Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Yeah. I think I slightly disagree with you on which ones are which though. Biblically I think that blasphemy, public false worship, homosexuality, adultery, and spreading heresy count as crimes and not just sins.
My fantasy. And a question for liberals
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
Yeah. I think I slightly disagree with you on which ones are which though. Biblically I think that blasphemy, public false worship, homosexuality, adultery, and spreading heresy count as crimes and not just sins.
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
@Wizard of Oz-
I know this seems a bit nit picky, but I don't really want to. Its not about what I want. I'm not convinced that the scriptures ever repeal the just penalty that God gave Israel for that offense. And objectively speaking I believe its a lot more abominable than most of us will object to. But this isn't about some personal desire of mine.
I'm not convinced that the penalty has to be death in every case. There's an argument to be made that capital punishment could be mitigated in some cases. If that's the case, than somebody who fell into homosexual behavior because he was raped when he was 12 is very likely a good candidate for leiniency. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea. However, I do believe that the death penalty is certainly just.
I know this seems a bit nit picky, but I don't really want to. Its not about what I want. I'm not convinced that the scriptures ever repeal the just penalty that God gave Israel for that offense. And objectively speaking I believe its a lot more abominable than most of us will object to. But this isn't about some personal desire of mine.
I'm not convinced that the penalty has to be death in every case. There's an argument to be made that capital punishment could be mitigated in some cases. If that's the case, than somebody who fell into homosexual behavior because he was raped when he was 12 is very likely a good candidate for leiniency. I'm not necessarily opposed to the idea. However, I do believe that the death penalty is certainly just.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
I think you mean 'subjectively speaking' don't you?
lain:
No I absolutely did not mean that
I would ban any book (religious or secular) that advocated murder. If the Koran did not advocate murder, I would allow it.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
No I absolutely did not mean that
Then you really should have done.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Any answers on how your little conservative utopia would provide for those who couldn't work and their children etc? Or are ya just gonna ignore that?
Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Why? What if I want to read the Qu'ran for purposes of being better at evangelizing to Muslims?
I'm for enforcing BOTH tables of the law including laws suppressing open idolatry, preaching of heresy no matter what the kind, blue laws for sunday, and blasphemy laws. But I don't see ANY Biblical basis for treating Islam differently than any other false religion, nor that there is no legitimate reason to read a Qu'ran. Nor any basis for prohibiting private worship of any religion including Islam.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Well you better make sure you read it at night with a torch or something.
lain:Christian Liberty
Well-known member
Well you better make sure you read it at night with a torch or something.
Just make sure you don't misunderstand. Jefferson is not being a more radical theocrat than me. He's being a more radical right-winger than me. There's a difference. Biblical theocracy (theonomy, note NOT ecclesiocracy, theocracy... rule by God not rule by church) doesn't really entail singling out Islam like this. Mosques should be destroyed just like synagogues, masses, Mormon temples, images of any person of the trinity, Hindu temples, and any other form of false worship that is being broadcast in public. But the government doesn't have the authority to ban books (which can be used for purposes other than false worship in every case), nor is there any real Biblical reason to single out Islam specifically. Jefferson is doing this more out of pragmatism (ie. we're afraid Muslims will start pushing for Sharia law so let's censor them before they can do it) rather than for any actual Biblical reason. Some theonomists disagree with me but I don't think we have a right to punish people for peacefully trying to persuade people of their religion unless they are heretics (which by definition means they are claiming the mantle of Christianity while spreading damnable doctrine.) But if proselytization for Muslims can be banned, it can be banned for Orthodox Jews, Hindus, Satanists, Buddhists, and Atheists as well. To deny the enforcement of the first table of the law (like every "theonomist" does on this site except for me) except in the case of Islam is either pragmatism, bigotry, or both.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Dude, I disagree on you with practically everything apart from aCW being a welk of some sort. Enough said really...
Which makes you dangerous. We got it.
Caledvwlch
New member
I'm going to single out blasphemy.
It is an unprovable thought-crime. The fact that there are people today in different parts of the world subject to brutal sanctions for exactly that doesn't give you even a little pause? Blasphemy is whatever the reigning regime says it is.
jzeidler
New member
Are you going to give the needed charity? Where is the Christian love, red77?
Quetzal
New member
You know what, I hope this happens and I want to tell you why. I want the right to create their prefect paradise. Full of all of the conservative political policies their little heads can think of. I want them to go to church every day, discredit science, and hate the Muslims and gays to their hearts content. Then I will wait for the day when one of their children comes out to be gay anyway. It would be fantastic.
Caledvwlch
New member
Except for the part where that kid gets executed.
This is Islam flying a Christian flag. Sad.
Quetzal
New member
Nah, we would offer him sanctuary, acceptance, and protection. You know, everything the other guys couldn't do. :chuckle:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Onto the next Libertarian:
Tell me a vice that is currently a crime and shouldn't be, or one in the past that was a crime and shouldn't have been (this is where the Libertarians always refer to Prohibition)
Speaking of homosexuality: I'm still waiting for your response in my thread to my reply where one of your Libertarian heroes bad mouthed Kim Davis.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4436972&postcount=358
I have two questions:
1). Do you think that Lawrence Vance had the rainbow flag wrapped around him when he wrote that article?
2). Can I expect your response to my reply anytime this decade?
Regarding vices v crimes:
We can talk about anything that a true Libertarian thinks should be legal:
Abortion, homosexuality, pornography (kiddy porn included), prostitution, all recreational drugs, etc. etc. etc.
Pick one or all of the above topics and then show me that there is no victim, henceforth there shouldn't be a law against such behavior if there is no victim, right?
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Onto the next Libertarian:
Tell me a vice that is currently a crime and shouldn't be, or one in the past that was a crime and shouldn't have been (this is where the Libertarians always refer to Prohibition)
Speaking of homosexuality: I'm still waiting for your response in my thread to my reply where one of your Libertarian heroes bad mouthed Kim Davis.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4436972&postcount=358
I have two questions:
1). Do you think that Lawrence Vance had the rainbow flag wrapped around him when he wrote that article?
2). Can I expect your response to my reply anytime this decade?
Regarding vices v crimes:
We can talk about anything that a true Libertarian thinks should be legal:
Abortion, homosexuality, pornography (kiddy porn included), prostitution, all recreational drugs, etc. etc. etc.
Pick one or all of the above topics and then show me that there is no victim, henceforth there shouldn't be a law against such behavior if there is no victim, right?
Last edited: