User Tag List

Page 38 of 39 FirstFirst ... 283536373839 LastLast
Results 556 to 570 of 573

Thread: All Things Second Amendment

  1. #556
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,514
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1,663 Times in 1,242 Posts

    Blog Entries
    13
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    Republicans need the NRA, and it's not the other way around. If Democrats suddenly grew a brain, they'd realize that if they made a focused effort on acknowledging, recognizing, affirming, protecting, preserving, honoring, and defending the right to bear arms, they'd rule the world and win every election.
    Brave words, but what's next - claims from the NRA that it's responsible for the sun coming up in the morning!

    The 23% may chose to remain in denial, but when "Bato's" call for a ban on assault rifles during a Democratic Candidates Meeting has the support of 55% of Republican voters, the NRA should be desperate to make whatever deal it can before Trump and the Republicans are forced to jump ship!

  2. #557
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,261
    Thanks
    256
    Thanked 471 Times in 394 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    44900
    Quote Originally Posted by jgarden View Post
    Brave words
    I don't think so. If Democrats pulled 'a 180' and flip-flopped on gun control, and instead treated the right to bear arms like the right to get an abortion, and the right to not have the climate change, and the right to healthcare, they would sweep through every state of the country and form a lasting political dynasty. They're that close. Republicans exist because of the NRA, who fights to defend the right to bear arms. Without Republicans, the NRA will still fight to defend the right to bear arms.
    Quote Originally Posted by jgarden View Post
    , but what's next - claims from the NRA that it's responsible for the sun coming up in the morning!
    Democrats should just accept that the right to bear arms is just like the right to free speech and the right to free press and the right to religious liberty and to privacy.
    Quote Originally Posted by jgarden View Post
    The 23% may chose to remain in denial, but when "Bato's" call for a ban on assault rifles during a Democratic Candidates Meeting has the support of 55% of Republican voters, the NRA should be desperate to make whatever deal it can before Trump and the Republicans are forced to jump ship!
    His "call" was for confiscation, let's be real clear on that.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  3. #558
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,261
    Thanks
    256
    Thanked 471 Times in 394 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    44900
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    ... only rational when recognized as an act of racism
    Gun control targets poc, lgbt, women, and the poor. Not just rich white men.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  4. #559
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,261
    Thanks
    256
    Thanked 471 Times in 394 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    44900
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    I am a theonomist.

    I advocate theonomy

    Theonomy:
    Theos - God
    Nomos - law

    Literally God's laws.
    In your political theory, who decides what is God's law? I ask because for example there is one law that sentences to death children found guilty of disobeying their parents. Who in your political view authorizes which laws are God's laws? Who would either authorize or forbid disobedient children being sentenced to death, for example?
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  5. #560
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    10,490
    Thanks
    35,456
    Thanked 8,910 Times in 5,732 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147644
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    In your political theory, who decides what is God's law?
    I'm not sure you're following what I said. Let me try to clarify.

    There are laws that only applied to Israel. Those laws should not be applied to any other nation's laws.

    The rest of the laws that God gave in the Mosaic Law are moral laws. They apply everywhere, in every circumstance at all times, and are not restricted by a nation's border.

    Of the latter group, there are two sub-groups, laws that define some sins as crimes, and laws that define other sins as only sins, with no earthly punishment for breaking those laws.

    The only laws that would be used would be the laws that define some sins as crimes.

    Namely, do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness.

    In other words, it's not that someone authorizes it or prohibits it, it's that the law either applies or it does not.

    I ask because for example there is one law that sentences to death children found guilty of disobeying their parents.
    There is good indication that that law was meant for Israel only.

    Who in your political view authorizes which laws are God's laws?
    They are defined by the Bible, and ultimately, God.

    However, the government I advocate is a constitutional monarchy. The constitution defines the laws for the people, and the no one is authorized, not even the King, to change the criminal code (the four laws above and the laws that are built on them).

    They're set in stone, if you will.

    I have a draft written up by Kgov.com if you would like to go through it.

