Dumocracy rules!

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Yorzhik
No. There is no proposal on paper that I know of, excepting the bible, which will only make sense if you understand the nature of God.

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 yes. The number of laws does not theoretically dictate the frequency that they will be broken. However, fewer laws can more easily be made clear. And clearer laws are easier to follow than arbitrary or muddled ones.

But what is to stop the interpretation of the biblical laws from being just as arbitrary or muddled as secular law(see my previous comment)?

But the strength of the system is in the correct principles it is founded on and the efficiency of the penalties used when the priciples are violated.

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

Oh. Actually I'm not arguing the CR position. I would be arguing the ShadowGov position.

Would you explain what are the notable differences between the two?

So now that we are aware of that, the administration would not be nearly as burdensome as you think. It won't work the same as todays government administration because the judge is not getting paid.

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.

Some examples:
You get caught shoplifting. You pay 2 to 5 times the amount of the goods stolen. If that means clothes worth $100 - then you pay as much as $500 on the spot.

Let's say it's a $3000 diamond ring; You pay up to $15000 on the spot. Let's say you don't have that in the bank but your assets are worth that. The judge puts those assets in the hands of a liquidator, and the liquidator takes care of the rest.

And if you don't have the money on the spot, and insufficient assets to pay? What then?

You contine ...

Let's say you don't have anything to your name and you stole a $3000 diamond ring. Then you get to work for an indentured servant company until the debt is paid. And no, the household judges don't do this, and indentured servants are limited what can be done to them.

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...

In theory, the person is only selling his or her labor. In practice, however, indentured servants were basically slaves and the courts enforced the laws that made it so. The treatment of the servant was harsh and often brutal. In fact, the Virginia Colony prescribed "bodily punishment for not heeding the commands of the master." (Ballagh, 45) Half the servants died in the first two years. As a result of this type of treatment, runaways were frequent. The courts realized this was a problem and started to demand that everyone have identification and travel papers. (A.E. Smith 264-270).

- Indentured Servitude in Colonial America - Deanna Barker

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

Any way, the judge does not need to do THAT much.

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

Child support - there wouldn't be any. Child support is a bad idea, there is no place for it in the law.

Okay. Your're going to ask how THAT's going to work. Well, a divorce will be a divorce. The 2 parties have basically nothing to do with each other anymore. If there are kids, the father gets the kids (unless he is a criminal) and that is the last word on the subject.

This scenario raises some practical questions:

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?
   
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?
   
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?

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Zakath

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

Come on Zakath. I've posted the ACM constitution on this forum a few times in the past and you have commented on it. Why are you pretending it's never been made public?

 

[elected4ever]

Anti-slavery
anti-death penalty
anti- ethnic cleansing
Pro Human rights

All these are humanist concepts and not biblical on there foundation. The personal responsibility to the law of the sovereign seems to be the biblical model. Christians had rather be humanist than Christian and call it Christian. That is why the US was not formed on a biblical model and will never be Christian but humanist.

Upon the orders of the King we as Christians are to live peaceable among the nations that we find ourself in and obey the laws of that nation in so far as it is possible without violating the laws of the kingdom. If those laws conflict with the laws of the kingdom we are to obey the laws of the kingdom first even if it means our life.

We as Christians are to work to change the laws of the nations to comport with the laws of the kingdom with whatever means is at our disposal. No wonder the secular humanist fear us. The death penalty would be executed upon them by the Christian if sufficient force could be mustered to enforce the will of the king but ever Christian must know and understand that such enforcement will be prosecuted by the secular humanest upon the Christian in order that the law of the kingdom not become the law of the land and they be required to give up their selfish and pernicious apatites.

 

[Granite]

Anti-slavery
anti-death penalty
anti- ethnic cleansing
Pro Human rights

"All these are humanist concepts and not biblical on there foundation."

You're saying the Bible champions ethnic cleansing but doesn't advocate human rights???

