Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

An Advocation of Government

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post


    Or, you know, they could just get a job like normal people do... Why that didn't occur to you is beyond me...

    .
    The above was your answer to my point:-
    .....and at the moment it seems that they do not provide for the warranted person's family, home, dinners or anything else, which means that they'll be obtaining their livings by corruption instead of stipends or wages.

    Well, you sure got that wrong, didn't you?

    Mr Enyart says quite clearly that the military will NOT be made up of part timers.... they will all be a fully professional service.
    So they can't be working full time AND be soldiers. Let's clear that up, eh?

    I will work thru the rest of your post later, if I may?

    Comment


    • The state is the consistent enemy of Christianity. Carry on...
      The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by drbrumley View Post
        The state is the consistent enemy of Christianity. Carry on...
        I think it would be if Mr Enyart's proposal ever came to be.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post

          So why have a government run by the people? (which is a circular government, by the way, and lacks any sort of foundation)
          I feel quite sure that nearly all Americans are very strong about their existing Constitution.


          No one has said otherwise. Yet, for all the wicked kings in history, none of them have legalized the crimes they themselves commit.

          Democracies, on the other hand, simply vote to change the law to allow what the masses want.
          You got that wrong.
          Henry VIII even changed the Creed, let alone the laws. Just one example of many.

          Eider, are you aware that when God gave the law to Moses, He included rules for how a king should govern?

          That's right, hundreds of years before God implemented the monarchy as the nation's government, He had already laid the groundwork for it.
          I don't think God's law wanted a Military and Police State.


          God chose a monarchy, and killed the representatives of "the people." I'd say that's pretty clear evidence that God wants nations to have a monarchy.

          Which means that our current form of government needs to be done away with.
          God set up a very very good system with the Mosaic Laws. They just got cherry picked somewhat.


          They are extensions of the laws from the 10 commandments.
          Laws chosen by Mr Enyart for his idea of a perfect State.
          But it couldn't happen because at least half the population would not support it. Women don't want the kind of oppression that his world would introduce. Very few people would wanty to live in a Police State such as his.


          You cannot put new wine into old wineskins.
          Mt Enyart's proposal is definitely new, but looks more like vinegar than wine. Honest.


          You can't see how just punishments for crime can make a difference?
          Lashing a person down to their rib-cage for a petty theft is not just.
          You should research the effects of the lash, maybe.
          Islam executes and lashes for similar offences as chosen by Mr Enyart, and we don't want anything like that.


          Yes, the laws included in the Mosaic Law had a purpose.

          That purpose has since been fulfilled, and since that purpose was tied only to Israel, therefore the laws that were intended only for israel should not be used for other governments.
          Oh no........ In no way have the poor-laws been fulfilled, or many of the other laws which united and made a nation strong.


          In what way would the people under the proposed government be "oppressed, subjected to terror through pain"?
          A Police State, controlled by amateurs, who would become all powerful in their subjection of the people, dishing out the lash and the noose.
          .

          We're talking about a form of government, not Jesus' mission.

          Don't get sidetracked.
          Stop right there, please.
          That deserves it;'s very own post.

          I will come back to the rest another time.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post

            Which has nothing to do with this conversation...

            We're talking about a form of government, not Jesus' mission.

            Don't get sidetracked..
            I think you got sidetracked somewhere, and you left Jesus behind, it seems....????

            Last paragraph of Mr Enyart's World proposal.
            Dedication [B P]: America hereby dedicates herself to God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son, and the Holy Spirit [B P]. This Constitution arises from the Holy Bible's principles of governance [B P]; explicitly does not codify Israel's symbolic ordinances [B P]; and will be superseded by Christ at His Return [B P]. May God bless our King. Long live the King [B P]!


            Comment


            • Originally posted by eider View Post

              I think it would be if Mr Enyart's proposal ever came to be.
              It already is the enemy. Every last one of them.
              The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by eider View Post

                The above was your answer to my point:-
                .....and at the moment it seems that they do not provide for the warranted person's family, home, dinners or anything else, which means that they'll be obtaining their livings by corruption instead of stipends or wages.

                Well, you sure got that wrong, didn't you?
                I apologize, I thought what I had written was clear enough.

                My comment was referring to judges, who do not get paid to be judges, seeing as I had just corrected your statement that kings do not have an income, and that executioners, floggers, etc, are jobs.

                As for soldiers, I'm not sure it's been discussed how they would be paid.

                Paying them seems logical, and due to other things mentioned in the constitution, the government would certainly have the funds to pay them fairly.

