PDA

View Full Version : Jim DeMint (R-SC) Explains the Driving Force Behind the Tea Party: Theocracy




ctiger2
04-21-2010, 11:55 AM
http://firedoglake.com/2010/04/21/jim-demint-r-sc-explains-the-driving-force-behind-the-tea-party-theocracy/


By: Blue Texan Wednesday April 21, 2010 10:30 am

Here’s Jim DeMint, telling CBN what he thinks all this Teabaggery really means.

Senator Jim DeMint: I think as this thing (the Tea Party movement) continues to roll you’re going to see a parallel spiritual revival that goes along with it.

David Brody: Just so I understand, when you say spiritual revival how are you terming that? What do you mean specifically as in “spiritual revival?

Senator Jim DeMint: Well, I think people are seeing this massive government growing and they’re realizing that it’s the government that’s hurting us and I think they’re turning back to God in effect is our salvation and government is not our salvation and in fact more and more people see government as the problem and so I think some have been drawn in over the years to a dependency relationship with government and as the Bible says you can’t have two masters and I think as people pull back from that they look more to God. It’s no coincidence that socialist Europe is post-Christian because the bigger the government gets the smaller God gets and vice-versa. The bigger God gets the smaller people want their government because they’re yearning for freedom.

Uh-huh. You know where God is really, really, really big Senator? The freedom-loving states of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. And that’s no coincidence.

One does wonder what the “libertarian” Teabaggers will think of this remark.

PS.

I know I’m a Democrat and therefore, a godless heathen, but I’m pretty sure I remember the nuns teaching me about some guy in the bible who said stuff like “render unto Caesar” and “my kingdom is not of this world”? Also.

erowe1
04-21-2010, 11:56 AM
Theocracy and liberty are not incompatible. And in this case "theocracy" was not Demint's word, it was the blogger's. What Demint described looks pretty good to me.

Matt Collins
04-21-2010, 12:02 PM
Theocracy and liberty are not incompatible. I tend to disagree with that.

Linus
04-21-2010, 12:04 PM
The Dalai Llama was a theocrat. Free casinos in Tibet now.

specsaregood
04-21-2010, 12:12 PM
It is no surprise since DeMint was/is a member of "The Family" cult.


Researcher Jeff Sharlet discussed the frightening connection between power and fundamentalism in a secretive cult called "The Family", that teaches Washington lawmakers that people chosen for leadership are above morality. "The word that they like to use is 'invisible,'" he said of the organization which includes both Republican and Democratic politicians and judges. Sharlet stressed, "This is not a left-right issue, this is a secret group issue."

He detailed the roots of the organization, beginning in 1935 when the founder of the group had a visitation by God and was told that he must be "the missionary to and for the powerful." According to Sharlet, one of the guiding principles behind "The Family," both then and now, was that "democracy is finished." As such, the goal of the organization is to usher in an "age of minority control," which would, of course, see the group members as that controlling minority. Chillingly, this agenda culminates in the return of Jesus only after "a thousand years of government according to His order through them

Sharlet also revealed some of the political machinations of "The Family," beginning with their attempts to destroy labor unions in the 1940's. He explained how the motivation behind this action was because the group believed that "any attempt by working people to improve their situation is an affront to God." However, it is in the international sphere where "The Family" yields much of it's power, Sharlet said. He noted that they are responsible for a lot of legislation which sends money to countries rich in natural resources but also led by brutal dictators whom "The Family" also deem as "chosen by God."

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2009/08/22

IIRC, Mark Sanford was/is a member also.

Sentient Void
04-21-2010, 12:13 PM
Although I wholeheartedly disagree that the tea party movement in general is about God - in MA I did get into a debate about natural rights... sadly, he was debating semantics more than anything.

We were talking about some other stuff, gay rights, marriage, etc, then it turned into him asking "where do you get your rights from?"

I said, "From nature, or our nature as human beings."

He said, "No. You get them from God."

I said, "Whether you call it 'God' or 'nature' is irrelevant. It's the same thing whether or not you believe in God."

He got almost angry and said, "No - you get your rights from GOD, that's it!"

I saw where it was going and decided to give up and walk away... so although msot of the people at the tea party were not talking about God at all (whether they believe in God or not is irrelevant), there was obviously at least one dude who probably agrees with Mr. DeMint.

MelissaWV
04-21-2010, 12:17 PM
Theocracy and liberty are not incompatible. And in this case "theocracy" was not Demint's word, it was the blogger's. What Demint described looks pretty good to me.

Theocracy and absolute liberty are incompatible simply because there will always be an imposition and force implied in a Theocracy (or, for that matter, any other form of governance). It's possible to be way more free than we currently are, but have a Theocracy; I agree with that part, but we wouldn't ever be totally free under that sort of rule.

Religion and liberty are entirely compatible, though, so long as you're allowed to decide who, what, where, when, and why you worship.

Pete_00
04-21-2010, 12:18 PM
The liberals -robots who beleive they are independent thinkers- have been programmed to see the theocratic boogeyman everywhere they turn.

"The freedom-loving states of Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. And that’s no coincidence."

And the american God´s of War are flying above 3 of those, that´s no coincidence. From pro-israel evangelical-christian crusade to atheist/secular crusade in 1 presidential election :rolleyes:

Liberals are such stupid dumb robots...

erowe1
04-21-2010, 12:22 PM
Theocracy and absolute liberty are incompatible simply because there will always be an imposition and force implied in a Theocracy (or, for that matter, any other form of governance).

I don't accept that premise. Not all governance requires an imposition of force. In fact a form of governance based on a law of God may well be an ideal libertarian one, if it happens to be the case that God's law includes the non-aggression principle. And since not all are agreed on what God's law is, we can't simply assume it to be one particular thing whenever we use the word "theocracy."

AuH20
04-21-2010, 12:28 PM
What Demint is implying is that nature trumphs the artificial creation known as government every time! With a healthy respect for the natural world and it's various intangibles, citizens can easier avoid the trappings of envy, gluttony, tyranny and other forms of barbarism. A centralized state based on autonomy and submission is an aberration of our natural world & an outright surrender of our birth right as free human beings. I'm not an advocate for organized religion, but I feel that a modicum of internal 'spiritualism' goes a long way helping one understand the mysteries of the world, as well as discovering sound strategies that aid us in coping with the day-to-day challenges of the human condition.

Tend yer biscuits.
04-21-2010, 12:30 PM
I know I’m a Democrat and therefore, a godless heathen, but I’m pretty sure I remember the nuns teaching me about some guy in the bible who said stuff like “render unto Caesar” and “my kingdom is not of this world”? Also.

aaand "judge not" completes the lefty selective scripture quote triad. If anyone ever pulls this crap tell them rendering isn't surrendering. Secular Catholics just use these passages without context or nuance to muzzle the right.

SURRENDER NOT UNTO CAESAR!

Brian4Liberty
04-21-2010, 12:31 PM
Divide and conquer...

MelissaWV
04-21-2010, 12:34 PM
I don't accept that premise. Not all governance requires an imposition of force. In fact a form of governance based on a law of God may well be an ideal libertarian one, if it happens to be the case that God's law includes the non-aggression principle. And since not all are agreed on what God's law is, we can't simply assume it to be one particular thing whenever we use the word "theocracy."

