Bob debates a Libertarian
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
The bride-price law laid the foundation of the seriousness of sexual purity in the society. It would be a schizophrenic society that said to it's citizens, "If a man seduces a virgin he must compensate her father heavily. But you nonvirgins? You are free to go whoring around, spreading STD's and polluting society till your heart's content. Have yourselves a field day." Hardly. In fact capital punishment hung over their heads. Deuteronomy 22:13-19 says capital punishment can subsequently be imposed if she marries another man who has been asked to pay a bride price to her father, if the new husband immediately decides to prosecute her.
Since you are so obsessed with Bob's view on this issue, I think it would be a very entertaining segment on his show. Give him a call.
There are no laws in the constitution against prostitution either. So do you advocate the U.S. abolish all laws against prostitution?
That's a family matter.
If the boy marries your daughter or voluntarily pays a bride-price then there would be no reason to call a cop.
It's already being applied in America. Every law on our books that agrees with the Bible (eg. the death penalty for murder) is theonomy in that limited area.
I'm not sure what you mean by voluntary. If it were not against the law to rob banks but the state simply asked people to voluntarily obey their conscience and not rob banks, the result would be an epidemic of bank robberies.
Prisons are unnecessary today. All we need is restitution, flogging and stoning.
You are here contradicting God's condemnation of people who do "whatever is right in their own eyes." God specifically charged those who lived under the law of Moses not to do that which was right in their own eyes. (See Deut. 6:18 and Prov. 3:5-7)
People will never be "ready" to live under biblical law. It must be imposed upon them like it will be during the millenial reign of Christ. Men are not going to vote in Biblical Law during the millenium. People will still be born with sin natures but Biblical Law will be imposed upon them. Won't that be fun to watch? I can't wait!
So since we have a lot of Law breakers in society today, Paul tells us in that verse the Law is for them today.
I don't think people are going start a revolution in order to give up being taxed only a mere 5% of their income just so they can get their pornography back. With all their debts being cancelled (including their mortgage payments) because of the jubilee law, I think you would be looking at partying in the streets, not revolution in the streets. Those shallow adult juvenile delinquints who wanted to give up all of those benefits just so they can get their pornography back would be social outcasts, not leaders of a mass revolution.
Last edited by a moderator:
In a theocracy there would be no defense attorneys. There would also be no prosecuting attorneys. There would be no attorneys at all. What a wonderful society. Can you imagine? An entire country with no lawyers. Paradise!
There would also be no juries. There would only be plaintiffs, defendants and judges.
...which is one more reason to fear theocracy. What would you do with the retarded, or those found insane? And God forbid someone who lacks the eloquence to stand up to a theocratic judge has to go up before the bench.
The idea of lacking a defense or advocate in a trial is positively nightmarish. Totalitarians do that, Jefferson. Tyrants do away with the concept of having a defender in the courtroom. The plaintiff-defendant-judge system worked real well for Stephen, that I recall.
"People will never be 'ready' to live under biblical law. It must be imposed upon them like it will be during the millenial reign of Christ. Men are not going to vote in Biblical Law during the millenium. People will still be born with sin natures but Biblical Law will be imposed upon them. Won't that be fun to watch? I can't wait!"
Assuming that pre-mil eschatology isn't the sensational claptrap some people believe it is.
"I don't think people are going start a revolution in order to give up being taxed only a mere 5% of their income just so they can get their pornography back. With all their debts being cancelled (including their mortgage payments) because of the jubilee law, I think you would be looking at partying in the streets, not revolution in the streets. Those who wanted to give up all of those benefits just so they can have their pornography would be social outcasts, not leaders of a mass revolution."
Sorry, but any society where stoning's the norm and the Sex Police will kick down the door of an unmarried couple who slept together over the weekend's not going to start partying in the streets. This is ridiculous and extremely wishful thinking.
By the way, you didn't address Apollo's questions about property laws.
Assuming that pre-mil eschatology isn't the sensational claptrap some people believe it is.
"I don't think people are going start a revolution in order to give up being taxed only a mere 5% of their income just so they can get their pornography back. With all their debts being cancelled (including their mortgage payments) because of the jubilee law, I think you would be looking at partying in the streets, not revolution in the streets. Those who wanted to give up all of those benefits just so they can have their pornography would be social outcasts, not leaders of a mass revolution."
