Yeah, there's good and bad to it but at the end of the day, its how God made us.
Yes. Though it was part of a larger problem in the only verse I can think of.
I assume its the one about rebellion against parents?
I see no evidence in that text that mere drunkeness should be criminalized, although regular drunkenness among other sins while living in the home did add up to capital punishment under the Mosaic Law.
And, of course, I'm sure there are other instances wherein someone did something in a state of drunkenness that they may not have when sober that was a crime, such as we have with drunk drivers killing other people today.
Yeah, I don't support letting anyone off the hook just because they were drunk.
I figured defining it in this particular discussion would be rabbit trailing.
Well, you've discussed it with me since you made this post, but schools are the biggest example of something that is technically infrastructure but definitely should not be run by government. Roads are less important to me, but I also support privatizing those.
I can see that. But it's not that they aren't as important to me; it's that I understand social policy better.
Fair enough.
And this is another reason I don't think about it much, because I don't currently have a set list of verses for my position. I do have the interactions of Israel with other nations, though. And that is where I get my stance.
Well: Israel did some things to other nations by God's direct command that are certainly not acceptable in general.
It means it cannot be changed by legislation, not that it is impossible for the people to rebel and overthrow.
The people will ignore it. Much like the US Constitution DOES NOT allow for most of the crap the US Government does today, even with 17 amendments that have mostly watered it down, yet somehow, laws that violate the Constitution still get through.
Now, I'd argue, much as Chuck Baldwin does, that if Romans 13 applies to any "Government" in the American sense, it would be the constitution itself and not the dictates of the oligarchs, but I'm going on a tangent now...
Governmental policy is not doctrinal.
Normally not, but isn't theonomy the belief that, by definition, it is?
They don't. But if the invading country has committed violence against the other, and were the instigators [aggressors] then they should be acted against. Ideally by the victim country, but if the aggressors are more powerful then the victim country should not be denied help, should they?
In a purely theoretical world, sure. In practice, I don't believe that is America's job, for a number of reasons.
Essentially I would say this: to use tax money to pay for such help to an outside country is theft, and to kill innocent people in order to wage war against the aggressor country is murder.
Other than that, if a private citizen wants to start a not for profit to intervene in such cases, or whatever, be my guest. But the United States as a country should not be doing it.
And yet with Saul God did not want at first to establish a king that early, yet the people insisted. At that time He told them a king would do much the opposite of what God commanded for a king in that passage. And even David multiplied wives for himself though in v17 God said a king should not do that. This indicates it was a rule of His command, not a prophecy, because even David and Solomon did the opposite. If it was a prophecy as you say then why did that not come to pass?
God was saying, essentially: "You are going to establish a King someday, make sure you do it in such and such a way." That said, I don't necessarily disagree that God would have instituted a King eventually. I only know that he didn't.
Rome's laws were relevant to the situation at hand as they were in effect when the event took place.
Well, I see no reason why, if God really wanted adulterers to be executed, that Rome's law should have prevented Israel from obeying God's command. I also seriously doubt that was the point of the passage.
How about several technicalities?
Can you walk yourself through them, or do you want me to detail them?
Help me out.
Allowing any entity to "legalize" murder is allowing them the choice, and is thus pro-choice.
So by virtue of not invading Canada, we are "Pro-choice" there as well?
You deny this but its the logical conclusion of your position.
The problem is that you assume that a single nation must have a single set of laws. Which is foreign to the thought of the Founders of the US.
No matter what his mouth may say, though his mouth did say both back and forth.
At the end of the day, pro-life are those who want to criminalize most or all abortions. Pro-choice are those who want to criminalize few or no abortions. Regardless of their personal opinions on the matter.
That said, I don't really like those terms. I'm "Pro-choice" on virtually everything other than abortion. Neoconservatives who want to kill hundreds of thousands or millions of Muslims nonetheless claim to be "Pro-life."
I'm just anti-abortion and believe abortion should be treated as homicide. Period.
Keep lying to yourself if that's what you want, but it will do you no good in the end.
I'm not lying to myself.
And then where are we in the event they are defeated?
Unlikely. I see a situation where Christians start being executed as being far more likely than one in which homosexuals are OR one in which everyone is actually free like what I want.
But, in the hypothetical event where liberals were so marginalized that they actually shut up, and it was between theonomists and libertarians? Well, despite being brothers in Christ, we'd be enemies on the political front. That's nothing new, however. I've already acknowledged that more than half my family are enemies on the political front.
If the tax is over that which God asked of His people then the government is tyrannical and overstepping the authority God has granted it. Such taxation is then theft and resistance to theft cannot be, by definition, theft.
