects to the law. You said...

"I never meant to suggest that my opinions on what a crime should or should not be, be enforced. I merely believe that since Christ's sacrifice, the law was wiped out. I never meant to imply that the moral law too was made invalid. Of course its still wrong to kill, rape, steal, lie, and commit fornication (homosexuality being one of them). "​

You can't have it both ways. Was there a moral aspect to the law and a religious aspect or was the law one homogenous whole? Let me respond to what you've said in the above statement using the form of your argument against my position and perhaps you'll see the error you're making.

How can you say that it is still wrong to kill, rape, steal, lie, and commit fornication if you aren't willing to also say that it is wrong to work on the Sabbath and eat pig meat? How do you pick and choose which rules your going to follow and which no longer apply?

Do you see that in order for you to answer that question you will have to resort to making the exact same arguments that I have made against your position? All you are doing is failing to take the good and valid reasoning that lead you to the correct conclusion that murder is still wrong to its logical conclusion. You stop yourself short of saying that not only is murder still wrong but that the governments execution of such criminals is still right! And the execution of capital criminals is still the right thing to do for precisely the same reason that murder and rape are still wrong things to do.

Christ's sacrifice obliviated the law, but of course, not moral standards. We should base crimes on which 'sins' are more damaging or violating of our rights, not based simply on which ones are more 'sinful'.

We should base the laws on that unchanged moral standard Z Man! That's what gives the law its power to lead people to Christ. It teaches the society the difference between right and wrong and shows all of mankind that they are evil and are in need of a savior. Any deviation of the law from that moral standard (i.e. the righteous character of God) weakens its ability to perform this vital function.

I gotta go. Sorry I couldn't explain more. Maybe later. God bless.

Take your time. I've noticed that you've not been posting much during the day and I assumed that it was because you actually had to work for a living and so it’s no problem. I'm just excited to have finally had a productive two way conversation with you on something! I've been very much enjoying thinking through this issue with you. I think that our exchange in this thread could stand as an example of how such conversations should be handled by people of good conscience and intellectual honesty. :thumb:

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Lighthouse]

Z Man-
A couple of things:
1] Homos are violating our rights
2] If all the laws were important to be followed, why did the priests work on the Sabbath? Why was circumcision not against the law on the Sabbath?

 

[Z Man]

This is a good website with stats about homos and molestation.

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/

Interesting... :think:

 

[GuySmiley]

Interesting... :think:

This is a sidetrack but worth some thought. Read through some stuff on that website and look through some of Clete's previous threads on homos. I have to admit that when I first came to TOL I had a 'Will & Grace' view of homos. The world wants to protray them as just people like me and you who happen to love someone of the same sex. But if you look into stats and facts about the 'lifestyle' you soon learn that the view of homo's presented to us is really wrong. Its a sick deathstyle that is really dangerous to our society. Anyway its worth some thought.

 

[Z Man]

If, as you suggest, we need a new way of defining what the criminal justice system should be then why do you suppose that God failed to put that in the Bible?

I believe laws should be based upon the foundations of morals, which God did define in the Bible. The question I guess I'm struggling with is which 'wrongs' should be punished and in what way? In my opinion, as I've stressed already in this thread, I believe that deciding upon which 'wrongs' (as the Bible defines what is wrong morally) are crimes should be based on how it violates another person's liberty/rights/security. I don't know where I could find a basis for my opinion in the Bible. It's kind of a mixture of the theology from the New Testament presented in the gospels and Paul's letters.

So where do we read of a modified criminal code or the modification of any of the moral laws contained within the Mosaic Law?

I read it all through out the New Testament! Paul spends a great deal talking about how the law can no longer condemn us - that we are under grace. Grace does not eliminate morals, but it did eliminate the necessity of observing the law.

But earlier you seem to acknowledge that there were separate aspects to the law. You said...

