PDA

View Full Version : Christenstad



SIG
Sep 6th 2008, 05:10 AM
Let's imagine a society governed by Christians; we'll call this nation Christenstad. In this nation, what is perceived as Biblical principles becomes the law of the land. In effect, sin is illegal. (Let's not discuss what the penalties for various sins would be.)

Let us here compile a list of laws, based on what our forum members see as sin. And then let us take a closer look at what life in Christenstad would be like.

Emanate
Sep 6th 2008, 05:22 AM
I can already say that I would not want to live there.

SIG
Sep 6th 2008, 05:42 AM
Well...let's be specific.

markedward
Sep 6th 2008, 07:01 AM
This simply wouldn't work in this life.

Sin comes from the heart. People's thoughts are private to themselves, so there is absolutely no way we could just "illegalize" sin, if much of sin is hidden from the eyes of man.

What you're asking for is, essentially, the very same kingdoms we see in the Old Testament. They worked for a while, but they never reached their ideal "no sin" state. On this imperfect earth, there simply cannot and willnot be a society of followers of God that is able to keep from doing any sins.

SIG
Sep 6th 2008, 07:55 AM
"...so there is absolutely no way we could just "illegalize" sin, if much of sin is hidden from the eyes of man."

Well--let's start with the visible ones...

RoadWarrior
Sep 6th 2008, 03:44 PM
I think John Calvin did that already, in Switzerland. It wasn't a very pretty experiment, from what I have read.

ananias
Sep 6th 2008, 05:02 PM
Let's imagine a society governed by Christians; we'll call this nation Christenstad. In this nation, what is perceived as Biblical principles becomes the law of the land. In effect, sin is illegal. (Let's not discuss what the penalties for various sins would be.)

Let us here compile a list of laws, based on what our forum members see as sin. And then let us take a closer look at what life in Christenstad would be like.

There will be civil wars every year surrounding the constitution and the laws

Ta-An
Sep 6th 2008, 05:56 PM
Let us here compile a list of laws, based on what our forum members see as sin. Lovelessness .

RoadWarrior
Sep 6th 2008, 06:00 PM
Lovelessness .

And there are 3 commandments (laws) that apply to this sin:


Mk 12:29-31
29 Jesus answered him, "The first of all the commandments is: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.
30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment.
31 And the second, like it, is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." NKJV

Jn 13:34-35
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. 35 By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." NKJV

Ta-An
Sep 6th 2008, 06:02 PM
31 And the second, like it, is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." NKJV
This is a love in action, not just a mental love....:pp

markedward
Sep 6th 2008, 06:11 PM
"...so there is absolutely no way we could just "illegalize" sin, if much of sin is hidden from the eyes of man."

Well--let's start with the visible ones...Even then many of them would still be hidden, in the privacy of one's home. What would we do, install cameras that run 24/7 in everyone's house?

It seems like what you're essentially asking us to do is to recreate the people of Israel who lived under Torah Law. In that case... "The Torah" would be my list of laws to recommend. But we all know how well that society worked out.

threebigrocks
Sep 6th 2008, 06:14 PM
Even then many of them would still be hidden, in the privacy of one's home. What would we do, install cameras that run 24/7 in everyone's house?

It seems like what you're essentially asking us to do is to recreate the people of Israel who lived under Torah Law. In that case... "The Torah" would be my list of laws to recommend. But we all know how well that society worked out.

It worked out as well as things are today. The time of grace is just as perverted and disobeyed as those who disregarded the law then. In addition, there were also great people of God present too, just as there are today.

RoadWarrior
Sep 6th 2008, 06:16 PM
This is a love in action, not just a mental love....:pp


When I was a new Christian, I was astounded to read that love could be commanded - I thought it was just a feeling, or something that happened to you, like "falling in love!" The implication in the commandment is that love is something I can do - as ACCM says, it is an action.

So I asked the Lord how that could be. Here is the answer He gave me.

Be patient and kind. Don't be jealous or boastful or proud or rude. Do not demand your own way. Do not be irritable, and don't keep records of being wronged. Do not rejoice about injustice but rejoice whenever the truth wins out. Never give up, never lose faith, always be hopeful, and persevere patiently through every circumstance and suffering.

seamus414
Sep 6th 2008, 06:43 PM
I think John Calvin did that already, in Switzerland. It wasn't a very pretty experiment, from what I have read.


Being a Christian is difficult work. A society which adheres to Christian principles would be, by definition, exacting. Just because something is difficult does not mean we should not do it. Remember, Heaven is a society living by Christian principles.

seamus414
Sep 6th 2008, 06:45 PM
I would say that Christian nation is one where everyone gives as others have need.

threebigrocks
Sep 6th 2008, 07:22 PM
We have a beautiful example of such a society existing in the midst of the world in Acts 2.

If sin would be illegal, what worldly judgment or punishment would be applied? :hmm:

SIG
Sep 6th 2008, 08:13 PM
Let's imagine a society governed by Christians; we'll call this nation Christenstad. In this nation, what is perceived as Biblical principles becomes the law of the land. In effect, sin is illegal. (Let's not discuss what the penalties for various sins would be.)

Let us here compile a list of laws, based on what our forum members see as sin. And then let us take a closer look at what life in Christenstad would be like.

(NOTE: Because I live in an odd time zone, many are posting while I am asleep, and vice versa. So if I'm not responding right away....)

So...round two. Note the OP. This is meant to be an exercise--a game, if you will. I believe if we do the exercise, it will raise some important questions. Such as--if it is a sin, why not also make it a crime?

Remember--I want these laws to be based on what board members have seen as sin.

So--Just to begin the list with an easy one:

Illegal in Christenstad : Abortion.

SIG
Sep 6th 2008, 08:16 PM
There will be civil wars every year surrounding the constitution and the laws

Let's say then that civil war is illegal.

SIG
Sep 6th 2008, 08:17 PM
I think John Calvin did that already, in Switzerland. It wasn't a very pretty experiment, from what I have read.

Details?.......

SIG
Sep 6th 2008, 08:19 PM
Lovelessness.

Lovelessness is illegal. A fascinating concept!

So--mandatory love?

Ta-An
Sep 6th 2008, 08:20 PM
Illegal in Christenstad : Pornography

SIG
Sep 6th 2008, 08:22 PM
Even then many of them would still be hidden, in the privacy of one's home. What would we do, install cameras that run 24/7 in everyone's house?

It seems like what you're essentially asking us to do is to recreate the people of Israel who lived under Torah Law. In that case... "The Torah" would be my list of laws to recommend. But we all know how well that society worked out.

I think a Christian list might include laws that Israel's list did not...

(As for the cameras, for now let's focus more on the legislating and less on the enforcing.)

Ta-An
Sep 6th 2008, 08:23 PM
Lovelessness is illegal. A fascinating concept!

So--mandatory love? If I love my neighbor as myself, I'll cut his hair if I am a hairdresser (when he can't afford to pay for a haircut) I'll sew a dress for her if I am a seamstress if she can not afford to buy her own... I think it may be called :"Community living"

SIG
Sep 6th 2008, 08:25 PM
It worked out as well as things are today. The time of grace is just as perverted and disobeyed as those who disregarded the law then. In addition, there were also great people of God present too, just as there are today.

I would agree--except that we don't have a Christian theocracy to compare Israel to today. That's why I want to briefly create this imaginary Christenstad.

SIG
Sep 6th 2008, 08:27 PM
Being a Christian is difficult work. A society which adheres to Christian principles would be, by definition, exacting. Just because something is difficult does not mean we should not do it. Remember, Heaven is a society living by Christian principles.

There is a qualitative difference in Heaven, though, in that our sin natures will be gone (among many other differences). For now, let's focus on this side of Heaven....