    Who would either authorize or forbid disobedient children being sentenced to death, for example?
    See above.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    Right Divider (September 19th, 2019)

  7. #561
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,261
    Thanks
    256
    Thanked 471 Times in 394 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    44900
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    I'm not sure you're following what I said. Let me try to clarify.

    There are laws that only applied to Israel. Those laws should not be applied to any other nation's laws.

    The rest of the laws that God gave in the Mosaic Law are moral laws. They apply everywhere, in every circumstance at all times, and are not restricted by a nation's border.

    Of the latter group, there are two sub-groups, laws that define some sins as crimes, and laws that define other sins as only sins, with no earthly punishment for breaking those laws.

    The only laws that would be used would be the laws that define some sins as crimes.

    Namely, do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness.

    In other words, it's not that someone authorizes it or prohibits it, it's that the law either applies or it does not.
    So ... some sort of "expert," is what I'm gathering from that sort of response. It's unclear but seems like perhaps people with doctorates in at least two disciplines, theology and law. You did not specify, this is just me taking the pulse of your response to that question.
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    There is good indication that that law was meant for Israel only.
    That backs up what I'm saying, you're thinking that someone accomplished in theology is going to be authenticating which of the numerous possible candidates are truly God's law, or God's laws. Your response indicates that you're thinking they would be able to articulate which particular candidate laws are authentic through some theological argument, which depends upon quality biblical interpretation, because when God's law is authenticated essentially the default or null hypothesis is that literature should be taken at face value unless it is demonstrated why it should not be taken at face value, which should be easy for an authentic authority in the discipline of theology to do. It should look easy for them.
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    They are defined by the Bible
    Which Bible? And who gets to say which is the right interpretation of that Bible, that you mean? Would you say that the Bible is officially the 1900 version of the KJV? Why not the 1611 version? Why English, why would God only communicate in "King James" English, circa 1900? Did He previously communicate in 1611 "King James" English, but now He communicates in 1900 "King James" English? Or is the authoritative version of the Bible in "the original Greek?" And if so, then who authenticates any English translation /rendering of the Bible, or who has the power to formally annul an English version as representative of the Bible at all? iow who in your theonomy has the power to send police to arrest publishers of an English version of the Bible, that is outlawed to print, on an otherwise free press?

    This is why I know you also mean that whoever is authenticating what God's law actually is, in your theonomy, must also be an authentic doctor of law, along with a doctor of the philosophy of theology.
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    , and ultimately, God.
    Just for clarity, I also as a Catholic consider God to be the ultimate source of truth, in all matters of faith and morals, but not in political theory. That's where you and I differ, directly opposite. God does not prefer one political theory to another. He does prefer one theology and one morality, and He tells us precisely His will in these matters, but He leaves politics up to us. The implication is that He believes it's possible to have good government in any model of government imaginable, as difficult as it might be to believe.

    This is just classical liberalism.
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    However, the government I advocate is a constitutional monarchy. The constitution defines the laws for the people, and the no one is authorized, not even the King, to change the criminal code (the four laws above and the laws that are built on them).

    They're set in stone, if you will.

    I have a draft written up by Kgov.com if you would like to go through it.
    By whom? Who sets them in stone? I've set out that from what I gather it must be a doctorate in the philosophy of theology, plus a doctor of law also. iow, what I'm getting at here, is that there's no discipline for authentic authorities specializing in discerning God's law or discerning God's laws. The closest thing possible to that is a doctor of law who is also an authenticated doctor of theology. A JD +PhD /ThD (/DD, doctor of divinity, also possible). But even then that doesn't authorize someone to be able to declare to other ppl, that their interpretation of "God's law" should authorize police and military to aggressively penalize these ppl, if they disobey it. What if you don't like the chosen /authorized interpretation of God's law? Do you have any recourse, or is your freedom of speech and of press infringed, because it damages your social contract of theonomy?
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    See above.
    You still didn't answer that. Who would make that choice? What happens when they die? Who takes over? How does that succession work? How does the nature of their chosen interpretation relate to the chosen /authorized interpretation of their successors in the future? Are their successors authorized to change the authorized interpretation of God's law? Or do they have to preserve what the first generation chose /authorized?
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  8. #562
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,261
    Thanks
    256
    Thanked 471 Times in 394 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    44900
    Quote Originally Posted by jgarden View Post
    Brave words, but what's next - claims from the NRA that it's responsible for the sun coming up in the morning!

