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

    I mean, when one doesn't not have the Holy Spirit, how can he understand that which is spiritually related?
    Do you have the Holy Spirit?

    You may notice in this post I'm not going into very much detail on things like this. That is intentional. Matthew 7:6.
    Oh yeah? Which do you think I am, a pig or a dog?

    You think Christ ruling as King is oppression? Or are you talking about something else?
    I'm thinking of what Jesus said and did. And he mentioned nothing like this.

    The Millennial Kingdom isn't Heaven.
    I'm sure that you are right about that.

    So what? Love cannot be compelled. Putting it into law wouldn't work.
    Now read what you wrote:-

    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
    Jesus promoted 'Love' first and above all. But you don't think it could work....?

    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.
    So in Pastor Enyart's proposed America 'loss of reason of the mind' wouldn't make any difference to a Court's verdict and judgement? Interesting.

    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.
    But you can't think of any offences yourself..... that John Lennon could have been charged with and convicted? No?


    Comment



    • “Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure.” ~ Robert LeFevre — Notes: Financial Sense
      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 JudgeRightly View Post
        With the recently elected President of the United States of America finally taking office, I think it's time we really looked at what kind of government God wants. When we look at the Bible, we see that the only form of government God authorized (in both the Old and New Testament) is a Constitutional Monarchy.

        "What did he just say?"

        Yes, you heard (read?) that right. A Constitutional Monarchy.

        A Constitutional Monarchy is the only form of Government that God authorizes. (We find this in Deuteronomy 17:14-20.) Not anarchy, not democracy, or it's sister, republic, not an oligarchy, not a plutocracy, not a democratic republic, nor an aristocracy, nor a dictatorship.

        Not a Constitutional Republic.

        Constitutional Monarchy.


        ---


        Our current form of government, which is at it's roots is democratic, is a Constitutional Republic. I say democratic because Americans vote on everything, laws, judges, representatives, senators, and even the leader of the country.

        Yet God makes it very clear that majority rule is wicked, because the majority is wicked. Matthew 7:13-14 says,

        "13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide*is*the gate and broad*is*the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.
        14 Because narrow*is*the gate and difficult*is*the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.""

        Even our government, which was founded on Christian principles, has decayed beyond the point of no return in the 240+ years since it's inception. It's time for a change. You can't put new wine in old wineskins, meaning we need to get rid of the current government (and all of the bad laws) and implement a new form of government.

        Here is a proposed Constitution for such a government:

        http://kgov.com/constitution
        http://kgov.com/criminal-code

        https://theologyonline.com/forum/bob-enyart-live/bob-enyart-live-aa/2732134-the-proposed-constitution-of-america


        https://theologyonline.com/forum/bob...-criminal-code

        ---

        Questions? I will do my best to answer.
        So what happens in such a system when the king hates God and doesn't care about following the law?
        sigpic
        "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Clete View Post

          So what happens in such a system when the king hates God and doesn't care about following the law?
          From the Proposed Constitution, under "Amendment Process."


          Any amendment or command issued by the King in defiance of this Constitution including one that increases taxes, gives all subjects the responsibility to engage in non-violent civil disobedience, including by withholding taxes, against such offense [B P]. However the King, as the ultimate national judge, likely will prevail in his own court against innocents, his decisions final on Earth even if unjust [B P], unless of course overturned by a foreign power. The King, though required to obey the laws herein, dwells above the jurisdiction of any other court in the land [P]. If the Monarch violates this Constitution through wrongful amendments or otherwise, while no American court has standing to prosecute him, he awaits the Judgment of God [B P].

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Clete View Post

            So what happens in such a system when the king hates God and doesn't care about following the law?
            If it was like what Bob proposes, then I can only assume one would be hoping Russia or China would come over here and invade, being they are the only other two superpowers. Just a guess though.
            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
              Do you have the Holy Spirit?
              I do. But more importantly, you don't.

              That's easy to remedy though. All you have to do is follow Romans 10:9-10.

              Oh yeah? Which do you think I am, a pig or a dog?
              A dog.

              Gentiles are called dogs by Jesus.

              I'm thinking of what Jesus said and did. And he mentioned nothing like this.
              Go read Revelation.

              I'm sure that you are right about that.

              Now read what you wrote:-


              Jesus promoted 'Love' first and above all. But you don't think it could work....?
              Again, context is important.

              Jesus was speaking about life in the Millennial Kingdom, where He Himself would be ruling with a rod of iron.

              It would be foolish to apply something meant for a kingdom ruled by God Himself to a government run by man.

              So in Pastor Enyart's proposed America 'loss of reason of the mind' wouldn't make any difference to a Court's verdict and judgement? Interesting.


              What are you even talking about?

              Quit renaming things just to make a dig at my position. It's childish.

              But you can't think of any offences yourself..... that John Lennon could have been charged with and convicted? No?
              You're the one who brought up John Lennon. I simply made a comment about one of his songs in relation to the band.

              But yes, I could think of some, that he could have been charged with, and if convicted, he would have been executed under the proposed Criminal Code.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post

                I do. But more importantly, you don't.

                That's easy to remedy though. All you have to do is follow Romans 10:9-10.
                I think I prefer Matthew 7-7.
                But that's just me.....


                A dog.

                Gentiles are called dogs by Jesus.
                Of course they were!
                Just like the Baptist, Jesus's whole focus was upon his own, the Jewish people who were let down so badly by the Temple and Priesthood.



                Go read Revelation.

                Again, context is important.

                Jesus was speaking about life in the Millennial Kingdom, where He Himself would be ruling with a rod of iron.

                It would be foolish to apply something meant for a kingdom ruled by God Himself to a government run by man.
                I never quite did see Jesus as the hard hearted oppressive flogger, whipper, stoner and executor of any people, but if you do, then fair enough.



                What are you even talking about?

                Quit renaming things just to make a dig at my position. It's childish.
                Hang on for one moment, please.
                Pastor Enyart's proposition does rely upon Judges and Courts, evidence and verdicts, sentences and findings.
                It has long been a tenet in most Western Courts that certain people are not responsible for their actions.
                The very young.
                The very old if they have become senile.
                The slow witted with an IQ below a certain level.
                Those with Neural illnesses which incapacitate their ability to reason.
                The mentally ill.
                People who are terrified 'out of their wits'.

                A few of the above are classed as being 'beyond reason of the mind'. If a person cannot reason then they did not do anything with wicked intent.

                So my question was reasonable, and I wished to discover whether Pastor Enyart's system of American Government took these conditions in to account.


                You're the one who brought up John Lennon. I simply made a comment about one of his songs in relation to the band.

                But yes, I could think of some, that he could have been charged with, and if convicted, he would have been executed under the proposed Criminal Code.
                I asked you about this because I didn't see any particular crime in Pastor Enyart's proposition which Mr Lennon might have breached, is all.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post

                  From the Proposed Constitution, under "Amendment Process."


                  Any amendment or command issued by the King in defiance of this Constitution including one that increases taxes, gives all subjects the responsibility to engage in non-violent civil disobedience, including by withholding taxes, against such offense [B P]. However the King, as the ultimate national judge, likely will prevail in his own court against innocents, his decisions final on Earth even if unjust [B P], unless of course overturned by a foreign power. The King, though required to obey the laws herein, dwells above the jurisdiction of any other court in the land [P]. If the Monarch violates this Constitution through wrongful amendments or otherwise, while no American court has standing to prosecute him, he awaits the Judgment of God [B P].
                  Yeah, you know, of all the things Bob has taught through the years, this is the one that I've never really been convinced of.

                  "Nonviolent civil disobedience" is usually (and easily) overcome by violent men in uniform and the refusal to pay taxes ends with someone else owning everything you've got.

                  The argument that a constitutional monarchy is the only form of government that God endorses in the bible isn't really convincing because Israel is the only nation that He was working through to achieve His purposes. If you wanted to make the argument that a constitutional monarchy was the form of government that God wanted for Israel then I'd accept that but the point is that we aren't Israel and what God wanted for Israel doesn't necessarily translate to God despising all other forms of government. A point that is born out by the fact that Israel went centuries without a king, not to mention the entire time before there even was a nation of Israel. If God wanted to say that a constitutional monarchy was the only acceptable form of human government then it seems He would have told Noah that when He began the dispensation of human government after the flood.

