One-on-One: Enyartian Pseudo-Theonomy

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Greetings,

Lighthouse and I were discussing Bob Enyart's proposed legal system based on what he called the "Criminal Code" of the Mosaic Law. This was a side conversation on my thread on Theonomy.

Here, from Lighthouse, is the proposed law code that Pastor Enyart proposes:

1] Do not murder
2] Do not steal
3] Do not lie [perjury]
4] Do not commit adultery.

Lighthouse, I'll let you start.

 

[Lighthouse]

Did you want me to give the elaboration on those four laws?

 

[Lighthouse]

Justin-
Maybe you should close this thread to keep others from posting on it, until Knight [or Turbo or Poly] moves it. Then I will delete this post.

I can't delete it now?

Turbo, I need this post, and the prior one, deleted, please.

And I'm sure Justin wants his last post deleted as well...

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Yes, if this post can be deleted as well, please, that would be great.

And thanks!

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

OK, we're here!

Allright, Lighthouse. There's a few things I don't understand about Enyartian pseudo-theonomy.

1: You state that these laws would be beneficial ... OK, we're all entitled to our opinions. But many Christians state that Christianity is a minority in this nation. Our current laws require a majority vote to implement new laws--specifically, a 2/3 majority to implement a Constitutional amendment by popular vote. How will Enyart's proposed laws be enacted if Christians are a minority?

2: As our current Constitution stands, Enyartian law would require not amendment, but revocation of the entire Constitution. But the Constitution has no mechanism for revocation or dissolution--the only option remaining is revolution, but both you and Enyart depict a transition that does not require revolution. How do you propose revoking the Constitution?

3: Specifically, the law against adultery contains a very specific word: Na'aph. This word specifically means violating a marriage oath: it does not apply to sexual relations between unmarried people in any respect. Unmaried persons cannot commit na'aph.

Thanks.

 

[Lighthouse]

OK, we're here!

Allright, Lighthouse. There's a few things I don't understand about Enyartian pseudo-theonomy.

1: You state that these laws would be beneficial ... OK, we're all entitled to our opinions. But many Christians state that Christianity is a minority in this nation. Our current laws require a majority vote to implement new laws--specifically, a 2/3 majority to implement a Constitutional amendment by popular vote. How will Enyart's proposed laws be enacted if Christians are a minority?

We're not saying they would be implemented. Only that we would be better off if they were. But none of us, not even Bob, expects the USA to actually change the law to this. There really is no way to fix the problem without a complete removial of the current system, which isn't going to happen.

2: As our current Constitution stands, Enyartian law would require not amendment, but revocation of the entire Constitution. But the Constitution has no mechanism for revocation or dissolution--the only option remaining is revolution, but both you and Enyart depict a transition that does not require revolution. How do you propose revoking the Constitution?

You're right, somewhat. But the fact that the current Constitution is technically unconstitutional, because it was not brought about according the original Constitution, the Articles of the Confederation, it could be just thrown out if the government decided to. And I, nor Bob, propose a transition that would not require revolution, because we know it wouldn't work, much less be tried. And I, nor Bob, propose revolution. The only way to implement it in a society is to start the society with it.

3: Specifically, the law against adultery contains a very specific word: Na'aph. This word specifically means violating a marriage oath: it does not apply to sexual relations between unmarried people in any respect. Unmaried persons cannot commit na'aph.

Well, the law Bob proposes would involve the laws pertaining to rape and fornication. The law of adultery is just the heading of the laws on sexual matters, because it is in the decalogue, alongside the other three law headings. Maybe some further clarification is needed, but this is a work in progress, and upon further review can be made more cogent, seeing as how it is not actually law, and so it can be worked on. But Bob does propose that if it ever became law that amendments should not be allowed.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

We're not saying they would be implemented. Only that we would be better off if they were. But none of us, not even Bob, expects the USA to actually change the law to this. There really is no way to fix the problem without a complete removial of the current system, which isn't going to happen.

Hmmm ... I thought I heard someone saying that the US system was in a state of immanent collapse, and Enyartian law could be implemented at that time. However, hypotheticals are a whole different critter.

You see, Lighthouse, I thought this was a solid plan that Bob was agitating for. That clears up a lot of my confusion there.

You're right, somewhat. But the fact that the current Constitution is technically unconstitutional, because it was not brought about according the original Constitution, the Articles of the Confederation, it could be just thrown out if the government decided to.

Eh ... that's an arguable point--interesting to contemplate, but outside the scope of the current discusssion.

Well, the law Bob proposes would involve the laws pertaining to rape and fornication. The law of adultery is just the heading of the laws on sexual matters, because it is in the decalogue, alongside the other three law headings. Maybe some further clarification is needed, but this is a work in progress, and upon further review can be made more cogent, seeing as how it is not actually law, and so it can be worked on. But Bob does propose that if it ever became law that amendments should not be allowed.

Makes sense. I do still disagree, but since it is a hypothetical, it becomes much lesscrucial.

I'll be out of town until Saturday or Sunday, but if you're interested, I would like to continue this conversation at that time.

Justin

 

[Lighthouse]

Hmmm ... I thought I heard someone saying that the US system was in a state of immanent collapse, and Enyartian law could be implemented at that time. However, hypotheticals are a whole different critter.

Well, it wouldn't be Enyartian law. It's never been Bob's law.

Now, as for the collapse of the current system, it seems some of the founding fathers didn't think this form of government would work forever, and still others believed that it would only work if the people were righteous. Well, I'm sure we can agree that not everyone is righteous. There aren't even some people who are 100% righteous. So majority rule will cause a nation to break apart, eventually. Why? Because the majority will continue to make changes to everything, especially the law, and then things that were once illegal become legal, and things that were legal become illegal. Of course, there are some things where the changes should happen, but others where it shouldn't. And some of the latter already have. Such as abortion.

You see, Lighthouse, I thought this was a solid plan that Bob was agitating for. That clears up a lot of my confusion there.

It would take an entirely new government. And, if that is ever a necessity I could see what Bob proposes working. Especially since he's not advocating the forcing of Christianity on the masses. However, if a new government was needed, and this is what we went with, it wouldn't be up to a vote. For this to be the new government, the land would just have to be taken over. Because I honestly don't see the American people voting for this. And that is probably what they would want to do if the current government fell. I really don't see how this could actually be done. Because, if the current government doesn't fall then the only way this type of government would be possible is to take over. Of course, I don't know all that much about the current system, there might be a way for it to happen perfectly legally according to our current set up. Now, wouldn't that be a kick in the pants?

Eh ... that's an arguable point--interesting to contemplate, but outside the scope of the current discusssion.

If you can find proof that the current Constitution was drafted according to the rules set forth in the Articles of the Confederation, go ahead. But, as far as I know, it wasn't.

Makes sense. I do still disagree, but since it is a hypothetical, it becomes much lesscrucial.

Why do you disagree?

I'll be out of town until Saturday or Sunday, but if you're interested, I would like to continue this conversation at that time.

Justin

I'll be right here waiting. Maybe then I could post the proposed Criminal Code. It's only page, so it won't be difficult, or long.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm waiting, Justin...