And you are false and this shows it.
My fantasy. And a question for liberals
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
And you are false and this shows it.
For the same reason South Koreans care about North Koreans.
Caledvwlch
New member
Because it isn't true. It's a weird fantasy version of what Jeff assumes liberals must be thinking, but it's wrong.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
the supreme law of our country =/= our country
besides, the supreme law of our country is an abomination when it conflicts with God's Law
might be interesting to start a discussion on just what is "our country"
is it the land?
the people?
it's history and traditions?
Caledvwlch
New member
Okay, I see your point.
That's why we derived its authority from the People, not from one of many hundreds of interpretations of what God's Law might be.
Agreed.
"Those who want to help the poor will not be stopped"-Ayn Rand
Did you read Atlas Shrugged?
Quote: Originally posted by ok doser
besides, the supreme law of our country is an abomination when it conflicts with God's Law
Or left-wing judicial activist interpretations of the Constitution that brought us Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas and as of late Obergefell v Hodges.
When exactly did "the People" give left-wing judicial activist judges the "authority" to override their respective State laws when it came to the subject of abortion and homosexuality?
(Thanks for setting this guy up for the proverbial "kill" res).
besides, the supreme law of our country is an abomination when it conflicts with God's Law
Or left-wing judicial activist interpretations of the Constitution that brought us Roe v Wade, Lawrence v Texas and as of late Obergefell v Hodges.
When exactly did "the People" give left-wing judicial activist judges the "authority" to override their respective State laws when it came to the subject of abortion and homosexuality?
(Thanks for setting this guy up for the proverbial "kill" res).
Caledvwlch
New member
Article 6, Clause 2.
That isn't even an amendment. It was ratified by the states.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a6_2.html
So the "People" don't have the authority as you previously stated, but according to your interpretation of the above we're at the whim of left-wing judicial activist judges?
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Yeah, its entire foundations are wrong and the tree has been poisoned ever since. I honestly don't think Jefferson or the other "theonomists" here are really that theonomic on these types of issues, they're more just extreme right.
No it doesn't. God gives us our rights. The constitution, by contrast, refuses to recognize Christ's Lordship.
Heck, why should Christians work with Jews, for the same logic?
Bob's shadowgov pretty clearly advocates centralization IIRC. I really want to go back to the Articles of Confederation. That would fix a lot of these issues. But I'm curious, would you give up your big military, national security state, and foreign interventions in an effort to set up a government that lives according to God's law? I'm not being rhetorical here, I want an answer.
While we're at it, what's your definition of "freedom"?
Irrelevant. I wanted a BIBLICAL argument, not a practical one. Roman Catholic "worship" is just as abominable to God as Islam.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
The odd thing, and I've said this before, is that in a theonomic state baptism is essential for citizenship, which means Mid-Acts dispensationalists wouldn't be able to be citizens.
This same principle applies to the civil covenant. Christians are not to be unequally yoked with non-Christians. There is only one way to achieve this goal: withdrawal from politics. The question is: Who should withdraw, covenant-keepers or covenant-breakers? Pietists answer that covenant-keepers should withdraw; biblical theocrats insist that covenant-breakers should withdraw. One side or the other must eventually exclude its rival. (Political pluralists argue that both groups can make a permanent political covenant.) The long term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church’s public marks of the covenant—baptism and holy communion—must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. The way to achieve this political goal is through successful mass evangelism followed by constitutional revision.[1]
Gary North
This same principle applies to the civil covenant. Christians are not to be unequally yoked with non-Christians. There is only one way to achieve this goal: withdrawal from politics. The question is: Who should withdraw, covenant-keepers or covenant-breakers? Pietists answer that covenant-keepers should withdraw; biblical theocrats insist that covenant-breakers should withdraw. One side or the other must eventually exclude its rival. (Political pluralists argue that both groups can make a permanent political covenant.) The long term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church’s public marks of the covenant—baptism and holy communion—must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel. The way to achieve this political goal is through successful mass evangelism followed by constitutional revision.[1]
Gary North
Caledvwlch
New member
Right wing activist judges as well.
Caledvwlch
New member
He's called Scary Gary for a reason.
Not because he looks like a reanimated corpse and has the charisma of a coat-rack. What a snore-fest when that dude came around!
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
He's called Scary Gary for a reason.
Honestly I'm mostly just attacking the absurdity of dispensational theonomy here
But, he's not scary, he's right
Honestly I'm mostly just attacking the absurdity of dispensational theonomy here
But, he's not scary, he's right
I take it you've never met the man.:chuckle:
Keep in mind this was the guy who wrote a book on building bomb shelters following a war with the Soviets and who was rooting for Y2K.
The same guy who derides pre-tribbers as sensationalists and hysterics.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Never met him. Let me rephrase. The quote is not scary, its correct.
Caledvwlch
New member
My old man had a whole shelf of his dense and profoundly boring books. He was quite prolific.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
was it on the mandatory reading list?
'cause if it's not on the mandatory reading list, i'm not gonna read it
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I havent read his books so I can't speak for how entertaining they are to read. I can say that Bahnsen's Theonomy in Christian Ethics (which you've probably read) is profoundly interesting and not boring in the slightest