                Mr Enyart says quite clearly that the military will NOT be made up of part timers.... they will all be a fully professional service.
                Well, no, it says "non-conscripted personnel." I think it's a given that that will result in it being fully professional...

                So they can't be working full time AND be soldiers. Let's clear that up, eh?
                See above.

                I will work thru the rest of your post later, if I may?
                Of course. I sometimes take way too long to reply anyways.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by drbrumley View Post
                  The state is the consistent enemy of Christianity. Carry on...
                  I would agree that that is currently true.

                  Originally posted by eider View Post
                  I think it would be if Mr Enyart's proposal ever came to be.
                  In what way?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by eider View Post
                    I feel quite sure that nearly all
                    Appeal to popularity.

                    Americans are very strong about their existing Constitution.
                    Statement of fact: The Constitution is unconstitutional.

                    You got that wrong.
                    Henry VIII even changed the Creed, let alone the laws. Just one example of many.
                    Cite please. Which crimes did he legalize?

                    I don't think God's law wanted a Military and Police State.
                    Good thing that's not what is proposed.

                    God set up a very very good system with the Mosaic Laws. They just got cherry picked somewhat.
                    The Mosaic law was intended solely for Israel.

                    The five main laws used in the proposed criminal code are laws that God wrote on man's heart. The fact that the Mosaic law incorporates them into itself seems to be preventing you from getting that bigger picture.

                    Laws chosen by Mr Enyart for his idea of a perfect State.
                    Pastor Enyart has laid out a Biblical apologetic for this proposed constitution, which you can find here, and while it's not up yet, there will be a political apologetic for it as well.

                    But it couldn't happen because at least half the population would not support it. Women don't want the kind of oppression that his world would introduce. Very few people would wanty to live in a Police State such as his.
                    Good thing a just government is not brought about by popularity.

                    It's why God chose Moses and Aaron instead of Korah and his "representatives of the people," and why He included laws regarding kings in the Mosaic law, and not laws regarding representative republics.

                    Mt Enyart's proposal is definitely new, but looks more like vinegar than wine. Honest.
                    I think you need to get your eyes (or your heart (no, not the pump)) checked.

                    Lashing a person down to their rib-cage for a petty theft is not just.
                    Good thing that's not what is proposed.

                    You should research the effects of the lash, maybe.
                    You should research what you're arguing against so that you don't make false accusations.

                    Islam
                    Has nothing to do with this. This is a Christian board, Pastor Enyart is Christian, and the constitution was written with supporting verse from the Bible.

                    Oh no........ In no way have the poor-laws been fulfilled,
                    You misread, again.

                    I said the PURPOSE of the law was fulfilled, not the laws themselves.

                    Please read more carefully.

                    or many of the other laws which united and made a nation strong.
                    Such as?

                    A Police State,
                    Is not what is proposed.

                    controlled by amateurs,
                    If you had to pick, whom would say would do a better job of leading your country: The bus-boy at your local restaurant, or the current political leader?

                    And you seem to be forgetting that the person chosen to rule would rule for the rest of his life, however long that would be, not just for the next 4-8 years. He wouldn't remain an amateur for very long, nor would the people under him.

                    who would become all powerful in their subjection of the people
                    Reminder: Authority flows downhill, not up.

                    The people are to be subject to the government. No, they don't get to overthrow the government because they don't like it, or they think it's bad. However, men have not only the right, but also the responsibility, to refuse to submit to unjust government coercion.

                    dishing out the lash and the noose.
                    I think you'll find that when the punishment for a crime is just (for example, restitution for theft, corporal punishment for assault, and the death penalty for murder), it's usually harsh enough to deter people from committing the same crimes again.

                    In other words, after the first few times, people would realize that crime will only result in pain, and would-be criminals would be deterred from committing crime, and as a result, there would be fewer punishments, yet more law-abiding citizens.
                    Last edited by JudgeRightly; January 29th, 2020, 10:03 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by eider View Post
                      I think you got sidetracked somewhere, and you left Jesus behind, it seems....????
                      Not at all.

                      Last paragraph of Mr Enyart's World proposal.
                      Dedication [B P]: America hereby dedicates herself to God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son, and the Holy Spirit [B P]. This Constitution arises from the Holy Bible's principles of governance [B P]; explicitly does not codify Israel's symbolic ordinances [B P]; and will be superseded by Christ at His Return [B P]. May God bless our King. Long live the King [B P]!
                      Again, please read more carefully what I write.

                      I said "We're talking about a form of government, not Jesus' MISSION."

                      Jesus is the King of kings. A monarchy. Government.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post

                        Appeal to popularity.

