Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
When you say "private" do you mean someone hiding in their basement by themselves where no one else can see them praying to whichever god they choose to pray to, or can private also mean a church congregation?
But many churches exist inside homes.
So you want blasphemy laws but just don't want them strictly enforced?
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
So that we're on the same page:
Blasphemy:
great disrespect shown to God or to something holy
: something said or done that is disrespectful to God or to something holy
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy
Would it not be "blasphemous" for Muslims to openly deny that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and was resurrected on the third day?
My question is:
How is it possible to have blasphemy laws while allowing other religions to voice their doctrine that "disrespects" the deity of Jesus Christ the Son of God/God in the flesh?
But you're ok if these things are said behind closed doors? (See my response to your earlier statement above).
It's helped greatly to define what you really desire:
a theocracy.
That being said, let's talk about the major differences between what some might consider a theonomy and what a theocracy is.
As Jefferson pointed out in his article:
The basis for building a Christian society is evangelism and missions that lead to a widespread Christian revival, so that the great mass of earth's inhabitants will place themselves under Christ's protection, and then voluntarily use his covenantal laws for self-government. Christian reconstruction begins with personal conversion to Christ and self-government under God's law; then it spreads to others through revival; and only later does it bring comprehensive changes in civil law, when the vast majority of voters voluntarily agree to live under biblical blueprints.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4462073&postcount=146
Now I don't want to downplay the importance of civil government, because it was the change of laws that got us into the moral hellhole that we're in today. Laws do have a huge influence on people, and as I've shown in this article is a way to lead people (and thus a society) back to righteous living (and even Christ).
Civil Government: The Neglected Ministry
http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/issue08/civil_government.htm
Back to theonomy v theocracy:
Jefferson wisely talks about a "bottom up" approach to converting people to Christianity, which amongst other things would later bring about righteous legislation in civil government.
What you propose is a "top down" approach where powerful religious theocrats amongst other things force their religious doctrine upon others. While their laws may come from the Bible, their penalties are not just (stoning to death homosexuals and adulterers, etc.) as they leave no room for mercy and repentance.
I hope that you see that a theonomy type mold is a wise way to go about taking our once Christian nation back and not a theocracy.
When you say "private" do you mean someone hiding in their basement by themselves where no one else can see them praying to whichever god they choose to pray to, or can private also mean a church congregation?
But many churches exist inside homes.
So you want blasphemy laws but just don't want them strictly enforced?
Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
So that we're on the same page:
Blasphemy:
great disrespect shown to God or to something holy
: something said or done that is disrespectful to God or to something holy
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy
Would it not be "blasphemous" for Muslims to openly deny that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and was resurrected on the third day?
My question is:
How is it possible to have blasphemy laws while allowing other religions to voice their doctrine that "disrespects" the deity of Jesus Christ the Son of God/God in the flesh?
But you're ok if these things are said behind closed doors? (See my response to your earlier statement above).
It's helped greatly to define what you really desire:
a theocracy.
That being said, let's talk about the major differences between what some might consider a theonomy and what a theocracy is.
As Jefferson pointed out in his article:
The basis for building a Christian society is evangelism and missions that lead to a widespread Christian revival, so that the great mass of earth's inhabitants will place themselves under Christ's protection, and then voluntarily use his covenantal laws for self-government. Christian reconstruction begins with personal conversion to Christ and self-government under God's law; then it spreads to others through revival; and only later does it bring comprehensive changes in civil law, when the vast majority of voters voluntarily agree to live under biblical blueprints.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4462073&postcount=146
Now I don't want to downplay the importance of civil government, because it was the change of laws that got us into the moral hellhole that we're in today. Laws do have a huge influence on people, and as I've shown in this article is a way to lead people (and thus a society) back to righteous living (and even Christ).
Civil Government: The Neglected Ministry
http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/issue08/civil_government.htm
Back to theonomy v theocracy:
Jefferson wisely talks about a "bottom up" approach to converting people to Christianity, which amongst other things would later bring about righteous legislation in civil government.
What you propose is a "top down" approach where powerful religious theocrats amongst other things force their religious doctrine upon others. While their laws may come from the Bible, their penalties are not just (stoning to death homosexuals and adulterers, etc.) as they leave no room for mercy and repentance.
I hope that you see that a theonomy type mold is a wise way to go about taking our once Christian nation back and not a theocracy.
Last edited:
