toldailytopic: Has our society become too politically correct?

[Lighthouse]

You should have been fired on the spot. If that was my shop, you would have picked your stuff and went home that very second.

Theonomists should receive the same treatment as Islamists: They should be exposed, discredited, vilified, fired from their jobs and publically ridiculed and shamed.

That's discrimination.

And you don't even know what theonomy is, anyway.

If they actually attempt to enforce their rules on anyone, they should get treated as the Taliban are.

So if I advocate for the execution of murderers and rapists I should be treated as the Taliban?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Proponents of theocracy should be dealt with firmly and without any shade of mercy, no matter what their particular religion is. Either we eradicate religious fascism or we don't.

I'm not a proponent of Theocracy, moron.

Fighting islamofascism while being cozy to christofascism is a deeply flawed strategy.

Your argument fails when you agree with the person you're trying to fight.

 

[SovereigntyIsGods]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for October 21st, 2010 02:20 PM

toldailytopic: Has our society become too politically correct?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

Absolutely.

"Sign this card and repeat this prayer and you're saved!!!"

 

[Nydhogg]

I know what Theonomy is: The (vile) idea the civil government should enforce the Biblical law on the people. What you're proposing is EXACTLY the christian version of an Islamic Republic.

So if I advocate for the execution of murderers and rapists I should be treated as the Taliban?

On that point (and that point only) I agree with you.

But on your blood thirsty and fanatic authoritarianism you also want to murder adulterers, homosexuals, fornicators, blasphemers and idolaters... IIRC. You want the State to punish what christians see as sinful or banned by Biblical law.


I'm not "agreeing with you". I'm explaining to you why your folks should be fought mercilessly. It's because your theonomy is EXACTLY the same thing as Islamism gone nuts but in the Christian version.

And religious fascism, whether yours or the muzzie's, should be purged by fire from the face of the Earth.

 

[Alate_One]

Would you want NPR to lose funding if it had a pronounced conservative bias?

Of course he wouldn't. But then the mainstream media primarily has a conservative/corporatist bias news. The number of outlets that are actually liberal is very small. I don't think NPR has a real bias either way, though it may SEEM left if you spend all your time watching Fox news. :chuckle:

The complaints over Juan Williams' firing is purely political rather than any outrage over "PC speech". I didn't hear anyone on the right being upset over Shirley Sherrod's firing.

 

[Granite]

And you don't even know what theonomy is, anyway.

Well you really don't, either; I doubt you've ever read, say, Bahnsen or Rushdoony. You're just a sheep who believes what he's told.

So if I advocate for the execution of murderers and rapists I should be treated as the Taliban?

You think we should stone people. You're the American version of the Taliban (except they're not marginally employed, and you are).

I'm not a proponent of Theocracy, moron.

Ahhhh, yes, you are. Denying that just makes you disingenuous.

 

[Lighthouse]

I know what Theonomy is: The (vile) idea the civil government should enforce the Biblical law on the people. What you're proposing is EXACTLY the christian version of an Islamic Republic.

There is a difference between a theonomy and a theocracy. Do I need to explain it?

On that point (and that point only) I agree with you.

Really? So thieves shouldn't be made to pay restitution? What about kidnappers? Do you think they should be executed?

But on your blood thirsty and fanatic authoritarianism you also want to murder adulterers, homosexuals, fornicators, blasphemers and idolaters... IIRC. You want the State to punish what christians see as sinful or banned by Biblical law.

You demonstrate your ignorance with every keystroke. There is no command in the Mosaic law that dictates fornicators be executed. And you do not "RC" on much more. Blasphemers and idolaters are sinning against God, certainly. But they are committing no crime against anyone.

Theonomy does not seek to make all that is sinful illegal.:nono: Only that which is truly a crime against the created. The State should have no concern if people lie to their parents, misuse the Lord's name, or bow down to figurines, etc.

I'm not "agreeing with you". I'm explaining to you why your folks should be fought mercilessly. It's because your theonomy is EXACTLY the same thing as Islamism gone nuts but in the Christian version.

You have no idea of what you speak.

And religious fascism, whether yours or the muzzie's, should be purged by fire from the face of the Earth.

Fool.

 

[Nydhogg]

Really? So thieves shouldn't be made to pay restitution? What about kidnappers? Do you think they should be executed?

Of course I agree!

I do not agree with stoning homosexuals or adulterers, though. I favor homosexuals being left alone and adultery being treated as a breach of contract. I'm not saying adultery is OK, or that it should carry no punishment.

It's a breach of contract, pure and simple. Adulterers should have to pay compensation as stated in their marriage agreement.

Your law has good stuff in it. Quite a bit of good stuff. Executing murderers, rapists and kidnappers is perfectly logical. Making thieves pay restitution is perfectly reasonable.


Your law also happens to have some downright barbaric and horrible stuff, more fit for a Bronze Age tribe than for an enlightened and modern and free society.

 

[Lighthouse]

Of course I agree!

I do not agree with stoning homosexuals or adulterers, though. I favor homosexuals being left alone and adultery being treated as a breach of contract. I'm not saying adultery is OK, or that it should carry no punishment.