What happens when I don't follow the law in this Theocracy?

Fox McCloud
04-21-2010, 12:36 PM
I think a lot of people confuse the the idea of what a theocracy is.

these days, theocracy is defined as a religious class (pastors/priests/religious individuals on the whole) running the government....IMHO this should be called a "religioucracy" and not "theocracy".

There has only been one true theocracy in the history of the world--Israel; who existed in a stateless society where-in God directly commanded them and established the rules.

we won't see that again until the thousand year reign, and that will be God's doing, not man's, so IMHO it's pointless to attempt to establish a theocracy.

Tend yer biscuits.
04-21-2010, 12:37 PM
I said, "Whether you call it 'God' or 'nature' is irrelevant. It's the same thing whether or not you believe in God."

He got almost angry and said, "No - you get your rights from GOD, that's it!"



Try using the terms 'nature' and 'nature's Author'. It might make the connection clearer to him. Move him towards "from God through nature".

RforRevolution
04-21-2010, 12:57 PM
I saw no reference of him advocating a theocracy.

erowe1
04-21-2010, 01:04 PM
What happens when I don't follow the law in this Theocracy?

I don't know. Maybe you go to Hell or something?

MelissaWV
04-21-2010, 01:07 PM
I don't know. Maybe you go to Hell or something?

So, basically, this governance will be based entirely on fear. You are free, except if you deviate in your thinking, you will burn in eternal damnation.

:(

AuH20
04-21-2010, 01:07 PM
I saw no reference of him advocating a theocracy.

You win a prize!

erowe1
04-21-2010, 01:14 PM
So, basically, this governance will be based entirely on fear. You are free, except if you deviate in your thinking, you will burn in eternal damnation.

:(

I think that when talking about the ethics of liberty, it's best to keep it on the human plane. Saying that we don't have certain rights to impose our wills on other people does not mean that God doesn't have those rights. In fact, there's something very libertarian about recognizing that those who do wrong will be judged by God, and that their punishment is not our responsibility.

Furthermore, I wouldn't include any of that in what I mean by the word "governance" which I would also limit to what goes on in the human plane. We might conceive of a divine law that includes prohibitions of stealing, murdering, and kidnapping. A society under such a law could not have a state, which is by definition a special subgroup of people that arrogates to itself to right to steal, murder, and kidnap the rest of the population with impunity. But it could still have governance based on sovereign individuals entering voluntary mutual agreements with one another.

dean.engelhardt
04-21-2010, 01:35 PM
Fuck you Jim Demint. He brought pro-war to the tea party.

silentshout
04-21-2010, 02:13 PM
I tend to disagree with that.

I agree. Theocracy scares me as much as a communist society would.

silentshout
04-21-2010, 02:16 PM
So, basically, this governance will be based entirely on fear. You are free, except if you deviate in your thinking, you will burn in eternal damnation.

:(

Except it wouldn't work on people who aren't afraid...

ChaosControl
04-21-2010, 02:21 PM
Well he is partially right, as people have turned more to government, they've turned away from religion. More religion will mean more charity and concern for one another and less dependency on government. Not religious myself, but I see that in effect enough nonetheless.

I don't see where he said theocracy though, a resurgence of religious faith is not theocracy.

tmosley
04-21-2010, 02:49 PM
Anything other than self rule is evil. If God wants to rule us, let His Divine Ass come down from heaven and A. prove he exists, B. tell us what to do, in clear terms, and C. strike down everyone who delivers a spiritual message different from His.

Until that happens, all the theocrats can go molest little boys. If they try to forcefully impose their backward ass morality on me, I'll give them a 1 gun salute between their eyes.

Galileo Galilei
04-21-2010, 02:53 PM
Theocracy and liberty are not incompatible.

Galileo begs to differ.

Imperial
04-21-2010, 03:34 PM
I don't accept that premise. Not all governance requires an imposition of force. In fact a form of governance based on a law of God may well be an ideal libertarian one, if it happens to be the case that God's law includes the non-aggression principle. And since not all are agreed on what God's law is, we can't simply assume it to be one particular thing whenever we use the word "theocracy."

All governments require force, whether it is minarchist, theocratic, federalist, republican, monarchist or whatever. I happen to think anarchy, at the very least in the present time, is completely impractical, but that doesn't change the fact it is the only non-coercive alternative (although even then Nozick does a good job of proving it could be de facto coercive).

I think maybe an anarcho-theocracy would work for lacking force and retaining spirituality from the law. Essentially a voluntaryist grouping guided by similar religious principles.

BTW, theocracy and liberalism are not necessarily anti-thetical. Even in Iran you have reformist factions of mullahs (as the justification for an all-powerful Grand Ayatollah like Khameini is a corruption of Islam from what I have seen, and as many reformists have argued)

Galileo Galilei
04-21-2010, 03:44 PM
All governments require force, whether it is minarchist, theocratic, federalist, republican, monarchist or whatever.

Yeah, but theocracies have the most force, the government is not responsive to the people at all. You can't amend the Bible or the Koran if 3/4th of the state legislatures vote for it.

idirtify
04-21-2010, 03:48 PM
I don't accept that premise. snip

"Not all governance requires an imposition of force."

Yeah right. And not all crime requires violence.


"In fact a form of governance based on a law of God may well be an ideal libertarian one, if it happens to be the case that God's law includes the non-aggression principle."

Yeah right. And a variety of wine based on strychnine may well be healthy, if it happens to be the case that strychnine includes a health benefit.


"And since not all are agreed on what God's law is, we can't simply assume it to be one particular thing whenever we use the word 'theocracy'."

Yeah right. And since most religious terms have imprecise definitions, you think you can get away with reversing them. HA! I mean I’ve heard of “taking advantage of imprecise usage” before, but your spin takes the cake! You rely on huge contortions of definition AND history.

idirtify
04-21-2010, 03:53 PM
I saw no reference of him advocating a theocracy.

Considering the context, it’s strongly implied.

Imperial
04-21-2010, 03:58 PM
Yeah, but theocracies have the most force, the government is not responsive to the people at all. You can't amend the Bible or the Koran if 3/4th of the state legislatures vote for it.

Not really. Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Maoist China, all weren't really theocratic and all were some of the worst human rights offenders in history. They didn't really have a document at all.

You do realize documents like the Bible and Koran don't cover most aspects of law, right? Muslims have an ulama if they practice sharia law, but these ulama mostly make decisions by consensus and focus on legal issues rather than moral issues 24/7.

Also, the Bible does NOT have to be interpreted completely literally. Like erowe said, alot of it depends on how God's law is seen.

Note, I am not advocating at all that we have a theocratic government; however, at the same time theocracy does not instantly mean the fall of civilization.

idirtify
04-21-2010, 03:58 PM
What Demint is implying is that nature trumphs the artificial creation known as government every time! With a healthy respect for the natural world and it's various intangibles, citizens can easier avoid the trappings of envy, gluttony, tyranny and other forms of barbarism. A centralized state based on autonomy and submission is an aberration of our natural world & an outright surrender of our birth right as free human beings. I'm not an advocate for organized religion, but I feel that a modicum of internal 'spiritualism' goes a long way helping one understand the mysteries of the world, as well as discovering sound strategies that aid us in coping with the day-to-day challenges of the human condition.

