ShadowGov Constitution

[Glenda]

Either the document was removed deliberately or it's a technical glitch. Can anyone comment as to either?

By the way, enough of this nonsense about people taking this proposed constitution too seriously, or more seriously than Enyart intended. It wasn't just a thought experiment and it was never intended to be poo-poohed or dismissed as a flight of fancy. If Enyart didn't want it taken seriously, he wouldn't have made it available on the web. As the man himself said:

"Liberals talk about creativity and using technology, but nothing like ShadowGov has ever been conceived of before -- to build a parallel government, train men and wait for the opportunity. It almost certainly will never take over. But we want to be prepared, just in case."

It's worth checking out the Hegelian Dialectic:
Below is a tiny excerpt from "What is the Hegelian Dialectic?
By Niki Raapana and Nordica Friedrich
October 2005" http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm

"...the State 'has the supreme right against the individual, whose supreme duty is to be a member of the State... for the right of the world spirit is above all special privileges.'" Author/historian William Shirer, quoting Georg Hegel in his The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1959, page 144)
...
Hegel's dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action. Every time we fight for or defend against an ideology we are playing a necessary role in Marx and Engels' grand design to advance humanity into a dictatorship of the proletariat. The synthetic Hegelian solution to all these conflicts can't be introduced unless we all take a side that will advance the agenda. The Marxist's global agenda is moving along at breakneck speed. The only way to completely stop the privacy invasions, expanding domestic police powers, land grabs, insane wars against inanimate objects (and transient verbs), covert actions, and outright assaults on individual liberty, is to step outside the dialectic. This releases us from the limitations of controlled and guided thought.
...

 

[Jefferson]

Are you Torah observant Jefferson?

Of course not because First Timothy 1:9,10 says the Old Testament Law is not for Christians but is for nonchristians.

 

[WizardofOz]

Hello Jefferson. Thank you for interacting in an adult manner.

Of course not because First Timothy 1:9,10 says the Old Testament Law is not for Christians but is for nonchristians.

So now we have a fundamental flaw exposed with the shadowgov constitution. If it ever were to be the "law of the land" you would have Christians with knowledge of scripture shouting what you just stated at the top of their lungs, and from the rooftops, all while they march with it written in obnoxiously large, colorful letters all over obnoxiously large signs or billboards.

It would create quite a dilemma. How would a king enforce a law on a section of the population while it not be enforced on the Christian section? I'm pretty sure, that for this very reason, Christians would be the first, and loudest voice opposing this system. They would be insulted and be reassured by scripture of the fact that it should not apply to them in any way, shape or form.

It would either pit Christians against the system or it would divide Christians between those who support it and those who do not. Unless you'd really want it enforced on only non-Christians. I'm just not so sure that would go over too well. Maybe some ultra orthodox Jews would embrace it, but that's about all we would (and should) see supporting it.

I would also just like to clarify that when you said

It is according to First Timothy 1:9,10

The "it" in question up until that point was the shadowgov constitution. I am not sure if you are equating the Torah with shadowgov or not. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding as the topic of "it" at that point. But, because shadowgov only cherrypicks certain aspects of the Torah, it is biblically unsound for that reason as well.

That's the second fundamental flaw.

If you are going to make a law regarding the execution of adulterers based on the Torah, then there also has to be a law based on wearing mixed fibers, or the DP for those who curse their parents, etc etc.

It's really an all or nothing situation and scripture is pretty clear on that.

So what, if it isn't? The US Constitution isn't either. I don't see you whining about that.

This should be rather obvious and pretty simple to understand.
The US Constitution was not created or to be strictly enforced under the basis that it was. The Constitution is fluid and secular. Shadowgov was written to seem Christian so it could appeal to Christians.

At least we seem to agree on this though; it isn't Christian. "So what if it isn't"? If it's not, then why would you support it?

I cannot believe you are this stupid. Really. This isn't about religion, period.

Kmoney asked a valid question.

What is it about?

You sure could have fooled me since the original document I read had verses next to each "crime" for OT justification through Torah Law.:idunno:
How is that not religious justification?

Bob sure made it seem religious. At least the attempt to justify it was through Torah Law. I guess I just misunderstood or overestimated this whole joke, or exercise in political brainstorming. I am happy to hear that is all it was (even if I'm not completely convinced) and am content to leave it at that.

 

[Jefferson]

So now we have a fundamental flaw exposed with the shadowgov constitution. If it ever were to be the "law of the land" you would have Christians with knowledge of scripture shouting what you just stated at the top of their lungs, and from the rooftops, all while they march with it written in obnoxiously large, colorful letters all over obnoxiously large signs or billboards.

It would create quite a dilemma. How would a king enforce a law on a section of the population while it not be enforced on the Christian section? I'm pretty sure, that for this very reason, Christians would be the first, and loudest voice opposing this system. They would be insulted and be reassured by scripture of the fact that it should not apply to them in any way, shape or form.

It would either pit Christians against the system or it would divide Christians between those who support it and those who do not. Unless you'd really want it enforced on only non-Christians. I'm just not so sure that would go over too well. Maybe some ultra orthodox Jews would embrace it, but that's about all we would (and should) see supporting it.

Both Christians and nonchristians are to obey God's moral law. Christians don't obey it for the purpose of salvation. They are supposed to simply follow the law of selflessness out of thankfullness for the salvation they already have through faith in the efficacy of Christ's death, burial and resurrection.

The "it" in question up until that point was the shadowgov constitution. I am not sure if you are equating the Torah with shadowgov or not. Perhaps it was a misunderstanding as the topic of "it" at that point. But, because shadowgov only cherrypicks certain aspects of the Torah, it is biblically unsound for that reason as well.

That's the second fundamental flaw.

