Search results

Well, we've regressed back to several months ago. So be it. It doesn't follow because that's not what I'm arguing. No one, other than you, has said a single word about "a higher domestic authority". That is, other than the constitution itself (i.e. other than the law itself). You keep...

Okay, now I think we're really making some progress! The discussion has now reached the question that lies beneath nearly everything else we have been debating. The central issue is not simply whether a wicked king might be removed, nor is it merely where final earthly authority terminates. The...

This is like suggesting that bubble gum is "related" to ancient Greek philosophy because the ancient Greeks were among the first to chew a form of gum. Sharing one point of agreement does not make two systems related in any meaningful sense. The Socinians (a group I've never heard of before...

First of all, I want to say that I appreciate your acknowledgment that you overstated my position. That was the central problem with your previous response, and I'm glad we've gotten that behind us. That single issue would have tied up the whole discussion for weeks if it had been almost anyone...

I'm a little at a loss for words here. You spent all that time and effort arguing against a position that I do not hold and that I have not argued. I cannot understand how it is possible for you to have missed the point so completely! You've taken what amounts to a colloquial reference to...

You are still just making semantic based arguments, JR. I don't care if it was Israel or Zimbabwe. There wasn't any thing special about the nation of Israel in particular aside from the fact that it was descended from Abraham and Issac and Jacob. Had, for whatever reason, God chosen to build a...

Merely calling something a "modal fallacy" is not an argument. You have to identify the actual fallacy. The argument is straightforward: If a future choice is already infallibly true before the chooser exists, then it cannot fail to occur. If it cannot fail to occur, then no genuine...

So, I think I've identified the real point of disagreement. Or, at least I think I've figured out the most fundamental premise that lies under our disagreement. You argue that my proposal is an unauthorized modification of the biblical model because Scripture never authorizes replacing God's...

Please read all of what follows before responding to any of it... Okay, so first I want to say that I appreciate the effort you put into your response, but you're writing at the level of individual rebuttals rather than underlying arguments. I get it. I used to do this all the time. I've since...

I'll take these one by one. You'll immediate begin to recognize the fact that all of this has been said before in one way or another, if not in several ways. I wrote this in more than one sitting over the last few days and when I read it through I became aware of how repetitive even this post...

I've read the answers, JR. We've been discussing this for 6 years! You're right, it doesn't! What it does is say that just have to live with it or else refuse to obey and pray that the king doesn't murder them for it, which, of course, he would. It isn't translating, it's just the logical...

Yes, I most certainly can. The reason I can't bring myself to read it any longer is because you stopped saying anything new months ago and your repitition of the same responses don't answer the arguments any better now than they did 6 years ago when I started this discussion. Your argument...

Awesome!

I'm not avoiding anything. You are asking me to do something and then setting the parameters such that doing so is impossible. Please describe for what Cyan is, but do so without evoking the concept of "blueness".

I'm not retreating, I just can't make myself read 1950 words written in response to seven sentences. You claim I deny things that I open acknowledge, you somehow think that because the law doesn't affirmatively sanction tyranny, the fact that it doesn't punish it is somehow irrelevant and you...

Repeating our positions is all that there's been left to do for over a month. The arguments have been made repeatedly on both sides and repeating the position is simply invoking the same arguments. I am not the one here with the burden of proof, you are. You are the one who needs to demonstrate...

It's the same arguments! I've answered these issue many times before. There is no such thing as a perfect system. "Who removes the removers?" defeats EVERY form of government anyone could ever conceive of, including the one you are here defending. The only difference is the answer one gives and...

I am referring only to matters of law and criminal justice, not the kings character per se and there would be no committee that sits around waiting for the king to commit a crime. I am not talking about forming some sort of parliament but merely granting injured parties the right to bring suit...

It would hardly be any worse - in principle. That is, there is no need for a legislature but there is a need to see to it that the king is, in fact and in reality and in this life required to obey the governing document that grants him his authority. Otherwise, you do not have the rule of law.

Your arguments that aren't semantic in nature all boil down to choosing which worst case scenario you prefer, to which my response remains the same. Pointing out a different worst case scenario does not prove your system is better. It simply proves it to be different. When human nature and the...