Apparently, in order to subtly advocate theocracy, you are strategically substituting “God” with “nature and “spirit”.

Southron
04-21-2010, 04:03 PM
Where was theocracy even implied?

Christianity is as weak as it has ever been in this country.

idirtify
04-21-2010, 04:06 PM
Not really. Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Maoist China, all weren't really theocratic and all were some of the worst human rights offenders in history. They didn't really have a document at all.


Ahh, so you imply that since not all tyrants were theocrats, then theocracy is not essentially tyrannical? I’m afraid that’s a false conclusion based on a red herring.

Not all tyrants ate poisonous mushrooms either, but that says nothing good about the nutritional value of eating poisonous mushrooms.

Fozz
04-21-2010, 04:10 PM
Ron Paul shares similar sentiments

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html


The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war.

erowe1
04-21-2010, 04:10 PM
"Not all governance requires an imposition of force."

Yeah right. And not all crime requires violence.


Every church I've ever been a member of had governance. Not one of them imposed it by force.

idirtify
04-21-2010, 04:18 PM
Every church I've ever been a member of had governance. Not one of them imposed it by force.

Ahh, so now you are intentionally confusing the difference between voluntarily church membership and involuntary government coercion. No one is forced to go to a church and comply with their rules, but we have no choice but to obey government laws. Far from the subject of church attendance, we are discussing a government theocracy.

Imperial
04-21-2010, 04:19 PM
Ahh, so you imply that since not all tyrants were theocrats, then theocracy is not essentially tyrannical? I’m afraid that’s a false conclusion based on a red herring.

Not all tyrants ate poisonous mushrooms either, but that says nothing good about the nutritional value of eating poisonous mushrooms.

I provided it as three examples contrasting when you said "Governments have the MOST force." Then we should be able to see an empirical examples of the most amount of force utilized. However, the state that utilized the most force, Cambodia, was not a spritual regime. Stalin's regime and Mao's regime would be similar.

Sure, you have the problem that you can't amend a religious document. But it does provide limits on force a government may pursue. This is something lacking in the above regimes, which are empirically the MOST forceful we have yet seen in human experience.

And notice you said nothing of the other point, which illustrated why theocracies do not necessarily utilize the most force.

erowe1
04-21-2010, 04:22 PM
Ahh, so now you are intentionally confusing the difference between voluntarily church membership and involuntary government coercion.

No. I'm intentionally using the word "governance" as generically as possible so as not to exclude forms of governance based on voluntary participation, as I have been doing throughout this thread. Governance, as I stated, does not necessarily involve coercion.

TER
04-21-2010, 04:50 PM
Anything other than self rule is evil. If God wants to rule us, let His Divine Ass come down from heaven and A. prove he exists, B. tell us what to do, in clear terms, and C. strike down everyone who delivers a spiritual message different from His.

Until that happens, all the theocrats can go molest little boys. If they try to forcefully impose their backward ass morality on me, I'll give them a 1 gun salute between their eyes.

Lord have mercy on you.

Tend yer biscuits.
04-21-2010, 05:06 PM
I'm beginning to appreciate the term 'liberaltarian'.

nate895
04-21-2010, 05:10 PM
I'm beginning to appreciate the term 'liberaltarian'.

So am I, my friend, so am I.

ChaosControl
04-21-2010, 05:33 PM
I'm beginning to appreciate the term 'liberaltarian'.

:confused:

nate895
04-21-2010, 05:38 PM
:confused:

It's a derogatory term for libertarians opposed to fusion with the conservative movement, particularly the most radical anti-fusionists, used by conservatives and fusionist libertarians (those who advocated the fusion) to bash them as being liberals who like low taxes, just as liberals attack libertarians as being "conservatives who smoke pot."

AuH20
04-21-2010, 05:40 PM
Apparently, in order to subtly advocate theocracy, you are strategically substituting “God” with “nature and “spirit”.

I'm a deist. It's fundamentally impossible for me to advocate theocracy because I don't know what this God being wants.;) I can't enforce something I haven't been communicated. More importantly however, a healthy dose of cautiousness aligned with a universal perspective prevents from the state from steamrolling society into extremely poor decisions.

Imperial
04-21-2010, 06:05 PM
It [liberaltarian] is a derogatory term for libertarians opposed to fusion with the conservative movement, particularly the most radical anti-fusionists, used by conservatives and fusionist libertarians (those who advocated the fusion) to bash them as being liberals who like low taxes, just as liberals attack libertarians as being "conservatives who smoke pot."

That's funny, because I have a friend who calls himself a liberaltarian and is proud of it. Of course, he is an anti-audit the fed and pro-govt healthcare libertarian.

nate895
04-21-2010, 06:09 PM
That's funny, because I have a friend who calls himself a liberaltarian and is proud of it. Of course, he is an anti-audit the fed and pro-govt healthcare libertarian.

The term has become more broad in application over the years, as terms usually do. Now a "liberaltarian" can mean anything from the Ralph Naders of the world (your friend) to what I described, or even some fusionists who are in support of gay marriage.

osan
04-21-2010, 08:36 PM
Theocracy and liberty are not incompatible.

Not per se, but in practice they tend to be because a central pillar of the theocracies with which I am familiar is violence employed as the means of forcing people to do your bidding. And that bidding most often becomes capricious and arbitrary.

Hallowcaust
04-21-2010, 09:51 PM
Not really. Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Maoist China, all weren't really theocratic and all were some of the worst human rights offenders in history. They didn't really have a document at all.


The Communist Revolutions in the Soviet Union and China were very theocratic in a secular sense. The Soviets had there sacred books, holy scripture and meeting places, exalted leaders, symbols, rules, and in general all the trappings of religion. It's no wonder given all the centuries of Eastern Orthodoxy driven into the Russian psyche. The Chinese followed naturally in this course, but even more in the traditional religious mode due to the high degree of superstition and irrationality of the vast peasantry. Mao literally became the Red Sun in the sky at dawn and dusk and was a true demi-god to these people.

Other Communist countries, such as in Latin America developed more along the lines of Christian Communism. In the case of the Israelis: Jewish Communism.

The big, violent, agressive, and therefore most successful, organized religions of the world in all their forms, secular or non-secular, are antithetical to all strivings for diginity and human liberty throughout history. In church you get the superficial appearance of dignity and the highest of human aspirations but always wrapped in historical chains of the lowest levels of human conduct and inhumanity of man to man.

TER
04-21-2010, 09:58 PM
In church you get the superficial appearance of dignity and the highest of human aspirations but always wrapped in historical chains of the lowest levels of human conduct and inhumanity of man to man.

You make a collectivist statement regarding 'the church'. Tell us then where such conduct is lacking?

idirtify
04-21-2010, 10:12 PM
I provided it as three examples contrasting when you said "Governments have the MOST force." Then we should be able to see an empirical examples of the most amount of force utilized. However, the state that utilized the most force, Cambodia, was not a spritual regime. Stalin's regime and Mao's regime would be similar.