Sorry, but any society where stoning's the norm and the Sex Police will kick down the door of an unmarried couple who slept together over the weekend's not going to start partying in the streets. This is ridiculous and extremely wishful thinking.
By the way, you didn't address Apollo's questions about property laws.
Hmm. Not sure. Pagans would be allowed to worship their false gods in private. But public displays? That might get into the area of proselytizing which would be forbidden to them.
Idolatry is a crime only in a theocracy. Only God can establish a theocracy which He did with Israel. I'm not in favor of a theocracy. I'm in favor of theonomy. Or perhaps you could call it a bibliocracy.
No. They would be allowed to practice their cults but they would not be allowed to proselytize.
"No. They would be allowed to practice their cults but they would not be allowed to proselytize."
I'm assuming this would apply to Mormons, JWs, Moonies, and any group defined by the Enyart & Jefferson school of thought as "heretical"?
What would be the penalty if said groups continued their efforts?
I'm assuming this would apply to Mormons, JWs, Moonies, and any group defined by the Enyart & Jefferson school of thought as "heretical"?
What would be the penalty if said groups continued their efforts?
In my opinion, you and Bob are playing fast and loose with God’s law.
In Bob’s America, sex between unmarried adults committing sex without a license would be a federal crime. That is not “biblical” law, it’s “humanistic” law. What makes the criminalization of fornication humanistic is the presumption that fallen man can “improve” on God’s law by ignoring God’s law (i.e., the secular State), or, in Bob’s case, by adding to God’s law.
We seem to have established the fact that nowhere in Scripture is sex between unmarried adults characterized as a crime. If biblical evidence existed explicitly stating that sex between unmarried adults was a crime, you wouldn’t be building a case on something as flimsy as the bride price laws.
Virgin bride price laws are a subset of laws related to the dowry, which are a subset of laws related to marriage, which are a subset of laws related to THE law regulating sexual relations in marriage. Strictly speaking, however, neither “adultery” nor “virgin bride price” laws are SEX crimes under biblical law. Adultery and virgin bride price laws are PROPERTY crimes. For example, if unknown to the husband an adulterous wife bore the illegitimate child of her paramour, the child would receive an ill-gotten portion of the family’s inheritance that had, in affect, been “stolen” from the husband’s legitimate heirs.
Re: virgin bride price laws, from the father’s point of view, the “seducer” (as you say) has “stolen” his daughter’s expectation of a dowry (financial independence), and saddled him instead with “damaged goods.” In other words, virgin bride price laws hedge the father’s bet against the prospect of being financially responsible for an unmarriageable grown woman.
The REASON virgin bride price laws CANNOT justify the criminalization of fornication is because virgin bride price laws are, like adultery, PROPERTY crimes, not SEX crimes. All relevant categories of sex crimes, however, ARE specifically named: Rape, homosexuality, bestiality, incest. The law even regulates sex between “married” adults by forbidding sex during menstruation. But there is NO law in the Bible regulating sex between unmarried consenting adults.
Under biblical law, the Word of God is the “Constitution.” You can no more limit free speech under the federal Constitution than you can limit sexual relations between unmarried adults under the law of God. There is no such thing as “extra” biblical law in a “biblical” society. Legislating beyond the letter and the limits of the law is lawlessness.
Humanism doesn’t know how to STOP making law, witness the Congressional Record, the Federal Register, countless regulations that are not law but have the power of law, and legalistic fanatics like Bob. God is not a prude, and the Israelites were not prudes. Concubines, after all, were someone’s “unmarried daughter,” but I don’t hear you suggesting that the lawful and respectable profession of concubinage should be reintroduced.
Perhaps we should criminalize masturbation, hand-holding between unmarried couples, suggestive leering, R-rated movies, “adult” situations in novels, and magazine covers displaying cleavage.
Bob may not personally “approve” of God’s attitude toward fornication, but that’s because Bob IS a prude. Bob is more concerned about protecting his own over-developed sense of “moral purity” than with defending God’s law. In my Book, that makes Bob an outlaw, and you are his accomplice.