SIG
Sep 6th 2008, 08:29 PM
I would say that Christian nation is one where everyone gives as others have need.

So, in the spirit of the OP--not giving to the needy would be illegal?

SIG
Sep 6th 2008, 08:32 PM
We have a beautiful example of such a society existing in the midst of the world in Acts 2.

If sin would be illegal, what worldly judgment or punishment would be applied? :hmm:

One difference there would be that the small Christian sect in Acts 2 was not an autonomous nation. Their example, though, is thought-provoking.

As for punishment or judgment--that's another thread :lol:

Emanate
Sep 6th 2008, 08:34 PM
We have a beautiful example of such a society existing in the midst of the world in Acts 2.

If sin would be illegal, what worldly judgment or punishment would be applied? :hmm:


I wouldnt say that was a society based on laws. it was a community within a society based on laws.

RoadWarrior
Sep 6th 2008, 09:20 PM
Originally Posted by RoadWarrior http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1778050#post1778050)
I think John Calvin did that already, in Switzerland. It wasn't a very pretty experiment, from what I have read.

Details?.......


The historian Will Durant, in his volume The Reformation, Chap XXI, gives a great deal of detail. Some examples follow:

Religious worship was regulated:
' "The whole household shall attend the sermons on Sunday, except when someone shall be left at home to tend the children or the cattle. If there is preaching on weekdays all who can must come."

"Should anyone come after the sermon has begun, let him be warned. If he does not amend, let him pay a fine of three sous." No one was to be excused from Protestant srvices on the pleas of having a different or private religious creed; Calvin was as thorough as any pope in rejecting individualism of belief; ...'

' There a body of learned divines would formulate an authoritative creed; those Genevans who could not accept it would have to seek other habitats. Persistent absence from Protestant services, or continued refusal to take th Eucharist, was a punishable offense. Heresy again became an insult to God and treason to the state, and was to be punished with death. Catolicism, which had preached this view of heresy, became heresy in its turn.

Between 1542 and 1564 fifty-eight persons were put to death, and seventy-six were banished, for violating the new code. Here as elsewhere, witchcraft was a capital crime; in one year, on the advice of the Consistory, fourteen alleged witches were sent to the stake on the charge that they had persuaded Satan to afflict Geneva with plague.'

'Clergy ... may marry and beget, but they must abstain from hunting, gambling, feasting, commerce, and secular amusements, and accept annual visitation and moral scrutiny by their eclesiastical superiors.'

Each home was visited on an annual basis and the occupants questioned on all phases of their lives. '..prohibition of gambling, card-playing, profanity, drunkenness, the frequenting of taverns, dancing .... songs, ... extravagance in living, immodesty in dress.

The allowable color and quantity of clothing, and the number of dishes permissible at a meal, were specified by law. Jewelry and lace were frowned upon. A woman was jailed for arranging her hair to an immoral height.'

'Children were not to be named after saints in the Catholic calendar but... after old Testament characters..'

A father spent four days in prison for naming his son Claude instead of Abraham.

To speak disrespectfully of Calvin was a crime.

Fornication was to be punished with exile or drowning;
adultery, blasphemy, or idolatry, with death.

'During this period, there was a high percentage of ilegitimate children, abandoned infants, forced marriages, and sentences of death.

Calvin's son-in-law and his stepdauughter were among those condemned for adultery.'

Slug1
Sep 6th 2008, 10:22 PM
Let's imagine a society governed by Christians; we'll call this nation Christenstad. In this nation, what is perceived as Biblical principles becomes the law of the land. In effect, sin is illegal. (Let's not discuss what the penalties for various sins would be.)

Let us here compile a list of laws, based on what our forum members see as sin. And then let us take a closer look at what life in Christenstad would be like.If sin was illegal then man once again has taken control from God's hands and put it in there own.

Sinful action is a choice and in many cases causes people to seek God when they've had enough of it in their lives. Whatever has them bound can be removed by God and then God can even use their deliverance from sin to help others.

God can't do this in Christenstad.

seamus414
Sep 6th 2008, 10:40 PM
So, in the spirit of the OP--not giving to the needy would be illegal?


Is there a difference between illegal and unlawful in this scenario?

SIG
Sep 6th 2008, 10:54 PM
The historian Will Durant, in his volume The Reformation, Chap XXI, gives a great deal of detail. Some examples follow:

Religious worship was regulated:
' "The whole household shall attend the sermons on Sunday, except when someone shall be left at home to tend the children or the cattle. If there is preaching on weekdays all who can must come."

"Should anyone come after the sermon has begun, let him be warned. If he does not amend, let him pay a fine of three sous." No one was to be excused from Protestant srvices on the pleas of having a different or private religious creed; Calvin was as thorough as any pope in rejecting individualism of belief; ...'

' There a body of learned divines would formulate an authoritative creed; those Genevans who could not accept it would have to seek other habitats. Persistent absence from Protestant services, or continued refusal to take th Eucharist, was a punishable offense. Heresy again became an insult to God and treason to the state, and was to be punished with death. Catolicism, which had preached this view of heresy, became heresy in its turn.

Between 1542 and 1564 fifty-eight persons were put to death, and seventy-six were banished, for violating the new code. Here as elsewhere, witchcraft was a capital crime; in one year, on the advice of the Consistory, fourteen alleged witches were sent to the stake on the charge that they had persuaded Satan to afflict Geneva with plague.'

'Clergy ... may marry and beget, but they must abstain from hunting, gambling, feasting, commerce, and secular amusements, and accept annual visitation and moral scrutiny by their eclesiastical superiors.'

Each home was visited on an annual basis and the occupants questioned on all phases of their lives. '..prohibition of gambling, card-playing, profanity, drunkenness, the frequenting of taverns, dancing .... songs, ... extravagance in living, immodesty in dress.

The allowable color and quantity of clothing, and the number of dishes permissible at a meal, were specified by law. Jewelry and lace were frowned upon. A woman was jailed for arranging her hair to an immoral height.'

'Children were not to be named after saints in the Catholic calendar but... after old Testament characters..'

A father spent four days in prison for naming his son Claude instead of Abraham.

To speak disrespectfully of Calvin was a crime.

Fornication was to be punished with exile or drowning;
adultery, blasphemy, or idolatry, with death.

'During this period, there was a high percentage of ilegitimate children, abandoned infants, forced marriages, and sentences of death.

Calvin's son-in-law and his stepdauughter were among those condemned for adultery.'

NOW we're getting somewhere!

SIG
Sep 6th 2008, 10:56 PM
Is there a difference between illegal and unlawful in this scenario?

I think not.........

SIG
Sep 6th 2008, 11:05 PM
Since few seem to want to play re the OP, I'll throw a few more out there:

Illegal in Christenstad:

Homosexuality, adultery, pre-marital sex, masturbation ... any sexual activity between anyone not heterosexually married within proscribed age limits...

Prostitution.

Movies outside "G' rating, and within those, only those that portray Godly principles.

Use of tobacco.

Use of drugs, except those legally prescribed by physicians.

Use of alcohol.

Rock and roll.

Any music not God-honoring.

(Help me out here; I know I've missed many.)

Slug1
Sep 6th 2008, 11:45 PM
Some of those aren't sinful when done with control... such as enjoying a beer :P

seamus414
Sep 6th 2008, 11:48 PM
I think not.........


Why? Something illegal is a crime. Something unlawful is simply not permitted. For example, it is illegal it steal someone's property; it is unlawful to interfere with someone else's use of their property.

One carries with it a criminal penalty/remedy, the other a civil penalty/remedy.

