BY THIS STANDARD-Greg L. Bahnsen

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by CalledOut238

This form literal legalism is painfully incorrect and is nothing more than modern day Judaizers. This literal interpretation is when one uses English denotation in place of Greek connotation to create their doctrinal construct. When examining the usage of fulfill and fulfilled in these two verses; Christ is not referring to progression, rather He is proclaiming the law coming to a completion. To believe that Christ did not fulfill the law on the cross is blasphemy.

Christ did fulfill the law on the cross, his shed blood means there is no more need for the sacrifice of bulls and goats. Christ shed his blood for the remission of sins. He gave us the Holy Ghost and wrote the law on our hearts, without the Holy Ghost it is impossible to obey the commandments of God.

But, the ethics of the bible are still the same whether OT or NT, Idolatry, adultery, murder, homosexuality, covetousness, etc are all still sin, what the OT gives us is case law and judicial law for practical applications for federal, state and local government rather than using the humanistic philosophies of men.

We still live in a world where there is a need for judicial and legislative government like it or not, and it might as well be patterned according to God's law.

God's law would not be legalizing abortion and gay marriage. God's law would do away with our worthless penal system and institute restitution and capital punishment.

[Amanah]

this should be a capital offense:

Rapi Ananda Pamungkas, a 2-year-old boy in Indonesia, became the target of controversy on social media after video of him puffing away was posted online.
His mother, Maryati, said he pitches a fit if he isn't allowed to light up, telling Caters News Agency she would relent and buy him smokes to keep him from throwing a tantrum.

Health official recently visited the woman and told her she must get her son to stop cold turkey.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/med...cid=spartandhp

[Amanah]

Religious leaders who commit or cover up sexual abuse also need to die:

In a remarkable and scathing recrimination, the Vatican’s former ambassador to Washington accused Pope Francis and his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI on Sunday of knowingly hiding sexual abuse allegations involving a now-disgraced American cardinal, further convulsing a church in crisis.

The former envoy’s 11-page broadside rocked the Roman Catholic world as Francis finished a two-day visit to Ireland, where he faced demonstrations and begged forgiveness in the once-fervently Catholic country for the “scandal and betrayal” done by decades of clerical sex abuse, and an elaborate cover-up by church authorities.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-fg-...826-story.html

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Generally it is my understanding that a convicted felon cannot legally vote or own a gun or be in possession of a gun. I believe that is the case in general. After a certain length of time AFTER getting off of probation, it is possible in some cases to have your rights restored, or so I have heard, you know from a “friend” who is more knowledgeable of such matters than I am. I’m sure this may vary from place to place and under different circumstances.

I looked a couple things up on it. Looks like it might differ state by state.

Personally, I believe felons should be able to vote after paying their debt to society.

As far as owning a firearm. That's tricky in my mind. Because if it were a violent crime, I can understand prohibiting them from owning a firearm. But then a little voice in my head asks, "If they've done their time, have they no right to defend themselves?" And, "If they still pay taxes, and are citizens, don't they still have a Constitutional right to own a firearm?" If considered from this point of view, it almost sounds un-Constitutional.

I'm not outraged or protesting. I certainly don't know the details of the issue. I'm just pondering.

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I looked a couple things up on it. Looks like it might differ state by state.

Personally, I believe felons should be able to vote after paying their debt to society.

As far as owning a firearm. That's tricky in my mind. Because if it were a violent crime, I can understand prohibiting them from owning a firearm. But then a little voice in my head asks, "If they've done their time, have they no right to defend themselves?" And, "If they still pay taxes, and are citizens, don't they still have a Constitutional right to own a firearm?" If considered from this point of view, it almost sounds un-Constitutional.

I'm not outraged or protesting. I certainly don't know the details of the issue. I'm just pondering.

some state laws differ concerning felons in possession of firearms. I thing its ok to take some rights away from law breakers.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Christ did fulfill the law on the cross, his shed blood means there is no more need for the sacrifice of bulls and goats. Christ shed his blood for the remission of sins. He gave us the Holy Ghost and wrote the law on our hearts, without the Holy Ghost it is impossible to obey the commandments of God.

