I'm sadden you believe my quote of Twain was an innuendo to communism. Twain and my comments are that the butcher, when seeing a child misbehaves, will call the child out to cease, or contact the parents. That is what is meant. Today you're more likely to suffer a lawsuit than to "get involved" and that only leads to more despotism and more chaos and more confusion.
Please forgive me Abdicate, it was not my intent to move your spirit to sadness, as it is so clear that you are deeply moved for the sake of innocent children, which provides a testament for what is virtuous for our cause in Christ. If more of the world were moved in the spirit as you are moved, we would have a much better world.
However may I please be critical of Twain alone, who would intercede for the poor, but would also wish for compulsory forces to intervene with those who had the tangible means to help, instead of advocating the removal of the compulsory forces that would already impoverish? Can we also see in like-manor that Marx was a proponent to solve poverty as well, but used an even worse prescription from the depths of hell that would cast every society into a natural despotic damnation?
Thus can evil measures be examined from power-hungry men who are empowered with despotic authority and also supported by poor strategies from writers who cry out for a compulsory despotic rescue of the poor? For legal compulsion is not warranted to solve, and free people shall rescue them if they are not trampled by compulsory fairness.
Furthermore, I'm not keen on some of you subtile vocabulary nuances to really fathom what you're trying to say. I do not know what classifications of society or theories you're quoting, I'm a simple man and use the scriptures to know what is right and what is wrong.
With kind sincerity, how may I bring more clarification to something specific?
We may not be worthy to judge but God appoints rulers over men, therefore men are charged with ruling men.
(KJV)
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
Is it possible that the early church who were in that city famous for legendary immorality had fallen to doctrinal decay, and then Paul with Sosthenes, wrote the church at Corinth to challenge Godly integrity with these verses you quote? Can you agree that Paul's mission in these verses was a challenge for the Corinthians to use good-judgement and sound examination, and to trust that the words they were saying were true, even if they did not understand them? For there was much doubt that the Corinthians adhered to sound doctrine when Paul wrote.
The word "judge" in these verses
means to “examine, inquire or evaluate” - which was Paul's challenge to the Corinthians about the integrity of the message by receiving it in the Spirit.
For the judgement you mention here is a challenge of “evaluation” for the church to consider regarding Paul's message by being in the Spirit. Thus what does this “evaluation” have to do with the “punitive judgement” that I reference coming from evil men on despotic thrones forcing unjust law upon the innocent?
Only true holy and surrendered Christians can rightly judge (the word for "gods" below in both Hebrew and Greek) truly and correctly.
(KJV)
I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.
Yet though we are children of the most High, are we not forbidden to judge punitively regarding non-despotic sin, less it be measured to us personally or the church for doing so?
(KJV)
I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and [for] all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
Though Paul offers yet another great challenge for prayer that may separate the evil that prevails in spiritual strongholds, also to pray fervently for ruling authorities and citizens alike, where is there support for us to judge ambiguous non-despotic sin using despotic civil law?
For I would challenge this is great scripture to fortify “what is” good government, one that is void of all despotism? For men are not worthy to assault society regarding their personal non-despotic sin, and should focus on their own spiritual status. Yet shall despotism in action then require a “just” separation, to separate the despotic from the non-aggressor, as Christ would demonstrate several times.
(KJV)
All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Yet is it possible that when we are saved we enter into a contract? A contract of “ownership”, where we through our free-will then give back in full what was delegated to man for a natural lease of temporary self-ownership on earth? Is it not then that all obedience from our blessed covenant in Christ Jesus is then our voluntary and joyful burden to be transformed into the mind of Christ? Thus is this not Paul's advice to young Timothy to strive for perfection within the faith?
Let us consider societal ethics?