Mograce2U
Sep 7th 2008, 12:03 AM
How many citizens of this nation do you expect to have? If there is more than one, you will have a problem. And the only reason one could work is because there will be no one to argue with! Since I can justify myself easily enough, if you give me someone else to police, then I can find fault. ;)

It is a good thing that the kingdom we are inheriting will be sin-free. Ruling in any other kingdom - even if only Christians like we have now, would fail even quicker than Israel did when she dwelt in the midst of the nations.

And it really wouldn't matter what the penalty for breaking the law might be, because unless it involves death, sin will not stop.

SIG
Sep 7th 2008, 02:24 AM
Some of those aren't sinful when done with control... such as enjoying a beer :P

But the OP is basing the laws on what board members have described as sin....so alcohol has got to go....

SIG
Sep 7th 2008, 02:25 AM
Why? Something illegal is a crime. Something unlawful is simply not permitted. For example, it is illegal it steal someone's property; it is unlawful to interfere with someone else's use of their property.

One carries with it a criminal penalty/remedy, the other a civil penalty/remedy.

Legal semantics....let's just go with "not allowed"...:D

SIG
Sep 7th 2008, 02:28 AM
[QUOTE=Mograce2U;1778542]How many citizens of this nation do you expect to have? If there is more than one, you will have a problem. And the only reason one could work is because there will be no one to argue with! Since I can justify myself easily enough, if you give me someone else to police, then I can find fault. ;)

[QUOTE]

Actually, if I were the only citizen, I would eventually have to arrest myself.

But that is step 3; I'm still on step 1--legislating.

Slug1
Sep 7th 2008, 02:32 AM
But the OP is basing the laws on what board members have described as sin....so alcohol has got to go....So the majority of what people "feel" is sin... is sin in this society?

I'll move away and just follow what God says, not man ;)

SIG
Sep 7th 2008, 02:44 AM
So the majority of what people "feel" is sin... is sin in this society?

I'll move away and just follow what God says, not man ;)

I did not use the word "feel." Rather, board members believe certain things are sin.

Mograce2U
Sep 7th 2008, 03:04 AM
[quote=Mograce2U;1778542]How many citizens of this nation do you expect to have? If there is more than one, you will have a problem. And the only reason one could work is because there will be no one to argue with! Since I can justify myself easily enough, if you give me someone else to police, then I can find fault. ;)




Actually, if I were the only citizen, I would eventually have to arrest myself.

But that is step 3; I'm still on step 1--legislating.Well if I had to pick something, it would have to be something I could not be held guilty of. Hmmm... can we make exercise illegal?

Slug1
Sep 7th 2008, 03:15 AM
I did not use the word "feel." Rather, board members believe certain things are sin.OK, hahaha... just a bit of a spelling difference but the meaning is the same ;)

OldChurchGuy
Sep 7th 2008, 03:39 AM
Since few seem to want to play re the OP, I'll throw a few more out there:

Illegal in Christenstad:

Homosexuality, adultery, pre-marital sex, masturbation ... any sexual activity between anyone not heterosexually married within proscribed age limits...

Prostitution.

Movies outside "G' rating, and within those, only those that portray Godly principles.

Use of tobacco.

Use of drugs, except those legally prescribed by physicians.

Use of alcohol.

Rock and roll.

Any music not God-honoring.

(Help me out here; I know I've missed many.)

At the risk of sounding too analytical, what are examples of movies that portray Godly principles? The 10 Commandments? The Greatest Story Ever Told? Jesus Christ Superstar? Samson and Delilah? City Lights? Phantom of the Opera? Laurel and Hardy comedies? The Music Man? My Fair Lady? Fiddler on the Roof? (to name a few)

Does the "use of alcohol" include wine? Why or why not?

It appears that rock and roll cannot be God-honoring music. Is this correct? Continuing with God-honoring music, it would be ok to listen to Rimsky-Korsakov's "Russian Easter Overture" but not Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata"? Handel's "The Messiah" is OK but not Mozart's "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik"? Music written by J.S. Bach is on the list (provided it was written for a church service) but no waltzes by Frederic Chopin? I presume music by Willie Nelson is out while hymns sung by Tennessee Ernie Ford or Elvis Presley are in?

Ever curious,

OldChurchGuy

RoadWarrior
Sep 7th 2008, 03:47 AM
How many citizens of this nation do you expect to have? If there is more than one, you will have a problem. And the only reason one could work is because there will be no one to argue with! Since I can justify myself easily enough, if you give me someone else to police, then I can find fault. ;)

[quote]

Actually, if I were the only citizen, I would eventually have to arrest myself.

But that is step 3; I'm still on step 1--legislating.

It is as I thought; we are being set up!

SIG
Sep 7th 2008, 03:59 AM
(Rubbing hands and cackling:) Cheh heh heh!...

Alaska
Sep 7th 2008, 04:37 AM
Let's imagine a society governed by Christians; we'll call this nation Christenstad. In this nation, what is perceived as Biblical principles becomes the law of the land. In effect, sin is illegal. (Let's not discuss what the penalties for various sins would be.)

Let us here compile a list of laws, based on what our forum members see as sin. And then let us take a closer look at what life in Christenstad would be like.


First, a definition of Christian is necessary.
Then a definition of Christian principles is necessary.

Those of us who believe that the sermon on the mount was meant to be observed and is part of the NT teaching will then disagree with those who do not believe that an eye for an eye, for example, is no longer a current law for the people of God.

So maybe we should establish Christenstad 1, Christenstad 2 etc. like the many denominations of Christianity.
So this city would operate differently depending on which one you were in.
But wait, aren't we already in one of those in a certain respect, supposing of course that the community of believers we associate with live by their principles?

The 'Christenstad' I would choose to be a part of would prohibit killing for any reason as many NT references support. It would therefore not execute capital punishment. Being expelled from the community indefinately, or until restoration can be secured, depending on the offense, would be the most severe form of punishment.

One aspect of daily living that I would love to see in Christenstad is the exercise of the Matthew 18 scenario to resolve conflicts between believers.
An orderly way would be established on how to implement the 3 steps in that scenario.
Since the leadership of this Church-City are supposed to be the least and servants of all, then they would not be exempt from being approached by the very least of any church member who may have been offended by them.

There is so much wisdom in this prescription made by Jesus with regard to resolving conflicts between believers.

For example, relatively rarely would a case get past step two. The prospect that it will go before 'the church' is going to sober somebody up real fast not wanting to face humiliation concerning anything they are being dishonest about.

Emanate
Sep 7th 2008, 05:56 AM
One Sin would appear to be dishonesty in business

But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
(Acts 5:1-5)

SIG
Sep 7th 2008, 09:02 AM
First, a definition of Christian is necessary.
Then a definition of Christian principles is necessary.

Those of us who believe that the sermon on the mount was meant to be observed and is part of the NT teaching will then disagree with those who do not believe that an eye for an eye, for example, is no longer a current law for the people of God.

So maybe we should establish Christenstad 1, Christenstad 2 etc. like the many denominations of Christianity.
So this city would operate differently depending on which one you were in.
But wait, aren't we already in one of those in a certain respect, supposing of course that the community of believers we associate with live by their principles?

The 'Christenstad' I would choose to be a part of would prohibit killing for any reason as many NT references support. It would therefore not execute capital punishment. Being expelled from the community indefinately or until restoration can be secured depending on the offense would be the most severe form of punishment.

One aspect of daily living that I would love to see in Christenstad is the exercise of the Matthew 18 scenario to resolve conflicts between believers.
An orderly way would be established on how to implement the 3 steps in that scenario.
Since the leadership of this Church-City are supposed to be the least and servants of all, then they would not be exempt from being approached by the very least of any church member who may have been offended by them.

There is so much wisdom in this prescription made by Jesus with regard to resolving conflicts between believers.

For example, relatively rarely would a case get past step two. The prospect that it will go before 'the church' is going to sober somebody up real fast not wanting to face humiliation concerning anything they are being dishonest about.