The reason why shadowgov cherrypicks the Torah is because the apostle Paul cherrypicked the Torah and Paul is our example. Notice that Paul did not mention any of the ceremonial laws in First Timothy 1:8-10. Paul taught the ceremonial law has passed away for this dispensation of grace but Paul also taught the moral law is still applicable. Therefore, so do we.

If you are going to make a law regarding the execution of adulterers based on the Torah, then there also has to be a law based on wearing mixed fibers, or the DP for those who curse their parents, etc etc.

Non Jews were never required to obey the ceremonial law, only the moral law. Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed for severely violating the moral law of the Torah. God did not destroy Sodom and Gomorah because they wore clothing with mixed fibers.

 

[WizardofOz]

I would first like to state that it is impossible to justify the shadowgov constitution through Christian scripture and theology. I challenge anyone to try if they feel they can do so. The burden of proof is really on its supporters since it has in no way been proven to be a Christian document in any way. I am done with this thread unless someone is willing to justify it through scripture since I am being told it was never meant to be taken seriously in the first place. Hopefully a failed attempt to justify it through scripture will put and end to this nonsense for any individual who searches in vain for its justification.

Both Christians and nonchristians are to obey God's moral law. Christians don't obey it for the purpose of salvation. They are supposed to simply follow the law of selflessness out of thankfullness for the salvation they already have through faith in the efficacy of Christ's death, burial and resurrection.

"God's moral law" as defined by what? Written law? What is "the law of selflessness"?

Matthew 22:37-40
Jesus replied. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

"All" the law.

Christians are not to follow written ordinances loosely based on The Torah. They have all the law they need built-in, once they came to faith. This is why no Christian in the history of Christianity has gone around preaching or attempting to enforce the law in this way. They know bringing faith to unbelievers will accomplish everything God desires out of the new believer.

Galatians 3:1-4
O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?

The reason why shadowgov cherrypicks the Torah is because the apostle Paul cherrypicked the Torah and Paul is our example. Notice that Paul did not mention any of the ceremonial laws in First Timothy 1:8-10. Paul taught the ceremonial law has passed away for this dispensation of grace but Paul also taught the moral law is still applicable. Therefore, so do we.

Paul "cherrypicking"
Acts 15:28-29
It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.

There is no mention of stoning or otherwise executing anyone who breaks those requirements. It is about the discipline of the individual through faith, not the discipline of an entire society through the curse of the law.

Everyone deserves spiritual and physical death under the law. There is no differentiation made between crime and sin by the law.

Non Jews were never required to obey the ceremonial law, only the moral law.

Required by whom, based on what?

Sodom and Gomorah were destroyed for severely violating the moral law of the Torah. God did not destroy Sodom and Gomorah because they wore clothing with mixed fibers.

Irrelevant. This occurred before the new covenant. Sodom and Gomorrah we most definitely judged under the whole law.

Instead of quoting verses upon verses which would show this document to be as false as it really is, I can only hope you will read for yourself so that you may find God spiritual law on your hearts which will only come through faith.

If anyone would like to get a true understanding of a Christians standing with "the law", please read

Romans 2-5
Romans 7-13
1 Corinthians 9
Galatians 3
Hebrews 7

Galatians 2:16
know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.

I cannot understand or excuse why any Christian would want an entire nation focused on the curse of the law rather than on faith.

Galatians 3:10-14
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”
Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

:wave2:
:grave:

 

[Jefferson]

WizardofOz:

What is your commentary on First Timothy 1:9,10? Do you pretend it doesn't exist?

 

[WizardofOz]

WizardofOz:

What is your commentary on First Timothy 1:9,10? Do you pretend it doesn't exist?

The law was needed so that men could become conscious of sin. There are many verses which speak of this.

Romans 3:20
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

Sin needed to be defined.

Romans 5:13
or before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

What was God's purpose for the law?

Romans 5:20
The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,

So, should there be one set of laws for those righteous in Christ?

Romans 7:4
So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God.

And another set for the lawless?

The law changed under the new priesthood.

 

[Jefferson]

WizardofOz:

I don't deny that God uses the law to convict sinners of their sin, leading them to repentance but it has even more value than that. Today many people don't believe in God's judgement because since they don't see God's law enforced in society or even promoted by God's representatives. Why should sinners beleive us when we tell them God will judge them? Since God's representatives (like you) aren't in favor of God's law judging sinners in this life, why should sinners believe that God will judge them by that same law in the next life?

Think of how much more effective the gospel would be if someone grew up in a society that put adulterers to death. Those people would grow up with the knowledge that judgment for transgressing God's law is normal an natural. Then when those people hear in the gospel that God will judge people for violating His law, it will make perfect sense to them instead of sounding like some completely foreign concept from another planet like it does to them today thanks to Christians who are too afraid to promote God's law in society because they worship the false god of Public Acceptance. I'm not saying you do but I interact with Christians all the time on this topic and so many of them eventually get around to confessing words to the effect of, "But this would make us so unpopular!!!"

Furthermore, by what standard are Christian lawmakers supposed to decide what is a moral law? Are they supposed to make law by sinning against Judges 21:25 where God condemned people for doing what was right "in their own eyes?"

 

[WizardofOz]

I can see clearly that your intent is noble; and I'm sure Bob's was also, but it does seem that this is an exercise in men using the logic of men to enforce God's will on unbelievers under the pain of death. There is no scriptural justification.

I mean this with no offense but all this rhetoric reeks of desperation. Were men not to fall away from the faith in the last days? I'm not saying that the sky is falling; but I see nothing going on in the world which has not been prophesied. It's not easy not to feel hopeless at the decay of our society; but we must remain faithful that God is always in control.