Though the drug user or gambler may be in sin, they must be “allowed” to make the choice to abandon evil that besets them by choosing Christ, and if we the church are to fortify the land with thousands of punitive despotic laws to choke it out of them with violence, shall we not only reap judgement in return as a church, but shall we also remove the delegation from God for the sinner to choose. However if the drug user is to commit destruction, to kill or steal against others, then shall despotism be committed, and then shall civil society and the church have “just cause” for the law to intercept the despotic behaviour (Romans 13). For ambiguous compulsory law falls to brutish unclear causes that are not justified in scripture, yet clear reactive law (just law) which responds to despotism is our mandated burden.
For what is sin to you and what is sin to me, when despotism is not present? Shall our interpretive hermeneutics vary, and shall each denomination be the proof that we are diverse in our understandings; thus shall it be wise to know that the law can only side with one person or one church, as all others are thrown despotically in jail for striving for virtue or apathy.
My biggest problem with unadulterated sin as is society today is that they flaunt it and I have to see it. Man's laws are built on the morals of society. Everything Hitler did was by man's law. That doesn't make it right. I do not subscribe that a Christian should not get involved with the governments - we are supposed to. It is up to us, through the Holy Spirit, now on earth, to mold society, and since we are not (which is even our right as citizens of a once "free" nation), we get the society and government we sowed. If we sow to evil, evil we will reap. If we sow to righteousness, righteousness we will reap. There is cause-and-effect to all actions - the law of sowing and reaping. That's all I'm saying.
Does that mean we should push them back into the closet? You bet!
(KJV)
Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
Can we read the beginning of context in its entirety for better perspective?
New Living Translation (NLT) -
1. When one of you has a dispute with another believer, how dare you file a lawsuit and ask a secular court to decide the matter instead of taking it to other believers!
2 Don’t you realize that someday we believers will judge the world? And since you are going to judge the world, can’t you decide even these little things among yourselves?
3. Don’t you realize that we will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disputes in this life.
4. If you have legal disputes about such matters, why go to outside judges who are not respected by the church?
5. I am saying this to shame you. Isn’t there anyone in all the church who is wise enough to decide these issues?
6. But instead, one believer sues another—right in front of unbelievers!
7. Even to have such lawsuits with one another is a defeat for you. Why not just accept the injustice and leave it at that? Why not let yourselves be cheated?
8. Instead, you yourselves are the ones who do wrong and cheat even your fellow believers.
9. Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality,
10. or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God.
11 Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
Let us realize first that Paul condemns these immoral acts listed in verses 9 and 10, while also stating the eternal consequences, yet is it not his challenge that the Corinthians should “not” legislate or use punitive lawful solution for these activities? Even the sin of theft was challenged to stay out of court when its manageable, even though its a form of despotism.
Let us consider your comment “to mold society”? Is it not Oliver Cromwell who with great motivation to cleanse the land of all sin became a ruthless despot when molding it? For Cromwell started out a Puritan Christian seeking religious freedom in good standing, till power to “mold” the law became within his reach. How many were slaughtered just on a bad report of sin? Thus can history show that in order to “mold” others, one must have despotic power to mold, and when is it moral to mold another without their consent as a non-aggressor?
Let us agree to your point that our nation was “once” free, yet can we also agree that it was only till the mid 1800s that we started legislating ambiguous non-despotic sin, wretched fairness and arbitrary safety, which helped usher in the interventionist progressive era. Is it possible that our U.S. founders understood the non-punitive judiciary measures of Christs example better than their children/grandchildren 75 years later? Is it possible that our “lost” freedom, in part, is from sown seeds of legislated violence for ambiguous sin? For if the evil thing is eager to be empowered to remove its own vile things with compulsion for an authoritarian gain, will it not also remove our liberty for another authoritarian gain?
Abdicate – I must apologize for my forthrightness, as it does cut to much criticism, yet please know my heart is not vested to marginalize, and also know that I recognize your amazing challenge to promote righteousness in Christ, which exculpates your position with resonating purity. To your point we are amidst much decay and the church is commissioned to address it, but can we agree unto vigilance that it must be done scripturally in prayer where forces of darkness in the spirit can be diminished, while we refrain from empowering arbitrary forces of men to trample that which precious into the mud?