My fantasy. And a question for liberals

jeffblue101

New member
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.

Reality is quite different from a utopian liberal society, you might find it interesting that almost every single socialist state in Europe has decreasing birth rates despite the fact that many of the more liberal countries are giving money upfront to couples just to have a single child. A reason, I believe for this is that conservatives or even specifically the Christian worldview has a positive outlook on raising children. While on the other hand, liberals in general tend to consider children a burden financially and emotionally, something to be put off until their 30's or later.(I'm expecting alot of negative reps for that comment from liberals) so its really just a matter of a difference of worldviews.
 

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
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:
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
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?

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.
 

shagster01

New member
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.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
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.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

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?


Well, that would be difficult as you haven't a clue about libertarianism.

I asked your fellow Libertarian Lexington76 to define Libertarian ideology in another thread without using the subjective words "liberty" and "freedom" and all he could do is use the words "liberty" and "freedom" to describe Libertarian ideology.

You turn.

Abortion has a victim, so your off base with that one.

No, you're way off as two of the keywords in Libertarian ideology is "self ownership".

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?

Play nice Steve, lets not take cheap shots at one another (I'll guarantee you that you won't win)

To answer your question: In Judeo-Christian doctrine (and a country that legislates by it) the individual has worth, i.e. we love our neighbor as we love ourselves and do everything possible to keep them from destroying themselves.

Since the decriminalization of homosexuality we've seen how these sexually and morally confused people who allegedly wanted to be left alone in the confines of their bedrooms to sodomize whomever became organized and created a movement that amongst other things molests the minds of innocent children, takes parental rights away and robs American's of their God-given right to religious freedom.


Porno, again, a child becomes a victim if said child is put in this situation, (see molestation).

The women that are treated like cheap pieces of meat and the wives who aren't truly loved by their husbands because they're fantasizing about having sex with other women (pornography often does lead to adultery).

Prostitution, where's the victim?

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.

Recreational Drugs, unless someone is forcing it in you, you have no case

Not only the individual, but his or her family, neighbors and society in general.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Let me guess AcW, your a VICTIM of the Supreme Court decision to allow same sex marriage right?

Institutions are an invaluable asset to society. When you go messing with the most important institution that society has (marriage, which along with the family is the nucleus of any society) then you just hit the "self destruct" button.

r3spbdqyljfabpu7wxki.jpg
 

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
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.


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.

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.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
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.

See? Totalitarianism's so cut and dry.

But many churches exist inside homes.

And consistent. And utilitarian! It applies everywhere!:p

Pretty much everything I'm advocating would be well in line with Greg Bahnsen (probably the most well known modern theonomist).

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."

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.

Only up to a point, however.

Our nation was never Christian unless you go back to the puritans.

Uh...that doesn't work, either. The Puritans weren't citizens of the U.S.
 

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
See? Totalitarianism's so cut and dry.

I really don't care what a secular humanist idolater thinks of me or my policies :p

And unlike some people, I don't really care to cleverly present my beliefs in order to make them sound better.

And consistent. And utilitarian! It applies everywhere!:p

I also didn't say that. aCW did. Misquote...


You may know the name Ron Enroth

I haven't heard of him.

he's written extensively on abusive churches, a topic generally ignored or considered distasteful in most evangelical circles.

Its an important topic, although I don't know that what you consider "abusive" is going to be logical.

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."

I'm not really inclined to touch this. I know the modern world hates recons. I'm curious if Enroth is R2K or has a bone to pick with theonomists. Of course, it could also be something else, but that's just my immediate suspicion.


Uh...that doesn't work, either. The Puritans weren't citizens of the U.S.

Fair enough. So I'll just say America has NEVER been a Christian nation, and thus, has ALWAYS been under God's judgment.
 

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
Once again your ignorance of our founding documents and the people who wrote it is duly noted (our rights come from God).

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.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
I really don't care what a secular humanist idolater thinks of me or my policies.

And I don't care what a thug makes of mine.

Its an important topic, although I don't know that what you consider "abusive" is going to be logical.

Then look into it.

I'm not really inclined to touch this. I know the modern world hates recons.

Ah, the poor put-upon Reconstructionists. Victims all.:yawn:

Fair enough. So I'll just say America has NEVER been a Christian nation, and thus, has ALWAYS been under God's judgment.

One of these days you just might grow up.
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Once again your ignorance of our founding documents and the people who wrote it is duly noted (our rights come from God).


Which God?

The One and Only God.

They never agreed on it.

"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).


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.

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).

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 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?
 

Christian Liberty

Well-known member
The One and Only God.

Except they didn't. Jefferson's version was an idol.


"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).

They all agreed that those rights came from some "God" but not necessarily the one of the BIble.



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).

You really deserve an insult here but I'll spare it...

Jefferson wasn't "highlighting specific verses in the Bible." He purposely cherry picking to keep Christ's morals but eliminate his miracles. Because he was a deist that didn't believe in miracles.

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?

I am aware of this. I'm not saying they were worse than us. They are not. But the foundation was still wrong from the beginning. The puritans got it right. The founders screwed it up.
 
Top