WizardofOz:
Why should sinners beleive us when we tell them God will judge them? Since God's representatives (like you) aren't in favor of God's law judging sinners in this life, why should sinners believe that God will judge them by that same law in the next life?

I am not saying I am not in favor of God's law judging sinners in this life; because I believe it is. But man cannot, as a whole, condemn other men for God. The righteous in Christ can show unbelievers truth and point them in the right direction; but they must come to know the law on their own accord. They should not have it shoved down their throats.

Think of how much more effective the gospel would be if someone grew up in a society that put adulterers to death.

I completely disagree. God gave man free will so that they may come to him out of humility and faith, not out of fear alone. God does not want men to follow his law reluctantly. I really don't see how this method will bring unbelievers to grace. It would only hardened hearts against what will be perceived as man enforcing man's will under the guise that it's what god wants. Look at the reaction you get out of non-believes just on this forum. Christianity, as a whole, will fight against it even harder IMHO as many already do when they fight against Christian Reconstructionalism.

This isn't exactly a unique idea by any means.

Romans 2:1-4
Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

Men who live in sin need the goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering of God because that is what brings people to repentance. Not the threat of death by the law. That would send many straight to hell. It is only speculation that sitting on death row will bring them to God. I think they're more likely, in this day and age, to be brought to Allah.:devil:

Those people would grow up with the knowledge that judgment for transgressing God's law is normal an natural. Then when those people hear in the gospel that God will judge people for violating His law, it will make perfect sense to them instead of sounding like some completely foreign concept from another planet like it does to them today thanks to Christians who are too afraid to promote God's law in society because they worship the false god of Public Acceptance. I'm not saying you do but I interact with Christians all the time on this topic and so many of them eventually get around to confessing words to the effect of, "But this would make us so unpopular!!!"

Not only would it make Christians unpopular; it would make Christians go against their own theology. When they come to faith themselves; they will not need written ordinances to "know the law". It will then be written on their hearts. The written law of God is there for anyone to see if they so desire. Why would Christians, as a whole, want Torah (moral) Law strictly enforced?

There is no way a secular nation (unlike mosaic Israel) will buy into this being "God's law". Christians are charged with bringing unbelievers to faith through the gospel; not through the law.

I think scripture is rather clear about this.

Furthermore, by what standard are Christian lawmakers supposed to decide what is a moral law? Are they supposed to make law by sinning against Judges 21:25 where God condemned people for doing what was right "in their own eyes?"

There is still law. We don't live in anarchy. Christian lawmakers are free to be convicted by their heart to suggest laws they see as in agreement with God's law. God is more than capable of inflicting his wrath if he sees fit. He doesn't need man to enforce his law through the threat of death. He's more than capable.

Romans 13:1

 

[Lighthouse]

This should be rather obvious and pretty simple to understand.
The US Constitution was not created or to be strictly enforced under the basis that it was. The Constitution is fluid and secular. Shadowgov was written to seem Christian so it could appeal to Christians.

So, if it hadn't been written that way, with the Bible references, and the dedication to God, then you wouldn't have a problem with it?

At least we seem to agree on this though; it isn't Christian. "So what if it isn't"? If it's not, then why would you support it?

Because I agree politically, moron. Why do you support the US Constitution?

Kmoney asked a valid question.

You sure could have fooled me since the original document I read had verses next to each "crime" for OT justification through Torah Law.:idunno:
How is that not religious justification?

Bob sure made it seem religious. At least the attempt to justify it was through Torah Law. I guess I just misunderstood or overestimated this whole joke, or exercise in political brainstorming. I am happy to hear that is all it was (even if I'm not completely convinced) and am content to leave it at that.

Yes, there is Biblical justification, because Bob believes in God, and trusts God. So what God has commanded is to be trusted.:dunce::duh:

 

[WizardofOz]

So, if it hadn't been written that way, with the Bible references, and the dedication to God, then you wouldn't have a problem with it?

It would just be another strange political document describing strange political ideals. I wouldn't agree with it; but it would be easier to dismiss.

Because I agree politically, moron. Why do you support the US Constitution?

:sigh: Ah, back to talking to the children.

Same reason.

Yes, there is Biblical justification, because Bob believes in God, and trusts God. So what God has commanded is to be trusted.:dunce::duh:

There is not biblical justification. Let's not discuss this in a million threads. We're discussing the basically same topic here

 

[Lighthouse]

It would just be another strange political document describing strange political ideals. I wouldn't agree with it; but it would be easier to dismiss.

It would be easier to dismiss? Why is that?:think:

:sigh: Ah, back to talking to the children.

Same reason.

So you think it's politically sound to be able to change the supreme law just because the majority doesn't like it?

There is not biblical justification. Let's not discuss this in a million threads. We're discussing the basically same topic here

If there's not Biblical justification, what are all the Scripture references?

 

[WizardofOz]

It would be easier to dismiss? Why is that?:think:

Because it wouldn't be attempting to be justified through the words of God. It would just be another crazy political idealist pushing his agenda.

So you think it's politically sound to be able to change the supreme law just because the majority doesn't like it?

What does this have to do with anything? Do you even know anything about the legislative process in America? You've shown to know little or nothing about the US government in the past, I do not assume differently now. Remember our long chat about how the US government is not a democracy?

If there's not Biblical justification, what are all the Scripture references?

Scriptural references to what? If the best evidence you can find in new covenant scripture for executing individuals under the old law is 1 Timothy; then you're argument is weak indeed.

:sozo: The old law was set aside under the new priesthood.

 

[Jefferson]

I can see clearly that your intent is noble; and I'm sure Bob's was also, but it does seem that this is an exercise in men using the logic of men to enforce God's will on unbelievers under the pain of death. There is no scriptural justification.

So are you against the death penalty for murder?