    The 23% may chose to remain in denial, but when "Bato's" call for a ban on assault rifles during a Democratic Candidates Meeting has the support of 55% of Republican voters, the NRA should be desperate to make whatever deal it can before Trump and the Republicans are forced to jump ship!
    Since you haven't replied to my first response by now, I'm going to pile on. I saw a fellow well regulated minuteman today in my travels, running an errand. He was middle aged, fifties; salt and pepper and enough worn that it wasn't just too much sun. 'Wore a small revolver on his hip, in a holster. Like a Saturday Night Special type weapon of war. I was wearing sunglasses and observed his weapon of war and him discretely as we traversed paths in a strip mall's parking lot. I didn't acknowledge him anymore than had he been an apparently unarmed man. He didn't acknowledge me either. But we are both minutemen. The laws, those infernal gun control laws, make it so that we can't acknowledge each other, because in a state where both open- and concealed carry is licit, without a permit, you still have to be careful about exposing yourself as CCW, if that's the choice you've made personally, influenced powerfully by laws that have been made against the right of the well regulated militia to bear arms, in plain contravention of the Bill of Rights.

    Question, do you believe in the right to bear arms, or not? I ask because itt, Town believes in the right to bear arms, but his "right to bear arms" and my "right to bear arms" are different things entirely.

    The UN doesn't even pretend to believe in the right to bear arms in any way, as a counter example. Town disagrees with the UN, and with me, and we both disagree with the UN, which doesn't even pretend to believe in the right to bear arms.

    We both believe in the right to bear arms, but we mean different things by "the right to bear arms," me and Town---I'm curious whether you believe in the right to bear arms at all? Or not.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  9. #563
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,514
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1,663 Times in 1,242 Posts

    Blog Entries
    13
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    I don't think so. If Democrats pulled 'a 180' and flip-flopped on gun control, and instead treated the right to bear arms like the right to get an abortion, and the right to not have the climate change, and the right to healthcare, they would sweep through every state of the country and form a lasting political dynasty. They're that close. Republicans exist because of the NRA, who fights to defend the right to bear arms. Without Republicans, the NRA will still fight to defend the right to bear arms.
    Democrats should just accept that the right to bear arms is just like the right to free speech and the right to free press and the right to religious liberty and to privacy.
    His "call" was for confiscation, let's be real clear on that.
    Despite their lofty rhetoric, Republican politicians would gladly sell their souls to remain in office and given that this issue has the support of a mere 23% of the electorate, they will write it off as a "lost cause" and "jump ship" to preserve whatever is left of their careers!

    America's youth and the woman's vote are solidly in the vanguard of gun reform, so the gun lobby and its supporters attempts to adopt a "hardline" approach will attract an ever diminishing number of voters!

    The gun lobby currently has only a short "window of opportunity" to negotiate some common-sense compromises, if it persists to be "out-of-step-with-the- times" by its refusal to make concessions, it will eventually have lost so much political support that won't even warrant a seat at the "bargaining table!"
    Last edited by jgarden; September 24th, 2019 at 03:56 AM.

  10. #564
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,261
    Thanks
    256
    Thanked 471 Times in 394 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    44900
    Quote Originally Posted by jgarden View Post
    Despite their lofty rhetoric, Republican politicians would gladly sell their souls to remain in office and given that this issue has the support of a mere 23% of the electorate, they will write it off as a "lost cause" and "jump ship" to preserve whatever is left of their careers!
    idk what you mean by "23%" but I generally don't disagree with you about Republicans. I said the only reason they're afloat right now is because of the NRA, and that Republicans need the NRA, but the NRA doesn't need Republicans.
    Quote Originally Posted by jgarden View Post
    America's youth and the woman's vote are solidly in the vanguard of gun reform, so the gun lobby and its supporters attempts to adopt a "hardline" approach will attract an ever diminishing number of voters!