It's a breach of contract, pure and simple. Adulterers should have to pay compensation as stated in their marriage agreement.

Your law has good stuff in it. Quite a bit of good stuff. Executing murderers, rapists and kidnappers is perfectly logical. Making thieves pay restitution is perfectly reasonable.


Your law also happens to have some downright barbaric and horrible stuff, more fit for a Bronze Age tribe than for an enlightened and modern and free society.

So let's talk about it then. What parts of the law are "barbaric," and why?

 

[Granite]

There is a difference between a theonomy and a theocracy. Do I need to explain it?

You keep using that word. You don't know what that word means.

Really? So thieves shouldn't be made to pay restitution? What about kidnappers? Do you think they should be executed?

Restitution's good, kidnapping should probably be a capital offense.

You demonstrate your ignorance with every keystroke.

Look who's talking...

Theonomy does not seek to make all that is sinful illegal.:nono: Only that which is truly a crime against the created. The State should have no concern if people lie to their parents, misuse the Lord's name, or bow down to figurines, etc.

Do you seriously make this stuff up as you go along?

Fool.

Thug. Oaf. Paper tiger.

 

[Nydhogg]

So let's talk about it then. What parts of the law are "barbaric," and why?

Sorry for necromancing the post, but let's get started.

- The death penalty adulterers and homosexuals.
- The criminalization of fornication.
- The prohibition on remarriage.
- The death penalty for idolaters and blasphemers.

The list goes on for a long while, but this should suffice to consider theonomy firmly rooted in Evil team.

 

[Lighthouse]

Sorry for necromancing the post, but let's get started.

- The death penalty adulterers and homosexuals.
- The criminalization of fornication.
- The prohibition on remarriage.
- The death penalty for idolaters and blasphemers.

The list goes on for a long while, but this should suffice to consider theonomy firmly rooted in Evil team.

1. How is this anymore barbaric than the death penalty for murder or rape?
2. How is that even barbaric? Do you know what the Mosaic law says regarding fornication?
3. What prohibition? Of course, I agree with the prohibition of divorce except in cases where one of the spouses has committed a capital crime; because some people don't want to be married to someone guilty of such even if they're about to be executed for it. With that law how many people are going to get married without giving it the thought it actually requires?
4. This one is irrelevant as theonomy and theocracy are not the same thing. I know of no theonomists who believe these laws are applicable to anyone outside of OT Israel.

 

[Nydhogg]

1. How is this anymore barbaric than the death penalty for murder or rape?
2. How is that even barbaric? Do you know what the Mosaic law says regarding fornication?
3. What prohibition? Of course, I agree with the prohibition of divorce except in cases where one of the spouses has committed a capital crime; because some people don't want to be married to someone guilty of such even if they're about to be executed for it. With that law how many people are going to get married without giving it the thought it actually requires?

- Because in murder and rape, someone's rights are violated by force or fraud, justifying ruthless retaliation. In the case of adultery and homosexuality, no such thing occurs.
- Even if you're a fundamentalist christian, the Mosaic law was never binding on Gentiles. That being said, why on Earth should I give a damn about the Mosaic law on the first place? (Do you see the other under my religion tag?)
- The prohibition on remarriage after divorce. Marriage is a contract. Contracts are entered voluntarily and can be left voluntarily.
- Actually, Gary North and most theonomists advocate for the execution of idolaters and blasphemers. They oppose freedom of religion.

 

[Lighthouse]

- Because in murder and rape, someone's rights are violated by force or fraud, justifying ruthless retaliation. In the case of adultery and homosexuality, no such thing occurs.

No one is violated in adultery? Really?

I say the same for homosexuality, but you refuse to see the plain truth about that.

- Even if you're a fundamentalist christian, the Mosaic law was never binding on Gentiles. That being said, why on Earth should I give a damn about the Mosaic law on the first place? (Do you see the other under my religion tag?)

I ask because you call the prohibition on fornication barbaric, and you have no justification for doing so as you've plainly illustrated that you don't know what theonomists believe in regarding the subject. It's not a strict prohibition; the law stated that those who fornicated were to get married.

And while the law is not binding on the Body of Christ there are still laws within it that are just laws that all societies would benefit from, and that theonomists believe all societies should have; murder and rape being illegal and punishable by execution being two examples. I know you at least agree insofar as that there are laws we should have that are found in the Mosaic law; you just don't agree with all the ones we think those are.

Now, also, as far as Gentiles are concerned, as a fundamentalist Christian I firmly believe sin is sin, thus many things in the Mosaic law, even some I do not believe should be laws today are still sins, even if I am not under the law; meaning they are not okay to commit. And as I believe sin is sin for all, no matter what they believe, they are no okay for any to commit. So while the law may not be binding as it was for Israel in that day, sin is still sin. So while eating shellfish is not a sin today homosexuality and adultery still are.

- The prohibition on remarriage after divorce. Marriage is a contract. Contracts are entered voluntarily and can be left voluntarily.

And where is this prohibition found? What theonomist holds to the belief that this should be a law?