Were men not to fall away from the faith in the last days? I'm not saying that the sky is falling; but I see nothing going on in the world which has not been prophesied. It's not easy not to feel hopeless at the decay of our society; but we must remain faithful that God is always in control.

So since your eschatology is that things will get worse until the end, then are you going to fight against moral progress just so your eschatology won't be threatened? There used to be slavery in America. Now there is not. Pornography used to be sold in drug stores on the magazine racks right next to the "Home and Garden" magazines where children could flip through the pages at their leisure. Not any more. That's even more Christian morality being "imposed" upon nonbelievers. So why should we stop there? We're not. Colorado just got the Personhood Amendment on the ballot for this November which would make all abortions illegal from the moment of fertilization. This would even make "The Pill" illegal in Colorado. What if it passes? Will you still be preaching that things will only continually get worse and worse? What if Christians in your state need people to collect signatures to get the amendment on the ballot in your state? Will you help them? Will you fight against them? Or will you apathetically sit it out because "God is always in control?" If God who, according to you, prophesied things will only get worse, then why did God make things better in just those 2 examples I gave above? And, by the way, we could both give many more examples. Is God schizophrenic? Or maybe, just maybe, people actually have real, genuine free will with the power and freedom to create almost any Godly future for themselves they put their minds to in spite of some of their fellow Christians preaching Pessimillenialism to them that they are wasting their time. Do you have any idea how many thousands of Christians, who believe in Pessimillenialism, just missed out on receiving boatloads of rewards in heaven because they refused to help get this Personhood Amendent on the ballot? They refused to help because the very idea of this extreme amount of Christian progress and influence in society flies smack in the face against everything they believe about eschatology. Wow. Not only does bad theology kill, it causes Christians to sit on their hands while other Christians are "winning the race."

I am not saying I am not in favor of God's law judging sinners in this life; because I believe it is. But man cannot, as a whole, condemn other men for God.

But what if God commands men, who hold positions of governing authorities, to execute certain criminals? Romans 13:4 says just that: "[The governing authority] is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil."

Men who live in sin need the goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering of God because that is what brings people to repentance. Not the threat of death by the law.

Galations 3:24 disagrees with you: "the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ..." That's the whole law including the judgements contained in the law.

It is only speculation that sitting on death row will bring them to God.

No, it's biblical. In the gospels we have an example of a death row situation where literally 50 percent of the death row inmates converted. Christ was crucified between 2 criminals. One of them became a believer: "Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, "If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us." But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, "Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong." Then he said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise." (Luke 23:39-43)

Coincidence?

Not only would it make Christians unpopular; it would make Christians go against their own theology. When they come to faith themselves; they will not need written ordinances to "know the law". It will then be written on their hearts. The written law of God is there for anyone to see if they so desire. Why would Christians, as a whole, want Torah (moral) Law strictly enforced?

Christians should want God's moral Law strictly enforced so God will not be profaned: ""Will you profane Me [asks the Lord] killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live…?" (Ezekiel 13:19)

There is no way a secular nation (unlike mosaic Israel) will buy into this being "God's law". Christians are charged with bringing unbelievers to faith through the gospel; not through the law.

I think scripture is rather clear about this.

Including this scripture? - "the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ..." (Galatians 3:24)

Christian lawmakers are free to be convicted by their heart to suggest laws they see as in agreement with God's law.

Including the death penalty for adultery?

God is more than capable of inflicting his wrath if he sees fit. He doesn't need man to enforce his law through the threat of death.

But what if God commands man to enforce His law like He did in all the verses I cited above?

 

[WizardofOz]

Hello again.

So are you against the death penalty for murder?

No, I am not. Some people are beyond rehabilitation and will never cease being a threat to society.

So since your eschatology is that things will get worse until the end, then are you going to fight against moral progress just so your eschatology won't be threatened? There used to be slavery in America. Now there is not. Pornography used to be sold in drug stores on the magazine racks right next to the "Home and Garden" magazines where children could flip through the pages at their leisure. Not any more. That's even more Christian morality being "imposed" upon nonbelievers. So why should we stop there? We're not. Colorado just got the Personhood Amendment on the ballot for this November which would make all abortions illegal from the moment of fertilization. This would even make "The Pill" illegal in Colorado. What if it passes? Will you still be preaching that things will only continually get worse and worse? What if Christians in your state need people to collect signatures to get the amendment on the ballot in your state? Will you help them? Will you fight against them? Or will you apathetically sit it out because "God is always in control?" If God who, according to you, prophesied things will only get worse, then why did God make things better in just those 2 examples I gave above? And, by the way, we could both give many more examples. Is God schizophrenic? Or maybe, just maybe, people actually have real, genuine free will with the power and freedom to create almost any Godly future for themselves they put their minds to in spite of some of their fellow Christians preaching Pessimillenialism to them that they are wasting their time. Do you have any idea how many thousands of Christians, who believe in Pessimillenialism, just missed out on receiving boatloads of rewards in heaven because they refused to help get this Personhood Amendent on the ballot? They refused to help because the very idea of this extreme amount of Christian progress and influence in society flies smack in the face against everything they believe about eschatology. Wow. Not only does bad theology kill, it causes Christians to sit on their hands while other Christians are "winning the race."

Noble rhetoric. The examples you just gave are Christians winning moral battles within the existing governing authority. This is different than supplanting the current system for the one you suggest.

It is everyone's right to fight for what they feel is right. I am not saying Christians should sit on their hands. I am saying that the current state of society is nothing that should not be expected. Keep fighting. It's your right. Just don't take away that same right for everyone who disagrees with you.

But what if God commands men, who hold positions of governing authorities, to execute certain criminals? Romans 13:4 says just that: "[The governing authority] is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil."