                        Statement of fact: The Constitution is unconstitutional.
                        But that's your opinion.
                        Take a survey of citizens and they'll support their Constitution. And your occasional references to popular opinion are all about what Democracy is all about.
                        This thread is really about Mr Enyart not liking Democracy because he wants a totalitarian kind of government, but that would be a long uphill slog imo, and without a type of 3rd World military takeover (or whatever) I don't think he's going to arrive at it.


                        Cite please. Which crimes did he legalize?
                        That's easy for English kids to answer.
                        He decided that it was legal to invade nearly every monastery in his land, kill many of the monks and priests, steal everything within and then tear them down. He then gave the land to his friends. Let's see, that's Murder, Robbery, Theft, Criminal Damage, Handling Stolen Goods, and several other crimes never before committed upon Catholic premises.


                        The Mosaic law was intended solely for Israel.

                        The five main laws used in the proposed criminal code are laws that God wrote on man's heart. The fact that the Mosaic law incorporates them into itself seems to be preventing you from getting that bigger picture.
                        You've already pointed out that the Mosaic Laws were for Israel!
                        And yet Mr Enyart wants me to 'incorporate them' in to the picture.
                        Mt Enyart quoted over 50 OT laws in his 5 law Government initiative.
                        I've been speaking with Christians about his ideas and this point alone is one that causes hilarity for many of them. The '#we don't follow Mosaic Laws but you will!' kind of approach. Don't you think he needs to write them out?

                        Pastor Enyart has laid out a Biblical apologetic for this proposed constitution, which you can find here, and while it's not up yet, there will be a political apologetic for it as well.
                        He's going to need a very strong apologetic from the responses I've been getting from Christian Friends.
                        And, of course, he is Pastor Enyart, not Mr Enyart.,

                        Good thing a just government is not brought about by popularity.
                        That's what a dictator might say before a military coup.
                        How could Pastor Enyart become successful with the popularity of the people?

                        It's why God chose Moses and Aaron instead of Korah and his "representatives of the people," and why He included laws regarding kings in the Mosaic law, and not laws regarding representative republics.

                        Has nothing to do with this. This is a Christian board, Pastor Enyart is Christian, and the constitution was written with supporting verse from the Bible.
                        All Pastor Enyart has to do then is to win the support of Christians.
                        But will he?


                        If you had to pick, whom would say would do a better job of leading your country: The bus-boy at your local restaurant, or the current political leader?

                        And you seem to be forgetting that the person chosen to rule would rule for the rest of his life, however long that would be, not just for the next 4-8 years. He wouldn't remain an amateur for very long, nor would the people under him.
                        Well, Boris is new, so we'll have to see how he fairs over the next five years.


                        Reminder: Authority flows downhill, not up.

                        The people are to be subject to the government. No, they don't get to overthrow the government because they don't like it, or they think it's bad. However, men have not only the right, but also the responsibility, to refuse to submit to unjust government coercion.
                        Authority flows down, but the will of the people flows up.
                        That's democracy and although Pastor Enyart doesn't like it he's got a very very long haul upward himself about such as this.

                        I think you'll find that when the punishment for a crime is just (for example, restitution for theft, corporal punishment for assault, and the death penalty for murder), it's usually harsh enough to deter people from committing the same crimes again.

                        In other words, after the first few times, people would realize that crime will only result in pain, and would-be criminals would be deterred from committing crime, and as a result, there would be fewer punishments, yet more law-abiding citizens.
                        That's what Pastor Enyart hopes for, but it could backfire horribly, because once a person has committed a crime they will be in a 'they'll never take me' mindset from which there is no return. After all, there'll be cartloads of guns around for such a person to fight with.

                        Just saying.......
                        Last edited by JudgeRightly; January 31st, 2020, 06:05 AM. Reason: Eider forgot to put quote tags around a portion of my post that he quoted.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post

                          Not at all.

                          Again, please read more carefully what I write.

                          I said "We're talking about a form of government, not Jesus' MISSION."

                          Jesus is the King of kings. A monarchy. Government.
                          That is totally beyond my understanding, then.
                          I cannot grasp the idea that a Christian thinking of building up a new government would try to do so without paying close attention to everything that Jesus said and did, at every point in the process.

                          But the idea that Jesus would support this government initiative is what intrigues me.
                          Most Christians that I know would acknowledge the main objective of Jesus as this:-
                          “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets.”

                          I find it to be astonishing that in Pastor Enyart's Criminal Code and World Overview (Two main docs) the word 'Love' has not been written once.

                          And I wonder iof there would be......... any love?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by eider View Post
                            That is totally beyond my understanding, then.
                            I'm not surprised.