Sure, you have the problem that you can't amend a religious document. But it does provide limits on force a government may pursue. This is something lacking in the above regimes, which are empirically the MOST forceful we have yet seen in human experience.

And notice you said nothing of the other point, which illustrated why theocracies do not necessarily utilize the most force.

Thanks for clarifying and pointing out that historically theocracies may not have been the MOST tyrannical form of government. Is this your basis for your advocacy of theocracy??

idirtify
04-21-2010, 10:13 PM
No. I'm intentionally using the word "governance" as generically as possible so as not to exclude forms of governance based on voluntary participation, as I have been doing throughout this thread. Governance, as I stated, does not necessarily involve coercion.

Everything about this topic, esp in context of this forum, naturally excludes forms of government based on voluntary participation. You are simply interjecting it without any real relevance, but in the form of doubletalk to candy-coat the concept of theocracy. (If you think your use of the verb “governance” miraculously makes “government” non-violent and consensual – it doesn’t.) To try to intermix voluntary rules of non-government organizations with laws of the State – in this forum and thread – is at best off-topic and at worst intentionally deceptive.

erowe1
04-21-2010, 10:16 PM
Everything about this topic, esp in context of this forum, naturally excludes forms of government based on voluntary participation. You are simply interjecting it without any real relevance, but in the form of doubletalk to candy-coat the concept of theocracy. (If you think your use of the verb “governance” miraculously makes “government” non-violent and consensual – it doesn’t.) To try to intermix voluntary rules of non-government organizations with laws of the State – in this forum and thread – is at best off-topic and at worst intentionally deceptive.

Government is not inherently coercive. Every church I have ever belonged to had a government that did not involve coercion.

This obviously does not apply to a state, which is a particular kind of government that is coercive by definition.

There is nothing incompatible between the concepts of theocracy and liberty. Both terms are amenable to the idea of noncoercive government.

idirtify
04-21-2010, 10:38 PM
I'm a deist. It's fundamentally impossible for me to advocate theocracy because I don't know what this God being wants.;) I can't enforce something I haven't been communicated. More importantly however, a healthy dose of cautiousness aligned with a universal perspective prevents from the state from steamrolling society into extremely poor decisions.

Apparently being a deist doesn’t keep you from advocating theocracy, but only from doing it overtly. You say you don't know what God wants, but you apparently believe that he/she wants us to have a “healthy respect for the natural world and it's various intangibles” where “citizens can easier avoid the trappings of envy, gluttony, tyranny and other forms of barbarism”. You also think that God wants us to have “a modicum of internal 'spiritualism'” and to “understand the mysteries of the world” and to discover “sound strategies that aid us in coping with the day-to-day challenges of the human condition”, right? IOW you think God want us to be moral, right? If not, why did you just profile your version of it and preface it with “I'm not an advocate for organized religion, but I feel that…”?

And therein is the fallacy of theocracy. The theocrat justifies using government force because it is a means to the lofty end of a better morality (or at least his notion of it / what he thinks God wants).

idirtify
04-21-2010, 10:46 PM
Government is not inherently coercive. Every church I have ever belonged to had a government that did not involve coercion.

This obviously does not apply to a state, which is a particular kind of government that is coercive by definition.

There is nothing incompatible between the concepts of theocracy and liberty. Both terms are amenable to the idea of noncoercive government.

Focus on your middle sentence (the only on-topic comment) and drop your analogy of church “governance” (completely dissimilar to what we are discussing). Church bylaws are a far cry from a “theocracy” in context of this forum/thread. You are simply superimposing definitions and concepts that do not apply here.

nate895
04-21-2010, 10:57 PM
Focus on your middle sentence (the only on-topic comment) and drop your analogy of church “governance” (completely dissimilar to what we are discussing). Church bylaws are a far cry from a “theocracy” in context of this forum/thread. You are simply superimposing definitions and concepts that do not apply here.

Theocracy generally means rule by God through the religious authorities. In a version of Christian theocracy, that would be the Church, theoretically. If that Church is a Protestant Church, it would be voluntary. What erowe is suggesting, I believe, is a substitution of the coercive state with the voluntary church that only uses coercion on voluntary members. I don't agree with that version of Christian theocracy, but that is what he seems to be suggesting.

Hallowcaust
04-21-2010, 10:57 PM
You make a collectivist statement regarding 'the church'. Tell us then where such conduct is lacking?My intent is not collectivist as I vaguely referenced a history of violent collectivism amongst certain large successful church groupings. This history may not have much to do with the present day outlook and teachings of these same religions/denominations, mainstream or otherwise. However, I mentioned it in this context so as not to ignore the teachings of history and what some politicians, such as Mr. DeMint, would have us walk steadily or goose-step towards again. So, I offer a collective apology to anyone who thinks they're getting their toes stepped on here. Haha.


Government is not inherently coercive. Every church I have ever belonged to had a government that did not involve coercion.

This obviously does not apply to a state, which is a particular kind of government that is coercive by definition.

There is nothing incompatible between the concepts of theocracy and liberty. Both terms are amenable to the idea of non-coercive government. I agree in general, although I think that there is a lot of coercion going on in many homes that are, in fact, little theocracies. But, I think the context here is 'Theocracy' with a big 'T', as in control of government institutions by organized religion. Collectively speaking, I think you can agree that:
1) The State derives it's power solely by the use of force from those who voluntarily or involuntarily grant it this coercive power.
2) The Church seeks to convince it's followers to understand and obey it's teachings, edicts, commandments, etc.
3) The union of Church and State allows the Church to use the coercive monopoly power of the State to cojole and threaten it's members and non-members to walk the line, or political gang-plank, ultimately and unavoidably until a state of dire threat of death and taxes is reached.

Tend yer biscuits.
04-21-2010, 11:01 PM
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

idirtify
04-21-2010, 11:02 PM
Lord have mercy on you.

I think the molesters need far more mercy than the one who calls them on their hypocrisy. Maybe your prayers could be better directed.

AuH20
04-21-2010, 11:05 PM
Apparently being a deist doesn’t keep you from advocating theocracy, but only from doing it overtly. You say you don't know what God wants, but you apparently believe that he/she wants us to have a “healthy respect for the natural world and it's various intangibles” where “citizens can easier avoid the trappings of envy, gluttony, tyranny and other forms of barbarism”. You also think that God wants us to have “a modicum of internal 'spiritualism'” and to “understand the mysteries of the world” and to discover “sound strategies that aid us in coping with the day-to-day challenges of the human condition”, right? IOW you think God want us to be moral, right? If not, why did you just profile your version of it and preface it with “I'm not an advocate for organized religion, but I feel that…”?

And therein is the fallacy of theocracy. The theocrat justifies using government force because it is a means to the lofty end of a better morality (or at least his notion of it / what he thinks God wants).

You're hearing but not listening. You're under the assumption that I'm trying to camouflage the precepts of organized religion with benign language. That is not the case. I'm encouraging individuals to think outside their own petty, myopic world view and cease from rushing to dark side of their nature. It's easy to take the role of the predictable, instinctive creature. To paraphrase Albert Einstein, we are insignificant ants in the grand scheme of the universe. Here are two striking quotes made by that man that reinforce what I'm trying to say:

What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of "humility." This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.