I cannot stress enough that this was written about the pagan Roman government. There is no language that states any specific criminals should be executed. It is saying that the government is rightly there to keep order and punish those who do evil. In this case it would be the definition of "evil" used by the pagan Roman government which applies, not the definition of "evil" as defined by Mosaic law, by any means.

Galations 3:24 disagrees with you: "the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ..."

A tutor to bring us to Christ. That's different than a government which attempts to force you to Christ. How does this disagree with me? Sin needed to be defined by the law. That's how it's a tutor. It helps teach men what sin is so that they acknowledge their imperfections and repent.

It does not say the law was our tutor to bring us to death row which will then bring us to Christ. Also take note of the word "was" in the verse. What do you think is meant by that?:think:

That's the whole law including the judgements contained in the law.

Conjecture. The punishment for breaking the law is not the law. If there is a law against murder, and the punishment for murder is death, is a judge who sentences a criminal to life in prison breaking any law?

Do judges go to jail for sentencing outside sentencing guidelines?

No, it's biblical. In the gospels we have an example of a death row situation where literally 50 percent of the death row inmates converted. Christ was crucified between 2 criminals. One of them became a believer: "Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, "If You are the Christ, save Yourself and us." But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, "Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong." Then he said to Jesus, "Lord, remember me when You come into Your kingdom." And Jesus said to him, "Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise." (Luke 23:39-43)

Coincidence?

Ridiculous.
One of two is hardly anything to make generalizations and assumptions on. I am sure there are modern day studies that could be referenced. It should be noted that the converted thief didn't need to be witnessed to. He knew in his heart who Jesus was. You're not exactly throwing people in prison in a cell with Jesus himself these days.

Christians should want God's moral Law strictly enforced so God will not be profaned: ""Will you profane Me [asks the Lord] killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live…?" (Ezekiel 13:19)

That's your spin on this verse and it has nothing to do with Christianity. It has to do with how things were in Mosaic Israel. Notice the distinctions made in Ezekiel 13 which make it pretty clear the verse is about the people of Israel and the false prophets and the false sense of security they were giving the people. The verse is speaking out against false prophets and their magic charms and soothsaying which deflected from the truth of impending doom for Jerusalem. This has nothing to do with justifying shadowgov through scripture.

Including this scripture? - "the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ..." (Galatians 3:24)

Already addressed.

Including the death penalty for adultery?

Is there a law prohibiting lawmakers from suggesting dumb laws? I don't think so. It seems to happen all the time.

But what if God commands man to enforce His law like He did in all the verses I cited above?

The verses say no such thing. God commands man to submit to the governing authorities. If those governing authorities included pagan Rome, that's just another hole in your logic and proof texts.

 

[Granite]

Romans 13 is used very selectively and very situationally. I hardly think it'd be used to comfort persecuted Christians in Sudan or North Korea. When this passage suits Christians (usually on something like the death penalty) they trot it right out, then turn around and ignore it when criticizing the government (or calling for its abolition) happens to be on their mind.

 

[Jefferson]

WizardofOz:

You wrote:

No, I am not [against the death penalty]. Some people are beyond rehabilitation and will never cease being a threat to society.

So how do you decide who you think should get the death penalty and who shouldn't? What if you and a fellow believer "feel led" by God on this issue but come to different conclusions? Without a verse written down in black and white, how do you know which one of you is right?

Noble rhetoric. The examples you just gave are Christians winning moral battles within the existing governing authority. This is different than supplanting the current system for the one you suggest.

Promoting the death penalty for adultery can be done within the existing governing authority via electing the right politicians, state constitutional amendments, etc. Would you support these efforts? What about supporting efforts to make abortion illegal which would prevent nonchristians from enjoying their entire purpose of life (from their perspective) which is to have sex outside of marriage without consequences (they think)? Would you support making abortion illegal, forcing that specific Christian morality down the throats of nonbelievers?

I cannot stress enough that [Romans 13:4] was written about the pagan Roman government. There is no language that states any specific criminals should be executed. It is saying that the government is rightly there to keep order and punish those who do evil. In this case it would be the definition of "evil" used by the pagan Roman government which applies, not the definition of "evil" as defined by Mosaic law, by any means.

The definition of "evil" does not change in God's eyes. It doesn't matter what nation or circumstances or in what century people grow up in. Rape is immoral even if a nation declares it to be the most moral action a person could perform. Romans 13:4 says governments are to execute wrath on people who practice evil. There is only one correct definition of evil - God's definiton. If a nation calls good evil and evil good then the governing officials of that nation will be properly judged by God. The verse absolutely does not say that the Jewish holocaust was moral just because the German government allowed it.

A tutor to bring us to Christ. That's different than a government which attempts to force you to Christ. How does this disagree with me? Sin needed to be defined by the law. That's how it's a tutor. It helps teach men what sin is so that they acknowledge their imperfections and repent. It does not say the law was our tutor to bring us to death row which will then bring us to Christ.

You're right, sin is defined by the law. Are all sins equal?

Also take note of the word "was" in the verse. What do you think is meant by that?

Paul was writing to Christians who already were brought to Christ by the law. That is what was meant by "was." What do you think was meant by the word "was?"

The punishment for breaking the law is not the law. If there is a law against murder, and the punishment for murder is death, is a judge who sentences a criminal to life in prison breaking any law?

Yes. He's breaking God's law which states: "Will you profane Me [asks the Lord] killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live…?" (Ezekiel 13:19) God thought it was immoral for governments to keep people alive who should not live. Does morality change from century to century and from nation to nation? Is rape, for example, ever moral?

Do judges go to jail for sentencing outside sentencing guidelines?

No, but they should.

Ridiculous.
One of two is hardly anything to make generalizations and assumptions on.

