My fantasy. And a question for liberals
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Its true, and its eventually going to happen because secular humanism is utterly unsustainable. Keep pushing, eventually we will rebuild from the ashes of your wicked, statist civilization.
Real theonomists, that is. Honestly, these guys with their dispensationalism and neoconservatism are a different breed entirely. Not sure Enyart thinks much of North, and I know North would not fellowship with Enyart considering his heresies.
I've never understood this. So whipping someone 30 times for the same crime that you'd imprison them for 30 years for is brutal, but taking 30 years of their life away is totally fine? Which would you prefer?
Caledvwlch
New member
This would need to come with a sane foreign policy. Let Ron Paul run the Dept. of Foreign Affairs
What on earth would make you think sane foreign policy was part of this experiment? :chuckle:
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
From Jefferson and Bob Enyart? Absolutely nothing to speak of.
But actual theonomists are at least generally non-interventionists.
Also, this would never work without a sane foreign policy. This may seem like a trivial point to you, but it is most assuredly not.
Caledvwlch
New member
Preferably neither. What kind of crimes are we talking about here?
:yawn:
"We will bury you blah blah blah just wait and see." Yeah, that's original.
Armchair quarterback revenge bluster and No True Scotsman all in one post!:devil:
Yes and no. The two go hand in hand more often than you think. Dispies certainly see no problem with ginning up the war machine. You think Armageddon's gonna start itself?:chuckle:
These guys in a room together would be like putting a couple of wolverines in a cage.:noway: :shocked: :chuckle:
Caledvwlch
New member
Not at all. The triviality comes from the license granted by framing it as a fantasy. But yes, sanity would be fully necessary for splitting this continent in half and sharing it.
Actions which are legal and not currently punishable under the law.
Showing once again that secular humanists and theonomists like Jr. here can work together to make the world a bigger hellhole than it already is.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
But see, most liberals do NOT complain about rights abuses from countries that incarcerate for years on end, let alone refuse to trade with such countries (I support free trade but that's another issue.)
I don't know. I think assault could qualify. I also think that in some cases a capital penalty could be mitigated to a whipping.
But that's not really what I want to get into, because I know we fundamentally disagree on justice. I'm just getting at this one question right now. I think prison is far more "abusive" than moderate flogging. Do you disagree? If so, why?
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
#datpostmil
I realize this. That wasn't my point. My point wasn't to distinguish dispensationalism and neoconservatism from each other, but to distinguish BOTH dispie and neocon from standard theonomy. I hope that makes more sense.
North would intellectually make minced meat of anyone on this site, myself included
Oh no. He is one of your own. You keep him.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Biblcial support for criminality and a particular penalty?
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
No, let's assume something that's already a crime, like assault. You have a choice. Twenty lashes or five years in prison. Which would you choose?
I know I'd choose the lashes. It would suck, but its quick and then I can move on with my life. I don't have to waste 5 years in a cage. This isn't "cruel". However, the Bible does limit to 40 so it doesn't become cruel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Showing once again that secular humanists and theonomists like Jr. here can work together to make the world a bigger hellhole than it already is.
The Bible is very clear about the harms of intoxicating oneself with alcohol or mind altering recreational drugs.
It truly is sad that you theonomists believe that there must be a specific verse or passage in Scripture that talks about the various things that are ruining our society (recreational drug abuse, pornography, etc.) and the penalty for it in order to have it criminalized.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Showing once again that secular humanists and theonomists like Jr. here can work together to make the world a bigger hellhole than it already is.
The Bible is very clear about the harms of intoxicating oneself with alcohol or mind altering recreational drugs.
It truly is sad that you theonomists believe that there must be a specific verse or passage in Scripture that talks about the various things that are ruining our society (recreational drug abuse, pornography, etc.) and the penalty for it in order to have it criminalized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Showing once again that secular humanists and theonomists like Jr. here can work together to make the world a bigger hellhole than it already is
Jr. is normally a Libertarian on Mon-Wed and Friday's, but it appears that he's gone the theonomist route today.
Regarding whose side he's on:
I have quite a few quotes that show him siding with you on the issue of "consenting adults" if you would like to see them Sandy.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Showing once again that secular humanists and theonomists like Jr. here can work together to make the world a bigger hellhole than it already is
Jr. is normally a Libertarian on Mon-Wed and Friday's, but it appears that he's gone the theonomist route today.
Regarding whose side he's on:
I have quite a few quotes that show him siding with you on the issue of "consenting adults" if you would like to see them Sandy.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Deuteronomy 4 and Deuteronomy 12 would prohibit you from adding this law unless you think there is a case law that already exists which is applicable.
Now, as for the OP, the east-west division is really awkward. I forgot to mention this in my initital assessment, but its important. The Northeast is not conservative, and Texas is not liberal. A better division (though admittedly geographically awkward) is to pair the Pacific states (minus Alaska but including Hawaii) with the Northeast and then putting the rest of the country in the conservative camp. Or better yet, honestly, just have 50 different countries. Centralization is a disease and it just leads to everyone being miserable.