"I never meant to suggest that my opinions on what a crime should or should not be, be enforced. I merely believe that since Christ's sacrifice, the law was wiped out. I never meant to imply that the moral law too was made invalid. Of course its still wrong to kill, rape, steal, lie, and commit fornication (homosexuality being one of them). "​

You can't have it both ways. Was there a moral aspect to the law and a religious aspect or was the law one homogenous whole? Let me respond to what you've said in the above statement using the form of your argument against my position and perhaps you'll see the error you're making.

How can you say that it is still wrong to kill, rape, steal, lie, and commit fornication if you aren't willing to also say that it is wrong to work on the Sabbath and eat pig meat? How do you pick and choose which rules your going to follow and which no longer apply?

I see your point.

Killing, raping, stealing, working on the Sabbath, and eating pork meat were wrong before Christ came. God made known to man what was wrong through the law. But after Christ's sacrifice, the law is no longer valid. Morality still exists - God still expects us to behave - but no longer are we to follow the law in order to behave. We should behave because of what Christ has done.

But we're human, so of course we won't 'behave' all the time. What do we do when someone commits something immoral? What did Christ do?

. . . . .

I think this is a tricky issue because it's so easy to blur the line between spiritual welfare and societal welfare. I think the issue with homosexuality is in both camps. It's wrong morally to be a homosexual, but does that mean it's ok to execute them? I just can't see the evidence supporting that in the Bible. I understand your point of view and why you believe the way you do, but it just seems wrong to me to say 'Kill Homos'. I believe we should have laws that forbide homosexuals to marry and to adopt kids or become foster parents. I believe they should not have any sort of legal recognition in society. But what people do behind their closets is between them and God. I don't expect the government to bust down some habitual liar's door and sentence him to death anymore than I expect them to do that to homosexuals. There is a spiritual aspect to morality that I think mankind has no right to judge, since we are all guilty of not being moral at some point in time.

Back to the liar, I believe someone should be punished if they lie in a way that obstructs law enforcement from obtaining important information (obstructing justice), or if someone lies to better themselves illegally (lying about lotto numbers, employment applications, insurance claims, etc.). But I do not believe that if someone tells their friends or family a fib, or even if they do it continually throughout their life, that they should be executed for it.

In the same manner, it should be illegal, and if violated, a crime, for homosexuals to molest children, or forge a marriage licenses in order to obtain the same legal rights as married couples, or for homosexuals to adopt children, etc. But I do not believe it's ok to execute homosexuals simply because they sin in their bedrooms.

That's what I believe, and I know it's rooted in the Bible, although there are so many aspects to it, it's hard for me to gather it all in my head for one post. I understand homosexuality was a crime punishable by death in the Old Testament, but when I read the New Testament, especially Paul's letters, so many things about the old Mosaic law changed. I read stories about how Jesus ignored violaters of the law and of Paul preaching over and over again that Gentiles did not have to follow the law to become Christians. So something within me tells me that it's wrong to go around saying that homosexuals should be executed simply because they practice homosexuality, when in essence, we all practice sin. Granted, we may not practice the sin of homosexuality, but we all practice some other form of sin.

Thus, we come back to my original question which was if homosexuals should be executed for thier sin, shouldn't we all be executed? If the practice of homosexuality should be labeled a crime, shouldn't other practices of sin be labeled crimes (fibbing to your family/friends, disobeying your parents, gossiping about others, masturbation, looking at women jogging on the street and lusting for them in your mind, taking change from phone booths that is not yours, etc.)?

 

[Z Man]

I have to admit that when I first came to TOL I had a 'Will & Grace' view of homos. The world wants to protray them as just people like me and you who happen to love someone of the same sex.

Well I don't have a 'fluffy' view of them. I think it's wrong and I wouldn't 'ignore' it in society. If I had a friend who was a homosexual, I would do my best to pursuade him/her othewise through the gospel. If that didn't work, I wouldn't continue to hold a relationship with them. I mean, I'd be 'friends' with them still, but not close friends - I'd still do them favors like helping them jumpstart their car, or give them a ride if they need it, or let them borrow some milk, etc, but I wouldn't hang out with them on a regular basis.

I'm against it becoming recognized 'legally', but I'm also against making the act of homosexuality itself a crime punishable by death.

