You can't legislate morality

Just when I thought Daniel David couldn't amaze me he goes and compares the South to a woman who was murdered by her husband.

Was that supposed to be amusing?

 

NetPublicist, as you and everyone is well aware, DD is not known for tactfulness in defending his misguided political beliefs.

 

The idea is neither atheistic nor Darwinian, and it's older than the 20th century, and older than Darwin. In fact, Darwin once expressed amazement that anyone could imagine his theory was about such things.</font>[/QUOTE]In this nation it was around the turn of the century with men like Oliver Wendell Holmes, and what Darwin's intent was is irrelevant to the actual impact of his thinking on law and education.

But let me ask you a question. Regardless of the effectiveness of the legislation, SHOULD prostitution be legal or illegal?

 

What exactly do YOU mean when you say that morality cannot be legislated?

 

Morality is first an issue of the heart. The human heart is evil and will not be ruled. In fact, it can't be (Romans 8).

If we all just want a pleasant society to live in, then we really need a Mosaic law type structure. You know, death for all kinds of reasons, not just serial killers.

We as Christians though should not seek the better of society at the expense of the gospel. Since the convicting agent since the assension of Christ is the Spirit and not the law, we should stop trying to reimpose the law where God has done away with it (don't read anything into that, I am not antinomian, I just promote Christ's law which is exclusively for believers).

 

Should there be a law stealing? Why or why not?

 

The individual first, and the Church second, needs to deal with the heart before God.

The civil government needs to deal with actions.

That's the heart of "separation of Church and state".

 

I meant to ask, should there be a law against stealing?

 

The idea is neither atheistic nor Darwinian, and it's older than the 20th century, and older than Darwin. In fact, Darwin once expressed amazement that anyone could imagine his theory was about such things.</font>[/QUOTE]In this nation it was around the turn of the century with men like Oliver Wendell Holmes, and what Darwin's intent was is irrelevant to the actual impact of his thinking on law and education.

But let me ask you a question. Regardless of the effectiveness of the legislation, SHOULD prostitution be legal or illegal?</font>[/QUOTE]Galatian's delimma is much like that of Pharisees who tempted Christ. If he would say it should be illegal, he capitulates to my side. If he would say it should be legal he betrays his worldly mindset.

So his reply? Silence.

 

DD's definition of morality is much more strict than that of anyone else. When he says one cannot legislate morality what he means is that legislation cannot change a man's heart. In his mind even "moral" actions are immoral if a man's heart is unclean.

That, however, is not what anyone else means. All men, saved or unsaved, are capable of moral actions. Worldly Wise Man dwelt in the town of Morality, but he was not on Pilgrimage.

But DD is mistaken if he thinks that the Gospel has no place in civil government. If Romans 13 and 1 Pet. 2:14 are not the commands of Christ, then they are not Scripture.

 

Aaron, you are right that I am looking at this from a Christian perspective. It is a danger to convince people they are doing good and right things in life when preachers are saying just the opposite about the heart of man.

You could say that people have the ability to act in accordance with God's revealed will on the outside. This however was no different than the pharisees. Christ's rebukes to them was that they are burdening others, sepulchers, vipers, etc.

Our concern as Christians is the priority of the gospel.

Besides, I can make a dandy case for exclusion from government. The anabaptists and brethren did the best work in the early post-reformation days articulating an actual separation of church and state.