                  Having said that, it is clear that there are forms of government that are morally superior to others. Any form of government that is based on theft like socialism, fascism, communism, et al, is obviously an evil form of government and while that might take most other forms of government off the table, it doesn't take them all. The proper role of government is to provide for the common defense (which includes the formation and maintenance of agreements with other nations(i.e. military alliances, trade agreements, etc), to protect civil rights and to settle disputes between parties. Any form of government that achieves these while having in place provisions to prevent it doing much of anything else is a form of government that I could certainly live with and that I think God could get behind as well. As least, I see no biblical reason to think otherwise.

                  Clete

                  P.S. I have to say that it feels weird debating across the table from Bob Enyart. I'm almost certainly wrong!
                  Last edited by Clete; February 15th, 2020, 05:31 AM.
                  sigpic
                  "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                    A Constitutional Monarchy is the only form of Government that God authorizes
                    Did God authorize a super moderator to speak for Him?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post

                      From the Proposed Constitution, under "Amendment Process."


                      Any amendment or command issued by the King in defiance of this Constitution including one that increases taxes, gives all subjects the responsibility to engage in non-violent civil disobedience, including by withholding taxes, against such offense [B P]. However the King, as the ultimate national judge, likely will prevail in his own court against innocents, his decisions final on Earth even if unjust [B P], unless of course overturned by a foreign power. The King, though required to obey the laws herein, dwells above the jurisdiction of any other court in the land [P]. If the Monarch violates this Constitution through wrongful amendments or otherwise, while no American court has standing to prosecute him, he awaits the Judgment of God [B P].
                      So, if the king doesn't go along with this proposed system after his rule on the throw of a dice, there's not much of anything you can do about his defiance is there? All you've really got is his "awaiting the judgement of God" which he probably wouldn't agree with what you imagine it to be either. Considering that the likelihood of a king being drawn that would agree with your advocation of government is remote at best, how would your system be realistically tenable?
                      Well this is fun isn't it?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post
                        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.
                        How would Lennon have been "straightened out" exactly? What would he have been charged with?

                        Well this is fun isn't it?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Clete View Post
                          Yeah, you know, of all the things Bob has taught through the years, this is the one that I've never really been convinced of.

                          "Nonviolent civil disobedience" is usually (and easily) overcome by violent men in uniform and the refusal to pay taxes ends with someone else owning everything you've got.
                          Which would (and should) lead to more of the nonviolent civil disobedience, by neighbors, friends, the community, and the nation as a whole.

                          The idea though, is that it's not impossible to convince one person that they're wrong and shouldn't disobey the law, and, as Bob puts it in the political defence of the constitution:


                          · Monarchy is the purest form of government. A single point of accountability often rightly motivates.
                          · Even an evil King knows that history will hold him personally responsible for his government’s actions.
                          · Corrupt institutions virtually never revive. Corrupt kings can repent, or at the very least, die.
                          · Individuals often repent, bureaucracies rarely even express sorrow.
                          · Men under an evil King need change only one heart; those in a democracy can never change millions.
                          · Many monarchs steal, murder, and commit adultery, yet historically they have not legalized these crimes.
                          · A criminal king harms his nation far less than democracies by which the masses will legalize crime.



                          The argument that a constitutional monarchy is the only form of government that God endorses in the bible isn't really convincing because Israel is the only nation that He was working through to achieve His purposes.
                          Actually, I think I may have originally overstated my position, and agree that God is ok with other forms of government, so long as those do not violate His principles.

                          To rephrase my position, "A constitutional monarchy is the only government which is actively endorsed (perhaps a better word could be used here) by God," seeing as it's the only form of government that He codified in the Mosaic Law for Israel...

                          Suffice it to say that, as far as I'm aware, God did not actively approve any other government or form of government besides monarchy. He tells us (through Paul) that we are to obey whatever government we are under, but doesn't specify any particular government, and even says to obey God rather than men, and since God is the King of Kings (a title He took upon Himself), I think it's ok (as a general statement) to say that God only endorsed a monarchy.

                          The above, opposed to "A representative form of government chosen by the people is the only form of government which God actively opposed."

                          But I do think that any government that upholds God's principles of government is one God can get behind, though, I'm not entirely sure there are any other than monarchies and patriarchies...

                          If you wanted to make the argument that a constitutional monarchy was the form of government that God wanted for Israel then I'd accept that but the point is that we aren't Israel and what God wanted for Israel doesn't necessarily translate to God despising all other forms of government. A point that is born out by the fact that Israel went centuries without a king,
                          If anything, to defend my position a bit, the Judges of Israel could still be considered part of the system proposed by Jethro, which if I'm not mistaken, God (and Bob in his proposed constitution) incorporated into the kingdom...