We know nothing about [God, the world] at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now. but the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never.


Live by the maxim of "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." Respect life at all junctures since we aren't sure of it's parameters nor limitations. It's a very simply non-intrusive approach to dealing with others on this planet.

Now regarding your question, NO I don't think "god" wants us to be moral. Just like I believe God doesn't want everyone to be rich. But this higher level of awareness I advocate is an arduous journey of self-advancement. No one is going to give it to you. And if the rest of the populace wants to live like primates, let them. It's not my problem.

Tend yer biscuits.
04-21-2010, 11:05 PM
Anytime I hear the word 'hypocrisy', I know I'm speaking to a juvenile. Just call them sinners.

nate895
04-21-2010, 11:09 PM
Anytime I hear the word 'hypocrisy', I know I'm speaking to a juvenile. Just call them sinners.

And we're all sinners. Look, if you are a Christian, then you are a hypocrite in a sense. Although, you always admit to hypocrisy by confessing of sins, so Christians are under no illusion that the standard which we espouse is impossible. In fact, it's the whole religion if you actually took the time and energy to go on a Christian website such as carm.org, reformed.org, monergism.com, and myriads of other websites that have easy to access information on all the basics.

idirtify
04-21-2010, 11:14 PM
You're hearing but not listening. You're under the assumption that I'm trying to camouflage the precepts of organized religion with benign language. snip

No. I’m under the assumption that you are trying to camouflage the notorious violence of theocracy with benign language. But with your current advocacy of the Golden Rule (almost identical to the NAP), you thereby cancel out all your other subtle defenses of theocracy.

nate895
04-21-2010, 11:21 PM
No. I’m under the assumption that you are trying to camouflage the notorious violence of theocracy with benign language. But with your current advocacy of the Golden Rule (almost identical to the NAP), you thereby cancel out all your other subtle defenses of theocracy.

You refuse to let us define our own terms. This is the problem with all debate in this country, especially right now. You're setting up a strawman, and then commit the slippery slope fallacy along the way to burning it down. In order to actually debate something, you have to let the people who are advocating for a position define their terms. We (not necessarily everyone in this thread, and certainly not the person you are replying) are not advocating for totalitarian dictatorship a la Tehran, we are advocating for the Bible to be the supreme law of the land, and we believe that honest exegesis of that text does not lead to the horrible dictatorship you imagine.

No one should engage this person until he is honest and let's the advocates for a position define their own terms.

Fox McCloud
04-21-2010, 11:50 PM
It's a derogatory term for libertarians opposed to fusion with the conservative movement, particularly the most radical anti-fusionists, used by conservatives and fusionist libertarians (those who advocated the fusion) to bash them as being liberals who like low taxes, just as liberals attack libertarians as being "conservatives who smoke pot."

what they fail to realize is that most likely society will become more socially conservative once we have a "libertarian society". I recommend checking out some of Hans-Hermann Hoppe's work: http://mises.org/daily/1766 and http://mises.org/daily/2425

Jeffery Tucker also discusses this a tiny bit in this video:

YouTube - The Cultural Upheaval of Loose Money (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KIDTGKX298&playnext_from=TL&videos=YW0gK2sq-AE&fmt=35)

in a libertarian society, you'd see a much stronger family unit and a plethora of controls/behavioral influences (by the state) wiped out; I tend to agree that with few exceptions, you'd see cultural liberalism die off--anything, of course, would be permissible (so long as coercion isn't involved), but this doesn't necessarily mean that you'll suddenly have a libertine society.

Hallowcaust
04-21-2010, 11:53 PM
...we are advocating for the Bible to be the supreme law of the land,...Which Bi-bull? The ghoulish Old Testament or the attempted sanitized and reworked New Testament? As a Libertarian I would be proud to follow your advice and rightly condemn us all to follow in perpetuity, in the words of Ethan Allen, "this filthy book".

idirtify
04-22-2010, 12:16 AM
Theocracy generally means rule by God through the religious authorities. In a version of Christian theocracy, that would be the Church, theoretically. If that Church is a Protestant Church, it would be voluntary. What erowe is suggesting, I believe, is a substitution of the coercive state with the voluntary church that only uses coercion on voluntary members. I don't agree with that version of Christian theocracy, but that is what he seems to be suggesting.

Please…Are you arguing it or not? If not, why are you defending it? You aren’t being clear.

nate895
04-22-2010, 12:20 AM
Which Bi-bull? The ghoulish Old Testament or the attempted sanitized and reworked New Testament? As a Libertarian I would be proud to follow your advice and rightly condemn us all to follow in perpetuity, in the words of Ethan Allen, "this filthy book".

I see nothing here besides poisoning the well based on your own personal feelings on the matter. The New Testament and the Old Testament teach the same God, the same Law, and, most importantly, the same Gospel. On what objective grounds can you say that either the New Testament teaches something different from the Old Testament, and on what grounds do you say that the Old Testament is "ghoulish?"

In other words, by what standard? Tell me what non-arbitrary, non-contradictory principal it is that leads you to that conclusion.

idirtify
04-22-2010, 12:22 AM
You refuse to let us define our own terms. snip

“You refuse to let us define our own terms. This is the problem with all debate in this country, especially right now. You're setting up a strawman, and then commit the slippery slope fallacy along the way to burning it down. In order to actually debate something, you have to let the people who are advocating for a position define their terms.”

The terms are not actually yours to define; they are the topic’s terms and are defined in its context. If you MUST RE-define them, it is only to suit your arguments; because the main definitions REFUTE your arguments. IOW I’m simply explaining how your redefinitions do not apply to the topic any further than making your arguments sound more acceptable. How is that a strawman argument OR a slippery slope? If anything, backwards REdefinitions distort the topic.

“We (not necessarily everyone in this thread, and certainly not the person you are replying) are not advocating for totalitarian dictatorship a la Tehran, we are advocating for the Bible to be the supreme law of the land, and we believe that honest exegesis of that text does not lead to the horrible dictatorship you imagine."

Again, you are not being clear. Exactly what are you advocating? Please use better grammar.

nate895
04-22-2010, 12:23 AM
Please…Are you arguing it or not? If not, why are you defending it? You aren’t being clear.

What do you mean I'm not being clear. I am saying that while he and I have separate definitions of a true theocracy, I was defending him against you by saying that his system of government is entirely voluntary, and it basically boils down to a religious voluntarism. Why can't I do that?

idirtify
04-22-2010, 12:31 AM
I see nothing here besides poisoning the well based on your own personal feelings on the matter. The New Testament and the Old Testament teach the same God, the same Law, and, most importantly, the same Gospel. On what objective grounds can you say that either the New Testament teaches something different from the Old Testament, and on what grounds do you say that the Old Testament is "ghoulish?"

In other words, by what standard? Tell me what non-arbitrary, non-contradictory principal it is that leads you to that conclusion.

