What would a "I Corinthians Christian Nation" look like?

[Politesse]

In another thread (I didn't want to derail it) a poster quotes the following passage as a reason to oppose the recent ruling of the United States' Supreme Court that all of its citizens should have equal rights with regard to marriage. From Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 6:

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
.

I was looking at that big old list of shall nots, and suddenly wondered why the emphasis is solely on sodomy, when the whole list is equally emphasized in the passage? I mean, I know why, but why not be worried about the other things too? But then I realized that to conform to this verse, the United States would have to revise its laws so seriously it would barely be itself afterward. Is anyone actually advocating for this?

Fornication
The US has formerly had laws against fornication, but never at the federal level. How would you successfully outlaw this, and does anyone want to? I mean, you may not want your daughter to come home from date night pregnant, but does that mean you actually want her to go to jail if she does? Or would that perhaps be a problem better handled within the family?

Idolatry
Dunno about you, but I definitely remember being forced to salute a scrap of cloth in grade school. This is a custom I would love to see gone, but not if it means outlawing just about every non-Christian faith at the same time. Surely no one wants this? We'd also have to scrap Hollywood (celebrities) and professional sports (more celebrities, not to mention the whole trophy thing), two major industries that most of us consider distinctly American.

Adulterers
Same problem as with fornication. Most people would agree that adultery is awful for at least one of those involved, but jail time wouldn't really help.

Effeminacy
How would you even enforce this? Length of hair? Amount of makeup worn? I don't think most Americans want to have the police stopping them to check the length of their nails.

Abusers of themselves with mankind
This is the one we're fighting over at the moment. I do sort of wonder how outlawing gay marriage in any way prevents the act of gay sex. Unless there's someone out there who's Christian enough to be trying not to fornicate, but liberal enough to want to marry a guy?


But at least those are all things that could be changed without drastically altering the Constitution or the political structure of the country. The real problems start in verse 10:

Theft
Thievery is currently handled by state, not federal law. I approve of such laws, as long as they are fairly enforced. But it does create a bit of a land base problem, as any land not specifically covered by treaty would have to revert to indigenous ownership if there were an actual constitutional rule against theft. I just can't see the government actually agreeing to this. And it would create a major immigration and population density problem. It wouldn't mean giving the whole country back. But we would be talking about a whole lot of land. And we'd lose most of the National Parks. And the reparations, to every nation we ever looted from, domestic and international, would more than bankrupt us.

Coveting
I'm not sure how you would legislate this exactly. But I definitely don't see the economy surviving in its present form. The capitalist market assumes that there will demand for products, and not just the pragmatic, necessary products that make life possible. Most American products, especially now that our manufacturing centers are mostly overseas, are essentially luxury items. Outlawing coveting would probably mean outlawing the sale of these things; it would certainly prohibit advertisements. I for one would love to see the advertising industry dead, but I have to admit, I can't really picture it.

Alcoholism
We actually did create a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol. But then we made another one to reverse it, because Prohibition was insanely unpopular. I guess we could just rewind, but I'm pretty sure it would end the same way. And again, it would be disastrous for the economy, of which liquor sales are a much larger part than they were at the time. Me, I'd love to see alcohol gone. But I don't see it happening through legislation.

Reviling
No more insults? America would no longer be recognizable as itself. No talk shows... No stump speeches... No partisan politics... No comedy... I'm just not seeing how this could possibly be put into action, and leave you with the same nation as before.

Extortioners
Again, that's capitalism done for. Loaning money at interest is extortion by any reasonable definition of that term, and it is literally the basis of our entire national economy at present. So are most jobs (workers aren't paid for the amount of money they produce, they're paid for how desperate they are for work). It'd be a kinder and gentler country in some ways, but also a noticeably communist one, and again, barely recognizable as itself.

 

[JayJayDee]

In another thread (I didn't want to derail it) a poster quotes the following passage as a reason to oppose the recent ruling of the United States' Supreme Court that all of its citizens should have equal rights with regard to marriage. From Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 6:

I was looking at that big old list of shall nots, and suddenly wondered why the emphasis is solely on sodomy, when the whole list is equally emphasized in the passage? I mean, I know why, but why not be worried about the other things too? But then I realized that to conform to this verse, the United States would have to revise its laws so seriously it would barely be itself afterward. Is anyone actually advocating for this?

