Someone alert the media. lain:
What, that yet another Libertarian has joined the thread and has absolutely nothing useful to say?
Someone alert the media. lain:
I'm confused as to why the liberal West would have more abortion?
If they have the Utopian welfare state and more kids gets you a bigger stipend then I'd assume abortion would be low.
As a Christian I would personally like to thank you for borrowing off of Judeo-Christian doctrine when it comes to marriage (Genesis 2:18-25) and having children (Genesis 9:7 ).
My wife's a Christian, so.....
I stole one of your women :chuckle:
Regarding vices v crimes:
We can talk about anything that a true Libertarian thinks should be legal:
Abortion, homosexuality, pornography (kiddy porn included), prostitution, all recreational drugs, etc. etc. etc.
Pick one or all of the above topics and then show me that there is no victim, henceforth there shouldn't be a law against such behavior if there is no victim, right?
There's a difference between saying "you know, I really don't believe in the virgin birth or in Christ's resurrection" and saying "Christ was a bastard and his mother was a whore" (the latter line, I think was in some Orthodox Jews writings.)
I think the former could be expressed but the latter would be punishable even if it was an atheist or other non-Christian who did it. However, someone who professed to be Christian but openly denied the resurrection or the virgin birth would be punishable even if he didn't blaspheme.
In other words, it would be safer to not be a professing Christian in your country.
Well, that would be difficult as you haven't a clue about libertarianism.
Abortion has a victim, so your off base with that one.
Homosexuality, I can see victimization in that. If a homo molests a child, that child is a victim. If Steve and AcW decided to become homos, then who is the victim in that scenario?
Porno, again, a child becomes a victim if said child is put in this situation, (see molestation).
Prostitution, where's the victim?
Recreational Drugs, unless someone is forcing it in you, you have no case
Both participants are engaging in an act that cheapens what God designed for man and woman when it comes to sexuality. The legalization of prostitution would cheapen God's beautiful design throughout society.
Let me guess AcW, your a VICTIM of the Supreme Court decision to allow same sex marriage right?
So God is the victim?
In other words, it would be safer to not be a professing Christian in your country.
Good point. You'd be a second-class citizen one way or another but it'd be easier to just keep your head down and not even bother explaining your faith. Play it safe.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
When you say "private" do you mean someone hiding in their basement by themselves where no one else can see them praying to whichever god they choose to pray to, or can private also mean a church congregation?
But many churches exist inside homes.
But you're ok if these things are said behind closed doors? (See my response to your earlier statement above).
I think that what's said in the home probably wouldn't be under the State's jurisdiction, though I could be convinced where I am Biblically wrong on this.
It's helped greatly to define what you really desire:
a theocracy.
That being said, let's talk about the major differences between what some might consider a theonomy and what a theocracy is.
As Jefferson pointed out in his article:
The basis for building a Christian society is evangelism and missions that lead to a widespread Christian revival, so that the great mass of earth's inhabitants will place themselves under Christ's protection, and then voluntarily use his covenantal laws for self-government. Christian reconstruction begins with personal conversion to Christ and self-government under God's law; then it spreads to others through revival; and only later does it bring comprehensive changes in civil law, when the vast majority of voters voluntarily agree to live under biblical blueprints.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4462073&postcount=146
Now I don't want to downplay the importance of civil government, because it was the change of laws that got us into the moral hellhole that we're in today. Laws do have a huge influence on people, and as I've shown in this article is a way to lead people (and thus a society) back to righteous living (and even Christ).
Civil Government: The Neglected Ministry
http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/issue08/civil_government.htm
Back to theonomy v theocracy:
Jefferson wisely talks about a "bottom up" approach to converting people to Christianity, which amongst other things would later bring about righteous legislation in civil government.
What you propose is a "top down" approach where powerful religious theocrats amongst other things force their religious doctrine upon others. While their laws may come from the Bible, their penalties are not just (stoning to death homosexuals and adulterers, etc.) as they leave no room for mercy and repentance.
I hope that you see that a theonomy type mold is a wise way to go about taking our once Christian nation back and not a theocracy.
You are using terms in weird ways that I'm not used to. Pretty much everything I'm advocating would be well in line with Greg Bahnsen (probably the most well known modern theonomist). Your comments on "top down" are really weird considering previous comments you've made regarding states rights and whatnot. I am not necessarily advocating (or at least not here) a particular METHOD for getting from here to what a government should be. All I'm saying is "this is what righteous law looks like."
Most recons are against top-down change in general. I'm less inherently against it because there are Biblical examples that work and that God condones. However, I generally support decentralization to a pretty high degree for this reason. I'm not opposed to letting other people live in a society that is more to their liking, although God will no doubt judge them for refusing to follow his laws.
Our nation was never Christian unless you go back to the puritans. THe Constitution was a document that denied Christ's Lordship from the very beginning.
If you're a heretic it will be better for you if you're honest about the fact that you're not a Christian than if you pretend to be one, yes.
But many churches exist inside homes.
Pretty much everything I'm advocating would be well in line with Greg Bahnsen (probably the most well known modern theonomist).
I'm not opposed to letting other people live in a society that is more to their liking, although God will no doubt judge them for refusing to follow his laws.
Our nation was never Christian unless you go back to the puritans.
Our nation was never Christian unless you go back to the puritans. THe Constitution was a document that denied Christ's Lordship from the very beginning.
See? Totalitarianism's so cut and dry.
And consistent. And utilitarian! It applies everywhere!
You may know the name Ron Enroth
he's written extensively on abusive churches, a topic generally ignored or considered distasteful in most evangelical circles.
I corresponded briefly with Enroth some years back to thank him for his work (Churches That Abuse was helpful to me after leaving one).
I mentioned the congregation I'd left was Reconstructionist and Enroth volunteered something interesting: "Mr. Bahnsen was a seminary student of mine many years ago and even then I knew something was seriously disturbed with him."
Uh...that doesn't work, either. The Puritans weren't citizens of the U.S.
Once again your ignorance of our founding documents and the people who wrote it is duly noted (our rights come from God).
I really don't care what a secular humanist idolater thinks of me or my policies.
Its an important topic, although I don't know that what you consider "abusive" is going to be logical.
I'm not really inclined to touch this. I know the modern world hates recons.
Fair enough. So I'll just say America has NEVER been a Christian nation, and thus, has ALWAYS been under God's judgment.
Which God?
They never agreed on it.
Jefferson was a deist (though I know you'll quote nonsense from Barton trying to refute the claim )yet he was allowed to be a citizen of the US. This is a problem.
Not to mention the dehumanization of black people from the beginning, which is utterly indefensible no matter how hard people try. The more I think about this, the less I like or respect the founders. They laid the foundation for this mess from the beginning.
The One and Only God.
"They" being? (Name a majority of the Founding Fathers that didn't agree that our rights come from God and hence refused to sign the Declaration of Independence).
I didn't know that deists took the time to write and thus highlight the key verses and passages in Holy Scripture (hence the Jefferson Bible).
The Founding Fathers aint got nothing on us Jr. While they did allow thousands to be enslaved (including some whites), we sit back and allow 58 million of our most innocent to be murdered in the womb in 43 year period.
Who are the true barbarians Jr. : the country that embraces murder of it's most innocent and takes "pride" in sexual deviants marching in the streets and changing it's invaluable institutions, or the one's that didn't immediately change something (slavery) that had been on the continent a couple of hundred years before our nation was founded?