In Bob’s America, sex between unmarried adults committing sex without a license would be a federal crime. That is not “biblical” law, it’s “humanistic” law. What makes the criminalization of fornication humanistic is the presumption that fallen man can “improve” on God’s law by ignoring God’s law (i.e., the secular State), or, in Bob’s case, by adding to God’s law.
We seem to have established the fact that nowhere in Scripture is sex between unmarried adults characterized as a crime. If biblical evidence existed explicitly stating that sex between unmarried adults was a crime, you wouldn’t be building a case on something as flimsy as the bride price laws.
Virgin bride price laws are a subset of laws related to the dowry, which are a subset of laws related to marriage, which are a subset of laws related to THE law regulating sexual relations in marriage. Strictly speaking, however, neither “adultery” nor “virgin bride price” laws are SEX crimes under biblical law. Adultery and virgin bride price laws are PROPERTY crimes. For example, if unknown to the husband an adulterous wife bore the illegitimate child of her paramour, the child would receive an ill-gotten portion of the family’s inheritance that had, in affect, been “stolen” from the husband’s legitimate heirs.
Re: virgin bride price laws, from the father’s point of view, the “seducer” (as you say) has “stolen” his daughter’s expectation of a dowry (financial independence), and saddled him instead with “damaged goods.” In other words, virgin bride price laws hedge the father’s bet against the prospect of being financially responsible for an unmarriageable grown woman.
The REASON virgin bride price laws CANNOT justify the criminalization of fornication is because virgin bride price laws are, like adultery, PROPERTY crimes, not SEX crimes. All relevant categories of sex crimes, however, ARE specifically named: Rape, homosexuality, bestiality, incest. The law even regulates sex between “married” adults by forbidding sex during menstruation. But there is NO law in the Bible regulating sex between unmarried consenting adults.
Under biblical law, the Word of God is the “Constitution.” You can no more limit free speech under the federal Constitution than you can limit sexual relations between unmarried adults under the law of God. There is no such thing as “extra” biblical law in a “biblical” society. Legislating beyond the letter and the limits of the law is lawlessness.
Humanism doesn’t know how to STOP making law, witness the Congressional Record, the Federal Register, countless regulations that are not law but have the power of law, and legalistic fanatics like Bob. God is not a prude, and the Israelites were not prudes. Concubines, after all, were someone’s “unmarried daughter,” but I don’t hear you suggesting that the lawful and respectable profession of concubinage should be reintroduced.
Perhaps we should criminalize masturbation, hand-holding between unmarried couples, suggestive leering, R-rated movies, “adult” situations in novels, and magazine covers displaying cleavage.
Bob may not personally “approve” of God’s attitude toward fornication, but that’s because Bob IS a prude. Bob is more concerned about protecting his own over-developed sense of “moral purity” than with defending God’s law. In my Book, that makes Bob an outlaw, and you are his accomplice.
Jeff:
Then:
Exactly. In other words, there is no religious “freedom” in Bob’s America.
And:
You’re babbling. We ARE talking about a theocracy, what you variously called a “theonomic monarchy,” “theonomy,” and a “bibliocracy.” A theocracy is a government ruled by God. Theonomy is the application of biblical law. You make a distinction where no distinction exists. You cannot implement theonomy without producing a theocracy, and vice versa. The law of the land in a “theocracy” is “theonomy,” yet you distance yourself from theocracy and call yourself a theonomist.
It would appear you have not thought through your conclusions. You say God’s law will never be accepted, and must be forced on the people. You say you want to turn America into Old Testament Israel, Jerusalem in the days of Jesus, and a Bible Land theme park. If the people will never voluntarily accept biblical law, how will your Jesus-land police state be achieved in a Constitutional republic, short of overthrowing the government?
Does theonomy apply before Jesus returns? (It would appear it does, otherwise why agitate for the criminalization of fornication?) Or are you describing the "idealized" theocratic government of the millennial kingdom? Are you aware that North, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and others, as theonomic postmills, do not share your millennial views?
Then:
Exactly. In other words, there is no religious “freedom” in Bob’s America.