So-- Illegal: killing for any reason...

Could you expand a bit on Matthew 18?

SIG
Sep 7th 2008, 09:03 AM
One Sin would appear to be dishonesty in business

But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.
(Acts 5:1-5)


Illegal in Christenstad: dishonesty in business

Alaska
Sep 7th 2008, 02:38 PM
Matthew 18:
15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Step one is in verse 15. The motive is to "gain thy brother", not to be done out of envy and strife. Someone is offended and is troubled and wants a resolution that will bring peace.

Step two is in verse 16, obviously it is not as easy to dismiss someones offended heart when two are three are there with that person wanting to help resolve the issue. Since the person being approached would also know what step three is, I see it as a sobering situation. If there is any insensitivity or malice in that person, it is obviously a lot wiser to face up to any fault and agree in this step than to face the church where stonewalling or denial will simply not work.

Step three is in verse 17. Supposing the person approached in step one was at fault and has hardened his heart throughout all three steps, he now has to live with his status of having been found guilty by the church of being unwilling to be honest and relieve the pain he has caused in the person he has offended, even after that person has approached him in the spirit of seeking restoration.
An entire book could be written about these 3 verses and all the wisdom contained in them.



On to something else.
Killing would be wrong in my Christenstad, but being yielded to God's spirit and the gifts of the Spirit would be believed in and encouraged.
Peter, in Acts 5 exhibited the gift of prophesy by being given revelation to what the couple were doing. He was also prophesying by pronouncing to them both that they would die for their dishonesty.
God killed them, not Peter. Peter was the voice of pronouncement of what God was going to do. The NT does not declare that God will not kill someone, however, it does declare, I believe, that it is not the Christians place to kill, though God may choose to use someone, as He did Peter, to pronounce by prophesy, God's execution of capital punishment.

threebigrocks
Sep 7th 2008, 03:19 PM
If sin was illegal then man once again has taken control from God's hands and put it in there own.



Those were my thoughts on this too slug. If sin is illegal, there needs to be consequences. What, as man, could we do without usurping God?

We can do what we will to do good as we should, they are all noble and right things to do because of faith. If Christenstad were it's own place with no further governing authority over it except for God, then we would be forced, intentionally or not to judge just as we are now with our brothers and sisters.

What about those who come to escape the world who are not believers, exiles if you will? :hmm:

SIG
Sep 8th 2008, 03:34 AM
Those were my thoughts on this too slug. If sin is illegal, there needs to be consequences. What, as man, could we do without usurping God?

We can do what we will to do good as we should, they are all noble and right things to do because of faith. If Christenstad were it's own place with no further governing authority over it except for God, then we would be forced, intentionally or not to judge just as we are now with our brothers and sisters.

What about those who come to escape the world who are not believers, exiles if you will? :hmm:

Aren't the laws in America also based on what people consider sinful?

SIG
Sep 8th 2008, 03:35 AM
Matthew 18:
15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Step one is in verse 15. The motive is to "gain thy brother", not to be done out of envy and strife. Someone is offended and is troubled and wants a resolution that will bring peace.

Step two is in verse 16, obviously it is not as easy to dismiss someones offended heart when two are three are there with that person wanting to help resolve the issue. Since the person being approached would also know what step three is, I see it as a sobering situation. If there is any insensitivity or malice in that person, it is obviously a lot wiser to face up to any fault and agree in this step than to face the church where stonewalling or denial will simply not work.

Step three is in verse 17. Supposing the person approached in step one was at fault and has hardened his heart throughout all three steps, he now has to live with his status of having been found guilty by the church of being unwilling to be honest and relieve the pain he has caused in the person he has offended, even after that person has approached him in the spirit of seeking restoration.
An entire book could be written about these 3 verses and all the wisdom contained in them.

SIG: Thanks for expanding on this.



On to something else.
Killing would be wrong in my Christenstad, but being yielded to God's spirit and the gifts of the Spirit would be believed in and encouraged.
Peter, in Acts 5 exhibited the gift of prophesy by being given revelation to what the couple were doing. He was also prophesying by pronouncing to them both that they would die for their dishonesty.
God killed them, not Peter. Peter was the voice of pronouncement of what God was going to do. The NT does not declare that God will not kill someone, however, it does declare, I believe, that it is not the Christians place to kill, though God may choose to use someone, as He did Peter, to pronounce by prophesy, God's execution of capital punishment.

Killing is already illegal in Christenstad.

Slug1
Sep 8th 2008, 03:43 AM
Aren't the laws in America also based on what people consider sinful?Half the illegal laws based on sin are not against the law in the US. Like smoking and drinking (based on age), listening to rock & roll or any music that doesn't honor God, movies (based on age) etc.

SIG
Sep 8th 2008, 03:46 AM
Illegal in Christenstad: Observing any holiday not specifically mandated in Scripture.

RoadWarrior
Sep 8th 2008, 03:56 AM
Illegal in Christenstad: Observing any holiday not specifically mandated in Scripture.

:eek:

No President's Day? No 4th of July? No Memorial Day? or Labor Day?

Ok, I want to apply for my passport and exit visa, NOW! :o

Do you know how much we look forward to those days off from work???

SIG
Sep 8th 2008, 04:05 AM
Silence, apostate! You have the Sabbath! ;)

SIG
Sep 8th 2008, 04:07 AM
Illegal: Allowing a woman to have authority over a man.

RoadWarrior
Sep 8th 2008, 04:08 AM
Illegal: Allowing a woman to have authority over a man.

Now wait a minit! Did I inspire that one??? :pp

At least I will go out in a blaze of glory! or is that just up in flames tied to a post?

SIG
Sep 8th 2008, 04:12 AM
Now wait a minit! Did I inspire that one??? :pp

At least I will go out in a blaze of glory! or is that just up in flames tied to a post?

I'm sure ... uh...it's just...er...a coincidence....

RoadWarrior
Sep 8th 2008, 04:15 AM
OK, I vote that it will be a sin to repress women and to block them from serving God however He sees fit. ;)

SIG
Sep 8th 2008, 04:23 AM
Sorry--you were outvoted by a panel of men...

Back to the OP:

I am just making a (partial) list of what board members have, in the past, cited as sinful. These are not necessarily things I see as sinful.

Emanate
Sep 8th 2008, 09:04 PM
Illegal in Christenstad: Observing any holiday not specifically mandated in Scripture.


That would not be allowable by the Tribunal

A more accurate law in Christenstad would be: Observing any holiday specifically mandated in scripture shall be punishable by expulsion.

Mograce2U
Sep 8th 2008, 09:16 PM
That would not be allowable by the Tribunal

A more accurate law in Christenstad would be: Observing any holiday specifically mandated in scripture shall be punishable by expulsion.
And with a scroll as your avatar, we see that some believe that unless the world is governed under the Law, all hope is lost that sin can be reckoned with! Which is no doubt why neither Christians nor Jews will rule the world as is commonly thought today when Christ returns.

If we know you can't make them obey the law and you apparently can't subdue them with love & truth either, then it seems there must be no hope for this Christenstad city to rule over sinners at all.

Perhaps there is another way...

RoadWarrior
Sep 8th 2008, 09:22 PM
...

Perhaps there is another way...

Hear, hear! .
:pp

Emanate
Sep 8th 2008, 09:56 PM
And with a scroll as your avatar, we see that some believe that unless the world is governed under the Law, all hope is lost that sin can be reckoned with! Which is no doubt why neither Christians nor Jews will rule the world as is commonly thought today when Christ returns.

If we know you can't make them obey the law and you apparently can't subdue them with love & truth either, then it seems there must be no hope for this Christenstad city to rule over sinners at all.

Perhaps there is another way...

