If I ran for President

[Dan Emanuel]

Just curious, where exactly do you see liberty to worship a false god in scripture...

I don't see that in Scripture, in the way in which you mean, which is, condoning the worship of a false god or idol.

The reality is that we are self-evidently [created to be (if your a Christian)] free to practice religion however we see fit to do it, even in environment's hostile to our religion. The right to religious liberty is the foundation upon which our system of government or state is built, and it is rigidly built upon a rigid foundation, so long as we are unforgiving about abuse's to religious liberty.

...how far do you think that goes...

All the way. Until somebody elses religious liberty is harmed or credibly threatened by you, you are free to practice religion however you see fit to do it.

...and why?

Because the supreme pastor of the Church teach's us to.


DJ

2.1
​

 

[Rusha]

Who said anything about executing people (for non capital crimes)?

"Junior" ...

Sinful behavior takes "control" of people.

There is a difference between destructive behavior that harms an individual as compared to acts that intentionally harms others ... without their consent.

They're enslaved to sin, sin that as we've seen throughout our society brings nothing but pain, misery and death.

Habits which you endorse (alcohol, cancer sticks, gluttony) cause misery, pain and death. Apparently those *destructive behaviors* are too boring for you to be *concerned* about, eh?

But but but Sandy, you wouldn't want to take those people's "liberty" away from them would you? (I love it when Sandy goes from one stance to another, i.e. the supposed freedom to do with one's body as he/she or it pleases, but then shows that irresponsible behavior is harmful to others).

Being that I would take away the "liberty" that allows women to abort their unborn babies, I would have no problem with taking away the liberty that allows women to drink, do drugs OR smoke during pregnancy ... OR after if it meant the child would come into contact and be harmed by any of the above.

Children should not be subjected to the second hand smoke, period.

 

[chrysostom]

Until somebody elses religious liberty is harmed or credibly threatened by you, you are free to practice religion however you see fit to do it.

amen

 

[PureX]

Until somebody elses religious liberty is harmed or credibly threatened by you, you are free to practice religion however you see fit to do it.
Because the supreme pastor of the Church teach's us to.

There is no religious liberty without liberation FROM religion, as well as OF religion. Which is why we have the injunction against the state sponsoring any religion. It's also why God himself does not force anyone to believe anything, or to pretend we believe anything. Why so many Christians think they should have the right to do to others what not even God has chosen to do, is beyond my comprehension.

 

[Dan Emanuel]

There is no religious liberty without liberation FROM religion, as well as OF religion...

Yeah, of course. "No religion" is covered under our right to religious liberty.

...Which is why we have the injunction against the state sponsoring any religion. It's also why God himself does not force anyone to believe anything, or to pretend we believe anything. Why so many Christians think they should have the right to do to others what not even God has chosen to do, is beyond my comprehension.

Because they don't listen to the pope.


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Christian Liberty]

At least you're blunt about it. Leave a Christian who claims to love "liberty" to spend time describing his hatred for it.

I believe in liberty. Not democracy. Democracy is rule by the mob.

You and the rest of the would be-ayatollahs are getting more brazen as time goes on. I consider that a good thing.

I respect honesty, hence why I made this thread. Liberals would tyrannize you far worse (and yes, I said YOU, a secular humanist who hates God... not even talking about Christians here) but they will lie to you and pretend like they love liberty, and so you see me as evil (despite having utterly zero presuppositional standard to make the claim.)

I can't really be offended by an atheist comparing me to sharia, but its still not accurate. I guess you can make the comparison that both are theocratic law-orders, but once you start looking into what each system actually entails, the comparison starts to evaporate.

As opposed to you and CL who just want to strip us of our basic rights for not following your beliefs. Yeah, that's a lot better.

Well, no. I don't think you should be able to vote and hold office, because of Psalm 2, but neither of those things are basic rights. Otherwise you could do what you wanted as long as you don't blaspheme or violate basic sexual morality or whatnot. You wouldn't be punished just for being an atheist, not attending church, sharing your beliefs, or whatever.

I would have no problem with taking away the liberty that allows women to drink, do drugs OR smoke during pregnancy ... OR after if it meant the child would come into contact and be harmed by any of the above.

Children should not be subjected to the second hand smoke, period.

See, I think this is tyrannical. There's no Biblical basis for this type of control. And it seems like you'd punish people who smoke in the presence of their children as well. I don't like that people do that. I think its inappropriate and inconsiderate. There's no basis for criminalizing it.

Yet... you could get here with libertarian no-harm reasoning, which is the problem with libertarianism. We need a presuppositional standard for liberty.

There is no religious liberty without liberation FROM religion, as well as OF religion. Which is why we have the injunction against the state sponsoring any religion. It's also why God himself does not force anyone to believe anything, or to pretend we believe anything. Why so many Christians think they should have the right to do to others what not even God has chosen to do, is beyond my comprehension.

Well, I'm a Calvinist, so there's one thing. I reject your theology of free will.

