Bob debates a Libertarian
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
Great show!!!
That poor guy he had no clue what he was getting in to.
That poor guy he had no clue what he was getting in to.
I loved it when that guest tried to defend the constitution by quoting the Declartion of Independence. :chuckle:
This is old news, still catching up.
Thought Gary Nolan made a lot of sense. Got the impression it was hard for Bob to disagree on numerous points.
When given the right twist, many of Nolan’s views can be made to sound “extreme.” But you had to love Bob’s “conservative” brand of Christianity, calling for the execution of homosexuals and the arrest of consenting unmarried adults committing the crime of copulating without a license from the federal government and the approval of the local bishop.
Bob has no “reverence” for the Constitution because the Constitution protects the unrighteous from fanatics like Bob. Would anything less than a “Christianized” police state make Bob happy?
Thought Gary Nolan made a lot of sense. Got the impression it was hard for Bob to disagree on numerous points.
When given the right twist, many of Nolan’s views can be made to sound “extreme.” But you had to love Bob’s “conservative” brand of Christianity, calling for the execution of homosexuals and the arrest of consenting unmarried adults committing the crime of copulating without a license from the federal government and the approval of the local bishop.
Bob has no “reverence” for the Constitution because the Constitution protects the unrighteous from fanatics like Bob. Would anything less than a “Christianized” police state make Bob happy?
To my knowledge, fornication – sex between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman – is not a crime under Old Testament law. Without bothering to listen to the debate again, I believe Bob made the point that consenting unmarried adults should be “arrested” if they have sex. As God’s policeman, in Bob’s America, the federal government would be given the authority to arrest and punish behavior he personally finds morally offensive, but not important enough to warrant specific legal sanctions under biblical law.
Fornication is the “moral” equivalent of adultery in the New Testament, but correct me if I’m wrong to say that nowhere in Scripture is “fornication” punished as a “misdemeanor,” no less a “capital” crime.
Granted, fornication is found among a laundry list of hell-worthy offenses. It is not, however, as Bob argued, behavior singled out as a criminal “civil” offense. Like, say, adultery, or bearing false witness, or perjury. After all, the reputations of the “accused” are at stake.
I’d be interested to know what “law” has been broken. Cite moral law, case-law, precedent, and application. If Bob was attempting to prosecute the case in a “real” court of biblical law, the court would dismiss the case for want of a “crime.”
If one of the accused is married, both are “guilty” of adultery. Under Old Testament law, adultery was, in fact, a capital crime. America is not, however, ancient Israel, or even a Christian Republic, and we are not talking about “adultery.”
First, if you’re going to govern as a theonomic monarchy, you have to know the law. Second, you have to know the difference between the moral law and civil law. Third, if you don’t know that adultery and fornication are related morally, but not “criminally,” you’ve not only exceeded your “lawful” authority, you have through ignorance or laziness misrepresented Christianity, God’s law, and your King.
All in a days work.
Fornication is the “moral” equivalent of adultery in the New Testament, but correct me if I’m wrong to say that nowhere in Scripture is “fornication” punished as a “misdemeanor,” no less a “capital” crime.
Granted, fornication is found among a laundry list of hell-worthy offenses. It is not, however, as Bob argued, behavior singled out as a criminal “civil” offense. Like, say, adultery, or bearing false witness, or perjury. After all, the reputations of the “accused” are at stake.
I’d be interested to know what “law” has been broken. Cite moral law, case-law, precedent, and application. If Bob was attempting to prosecute the case in a “real” court of biblical law, the court would dismiss the case for want of a “crime.”
If one of the accused is married, both are “guilty” of adultery. Under Old Testament law, adultery was, in fact, a capital crime. America is not, however, ancient Israel, or even a Christian Republic, and we are not talking about “adultery.”
First, if you’re going to govern as a theonomic monarchy, you have to know the law. Second, you have to know the difference between the moral law and civil law. Third, if you don’t know that adultery and fornication are related morally, but not “criminally,” you’ve not only exceeded your “lawful” authority, you have through ignorance or laziness misrepresented Christianity, God’s law, and your King.
All in a days work.
Apollo:
You apparently didn't listen to the show very closely. The Bible says an unmarried couple that fornicates should be required to get married (unless a "bride price" is paid to the father). Bob agrees with this Biblical mandate.
You apparently didn't listen to the show very closely. The Bible says an unmarried couple that fornicates should be required to get married (unless a "bride price" is paid to the father). Bob agrees with this Biblical mandate.
A typical ditto-head dodge.
At approximately 21:44 into the debate, Gary Nolan suggested a scenario where he meets and falls in love with a woman. Gary and the woman then consummate their love by having sex without a license.