You think a sinner would want to say? Well, maybe for the sake of rebellion.

SIG
Sep 9th 2008, 03:40 AM
Half the illegal laws based on sin are not against the law in the US. Like smoking and drinking (based on age), listening to rock & roll or any music that doesn't honor God, movies (based on age) etc.

True; those mentioned are ones that are illegal based on board members' past input.

Not all of Christenstad's laws would be illegal in America; most likely America's laws would also be illegal in Christenstad...

SIG
Sep 9th 2008, 03:42 AM
That would not be allowable by the Tribunal

A more accurate law in Christenstad would be: Observing any holiday specifically mandated in scripture shall be punishable by expulsion.

You lost me here. Why would those who honor Scriptural holidays be expelled? Could you clarify?

Emanate
Sep 9th 2008, 01:43 PM
You lost me here. Why would those who honor Scriptural holidays be expelled? Could you clarify?


Sabbath, Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, Shavuot (Pentecost), Yom Teurah (Day of the Blast, i.e. Trumpets), Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), Sukkot (Booths). All these things are not only discouraged, but frowned on in the majority of Christianity despite being the only holidays mentioned in scripture. Therefore, it would only make sense to outlaw them in Christenstad.

I thought for a minute that we might be able to celebrate Hanukkah. It is not mentioned in scripture (unless you use the 1611 KJV) until the book of John, but with that scriptural mention it is surely disqualified as well.

SIG
Sep 9th 2008, 10:53 PM
Has anyone on the boards suggested that observing these is a sin?

Emanate
Sep 10th 2008, 03:36 AM
Has anyone on the boards suggested that observing these is a sin?


I wasnt aware that all thoughts were limited to previous responses in this board.

ananias
Sep 10th 2008, 03:49 AM
Sig,

Does legislating against making sin illegal count in Christenstad?

ananias

Emanate
Sep 10th 2008, 03:56 AM
Has anyone on the boards suggested that observing these is a sin?


My parents cut off their grandchildren when we told my parents that my children would not celebrate christmas with them.

You think many people in Christendom, and many on this board, do not believe it is a sin?

seamus414
Sep 10th 2008, 12:07 PM
Sabbath, Passover, Unleavened Bread, First Fruits, Shavuot (Pentecost), Yom Teurah (Day of the Blast, i.e. Trumpets), Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement), Sukkot (Booths). All these things are not only discouraged, but frowned on in the majority of Christianity despite being the only holidays mentioned in scripture. Therefore, it would only make sense to outlaw them in Christenstad.

I thought for a minute that we might be able to celebrate Hanukkah. It is not mentioned in scripture (unless you use the 1611 KJV) until the book of John, but with that scriptural mention it is surely disqualified as well.

Penetcost is still celebrated by the vast majority of Christians. The remiander of those days are obsoltete in the New Covenant. Hanukkah may still me somewhat relevant, but that is more of a national holiday than a religious one.

seamus414
Sep 10th 2008, 12:08 PM
My parents cut off their grandchildren when we told my parents that my children would not celebrate christmas with them.

You think many people in Christendom, and many on this board, do not believe it is a sin?

I do not understand how a Christian can refuse to celebrate the wonderous and miraculous day of the incarnation of the One True God on Earth. That, to me, is great cause for celebration!

Emanate
Sep 10th 2008, 12:12 PM
I do not understand how a Christian can refuse to celebrate the wonderous and miraculous day of the incarnation of the One True God on Earth. That, to me, is great cause for celebration!


It was originally celebrated as the birthday of Mithra. Take that and the various celebrations regarding the Solstice and Saturnalia. Voila, you have Christmas.

seamus414
Sep 10th 2008, 12:27 PM
It was originally celebrated as the birthday of Mithra. Take that and the various celebrations regarding the Solstice and Saturnalia. Voila, you have Christmas.

Why are you and your practices controlled by other people? That other people do something ought not to have any contorl over what you do. Millions of Christans the world around and for centuries have celebrated the birth of Christ. Why is it you do not want to do this? Is it because you do not recognize the gift of the incarnation?

Emanate
Sep 10th 2008, 12:31 PM
Why are you and your practices controlled by other people? That other people do something ought not to have any contorl over what you do. Millions of Christans the world around and for centuries have celebrated the birth of Christ. Why is it you do not want to do this? Is it because you do not recognize the gift of the incarnation?


No, it is because I do not listen wo what people in the Church tell me what to do. Millions of people doing it is not much of a defining aspect in how I ought walk. Where are we told to celebrate the birth of Jesus? Where are we told to take the birthday of Mithra and replace it with Jesus? Why is it that we cannot have as much zeal about God's appointed times as we do times created as a mockery to YHWH?

keck553
Sep 10th 2008, 12:56 PM
I think it would evolve to be no different than 1st millenium Christianized Europe, full of men's ordinances, terrorism and persecution. And many believers in Jesus do not wish to celebrate Him on the day of Mithra's birth, which is connected with Ba'al. Jesus was born on God the Fathers time, probably in the fall, not in time with some pagan god.

I'd rather be ruled over by my King. Yeshua.

seamus414
Sep 10th 2008, 01:20 PM
No, it is because I do not listen wo what people in the Church tell me what to do. Millions of people doing it is not much of a defining aspect in how I ought walk. Where are we told to celebrate the birth of Jesus? Where are we told to take the birthday of Mithra and replace it with Jesus? Why is it that we cannot have as much zeal about God's appointed times as we do times created as a mockery to YHWH?

In all honesty, if you need to be told to celebrate perhaps the greatest mircale of all time, God's incarnation (save perhaps the Resurrection), then I think we have a significant problem. I also think take a bit of hubris to tell the entire Church that the collected wisdom of the world's Christians for 2 millenia are wrong to celebrate the wonderous incarnation.

Emanate
Sep 10th 2008, 01:25 PM
In all honesty, if you need to be told to celebrate perhaps the greatest mircale of all time, God's incarnation (save perhaps the Resurrection), then I think we have a significant problem. I also think take a bit of hubris to tell the entire Church that the collected wisdom of the world's Christians for 2 millenia are wrong to celebrate the wonderous incarnation.


1. Need to be told? The Scripture is clear what we are to do, yet we deny that wholeheartedly. Yet we can worship our creator in whatever pagan manner we choose because we don't need to be told?

2. Of course, majority is always right. (?)

keck553
Sep 10th 2008, 01:25 PM
I also think take a bit of hubris to tell the entire Church that the collected wisdom of the world's Christians for 2 millenia are wrong to celebrate the wonderous incarnation.

Ironic, that's exactly what Yeshua told the Jewish authorities about man made traditions replacing God's commands.

seamus414
Sep 10th 2008, 01:34 PM
Ironic, that's exactly what Yeshua told the Jewish authorities about man made traditions replacing God's commands.

What command is being replaced by celebrating Jesu's birth and God's incarnation?

keck553
Sep 10th 2008, 01:37 PM
Yeshua was probably born on Sukkot. Would you want your birthday changed and celebrated on the day your adversary is celebrated?

seamus414
Sep 10th 2008, 01:42 PM
Yeshua was probably born on Sukkot. Would you want your birthday changed and celebrated on the day your adversary is celebrated?

I note you did not answer my very direct question. Please answer it. Also: First, when Christmas started being celebrated regularly, no one knew when Jesus'a actual birthday was. Second, why are you being legalistic over what date something is celebrated? It was THAT sort of thinking that Jesus had negative reaction toward. Criticizing people over getting the date wrong is simply wrong headed. As they say, it's the thought that counts and God's judges the heart. Christians want to celebrate the incarnation. God looks at the hearts in celebration as wanting to honour and celebrate God, he does not criticize them getting their math wrong and celebrating on the "wrong" date. Third, I think Jesus supplanting, conquering and totally overshadowing his adversary on a day when his "adversary is celebrated" is a great picture of the power of Christ and wonderfully ironic. It shows how Christ conquers all and can claim ownership and victory over anything. Fourth, your suggestion of Christ's birth is equally a guess. If you believe it occured when you think it occured, why not celebrate it then? Is the incarnation of the One True God not worthy of honour or celebration?