And:
You’re babbling. We ARE talking about a theocracy, what you variously called a “theonomic monarchy,” “theonomy,” and a “bibliocracy.” A theocracy is a government ruled by God. Theonomy is the application of biblical law. You make a distinction where no distinction exists. You cannot implement theonomy without producing a theocracy, and vice versa. The law of the land in a “theocracy” is “theonomy,” yet you distance yourself from theocracy and call yourself a theonomist.
It would appear you have not thought through your conclusions. You say God’s law will never be accepted, and must be forced on the people. You say you want to turn America into Old Testament Israel, Jerusalem in the days of Jesus, and a Bible Land theme park. If the people will never voluntarily accept biblical law, how will your Jesus-land police state be achieved in a Constitutional republic, short of overthrowing the government?
Does theonomy apply before Jesus returns? (It would appear it does, otherwise why agitate for the criminalization of fornication?) Or are you describing the "idealized" theocratic government of the millennial kingdom? Are you aware that North, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and others, as theonomic postmills, do not share your millennial views?
Apollo:
It's very possible that theonomist Gary North is more biblically accurate than Enyart is regarding laws on so-called "victimless crimes." North takes a very much hands off approach. So much so that even libertarians like him! In fact, the libertarian website LewRockwell.com publishes North's "Reality Check" musings on personal and social issues.
North had written the capstone of his theonomic views back in 1990 with his 1,200 page "Tools of Dominion" (the case laws of Exodus). Since that was his defining tome on theonomy, I pretty much stopped reading his stuff after that especially since he publishes so infrequently these days. The only theonomist I'm aware of that is churning out material these days (regarding specific examples of how Biblical Law can be applied in the 21st century) on a regular consistent basis, is Enyart, primarily through his show.
So it has been 14 years since I last seriously read North on this issue. Your posts have reminded me to recall the hermaneutic North used to come to his conclusions. For that I thank you. North might actually be right on this category. Maybe not.
I'll call Bob's show and play the devil's advocate (as it were) and debate him on this. I don't know too many people who have debated Enyart more than I have. Almost every time I call his show it's to debate him on something.
Actually I think a more interesting show would be if you called and debated him on this. I like Bob, so when I debate him it never gets "heated." You, however, seem to have a hatred for all things Christian. That's a great formula for an exciting show. I'm a pimp for Enyart's show. I'm always promoting it. If you want to call, the show is on from 5:00-5:30 Eastern and the number is 1-800-8ENYART. The show's web address is http://www.Kgov.com
By the way, I'm curious. How does a nonchristian such as youself come to know so much about such a small, insignificant (by numbers) sect of Christians known as theonomists? Most Christians don't know as much about theonomy as you do. Heck, most theonomists don't know as much about theonomy as you do. So I have to ask, why this obsession from a nonchristian? Theonomists don't even have 1% of the numbers we would need to vote in Biblical Law, so why the obsession?
You wrote:
Speaking of Bahnsen, have you ever heard any of his debates with atheists?
It's very possible that theonomist Gary North is more biblically accurate than Enyart is regarding laws on so-called "victimless crimes." North takes a very much hands off approach. So much so that even libertarians like him! In fact, the libertarian website LewRockwell.com publishes North's "Reality Check" musings on personal and social issues.
North had written the capstone of his theonomic views back in 1990 with his 1,200 page "Tools of Dominion" (the case laws of Exodus). Since that was his defining tome on theonomy, I pretty much stopped reading his stuff after that especially since he publishes so infrequently these days. The only theonomist I'm aware of that is churning out material these days (regarding specific examples of how Biblical Law can be applied in the 21st century) on a regular consistent basis, is Enyart, primarily through his show.
So it has been 14 years since I last seriously read North on this issue. Your posts have reminded me to recall the hermaneutic North used to come to his conclusions. For that I thank you. North might actually be right on this category. Maybe not.
I'll call Bob's show and play the devil's advocate (as it were) and debate him on this. I don't know too many people who have debated Enyart more than I have. Almost every time I call his show it's to debate him on something.
