Well, some folks just don't cotton to the ways and wisdom of God.
They think He's a big ol' murdering meanie.
Nick M's awesome lack of vocabulary
- Thread starter Nang
- Start date
They think He's a big ol' murdering meanie.
And you wonder why I have such a problem with your faith and your book.
Nah. I don't wonder about it.
Loved that show!
Me too!
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Is the United States God's Chosen Nation?
Does "kill people when I tell you to" translate to "you can kill people whenever you want?
I don't. I trust God has a reason when he tells people to slaughter other people. But the US government, and Tambora, are not God, and I will thus not give them similar trust and respect. You don't get to arbitrarily say certain people should die for the greater good.
I get it. I empathize, actually.
Last year I spent the greater part of the year trying to convince agnostics that, while God did command this type of stuff at specific times, the Bible does not endorse things like this as normative. Then I went to Christian school and met professing Christians who interpret the Bible almost exactly the way that the agnostics interpreted it, except the agnostics used it as a reason to reject the Bible, while the professing Christians were proud of the conclusions they had come to.
I know you used to be a Reconstructionist. I'm not even talking about Reconstructionists, although I am not one. Greg Bahnsen was, and he was a full blown non-interventionist. There's not a chance he'd be OK with any of this. Same with Rushdoony and Gary North.
I'm talking about wanna-be conquerers and neocons in theonomist clothing that just want to use the Bible as an excuse to destroy lives... just because.
I won't say I wouldn't believe the Bible if that was what it taught, but considering that ISN'T what the Bible teaches, and that ISN'T the law God has laid on our hearts, I wouldn't blame anyone who was under that impression for being baffled by it.
I can handle the agnostics. They don't bother me. But these "Christians" anger me like nothing else.
I get it Granite. More than anyone I get it. I've thought the same way about the American church as a whole, though not about God himself. I don't like American Christianity one bit. But I still cannot reject Christianity, because I believe with all my heart and all my mind that it is true, despite the bloodthirstyness of some liars who pretend to be of us.
Perhaps, it would be better (for you) if you just stayed home,
purchased a Bible, open it up, and start reading and studying
the writings of Paul. (Paul's Gospel) You're in no position to
be preaching, teaching or answering questions at this point
in your life!
based on what?
did you stay home?
did you not read commentary by dispensationalists?
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
lol! @ stupid MADists telling me how little I know. I bet I've read more of Paul than you have.
Why thank you.
As you point out, this is very much open to interpretation.
You may be right about Bahnsen but you're dead wrong about Rushdoony and North.
Speaking of which you should look into how Rushdoony treated his first wife, let alone his prolific son-in-law...
Baffled? No. But whether you like it or not, the Reconstructionists can and do make a consistent case based on what's written.
Glad to hear it.
Well, a fella can hold out hope for a good egg like you.:cheers:
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I don't see how it is. I can see how there would be debate about whether the Old Testament Law is applicable today, but to suggest that killing civilians at random is scripturally OK is something I can't possibly defend with any argument that I would consider reasonable, doubly so when the argument is entirely American centric (none of these people would say Islamic nations would be justified in killing American citizens to defend against American invasion.) Its cherry picking. I suspect as an atheist you view everyone as doing that. To some extent we all do. But this is a lot.
What is your opinion on this article?:
http://americanvision.org/11359/rushdoony-on-war/
Note, I'm not really asking whether you agree or not (I know you're an atheist) but whether or not you think McDurmon is representing Rushdoony correctly.
There's also Rushdoony's Chalcedon Institute here:
http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/the-u-s-war-in-afghanistan-and-just-war-theory/
With regards to North, I wasn't able to find anything specific, but considering that the reconstruction movement has generally been non-interventionist and the fact that North supported Ron Paul for President, I seriously doubt he would go for all this "wipe out all the non-Americans" nonsense.
Nang mentioned something like this to me awhile back. Do you have any links for me to look at?
I actually don't mind the Reconstructionists so much. I disagree with them regarding the connection between Old and New covenants. But I do understand how someone could come to that conclusion.
But reconstruction doesn't give you a right to just kill everyone you want to.
Of course there are very likely different kinds of reconstructionists, and I know some people here who are actually just right-wing authoritarians claim to be theonomists. But the theonomists I know are actually remarkably libertarian except on a few issues.
I don't really feel like walking down memory line with Reconstruction but suffice to say they don't pull what they believe out of a hat.
Ah. I may have misunderstood what you meant by "non-intervention." By and large yes, Reconstructionists are traditionally hands off/isolationists when it comes to foreign policy.
With Scary Gary all things are possible. This is the guy who advocate stoning because it's a cheap community activity (no, I'm not making that up).
Not off-hand, but what I can say is that he abandoned his first wife and disowned North--and his own daughter--over a truly idiotic theological disagreement. Rushdoony was simply put not a pleasant individual (might explain why he was afraid on his death bed).
They're also murderous totalitarian maniacs. Something to chew on.
They might tend to disagree.
Caledvwlch
New member
Please don't make me remember 11th grade Bible class! PLEASE!
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I know. I know two of them.
That's what I meant.
I've seen the quote. Personally I tend to think (though I could be wrong) was that the reason for stoning as a method was not necessarily to torture the person being stoned or because it was cheap, but because it required the entire community to kill the criminal rather than leaving it in the hands of a small group of people with political power. It was the community that executed justice, not a "State". Just IMO.
The two theonomists I know in particular would say that it would be acceptable to use different, more modern methods of execution as long as the person was put to death. But I know that differs from theonomist to theonomist.
What was the disagreement?
This is not true, in my opinion. I like C Jay Engel's assessment:
http://reformedlibertarian.com/arti...tarian-conclusions-and-a-comment-on-theonomy/
I also read American Vision pretty regularly, and North periodically as well. I don't agree with them on everything, but I wouldn't say what you said.
No, theonomists believe OT law should be enforced, but that's very different from just "kill whoever you feel like."
lol! I do find it interesting that both of you went from Reconstructionism to atheism...
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
@Nang- Res is another one of those who is way too comfortable with murder. He's a maniac who's solution to everything he doesn't like is "kill somebody." Yes he thinks I'm the stupid one.
Last edited:
If he is, he's on the right path!
Boorish comment!
And this makes anything better...how.
Well gosh, what a relief.
PM me if you like. The details are so stupid and so unreal that I don't want to waste time with them on the thread.
Well it's true in mine. I've met these people. They're slightly looser when their guard is down.
Splitting hairs before a stoning is no way to live.