Also, no theonomist is supporting forcing people to believe. That's a strawman. either you're misinterpreting and thinking that unbelief is in and of itself blasphemy (thus ignoring that pagans were allowed to live in the land) or you are just lying.

Although, things would be far worse for you in a Christian nation than for Granite or Shagster or any other admitted unbelievers. Those who do not claim to be Christians and refuse the citizenship oath won't be allowed to vote or hold office, but otherwise can teach whatever view they want as long as they don't blaspheme. But ravenous wolves that come in the name of God and lead the sheep astray (Deuteronomy 13) would be executed.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I don't see that in Scripture, in the way in which you mean, which is, condoning the worship of a false god or idol.

The reality is that we are self-evidently [created to be (if your a Christian)] free to practice religion however we see fit to do it, even in environment's hostile to our religion. The right to religious liberty is the foundation upon which our system of government or state is built, and it is rigidly built upon a rigid foundation, so long as we are unforgiving about abuse's to religious liberty.
All the way. Until somebody elses religious liberty is harmed or credibly threatened by you, you are free to practice religion however you see fit to do it.
Because the supreme pastor of the Church teach's us to.


DJ

2.1
​

What about the Old Covenant laws regarding the destruction of idols and public false places of worship, and punishing blasphemers and covenant members who proselytize to spiritual whoredom?

 

[Christian Liberty]

As opposed to you and CL who just want to strip us of our basic rights for not following your beliefs. Yeah, that's a lot better.

Please don't categorize me with aCW, a false teacher who hates God and his gospel.

 

[HisServant]

We don't live in a democracy... we live in a republic.

And I agree, pure democracy is nothing more than totalitarianism.. all will be subject to the whims of the majority.

 

[rexlunae]

We don't live in a democracy... we live in a republic.

The two concepts are not in opposition to each other. We're a constitutional, democratic republic, at least in theory, whereas China is a non-democratic republic, and the UK is a democratic monarchy. Democracy has roots in the US, and in the revolution, deeper and longer than republicanism.

 

[Granite]

I believe in liberty. Not democracy. Democracy is rule by the mob.

You don't appear to be a fan of representative government, period.

Liberals would tyrannize you far worse (and yes, I said YOU, a secular humanist who hates God

You're an overgrown manchild who doesn't know what he's talking about so I'll give you a pass on this malarkey.:yawn:

but they will lie to you and pretend like they love liberty, and so you see me as evil (despite having utterly zero presuppositional standard to make the claim.)

No, I see you as ignorant, poorly-read, immature, and pompous. Other than that, boyo, you're in good shape.:chuckle:

And presupposition's a racket, and a lazy one at that. Nothing like declaring victory before the discussion's started to get off on the wrong (and dishonest) foot.

I can't really be offended by an atheist comparing me to sharia

When you figure out what's wrong with this sentence you won't make the same mistake again.

I guess you can make the comparison that both are theocratic law-orders, but once you start looking into what each system actually entails, the comparison starts to evaporate.

Nope. Not really. As I've said before many times: If Christians like you ever realized (or just acknowledged) what they had in common with their Muslim counterparts, the entire planet would be in very deep trouble.

I used to be a Calvinist and theonomist just like you. So I can assure you: Don't worry, it can get better.

 

[Christian Liberty]

You don't appear to be a fan of representative government, period.

I'm not as solid on this point. I think Republic vs Monarchy is more of an issue of preference. as a general manner of course I prefer a Republic but sometimes I just get so distressed at the sheer amount of murderous abortion that this country allows that I pray that God would just give us a good king to put the "doctors" to the sword...

You're an overgrown manchild who doesn't know what he's talking about so I'll give you a pass on this malarkey.:yawn:

Now that's a bit mean... you don't even know me

No, I see you as ignorant, poorly-read, immature, and pompous. Other than that, boyo, you're in good shape.:chuckle:

Well, that's so much better. I'd rather at least be respected as a foe

And presupposition's a racket, and a lazy one at that. Nothing like declaring victory before the discussion's started to get off on the wrong (and dishonest) foot.

I think that's a misunderstanding. Its not that we win before we even start, its that you can't even make sense of morality with no supreme being to give you that standard. Like, you can say YOU think I'm a tyrant, but you can't come up with any definition of tyrant that everyone else ought to be obligated to agree with, nor with an argument as to why tyranny is wrong.

Nope. Not really. As I've said before many times: If Christians like you ever realized (or just acknowledged) what they had in common with their Muslim counterparts, the entire planet would be in very deep trouble.

Many Muslims want to kill me for being a Christian, lol. And I see no reason why we should let the enemies of God into government in the first place. That includes Muslims.

To be clear though, I am NOT unaware of the similarities. You're going to use it against me, but I'll say it anyway. I respect Sharia proponents for actually being honest and intellectually consistent. They're wicked. I oppose Sharia with every bone in my body. But I respect them more than I do Christians who don't care what the BIble has to say about government.

I used to be a Calvinist and theonomist just like you. So I can assure you: Don't worry, it can get better.