Do you have another biblical example or do you admit that 100% of Biblical examples of capital criminals on their way to their execution show a 50% conversion rate?

I am sure there are modern day studies that could be referenced. It should be noted that the converted thief didn't need to be witnessed to.

That's because the enforcement of the death penalty brought home the reality in His mind that judgement actually does happen in real life and is not just some fairy tale that "ignorant Christians" preach about.

He knew in his heart who Jesus was. You're not exactly throwing people in prison in a cell with Jesus himself these days.

They would have 24 hours to convert from the time they are convicted to the time their death sentence is carried out. Clergymen, (including fundamentalist pastors) would be available at the convicted criminal's request.

["Christians should want God's moral Law strictly enforced so God will not be profaned"] is your spin on [Ezekiel 13:19] and it has nothing to do with Christianity. It has to do with how things were in Mosaic Israel. Notice the distinctions made in Ezekiel 13 which make it pretty clear the verse is about the people of Israel and the false prophets and the false sense of security they were giving the people. The verse is speaking out against false prophets and their magic charms and soothsaying which deflected from the truth of impending doom for Jerusalem. This has nothing to do with justifying shadowgov through scripture.

It has to do with the fact that God used to think that a moral act was for some people to be given the death penalty. And as I've mentioned before, morality does not change in God's eyes. Even God is powerless to make rape moral.

I asked: "Including the death penalty for adultery?"

You replied...

Is there a law prohibiting lawmakers from suggesting dumb laws? I don't think so. It seems to happen all the time.

Are you saying the death penalty for adultery would be a dumb law? If so, what would be so dumb about it? Was God smart and moral for instituting the death penalty for adultery in the Old Testament? If you answer yes to that question, please explain what you think was so smart and moral about it back then.

 

[WizardofOz]

You wrote: So how do you decide who you think should get the death penalty and who shouldn't?

It would be on a case by case basis.

I am also mature and realistic enough to realize that it really makes no difference who I think should get the death penalty. If someone wanted to be in a position to make these decisions they should run for public office, go to law school or hire a lobbyist.:up:

What if you and a fellow believer "feel led" by God on this issue but come to different conclusions? Without a verse written down in black and white, how do you know which one of you is right?

I don't obsess much over hypothetical situations. I think the key may be "feel led". Perhaps it isn't a question of right or wrong; but rather a simple difference in personal opinion based on individual bias or agenda.

Promoting the death penalty for adultery can be done within the existing governing authority via electing the right politicians, state constitutional amendments, etc. Would you support these efforts?

Absolutely and obviously not. That is different than my supporting the right for individuals to stand up for what they believe in even if I couldn't disagree more with what they are advocating. Your way will only harden hearts against Christ. That is my opinion which I am entitled to.

What about supporting efforts to make abortion illegal which would prevent nonchristians from enjoying their entire purpose of life (from their perspective) which is to have sex outside of marriage without consequences (they think)? Would you support making abortion illegal, forcing that specific Christian morality down the throats of nonbelievers?

I strongly disagree that pro-choice movements are "Christian" morality. Atheists can and do just as strongly oppose abortion. The movement, as a whole, might be more effective if they embraced this reality. I personally support making abortion illegal. We might be getting a bit off topic here.

Paul was writing to Christians who already were brought to Christ by the law. That is what was meant by "was." What do you think was meant by the word "was?"

Once an individual comes to Christ, they do not need the law in any way. It's odd to see a Christian imply otherwise.

Yes. He's breaking God's law which states: "Will you profane Me [asks the Lord] killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live…?" (Ezekiel 13:19) God thought it was immoral for governments to keep people alive who should not live.

You'd have to put some serious spin on that verse to come to that conclusion. Take the verse in context. It is talking about false prophets among the Israelite people who ensnared people with their lies of false prophecy. They were claiming to prophecies in the name of YHWH and were liars.

Ezekiel 13:13-16 are really the verses to read if you're looking for clarity on what is being spoken of

" 'Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: In my wrath I will unleash a violent wind, and in my anger hailstones and torrents of rain will fall with destructive fury. I will tear down the wall you have covered with whitewash and will level it to the ground so that its foundation will be laid bare. When it falls, you will be destroyed in it; and you will know that I am the LORD. So I will spend my wrath against the wall and against those who covered it with whitewash. I will say to you, "The wall is gone and so are those who whitewashed it, those prophets of Israel who prophesied to Jerusalem and saw visions of peace for her when there was no peace, declares the Sovereign LORD." '

YHWH was trying to prophesies to the Israelites the impending doom their ways were going to take them to. The false prophets were saying "everything will be alright" and claiming these words were from YHWH.

And why was God angry? Idolatry was always a problem and this is addressed in Ezekiel 14. But, look at this verse from Ezekiel 12

Ezekiel 12:19
Say to the people of the land: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says about those living in Jerusalem and in the land of Israel: They will eat their food in anxiety and drink their water in despair, for their land will be stripped of everything in it because of the violence of all who live there.

Now Ezekiel 13:19 makes more sense, in context


You have profaned me among my people for a few handfuls of barley and scraps of bread. By lying to my people, who listen to lies, you have killed those who should not have died and have spared those who should not live.

So, in context, who are the ones being spoken of who "should not live"? The violent, and perhaps the false prophets and idolaters. The verse clearly states "you have killed those who should not have died and have spared those who should not live" by listening to the whitewash lies of the false prophets and engaging in violence.

Ezekiel is addressing the citizens.

That's because the enforcement of the death penalty brought home the reality in His mind that judgement actually does happen in real life and is not just some fairy tale that "ignorant Christians" preach about.

Or maybe because he was being executed alongside Christ himself and knew in his heart who he was and also knew that he was innocent.

Not to mention they were being executed for breaking Roman law, not Torah law! I guess governments can bear the sword even with pagan rulers.