:thumb
Not so much. But if it is doable they should report enough to pay what is actually reasonable.
Is an evil government really entitled to anything?
Heck, NYS' state sales tax is already 8.5%, which by itself is close to the 10% threshold.
No more than necessary for infrastructure and certainly no more than ten percent.
I completely agree. Most Christians seem to think that any tax resistance is theft, which I find ridiculous. They interpret "Render unto Caesar" as "Pay your taxes, no matter what" which I find ridiculous.
And yet one man is much easier to convince than a mob. If a king is wrong he can be persuaded of his error and corrected much easier than a group of rulers.
That's true. But one man can also become very corrupt. I see this as kind of a lose/lose.
There are amendments which defeat his stance that the states should have the right to choose their abortion laws. So, actually, he is not following it.
I don't think you're interpreting the 14th correctly, nor do I view the 14th as having been properly ratified.
I never said you thought your positions would protect you; you are afraid of being labeled a hypocrite.
And that's supposed to be a bad thing? Should people be proud of being hypocrites? Really?
I don't care what they call me, if its without merit. People still call me a hypocrite for wanting to legalize drugs while wanting to ban abortion. I ignore them because its ridiculous.
I do care about being philosophically consistent, regardless of what they think.
That doesn't mean I do so deliberately, of course.
Even at the expense of actual children losing their parents?
Which isn't really an argument. Not to mention that throwing users in prison is ACTUALLY making children lose their parents.
That said, this is more sensational than an actual argument
Why only prosecute the suppliers? And why lock them up?
There's no real good reason why, yet that is what most people support. They have this bizarre view that suppliers are victimizing users. Which is ridiculous, seeing as the users are choosing to buy the drugs. Of course, if the users are children, who can't actually consent even if they do "Consent" than there's more of an argument.
Rapists should be executed
Assuming sufficient proof that we feel comfortable imposing the ultimate punishment, I agree with this. Although I think there are some cases where I would support the death penalty on principle, but would nonetheless oppose it due to issues relating to evidence.
and drug dealers and users should, at the least, be flogged. Though many drugs fall under the category of at least attempted murder, which I believe should carry the same penalty as murder. At least for the dealers.
If they're selling to children, I can see your point, but otherwise, how is that murder? How can you murder someone by selling them a substance that they choose to buy?
And... why punish (Flog) someone for hurting themselves?
I see evidence that He wants a theonomy.
Where? In the NT?
You have yet to explain why acts of aggression are the only acts that should be criminal. The only verse you have provided is in the OT wherein adultery was punishable by death, thus defeating your own argument.
I've given you plenty of NT arguments as well. At the end of the day, however, the Bible was written to show us how to be saved and how we relate to God. Its not a political science textbook.
Are there principles there that can be used? Yeah. But it wasn't written to tell us how to run our government.
Well, I have Asperger's so I don't always realize when jokes are being made.
:drum: *rim shot*
Same boat.
I'm not agreeing with those. I just agree that those who drive under the influence should be punished. I agree that their person should be searched, including breathalyzers, but not the vehicle as it cannot be proven anything found within is theirs.
If a person who is drunk is nonetheless driving safely, how would you prove they were drunk?
On the other hand, if they're driving recklessly, shouldn't they be punished the same way regardless?
You made a solid argument that I will consider, regarding the current state and what should be done.
:thumb:
Should people be free to act immorally in crimes against nature or should I be free to not be subjected to that?
Who says that you're being subjected to it just because they're doing it? Especially if they're doing it in their own homes?
I assume you mean "non-religious person" as a few religions regard it as a sin, even if most modern Jews are hypocrites about it.
Well... yes...
As to that how many of them consider murder a sin? They consider it immoral, but they deny the existence of sin, as we define it at least.
True. But that wasn't really my point.
That being said, those who deny sin as being extant do not define morality.
Agreed.
Do you oppose homosexuality solely as a religious principle?
I can't really imagine being without God, as even before I was saved I always believed in God and Christianity. So its hard for me to think of that scenario. That said, while homosexuality is repulsive and my conscience tells me so, I doubt I could rationalize why it is immoral without using the Bible. Certainly not in the context of everything coming to be by chance.
It can be demonstrated that homosexuality is harmful, not only to the one committing the act but also to society as a whole.
I doubt you can demonstrate that without an appeal to Christian morality.
I can agree with that to an extent, though I posit that if God opposed governments doing as Israel did then He would have killed these people in much the same way He did with Ananias and Sapphira, or Sodom and Gomorrah.
Maybe, but that's conjecture, not an argument in and of itself.