There are many Christian perspectives and a great number of them are "legalistic", meaning that they focus on keeping specific laws. What I've found time and time again is that if you discuss what laws the legalists keep, they all have different laws or standards that they say are essential. For example, many abide by the dietary standards of the Law while others do not. Some will observe the Sabbath while others do not. And even among those wo observe the Sabbath, a great number of them observe it differently with respect to what Sabbath laws they consider to be essential today. Then of course we have the ol' "church standards" that differ from church to church, pastor to pastor, organization to organization. And each church, pastor, and organization can have a different position on what standards are essential for salvation and which are not.

It's total chaos. lol

I've pondered this and prayed about it many times and the Lord impressed upon me that the reason why all these people striving to obey the Law have different sets of laws or standards is because... it's all based on a human opinion. It's all based on a subjective human interpretation of the Law. And so they are all drifting in different directions on the sea of human opinion squabbling over which laws and standards are essential and which are not. Then God showed me something that revolutionized my walk. He showed me the following texts. In the first, an expert on the Law approaches Jesus and asks him which law is the greatest commandment. Jesus' answer is profound:

Matthew 22:36-40 English Standard Version (ESV)
36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Christ's answer to the lawyer was that the greatest commandment was to love God with all one's being. But Jesus states a second commandment is like it, meaning of equal importance, having the same essence, and intrinsically connected. This second law was to love others as one's self. Jesus then goes on to explain that these two laws embody the very spirit and intention of the entire Torah and the prophets.

Paul also comments on this kind of thing. In Romans 13:8-10, Paul wrote to the Christians in Rome saying:

Romans 13:8-10 English Standard Version (ESV)
8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Here Paul explains that the entire OT Law, regardless of any commandment or list of commandments anyone can name, is fulfilled in simply loving one's neighbor. Frankly, from a stand point of practice, one doesn't even have to read the OT... if they love others.

They say that when taking a class in college, if something is important and will be on the exam, the professor will at least mention it twice. Well, Paul mentions this again in Galatians. In Galatians Paul is addressing a group of believers who were seeking to strictly obey the OT law, even to the point of requiring Gentile believers to be circumcised. Theologians call these folk "Judaizers". However, they wouldn't have seen themselves that way. They would have saw themselves as seeking to be obedient. They would have argued that if God wrote His law on the heart, one would want to obey it. Logical, right? Well... Paul took issue with them. Paul explained that if one seeks to be justified in God's sight by keeping the Law they are fallen from grace. Paul also explains to them what he explained to the Christians in Rome:

Galatians 5:14 English Standard Version (ESV)
14 For the whole law is fulfilled in one word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Again, we read that the "whole law" is fulfilled in simply loving others as yourself. Here's a secret. God is love. Therefore, when we are the most loving, that is when we are most like Him. And so, our holiness only extends as far as our love for our fellow man.

Paul rebuked the Galatians for even thinking that Gentiles should be circumcised. I couldn't imagine what Paul would say if someone argued that Christians should advocate for an entire government predicated on the Law. We are a spiritual kingdom. We permeate all the nations on earth. Those nations have various kinds of governments, cultural mores, styles fashions, approaches to social issues, etc. We are to be salt and light. Christians should strive to make every nation they live in better. How? By teaching them to love. You see, teaching them to obey the Law of God is a distraction. The world needs love. Love would radically transform the world. Laws and statutes of the nations would be predicated upon love and care for their fellow man. Yes... even those pesky sinners. The kind of love mentioned by Jesus and Paul is the kind of love that loves others as one's self. It is a love that calls us to put ourselves in another's shoes. Love that calls us to consider the fears, concerns, problems, struggles, and experiences of other people. A love that calls us to do this and then... have mercy. I don't agree with every choice people make. Some people marry and divorce over and over. Some people are gay. Some people choose open marriages. Some people choose many things I believe are bad for them, and that endanger the soul, based on my understanding of Scripture. But... I'm required to love them. And to not only love them, but to love them as myself. I would want to be free. Without fear of coercion or harassment. And so, I believe human liberty is the highest ethic. The most noble standard with regards to a society. Liberty ensures that not only they are not coerced or harassed by government, but that I too will be free from being harassed and coerced by government. And with the coercive powers of government out of the picture... open conversation can take place. The Gospel can be shared freely. And those souls who are not saved can freely choose to accept and obey... or choose not to. And... that's okay. God is a God who allows us the freedom to choose, while also warning us of the eternal consequences. One is free to live as they wish... but they are not free from the consequences of their lifestyle. And those consequences are built in by design. Promiscuity (homosexual or heterosexual) will bring disease, emotional emptiness, and an unfulfilled life. And in the end... one will find themselves in a Hell of their own choosing. They don't need me running around throwing stones at them. I'm here loving them, just sharing my Jesus every chance I get. And loving them again, whether they accept my Jesus or not. Think of it like this, the law is summed up by just being friendly and kind to others. Treating them as you would want to be treated.

