'Gay Celibacy' is as meaningful as 'Inactive Mass Murderer'

[Wesley]

Re: 'Gay Celibacy' is as meaningful as 'Inactive Mass Murder

I firmly believe the government (inclusive) goes to far and butts in to too many places, but I also firmly believe we do in fact need them.

According to the prophet Samuel, God agrees with you about kings butting in where they don't belong.

1 Samuel 8:6-18 NIV
6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

According to the Apostles Paul and Peter, God agrees with you that they are necessary too. (Romans 13:1-4 and 1 Peter 2:13-17)

 

[ylop]

Re: 'Gay Celibacy' is as meaningful as 'Inactive Mass Murder

Its bad enough when a person following the instructions of a "government" steals or kills.

Its even worse when they believe somehow they are following God's will.

 

[FollowingHim]

Re: 'Gay Celibacy' is as meaningful as 'Inactive Mass Murder

Wesley, my concern stemmed from your comment, in response to ylop:

then it obviously is not a sin, at least as I see it, for a government to kill people, even innocent people.

Which I found very concerning. Hence the tangent.

Ylop, even before the kingship was established in Israel they had laws, and judges to interpret and enforce the laws. Israel had a theocratic government structure, they were not ungoverned. I cannot agree that all government is wrong, some government is needed to prevent complete anarchy. But I believe the role of that government should be extremely limited, to simply enforcing the basic laws about inter-personal conduct (yes Wesley, probably a lot more limited than even the Tea Party would think it should be).

 

[ylop]

Re: 'Gay Celibacy' is as meaningful as 'Inactive Mass Murder

Is an individual allowed to leave this extremely limited government?

 

[FollowingHim]

Re: 'Gay Celibacy' is as meaningful as 'Inactive Mass Murder

Yes, they should be able to. That was the "democracy" of feudalism - if all your subjects ran away you had no food and no defence, so had to keep them happy. That is also the evil of modern border controls, you can't escape even if you want to.

 

[ylop]

Re: 'Gay Celibacy' is as meaningful as 'Inactive Mass Murder

Cool, that is extremely limited government!

One might even call it voluntary association

 

[Wesley]

Re: 'Gay Celibacy' is as meaningful as 'Inactive Mass Murder

Wesley, my concern stemmed from your comment, in response to ylop:

then it obviously is not a sin, at least as I see it, for a government to kill people, even innocent people.

Which I found very concerning. Hence the tangent.

I did leave out the words in some cases. That's true.

Before we paint with a broad brush on who has committed the sin when an innocent person is executed let's look at the relevant scripture and realities. We'll take the crucifixion of Christ as our example of an innocent being executed.

Hebrews 10:28 NIV
Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.

So it only takes two or three witnesses to justify an execution.

Matthew 27:20-23 NIV
20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed.

21 “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor.

“Barabbas,” they answered.

22 “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked.

They all answered, “Crucify him!”

23 “Why? What crime has he committed?” asked Pilate.

But they shouted all the louder, “Crucify him!”

Pontius Pilate had a lot more than just two witnesses there shouting that Christ had done something worth being executed for. A sin was committed, the most innocent man who ever lived was executed, but whose sin was it. Pilate's? Or the crowd's?

Deuteronomy 19:18-19
18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite, 19 then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party. You must purge the evil from among you.

This makes it look, at least to me, it is the crowd's sin not Pilate's. That would fulfill the requirements of the sin offering described in the Old Testament, an innocent priest offering a sacrifice for a guilty crowd.

That is where my statement about "Stupid voters make for stupider politicians" comes from.

But I believe the role of that government should be extremely limited, to simply enforcing the basic laws about inter-personal conduct (yes Wesley, probably a lot more limited than even the Tea Party would think it should be).

Given the realities of the Tea Party I doubt that either you or the Bible would want the government more limited than we do. I've heard some things in Tea Party circles that hark back to the dysfunctional Articles of Confederation that the Constitution replaced because they didn't provide for enough government.