Emanate
Sep 10th 2008, 09:50 PM
Is the incarnation of the One True God not worthy of honour or celebration?


If you can find me a verse that supports this statement, then you have won me over.

Emanate
Sep 10th 2008, 09:59 PM
Criticizing people over getting the date wrong is simply wrong headed. As they say, it's the thought that counts and God's judges the heart. Christians want to celebrate the incarnation. God looks at the hearts in celebration as wanting to honour and celebrate God, he does not criticize them getting their math wrong and celebrating on the quote]

It is not about getting the date wrong, do not fool yourself. It was never an attempt to get it right. It was a way to win pagans into Christianity, they would not have to change their celebrations, just realize that this Jesus was the same as the gods they previously worshipped. Again, where is "celebrating the incarnation of god" even alluded to in Scripture.


[quote=seamus414;1782814]IThird, I think Jesus supplanting, conquering and totally overshadowing his adversary on a day when his "adversary is celebrated" is a great picture of the power of Christ and wonderfully ironic. It shows how Christ conquers all and can claim ownership and victory over anything.

This is the problem with much of Christian thinking. Let us assimilate all pagan practice and make it our own. I call it Borg thinking. Yet when it is even remotley hinted that someone keeps a festival actually found in the bible then the claws come out.


Fourth, your suggestion of Christ's birth is equally a guess. If you believe it occured when you think it occured, why not celebrate it then? Is the incarnation of the One True God not worthy of honour or celebration?

No, not equally. Sukkot as the time when Messiah was born can be deduced from a study of the NT as compared to the celebration of Sukkot. But even then. Messiah did not celebrate a birthday, nor did first century Judaism or the first century Church. So the Sukkot theory at least has foundation while the December 25 version simply equates to using pagan custom and practice and applying it to Messiah.

(Learn not the way of the heathen....)

keck553
Sep 10th 2008, 10:00 PM
I note you did not answer my very direct question. Please answer it. Also: First, when Christmas started being celebrated regularly, no one knew when Jesus'a actual birthday was. Second, why are you being legalistic over what date something is celebrated? It was THAT sort of thinking that Jesus had negative reaction toward. Criticizing people over getting the date wrong is simply wrong headed. As they say, it's the thought that counts and God's judges the heart. Christians want to celebrate the incarnation. God looks at the hearts in celebration as wanting to honour and celebrate God, he does not criticize them getting their math wrong and celebrating on the "wrong" date. Third, I think Jesus supplanting, conquering and totally overshadowing his adversary on a day when his "adversary is celebrated" is a great picture of the power of Christ and wonderfully ironic. It shows how Christ conquers all and can claim ownership and victory over anything. Fourth, your suggestion of Christ's birth is equally a guess. If you believe it occured when you think it occured, why not celebrate it then? Is the incarnation of the One True God not worthy of honour or celebration?

Sorry, I didn't see your follow up post. I'm not legalistic at all, the ones who demand to celebrate our Saviour's birthday with a day marked as a pagan day-keeping event seems both legalistic and man-made to me. And that's exactly what Yeshua admonished the Pharisees about. You may recall in Revelations He says the antichrist will change God's Mo'edim. No way do I buy the excuse they didn't know when Jesus was born and happened to have a pagan holiday mark His birth. God layed out ALL the signs of His birth in the Heavens (unless you don't beleive what the Bible says), and it certainly wasn't based on Ba'al and his ilk.

I honor and celebrate Yeshua every day, every hour, by the way. He alone knows my heart, and I don't apologize for my love for Him and my obedience to Him to any man.

You may have a minor point about the 'conquering all' thing. Legalism? I think the RCC thier henchmen certainly appear to have conquered with their man-made ordinances, replacement theology, persecution and murder of millions in the name of Christ. But that's not the character of the Messiah I worship.

SIG
Sep 11th 2008, 05:33 AM
Sig,

Does legislating against making sin illegal count in Christenstad?

ananias

Can't imagine it....

SIG
Sep 11th 2008, 05:45 AM
OK--Before this devolves into another holiday-or-not thread (and there have been MANY), let's regroup.

My original intent was to create a (long?) list of things that board members in the past have called sin (gambling, card-playing, smoking, celebrating Christmas, listening to secular music--and on and on).

Folks have not really gotten into that, but have tended to discuss these separate things (and this has been done in the past ad infinitum). But let's pretend they did :D...

Coupled with the list was imagining living in a country where these things actually were law. What would life in that country be like? Who would or would not want to live there?

I have a bunch of other questions, that may or may not lead us down the path of musing I've been doing. But I want to save those for a time I'm not as tired as I am right now. But for now, feel free to muse and add questions of your own.

Emanate
Sep 11th 2008, 12:17 PM
OK--Before this devolves into another holiday-or-not thread (and there have been MANY), let's regroup.

My original intent was to create a (long?) list of things that board members in the past have called sin (gambling, card-playing, smoking, celebrating Christmas, listening to secular music--and on and on).

Folks have not really gotten into that, but have tended to discuss these separate things (and this has been done in the past ad infinitum). But let's pretend they did :D...

Coupled with the list was imagining living in a country where these things actually were law. What would life in that country be like? Who would or would not want to live there?

I have a bunch of other questions, that may or may not lead us down the path of musing I've been doing. But I want to save those for a time I'm not as tired as I am right now. But for now, feel free to muse and add questions of your own.

Lets outlaw Honky Tonks

RoadWarrior
Sep 11th 2008, 04:00 PM
OK...

Coupled with the list was imagining living in a country where these things actually were law. What would life in that country be like? Who would or would not want to live there?
... feel free to muse and add questions of your own.

Definitely do NOT want to live there. I love America, the land of the free. I would not have enjoyed living in Geneva during the days of Calvin.

I think this sort of thing would fall under the category of putting ourselves back "under the law".

tt1106
Sep 11th 2008, 04:22 PM
I think Christenstad sounds like Afhganistan. The difference between our country and some countries in the mid-east is the fact that although our theology has impacted our Government, it is not founded on one singular religion. In the mid-east, their laws ARE made from theological prinicples and derived from the Quran. They are not seperate.
The civil war idea is proabbly very accurate as different sects with different interpretations try to gain power and thereby enforce what they see as more pure theology.
I meant some countries, there are exceptions.
If it hasn't worked so well for them, I doubt it work well for christinas either, despite the obvious differences in our theology.

keck553
Sep 11th 2008, 05:11 PM
I think it's pretty obvious from the dissention and disagreements in this thread a theisitc society is not a good thing. None of us are completely correct or completely incorrect. All of us love our LORD, and our individual relationship with Him are guided by our level of surrrender, His workings of sanctifiying us, and what He decides to reveal to us. None of us are in the same place in that relationship with him, so no one should have this detail of expectation of each other. We don't instantly become a finished product during our earthly lives, so it's impossible to impose a finished 'look'.

Despite the pagan connection and the obviouos separation from the Father's set times, I don't think it's wrong to celebrate the birth of our Saviour and call it 'Chistmas'. When Yeshua was a toddler, the 'wise men' (probably disciples of Daniel) visited Him with royal gifts. When related to the positions of the stars and planet retrograde positions, it appears this event happened in the last week or so of December. I beleive God set the entire universe to line up this way to point to His Son. God can do anything, and this definately declares His magisty. So, even if December 25th doesn't agree with the birth of Yeshua, it marks a time God set for the Maji to declare His glory. That's biblical enough for me.