                          not to mention the entire time before there even was a nation of Israel.
                          I'm reminded of Abraham rescuing Lot from a neighboring city-state, how Abraham was effectively the head of his "nation" (if it could be called that). God seemed to like that idea of one person being the head of the household (with nations being like households), and I guess it could be argued that that's where God decided to use a monarchy for His nation.

                          If God wanted to say that a constitutional monarchy was the only acceptable form of human government then it seems He would have told Noah that when He began the dispensation of human government after the flood.

                          Having said that, it is clear that there are forms of government that are morally superior to others. Any form of government that is based on theft like socialism, fascism, communism, et al, is obviously an evil form of government and while that might take most other forms of government off the table, it doesn't take them all.
                          I'm curious as to which other types of government there are that would follow the Biblical principles of government as outlined by Bob...

                          Do you know of any? As I said above, the only ones I can think of are monarchies and patriarchies...

                          The proper role of government is to provide for the common defense (which includes the formation [of agreements]
                          I'm gonna have to disagree with you here.

                          This is something Bob points out as being a bad idea (and which God explicitly prohibited Israel from doing).

                          Bob explains why in his Biblical apologetic for the constitution:


                          • Treaties: Biblical Apologetic [Constitution Political]

                          America shall not enter into a foreign treaty. Why not?
                          God prohibited Israel from making "a covenant with the inhabitants of the land... lest it be a snare." Ex. 34

                          Israel's treaty prohibition applied explicitly only to nations to be displaced within the Promised Land. Israel's incidental treaty ban, by extension, can become a wise, general prohibition on treaties.

                          External agreements supersede internal agreements, whether within ourselves, a family, a group, or a nation.
                          By definition, treaties supersede national law, putting the entire nation under prevailing external agreements.
                          God expected Israel to abide by their treaties even though He had commanded them not to enter into such!
                          The current U.S. Constitution reflects the biblical principle of the precedence of international agreement.
                          "all Treaties... shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." ­U.S. Constitution Article VI

                          Biblical arguments against making new laws validate a treaty ban because treaties actually create new law. [C]



                          and maintenance of agreements with other nations(i.e. military alliances, trade agreements, etc)), to protect civil rights and to settle disputes between parties.
                          I think Bob states it better in the Opening of the Constitution.

                          Any form of government that achieves these while having in place provisions to prevent it doing much of anything else is a form of government that I could certainly live with and that I think God could get behind as well. As least, I see no biblical reason to think otherwise.

                          Clete

                          P.S. I have to say that it feels weird debating across the table from Bob Enyart. I'm almost certainly wrong!
                          I'm not Bob, so don't feel too weird. Haha
                          Last edited by JudgeRightly; February 19th, 2020, 12:02 PM. Reason: forgot something

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JudgeRightly View Post

                            Which would (and should) lead to more of the nonviolent civil disobedience, by neighbors, friends, the community, and the nation as a whole.

                            The idea though, is that it's not impossible to convince one person that they're wrong and shouldn't disobey the law, and, as Bob puts it in the political defense of the constitution:


                            · Monarchy is the purest form of government. A single point of accountability often rightly motivates.
                            · Even an evil King knows that history will hold him personally responsible for his government’s actions.
                            · Corrupt institutions virtually never revive. Corrupt kings can repent, or at the very least, die.
                            · Individuals often repent, bureaucracies rarely even express sorrow.
                            · Men under an evil King need change only one heart; those in a democracy can never change millions.
                            · Many monarchs steal, murder, and commit adultery, yet historically they have not legalized these crimes.
                            · A criminal king harms his nation far less than democracies by which the masses will legalize crime.
                            Now you're arguing that a monarchy is better than a democracy. That's a different argument than whether a monarchy is the only form of government God approves of.

                            Further, the democracy that you currently live in has produced the greatest nation the world has ever seen by almost any metric you want to name apart from criminal justice. The form of government this nation started with produced the most freedom, the most prosperity, the highest standard of living and the longest life span mankind has ever experienced in the history of history. There are billions of people all over the world who have never stepped foot in this country but nevertheless no longer live in slavery, poverty, famine and squalor as a direct result of the United States of America.