                            I cannot grasp the idea that a Christian thinking of building up a new government would try to do so without paying close attention to everything that Jesus said and did, at every point in the process.
                            Because everything Jesus said was to prepare people for His coming Kingdom after 7 years of Tribulation for Israel.

                            His instructions were for life in the Millennial Kingdom, but since the Great Tribulation hasn't happened yet (and it would have shortly after Christ's ascension, had Israel not rejected her Messiah), and therefore the Millennial Kingdom hasn't happened yet, they (His instructions) do not really apply today. Sure, we can learn things from them, but to try to implement or apply them today would be counterproductive.

                            But the idea that Jesus would support this government initiative is what intrigues me.
                            Most Christians that I know would acknowledge the main objective of Jesus as this:-
                            “‘You must love Jehovah your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 The second, like it, is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments the whole Law hangs, and the Prophets.”
                            You literally just answered yourself.

                            The law is summed up by love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

                            But unfortunately, those two commandments aren't enough to keep people from harming others, and so the law was made for man.

                            I find it to be astonishing that in Pastor Enyart's Criminal Code and World Overview (Two main docs)
                            I'm not aware of any documents named "World Overview"...

                            the word 'Love' has not been written once.
                            As I said before, the law is summed up in "love God" and "love your neighbor as yourself."

                            And I wonder iof[sic] there would be......... any love?
                            The Beatles sang "All you need is love!"

                            And then they broke up.

                            Love is important, but to keep man in check, love serves as the foundation for the law.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post

                              I'm not surprised.

                              I'll bet a few others are stumped as well.


                              Because everything Jesus said was to prepare people for His coming Kingdom after 7 years of Tribulation for Israel.

                              His instructions were for life in the Millennial Kingdom, but since the Great Tribulation hasn't happened yet (and it would have shortly after Christ's ascension, had Israel not rejected her Messiah), and therefore the Millennial Kingdom hasn't happened yet, they (His instructions) do not really apply today. Sure, we can learn things from them, but to try to implement or apply them today would be counterproductive.
                              I never read that Jesus proposed any such state of oppression. Trouble is, what that would turn in to could be the Hell and not the Heaven.


                              You literally just answered yourself.

                              The law is summed up by love God and love your neighbor as yourself.

                              But unfortunately, those two commandments aren't enough to keep people from harming others, and so the law was made for man.
                              Like I said, neither of Pastor Enyart's proposal documents featured the word 'love'. What an ommission!


                              I'm not aware of any documents named "World Overview"...
                              Fair enough.... he was advocating a new US Constitution.



                              As I said before, the law is summed up in "love God" and "love your neighbor as yourself."
                              I still think that Jesus has a quite different idea.


                              The Beatles sang "All you need is love!"

                              And then they broke up.

                              Love is important, but to keep man in check, love serves as the foundation for the law.
                              What about the military? Is love there as well?
                              I never followed the Beatles, but if my memory serves me the man who wrote that song was shot dead by a Christian extremist in America. Is that right?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by eider View Post

                                I'll bet a few others are stumped as well.
                                I mean, when one doesn't not have the Holy Spirit, how can he understand that which is spiritually related?

                                You may notice in this post I'm not going into very much detail on things like this. That is intentional. Matthew 7:6.

                                I never read that Jesus proposed any such state of oppression.
                                You think Christ ruling as King is oppression? Or are you talking about something else?

                                Trouble is, what that would turn in to could be the Hell and not the Heaven.
                                The Millennial Kingdom isn't Heaven.

                                Like I said, neither of Pastor Enyart's proposal documents featured the word 'love'. What an ommission!
                                So what? Love cannot be compelled. Putting it into law wouldn't work.

                                I still think that Jesus has a quite different idea.
                                That's literally what Paul says, though...

                                For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” - Galatians 5:14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...4&version=NKJV

                                What about the military? Is love there as well?
                                Yes.

                                I never followed the Beatles, but if my memory serves me the man who wrote that song was shot dead by a Christian extremist in America. Is that right?
                                Well, I can't say whether or not he was Christian, but the man is certainly condemned by the Bible, and to use him as an example for this discussion, had he done such a thing under the proposed government, he would have been put on trial, convicted on the testimony of two or three witnesses, and then executed, instead of being locked up in a prison to this very day, being a drain on taxpayer money.

                                And since guilt is infinitely dilutable, I'm sure Mr. Composer would have also been charged with a few things as well which would have straightened him out LONG before it ever got to the point where someone got mad at him and decided to kill him.

                                In fact, the entire ordeal would have never even been considered a possibility under the proposed government, because such criminal acts would be so few and far in between.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X