Dumocracy rules!

[elected4ever]

granite1010

If the choice is siding with a would-be murdering hackjob or Gerald, that's a no contest.

e4e ----- Then go be with your humanest friends and quit masquerading as a Christian.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by elected4ever

granite1010

e4e ----- Then go be with your humanest friends and quit masquerading as a Christian.

"Humanist." Just an FYI.

The one masquerading is you, elected. Answer my questions and at least give us all the courtesy of a straight answer, if you can. Let me refresh your memory:

Is killing a homosexual just as "justified" as killing an abortionist?

What about a tax and spend liberal?

A wiccan?

Why or why not?

 

[elected4ever]

Gerald

I trust you have evidence to support this assertion? Or are you just trusting to faith ("evidence of things not seen")...?

e4e ----- I have as much evidence on you as you do on me.

Gerald

You obviously haven't run afoul of a bunch of beer-swilling semi-literate Southern Baptists...

e4e ------- I am a Southern Baptist and it is quite evident you have not been around any.:bannana:

Gerald

That's not much of an insult, considering that what you define as "real man" most thinking people define as "gun-toting fanatic"...

e4e ------ Best I could do . I don' usually insult people. Never made a study of the habit. "gun-toting fanatic", man you watch to much TV.:kookoo:

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by elected4ever
I am a Southern Baptist and it is quite evident you have not been around any.:bannana:

We must be talking about different Southern Baptists, then. Most of my life has been spent in west Alabama, where you can't swing a cat without hitting at least three...

 

[elected4ever]

granite1010, What is an FYI?

granite1010

Is killing a homosexual just as "justified" as killing an abortionist?

e4e------- No. God has given homosexuals over to their deviancy for there own destruction. A homosexual will destroy himself or her self The exception being is when they pray upon children. Then they are to be treated as any pedophile would be treated.

granite1010

What about a tax and spend liberal?

e4e --------- No, Political views are not crimes.



granite1010

A wiccan?

e4e ----------- No, religious views are not crimes

 

[Granite]

"Then they are to be treated as any pedophile would be treated."

Which is how?

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by elected4ever
No, religious views are not crimes

Holy Writ™ says different.

Deuteronomy 7:4

"For they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly."


:: waits for e4e to retort "But that only applied to the ancient Hebrews!" ::

 

[elected4ever]

granite1010

Then they are to be treated as any pedophile would be treated."
Which is how?

e4e ------ There is no definite punishment that God has said must be exacted sense we are not under Jewish law, the Jewish law can serve only as a guideline. My personal preference is life in prison or capital execution. The punishment should be severe, however.

 

[elected4ever]

Gerald

Holy Writ™ says different.

Deuteronomy 7:4
"For they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods; then the anger of the LORD would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly."

:: waits for e4e to retort "But that only applied to the ancient Hebrews!" ::

e4e ---- If you knew that was the right answer then why ask the question? My first observation is that the United States is not Israel. Our law is supposedly basted on Biblical principal but it is not. This being a case in point. The constitution forbids the congress from establishing a religion or to prevent the free exercise of religion.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by elected4ever
My personal preference is life in prison . . .

What verse justifies life in prison? The Bible only allows 3 forms of punishment. Restitution, flogging or capital punishment.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by elected4ever
You are a lier.

"That word.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means."

- Inago Montoya

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by elected4ever
If you knew that was the right answer then why ask the question?

To ascertain whether or not you are a cherry-picker. And you are.

My first observation is that the United States is not Israel.

Irrelevent. If you're going to apply OT law, you should apply all of it. Considering there is nothing that explicitly states "this applies only to the Hebrews" and "this applies to the Hebrews and Everybody Else"...

Our law is supposedly basted on Biblical principal but it is not. This being a case in point.

Then your first priority should be to change that...

The constitution forbids the congress from establishing a religion or to prevent the free exercise of religion.

Awww, look at the revolutionary hiding behind the US Constitution.

As I'm fond of saying, given sufficient firepower, a constitution is nothing but a piece of paper...

 

[Granite]

I don't recall a "redress of grievances" including the shotgun murder of abortionists...

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by granite1010

I don't recall a "redress of grievances" including the shotgun murder of abortionists...

I guess that depends on one's view of "grievances". Shotgunning someone would certainly be considered a vigorous form of "redress" from many points of view.