                            No matter where you live in this world, if you have ever used electricity, used a telephone, heard recorded music, listened to a radio, watched a television, own anything made of plastic, visited a modern medical facility, driven a motor vehicle, have air conditioning, taken a vitamin pill or pain killer (or a million other beneficial drugs of all types), if you're a woman and own more than one dress, if you own more than one pair of shoes or if you own any shoes at all that actually fit your feet, if you have a watch on your wrist or an ink pen in your pocket, if you've eaten nearly any grain at all other than rice, if you've ever eaten a banana, orange, grapefruit, almond or cauliflower (or any of another several dozen foods that you could name) etc, etc, etc you almost certainly have the United States of America to thank for it and more specifically the first 100 years of this countries history in particular (i.e. the government and society given to this nation by it's founders).

                            There is no example of a single monarchy of any sort, type or description that has produced anything remotely like the United States of America. Indeed, there isn't any example of any form of government anywhere that has ever even come close to what this nation has been in the past nor is there any that compare even to this very day.

                            Actually, I think I may have originally overstated my position, and agree that God is ok with other forms of government, so long as those do not violate His principles.
                            Precisely.

                            To rephrase my position, "A constitutional monarchy is the only government which is actively endorsed (perhaps a better word could be used here) by God," seeing as it's the only form of government that He codified in the Mosaic Law for Israel...

                            Suffice it to say that, as far as I'm aware, God did not actively approve any other government or form of government besides monarchy. He tells us (through Paul) that we are to obey whatever government we are under, but doesn't specify any particular government, and even says to obey God rather than men, and since God is the King of Kings (a title He took upon Himself), I think it's ok (as a general statement) to say that God only endorsed a monarchy.
                            He only endorsed a monarchy for Israel.

                            To extrapolate further is to say more than the text of scripture can support, in my view.

                            The above, opposed to "A representative form of government chosen by the people is the only form of government which God actively opposed."
                            I think that this is over stated as well. It wasn't the form of government that God hated, it was the rebellion that He hated. God put Moses in charge and when the representatives of the people came to complain against Moses, God opened the Earth and sucked them all alive down into Hell. But that wasn't because of their representative form of government. Do you suppose that God would have been alright with it if the people had appointed themselves a king to go before Moses and voice the same objections? Certainly not. It was their failure to follow God's appointed man that got them sucked down into Hell, not the fact that they had elected representatives to do the talking for them.

                            But I do think that any government that upholds God's principles of government is one God can get behind, though, I'm not entirely sure there are any other than monarchies and patriarchies...
                            Well, I doubt that any form of government could do a lot better than we have done, really. Sure there's a list a mile long of terrible things this country has done but no more so and, in fact, likely far less, than most any other government you can name in the whole history of the world and I likewise doubt than any government will ever do as well until Jesus Himself is ruling as King over the world.

                            If anything, to defend my position a bit, the Judges of Israel could still be considered part of the system proposed by Jethro, which if I'm not mistaken, God (and Bob in his proposed constitution) incorporated into the kingdom...
                            Well, that's sort of beside the point, right? The point is that it wasn't a monarchy and it was, at the very least, endorsed by God, if not outright ordained by Him.

                            I'm reminded of Abraham rescuing Lot from a neighboring city-state, how Abraham was effectively the head of his "nation" (if it could be called that). God seemed to like that idea of one person being the head of the household (with nations being like households), and I guess it could be argued that that's where God decided to use a monarchy for His nation.
                            Perhaps but I rather think that God had a monarchy in mind long before that. Perhaps before creation itself even. It is clear that God has always had it in mind for His Son to be THE King.

                            I'm curious as to which other types of government there are that would follow the Biblical principles of government as outlined by Bob...

                            Do you know of any? As I said above, the only ones I can think of are monarchies and patriarchies...
                            Well, nearly any type that isn't predicated on theft. It isn't the form of government that is the issue, per se, so much as it is the laws that government institutes and enforces.

                            Any form of socialism, fascism, communism, crony capitalism, etc are all predicated on the Robin Hood principle where the government steals from the producers (i.e. the rich) and gives to the consumers (i.e. the poor). They steal the life blood from the dog and feed it to the flea and despise, ridicule, castigate and deride the dog for scratching. All such governments, which the United States has largely been turned into, are fundamentally unjust because taking by force that which you did not produce is theft, regardless of the motive.