Government is a necessary evil. And it's power to cause suffering, oppression, death, and pain is demonstrated down through the ages in every generation. I fear the government's ability to deny liberty more than I do gays, prochoice women, or any other group of sinners. Gays can be converted through sharing the Gospel or not. They generally aren't going to harm you. The Government will. And some who are of evil intention have found out something... they can try to use the Government to harm and harass Christians. The sad thing here is... Christians respond in kind. They turn and try to use the Government to harm and harass gay people. The problem is the Government's power to harm. Because on the sidelines are millions of Christians and gay people, liberals, feminists, conservatives, etc. just staring wide eyed, blinking, wondering when both sides will quit trying to empower the government and use that power to harm others they don't agree with.

And so, to me... Christian Reconstructionism seems like not only something that takes Law way out of context... but it appears to be... a "reaction"... a reaction that desires Government power... even the power to harm... not a loving vision of a Christianity that is here to serve and minister to a sinful and hurting world.

The answer is love. It's always love. The answer to the abortion problem, the gay issue, racism, violence, drug abuse, domestic violence, war, the sex trade, you name it is... love. Love asks women considering abortion "Why?" Love then seeks to address those issues and heal her soul, encouraging her to choose life. It doesn't slander her, call her names, condemn her, and seek to lock her up. It seeks to serve and heal. We could have the most liberal abortion laws in the world... and if we served the needs and concerns of women... the abortion rate would evaporate. And it would take no long, expensive, argumentative, and nearly impossible Constitutional amendment to do it. Just love. Love is the answer. Not law. Frankly, we have too many laws as it is... and none of them have fixed a thing.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

But, the ethics of the bible are still the same whether OT or NT, Idolatry, adultery, murder, homosexuality, covetousness, etc are all still sin, what the OT gives us is case law and judicial law for practical applications for federal, state and local government rather than using the humanistic philosophies of men.

Reconstructionism is also humanistic philosophy. It relies on the human agency of government to produce a theoretically righteous state. It is a theology born from the minds of men, many of which you've quoted, their books you've noted. Just because it is "religious" in nature doesn't mean it isn't humanistic. Reconstructionism cannot produce a loving and peaceful society. The first time you see someone you love stoned to death, or burned to death, because they questioned their sexuality and committed a homosexual act, or were discovered having kept it a secret for fear of death itself... I think you'll realize just how... misapplied... the law is in Reconstructionism. There personal sin is nothing compared to the greater sin of genocidal inquisition.

My first wife was from a Jewish family. I got to talk to rabbis several times a year when we had get togethers, deaths, and births in the family. A rabbi Press and I had a great talk about the OT law. I asked him his take on, Leviticus 19:17-18. It reads...