Actually I think a more interesting show would be if you called and debated him on this. I like Bob, so when I debate him it never gets "heated." You, however, seem to have a hatred for all things Christian. That's a great formula for an exciting show. I'm a pimp for Enyart's show. I'm always promoting it. If you want to call, the show is on from 5:00-5:30 Eastern and the number is 1-800-8ENYART. The show's web address is http://www.Kgov.com
By the way, I'm curious. How does a nonchristian such as youself come to know so much about such a small, insignificant (by numbers) sect of Christians known as theonomists? Most Christians don't know as much about theonomy as you do. Heck, most theonomists don't know as much about theonomy as you do. So I have to ask, why this obsession from a nonchristian? Theonomists don't even have 1% of the numbers we would need to vote in Biblical Law, so why the obsession?
You wrote:
Actually there would be. That was North's view on prostelytizing I posted. Enyart is the libertarian on this issue.
There is a difference between the 2. For example, AIDS would be a direct judgment from God in a Theocracy. If we had AIDS under Enyart's ACM constitution, it would still not be a direct judgment from God. Under a theonomic monarchy AIDS would simply be exactly what it is today: the natural result of the unhealthy lifestyle homosexuals practice.
Many nations down through history simply disolved from the size of their own bureaucratic dead weight. The United States is heading in that direction.
Yes. North, Rushdoony and Bahnsen are wrong as far as their eschatology is concerned.
Speaking of Bahnsen, have you ever heard any of his debates with atheists?
Last edited by a moderator:
Jefferson, in case you missed it in previous threads, Apollo is a FORMER Christian. You may want to look before you leap next time and make assumptions, because we know what happens when you do...
"For example, AIDS would be a direct judgment from God in a Theocracy. If we had AIDS under Enyart's ACM constitution, it would still not be a direct judgment from God. Under a theonomic monarchy AIDS would simply be exactly what it is today: the natural result of the unhealthy lifestyle homosexuals practice."
What??? Big whoop. You're talking about changing the popular definition of an epidemic. This is your idea of dramatic social change?
"Yes. North, Rushdoony and Bahnsen are wrong as far as their eschatology is concerned."
Yet you're willing to cherry pick and accept their theonomic arguments. You are aware that theonomists and theocracies are post-mil in nature? What's the point in establishing theocracy in the United States if we're going to get raptured out sooner rather than later? Why polish brass on a sinking ship?
"For example, AIDS would be a direct judgment from God in a Theocracy. If we had AIDS under Enyart's ACM constitution, it would still not be a direct judgment from God. Under a theonomic monarchy AIDS would simply be exactly what it is today: the natural result of the unhealthy lifestyle homosexuals practice."
What??? Big whoop. You're talking about changing the popular definition of an epidemic. This is your idea of dramatic social change?
"Yes. North, Rushdoony and Bahnsen are wrong as far as their eschatology is concerned."
Yet you're willing to cherry pick and accept their theonomic arguments. You are aware that theonomists and theocracies are post-mil in nature? What's the point in establishing theocracy in the United States if we're going to get raptured out sooner rather than later? Why polish brass on a sinking ship?
Granite, thank you for interceding, but I believe Jefferson is offering an olive branch.
I originally posted (2-3 years ago) as a Reconstructionist Christian (22 years), under the handle “BoGGled.” Dropped out of TOL for a while, returned as Soulman. Not much difference between BoGGled and Soulman, other than Soulman was a toned-down, self-consciously “nicer” version of BoG, or so I hoped. Less slicing and dicing, more listening. Well, boo-hoo, Soulman's dead, long live Apollo.
Apollo gets that a lot. I don’t think I hate Christianity. I am not easily “bamboozled” by Christianity, like Bob tried to bamboozle his audience and Gary Nolan, and I may be critical of the inconsistencies of Christianity, and the “dark side” of Christianity, but I don’t hate Christianity. Actually, I still have a soft spot for the “Jesus” myth, when understood as a myth. “Clete” made the same mistake when he accused me of hating God. Hard to defend yourself against something like that. Disgusted, yes. Hate, no.
Re: Religious freedom:
Hard to keep track, getting a little crowded in here. Who’m I talking to now?
Not gonna quibble about the theonomy-theocracy issue. My understanding of theonomy is different than yours, big surprise. Am a little confused, though. You say AIDS would be a judgment of God in a theocracy, but not under Bob’s ACM constitution. Not arguing a point, but are you saying that AIDS would not be “interpreted” as a judgment? Or are you saying that God’s judgments have actually been avoided? Don’t care to split hairs, just wondered.