Easter, I have issues with. I think that if Christians could understand how meticulous God's timing is, setting up an entire universe to keep time with human events and the coming and ministry of His Son, that childlike wonder would prevail. So this is the problem I have with replacing God's moe'dim with pagan holidays. They steal that glory of God's workings. And that's really the bottom line to my dissention. I don't feel comfortable witih any of the glory of God called 'obsolete'.

SIG
Sep 12th 2008, 02:19 AM
Lets outlaw Honky Tonks

Illegal in Christenstad: Honky Tonks

SIG
Sep 12th 2008, 02:20 AM
Definitely do NOT want to live there. I love America, the land of the free. I would not have enjoyed living in Geneva during the days of Calvin.

I think this sort of thing would fall under the category of putting ourselves back "under the law".

So we should give folks the freedom to sin?

SIG
Sep 12th 2008, 02:22 AM
I think Christenstad sounds like Afhganistan. The difference between our country and some countries in the mid-east is the fact that although our theology has impacted our Government, it is not founded on one singular religion. In the mid-east, their laws ARE made from theological prinicples and derived from the Quran. They are not seperate.
The civil war idea is proabbly very accurate as different sects with different interpretations try to gain power and thereby enforce what they see as more pure theology.
I meant some countries, there are exceptions.
If it hasn't worked so well for them, I doubt it work well for christinas either, despite the obvious differences in our theology.

When the idea of this thread first occurred to me, I also thought about Iran under the Ayatollahs. I was wondering if Christenstad would be even more difficult...

SIG
Sep 12th 2008, 02:26 AM
"I think it's pretty obvious from the dissention and disagreements in this thread a theisitc society is not a good thing. None of us are completely correct or completely incorrect. All of us love our LORD, and our individual relationship with Him are guided by our level of surrrender, His workings of sanctifiying us, and what He decides to reveal to us. None of us are in the same place in that relationship with him, so no one should have this detail of expectation of each other. We don't instantly become a finished product during our earthly lives, so it's impossible to impose a finished 'look'."

I applaud these sentiments.

All that being given--how do we as a society decide which sins should also be illegal?

Mograce2U
Sep 12th 2008, 04:05 AM
"I think it's pretty obvious from the dissention and disagreements in this thread a theisitc society is not a good thing. None of us are completely correct or completely incorrect. All of us love our LORD, and our individual relationship with Him are guided by our level of surrrender, His workings of sanctifiying us, and what He decides to reveal to us. None of us are in the same place in that relationship with him, so no one should have this detail of expectation of each other. We don't instantly become a finished product during our earthly lives, so it's impossible to impose a finished 'look'."

I applaud these sentiments.

All that being given--how do we as a society decide which sins should also be illegal?You know Sig, it would be more interesting to discuss what would be allowed. I mean if you consider that the penalty for ALL sin is death, making one thing or the other illegal seems to be a moot point at best. Life is what we need - not permission to sin a little, and thereby stay the death that we deserve. That is afterall what the law accomplished wasn't it? A stay from death if it was kept?

RoadWarrior
Sep 12th 2008, 04:44 AM
So we should give folks the freedom to sin?

From what I can see, folks already have that freedom, no matter what country they live in or what government they live under. People sin profligately.

Civil laws address punishments for commission of crimes, and this keeps a semblance of order in society. But no person on earth can control what happens in the heart and mind of a man.

In fact, the freedom to sin is not in our power to give. God already gave that freedom in the Garden of Eden.

SIG
Sep 12th 2008, 07:08 AM
You know Sig, it would be more interesting to discuss what would be allowed. I mean if you consider that the penalty for ALL sin is death, making one thing or the other illegal seems to be a moot point at best. Life is what we need - not permission to sin a little, and thereby stay the death that we deserve. That is afterall what the law accomplished wasn't it? A stay from death if it was kept?

You are right, in a sense. But what I've been getting at in a very roundabout way is what board members have seen as sin, and how, if this were to be believed, those beliefs would manifest themselves in an actual society.

SIG
Sep 12th 2008, 07:12 AM
From what I can see, folks already have that freedom, no matter what country they live in or what government they live under. People sin profligately.

Civil laws address punishments for commission of crimes, and this keeps a semblance of order in society. But no person on earth can control what happens in the heart and mind of a man.

In fact, the freedom to sin is not in our power to give. God already gave that freedom in the Garden of Eden.

And you are right. My question would be--should we then allow people that freedom to sin? If not, why not and exactly how (which sins are forbidden)? If so, then why?

(eg: I was discipled in a country where prostitution is legal. Was that a bad law?)

seamus414
Sep 12th 2008, 12:04 PM
If you can find me a verse that supports this statement, then you have won me over.

So, it is your position that the Incarnation of God on Earth is not worthy to be celebrated without "a verse"?

seamus414
Sep 12th 2008, 12:09 PM
I think it's pretty obvious from the dissention and disagreements in this thread a theisitc society is not a good thing. None of us are completely correct or completely incorrect. All of us love our LORD, and our individual relationship with Him are guided by our level of surrrender, His workings of sanctifiying us, and what He decides to reveal to us. None of us are in the same place in that relationship with him, so no one should have this detail of expectation of each other. We don't instantly become a finished product during our earthly lives, so it's impossible to impose a finished 'look'.

Despite the pagan connection and the obviouos separation from the Father's set times, I don't think it's wrong to celebrate the birth of our Saviour and call it 'Chistmas'. When Yeshua was a toddler, the 'wise men' (probably disciples of Daniel) visited Him with royal gifts. When related to the positions of the stars and planet retrograde positions, it appears this event happened in the last week or so of December. I beleive God set the entire universe to line up this way to point to His Son. God can do anything, and this definately declares His magisty. So, even if December 25th doesn't agree with the birth of Yeshua, it marks a time God set for the Maji to declare His glory. That's biblical enough for me.

Easter, I have issues with. I think that if Christians could understand how meticulous God's timing is, setting up an entire universe to keep time with human events and the coming and ministry of His Son, that childlike wonder would prevail. So this is the problem I have with replacing God's moe'dim with pagan holidays. They steal that glory of God's workings. And that's really the bottom line to my dissention. I don't feel comfortable witih any of the glory of God called 'obsolete'.


I do not think celebrating Easter detracts from God at all. How could it? It is a day on which we celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus - the greatest historical event of all time. So, we may not get the date correct. So what? God looks at the heart and desires worship and thanksgiving. I think God honours the worship and thanks he receives for his Son's resurrection. I think it is beneficial for the faithful to celebrate that day. I simply do not see why the legalism of ther exactitude on the date matters.

seamus414
Sep 12th 2008, 12:13 PM
Sorry, I didn't see your follow up post. I'm not legalistic at all, the ones who demand to celebrate our Saviour's birthday with a day marked as a pagan day-keeping event seems both legalistic and man-made to me. And that's exactly what Yeshua admonished the Pharisees about. You may recall in Revelations He says the antichrist will change God's Mo'edim. No way do I buy the excuse they didn't know when Jesus was born and happened to have a pagan holiday mark His birth. God layed out ALL the signs of His birth in the Heavens (unless you don't beleive what the Bible says), and it certainly wasn't based on Ba'al and his ilk.

I honor and celebrate Yeshua every day, every hour, by the way. He alone knows my heart, and I don't apologize for my love for Him and my obedience to Him to any man.

You may have a minor point about the 'conquering all' thing. Legalism? I think the RCC thier henchmen certainly appear to have conquered with their man-made ordinances, replacement theology, persecution and murder of millions in the name of Christ. But that's not the character of the Messiah I worship.