But if you look into stats and facts about the 'lifestyle' you soon learn that the view of homo's presented to us is really wrong. Its a sick deathstyle that is really dangerous to our society. Anyway its worth some thought.

Yeah, it is sickening. But then again, which sin isn't?

 

[GuySmiley]

Yeah, it is sickening. But then again, which sin isn't?

Yes, but what I was hoping you'd see is that even according to your own standard concerning what is and isn't crime, homosexuality should be a crime. It isn't just a sick act between consenting adults, its a sick act that is harmful to society.

 

[Clete]

In post 106 of this thread I posted a link to the following material and I referred to it again several posts later when asked for a source for my belief that homos and child molestation are linked. I decided I wanted to go ahead and actually post the material here directly so that if and when that other thread is ever deleted from the forum the information will still be around for people to read in this thread, which has now been archived. If you haven’t already I encourage you to read it and pick up a copy of the book as well. You can get the paper back version very inexpensively.

59 WAYS TO RUIN A CHILD!

The following is from Christian Child-Rearing and Personality Development by Paul Meier, Donald Ratcliff & Fredrick Rowe pages 28-34.

How to Develop an Alcoholic or Drug Addict
[These are also linked with other psychological problems as well]

1. Give the child everything he or she wants.
2. When the child does wrong, nag but never spank (or only spank when he or she shows signs of independence).
3. Do not allow your husband, wife, or the child’s teachers to punish the child.
4. Encourage the child to be overly dependent on the parent, so drugs or alcohol will replace you when he or she gets older.
5. Make all the decisions for the child; solve all the child’s problems so he or she will always run to you when the going gets tough.
6. Always bail the child out of trouble; never let him or her suffer the consequences of the misbehavior.
7. Criticize the child’s father or mother openly.
8. Dominate your husband or wife; it helps if at least one of you is an alcoholic.
9. Take a lot of prescription drugs, so taking illegal drugs will be easier for your child.

How to Develop a Homosexual
[The above steps 1 through 9 are often found in the family backgrounds of homosexuals as well.]

10. Protect your son very carefully; never let him play football or baseball with other boys, because he might get hurt, and don’t let him ever be a newspaper boy or patrol boy because he might catch pneumonia.
11. Don’t let boys spend much time with their fathers or other adult males. For girls, don’t let them spend time with their mothers. (in addition, youngsters are more likely to become homosexuals when their first sexual experiences are with those of the same sex, either as a child or in adolescence).
12. Teach your son to sow, cook, and knit, and be sure he dislikes traditional male roles. Encourage your daughter to play football and other rough and tumble activities.
13. Be sure your son plays consistently with the neighborhood girls, or sisters and their friends. Never let your daughter play with other girls, but only with brothers and other boys.
14. Give your son a feminine name and tell him what a cute girl he would have been; you might even dress him up in his big sister’s clothes when he is little. Give your daughter a masculine nickname and never encourage her to wear a dress.

How to Develop of Sociopath
(a criminal with no conscience)
[Again, follow the steps for developing an alcoholic, with the following additions or substitutions.]

15. Never spank you child. That’s a thing of the past, and is one of the few things considered to be immoral today.
16. Let your children express themselves any way they want, including temper tantrums and calling you names.
17. Let your child run your life. Allow the child to manipulate you and play on your guilt. Give in to temper tantrums, and never cross the child when he or she is angry.
18. Never enforce the household rules. That way the child will be able to choose which laws of society to break when older, and will not fear any consequences because he or she never suffered any.
19. Never require chores; do all the chores for the child. That way he or she will be irresponsible when older and blame others when things do not go well.
20. Believe or encourage lying. Tell a few lies yourself, and be sure to cheat on your income taxes.
21. Criticize others whenever possible, and never let the child associate with religious people.
22. Give the child a big allowance but don’t ever make the child do anything for it. IF he or she has to work for money, the child may get the idea one has to work for a living. If the child happens to do something worthwhile, always reward it with a lot of money because you would never want him or her to get the idea that responsibility is its own reward.