One of my gripes. Don’t have much use for grumpy old men like North and Rush, Bahnsen was (is?) brilliant. But, how many times have you heard or been told that you can’t “pick and choose” what you like and don't like from the Bible? That the Bible’s not a “smorgasbord”? Yet, happens all the time. Little bit here, little bit there, add some North, a little Enyart, nix on the postmill eschatology, and there you have it, Christianity reduced to the theological equivalent of “leftover” night.
Let's just say I lost my "appetite."
Thanks for engaging.
I originally posted (2-3 years ago) as a Reconstructionist Christian (22 years), under the handle “BoGGled.” Dropped out of TOL for a while, returned as Soulman. Not much difference between BoGGled and Soulman, other than Soulman was a toned-down, self-consciously “nicer” version of BoG, or so I hoped. Less slicing and dicing, more listening. Well, boo-hoo, Soulman's dead, long live Apollo.
Apollo gets that a lot. I don’t think I hate Christianity. I am not easily “bamboozled” by Christianity, like Bob tried to bamboozle his audience and Gary Nolan, and I may be critical of the inconsistencies of Christianity, and the “dark side” of Christianity, but I don’t hate Christianity. Actually, I still have a soft spot for the “Jesus” myth, when understood as a myth. “Clete” made the same mistake when he accused me of hating God. Hard to defend yourself against something like that. Disgusted, yes. Hate, no.
Re: Religious freedom:
Hard to keep track, getting a little crowded in here. Who’m I talking to now?
Not gonna quibble about the theonomy-theocracy issue. My understanding of theonomy is different than yours, big surprise. Am a little confused, though. You say AIDS would be a judgment of God in a theocracy, but not under Bob’s ACM constitution. Not arguing a point, but are you saying that AIDS would not be “interpreted” as a judgment? Or are you saying that God’s judgments have actually been avoided? Don’t care to split hairs, just wondered.
One of my gripes. Don’t have much use for grumpy old men like North and Rush, Bahnsen was (is?) brilliant. But, how many times have you heard or been told that you can’t “pick and choose” what you like and don't like from the Bible? That the Bible’s not a “smorgasbord”? Yet, happens all the time. Little bit here, little bit there, add some North, a little Enyart, nix on the postmill eschatology, and there you have it, Christianity reduced to the theological equivalent of “leftover” night.
Let's just say I lost my "appetite."
Thanks for engaging.
By "myth" do you mean you don't believe Jesus ever existed or only that you don't believe He was God come in the flesh?
I figured I didn't make that too clear. I was going to edit my post and clarify but granite had already responded to it.
What I mean is, in Israel when gross sin went unpunished, God would bring judgment on the whole nation with the loss of a battle, military conquest from a foreign nation, disease, drought, whatever. It affected everyone, not just the people who grossly sinned. I don't think God directly intervenes that way in any nation today, nor would I think He would intervene that way in a nation that self-consciously proclaimed Jesus Christ as that nation's head.
Instead, the people in that theonomy who sinned would do harm to themselves (and others) but the adverse consequences that would follow would be natural, not supernatural. A person who abused drugs and alchohol would die younger. God wouldn't come down out of heaven and kill them before their normal time. A person who committed adultery would likely cause their divorce, their children growing up being more likely to wind up in prison due to the lack of a father in the home, murders are commited from enraged spouses who have been cheated on, etc. If that theonomic nation refused to judge that adulterer, God would not send a famine on that nation like He might have with Israel. Israel was history's one and only theocracy.
Okay, Rush might have been a bit grumpy ("stuffy" might be a better word) but North? You didn't think North was an entertaining read? The most boring part of a scholarly work is the footnotes. But not North's footnotes. They are often hysterically funny. Because of your posts, just yesterday morning I dusted off my copy of Tools of Dominion and flipping through it, I came across this gem of a footnote on liberal theologian Anthony Phillips:
"Liberal scholars are always looking for a new angle to justify the publication of yet another heavily footnoted, utterly boring, totally useless book, especially books like Phillips', which is a rewritten doctoral dissertation - the most footnoted, boring, and useless academic exercise of all. Doctoral dissertations should be interred quietly, preferably in private, with only the author and close family in attendance. If such interment must be public, then it should be as a summary published in a scholarly journal, where the remains' entombment will seldom be disturbed again. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust."