Leviticus 19:17-18 English Standard Version (ESV)
17 “You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. 18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

I asked him how does he reconcile the notion of loving others as one's self with all the laws that require that sinners be stoned to death. He closed his eyes and smiled. He said, "Chris, let me let you in on a rabbical secret. The Law cuts both ways. While yes, it condemns the sin of the sinner, it also judges the heart of the law keeper. The one who rejoices to pick up stones, will also be condemned, because they are just as guilty as the accused. They were just not found out." This shocked me. Here was a rabbi who basically sounded just like Jesus on the issue. Remember when Jesus was put into the position of casting a judgment based on the Law? Here's how He dealt with the issue...

John 8:1-11 (ESV)
1 Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

Let's be real honest here. And let's allow what I'm about to say to sink in. We've all committed sins that leave us worthy of a death sentence. Every last one of us. Even those advocating for a Reconstructionist government have committed sins that such a government would have prosecuted and perhaps would have even imposed execution. And yet here they are, pushing for such a government, even claiming that they are worthy enough to govern in such a government. Does that not sound rather, hypocritical? Are they going to write their books and then, execute themselves? No. But that would be taking the first step in practicing what they preach. And so, I believe, the judgment of God hangs above them. It makes no sense. Imagine the wide spread effort to hide secret sins throughout society, as people tremble fearing for their lives for having some affair, or for being gay. Imagine the weaponized politics of eliminating one's political rivals by exposing some sin worthy of capital punishment. Men like that want power. And it's always the same, if they attain it, they will turn on one another and use the power of such a government to execute their enemies. Sister, that's a tyranny that has been played out time and time again in innumerable contexts throughout history. It isn't going to change tomorrow. We're all still fallen, still unregenerated, still in flesh that has sinful proclivities and inclinations. Such a government could only be righteous if Jesus Himself were physically present and ruling such a government.

And so we return to loving one's neighbor as one's self. Do I desire liberty of conscience? Do I desire the right to privacy? Do I desire the right to marry whomever I choose? Do I want the right to life a lifestyle of my choosing (Christian)? Then, if I love my neighbor as myself... I'll want them to have the very same rights and protections. This is why human liberty is holy in and of itself, regardless of what men do with such liberty. This is what our Founding Fathers fought for and defended with their dying breath. This is what made America the envy of the entire world. And only in such a society can Christianity flourish and conversion be genuine. Christian Reconstructionism would produce a Hell on earth. The fires and stoning pits in operation day and night. Screams throughout the city streets late at night as someone is drug from their home because evidence was found that they had committed some capital sin. It twists the Word of God and the love of God into a tyranny surpassing even Hitler's Germany. It takes us backwards into the darkened days of spiritual shadows of carnal Israel. It resurrects the very system that was used to execute Jesus Himself.

For that reason, I see it as error and even heresy. Perhaps even the greatest of heresies. Because no other heresy would execute sinners in the very name of Jesus, the one who came to teach a love that can heal mankind.

So, the wordy and heady books of the Reconstructionists don't impress me. They do sadden me. Evidently their Christianity lacks the power to change the world without a political banner and force of law. It's almost like they decided, "If we can't win their hearts... we'll take power and execute them." That isn't Christian... regardless of how many Bible verses they use to justify their actions. Even Jim Jones used the Bible to justify his own error and murderous paranoia. So, it is nothing impressive to me. In fact, it is a symptom of a powerless church. We need to hit our knees and become a spiritual people. I mentioned angels in a thread, it brought scoffing and mockery. That's a symptom of a very serious problem. We're in the flesh. We've ceased to be a spiritual people with supernatural power. If the church could get ahold of her supernatural power, walk in the prophetic, and demonstrate the healing power of God... we'd need no political effort whatsoever. We'd transform our communities without any need to even worry about or consider laws, statues, blah, blah, blah. Since we're spiritually powerless, many among us are seeking political power. It's a symptom of a deeper more profound problem... not a solution.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

We still live in a world where there is a need for judicial and legislative government like it or not, and it might as well be patterned according to God's law.

God's law would not be legalizing abortion and gay marriage. God's law would do away with our worthless penal system and institute restitution and capital punishment.

That causes me to consider a few questions.

Whose interpretation of God's Law?
Who is worthy to enforce it?
Who buries the bodies of the sinful minority in such a "Christian" society?

I believe that government's coercive power should be seriously reduced. It's miss used daily. We catch a 20 something with weed and he gets locked up for 10 years. But a child rapist can escape jail time and live among us on house arrest or on probation. The kid was arrested after not using a turn signal and his car being searched while on the way to buy a bag of Doritos to munch later when he planned on smoking a little and watching Mystery Science Theatre. How is that justice? Such misapplication and abuse of power can be found in other areas throughout the justice system. Here's a libertarian truth. The more laws a government makes... the more criminals it produces. Think about it. If they outlawed using your left foot, we'd have to hop everywhere. How many "criminals" do you think it would produce as millions tried to hop to work in the morning? If they outlawed breathing, they'd be able to lock us all up. LOL We need less laws, not more laws.

Now, some would say, "But wouldn't that produce anarchy?" Yes. But thank goodness that's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying there are silly crimes. People getting fined for collecting rain water. There are countless victimless crimes out there that only stand to justify the government's power, increase revenues, and create more criminals to lock up in the privatized prison systems that many of these politicians own stock in. Parents are being brought up on criminal charges of negligence and child endangerment for leaving a 12 year old home to do their homework while they run down the street to the store, a trip that only takes 15 minutes, tops. Why? Because a nosey neighbor is all up in their business. Nothing happened. No one was harmed. The 12 year old is essentially home alone when mom's at work and dad's out back in the garage working on a car for three hours. Now, if something actually happened, and someone was harmed or property damaged, yes, the question of negligence should be asked. But when nothing even happened? It's dumb.

Government's power to coerce and use force should be limited to three primary categories. In serving the people, government's power should be limited to protecting...

1.) Life.
2.) Liberty.
3.) Property.

If an individual's actions don't endanger another's life, liberty, property... there is no reason to criminalize it. For example, alcohol. If someone drinks a few shots of whisky, or a couple of beers, and gets behind the wheel of car... they are endangering the lives of others. This warrants criminalization. However, if they buy their boos and go home to listen to music and have a few drinks, while staying off the road, that shouldn't be criminalized. If someone kidnaps another person, that is taking their liberty, that should be criminalized. Laws that are specifically designed to deny another the legal right to do something that causes no harm to anyone or their property should be struck down. If one doesn't want to observe the Sabbath, that doesn't harm me or endanger my property. More power to them. If someone wants to marry someone of the same gender, that doesn't harm me or my property. More power to them. If they want to break in my home, that endangers my property and perhaps even my life if they have a deadly weapon.

Life. Liberty. Property. These three pillars of a free society should be protected for all citizens. And for an emotionally secure society, this really should be common sense. When people start saying, "There should be a law.", always ask yourself... is the action being talked about one that endangers another's life, liberty, or property. If not... there's no need for a law...even if their actions are morally reprehensible to you and I personally. I'm sure we do things they would find equally reprehensible. I used to spank my kids. My extended family acted like I was a terrorist or something. But does spanking my kids endanger any of their lives, liberty, or property? Nope. So, they can feel free think what they will, but I will still discipline my kids. Laws restricting parents from disciplining their kids are stupid. I look at it like I'm actually protecting their lives, liberty, and property by spanking my kids. Because when my kids are grown... I don't want them running around carrying guns, joining gangs, breaking into houses, and stealing from those very people criticizing me. lol

What about war? Well... any action on behalf of any group or government that endangers the lives, liberties, or property of the American people can be met with military force. But if that nation's actions do not threaten American lives, liberties, or property... it's that other nation's business. Now, with alliances and coalitions, sure... we stand together. So this can be extended to protecting the lives, liberties, and property of our allies too. But we have to use discretion and a measured response might be in order. But to me, endangering these things justify war.

Frankly, every possible question should boil down to life, liberty, property. Does a corporation's business practices endanger the lives, liberty, or property of citizens? (dumping toxic waste, excessive fees and interest, political collusion, predatory lending, etc.) If so, then it should be criminalized or prohibited.

When I hear about any controversy, I ask myself if whatever it is endangers the life, liberty, or property of myself or another? If it doesn't, I see no reason to empower the government to get involved.

I think we have more to fear from coercive government than we do sinners.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Apostolic1ness

some state laws differ concerning felons in possession of firearms. I thing its ok to take some rights away from law breakers.

I see the logic.

But the question in my mind is... if they've paid their debt to society... they pay taxes... they are now essentially considered law abiding citizens... how can they not have the right to defend themselves with a firearm per the 2nd Amendment?

Imagine being in the wrong place at the wrong time, or imagine being guilty of a stupid choice to do something criminal. You get caught. You do your time. You pay your fines. You are now a free man again. You get a job, you pay your taxes. You have a family and a home. Where in the Constitution does it say that you shouldn't be permitted to vote or own a firearm to defend yourself?

Here's what I see. A set up.

If a felon is denied the right to vote... he doesn't have the power to help elect a representative that can clear his name or revisit the legal process that could decriminalize the action. He's now sitting out of the game of society. He might be saying, "Look, it was just weed, man. I'm not a violent person. These minimum sentencing laws are not just. I want to see them changed so others don't suffer the fate I suffered." He is also taxed, and has no power to choose his representation. And, he's still a citizen, and perhaps has a career and family now... and he's denied the right to protect them with a fire arm. If he does purchase a fire arm under the table, the system now has a right to prosecute and incarcerate him yet again. It's almost like he can never be free from the past. I think that's just a bit excessive.

I know, some would say, "Hey, he had no respect for the law. He's potentially dangerous." Well, that might be so. However, do we deny rights to people because they "might" do something crazy? Do we deny the freedom of speech because we think someone "might" yell fire in a crowded theater?

It's just strange to me.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Aquila

That causes me to consider a few questions.

Whose interpretation of God's Law?
Who is worthy to enforce it?
Who buries the bodies of the sinful minority in such a "Christian" society?

I believe that government's coercive power should be seriously reduced. It's miss used daily. We catch a 20 something with weed and he gets locked up for 10 years. But a child rapist can escape jail time and live among us on house arrest or on probation. The kid was arrested after not using a turn signal and his car being searched while on the way to buy a bag of Doritos to munch later when he planned on smoking a little and watching Mystery Science Theatre. How is that justice? Such misapplication and abuse of power can be found in other areas throughout the justice system. Here's a libertarian truth. The more laws a government makes... the more criminals it produces. Think about it. If they outlawed using your left foot, we'd have to hop everywhere. How many "criminals" do you think it would produce as millions tried to hop to work in the morning? If they outlawed breathing, they'd be able to lock us all up. LOL We need less laws, not more laws.

Now, some would say, "But wouldn't that produce anarchy?" Yes. But thank goodness that's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying there are silly crimes. People getting fined for collecting rain water. There are countless victimless crimes out there that only stand to justify the government's power, increase revenues, and create more criminals to lock up in the privatized prison systems that many of these politicians own stock in. Parents are being brought up on criminal charges of negligence and child endangerment for leaving a 12 year old home to do their homework while they run down the street to the store, a trip that only takes 15 minutes, tops. Why? Because a nosey neighbor is all up in their business. Nothing happened. No one was harmed. The 12 year old is essentially home alone when mom's at work and dad's out back in the garage working on a car for three hours. Now, if something actually happened, and someone was harmed or property damaged, yes, the question of negligence should be asked. But when nothing even happened? It's dumb.

Government's power to coerce and use force should be limited to three primary categories. In serving the people government's power should be limited to protecting...

1.) Life.
2.) Liberty.
3.) Property.