 

[elected4ever]

Gerald

To ascertain whether or not you are a cherry-picker. And you are.

e4e ------ and your point is ??????????

Gerald

Irrelevent. If you're going to apply OT law, you should apply all of it. Considering there is nothing that explicitly states "this applies only to the Hebrews" and "this applies to the Hebrews and Everybody Else"...

e4e -------- I am not applying old testament law so I am not applying any of it.

Gerald

Then your first priority should be to change that...

e4e --- No it isn't

Gerald

Awww, look at the revolutionary hiding behind the US Constitution.

e4e ---- It is the one document that protects your butt from people like me. You should be happy that I honor it, which is more than i can say for you.

Gerald

As I'm fond of saying, given sufficient firepower, a constitution is nothing but a piece of paper...

e4e ---- That is why the US Government circumvents the authority of the constitution. You seem to agree with the government that that is a good thing.

 

[elected4ever]

Zakath

"That word.
You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means."

e4e -------- I looked in my Dictionary and behold, the word does not exist. Sense it does not exist, in my dictionary at least, you are right. It must have no meaning at all.Much less what I though it meant.

 

[Gerald]

Originally posted by elected4ever
It is the one document that protects your butt from people like me. You should be happy that I honor it...

So what you're saying is that a secular document is the only thing preventing you from declaring open season on people like me.

I've heard that sort of testosterone-drenched idiocy before: "You better be glad the law protects scumbags like you, because if it didn't I'd kill you right here and now!"

Rest assured that I'm quite capable of protecting myself from people like you. You're subject to the same laws of physics that I am. And your deity, I've noticed, is not in the habit of protecting his followers from injury...

That is why the US Government circumvents the authority of the constitution. You seem to agree with the government that that is a good thing.

Well, as long as it's you (and by that I mean you, personally) who's getting screwed...:chuckle:

 

[Yorzhik]

At 30,000+ sects and growing, your bible doesn't appear to make the same sense even among those of you claiming to understand the "nature of God". I would not consider it to be a very reliable source for an unambiguous legal code...

And from this statement we understand you don't understand the nature of God either. So you wouldn't be able to pick up on the civil laws in the bible.

But that was just an aside, of course, the only way this could be accomplished is if those who were the correct sect in understanding the nature of God could come to power. Remember, if there is a God, only one sect could possibly be the most correct about God's nature.

quote]But what is to stop the interpretation of the biblical laws from being just as arbitrary or muddled as secular law?[/quote]
Because God's law is clear. The neat thing is that it is not only clear to Christians, it is also clear to conscience, which all humans have.

Has this been demonstrated somewhere or is it all wishful thinking on the part of some small sects of Christians?

Yes, it is demonstrated in the bible at the points where the Jews were not rebelling against God. It is also demonstrated (in the parts where it is applied) in cultures that follow what SG is proposing. I haven't made an exhaustive study of the subject, but so far as I've seen, it works every time it's tried. I'd love you to try and find an example where it hasn't worked.

quote]Would you explain what are the notable differences between the two?[/quote]
CR thinks blasphemy is criminal. The difference is they don't understand the difference between criminal and sinful (one might say “the difference between wrong and illegal” in the same way).

I think the difficulty in understanding Shadowgov's position is that it is not being explained openly; true to it's name, things are being kept in the shadows and only discussed by vague allusion or veiled reference.

Don't expect anyone to take your position seriously until you publish somthing publicly where it can be evaluated in the marketplace of ideas.

Jefferson has posted the constitution. I'm answering rather directly, aren't I? I think thou protest too much.

But on to what you were responding too: I said “ It won't work the same as todays government administration because the judge is not getting paid.” Do you see how not getting paid would make a difference in the amount of red tape someone would have to go through for justice?

Your solution is indentured servants, i.e. temporary slaves! For those who have never seen indentured servitude, it can be made to sound a lot more pleasant than it actually turned out to be in historical practice - at least where I live in Virginia...

So? I think “unpleasentness” is the point. The real point you should be taking is that jail is A LOT LESS humane than working your debt off.

So you're talking the re-institution of slavery on religious grounds.

No, civil grounds.

It seemed to keep early American colonial courts fairly busy...

See what not instituting the right system got for us even in GOOD (low crime) times?

1. We a shortage of competent childcare in America. If the father gets the children and he must work for a living, who will care for them without a wife at home? Are you encouraging more children to go into institutional daycare?

