Dumocracy rules!
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
- Status
I envy you. I've never met Dr. North. Where did you meet him? At seminars and/or debates? I'd like to pick his brain in person sometime. Was he accessable or did he not have time for any of the unwashed masses?
I agree but you'll have a hard time convincing any nonchristian (and most Christians) of that.
Agreed. Have you read his book, "Political Polytheism?" I'm not much of a history buff but I couldn't put that 700 page book down. I'm also amazed at how often he has to delete appendixes to his books because they turn into complete books themselves. People hearing about this assume he must be unnecessarily wordy but he's not that at all. In fact, I find him to be often quite laconic. It's just that he has this incredible wealth of knowledge.
I've tried to get Enyart to glean some ideas from Dr. North but to no avail. I know Bob is very busy with projects of his own but by ignoring Dr. North's writtings he is really missing out.
I saw the debate he had with Ice and House but those 2 were not mid Acts dispensationalists. I'd like to see North debate someone like Enyart or Bob Hill on eschatology. That would be a great show!
Why do you question public stoning? Why should the family of the murder victim shell out their tax money to feed and cloth the murderer of their beloved family member in our prison system?
"I've never met Dr. North. Where did you meet him? At seminars and/or debates? I'd like to pick his brain in person sometime. Was he accessable or did he not have time for any of the unwashed masses?"
I met him at the church I (used to) attend in New Hampshire. He's there at least once a year, just to visit or for a seminar or meeting of some kind.
I own/have read many of his books. "Polytheism" is simply outstanding.
As far as I'm concerned, dispensationalism in any form is much dead, and DeMar, North, Chilton--RIP--and others buried that poor pup a long time ago. You don't even need to agree with the preterism of most within CR; their critique of dispensationalism stands alone as a death blow to pre-mil eschatology.
"Why do you question public stoning? Why should the family of the murder victim shell out their tax money to feed and cloth the murderer of their beloved family member in our prison system?"
You seem to assume that because I don't favor the public bludgeoning-by-mob execution of malefactors that I oppose the death penalty. Not true. I oppose STONING. Quite frankly, we have enough examples of stoning's potential abuse within the gospels to scare me away. The Pharisees were reaching for boulders every chance they had. It's an undisciplined, unregulated, potentially abusive system of capital punishment.
Go the New Hampshire way: injection, or the scaffold. Pick your poison, as it were.
I met him at the church I (used to) attend in New Hampshire. He's there at least once a year, just to visit or for a seminar or meeting of some kind.
I own/have read many of his books. "Polytheism" is simply outstanding.
As far as I'm concerned, dispensationalism in any form is much dead, and DeMar, North, Chilton--RIP--and others buried that poor pup a long time ago. You don't even need to agree with the preterism of most within CR; their critique of dispensationalism stands alone as a death blow to pre-mil eschatology.
"Why do you question public stoning? Why should the family of the murder victim shell out their tax money to feed and cloth the murderer of their beloved family member in our prison system?"
You seem to assume that because I don't favor the public bludgeoning-by-mob execution of malefactors that I oppose the death penalty. Not true. I oppose STONING. Quite frankly, we have enough examples of stoning's potential abuse within the gospels to scare me away. The Pharisees were reaching for boulders every chance they had. It's an undisciplined, unregulated, potentially abusive system of capital punishment.
Go the New Hampshire way: injection, or the scaffold. Pick your poison, as it were.
While I think many theonomists could make a case for blasphemy being a capital crime, I don't think many of them contemplate the implications. How exactly would this be enforced? Would you have to have the blasphemy on tape, video, or would you rely on an accuser's word? Would we rely on verbal blasphemy or written heresy?
Making "blasphemy" a capital offense opens the proverbial can of worms and smacks of thought crime. And on that note, see Mr. Lewis's thoughts below...
Making "blasphemy" a capital offense opens the proverbial can of worms and smacks of thought crime. And on that note, see Mr. Lewis's thoughts below...
Gerald
Resident Fiend
To say nothing of defining what constitutes a blasphemous statement.
For example, is the statement "The is insufficient evidence supporting the existence of the Christian God" a blasphemous one?
Ask twelve people to define blasphemy and you'll get twelve different answers...
Rushdoony wrote this in his third volume of Institutes of Biblical Law: "To deny the foundation of the law can be worse than breaking it at some point. Blasphemy can involve this same offense. The essence of such apostasy is a revolution against the law order....Which is worse, to break specific laws, or to deny the whole of the law?"
North has more to say on the topic but I don't have time now...
First, a couple of things. I no longer attend my CR congregation and do not consider myself a Christian Reconstructionist any longer. As far as my theology goes, I consider myself "reformed," that is, the post-mil Calvinistic tradition, and that's about where my theological similarities with CR end. I do not, in other words, advocate public stoning (not that I ever did).
As far as my former church goes, the definition of blasphemy was simply never discussed. (Maybe not surprisingly; I mean, how often do you hear sermons defining blasphemy?) Based on what Rushdoony says, however, "blasphemy," in his definition, seems to involve a willful undercutting of the law word of scripture. Sutton, in That You May Prosper, gave an example from the 17th century--some rabble rouser publishing a statement spitting on Christ, the cross, referring to Mary as a whore, etc. That, in Sutton's mind, defines "blasphemy": a profane, vile, and uncouth attack against religious symbols and characters.
Whether or not this is a capital offense is another matter, in my opinion...
- Status