    The gun lobby currently has only a short "window of opportunity" to negotiate some common-sense compromises, if it persists to be "out-of-step-with-the- times" by its refusal to make concessions, it will eventually have lost so much political support that won't even warrant a seat at the "bargaining table!"
    The well regulated militia has made concessions since 1934, and we never should have taken our fingers out of the gun control dyke to begin with, a real life slippery slope has proceeded unendingly, and now ppl like you are acting like none of these prior concessions ever even occurred. We need to stop all this gun control nonsense right now. We've made enough concessions on a right that is protected by the Bill of Rights, with the language "shall not be infringed."

    All we need is a Democrat who believes in the well regulated militia, and who will therefore fight for the right to bear arms like how Democrats fight for the rights to free speech, to free press, to get an abortion, to not have the climate change, to have healthcare, to have privacy, etc. None of the current batch of presidential hopefuls are that Democrat though---none of them.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  11. #565
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    10,490
    Thanks
    35,456
    Thanked 8,910 Times in 5,732 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147644
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    So ... some sort of "expert," is what I'm gathering from that sort of response.
    It doesn't take an expert to know right from wrong.

    It's unclear but seems like perhaps people with doctorates in at least two disciplines, theology and law.
    Again, it doesn't take an expert to know moral truth.

    You did not specify, this is just me taking the pulse of your response to that question.
    Whatever that means...

    That backs up what I'm saying, you're thinking that someone accomplished in theology is going to be authenticating
    Why does there have to be someone to authenticate it?

    which of the numerous possible candidates are truly God's law, or God's laws.
    Any person can do it, if they're honest and humble.

    Your response indicates that you're thinking they would be able to articulate which particular candidate laws are authentic
    "Authentic"?





    Can I ask you something:

    Do you think that, if we were to completely overhaul the entire government and legal system right now, that the resulting laws would simply be copied from the Bible?

    through some theological argument, which depends upon quality biblical interpretation, because when God's law is authenticated essentially the default or null hypothesis is that literature should be taken at face value unless it is demonstrated why it should not be taken at face value, which should be easy for an authentic authority in the discipline of theology to do. It should look easy for them.
    Which Bible? And who gets to say which is the right interpretation of that Bible, that you mean? Would you say that the Bible is officially the 1900 version of the KJV? Why not the 1611 version? Why English, why would God only communicate in "King James" English, circa 1900? Did He previously communicate in 1611 "King James" English, but now He communicates in 1900 "King James" English? Or is the authoritative version of the Bible in "the original Greek?" And if so, then who authenticates any English translation /rendering of the Bible, or who has the power to formally annul an English version as representative of the Bible at all? iow who in your theonomy has the power to send police to arrest publishers of an English version of the Bible, that is outlawed to print, on an otherwise free press?

    This is why I know you also mean that whoever is authenticating what God's law actually is, in your theonomy, must also be an authentic doctor of law, along with a doctor of the philosophy of theology.
    You seem to be latched onto the idea (which did not come from me) that the Bible would be the source of the laws used in the formation of a government.

    This is not what I said.

    All I said was that the laws are "defined" by the Bible.

    The source of the moral laws which apply to everyone everywhere at all times which are defined because God is righteous come from the concept of justice, and/because God is just.

    Just for clarity, I also as a Catholic consider God to be the ultimate source of truth, in all matters of faith and morals, but not in political theory. That's where you and I differ, directly opposite. God does not prefer one political theory to another. He does prefer one theology and one morality, and He tells us precisely His will in these matters, but He leaves politics up to us. The implication is that He believes it's possible to have good government in any model of government imaginable, as difficult as it might be to believe.
    I don't think He wants "politics," but rather a solid government, but I have a question for you:

    Do you think that if God had a preference for a kind of government, that He may have implemented it in the formation of a nation?