As a 100% sole custodial father, I can tell you. You ask for favors from friends, you rely on family, and YOU GET MARRIED AGAIN. Trust me, divorce rates would plummet and this really would not be much of an issue with the SG ideas in place.

2. The easiest thing for a less than honorable man to do is to commit a crime sufficient to lose his rights to custody and walk away - leaving the woman to care for the children by herself - at the order of the court. If the mother gets the children why shouldn't the father be required to assist in the support of his own children?

Which crime would he commit?

3. I know of one theonomist here on this board with five children. If the Shadowgov's society were in place and in the event of custodial award to a mother, will women be allowed to work in jobs generating sufficient income to support multiple children?

Yes.

 

[elected4ever]

There were two men traveling through Michigan. One was from Ga, The other from Ala. The old boy from Ala. tells the guy from Ga, "When we get to the next town I bet the person that waits on us can tell what state I'm from by the way I order breakfast."

The old boy from Ga. looks at the old boy from Ala. and says, "your on."

They get to town and they walk in and the Ala. boy says to the woman waiting on them, "I wont some bacon, sausage, two eggs sunny side up, a mess of grits and black coffee." The lady says, "you must be from Ala." and the Ala. boy says to the lady "Tell this guy how you know I am from Ala." and the lady says, "You are in a Hardware store!":jump:

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Yorzhik
And from this statement we understand you don't understand the nature of God either. So you wouldn't be able to pick up on the civil laws in the bible.

But that was just an aside, of course, the only way this could be accomplished is if those who were the correct sect in understanding the nature of God could come to power. Remember, if there is a God, only one sect could possibly be the most correct about God's nature.

Well do tell, which sect might that be... yours I suppose?

Get in line, bucko. Along with the other 33,000+ sects claiming to know the will and nature of "God"...

Because God's law is clear. The neat thing is that it is not only clear to Christians, it is also clear to conscience, which all humans have.

If your deity's Law is so clear then why do you one billion or so Christians have such great difficulty coming to consensus on precisely what it actually is? If it was so all-fired important you'd think your deity could manage to make it perfectly clear to at least a majority of you...

Yes, it is demonstrated in the bible at the points where the Jews were not rebelling against God. It is also demonstrated (in the parts where it is applied) in cultures that follow what SG is proposing. I haven't made an exhaustive study of the subject, but so far as I've seen, it works every time it's tried. I'd love you to try and find an example where it hasn't worked.

So your only example is from a book of fairy tales? Well it's comforting to know that you have so much hard evidence to back up your claims...

CR thinks blasphemy is criminal. The difference is they don't understand the difference between criminal and sinful (one might say “the difference between wrong and illegal” in the same way).

Thank you for explaining that.

Jefferson has posted the constitution. I'm answering rather directly, aren't I? I think thou protest too much.

You think you talk to deities too... The constitution, as I have said several times, is not the same as the legal code.

Why won't you people put the actual text of your legal code out for public discussion? According to Jefferson, all Enyart has produced is an outline...

But on to what you were responding too: I said “ It won't work the same as todays government administration because the judge is not getting paid.” Do you see how not getting paid would make a difference in the amount of red tape someone would have to go through for justice?

Based on what I've seen in other volunteer organizations it might also make a serious impact on the amount of time and consideration the "volunteer" was willing to spend on their task.

So? I think “unpleasentness” is the point. The real point you should be taking is that jail is A LOT LESS humane than working your debt off.

I think you and yours should talk to people who have actually lived in a society with the kind peonage you are proposing. I think you'd find it is not as wonderful as you suppose...

No, civil grounds.

But the underlying basis for re-introducing slavery is to be consistent with "God's Law". If that is the case then then the basis is religious, not civil.

See what not instituting the right system got for us even in GOOD (low crime) times?

Where? I 15 miles from a city with one of the highest murder rates in the world. The area in which I live are not experiencing "low crime" times...

As a 100% sole custodial father, I can tell you. You ask for favors from friends, you rely on family, and YOU GET MARRIED AGAIN. Trust me, divorce rates would plummet and this really would not be much of an issue with the SG ideas in place.

You're placing an awful lot of childrens' futures on what you hope might happen...

When it doesn't happen, what then?

Which crime would he commit?

I don't know, since your Criminal Code is not available for view, I don't know what you would consider crimes sufficient for loss of custody...