Roman Catholicism is not the source of December 25 as the day selected for Christmas. I just do not see what is so wrong about celebrating the fact of the incarnation of God. I just don't. So they got the date wrong, so what? That sort of legalistic exactitude is not the point.

Mograce2U
Sep 12th 2008, 01:06 PM
You are right, in a sense. But what I've been getting at in a very roundabout way is what board members have seen as sin, and how, if this were to be believed, those beliefs would manifest themselves in an actual society.Well it has been tried before and we live in a society now that started out much that way. Over at ETC this is discussed ad nauseum by those who imagine the coming kingdom will be one that is like this. I don't see how it can be. A changed heart is not going to come by way of the law. And if Christenstad is a society of all born again believers, then sin wouldn't even be an issue.

Emanate
Sep 12th 2008, 02:09 PM
So, it is your position that the Incarnation of God on Earth is not worthy to be celebrated without "a verse"?


That is my position.

Now, back on topic.

seamus414
Sep 12th 2008, 02:50 PM
That is my position.

Now, back on topic.

I find it shocking that you do not find the incarnation worthy of being commemorated or celebrated. With respect, I think you need to reevaluate your spiritual priorities if that is, indeed, the case.

With respect, honestly, I find your need for a verse to justify praising God by setting aside a day to honour and commemorate his incarnation to be rather silly.

Be that as it may: here are examples of people taking the time to celebrate Jesus' birth without knowing or getting the date right:

Matthew 2:1-12
Luke 2:8 - 20

Let us follow their example.

Emanate
Sep 12th 2008, 03:25 PM
I find it shocking that you do not find the incarnation worthy of being commemorated or celebrated. With respect, I think you need to reevaluate your spiritual priorities if that is, indeed, the case.

With respect, honestly, I find your need for a verse to justify praising God by setting aside a day to honour and commemorate his incarnation to be rather silly.

Be that as it may: here are examples of people taking the time to celebrate Jesus' birth without knowing or getting the date right:

Matthew 2:1-12
Luke 2:8 - 20

Let us follow their example.

They were not celebrating a birthday, they were celebrating the arrival of Messiah the King. Only Herod wanted to worship the child. These scriptures speak absolutely nothing about celebrating a birthday (check with your scholars on the timeline of these events). They were not concerned with commemorating, honoring or celebrating his birth, rather they wanted to worship Him.

I may be silly for only observing what YHWH said to observe, but so be it. My focus is not the "Incarnation of God" it is Messiah Y'shua and the Way that He brought I am choose to commemorate His death, burial and resurrection.


Truly now, Let us not forget we are now in Christenstad. I am sure we can deal with this issue in another topic at a later date.

keck553
Sep 12th 2008, 03:31 PM
"I think it's pretty obvious from the dissention and disagreements in this thread a theisitc society is not a good thing. None of us are completely correct or completely incorrect. All of us love our LORD, and our individual relationship with Him are guided by our level of surrrender, His workings of sanctifiying us, and what He decides to reveal to us. None of us are in the same place in that relationship with him, so no one should have this detail of expectation of each other. We don't instantly become a finished product during our earthly lives, so it's impossible to impose a finished 'look'."

I applaud these sentiments.

All that being given--how do we as a society decide which sins should also be illegal?

Morality comes from God, not men.

keck553
Sep 12th 2008, 03:40 PM
I do not think celebrating Easter detracts from God at all. How could it? It is a day on which we celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus - the greatest historical event of all time. So, we may not get the date correct. So what? God looks at the heart and desires worship and thanksgiving. I think God honours the worship and thanks he receives for his Son's resurrection. I think it is beneficial for the faithful to celebrate that day. I simply do not see why the legalism of ther exactitude on the date matters.

Really? Is that what you say to your wife when you miss your anniversary by a month and her birthday by 3 months? It doesn't matter, it's the thought that counts? Do you respect your wife more than God? What would your wife say, "It's whats in your heart that counts?" Do you really think someone completely loves their spouse if they neglect their anniversary and their birhtday?

Well, in my heart is respect for God's perfect timing, and the correct days that were chosen by God, not pagans that marked the greatest event that ever happened on the planet.

Then how does easter bunnys and eggs cause us to celebrate the resurrection of our Messiah? How does the pagan-derrived name "Easter" make us pause to consider there is a God? Where in any store do easter displays of candy and bunnys point in the tiniest way to Messiah? The day-keeping of easter can be an entire MONTH away from the day Yeshua rose, because it marks a pagan fetility celebration.

We don't get the day correct, and you just blow that off? God created the entire universe and set it so perfectly it marked the birth of Jesus, His death, His resurrection, and we can't respect God's perfect timing enough to at least get one day right? We KNOW the correct day of His resurrection, but because of MEN's TRADITIONS, we blow it off as "so what?

Emanate
Sep 12th 2008, 03:45 PM
Let's imagine a society governed by Christians; we'll call this nation Christenstad. In this nation, what is perceived as Biblical principles becomes the law of the land. In effect, sin is illegal. (Let's not discuss what the penalties for various sins would be.)

Let us here compile a list of laws, based on what our forum members see as sin. And then let us take a closer look at what life in Christenstad would be like.


Would alcohol be made illegal? (or did I miss that subject?)

keck553
Sep 12th 2008, 04:06 PM
Would alcohol be made illegal? (or did I miss that subject?)

They would have to arrest Yeshua if it was.

Emanate
Sep 12th 2008, 04:25 PM
They would have to arrest Yeshua if it was.

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

keck553
Sep 12th 2008, 05:10 PM
Serioously, I can't wait to get a glass of wine that God made. How blessed those who were there!

SIG
Sep 13th 2008, 04:21 AM
Well it has been tried before and we live in a society now that started out much that way. Over at ETC this is discussed ad nauseum by those who imagine the coming kingdom will be one that is like this. I don't see how it can be. A changed heart is not going to come by way of the law. And if Christenstad is a society of all born again believers, then sin wouldn't even be an issue.

I said it would be governed by believers; non-believers certainly could live there if they wished...

You seem to imply that a society of born-again believers would be sin-free. ?

SIG
Sep 13th 2008, 04:23 AM
Morality comes from God, not men.

Yet every society is governed by laws.

In theory, Christenstad is governed by God-made laws, as enacted by humans...

SIG
Sep 13th 2008, 04:24 AM
Would alcohol be made illegal? (or did I miss that subject?)

Since some board members in the past have declared drinking alcohol to be sinful, it is indeed illegal in Christenstad.

SIG
Sep 13th 2008, 04:25 AM
They would have to arrest Yeshua if it was.

Hmmmmm.....He WAS accused of being a drunkard....and He WAS arrested....

keck553
Sep 13th 2008, 07:10 PM
The Gospels say He made wine.

Case dismissed.

SIG
Sep 13th 2008, 11:18 PM
The Gospels say He made wine.

Case dismissed.

Yah--but this thread is not for discussing the individual laws---but I could probably track down a thread or two that do :D ...

SIG
Sep 13th 2008, 11:26 PM
Anyhoo---moving right along....

So what would life in Christenstad be like? And who would want to live there?
My guess--and probably yours--would be that neither saved nor unsaved folks would submit themselves to such a place. In fact, such a place might make Iran under the ayatollahs look like Freedomland.

This of course raises many questions. Such as:

Why would board members list certain activities as sins if they were not also willing to legislate against such things?

Exactly which sins should or shouldn't be enacted into law--and what is the qualitative difference?

How active should believers be in enacting laws, and why?

If there are indeed "sins" that are up to the individual choices of believers, why ever label them as sins at all?

And the grand prize-winner: What place does the freedom to sin have in a society?

keck553
Sep 14th 2008, 12:10 AM
The better question would be what would imposing man's interpretations and traditions of God's morality produce?

I think it could easily produce the same society Yeshua was crucified by.