“Jesus Christ”, nate! You don’t even know one of the most fundamental differences between the NT and OT! I’m no bible expert, but I know the NT doesn’t teach the same Law as the OT, and the OT doesn’t teach the same Gospel as the NT. In fact, that could easily be argued as the most important difference between the two.

nate895
04-22-2010, 12:32 AM
“You refuse to let us define our own terms. This is the problem with all debate in this country, especially right now. You're setting up a strawman, and then commit the slippery slope fallacy along the way to burning it down. In order to actually debate something, you have to let the people who are advocating for a position define their terms.”

The terms are not actually yours to define; they are the topic’s terms and are defined in its context. If you MUST RE-define them, it is only to suit your arguments; because the main definitions REFUTE your arguments. IOW I’m simply explaining how your redefinitions do not apply to the topic any further than making your arguments sound more acceptable. How is that a strawman argument OR a slippery slope? If anything, backwards REdefinitions distort the topic.

How am I "redefining" something. You're the one who is somehow trying to apply the examples of Islamic theocracy to an entire different religion with a different set of beliefs. Part-and-parcel of Christianity is forgiveness for sins, while that has no parallel in Islam. In fact, parts of the Qur'an are Mohammad's musings about the over-indulgent Christians on that matter, as well as other doctrinal matters.


“We (not necessarily everyone in this thread, and certainly not the person you are replying) are not advocating for totalitarian dictatorship a la Tehran, we are advocating for the Bible to be the supreme law of the land, and we believe that honest exegesis of that text does not lead to the horrible dictatorship you imagine."

Again, you are not being clear. Exactly what are you advocating? Please use better grammar.

My grammar was perfect, besides the accidental comma splice in there, which is a common problem. I have actually never been marked down for grammar in all my years in school.

What I am advocating, I say again, is that the Bible be the supreme law of the land. Furthermore, I am not advocating that be the case until the nation's heart is calmed by the soothing power of the Gospel. That has not happened, and I doubt that will be fully realized in our lifetimes, but it might. If that happens, you and I will be in full agreement on the issue.

parocks
04-22-2010, 12:34 AM
Got anything better than coast to coast am for this?


It is no surprise since DeMint was/is a member of "The Family" cult.

IIRC, Mark Sanford was/is a member also.

idirtify
04-22-2010, 12:36 AM
What do you mean I'm not being clear. I am saying that while he and I have separate definitions of a true theocracy, I was defending him against you by saying that his system of government is entirely voluntary, and it basically boils down to a religious voluntarism. Why can't I do that?

Because you said you don’t agree. I mean you CAN certainly do that, but you can’t then claim you “don't agree with that version of Christian theocracy” – and still remain credible. You do care about credibility, don’t you?

nate895
04-22-2010, 12:36 AM
“Jesus Christ”, nate! You don’t even know one of the most fundamental differences between the NT and OT! I’m no bible expert, but I know the NT doesn’t teach the same Law as the OT, and the OT doesn’t teach the same Gospel as the NT. In fact, that could easily be argued as the most important difference between the two.

Matthew 5:18:

18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

You, sir, are the one with no understanding of Christian theology. Your objection is that of the Pharisees and Jews throughout history. It has been answered time and again, and this objection is yet another example of their being nothing new in the arsenal of the anti-Christian, no matter the perspective. Go and read even an elementary level text on systematic theology and you will see the ridiculousness of this supposed "problem."

nate895
04-22-2010, 12:40 AM
Because you said you don’t agree. I mean you CAN certainly do that, but you can’t then claim you “don't agree with that version of Christian theocracy” – and still remain credible. You do care about credibility, don’t you?

Why not? I was not defending it as a system of beliefs, I was defending erowe as a fellow Christian. You make no sense at all. I have not contradicted myself, I have not stating anything contrary to fact, and all I have received in response is a condescending attitude that accuses me of things without examples, nor precise language so I might be able to identify the problem even without examples. I know every common logical fallacy, and so if you'd be so kind as to show me where I have committed one, or how exactly I have lost credibility in anything I have said, it would be much appreciated.

parocks
04-22-2010, 12:45 AM
Sure. The government has taken over functions of the family, the church, local mores and customs. The government shrinks, these things will grow back.

Church charity vs welfare. Living with relatives vs social security. etc etc Social pressures used to keep people from behaving wrong. Now it's the government.
Government goes, social pressures come back.


what they fail to realize is that most likely society will become more socially conservative once we have a "libertarian society". I recommend checking out some of Hans-Hermann Hoppe's work: http://mises.org/daily/1766 and http://mises.org/daily/2425

Jeffery Tucker also discusses this a tiny bit in this video:

YouTube - The Cultural Upheaval of Loose Money (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KIDTGKX298&playnext_from=TL&videos=YW0gK2sq-AE&fmt=35)

in a libertarian society, you'd see a much stronger family unit and a plethora of controls/behavioral influences (by the state) wiped out; I tend to agree that with few exceptions, you'd see cultural liberalism die off--anything, of course, would be permissible (so long as coercion isn't involved), but this doesn't necessarily mean that you'll suddenly have a libertine society.

idirtify
04-22-2010, 12:56 AM
How am I "redefining" something. snip

“How am I "redefining" something.”

You appear to be trying to redefine “theocracy” as “a voluntary system of rules and compliance".

“You're the one who is somehow trying to apply the examples of Islamic theocracy to an entire different religion with a different set of beliefs. Part-and-parcel of Christianity is forgiveness for sins, while that has no parallel in Islam. In fact, parts of the Qur'an are Mohammad's musings about the over-indulgent Christians on that matter, as well as other doctrinal matters.”

I am applying nothing inappropriate, and none of your Christian favoritism matters. Theocratic government tries to FORCE religious morality, whatever its idea of it might be. Even if said religious morality has more merit or less force than another, the theocrat will use REAL FORCE to try to MAKE his subjects materialize it.

“My grammar was perfect, besides the accidental comma splice in there, which is a common problem. I have actually never been marked down for grammar in all my years in school.”

Really? Maybe you should proofread this again: “(not necessarily everyone in this thread, and certainly not the person you are replying)”. Surely you can see how the defective grammar makes it undecipherable.

“What I am advocating, I say again, is that the Bible be the supreme law of the land. Furthermore, I am not advocating that be the case”

Sooo…you think the Bible is the supreme law of the land, but you are not advocating that be the case. Gee, that’s SOOO much clearer :confused:

“I am not advocating that be the case until the nation's heart is calmed by the soothing power of the Gospel. That has not happened, and I doubt that will be fully realized in our lifetimes, but it might. If that happens, you and I will be in full agreement on the issue.”

Well I can’t imagine that, but I have no idea what you are talking about here.

idirtify
04-22-2010, 01:04 AM
Why not? I was not defending it as a system of beliefs, I was defending erowe as a fellow Christian. You make no sense at all. I have not contradicted myself, I have not stating anything contrary to fact, and all I have received in response is a condescending attitude that accuses me of things without examples, nor precise language so I might be able to identify the problem even without examples. I know every common logical fallacy, and so if you'd be so kind as to show me where I have committed one, or how exactly I have lost credibility in anything I have said, it would be much appreciated.

Of course you have contradicted yourself. You can’t defend a “fellow Christian” solely because he is a “fellow Christian”, yet disagree with his system of beliefs – at least not in a discussion forum without contradicting yourself AND losing credibility.

nate895
04-22-2010, 01:13 AM
You appear to be trying to redefine “theocracy” as “a voluntary system of rules and compliance".