    The answer is, Yes, He does have a preference, and He did in fact implement it.

    And while it didn't have a "constitution," per se, it did have a set of moral laws that could not be changed.

    This is just classical liberalism.
    By whom? Who sets them in stone?
    God. Quite literally, in fact.

    Do not murder.
    Do not steal.
    Do not commit adultery.
    Do not bear false witness.

    I've set out that from what I gather it must be a doctorate in the philosophy of theology, plus a doctor of law also. iow, what I'm getting at here, is that there's no discipline for authentic authorities specializing in discerning God's law or discerning God's laws. The closest thing possible to that is a doctor of law who is also an authenticated doctor of theology. A JD +PhD /ThD (/DD, doctor of divinity, also possible). But even then that doesn't authorize someone to be able to declare to other ppl, that their interpretation of "God's law" should authorize police and military to aggressively penalize these ppl, if they disobey it.
    You seem to be putting the cart before the horse.

    Which way does authority naturally flow?

    What if you don't like the chosen /authorized interpretation of God's law?
    This is a bit of a loaded question, as there is no need for an "authorized interpretation" of God's law. God's law is clear enough to be understood without interpretation. In any case:

    I'm going to answer this with a hypothetical scenario.

    Let's say, as above, that we were to implement a constitutional monarchy. It only has 4 main criminal laws, that cover multiple smaller laws, and a "Code of Use" that regulates real estate zoning and use of infrastructure.

    This goes back to my question about the flow of authority...

    Do you think that the King has the authority to in any way change the moral laws?

    Do you have any recourse, or is your freedom of speech and of press infringed, because it damages your social contract of theonomy?
    Need you to answer the flow of authority question first.

    You still didn't answer that.
    I did, but you're too focused on the authority that man has. Try looking higher up the food chain.

    Who would make that choice?
    This is why I don't think you understand where I'm coming from.

    There's no "choice" involved when it comes to whether a law is moral in nature or otherwise.

    It is either a moral law or it is not.

    What happens when they die? Who takes over? How does that succession work? How does the nature of their chosen interpretation relate to the chosen /authorized interpretation of their successors in the future? Are their successors authorized to change the authorized interpretation of God's law? Or do they have to preserve what the first generation chose /authorized?


    See above.

  12. #566
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,514
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1,663 Times in 1,242 Posts

    Blog Entries
    13
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    idk what you mean by "23%" but I generally don't disagree with you about Republicans. I said the only reason they're afloat right now is because of the NRA, and that Republicans need the NRA, but the NRA doesn't need Republicans.
    The well regulated militia has made concessions since 1934, and we never should have taken our fingers out of the gun control dyke to begin with, a real life slippery slope has proceeded unendingly, and now ppl like you are acting like none of these prior concessions ever even occurred. We need to stop all this gun control nonsense right now. We've made enough concessions on a right that is protected by the Bill of Rights, with the language "shall not be infringed."

    All we need is a Democrat who believes in the well regulated militia, and who will therefore fight for the right to bear arms like how Democrats fight for the rights to free speech, to free press, to get an abortion, to not have the climate change, to have healthcare, to have privacy, etc. None of the current batch of presidential hopefuls are that Democrat though---none of them.
    Recent polls indicate that the majority of Republicans and gun owners already support the introduction of red-flag laws and a ban on assault weapons - the political winds no longer favor the gun lobby who like "Idolater" are living in a state of denial!