LOL! I'd love to discuss how the transition away from that happened for you at some point if you're up for it. Maybe I can talk you back into it

 

[Dan Emanuel]

What about the Old Covenant laws regarding the destruction of idols and public false places of worship, and punishing blasphemers and covenant members who proselytize to spiritual whoredom?

The Old Covenant did not recognize religious liberty as a civil right. Nor did it recognize the right to not be discriminated against based on race, social status/caste, or sex/gender. The New Covenant does (Galatians 3:28 KJV).


DJ

1.0
​

 

[Christian Liberty]

The Old Covenant did not recognize religious liberty as a civil right. Nor did it recognize the right to not be discriminated against based on race, social status/caste, or sex/gender. The New Covenant does (Galatians 3:28 KJV).


DJ

1.0
​

That's a really bizarre reading of that passage. Matthew 5:17 is more applicable to the issue at hand.

 

[TrakeM]

Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
In Jr.'s hardcore Libertarian days he defined "liberty" as the supposed right to destroy one's life (alcohol/drug abuse, homosexuality, pornography, out of wedlock sex, etc.); it's amazing how much the 3 of you have (or once had) in common.

People of faith believe that "liberty" is being free from sinful behaviors.



And he'd kill you if you didn't choose Islam as your religion (so much for freedom).



Secular humanists like yourself really shouldn't "think", it only gets you into trouble.

Christian Liberty was arguing for executing anyone who isn't a christian. I was making the point that he's the same as the islamic extremists.

As for the idea that I shouldn't think, religion has always had a problem with people thinking. People like me consider that a strike against religion and continue thinking. Considering that people like me thinking is the reason this isn't a theocracy, I'd say my thinking is much more a problem for you and your imaginary sky daddy than it is for me.

 

[shagster01]

Well, no. I don't think you should be able to vote and hold office, because of Psalm 2, but neither of those things are basic rights. Otherwise you could do what you wanted as long as you don't blaspheme or violate basic sexual morality or whatnot. You wouldn't be punished just for being an atheist, not attending church, sharing your beliefs, or whatever.

So a King that himself "violated basic sexual morality" wrote a song, and you want to base a country off of it while also setting up laws that would have that king himself executed?

Sounds like a great plan!

 

[Christian Liberty]

Christian Liberty was arguing for executing anyone who isn't a christian. I was making the point that he's the same as the islamic extremists.

Again, this is a lie. Please actually read. I do NOT support executing people just for not being Christians. You just keep proving to me that leftists are morally bankrupt people.

As for the idea that I shouldn't think, religion has always had a problem with people thinking. People like me consider that a strike against religion and continue thinking. Considering that people like me thinking is the reason this isn't a theocracy, I'd say my thinking is much more a problem for you and your imaginary sky daddy than it is for me.

My thinking has led me to support a theocracy

 

[Granite]

I'm not as solid on this point. I think Republic vs Monarchy is more of an issue of preference. as a general manner of course I prefer a Republic but sometimes I just get so distressed at the sheer amount of murderous abortion that this country allows that I pray that God would just give us a good king to put the "doctors" to the sword...

Strongmen have an appeal as limited as their worthiness for the job.

I think that's a misunderstanding. Its not that we win before we even start, its that you can't even make sense of morality with no supreme being to give you that standard.

Which, again, just proves my point. "I'm right and you're inherently wrong" is a nifty card trick that convinces the faithful but intellectually it's dishonest.

To be clear though, I am NOT unaware of the similarities.

What theonomists and radical Muslims look for in terms of an endgame is remarkably similar. You guys share similar goals, similar enemies, similar pet peeves, and the like. Your methods have success mirror each other as well. Both sides have more in common than they think or admit.

 

[PureX]

Also, no theonomist is supporting forcing people to believe. That's a strawman. either you're misinterpreting and thinking that unbelief is in and of itself blasphemy (thus ignoring that pagans were allowed to live in the land) or you are just lying.

Although, things would be far worse for you in a Christian nation than for Granite or Shagster or any other admitted unbelievers. Those who do not claim to be Christians and refuse the citizenship oath won't be allowed to vote or hold office, but otherwise can teach whatever view they want as long as they don't blaspheme. But ravenous wolves that come in the name of God and lead the sheep astray (Deuteronomy 13) would be executed.

What's the point of all of this, but to make people pretend to believe what you want them to believe but can't make them believe?

The thing is, God didn't give you the ability to make anyone believe anything. So all you can do is force people to say they believe when they don't, or act like they believe when they don't. And that's all just pretense. You're just forcing people to lie. So whats the point of it, except for you to wallow in your own illusions of righteousness and power?

 

[TrakeM]

The Old Covenant did not recognize religious liberty as a civil right. Nor did it recognize the right to not be discriminated against based on race, social status/caste, or sex/gender. The New Covenant does (Galatians 3:28 KJV).


DJ

1.0
​

Thus we can conclude that the old testament was evil, as it's clearly backwards primitive thinking to murder people who believe differently than you do. Thus we know that the old testament is the work of savages, as the morality contained therein is the morality of savages. Thus, the bible is the work of savages, not some all knowing deity and it's time to toss it out.