- Actually, Gary North and most theonomists advocate for the execution of idolaters and blasphemers. They oppose freedom of religion.

That's not theonomy, that's theocracy.

 

[Nydhogg]

No one is violated in adultery? Really?

I say the same for homosexuality, but you refuse to see the plain truth about that.


I ask because you call the prohibition on fornication barbaric, and you have no justification for doing so as you've plainly illustrated that you don't know what theonomists believe in regarding the subject. It's not a strict prohibition; the law stated that those who fornicated were to get married.

And while the law is not binding on the Body of Christ there are still laws within it that are just laws that all societies would benefit from, and that theonomists believe all societies should have; murder and rape being illegal and punishable by execution being two examples. I know you at least agree insofar as that there are laws we should have that are found in the Mosaic law; you just don't agree with all the ones we think those are.

Now, also, as far as Gentiles are concerned, as a fundamentalist Christian I firmly believe sin is sin, thus many things in the Mosaic law, even some I do not believe should be laws today are still sins, even if I am not under the law; meaning they are not okay to commit. And as I believe sin is sin for all, no matter what they believe, they are no okay for any to commit. So while the law may not be binding as it was for Israel in that day, sin is still sin. So while eating shellfish is not a sin today homosexuality and adultery still are.


And where is this prohibition found? What theonomist holds to the belief that this should be a law?


That's not theonomy, that's theocracy.

Well, someone IS violated in adultery. But it's simply a breach of contract. It should carry the dissolution of the contract and whatever financial penalties the marriage agreement stipulates for such a breach.

As for homosexuality, if it's a consensual encounter between adults the rights of neither are violated. If you consent to an action, that action does not violate your rights.

As for fornication, same as the above. Still, if the law is neither binding on Gentiles it wouldn't be appropriate to enforce it on non-believers from any perspective.
And if it's not binding on the Body of Christ either, enforcing it on Christians would be equally pointless tyranny.

A legal prohibition on fornication is not only morally repulsive, it's not even Biblical!

 

[Lighthouse]

Well, someone IS violated in adultery. But it's simply a breach of contract. It should carry the dissolution of the contract and whatever financial penalties the marriage agreement stipulates for such a breach.

As for homosexuality, if it's a consensual encounter between adults the rights of neither are violated. If you consent to an action, that action does not violate your rights.

As for fornication, same as the above. Still, if the law is neither binding on Gentiles it wouldn't be appropriate to enforce it on non-believers from any perspective.
And if it's not binding on the Body of Christ either, enforcing it on Christians would be equally pointless tyranny.

A legal prohibition on fornication is not only morally repulsive, it's not even Biblical!

Homosexuality is a crime; consent makes no difference.

The law is not binding insofar as salvation, but to argue a law should not be enforced now because it was not binding on Gentiles is fallacious; as murder and rape are part of that law and you agree those laws are just [justice] for today.

 

[Nydhogg]

Homosexuality is a crime.

The law is not binding insofar as salvation, but to argue a law should not be enforced now because it was not binding on Gentiles is fallacious; as murder and rape are part of that law and you agree those laws are just [justice] for today.

Only on a law that doesn't apply to me, as a Gentile, in any way, shape or form and did never apply.

I agree that murderers, rapists and kidnappers should be executed and thieves should be forced to pay restitution. But I support those laws for purely secular reasons: Namely, that I have no particular desire to be murdered, raped or kidnapped.

That other two guys choose to sodomize each other does neither pick my pocket nor break my leg (butt, in this case). Why on Earth should I support any sort of law against their behavior, if I don't give a damn about their behavior on the first place?

 

[horiturk]

yes it has and people need to grow a thicker skin,everyone seems to be grasping for things to be offended by.

 

[Lighthouse]

Only on a law that doesn't apply to me, as a Gentile, in any way, shape or form and did never apply.

None of them ever applied to you, except that sin is sin.

I agree that murderers, rapists and kidnappers should be executed and thieves should be forced to pay restitution. But I support those laws for purely secular reasons: Namely, that I have no particular desire to be murdered, raped or kidnapped.

And I agree with them for reasons other than the fact they can be found in the Mosaic law.

That other two guys choose to sodomize each other does neither pick my pocket nor break my leg (butt, in this case). Why on Earth should I support any sort of law against their behavior, if I don't give a damn about their behavior on the first place?

The fact that you think that's as far as it goes speaks volumes about what you don't know regarding homosexuality.

yes it has and people need to grow a thicker skin,everyone seems to be grasping for things to be offended by.

Who are you talking to?

 

[Sherman]

As an example NPR's Jaun Williams is fired for airing his opinion.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...r_fired_him_for_making_bigoted_statement.html

Do you think he should have been fired for such comments?

This is just stupid. :hammer: I don't blame Juan Williams. The firing of Juan Williams is stupid. What happened to freedom of speech? We now have 'hate' speech.

Everything gets dumb when the government and the media trying to micro manage everyone in the name of political correctness. Our culture has become entirely too politically correct.

 

[Lighthouse]

What happened to freedom of speech? We now have 'hate' speech.

They call it hate speech because they hate freedom of speech.