How to Develop of Histrionic
(someone emotionally unstable, immature, and self-centered, a problem more common among females)
[The nine steps for developing an alcoholic are also associated with this problem, but add the following]

23. Spoil your daughter and let her get own way, especially if she pouts or cries.
24. Marry an immature husband and do not meet his sexual needs; that way he will seek warmth and affection by becoming too close to the daughter.
25. Lie to yourself a lot, so your daughter will learn that habit as well.
26. Always praise your daughter for her appearance, never for her character.
27. When your child runs away, be sure to run after her and apologize for not letting her have her way in the first place.
28. If your child pretends to be sad or fakes a suicide attempt, be sure to show her how guilty you feel for not letting her have her own way.
29. Encourage you daughter to become a movie star, because she is already a very dramatic actress.
30. Get divorced and remarried a number of times so your daughter will learn that all men are good-for-nothing. You might also live with someone you are not married to.
31. Encourage your daughter to wear the seductive clothing you can find. She will naturally do this to please her father, who always praises her appearance rather than character, and with whom she may be sexually involved (note: about one-third of the histrionic females treated by Paul Meier have been sexually abused by their fathers or stepfathers).
32. When your daughter comes home late from a date, scold her for her behavior, then ask her for all the exciting details and enjoy every moment of the telling, by try to hide your obvious enjoyment.
33. Reward your son or daughter whenever the child plays sick; this will help make the child a hypochondriac, which often goes with the histrionic disorder.

How to Develop a Schizophrenic
(a person seriously out of touch with reality)
[The nine steps for developing an alcoholic, again, are a start, with the following exceptions]

34. Tell the child you love him or her, but never hug or show any genuine warmth. Never let the child snuggle, even when a baby. Always be cold and impersonal when you tell the child of your love.
35. Promise the child you will do things with him or her, but always think of excuses not to when the time comes.
36. Follow the policy that husbands should be seen but not heard, and they should be seen only when they have their wives’ permission.

How to Develop a Compulsive Child
(an overly rigid perfectionist)

37. Talk all the time, but don’t be physically active. Never listen to what your child has to say.
38. Expect perfect manners from your child: never tolerate mistakes.
39. Don’t go around other people very much, and be as critical as possible of everyone around you.
40. Be a real snob.
41. The wife should always dominate the husband.
42. Teach your child that morality should always be a way of being considered superior to other or of getting to heaven.
43. Never make any serious commitments to God and be critical of other people’s religious convictions, especially the child’s grandparents.
44. Tell your child the father is the boss, but always be sure that the mother is really the boss.
45. Expect the child to be completely toilet trained by twelve months of age.
46. Be careful with every penny you spend. Save for the future and don’t let the future ever come.
47. Emphasize the letter of the law. Make your rules quote rigid and never allow any exceptions.
48. Shame your child for any interest in sexuality.

How to Develop an Accident-Pone Child

49. Get into lots of serious arguments with your spouse, especially about the child. That way the child will blame himself or herself and react to the feeling of guilt by hurting self in some way.
50. Ignore your child, especially when confidence or good character traits surface. Only notice the child when he or she gets hurt, then overreact with extreme sympathy for every scrape or bruise (because of your guilt for ignoring him or her the rest of the time).
51. Both husband and wife should be gone most of the time. Leave the child in the care of brothers and sisters, or a babysitter who does not care much for the children. Always be too tired and busy to notice the child when you are at home.

How to Develop an Obese or Anorexic (Extremely Underweight) Child

52. Support every aspect of women’s liberation, but often express your frustration at how little is improving for women.
53. Give you children lots of food instead of lots of love.
54. The father should be passive in the home, even if intelligent and financially successful.
55. The mother should be overweight, overprotective, and the boss in the home.
56. The wife should never show respect for the husband.
57. The mother should be dominant and restrictive. There might even be a nearby grandmother who also dominates the household.
58. Marry a husband who was bossed around by his mother and doesn’t like women very much (not even sexually). It also helps if he is obsessed with his work and other activities.
59. Encourage the husband to direct his hostility toward the daughter.