They would have 24 hours to convert from the time they are convicted to the time their death sentence is carried out. Clergymen, (including fundamentalist pastors) would be available at the convicted criminal's request.

And if they wanted to speak to a Islamic cleric or a Hindu priest would they be allowed to do so? "Convert" can mean a lot of thing to different religions.

It has to do with the fact that God used to think that a moral act was for some people to be given the death penalty. And as I've mentioned before, morality does not change in God's eyes. Even God is powerless to make rape moral.

The law used to be for law enforcement and salvation. Big difference between then and now, wouldn't you say?

Are you saying the death penalty for adultery would be a dumb law?

The law would be that adultery is illegal. The punishment for breaking the law would be what we are talking about. I am not even necessarily opposed to adultery being against the law because certain damages caused by adultery should be made whole by the courts. But yes, the death penalty in the United States for adultery is a dumb idea.

If so, what would be so dumb about it?

Advocating the execution adulterers would be a dumb idea for many reasons. The most obvious being that the people would never stand for it. Also because this is overall a Christian nation and Christians would never support it because it is a contradiction of Christian scripture.

Christians don't advocate the death penalty for other Christians simply for breaking Torah law. They advocate repentance for sinning and thank God for the mercy he gave all the world through Christ. The law makes nothing perfect.

You'll first have to convince Christianity as a whole this is all biblical. I've seen all the evidence your side can muster to justify your stance. It is hardly compelling and there is plenty of other scripture showing the error of this particular political ideology.

Christianity itself will be your biggest hurdle. Theologians know what reconstructionalism is no matter how you wrap the package. Some sheep might follow the movement and tell its advocates how right and righteous they are, but anyone with their own understanding of scripture will never take this very seriously or as legitimately Christian.

Was God smart and moral for instituting the death penalty for adultery in the Old Testament? If you answer yes to that question, please explain what you think was so smart and moral about it back then.

Isn't it obvious? Because their souls depended on following the law! This is no longer the case. Thank God for that.:thumb:

 

[Jefferson]

Perhaps it isn't a question of right or wrong; but rather a simple difference in personal opinion based on individual bias or agenda.

The only way putting someone to death could possibly not be a question of right or wrong but rather based on bias or agenda is if the government executing the criminal is an immoral government.

I personally support making abortion illegal.

Why?

Once an individual comes to Christ, they do not need the law in any way. It's odd to see a Christian imply otherwise.

Then why did Paul speak of using the law in a present tense verb in First Timothy 1:9,10? - "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine"

You'd have to put some serious spin on that verse to come to that conclusion. Take the verse in context. It is talking about false prophets among the Israelite people who ensnared people with their lies of false prophecy. They were claiming to prophecies in the name of YHWH and were liars.

Ezekiel 13:13-16 are really the verses to read if you're looking for clarity on what is being spoken of

" 'Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: In my wrath I will unleash a violent wind, and in my anger hailstones and torrents of rain will fall with destructive fury. I will tear down the wall you have covered with whitewash and will level it to the ground so that its foundation will be laid bare. When it falls, you will be destroyed in it; and you will know that I am the LORD. So I will spend my wrath against the wall and against those who covered it with whitewash. I will say to you, "The wall is gone and so are those who whitewashed it, those prophets of Israel who prophesied to Jerusalem and saw visions of peace for her when there was no peace, declares the Sovereign LORD." '

YHWH was trying to prophesies to the Israelites the impending doom their ways were going to take them to. The false prophets were saying "everything will be alright" and claiming these words were from YHWH.

And why was God angry? Idolatry was always a problem and this is addressed in Ezekiel 14. But, look at this verse from Ezekiel 12

Ezekiel 12:19
Say to the people of the land: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says about those living in Jerusalem and in the land of Israel: They will eat their food in anxiety and drink their water in despair, for their land will be stripped of everything in it because of the violence of all who live there.

Now Ezekiel 13:19 makes more sense, in context


You have profaned me among my people for a few handfuls of barley and scraps of bread. By lying to my people, who listen to lies, you have killed those who should not have died and have spared those who should not live.

So, in context, who are the ones being spoken of who "should not live"? The violent, and perhaps the false prophets and idolaters. The verse clearly states "you have killed those who should not have died and have spared those who should not live" by listening to the whitewash lies of the false prophets and engaging in violence.

Ezekiel is addressing the citizens.

That's because capital punishment was supposed to be carried out by the citizens in a public stoning. Which form of execution, by the way, I am also in favor of being implemented in our nation today.

Your quote proved nothing. The principle still stands: God thinks it profanes Him when governing authorities keep people alive who should not live. The passage only mentions false prophets and idoloters because that is the context of the chapter. Do you actually believe God is not also offended when other types of criminals He commanded be put to death were not? Did you really expect God to inspire the author to mention every single act that requires the death penalty in this passage, even though those other acts are not germaine to the topic in the chapter? You're kidding, right?

Does the passage say God is not profaned when adulterers are kept alive?

Or maybe because he was being executed alongside Christ himself and knew in his heart who he was and also knew that he was innocent.

Not to mention they were being executed for breaking Roman law, not Torah law! I guess governments can bear the sword even with pagan rulers.

Yes they can. Just as abusive fathers do not make the authority of parents illegitimate, neither do abusive governments make the authority of governments illegitimate.

And if they wanted to speak to a Islamic cleric or a Hindu priest would they be allowed to do so?

Yes.

Advocating the execution adulterers would be a dumb idea for many reasons. The most obvious being that the people would never stand for it.

Thank you for giving a very good example of a major flaw of democracy.

Also because this is overall a Christian nation and Christians would never support it because it is a contradiction of Christian scripture.

Which scripture?