Fornication
The US has formerly had laws against fornication, but never at the federal level. How would you successfully outlaw this, and does anyone want to? I mean, you may not want your daughter to come home from date night pregnant, but does that mean you actually want her to go to jail if she does? Or would that perhaps be a problem better handled within the family?

Idolatry
Dunno about you, but I definitely remember being forced to salute a scrap of cloth in grade school. This is a custom I would love to see gone, but not if it means outlawing just about every non-Christian faith at the same time. Surely no one wants this? We'd also have to scrap Hollywood (celebrities) and professional sports (more celebrities, not to mention the whole trophy thing), two major industries that most of us consider distinctly American.

Adulterers
Same problem as with fornication. Most people would agree that adultery is awful for at least one of those involved, but jail time wouldn't really help.

Effeminacy
How would you even enforce this? Length of hair? Amount of makeup worn? I don't think most Americans want to have the police stopping them to check the length of their nails.

Abusers of themselves with mankind
This is the one we're fighting over at the moment. I do sort of wonder how outlawing gay marriage in any way prevents the act of gay sex. Unless there's someone out there who's Christian enough to be trying not to fornicate, but liberal enough to want to marry a guy?


But at least those are all things that could be changed without drastically altering the Constitution or the political structure of the country. The real problems start in verse 10:

Theft
Thievery is currently handled by state, not federal law. I approve of such laws, as long as they are fairly enforced. But it does create a bit of a land base problem, as any land not specifically covered by treaty would have to revert to indigenous ownership if there were an actual constitutional rule against theft. I just can't see the government actually agreeing to this. And it would create a major immigration and population density problem. It wouldn't mean giving the whole country back. But we would be talking about a whole lot of land. And we'd lose most of the National Parks. And the reparations, to every nation we ever looted from, domestic and international, would more than bankrupt us.

Coveting
I'm not sure how you would legislate this exactly. But I definitely don't see the economy surviving in its present form. The capitalist market assumes that there will demand for products, and not just the pragmatic, necessary products that make life possible. Most American products, especially now that our manufacturing centers are mostly overseas, are essentially luxury items. Outlawing coveting would probably mean outlawing the sale of these things; it would certainly prohibit advertisements. I for one would love to see the advertising industry dead, but I have to admit, I can't really picture it.

Alcoholism
We actually did create a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol. But then we made another one to reverse it, because Prohibition was insanely unpopular. I guess we could just rewind, but I'm pretty sure it would end the same way. And again, it would be disastrous for the economy, of which liquor sales are a much larger part than they were at the time. Me, I'd love to see alcohol gone. But I don't see it happening through legislation.

Reviling
No more insults? America would no longer be recognizable as itself. No talk shows... No stump speeches... No partisan politics... No comedy... I'm just not seeing how this could possibly be put into action, and leave you with the same nation as before.

Extortioners
Again, that's capitalism done for. Loaning money at interest is extortion by any reasonable definition of that term, and it is literally the basis of our entire national economy at present. So are most jobs (workers aren't paid for the amount of money they produce, they're paid for how desperate they are for work). It'd be a kinder and gentler country in some ways, but also a noticeably communist one, and again, barely recognizable as itself.

What would a 1 Corinthians Christian Nation look like? Interesting question.

And you are right......ALL of the things Paul mentioned are equally wrong in God's eyes......but then you didn't really think the U.S. was a Christian nation in the first place....did you? I could give you an additional list to demonstrate why they never were....and why no nation in this world can ever claim to be Christian.

 

[Politesse]

Of course not. But using a Bible verse to determine legislation seems like kind of an all or nothing deal to me. I'd almost be willing to give up my marriage to a hypothetical husband if human greed and avarice and cruelty were going to go away at the same time. But somehow I don't think that's legitimately on offer.

 

[Nietzsche]

Probably 1984 with a shiny theocratic coat of paint, replacing Big Brother with Heavenly Father.

 

[sojourner]

In another thread (I didn't want to derail it) a poster quotes the following passage as a reason to oppose the recent ruling of the United States' Supreme Court that all of its citizens should have equal rights with regard to marriage. From Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 6:



I was looking at that big old list of shall nots, and suddenly wondered why the emphasis is solely on sodomy, when the whole list is equally emphasized in the passage? I mean, I know why, but why not be worried about the other things too? But then I realized that to conform to this verse, the United States would have to revise its laws so seriously it would barely be itself afterward. Is anyone actually advocating for this?

Fornication
The US has formerly had laws against fornication, but never at the federal level. How would you successfully outlaw this, and does anyone want to? I mean, you may not want your daughter to come home from date night pregnant, but does that mean you actually want her to go to jail if she does? Or would that perhaps be a problem better handled within the family?

Idolatry
Dunno about you, but I definitely remember being forced to salute a scrap of cloth in grade school. This is a custom I would love to see gone, but not if it means outlawing just about every non-Christian faith at the same time. Surely no one wants this? We'd also have to scrap Hollywood (celebrities) and professional sports (more celebrities, not to mention the whole trophy thing), two major industries that most of us consider distinctly American.

Adulterers
Same problem as with fornication. Most people would agree that adultery is awful for at least one of those involved, but jail time wouldn't really help.

Effeminacy
How would you even enforce this? Length of hair? Amount of makeup worn? I don't think most Americans want to have the police stopping them to check the length of their nails.

Abusers of themselves with mankind
This is the one we're fighting over at the moment. I do sort of wonder how outlawing gay marriage in any way prevents the act of gay sex. Unless there's someone out there who's Christian enough to be trying not to fornicate, but liberal enough to want to marry a guy?


But at least those are all things that could be changed without drastically altering the Constitution or the political structure of the country. The real problems start in verse 10:

Theft
Thievery is currently handled by state, not federal law. I approve of such laws, as long as they are fairly enforced. But it does create a bit of a land base problem, as any land not specifically covered by treaty would have to revert to indigenous ownership if there were an actual constitutional rule against theft. I just can't see the government actually agreeing to this. And it would create a major immigration and population density problem. It wouldn't mean giving the whole country back. But we would be talking about a whole lot of land. And we'd lose most of the National Parks. And the reparations, to every nation we ever looted from, domestic and international, would more than bankrupt us.

Coveting
I'm not sure how you would legislate this exactly. But I definitely don't see the economy surviving in its present form. The capitalist market assumes that there will demand for products, and not just the pragmatic, necessary products that make life possible. Most American products, especially now that our manufacturing centers are mostly overseas, are essentially luxury items. Outlawing coveting would probably mean outlawing the sale of these things; it would certainly prohibit advertisements. I for one would love to see the advertising industry dead, but I have to admit, I can't really picture it.

Alcoholism
We actually did create a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol. But then we made another one to reverse it, because Prohibition was insanely unpopular. I guess we could just rewind, but I'm pretty sure it would end the same way. And again, it would be disastrous for the economy, of which liquor sales are a much larger part than they were at the time. Me, I'd love to see alcohol gone. But I don't see it happening through legislation.

Reviling
No more insults? America would no longer be recognizable as itself. No talk shows... No stump speeches... No partisan politics... No comedy... I'm just not seeing how this could possibly be put into action, and leave you with the same nation as before.

Extortioners
Again, that's capitalism done for. Loaning money at interest is extortion by any reasonable definition of that term, and it is literally the basis of our entire national economy at present. So are most jobs (workers aren't paid for the amount of money they produce, they're paid for how desperate they are for work). It'd be a kinder and gentler country in some ways, but also a noticeably communist one, and again, barely recognizable as itself.

Hmmm... I don't read anything to do with either homosexuality or sad-sex marriage anywhere in that passage.

 

[Politesse]

Hmmm... I don't read anything to do with either homosexuality or sad-sex marriage anywhere in that passage.

I believe the bit about "Abusing oneself with mankind" is taken to be a general prohibition on having a relationship with someone of the same gender. To be fair, the word that the Vulgate via King James is oh so politely trying to obfuscate there, αρσενοκοιται, is basically Greek for "Man-Bedding", so the truth isn't probably far from that. And that seems to have been a polite rephrasing in and of itself, given that this is the only book in written history that uses it. St Paul was a conservative in true form, I think.

 

[sojourner]

I believe the bit about "Abusing oneself with mankind" is taken to be a general prohibition on having a relationship with someone of the same gender.

One can read virtually anything one wants to into the texts (an unreliable and disingenuous process called "eisegesis" -- reading into). But that's not wha the text says (a reliable and honest process called "exegesis" -- reading out of).

To be fair, the word that the Vulgate via King James is oh so politely trying to obfuscate there, αρσενοκοιται, is basically Greek for "Man-Bedding", so the truth isn't probably far from that.

Again, that's not a statement against homosexuality, and most likely, therefore, isn't an injunction against what we know of as loving, homosexual relationships. It's more likely an injunction against more-or-less violent sodomy.

St Paul was a conservative in true form, I think.

I agree.

 

[JayJayDee]

Of course not. But using a Bible verse to determine legislation seems like kind of an all or nothing deal to me.

I agree.....it seems like the law of the land was supposedly based on the law of God to begin with....but humans, being what they are by nature, are more inclined to alter the laws of the land to suit their chosen lifestyle. The laws of God are not really taken into consideration much at all anymore. Some think that's a good thing...I wonder what God thinks? The Bible says he does not change...only we do, and not for the better apparently.

I'd almost be willing to give up my marriage to a hypothetical husband if human greed and avarice and cruelty were going to go away at the same time. But somehow I don't think that's legitimately on offer.

Man cannot legitimately offer any solutions to the problems of chosen lifestyles or ideologies. No government has ever been able to legislate people's morality. Even the most despotic dictatorships cannot control what people feel and think...it can only enforce certain compliance of behavior under threat. A hollow and empty abuse of power.

As long as man has no one to answer to but himself, he will continue to dig a huge hole that will eventually become his grave......or someone else's. I for one am grateful that God has his own solutions that do not depend on man at all.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What would a 1 Corinthians Christian Nation look like? Interesting question.

And you are right......ALL of the things Paul mentioned are equally wrong in God's eyes......but then you didn't really think the U.S. was a Christian nation in the first place....did you? I could give you an additional list to demonstrate why they never were....and why no nation in this world can ever claim to be Christian.

It would certainly be a markedly different country had it adopted Pauline Christianity.

 

[Politesse]

Man cannot legitimately offer any solutions to the problems of chosen lifestyles or ideologies. No government has ever been able to legislate people's morality. Even the most despotic dictatorships cannot control what people feel and think...it can only enforce certain compliance of behavior under threat. A hollow and empty abuse of power.

Yes, and this is why I doubt God approves of His scriptures being used as a billy-club. But people keep at it. Why, I wonder, do people who are so convinced that God desires us as individuals to have free will, imagine that he wants us to strip it from each other?

As long as man has no one to answer to but himself, he will continue to dig a huge hole that will eventually become his grave......or someone else's. I for one am grateful that God has his own solutions that do not depend on man at all.

This may be, though in my experience, we are capable of doing both good and evil, and most of the times it's hard to even say which is which. But then, we've all got a bit of God in us too. Our very bones are knit from the birthing fluids of the stars. It's good to have personal rules, I think, to guide that potential along. But repressive laws hurt more than they guide.

The weirdest situation, to me, is when someone wants those oppressive laws, but not any personal change. They'll murder someone for being gay, but take no measure to stem avarice or wrath in their own lives. The OP is kind of looking at that. I know few Christians, liberal or conservative, who would get very invested in trying even in an informal way to reverse the evils of capitalism. Yet policing other people's bedroom time, oh, that calls for reforms. It just seems a little backward. Shouldn't change, if it happens, start with the soul and move outward to self and community and society? It doesn't work to do it backward. You can arrange your external world all you like, and it means nothing if your soul is still sick.

 

[Politesse]

One can read virtually anything one wants to into the texts (an unreliable and disingenuous process called "eisegesis" -- reading into). But that's not wha the text says (a reliable and honest process called "exegesis" -- reading out of).

Again, that's not a statement against homosexuality, and most likely, therefore, isn't an injunction against what we know of as loving, homosexual relationships. It's more likely an injunction against more-or-less violent sodomy.

I agree.

If you like. I'm well familiar with the argument, and have my opinions on it (Having studied him for a while at a very liberal seminary, I think progressives have good but misguided reasons for trying to make Paul look "nice") but yes, there is more than one reading of that word. As always, when a word is a hapax legomenon.

What about the others, though? There's no doubt whatsoever about what reviling means, it is a word used often in the writings of the ancient world and not just in Koine either. And yet, I see no movement whatsoever to make polite speech a legal requirement, or even a virtue. We actually seem to want our politicians to fight each other, and won't vote for them unless they do.

 

[sojourner]

If you like. I'm well familiar with the argument, and have my opinions on it (Having studied him for a while at a very liberal seminary, I think progressives have good but misguided reasons for trying to make Paul look "nice") but yes, there is more than one reading of that word. As always, when a word is a hapax legomenon.

What about the others, though? There's no doubt whatsoever about what reviling means, it is a word used often in the writings of the ancient world and not just in Koine either. And yet, I see no movement whatsoever to make polite speech a legal requirement, or even a virtue. We actually seem to want our politicians to fight each other, and won't vote for them unless they do.

Nonetheless, I don't think one can reasonably make the text about homosexuality.

 

[JayJayDee]

Yes, and this is why I doubt God approves of His scriptures being used as a billy-club. But people keep at it. Why, I wonder, do people who are so convinced that God desires us as individuals to have free will, imagine that he wants us to strip it from each other?

I guess it comes as a revelation to many "Christians" that we have no business forcing our beliefs and rules on anyone in a political sense. "The world" is something we were told to be "no part" of. (John 15:18-21) I believe that this applies in every negative way....morally, physically and spiritually.

You cannot force people to behave like Christians when they are not. God allows people to make their own choices without force. He tells them what their options are and allows them to choose what they want to do with their life. There are however consequences for all decisions. If we know the consequence before we act, who can we blame when the judgment comes and sentence is passed? No one can say they weren't told.

This may be, though in my experience, we are capable of doing both good and evil, and most of the times it's hard to even say which is which. But then, we've all got a bit of God in us too. Our very bones are knit from the birthing fluids of the stars. It's good to have personal rules, I think, to guide that potential along. But repressive laws hurt more than they guide.

I think you have hit the nail on the head...we cannot be both good and evil...but then most people have their own opinions about which is which...and many cannot tell the difference. When you view something as beneficial, how do you convince someone that it is bad?...when it is good for them! ?

We really couldn't live without rules because no good can come from chaos. A Christian who loves God's law would never view it as repressive. They will see the benefits and comply willingly. There are reasons for the rules.

The weirdest situation, to me, is when someone wants those oppressive laws, but not any personal change. They'll murder someone for being gay, but take no measure to stem avarice or wrath in their own lives. The OP is kind of looking at that. I know few Christians, liberal or conservative, who would get very invested in trying even in an informal way to reverse the evils of capitalism.

Isn't this the typical human dilemma? Something is only "evil" of it doesn't benefit oneself in some way. When Jesus told us to be "no part of the world", that means not being involved in the political systems that run it, no matter what nation we inhabit. If "the whole world lies in the power of the wicked one" (1 John 5:19) we must do our best to separate ourselves from his works. Politics is so corrupt, I can't imagine why any Christian would want to be part of any of it. Even the genuine ones who desire to implement real change are hamstrung by the system. They have two choices....lick 'em or join 'em. They can't lick 'em, so they only have one option......the system makes it worth their while to join.

Yet policing other people's bedroom time, oh, that calls for reforms. It just seems a little backward. Shouldn't change, if it happens, start with the soul and move outward to self and community and society? It doesn't work to do it backward. You can arrange your external world all you like, and it means nothing if your soul is still sick.

I couldn't agree more. That is just what Jesus tells us to do. The only person we are under obligation to change is ourselves. We have no right to tell others what to believe or what to practice. We have an obligation to tell them what God requires, if they are interested enough to listen, but like Jesus we do so on a "take it or leave it" basis. People came to hear him speak and they took away from it things that either changed their lives or sent them in the other direction.

It all about our choices as free willed beings. Our hearts are making life and death decisions every day.