There you have it: 59 ways to ruin a child.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Morpheus]

Clete,
You stated that I have not asked questions of you in order to get a clear picture of your position. Since you never got around to answering these questions, I am reposting them so that you will have the opportunity to clear up any confusion I may have. Answering each question directly would be appreciated.

I asked for specific responses in my last post. You answered them correctly, but failed to see that your answers conflict with your policy. I will restate them.

God did not give the law to all of mankind. He gave it to the Hebrews.

No kidding. Really?

It was instruction for His people as to how to conduct themselves. Please show me where God instructed Israel to impose their law on the nations.

He didn't. I never said He did. But one day Jesus will rule the world from a throne in Israel and guess which laws will be in place around the whole world.

Then show me where God instructed Israel to only apply part of that law on the nations.

He didn't. I never said He did. Do you even know how to read?

Then show me where God instructed Israel as to how to divide that law.

There was no need too. I never said there was. You aren't paying attention because you don't want to know. I will explain nothing further to you. You are on your own.

and then there was this post:

God sure thought disobeying your parents was a crime worthy of death when He had Moses write this...

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 Suppose a man has a stubborn, rebellious son who will not obey his father or mother, even though they discipline him. 19 In such cases, the father and mother must take the son before the leaders of the town. 20 They must declare: 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious and refuses to obey. He is a worthless drunkard.' 21 Then all the men of the town must stone him to death. In this way, you will cleanse this evil from among you, and all Israel will hear about it and be afraid.

So why do you say homosexuality is a crime, but disobeying your parents isn't? You can't just pick and choose what suits your interest best.

The simple answer to your question is that part of the Mosaic Law had to do with morality and part of it was symbolic and/or religious. The latter having to do primarily with two things. Symbolizing Christ and separating Israel from the whole rest of the world.
Now that's an extremely simplified answer but that is essentially why some laws would apply and others wouldn't.
The law concerning children being put to death for dishonoring their parents is a difficult one but I believe that it was one of those that did in fact apply only to the nation of Israel. I admit that such a position is debatable and if you insist that it should be the law then so be it, I won't argue the point. But the law against homosexuality cannot possibly be one of those laws which God intended only for the nation of Israel because He destroyed whole city/states of gentiles for having committed the crime. The law against being a homo is moral in nature not symbolic or religious.
One important test to determine which laws are symbolic and which are not is to determine whether or not the law in question can conflict with another law. For example, you were to circumcise your male children on the eighth day but were not permitted to perform any work of the flesh on any Sabbath. If the eighth day of a child's life fell on Saturday then there would be a conflict; you would have to break one law in order to follow the other. Generally speaking such conflicts cannot happen with moral laws. One will never have to rape someone in order to keep from murdering them, for example.

This post appears to give your description of how some of Mosaic law was for the nations, and gives your description of how to divide that law. Yet in response to my post you agreed that God did not give the law to all of mankind, He didn't instruct that the law, nor any part of it, should be imposed on the nations nor did God ever give instructions on dividing His law. There is an apparent conflict. (note: question 1) Could you please clarify your position and explain how these statements are not inconsistent?
Oh, I forgot to include this:

Love and hate are not mutually exclusive. The most loving thing to do to a homo is to convict him of his crime and execute him swiftly.

as compared to:

Galatians 5
19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

(note: question 2) So can guide me to the scripture that shows that love and hate are in any way compatible?

Restated for ease of replying:

Could you please clarify your position and explain how these statements are not inconsistent?

So can guide me to the scripture that shows that love and hate are in any way compatible?

 

[Morpheus]

In post 106 of this thread I posted a link to the following material and I referred to it again several posts later when asked for a source for my belief that homos and child molestation are linked. I decided I wanted to go ahead and actually post the material here directly so that if and when that other thread is ever deleted from the forum the information will still be around for people to read in this thread, which has now been archived. If you haven’t already I encourage you to read it and pick up a copy of the book as well. You can get the paper back version very inexpensively.