  13. #567
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,261
    Thanks
    256
    Thanked 471 Times in 394 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    44900
    Quote Originally Posted by jgarden View Post
    Recent polls indicate that the majority of Republicans and gun owners already support the introduction of red-flag laws and a ban on assault weapons - the political winds no longer favor the gun lobby who like "Idolater" are living in a state of denial!
    Polls on gun control fluctuate like the wind. And contrary to what ppl like you probably thought would happen, the massacres committed with guns has not led to capitulation on the side of the well regulated militia, but hardened resolve. It also has not led to gun control advocates getting deeper into philosophy justifying gun control, but instead philosophical gun control advocates are noticing the distortion of their thinking wrt gun control and the well regulated militia, and are turning into Second Amendment Democrats, adding the right to bear arms to their list of rights they defend, like the right to abortion, and to not have the climate change, and to healthcare, free speech and free press, free religion and morality, privacy, and other rights that most every Democrat defends. The crop of candidates in the presidential race this cycle are not 2A Democrats, the closest one is Sanders, who's basically supportive of the gun control you're advocating in your post above, but also not very energized by gun control. All the others are more aggressively supportive of gun control than Sanders, and Sanders is only the least of manifold evils, and he's not going to get the nomination anyway.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  14. #568
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,261
    Thanks
    256
    Thanked 471 Times in 394 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    44900
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    It doesn't take an expert to know right from wrong.



    Again, it doesn't take an expert to know moral truth.



    Whatever that means...



    Why does there have to be someone to authenticate it?



    Any person can do it, if they're honest and humble.



    "Authentic"?





    Can I ask you something:

    Do you think that, if we were to completely overhaul the entire government and legal system right now, that the resulting laws would simply be copied from the Bible?



    You seem to be latched onto the idea (which did not come from me) that the Bible would be the source of the laws used in the formation of a government.

    This is not what I said.

    All I said was that the laws are "defined" by the Bible.

    The source of the moral laws which apply to everyone everywhere at all times which are defined because God is righteous come from the concept of justice, and/because God is just.



    I don't think He wants "politics," but rather a solid government, but I have a question for you:

    Do you think that if God had a preference for a kind of government, that He may have implemented it in the formation of a nation?

    The answer is, Yes, He does have a preference, and He did in fact implement it.

    And while it didn't have a "constitution," per se, it did have a set of moral laws that could not be changed.



    God. Quite literally, in fact.

    Do not murder.
    Do not steal.
    Do not commit adultery.
    Do not bear false witness.



    You seem to be putting the cart before the horse.

    Which way does authority naturally flow?



    This is a bit of a loaded question, as there is no need for an "authorized interpretation" of God's law. God's law is clear enough to be understood without interpretation. In any case:

    I'm going to answer this with a hypothetical scenario.

    Let's say, as above, that we were to implement a constitutional monarchy. It only has 4 main criminal laws, that cover multiple smaller laws, and a "Code of Use" that regulates real estate zoning and use of infrastructure.

    This goes back to my question about the flow of authority...

    Do you think that the King has the authority to in any way change the moral laws?



    Need you to answer the flow of authority question first.



    I did, but you're too focused on the authority that man has. Try looking higher up the food chain.



    This is why I don't think you understand where I'm coming from.

    There's no "choice" involved when it comes to whether a law is moral in nature or otherwise.

    It is either a moral law or it is not.





    See above.
    Where in God's law is there the acknowledgement of the right to bear arms? Is the right to bear arms recognized in God's law?
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  15. #569
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    10,490
    Thanks
    35,456
    Thanked 8,910 Times in 5,732 Posts

    Mentioned
    87 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147644
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    Where in God's law is there the acknowledgement of the right to bear arms? Is the right to bear arms recognized in God's law?
    Genesis 14, Luke 22:36, for starters.

  16. #570
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,261
    Thanks
    256
    Thanked 471 Times in 394 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    44900
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    Where in God's law is there the acknowledgement of the right to bear arms? Is the right to bear arms recognized in God's law?
    Quote Originally Posted by JudgeRightly View Post
    Genesis 14, Luke 22:36, for starters.
    So then do you believe that there is a right to be forgiven? And that our laws should obligate victims of crime for example, to forgive the aggressors, and make it a crime to not "forgive those who trespass against us"? I ask because to me, the biblical references you provide do not support a right to bear arms nearly as well as a lot of other scriptures that command forgiveness support a right to be forgiven; by your reasoning, all scriptures commanding forgiveness, must support a right to be forgiven.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us