I didn't do that, someone else did, and I kind of defended them. There is nothing wrong with that inherently. Fundamentally, theocracy means rule by God, and so every system of theocracy can differ depending on the doctrine of the religion, just like there are many different forms of monarchy, communism, fascism, and even libertarianism.

“You're the one who is somehow trying to apply the examples of Islamic theocracy to an entire different religion with a different set of beliefs. Part-and-parcel of Christianity is forgiveness for sins, while that has no parallel in Islam. In fact, parts of the Qur'an are Mohammad's musings about the over-indulgent Christians on that matter, as well as other doctrinal matters.”


I am applying nothing inappropriate, and none of your Christian favoritism matters. Theocratic government tries to FORCE religious morality, whatever its idea of it might be. Even if said religious morality has more merit or less force than another, the theocrat will use REAL FORCE to try to MAKE his subjects materialize it.

I have no idea what you mean by "Christian favoritism," I have made no contention that I am anything other than a Christian, and one who believes that the Christian faith is the only true religion, to the exclusion of all others. Once again, you refuse to understand where I am coming from, and assume naturalism in your attack on theocracy. If Christianity is true, then the entire system will be based on church membership and wanting the law to be that way. I affirm the truth of Christianity. At least try to understand where I am coming from, as I have the respect to do to people of other religious persuasions.



Really? Maybe you should proofread this again: “(not necessarily everyone in this thread, and certainly not the person you are replying)”. Surely you can see how the defective grammar makes it undecipherable.

I was defining the pronoun in a perfectly acceptable manner. If you couldn't understand it, I can't help you.



Sooo…you think the Bible is the supreme law of the land, but you are not advocating that be the case. Gee, that’s SOOO much clearer :confused:

I said "be," not "is." I said that in the future it should be the law. It already is the Law in the ultimate sense, and all sins will be punished by it on the Day of Judgment, but I did not mean it in that manner. I think it was quite easily implied that I meant in the future it would be recognized by the governing authorities as the supreme law of the land.




Well I can’t imagine that, but I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Once again, demonstrating you don't have the least understanding of that which you oppose so vociferously.

idirtify
04-22-2010, 01:14 AM
Matthew 5:18:

18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

You, sir, are the one with no understanding of Christian theology. Your objection is that of the Pharisees and Jews throughout history. It has been answered time and again, and this objection is yet another example of their being nothing new in the arsenal of the anti-Christian, no matter the perspective. Go and read even an elementary level text on systematic theology and you will see the ridiculousness of this supposed "problem."

And since you are implying that you know what that verse means, please explain it – AND define “iota” and “dot” (and the KJ version’s “jot” and “tittle”). Then when you are done, paste the OT verse that teaches Jesus Christ’s Gospel of the Forgiveness of Sins.

nate895
04-22-2010, 01:21 AM
Of course you have contradicted yourself. You can’t defend a “fellow Christian” solely because he is a “fellow Christian”, yet disagree with his system of beliefs – at least not in a discussion forum without contradicting yourself AND losing credibility.

I am so totally confused by this that I cannot understand what you are even implying. Where have I affirmed "p and not-p" at the same time and in the same relationship? I never did. I simply said that erowe's version of theocracy wasn't too bad and didn't deserve the criticism you were levying. I was being honest and correcting your error of understanding, which you seem to have a lot of, and yet you are entirely unwilling to correct it. You simply refuse to look at things from a Christian perspective at all. I was trying to get you to look at it from erowe's point-of-view to show how his view isn't entirely irrational and doesn't lead to the sort of third-world banana republic you seem to think it does. There is nothing contradictory in that. In fact, I was modeling exactly what I want you to do: Leave your own presuppositions for the sake of argument.

Once again, I wasn't advocating the system, but simply showing how it wasn't as crazy as you make it seem.

nate895
04-22-2010, 01:34 AM
And since you are implying that you know what that verse means, please explain it – AND define “iota” and “dot” (and the KJ version’s “jot” and “tittle”). Then when you are done, paste the OT verse that teaches Jesus Christ’s Gospel of the Forgiveness of Sins.

This verse is so clear I fail to see why an exegesis is even demanded.

Christ is simply saying here, in response to the objections of the Pharisees, that he is coming not to overthrow the Law as you are suggesting is the result of the New Testament, but to fulfill it. Jesus Christ will be the ultimate, final, unblemished Lamb of God for the sins of the world, as the lamb sacrificed in the Levitical Law is a type of Christ. It was meant to demonstrate the need of a savior from sin and how an innocent must die for the guilty to live. That is also one place the Gospel is preached in the Old Testament.

I refuse to satisfy your demand for a verse from the Old Testament that specifically states the exact Gospel of Justification by Faith because that is unnecessary. Not that there aren't plenty of Scriptures to support the belief, but the point is that it need not be specifically stated the Christ died (or will die) for your sins. The only thing that needs demonstration is that belief in God's promises are what count for righteousness, as is made clear in Abraham's case:

6And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

idirtify
04-22-2010, 01:48 AM
I didn't do that, someone else did, and I kind of defended them. snip

“I didn't do that, someone else did, and I kind of defended them. There is nothing wrong with that inherently.”

As I said, you aren’t being clear with your arguments. You can’t defend something, but then turn around and claim you weren’t arguing it.

“Fundamentally, theocracy means rule by God, and so every system of theocracy can differ depending on the doctrine of the religion, just like there are many different forms of monarchy, communism, fascism, and even libertarianism.”

Yeah right, and fundamentally “Communism” means unity and peace and harmony. HA! And what will you try to claim next? ->Since business owners can dictate rules to employees, then FASCISM is not always coercive and can work? Under that kind of labeling logic, names become pretty much meaningless. It’s what the State likes to do, to dress-up things that are actually coercive. Speaking of labels, such reverse-labeling is often called “Orwellian”.

"I have no idea what you mean by 'Christian favoritism,' I have made no contention that I am anything other than a Christian, and one who believes that the Christian faith is the only true religion, to the exclusion of all others. Once again, you refuse to understand where I am coming from, and assume naturalism in your attack on theocracy. If Christianity is true, then the entire system will be based on church membership and wanting the law to be that way. I affirm the truth of Christianity. At least try to understand where I am coming from, as I have the respect to do to people of other religious persuasions."

If you have no idea what “Christian favoritism” is, just read your own post; because you proceed to type an elaborate example of it. Here’s another clue: A Christian believer such as you will naturally exhibit strong favoritism toward the Christian religion.

I was defining the pronoun in a perfectly acceptable manner. If you couldn't understand it, I can't help you.

Since you are sticking to your claim that your grammar is perfect, you can help me by just rewording the phrase: “not necessarily everyone in this thread, and certainly not the person you are replying”

"I said 'be,' not 'is.' I said that in the future it should be the law. It already is the Law in the ultimate sense, and all sins will be punished by it on the Day of Judgment, but I did not mean it in that manner. I think it was quite easily implied that I meant in the future it would be recognized by the governing authorities as the supreme law of the land."

