when should sin be illegal and when not

I read this article about a case in the US at the moment where a woman faces 45 years to life for killing her unborn baby during a suicide attempt.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/may/30/indiana-prosecuting-chinese-woman-su...

And it got me thinking. Now, I agree that killing an unborn child is wrong, and that doesn't go away because the person is mentally unwell at the time (although it does mitigate their responsibility - that's a whole other discussion!). The law that's being used was set up to protect pregnant women and their babies from violence from another person, and I don't think it should be applied in this case.

So, when should we make a sin illegal, when do we allow compassion to over-rule, and when should we recognise the diversity of belief and leave things to personal choice?

It is written that "all unrighteousness is sin", so I do not believe that sin, per se, should be legislated as illegal.

Lying is a sin, but only when you are under oath or signing a legal document is it illegal. It's wrong, but do we want to start putting people in jail for not telling the truth?

Do we want to start putting people in jail for coveting? If I want your i-Pad, but just desire it and not do anything to take it from you, it still is a sin but should not be made illegal.

I am not for mandatory sentencing because that does not leave room for mitigating circumstances.

In the end, all will be judged by God for what they did or did not do, no matter what their beliefs are.

John Edwards has it right, in regards to sin:

http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/John_Edwards_Jury_Resumes_Deliberation_For_7t...

Edwards also said he believes he did nothing illegal, but that he did an "awful, awful lot" that was wrong and that no one else was responsible for his sins but him.

What he did might not have been illegal, but it certainly was wrong.

Am I condoning his acts? Nope. However, I don't see it as being feasible to put people in jail for every sin they commit.

>3 fuzzi: "However, I don't see it as being feasible to put people in jail for every sin they commit."

I also don't think it's desirable. We all sin, all the time. But some sins need to be crimes. Is it maybe to do with the harm we do to others?

Would we go by Biblical laws, or secular laws?

What would be the final authority, what we base our judgements on?

I think if there were such a thing as a Christian nation - that is, a nation of Christians - it would be simpler, base everything on God's law as we find it in the Bible. But since that's not the case, is it ok to hold non-believers to Biblical laws?

I think certain commands tend to be widely accepted as "right", while others are open to debate if we take God out of the equation. For example, most people would say it's wrong to kill a person and we should legislate against it, but what about a guilty person, or a not-yet-person (abortion), or a part-person (severely disabled or terminally ill)? Pro-capital-punishment campaigners believe it is enacting justice, pro-abortion campaigners believe it protects women and their existing children, pro-euthanasia campaigners believe it prevents suffering.

What about sins which are less harmful to others? We talked a lot on the other thread about homosexuality. Is it right to legislate against something like that (either directly or by creating unequal relationship status) when most people don't see things our way. As Christians we are in the minority. Should we accept that and focus on things other than legislation? On spreading the Gospel, helping the poor and marginalised and vulnerable? (Of course how do you truly protect the vulnerable unless you legislate against harming them?)

>6 eclecticdodo:

I think if there were such a thing as a Christian nation - that is, a nation of Christians - it would be simpler, base everything on God's law as we find it in the Bible.

I doubt that very much. I find much disagreement among Christians as to what actually constitutes "God's law".

>6 eclecticdodo: is it ok to hold non-believers to Biblical laws?

The Torah repeatedly refers to the laws as applying only to the Israelites, their slaves, and any traveller "within your gate". That doesn't necessarily mean that none of the laws are universal, but the laws in the Torah are addressed directly to the Israelites (in some case, in fact, only for the Levites and Priests). Frequently, they are explained as laws that are necessary because of God's presence in their midst (the Tabernacle in which is the holy of holies, where God resides).

Not exactly an answer, but relevent information, at least.

Os.