I asked: "Was God smart and moral for instituting the death penalty for adultery in the Old Testament? If you answer yes to that question, please explain what you think was so smart and moral about it back then."

You replied:

Isn't it obvious? Because their souls depended on following the law!

That didn't answer my question. Let me rephrase it: Why did God command the death penalty for adultery instead of a fine, for example? What was so moral about the death penalty instead of any other punishment?

 

[WizardofOz]

The only way putting someone to death could possibly not be a question of right or wrong but rather based on bias or agenda is if the government executing the criminal is an immoral government.

You first asked "What if you and a fellow believer "feel led" by God on this issue but come to different conclusions?". Now you're talking about a government.

Then why did Paul speak of using the law in a present tense verb in First Timothy 1:9,10? - "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine"

Already addressed. Starting here

Do you really think a government can enforce one set of laws on non-believers and another for Christians?

Not to mention...Paul was a Jew!

Your quote proved nothing.

They were verses you chose to somehow justify shadowgov. Your chosen verses proved nothing.

The principle still stands: God thinks it profanes Him when governing authorities keep people alive who should not live. The passage only mentions false prophets and idoloters because that is the context of the chapter.

Jefferson; you are plainly taking verses out of context and squeezing them so they fit into your ideology. Not to mention Ezekiel 13 is during the Mosaic Covenant. What's the status of that covenant?:think:

Do you really think that Leviticus 20:10 + Ezekiel 13:19 = God is profaned if adulterers are not put to death?

You're making unsound interpretations by taking verses out of context so you can make them fit your political ideology.

Do you actually believe God is not also offended when other types of criminals He commanded be put to death were not? Did you really expect God to inspire the author to mention every single act that requires the death penalty in this passage, even though those other acts are not germaine to the topic in the chapter? You're kidding, right?

Jefferson; if you take the verses in context Ezekiel does mention the acts in question. You just have to read more than Ezekiel 13 to find out what they are.

Ezekiel 12:19 - Obviously there were injustices in Israel due to violence which were going unpunished. For example, if someone were murdered and the murderer went unpunished; then Ezekiel 13:19 starts to make a bit more sense. You can't just make wild generalizations by taking a single verse out of context.

Does the passage say God is not profaned when adulterers are kept alive?

You cannot be serious.

Which scripture?

We've been over this. The burden of proof in on you, and Bob, and anyone else who thinks shadowgov is Christian. The proof just isn't there. If you were not blinded by your ideology; you'd see this plain as day.

I did include some at the end of the post if you really want to open your heart to what they say and mean.

I asked: "Was God smart and moral for instituting the death penalty for adultery in the Old Testament? If you answer yes to that question, please explain what you think was so smart and moral about it back then."

He was preserving a holy bloodline for the messiah and their salvation depended on strict adherence to the law. It was part of the old covenant with the Israelite's.

That didn't answer my question. Let me rephrase it: Why did God command the death penalty for adultery instead of a fine, for example? What was so moral about the death penalty instead of any other punishment?

You really want me to speak for God?

Jefferson; you are a Christian. You know that Christians are not bound to the law. The Israelites were. That is scripture. Part of the reason Christ sacrificed himself was to remove the curse of the law by taking upon the curse as the perfect sacrifice. There is no differentiation made between criminal law in the covenant and the law for salvation.

You seem to think that 1 Timothy 1 is your best evidence. What is Paul saying here? Again, in context. Let's move right past the section you keep quoting.

1 Timothy 1:12-16

I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service. Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.

Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life.

Even Paul is condemned under the law and he is openly admitting so.

If you do not have faith in Christ (the new doctrine at this point) you are under the curse of the law. Again, are you going to implement on set of laws for Christians and another for non-Christians? Christians who know the status of the law will never accept this false doctrine of legalism.

The only purpose of the law is the definition of sin. The law exists now for one reason; so that men can be conscious of sin. It is not there for any other reason. Not for a criminal code, not for salvation.

Romans 3:20

If mosaic law is part of the old covenant and that covenant is no more, where does that leave you? You cannot just assume that the criminal portion is still binding when there is no scripture to back you up. To use the logic of men in an attempt to reinstate Israelite law on gentiles is partially undermining what Christ died for. The ethics and morals did not change. Adultery and homosexuality are, and always will be sins. The law, although no longer binding, is there so sinners can become conscious of sin, so that they may repent and "sin no more".

There is no Christian justification for shadowgov.

The fact that 1 Timothy 1 is all the evidence you have should make you take pause and reconsider your stance. It is hardly compelling evidence for advocating the execution of Christians under Torah Law.

You can twist scripture and take verses out of context; but you must realize the fact that Christianity does not embrace reconstructionalism for a reason.

That reason being; there is no Christian justification for reconstructinalism.

Please address
Galatians 3 - Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
Galatians 4:21-31 - do you want to create a nation of slaves?
Ephesians 2:11-22 - by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.
Titus 3:9 - But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.
Hebrews 7 - For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.
1 John 3 - Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.

Are you sure there is nothing you, yourself could be executed for?

Leviticus 20:10 + Matthew 5:32 = Bob himself gets executed if we are to follow this warped logic, legalism and hypocrisy.

Would I be wrong to make such an interpretation? Why or why not? It's not being retroactive since someone who is remarried commits adultery every time they have sexual relations with their second/third spouse. Does he not live as an adulterer yet can be saved because of faith and not by following the law?

Why shouldn't he be the first executed in the first five days under the shadowgov constitution?:think:

I really have no interest in people's private lives, but the point must be made. I do not think Bob should be executed because we are no longer under the curse of the law!

I am not trying to be rude to your mentor; but the obvious hypocrisy is staggering.

I can respect many aspects of his other efforts, but he (and you) are absolutely wrong about this.