Dude should have been a stand-up comedian.
Was. He died at 40 something (December 11th, 1995.) Heart problems since he was 12 years old. God gave him a great brain but a lousy ticker. In case you didn't already know, Rushdoony also died February 8th, 2001.
What was the main thing that caused you to lose your faith?
By the way, any chance on you calling Enyart's show and debating him on his view of theonomy? It doesn't have to be a debate. Bob is just as open to friendly discussions.
Last edited by a moderator:
"I don't think God directly intervenes that way in any nation today, nor would I think He would intervene that way in a nation that self-consciously proclaimed Jesus Christ as that nation's head."
What were the 9/11 attacks, if not a judgment? And Israel, despite following Yahweh, was punished quite severely when its leadership--say, David--strayed from the straight and narrow.
What were the 9/11 attacks, if not a judgment? And Israel, despite following Yahweh, was punished quite severely when its leadership--say, David--strayed from the straight and narrow.
I have come to the conclusion that the Jesus myth is a re-telling of the oldest story on the planet: Life, death, and the hope of a resurrection (life after death).
I share that quote with those who claim that the resurrection of Jesus is a unique event. If history and scholarship mean anything, the resurrected savior-god theme is a global religious constant not unique to Christianity. There is no reason to believe, other than from the gospel accounts, that Jesus was a historical figure. That is another debate. When the experts disagree – and they always disagree – we’re back where we started and have to make up our own minds.
Having faith in Jesus is easy. The challenge is disbelieving evidence to the contrary. I have come to understand that “religion” is the ritualization of the cycles of the natural world: Sunrise (life), sunset (death), sunrise (rebirth). The observable sun, at winter solstice (Dec 21 or so), hovers unmoving between life and death for three days before rising again, “reborn,” as it were – every December 25th. The “blessed hope” of religion is the survival of the soul-personality after physical death. The basis or rationale for this hope was, and is, found in the cycles of life, death and “rebirth” observed in the natural world. According to history, if God has “come in the flesh,” he has done so many times, under different names, to many people. Google the Roman mystery cult of Mithra. The Vatican is built on its bones.
No question, North shines brightest when lampooning the opposition. Never met Rush, but have met and dined with North. Very different in person, not unusual for scholar-authors whose published “personas” often fail to live up to their readers’ expectations. Retract “grumpy” and insert “stuffy.”
Was aware of Bahnsen’s untimely death (and Rush, whose apocryphal last words were, “Does anyone have any questions?”). Stunning news about GB at the time. Meant to suggest if Christianity is true, Bahnsen’s “brilliance” has in fact survived physical death. Not a bad thing.
Not interested in debating Bob. Will think about it.
No one thing. Everything. “Dangerous books.” The so-called “inspiration” of the Scriptures. The providentially superintended fraud of canonization. Christianity’s “fine print.” The dark side of Christianity. The theological “babble” of Christianity, raging debates unsettled for 200 centuries. The obvious disconnect between “theoretical” Christianity (love thy neighbor…) and “applied” Christianity (control thy neighbor).
As a practical matter, a bone to pick, there is to my knowledge not a single example of applied literalist Christianity where given the power to enforce its will high officials and representatives of Christ’s Church did not enthusiastically and systematically abuse their authority. Can’t just blame the RCs. The Reformers were no angels. No one’s hands are clean. Fundamentalist fanatics. Control freaks. Luther’s mouth should be washed out with soap. Calvin, unlucky in love. Cromwell…well, Cromwell fell to pieces. Dangerous minds on a mission from God.
Wouldn’t be honest not to mention all this scab-picking coincided with break from Recon church.
Thanks for asking.
"As a practical matter, a bone to pick, there is to my knowledge not a single example of applied literalist Christianity where given the power to enforce its will high officials and representatives of Christ’s Church did not enthusiastically and systematically abuse their authority."
Good point...
Good point...
- Status