As far as the OP is concerned, I don't think sin should ever be illegal, as such. That is, laws are designed to help communities and nations to function effectively, regardless of the status of a behaviour as 'sin'. So, some things that may be considered sin should not be illegal (e.g., coveting, disrespecting parents, etc.), if for no other reason that they cannot/should not be policed and/or do not threaten the effective functioning of the community. Other things that are probably not sin clearly need to be laws (speed limits, immigration, hazardous waste dumping, for example). Sin and laws may overlap, but are actually unrelated topics.

Os.

~8

And that is accurate.

But things become a bit more muddled when you inject the claim that Christianity was the successor to Judaism or the right form of Judaism. That the only sacrifice in Christianity is Jesus himself, does not mean that a whole range of sins is abolished. It means only that there is a more compact form of seeking repentance and forgiveness.

If, however, Christianity is the transformation of Judaism into a universal religion it would seem to follow that the dictates of the Law have now also become universal. The Old Dispensation held that the Jews were a set aside people with special duties and special responsibilities to G-d and the Goyim (the other nations). Under the New Dispensation all are part of the requirements of G-d.

~5

It seems to me that you are using "we" in a variety of different senses. Frankly, I don't care if you have rules within your Church for all sorts of things - and sanctions for those who break those rules. You can probably even create enforceable contracts on that basis. When you start using taxes which are extorted from the general citizenry to hire police, jailers and judges to impose your rules on me, however, you are looking for trouble.

(11) I was asking those questions rhetorically...I do not believe that secular society should make sin into a crime.

But somewhere along the way we, as a society, have to agree on some common standard. What would you have us base ours upon?

The truth is no one has the power or the right to judge. Abortions, murders, suicides happen everyday and society always turns a blind eye. A handful of cases such as this one will get a temporary spotlight. I would ask, who decides which sin is brought out into the open and when?

~12

How about agreement itself? Could it be just possible that a society runs on simple prudence as to what works and what doesn't work - with the "society" (or at least the state) not sticking its nose into "just everything," regardless of whether it has any import for public order?

It may surprise you to learn that there is a vast literature on these topics outside of the Bible. Some of that literature goes back to ancient times. The most recent "burst" originated in the late Middle Ages and culminated in the Enlightenment, although there are still "political theorists" around today who write books on these topics. Some even have pages on Librarything: e.g., http://www.librarything.com/profile/jtlevy

(13) Who, indeed, makes the decisions on what is "right" and what is "wrong"? Our congress can't come to a consensus...what makes anyone think that a bunch of people can pull standards and laws out of thin air without some authority of what is RIGHT and what is WRONG?

>10 lawecon: If, however, Christianity is the transformation of Judaism into a universal religion it would seem to follow that the dictates of the Law have now also become universal. The Old Dispensation held that the Jews were a set aside people with special duties and special responsibilities to G-d and the Goyim (the other nations). Under the New Dispensation all are part of the requirements of G-d.

That seems like a good example of how literalists (especially selective literalists) can get into trouble.

Os.

> 15. Who, indeed, makes the decisions on what is "right" and what is "wrong"?

Charles and David Koch?

fuzzi at #15: ...what makes anyone think that a bunch of people can pull standards and laws out of thin air without some authority of what is RIGHT and what is WRONG?

Quoted for emphasis.

I am posting so I can read this for a paper. This has been a ton of steps but this would help clarify all the questions I have. So far, I am disappointed with this site. Sorry if I have bothered you.

It is possible to read topics on this site without posting. Even without joining. You haven't entered any books. You have simply signed up for the free level of membership. I see no sign that you know anything about the site.

This topic is a discussion over 4 days five years ago set off by a specific news item by a handful of members. It is not an 'essay'. It is hardly a good example of what this site is about (except that many of us have strong opinions about all sorts of things.) I find myself very confused by your comment.

>19 vonlaurence:

I'm also confused by your post. If you have questions that you want clarified why don't you post some of your questions and maybe that would resurrect this old conversation and some of your questions might indeed be clarified? Contributing to the conversation might be more fruitful than merely expressing your disappointment out of the blue.