If an individual's actions don't endanger another's life, liberty, property... there is no reason to criminalize it. For example, alcohol. If someone drinks a few shots of whisky, or a couple of beers, and gets behind the wheel of car... they are endangering the lives of others. This warrants criminalization. However, if they buy their boos and go home to listen to music and have a few drinks, while staying off the road, that shouldn't be criminalized. If someone kidnaps another person, that is taking their liberty, that should be criminalized. Laws that are specifically designed to deny another the legal right to do something that causes no harm to anyone or their property should be struck down. If one doesn't want to observe the Sabbath, that doesn't harm me or endanger my property. More power to them. If someone wants to marry someone of the same gender, that doesn't harm me or my property. More power to them. If they want to break in my home, that endangers my property and perhaps even my life if they have a deadly weapon.

Life. Liberty. Property. These three pillars of a free society should be protected for all citizens. And for an emotionally secure society, this really should be common sense. When people start saying, "There should be a law.", always ask yourself... is the action being talked about one that endangers another's life, liberty, or property. If not... there's no need for a law...even if their actions are morally reprehensible to you and I personally. I'm sure we do things they would find equally reprehensible. I used to spank my kids. My extended family acted like I was a terrorist or something. But does spanking my kids endanger any of their lives, liberty, or property? Nope. So, they can feel free think what they will, but I will still discipline my kids. Laws restricting parents from disciplining their kids are stupid. I look at it like I'm actually protecting their lives, liberty, and property by spanking my kids. Because when my kids are grown... I don't want them running around carrying guns, joining gangs, breaking into houses, and stealing from those very people criticizing me. lol

What about war? Well... any action on behalf of any group or government that endangers the lives, liberties, or property of the American people can be met with military force. But if that nation's actions do not threaten American lives, liberties, or property... it's that other nation's business. Now, with alliances and coalitions, sure... we stand together. So this can be extended to protecting the lives, liberties, and property of our allies too. But we have to use discretion and a measured response might be in order. But to me, endangering these things justify war.

Frankly, every possible question should boil down to life, liberty, property. Does a corporation's business practices endanger the lives, liberty, or property of citizens? (dumping toxic waste, excessive fees and interest, political collusion, predatory lending, etc.) If so, then it should be criminalized or prohibited.

When I hear about any controversy, I ask myself if whatever it is endangers the life, liberty, or property of myself or another? If it doesn't, I see no reason to empower the government to get involved.

I think we have more to fear from coercive government than we do sinners.

Aquila, this is some insightful commentary. It frustrates me that people can not see this. The book of Galatians is all about this. The allegory of the law being compared by Paul to the son of Hagar (Hagar being a bond servant, or handmaid) and our liberty in Christ compared to the son of promise (Isaac the child promised by God to Abraham). The comparison escapes people who are blinded by legalism. We once needed a schoolmaster (the law), but now we no longer need one.

Bible, King James Version

Gal.3
[24] Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
[25] But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

I have heard so many people quote the first verse and ignore the second. Do we need the law? Sure we do! If we have no faith! It is a confession that we are without faith if we pine for the onions and garlic that are represented by the law!

Bible, King James Version

Gal.3
[1] O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

O foolish Christians, you are so deceived. I love the book of Galatians. It is soooo full of advice and encouragement for they who are tempted to walk by sight and not by faith. We should be extremely careful about perverting the gospel . . .

[6] I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
[7] Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

The law is bondage, and it seems that when we perceive that our liberty in Christ is taken, we need to be concerned whether we have Christ. Because where the . . .

2Cor.32Cor.3
[17] Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.

Paul didn't have time for that . . .

[4] And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
[5] To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

The law appeals to carnality, our intellect, the part of us that demands an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. It is antithetical to love your neighbor, and your enemies.

Standards in the church are closely akin to the legalism that pines for the law. I know people say that holiness on the inside will manifest in modesty on the outside. I do believe this is true. I wonder though if the very ones that espouse this doctrine believe it themselves. If they do, it seems to me, that they would, if they see someone among the ladies dressing and conducting themselves lasciviously, pray that God would cleanse their heart and mind (the inside) instead of railing on them to cover up their body, which is the outward manifestation of their inner shortcomings. The Pharisees had all of the answers in regard to outward holiness. But they bore the brunt of Jesus wrath for their inner corruption. Standards are that way. Covering sins, as though the fact that they are covered, makes them less of a sin.