                            As I said in my previous post, we get our rights from God and government was instituted by God to protect those rights. As such, the proper roles of government are all aimed at that goal. Providing for the common defense protects the rights of citizens from foreign attack whether militarily, financially or otherwise. Criminal and civil law enforcement protects the rights of citizens from another citizen or group of citizens and the courts protect the rights of the accused and settles disputes between parties. These are the three basic roles that government is intended to fulfill and any government that does so is a good government, whether they have a king or not.

                            Now, if you notice, there is no overt mention of a legislative branch of government there, just an executive and judicial but that doesn't mean that there can't be a legislative branch necessarily. There could be one that was responsible for regulatory type laws that defined the rules by which society worked. By that I don't mean a body that could legislate things like the legalization of left or murder but a branch of government that was in charge of things like the rules of commerce where they might make it illegal for a company to arbitrarily print as many shares of stock as they wanted to so as to artificially manipulate the price of their stock (or a gazillion other types of fraud) or define the specific rules that determine how court rooms must run their cases or a million other variables. Of course such details would get defined with or without a legislature. If nothing else, the executive branch could issue such regulations and the judicial branch would handle such things via case law. The point is that the specific form of government isn't the primary issue but rather the laws that the government institutes and enforces.


                            I'm gonna have to disagree with you here.

                            This is something Bob points out as being a bad idea (and which God explicitly prohibited Israel from doing).

                            Bob explains why in his Biblical apologetic for the constitution:


                            • Treaties: Biblical Apologetic [Constitution Political]

                            America shall not enter into a foreign treaty. Why not?
                            God prohibited Israel from making "a covenant with the inhabitants of the land... lest it be a snare." Ex. 34

                            Israel's treaty prohibition applied explicitly only to nations to be displaced within the Promised Land. Israel's incidental treaty ban, by extension, can become a wise, general prohibition on treaties.

                            External agreements supersede internal agreements, whether within ourselves, a family, a group, or a nation.
                            By definition, treaties supersede national law, putting the entire nation under prevailing external agreements.
                            God expected Israel to abide by their treaties even though He had commanded them not to enter into such!
                            The current U.S. Constitution reflects the biblical principle of the precedence of international agreement.
                            "all Treaties... shall be the supreme Law of the Land..." ­U.S. Constitution Article VI

                            Biblical arguments against making new laws validate a treaty ban because treaties actually create new law. [C]
                            Well, once again, we are not Israel.

                            That may sound like a pat answer but I think it's important. God was doing something very specific and unique with Israel and put in place various laws that were specifically intended to keep Israel quite separated from the nations around her.

                            As for the point about making new law, I would say that the government does not have carte blanch to create any treaty it might desire to make. Remember that the proper role of government is to protect the rights of its citizens and any treaty the government makes must achieve that goal or it is not valid. A country that cannot make trade agreement and who does not have the supernatural protection of God Himself, (i.e. any nation other than ancient Israel) would be left at the mercy of any rogue power that either wanted to manipulate its currency or sponsor piracy (or other forms of terrorism) and charge confiscatory tariffs or any number of other things that one nation might do to another in order to gain an unfair advantage. There simply must be some provision that allows a government to respond to and if possible prevent various forms of foreign hostility other than just shear military force. That is, of course, unless you have God supernaturally intervening on your behalf, as was the case for ancient Israel.

                            I think Bob states it better in the Opening of the Constitution.
                            There is no doubt that pretty nearly anything Bob states is stated better than most anything I could state, no matter the topic.

                            I'm not Bob, so don't feel too weird. Haha
                            How refreshing and fun is it to find a topic where the two people involved have a disagreement but neither of them are stupid, conceded, condescending, self-stultifying or otherwise a waste of the other's time.

                            I'm totally loving this! Even if I am probably totally wrong!
                            Last edited by Clete; February 20th, 2020, 05:11 AM.
                            sigpic
                            "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post

                              How would Lennon have been "straightened out" exactly? What would he have been charged with?
                              Adultery in the beginning, illegal drug use 2nd....so on and so on and so 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

                                Adultery in the beginning, illegal drug use 2nd....so on and so on and so on.
                                So he'd have prob been killed before he got shot anyway then...
                                Well this is fun isn't it?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X