 

[elected4ever]

granite1010

You're saying the Bible champions ethnic cleansing but doesn't advocate human rights???

e4e------- God requires his people to dominate and that may require ethnic cleansing. Just ask King Saul when he failed to do just that. It is interesting that we would die for a human cause but not for God.

 

[drbrumley]

Hey Zak,

If you don't wanna be my slave under this government, don't steal from me. And besides, that isn't slavery, this would be called restitution.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by elected4ever

granite1010



e4e------- God requires his people to dominate and that may require ethnic cleansing. Just ask King Saul when he failed to do just that. It is interesting that we would die for a human cause but not for God.

The standard is not the same with a new covenant in place. Exterminating an entire race wasn't part of Jesus' message, that I recall.

 

[elected4ever]

granite1010

The standard is not the same with a new covenant in place. Exterminating an entire race wasn't part of Jesus' message, that I recall.

e4e ---- Give me an example of where it has changed. The attitude did not change. We are no longer a nation as Israel was but the standing for God and doing according to His reveled will has not changed.

We are called upon to be representatives of the King. We are to establish His justice and His mercy in this insane world. I do not believe we can act mercifully if God's Justice is not established. If we as Christians give comfort to baby killers, thieves, rapist, homosexuals and other assorted despots when the secular powers that be give them free passes, God's justice will never be established in the land and the land will be subject to the vengeance of God and not His mercy.

Christian's who adopt the principles of the secular society and adapt the same life style and commit the same acts are to be treated in the same manner as the the secular society.

Christians who act in accordance with the law of the King and are persecuted by the secular society. An example is when a Christian executes a murderer that the secular society refuses to execute and can be expected to be treated as the criminal even though he is not guilty of a crime.

 

[Granite]

"Give me an example of where it has changed. The attitude did not change. We are no longer a nation as Israel..."

Well, you just answered your own question: the people of God are no longer centralized in one nation. (There's also the little details like the incarnation, resurrection, and revealed word, as well as the end of the sacrificial system. Slight changes like that.)

"We are called upon to be representatives of the King. We are to establish His justice and His mercy in this insane world."

Very true. Key word being mercy: butchering anyone we as Christians happen to disagree with is not the solution, nor is it merciful. How exactly do you define "ethnic cleansing"?

"If we as Christians give comfort to baby killers, thieves, rapist, homosexuals and other assorted despots..."

Wait, wait. Since when were rapists "despots"? Are sex offenders in jail tyrants I somehow don't know about? And how exactly would you define "giving comfort"? If I have a gay co-worker and buy him or her lunch, is that "giving comfort"?

"An example is when a Christian executes a murderer that the secular society refuses to execute and can be expected to be treated as the criminal even though he is not guilty of a crime."

Hold it. Am I to assume that you're advocating the murder of abortionists and other miscreants just because we as a society lack the backbone to criminalize abortion? Just spit out what you're trying to say, e4e. If you're suggesting Christians go vigilante and start murdering abortionists and homosexuals, put your money where your mouth is and lead the way. Otherwise, quit blowing gas and telling us the way things outta be.

Christians as individuals do not have the right, responsibility, or biblical charge to execute anyone. Like it or not, that's the state's job. It is their duty to bear the sword. If we happen to live in an unjust society, newsflash: the people get the government they deserve.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by Jefferson

Come on Zakath. I've posted the ACM constitution on this forum a few times in the past and you have commented on it. Why are you pretending it's never been made public?

We were discussing the Criminal Justice System, not the Constitution, Jefferson. Do try to keep up.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Hey Zak,

If you don't wanna be my slave under this government, don't steal from me. And besides, that isn't slavery, this would be called restitution.

I would do my level best to ensure that such a government does not come into power anyplace in which I live.

Failing that I would leave.

Given any choice in the matter, I would not live under a theocracy or a theonomy.

Remember Afghanistan and Iran. :think:

 

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by Zakath

I would do my level best to ensure that such a government does not come into power anyplace in which I live.

Failing that I would leave.

Given any choice in the matter, I would not live under a theocracy or a theonomy.