You not advocating that the Bible be the supreme law of the land is one thing. The governing authorities not recognizing it is quite another thing. The former is a position that you are advocating. The latter is a reality that might or might not exist. You are merely trying to merge the two to make sense of your contradiction.

idirtify
04-22-2010, 01:58 AM
I am so totally confused by this that I cannot understand what you are even implying. Where have I affirmed "p and not-p" at the same time and in the same relationship? I never did. I simply said that erowe's version of theocracy wasn't too bad and didn't deserve the criticism you were levying. I was being honest and correcting your error of understanding, which you seem to have a lot of, and yet you are entirely unwilling to correct it. You simply refuse to look at things from a Christian perspective at all. I was trying to get you to look at it from erowe's point-of-view to show how his view isn't entirely irrational and doesn't lead to the sort of third-world banana republic you seem to think it does. There is nothing contradictory in that. In fact, I was modeling exactly what I want you to do: Leave your own presuppositions for the sake of argument.

Once again, I wasn't advocating the system, but simply showing how it wasn't as crazy as you make it seem.

You simply refuse to look at things from a Christian perspective at all.

What I refuse to do is agree with most of the perspectives you type.

Once again, I wasn't advocating the system, but simply showing how it wasn't as crazy as you make it seem.

Well actually you haven’t even TRIED to “SHOW” that the idea of a government theocracy is not crazy. In fact, you have barely tried to rebut my explanations of how and why government theocracies are naturally tyrannical.

idirtify
04-22-2010, 02:09 AM
This verse is so clear I fail to see why an exegesis is even demanded.

Christ is simply saying here, in response to the objections of the Pharisees, that he is coming not to overthrow the Law as you are suggesting is the result of the New Testament, but to fulfill it. Jesus Christ will be the ultimate, final, unblemished Lamb of God for the sins of the world, as the lamb sacrificed in the Levitical Law is a type of Christ. It was meant to demonstrate the need of a savior from sin and how an innocent must die for the guilty to live. That is also one place the Gospel is preached in the Old Testament.

I refuse to satisfy your demand for a verse from the Old Testament that specifically states the exact Gospel of Justification by Faith because that is unnecessary. Not that there aren't plenty of Scriptures to support the belief, but the point is that it need not be specifically stated the Christ died (or will die) for your sins. The only thing that needs demonstration is that belief in God's promises are what count for righteousness, as is made clear in Abraham's case:

6And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness.

Far be it from me to give a direct reply to your grand fanciful interpretations of bible texts. I’ll just paste your previous comment along with your current one:

“The New Testament and the Old Testament teach the same God, the same Law, and, most importantly, the same Gospel.”

“I refuse to satisfy your demand for a verse from the Old Testament that specifically states the exact Gospel of Justification by Faith”

Oh… but I must once again “demand” that you define “iota” and “dot” and “jot” and “tittle”!

Aratus
10-25-2010, 11:20 AM
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

biscuits... with only 145 or so postings, you could spend a merrie afternoon reducing
the chaf from the wheat. indeed IMOHO you could quote all your links over onto
one BIG page given that you tend to post short and terse. i'd recommend that
you get up an edit on all of your postings so ADMIN can do a quick and fast deleat
in certain threads. quite often, save for a few quotes, you don't really change
the tone of the thread if your stuff is deleated en masse! this is my own humble opine!

georgiaboy
10-25-2010, 11:56 AM
Sure. The government has taken over functions of the family, the church, local mores and customs. The government shrinks, these things will grow back.

Church charity vs welfare. Living with relatives vs social security. etc etc Social pressures used to keep people from behaving wrong. Now it's the government.
Government goes, social pressures come back.

And I think this is pretty much what DeMint was saying vis a vis the 'spiritual awakening' line, which has nothing to do with legally codified theocratic rule. It's more cultural, social, local, and voluntarist, coupled with less gov't, not different gov't. I think DeMint has hit on something here.

Sola_Fide
10-25-2010, 12:33 PM
DeMint was right in the OP.

Christians have historically always been against tyranny. Christians were the first real libertarians in America. They were the first to fight for the free market and the first to argue for freedom of thought.



Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God. Resistence to tyranny becomes the Christian and social duty of each individual. Give me liberty or give me death.





The Democrat in the OP totally gets the "Render unto Ceasar" verse wrong. In ancient Rome, Ceasar was worshipped AS GOD. He was praised as THE SAVIOUR OF MANKIND. When Jesus said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's, the crowd was amazed and shocked. Jesus proclaimed that Caesar was not God, and not to be rendered worship. Jesus DETHRONED the State.




And this is of course why the early Christians were crucified, cut in to pieces, and used as human torches in Roman State ceremonies....they were anti-Statists. They didn't burn incense to Caesar, and they were punished mercilessly for it.

Aratus
10-25-2010, 12:37 PM
jefferson's letter states what jesus had intended!!!
"caesar" as in either julius or augustus has people
loyalty oathed and almost impelled to worship JOVE.

Aratus
10-25-2010, 12:40 PM
the caesars had caesar worship.
jove was even sometimes snubbed.

Aratus
10-25-2010, 12:41 PM
thomas jefferson's letter is succinct about the wall of seperation
especially if one studies greatly caesar worship and jove worship

Captain America
10-25-2010, 12:53 PM
I tend to disagree with that.


the reason why we believe in small government and not an all-encompassing government is quite plain. either we believe that government is god or you believe that government only exists to protect liberty. liberty to practice anything you like as long as it doesn't effect someone else's life.

I'm fine with someone doing whatever they want in the home. They can worship Satan or nothing or a Christian or Native God. As long as it doesn't force anything on anyone else.

now you get into the tradition of the united states. the tradition of God. the 10 commandments at schools. Schools should not be funded or ran by the government. then we have no debate.

Jeremy
10-25-2010, 12:53 PM
Theocracy and absolute liberty are incompatible simply because there will always be an imposition and force implied in a Theocracy (or, for that matter, any other form of governance). It's possible to be way more free than we currently are, but have a Theocracy; I agree with that part, but we wouldn't ever be totally free under that sort of rule.

Religion and liberty are entirely compatible, though, so long as you're allowed to decide who, what, where, when, and why you worship.

Libertarianism is not "absolute liberty." Not even "anarcho-capitalism" is. There are rules and laws in the marketplace that still affect people, even though they aren't formal rules. I don't think anyone here believes that people should run around doing whatever they want.

Sola_Fide
10-25-2010, 12:57 PM
jefferson's letter states what jesus had intended!!!
"caesar" as in either julius or augustus has people
loyalty oathed and almost impelled to worship JOVE.

Right.


And you have to remember what Jesus was holding when He said "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto GOD what is GOD'S...

...He was holding a denari in His hand. A denari that had multiple inscriptions of praises to Ceasar as the Saviour of mankind, and lord of lords.


Jesus said that GOD deserved worship and not the State.



The rights of property and life and liberty are BIBLICAL ideas. Christians, from the Pilgrims to today, have been willing to die for the right to be free from tyrants. I will argue and win this debate with anyone here. I will not let some kids here who think they know something about history, rewrite it, and try to erase the rich history of libertarianism from Christianity.