59 WAYS TO RUIN A CHILD!

The following is from Christian Child-Rearing and Personality Development by Paul Meier, Donald Ratcliff & Fredrick Rowe pages 28-34.

How to Develop an Alcoholic or Drug Addict
[These are also linked with other psychological problems as well]

1. Give the child everything he or she wants.
2. When the child does wrong, nag but never spank (or only spank when he or she shows signs of independence).
3. Do not allow your husband, wife, or the child’s teachers to punish the child.
4. Encourage the child to be overly dependent on the parent, so drugs or alcohol will replace you when he or she gets older.
5. Make all the decisions for the child; solve all the child’s problems so he or she will always run to you when the going gets tough.
6. Always bail the child out of trouble; never let him or her suffer the consequences of the misbehavior.
7. Criticize the child’s father or mother openly.
8. Dominate your husband or wife; it helps if at least one of you is an alcoholic.
9. Take a lot of prescription drugs, so taking illegal drugs will be easier for your child.

How to Develop a Homosexual
[The above steps 1 through 9 are often found in the family backgrounds of homosexuals as well.]

10. Protect your son very carefully; never let him play football or baseball with other boys, because he might get hurt, and don’t let him ever be a newspaper boy or patrol boy because he might catch pneumonia.
11. Don’t let boys spend much time with their fathers or other adult males. For girls, don’t let them spend time with their mothers. (in addition, youngsters are more likely to become homosexuals when their first sexual experiences are with those of the same sex, either as a child or in adolescence).
12. Teach your son to sow, cook, and knit, and be sure he dislikes traditional male roles. Encourage your daughter to play football and other rough and tumble activities.
13. Be sure your son plays consistently with the neighborhood girls, or sisters and their friends. Never let your daughter play with other girls, but only with brothers and other boys.
14. Give your son a feminine name and tell him what a cute girl he would have been; you might even dress him up in his big sister’s clothes when he is little. Give your daughter a masculine nickname and never encourage her to wear a dress.

How to Develop of Sociopath
(a criminal with no conscience)
[Again, follow the steps for developing an alcoholic, with the following additions or substitutions.]

15. Never spank you child. That’s a thing of the past, and is one of the few things considered to be immoral today.
16. Let your children express themselves any way they want, including temper tantrums and calling you names.
17. Let your child run your life. Allow the child to manipulate you and play on your guilt. Give in to temper tantrums, and never cross the child when he or she is angry.
18. Never enforce the household rules. That way the child will be able to choose which laws of society to break when older, and will not fear any consequences because he or she never suffered any.
19. Never require chores; do all the chores for the child. That way he or she will be irresponsible when older and blame others when things do not go well.
20. Believe or encourage lying. Tell a few lies yourself, and be sure to cheat on your income taxes.
21. Criticize others whenever possible, and never let the child associate with religious people.
22. Give the child a big allowance but don’t ever make the child do anything for it. IF he or she has to work for money, the child may get the idea one has to work for a living. If the child happens to do something worthwhile, always reward it with a lot of money because you would never want him or her to get the idea that responsibility is its own reward.

How to Develop of Histrionic
(someone emotionally unstable, immature, and self-centered, a problem more common among females)
[The nine steps for developing an alcoholic are also associated with this problem, but add the following]

23. Spoil your daughter and let her get own way, especially if she pouts or cries.
24. Marry an immature husband and do not meet his sexual needs; that way he will seek warmth and affection by becoming too close to the daughter.
25. Lie to yourself a lot, so your daughter will learn that habit as well.
26. Always praise your daughter for her appearance, never for her character.
27. When your child runs away, be sure to run after her and apologize for not letting her have her way in the first place.
28. If your child pretends to be sad or fakes a suicide attempt, be sure to show her how guilty you feel for not letting her have her own way.
29. Encourage you daughter to become a movie star, because she is already a very dramatic actress.
30. Get divorced and remarried a number of times so your daughter will learn that all men are good-for-nothing. You might also live with someone you are not married to.
31. Encourage your daughter to wear the seductive clothing you can find. She will naturally do this to please her father, who always praises her appearance rather than character, and with whom she may be sexually involved (note: about one-third of the histrionic females treated by Paul Meier have been sexually abused by their fathers or stepfathers).
32. When your daughter comes home late from a date, scold her for her behavior, then ask her for all the exciting details and enjoy every moment of the telling, by try to hide your obvious enjoyment.
33. Reward your son or daughter whenever the child plays sick; this will help make the child a hypochondriac, which often goes with the histrionic disorder.