Remember Afghanistan and Iran. :think:

Translation: I will/would steal from someone and if caught, I don't have to pay them restitution. I'll get away with it with maybe probation.

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Translation: I will/would steal from someone and if caught, I don't have to pay them restitution. I'll get away with it with maybe probation.

I think you're reading a bit more into my reply than I intended.

Read it as stated - I do not want to live under a theonomy or a theocracy. Period.

Particularly one that would reinstitute slavery and persecution of religious minorities.

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Zakath

I think you're reading a bit more into my reply than I intended.

Read it as stated - I do not want to live under a theonomy or a theocracy. Period.

Particularly one that would reinstitute slavery and persecution of religious minorities.

...or support e4e's "ethnic cleansing."

 

[elected4ever]

granite1010
behavior

Very true. Key word being mercy: butchering anyone we as Christians happen to disagree with is not the solution, nor is it merciful. How exactly do you define "ethnic cleansing"?

E4E ----- Before mercy can be realized justice must be creditable. That is what is wrong with America today. Justice is not established. Justice is far more than just the execution of criminals. Justice is also reward for work will done as well as penalty for criminal behavior. It is not just that a person pay a penalty for good behavior by forcibly taking from him and rewarding those of bad conduct. Welfare is the establishment of injustice not justice. It teaches bad behavior. That is not mercy but injustice.

My definition of ethnic cleansing is maybe a little different than most. There are only two ethnic types in all the world. Those who are born of God and those who are not born of God. Those societies that have chosen against God are candidates for ethnic cleansing. Make no mistake, we Christians are at war with the forces of evil.

So far Christians have bent over back-wards to avoid the bloodletting that will surely come in the future. By the time the children of God reach a consensus and say enough is enough we may be to weak and doctrinally unsound to tell the difference between a Christian and non Christian. Because of our lukewarmness God may just allow us to die like dried up grapes and we will be the salt that has lost its savor. We will be worthless as an influence in the society in which we live.

 

[Granite]

"My definition of ethnic cleansing is maybe a little different than most. There are only two ethnic types in all the world. Those who are born of God and those who are not born of God. Those societies that have chosen against God are candidates for ethnic cleansing. Make no mistake, we Christians are at war with the forces of evil."

Answer my question: do you advocate the murder of abortionists?

You didn't exact define "ethnic cleansing," either. You've broken the world into Christian and non-Christian camps; I guess, by implication, you're suggesting anyone outside the church for any reason is a candidate for extermination. Yes or no?

 

[drbrumley]

E4E,

we may be to weak and doctrinally unsound to tell the difference between a Christian and non Christian

Thinks we are already there!!! Just getting worse is all that's left.

 

[drbrumley]

Off to work

 

[elected4ever]

granite1010

Answer my question: do you advocate the murder of abortionists?

e4e ----- I do not advocate the murder of anyone. Abortionist are the ones murdering the innocent, I advocate the just execution of murderers. Taking life when it is justified is not murder. When society refuses to accept its responsibility then the just laws of God should be executed. Murderers should tremble in there boots because of the sure judgment to come. Today murderers just laugh and live on the public dole. There is no fear of execution by the murderer.(abortionist)

granite1010

You didn't exact define "ethnic cleansing," either. You've broken the world into Christian and non-Christian camps; I guess, by implication, you're suggesting anyone outside the church for any reason is a candidate for extermination. Yes or no?

e4e ---- I believe in wars of annihilation not pacification. I do not propose to force my will upon another but nether is his will to be forced upon me. If you escape the carnage you live if not you die. Today the best way to get a hand out from the federal government is to declare war against it.

 

[Gerald]

You *are* crazy...

You *are* crazy...

Originally posted by elected4ever
I believe in wars of annihilation not pacification. I do not propose to force my will upon another but nether is his will to be forced upon me. If you escape the carnage you live if not you die.

Which makes it a gilt-edged priority to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of fanatics like you, because if you ever get hold of them nobody will escape the carnage.

I'm reminded of Martin Sheen's character in The Dead Zone: "The missiles are flying. Halleluia."

:down: