Why Theonomy?

[Gerald]

What about it? Worshiping things other than God is a sin now, and will remain a sin from now on regardless of the sort of government is in place. That doesn't make it a crime.

It also does nothing to prevent your so-called Godly monarchy from making it a crime.

If you think such a thing could not or would not happen, you are hopelessly naive.

Gerald would have you discipline your children with stun guns, or at least he says he would (perhaps simply to get a rise out of people). In any case, he is a confirmed idiot, my feeling toward him are irrelevant.

Horse crap. You'd rip my throat out if you had half a chance.

 

[Granite]

It also does nothing to prevent your so-called Godly monarchy from making it a crime.

If you think such a thing could not or would not happen, you are hopelessly naive.
Horse crap. You'd rip my throat out if you had half a chance.

Nothing they've done before makes me think they would hesitate to do it again...

 

[Gerald]

It is not a crime to go to Hell, nor is it a crime to believe something that will send you there.

Your compassion for those parents who would raise their children in a belief system that will result in their damnation is touching. What prevents you from intervening?

Consider, say, a Muslim parent who prevents his children from hearing an alternative to Islam, and denying them an opportunity to decide for themselves what they shall believe. Based on what you've posted, Clete, you would consider this parent to be doing his children a terrible disservice, yet it appears that you would not intervene in such a situation, and you would not support such intervention by the government you advocate.

Is the idea that someone should join The Body because they genuinely want to, and not because they believe they have no choice so important that coersion is out of the question?

 

[Clete]

It also does nothing to prevent your so-called Godly monarchy from making it a crime.

If you think such a thing could not or would not happen, you are hopelessly naive.

He may try to do so but again, the law wouldn't be the millions of pages it is today. It would be three pages tops and nearly everyone would have the whole thing memorized or would at least be very familiar with it and even if they weren't it wouldn't take 5 minutes to read it and find out that there is no such valid law and the real law indicates that they are not obligated to follow any "new" laws that such an evil king might try to make.

I am not nieve at all. I've said several times that the Biblical system is not perfect, only that it is as close to perfect as can be hoped for. God is not as stupid as you and has made provision to guard the integrity of His law.

Horse crap. You'd rip my throat out if you had half a chance.

Be that as it may, it has nothing to do with whether or not you're an idiot.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Granite]

And if the people realized the king was out of line they'd do WHAT, exactly?

An all-powerful ruler tends to be untouchable after a while.

 

[Clete]

Your compassion for those parents who would raise their children in a belief system that will result in their damnation is touching. What prevents you from intervening?

Consider, say, a Muslim parent who prevents his children from hearing an alternative to Islam, and denying them an opportunity to decide for themselves what they shall believe. Based on what you've posted, Clete, you would consider this parent to be doing his children a terrible disservice, yet it appears that you would not intervene in such a situation, and you would not support such intervention by the government you advocate.

Is the idea that someone should join The Body because they genuinely want to, and not because they believe they have no choice so important that coersion is out of the question?

Coersion is certainly out of the question. You cannot make someone love God (or anyone else for that matter). To even try would be counter productive.

Further your hypothical fails to take into consideration the society that a Biblical system would create. It would be impossible to completely, or even mostly shield one's self or one's children from the Biblical worldview. The very fabric of the society would have Biblical principles woven throughout.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Gerald]

He may try to do so but again, the law wouldn't be the millions of pages it is today. It would be three pages tops and nearly everyone would have the whole thing memorized or would at least be very familiar with it and even if they weren't it wouldn't take 5 minutes to read it and find out that there is no such valid law and the real law indicates that they are not obligated to follow any "new" laws that such an evil king might try to make.

So, would you interfere with the enforcement of an "evil king's" new decree outlawing rival religions? Would you take a bullet so an unbeliever could continue to live in soul-threatening error?

Be that as it may, it has nothing to do with whether or not you're an idiot.

Well, to your credit, you didn't deny that you would kill me if you could... :thumb:

 

[Granite]

Yeah, that's what I'm worried about.

Having seen theonomists in action and knowing the CR movement fairly well I can honestly say these people are the last ones who belong in power. Theonomists are notorious for infighting and splinter groups. I don't think they'd be able to hold onto power for more than a New York minute before a stupid dispute broke up the show.

 

[Clete]

And if the people realized the king was out of line they'd do WHAT, exactly?

An all-powerful ruler tends to be untouchable after a while.

A king in a Biblical system would not be all powerful, first of all. And they'd do nothing. I'm not sure the question makes sense really. What do you think they would do? They would just go on living their lives just like they always did before the king had his brain fart. Unless things got elevated beyond the king simply getting out of line, in which case they would rebel just as the law allows and commands.

To illustrate what I mean let me ask you a similar question. What would you do if George Bush tried to order the military to seize control of the capital building and execute all the senators and representatives? Whatever answer you come up with (as long as it is within this universe of reason) would probably be a valid answer to your question as well.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

So, would you interfere with the enforcement of an "evil king's" new decree outlawing rival religions?

In whatever why I could yes and I would support such intervention in any case.

Would you take a bullet so an unbeliever could continue to live in soul-threatening error?

No. My first priority is to my family. If I must choose between my family being taken care of and some unbeliever going to Hell, I choose my family.

1 Timothy 5:8
But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Well, to your credit, you didn't deny that you would kill me if you could... :thumb:

You're very close to making my ignore list.

 

[Caledvwlch]

A king in a Biblical system would not be all powerful, first of all. And they'd do nothing. I'm not sure the question makes sense really. What do you think they would do? They would just go on living their lives just like they always did before the king had his brain fart. Unless things got elevated beyond the king simply getting out of line, in which case they would rebel just as the law allows and commands.

To illustrate what I mean let me ask you a similar question. What would you do if George Bush tried to order the military to seize control of the capital building and execute all the senators and representatives? Whatever answer you come up with (as long as it is within this universe of reason) would probably be a valid answer to your question as well.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Ok, all this stuff sounds fine. But still, why a monarch? And you've still not given us any Biblical proof either. Just because Israel had a monarchy doesn't mean we should.

 

[Gerald]

Coersion is certainly out of the question. You cannot make someone love God (or anyone else for that matter). To even try would be counter productive.

It appears we're shooting at different targets: you're concerned about love, while I'm concerned about obedience, which doesn't require love.

Further your hypothical fails to take into consideration the society that a Biblical system would create. It would be impossible to completely, or even mostly shield one's self or one's children from the Biblical worldview. The very fabric of the society would have Biblical principles woven throughout.

Details, please? How do "Biblical principles" get woven into, say, buying groceries at the store?

 

[Granite]

Ok, all this stuff sounds fine. But still, why a monarch? And you've still not given us any Biblical proof either. Just because Israel had a monarchy doesn't mean we should.

They're interested in power, Cal, not proving anything.

 

[Lighthouse]

It appears we're shooting at different targets: you're concerned about love, while I'm concerned about obedience, which doesn't require love.

But respect does.

 

[Gerald]

But respect does.

Obedience doesn't require respect, either.

 

[Zakath]

Obedience doesn't require respect, either.

So far as I recall, "respect" is not something the biblical deity cares about one way or another. Fear, yes. Respect? Not particularly...

... unless all those translators have got it wrong again all these centuries.

 

[Clete]

Ok, all this stuff sounds fine. But still, why a monarch? And you've still not given us any Biblical proof either. Just because Israel had a monarchy doesn't mean we should.

I have told you (I think it was you) that I don't intend to establish it any further than I have. You are openly hostile to the Scriptures and to the One who wrote them and so to do so would be a fruitless waste of time. Others on this thread, however, have established it quite well; better actually than I could have had I been enclind to try, I'm sure. Turbo and Jefferson both have offered more Biblical evidence than I think a man in your position would need or want.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Caledvwlch]

I have told you (I think it was you) that I don't intend to establish it any further than I have. You are oppenly hostile to the Scriptures and to the One who wrote them and so to do so would be a fruitless waste of time. Others on this thread, however, have established it quite well; better actually than I could have had I been enclind to try, I'm sure. Turbo and Jefferson both have offered more Biblical evidence than I think a man in your position would need or want.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Ok, fine. But I'm not openly hostile to the Scriptures, I just don't think they were written by God. But that's beside the point. For the purposes of my conversations with you, I've done my best to argue with the assumption that the Scriptures are the Word of God, as I used to. I know plenty of Christians who would not agree with some of your positions, and I am merely trying to represent their side of the argument.

 

[Zakath]

I have told you (I think it was you) that I don't intend to establish it any further than I have. You are oppenly hostile to the Scriptures and to the One who wrote them and so to do so would be a fruitless waste of time. Others on this thread, however, have established it quite well; better actually than I could have had I been enclind to try, I'm sure. Turbo and Jefferson both have offered more Biblical evidence than I think a man in your position would need or want.

Now there's an example of effective apologetics...

 

[Granite]

I have told you (I think it was you) that I don't intend to establish it any further than I have. You are oppenly hostile to the Scriptures and to the One who wrote them and so to do so would be a fruitless waste of time. Others on this thread, however, have established it quite well; better actually than I could have had I been enclind to try, I'm sure. Turbo and Jefferson both have offered more Biblical evidence than I think a man in your position would need or want.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Sounding more and more totalitarian as this thread goes on.