How to Develop a Schizophrenic
(a person seriously out of touch with reality)
[The nine steps for developing an alcoholic, again, are a start, with the following exceptions]

34. Tell the child you love him or her, but never hug or show any genuine warmth. Never let the child snuggle, even when a baby. Always be cold and impersonal when you tell the child of your love.
35. Promise the child you will do things with him or her, but always think of excuses not to when the time comes.
36. Follow the policy that husbands should be seen but not heard, and they should be seen only when they have their wives’ permission.

How to Develop a Compulsive Child
(an overly rigid perfectionist)

37. Talk all the time, but don’t be physically active. Never listen to what your child has to say.
38. Expect perfect manners from your child: never tolerate mistakes.
39. Don’t go around other people very much, and be as critical as possible of everyone around you.
40. Be a real snob.
41. The wife should always dominate the husband.
42. Teach your child that morality should always be a way of being considered superior to other or of getting to heaven.
43. Never make any serious commitments to God and be critical of other people’s religious convictions, especially the child’s grandparents.
44. Tell your child the father is the boss, but always be sure that the mother is really the boss.
45. Expect the child to be completely toilet trained by twelve months of age.
46. Be careful with every penny you spend. Save for the future and don’t let the future ever come.
47. Emphasize the letter of the law. Make your rules quote rigid and never allow any exceptions.
48. Shame your child for any interest in sexuality.

How to Develop an Accident-Pone Child

49. Get into lots of serious arguments with your spouse, especially about the child. That way the child will blame himself or herself and react to the feeling of guilt by hurting self in some way.
50. Ignore your child, especially when confidence or good character traits surface. Only notice the child when he or she gets hurt, then overreact with extreme sympathy for every scrape or bruise (because of your guilt for ignoring him or her the rest of the time).
51. Both husband and wife should be gone most of the time. Leave the child in the care of brothers and sisters, or a babysitter who does not care much for the children. Always be too tired and busy to notice the child when you are at home.

How to Develop an Obese or Anorexic (Extremely Underweight) Child

52. Support every aspect of women’s liberation, but often express your frustration at how little is improving for women.
53. Give you children lots of food instead of lots of love.
54. The father should be passive in the home, even if intelligent and financially successful.
55. The mother should be overweight, overprotective, and the boss in the home.
56. The wife should never show respect for the husband.
57. The mother should be dominant and restrictive. There might even be a nearby grandmother who also dominates the household.
58. Marry a husband who was bossed around by his mother and doesn’t like women very much (not even sexually). It also helps if he is obsessed with his work and other activities.
59. Encourage the husband to direct his hostility toward the daughter.

There you have it: 59 ways to ruin a child.

Resting in Him,
Clete

As I thought, the authors have no mental health credentials. I will not spend the time debunking each error, but will point out specifically that nobody can "develop" a schizophrenic. Schizophrenia is a hereditary physiological condition that will present irregardless what environmental factors are present. In other words, schizophrenics are born, not made.

I would suggest that if anyone feels the need to study about mental health that they at least look for a book authored by someone degreed in one of the three mental health professions psychiatry, psychology or clinical social work. In each case a good indicator is the abbreviation for their degrees behind their names. Even with that, not every "expert" is reliable. For example, B.F. Skinner, in all his research into his theory of "operant conditioning", a variant of behaviorism, excluded any possibility of physiology or genetics affecting the outcome. He rejected physiology and genetics as inconsequential. His environment-only approach was essentially false (although some of the research is useful), yet many still hail him as a genius and teach his theory as fact.

The untrained authors of the referred book have taken the simplest foundation of Skinners tainted work and used it to manufacture their own set of criteria for mental disorders. Some people develop a theory based on biases and procede to select only material that support their biased theory in order to build a huge tower of cards on sand, while others look at the entire collection of material and struggle to see how those pieces best fit together to make a complete picture. Long ago I ceased to be surprised at the devices of those in the former group. I am still amazed at how many, because of their own biases, choose to believe them.

 

[Clete]

Morpheus,

I was seriously considering responding to the "questions" you reposted until I read the following line...

As I thought, the authors have no mental health credentials.

Dr. Paul D. Meier M.D. holds an M.D. degree from the University of Arkansas College of Medicine and completed his psychiatric residency at Duke University. He is the vice president Minirth-Meier Psychiatric Clinic in Rishardson Texas (Or was at the time of this printing of "Christian Child-Rearing"). And the Minirth-Meier New Life Clinics are found all over the country. He is rather Freudian in his interpretations of sociologic and psychological science but to say that he has no psychological credentials is simply a lie. There is no way you could have said such a thing and not known you were just making it up.

After reading that idiotic line, I was reassured once again that you are as intellectually dishonesst as they come. You aren't interested in learning anything or even in honest debate. And until that condition changes I will not waste any more of my time attempting to establish or clarify anything for you. You'll simply have to live with your ignorance or else find the information elsewhere.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Z Man]

[H]omosexuality should be a crime [because] it isn't just a sick act between consenting adults, its a sick act that is harmful to society.

I don't agree. Driving cars are harmful to society (exhaust, accidents, people getting run over, destroying the environment to look for fuel, etc.), but it's not a crime.

Homosexuality is not harmful to me or my life. The act itself should not be a crime. It should be a crime if it does harm society in the way of child molestation, or rape, or gay couples lying to be recognized legally in order to receive certain rights and benefits, etc. But the act itself of two gay people having sex in their bedroom does not affect me or society as a whole. It should not be a crime.

 

[Clete]

I don't agree. Driving cars are harmful to society (exhaust, accidents, people getting run over, destroying the environment to look for fuel, etc.), but it's not a crime.

Homosexuality is not harmful to me or my life. The act itself should not be a crime. It should be a crime if it does harm society in the way of child molestation, or rape, or gay couples lying to be recognized legally in order to receive certain rights and benefits, etc. But the act itself of two gay people having sex in their bedroom does not affect me or society as a whole. It should not be a crime.

If it should not be a crime now then it should never have been a crime at all.

I have a whole post waiting to be posted that I wrote over the whole day today while I was working. I ended up leaving before I was entirely finished and forgot all about it until it was too late. Hopefully the computer hasn't froze up or done some other wacky thing that our Windows 98 machine is prone to doing and thereby detroyed the post. If it is still intact when I get there in the morning, I'll post it first thing.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Well, sure enough, Windows 98 strikes again. The post that I had typed up yesterday is gone forever. There's no way I'm going to have time to retype it today so I'm not even going to try. That really sucks too because I think it was a pretty good one but oh well, I guess it must have been predestined!

What I'll do instead is try to make the same point without directly responding to what was said in the post itself. Here goes...

Z Man, you have agreed, have you not, that morality has not changed with the coming of the Gospel of Grace.

You've also agreed that morality is defined for us in Scripture.

You have further agreed that homosexuality is immoral just as it always has been - presumably because the Bible says so.

Here's the main point I want to make.

If declaring an act a sin or a crime, whichever the case may be, is based on morality then the action commanded in response to that sin or crime is likewise moral in nature. That is to say that if homosexuality is immoral then not executing them is likewise immoral because the same God who declared homosexuality to be an abomination is the same God who commanded that the homo be executed.

You are trying to have it both ways though. You want to say that homosexuality is immoral but that the punishment for that sin should, for whatever reason, not be what it used to be. But if the act is moral in nature so is the punishment and if morality does not change then both the crime and the punishment should remain intact. Biblically the crime and the punishment are a package deal. You have no grounds upon which to declare one moral and the other not.

Resting in Him,
Clete