Bob Enyart LiveGreetings to the brightest audience in the country. I am Bob Enyart...... discuss Bob's shows here! Bob's show is aired live on the radio and rebroadcast at: KGOV.com
Slogan/motto:
Most Christians worship the false god of Public Acceptance.
Reputation:
March 18th, 2004, 10:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Zakath
Jefferson, where in the OT is there any reference to a penalty for wife beating, other than beating your slave so hard you kill them?
It's just a logical deduction from other verses. God does not lay out every single possible case law. If He did, the Bible would be the size of a library. Instead, He gives a few examples and then expects us to use our brains to apply those examples to other situations. If you want to suggest to the monarch to allow wife beating, go ahead. I, however, don't see it in scripture.
Your question on the track record of church/state gov't has been answered by both Jefferson and myself. Did you have another question you feel has not been answered?
Good things come to those who shoot straight.
Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe
And I don't see--contrary to Yorzhik's assertion--that my question has been answered at all. Jefferson came back with something like this: "We'd have a constitution to prevent abuses." Well, we have a constitution now, and there's plenty of line-crossing going on these days.
A "constitution" crafted by theonomists--or whatever Jefferson prefers to call himself; don't want to assume anything--would pay the same lip service to liberty that theonomists do in print right now. Any theonomist, whether he happens to be a Muslim or a Christian, pays the same lip service to the public. Once in power, they turn into tyrants. There is no exception to this rule.
Theocrats are Social Darwinists.
Christianity has nothing applicable, appropriate, or worthwhile to offer the 21st century.
Slogan/motto:
To whom much is given, much is required.
...or...
With great power comes great responsibility.
Reputation:
March 19th, 2004, 08:07 AM
The Real World™ indeed. Do you think anyone here buys your tired Toughguy™ routine? You're like a seventh grader who prank calls strangers from phonebooths telling them how you're going to beat them up. But the people on the other end can always tell your voice isn't really that deep.
It's just a logical deduction from other verses. God does not lay out every single possible case law. If He did, the Bible would be the size of a library. Instead, He gives a few examples and then expects us to use our brains to apply those examples to other situations. If you want to suggest to the monarch to allow wife beating, go ahead. I, however, don't see it in scripture.
So you're using fallible human intellect and the incorrigibly evil human heart to divine the your deity's laws?
After watching Christians fighting over such "logical" deductions my entire life and reading about how they've done so for recorded Church history, I'm not sanguine that you'll get it correct. You rail against such "reasonings" when judges engage in them, yet you tell me you've got nothing better to offer?
Pardon me, while I laugh hysterically...
Remember, in the U.S., anything not prohibited by law (either specifically or in principle), is generally considered legal.
There is neither principle or direct command in the Bible to prohibit wife-beating. Perhaps that explains why Israel, the one nation in the world whose legal system is more closely tied closest to your desired "biblical" basis than ours, has a wife-beating rate about 6 times higher than the U.S. with its "godless" system.
"After watching Christians fighting over such 'logical' deductions my entire life and reading about how they've done so for recorded Church history, I'm not sanguine that you'll get it correct. You rail against such 'reasonings' when judges engage in them, yet you tell me you've got nothing better to offer?"
Too true.
I have to wonder why every instance of the church functioning hand in glove with the state has ended in disaster.
The idea that the church as an institution has no place in the civil arena seems abhorrent to some Christians. Note that I'm not saying Christians as individuals should stay out of politics or what have you--I'm not. But as an organization, the last place the church should try to camp out is Capitol Hill.
Theocrats are Social Darwinists.
Christianity has nothing applicable, appropriate, or worthwhile to offer the 21st century.
Slogan/motto:
Most Christians worship the false god of Public Acceptance.
Reputation:
March 21st, 2004, 02:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Flipper
I generally don't get answers concerning difficult questions like what would happen to welfare and how single parents are supposed to raise their children, and that kind of thing.
They would be raised the same way they were raised before FDR imposed the welfare state on this country. Does that make all presidents before FDR "tryants" in your eyes?
Quote:
Also, what about the point I've raised again and again regarding the deadly combination of completely legalizing of all firearms united with the patriotic instincts of (presumably) a large number of citizenry?
Where did I say "all" firearms would be legal? I certainly would not legalize shoulder-held surface to air missles.
Quote:
Those of us who believe that their first duty is to the Constitution of the United States, which expects us to defend the country against tyrants. I have seen the argument made that the theonomy would be a more stable and safe environment. I fail to see how that would be possible in a lengthy civil war.
I don't think too many so-called "patriots" would be in a very rebellious mood after having all of their mortgages and credit card debts cancelled in accordance with the "year of Jubilee" and their taxes reduced to a flat income tax of a mere 5 percent. Instead of open rebelllion I think we would be looking at a nation described as one giant block party.
Slogan/motto:
Most Christians worship the false god of Public Acceptance.
Reputation:
March 21st, 2004, 02:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by granite1010
Jefferson came back with something like this: "We'd have a constitution to prevent abuses." Well, we have a constitution now, and there's plenty of line-crossing going on these days.
But why begin with laws that are astray from God's commands? It's one thing to start with God's law and then gradually stray from it, but why deliberately speed up the process by starting out with ungodly laws from the get go?
Slogan/motto:
Most Christians worship the false god of Public Acceptance.
Reputation:
March 21st, 2004, 02:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by granite1010
I'm not saying Christians as individuals should stay out of politics or what have you--I'm not. But as an organization, the last place the church should try to camp out is Capitol Hill.
"The church" is a corporate body composed of individuals. Therefore any Christian individual who is a congressman, senator or president is part of the church "camped out on Capitol Hill."
Besides, when I vote I am attempting to impose Biblical Law upon the lifestyles of nonchristians. Should I be allowed to do that? If so, why? If not, why not?
Do you think anyone here buys your tired Toughguy™ routine? You're like a seventh grader who prank calls strangers from phonebooths telling them how you're going to beat them up. But the people on the other end can always tell your voice isn't really that deep.
Linear Mode