Gary: Would you make that a crime today?
Bob: Yes.
First, Bob DID say fornication is a criminal offense under biblical law, so if anyone’s not paying attention, it’s you. Secondly, you are incapable of offering a biblical defense of his position, because a biblical defense does not exist.
Cite the biblical evidence of the moral law, case-law, precedent, and application criminalizing fornication. If you can’t, you, and Bob, lose.
The debate should be judged on its own merits. I recall nothing being said about a “bride price” in this debate. It is amateurish for you to simply say, “The Bible says.” As a theonomist, if you cannot offer chapter and verse expounding the law in defense of the criminalization of fornication, you are making the law up as you go.
Bob is willing to prosecute and punish a victimless crime without biblical warrant. He is guilty of fraud (claiming a non-existent “law” has been broken), false witness (damaging the reputations of the accused), and theft (lost productivity of the accused if convicted).
Are fraud, lying, and theft “moral” sins, or “criminal offenses”?
At approximately 21:44 into the debate, Gary Nolan suggested a scenario where he meets and falls in love with a woman. Gary and the woman then consummate their love by having sex without a license.
Gary: Would you make that a crime today?
Bob: Yes.
First, Bob DID say fornication is a criminal offense under biblical law, so if anyone’s not paying attention, it’s you. Secondly, you are incapable of offering a biblical defense of his position, because a biblical defense does not exist.
Cite the biblical evidence of the moral law, case-law, precedent, and application criminalizing fornication. If you can’t, you, and Bob, lose.
The debate should be judged on its own merits. I recall nothing being said about a “bride price” in this debate. It is amateurish for you to simply say, “The Bible says.” As a theonomist, if you cannot offer chapter and verse expounding the law in defense of the criminalization of fornication, you are making the law up as you go.
Bob is willing to prosecute and punish a victimless crime without biblical warrant. He is guilty of fraud (claiming a non-existent “law” has been broken), false witness (damaging the reputations of the accused), and theft (lost productivity of the accused if convicted).
Are fraud, lying, and theft “moral” sins, or “criminal offenses”?
elected4ever
New member
Bob Enyart is an idiot!
elected4ever
New member
OPS, I forgot. This is love week. Even for idiots.
"If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days." Deut 22:28-29
"If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins." Exodus 22:16-17
"If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins." Exodus 22:16-17
Turbo,
Thanks for the chapter and verse, but this only applies to “virgins” representing the “damaged goods” (i.e., “property”) of her father. Bob made no such distinction. We are talking about consenting adults, in Gary Nolan’s example, a woman who (for the sake of argument) is 1) NOT a virgin, and 2) as an adult, no longer under the authority of her father.
The chapter and verse you provided does NOT speak to a thirty year old “emancipated” non-virgin having sex with an unmarried man outside marriage. There IS no such law, except in Bob’s mind. “Bob’s” law, not biblical law, would criminalize sex between non-married consenting adults.
Fornication is not a crime under biblical law. Bob said it was, and Bob was wrong. No crime in that. Someone who talks as often and as fast as Bob is bound to step out of bounds sooner or later.
It’s a simple question: Under biblical law, what “crime” has an unmarried man and an unmarried non-virgin, emancipated woman committed by physically consummating their relationship?
I’m assuming that in a theocratic or theonomic monarchy it will be a “constitutional” monarchy, that is, a monarchy of laws, and not of puritanical ditto-heads who don’t know the difference between adultery and fornication.
Thanks for the chapter and verse, but this only applies to “virgins” representing the “damaged goods” (i.e., “property”) of her father. Bob made no such distinction. We are talking about consenting adults, in Gary Nolan’s example, a woman who (for the sake of argument) is 1) NOT a virgin, and 2) as an adult, no longer under the authority of her father.
The chapter and verse you provided does NOT speak to a thirty year old “emancipated” non-virgin having sex with an unmarried man outside marriage. There IS no such law, except in Bob’s mind. “Bob’s” law, not biblical law, would criminalize sex between non-married consenting adults.
Fornication is not a crime under biblical law. Bob said it was, and Bob was wrong. No crime in that. Someone who talks as often and as fast as Bob is bound to step out of bounds sooner or later.
It’s a simple question: Under biblical law, what “crime” has an unmarried man and an unmarried non-virgin, emancipated woman committed by physically consummating their relationship?
I’m assuming that in a theocratic or theonomic monarchy it will be a “constitutional” monarchy, that is, a monarchy of laws, and not of puritanical ditto-heads who don’t know the difference between adultery and fornication.
- Status