• Theocrat's Avatar
    Today, 03:08 AM
    The Accountant seems like it's a movie mixture of The Bourne Identity and A Beautiful Mind. Nonetheless, I still want to see it.
    1043 replies | 52298 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:48 AM
    The bottom line of this discussion is determining whether or not it's good to have laws prohibiting sexual behaviors, in general, and prostitution, in particular. It seems to me that you believe local, state, nor the federal governments should have laws prohibiting sexual behavior. If I'm correct about that, then are you for repealing laws that prohibit sexual acts like rape, child molestation, and bestiality because they have been codified by civil magistrates? I'm just trying to understand where your thinking is on that.
    62 replies | 750 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:27 AM
    Where did Christian Liberty ever say, "Comply or cooperate with my judgment, or I will murder you," as it pertains to prostitution?
    62 replies | 750 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:25 AM
    If you're a Christian, then you should have a moral problem with bestiality. If you don't, then you need to study the Scriptures to see what God thinks of it. Now, my reason for asking you about bestiality was to simply show that you do pass judgments on sexual behavior, just as Christian Liberty does. There is no neutrality about it. That brings me to your statement: There is no religious neutrality in public policy. The rejection of a Biblical application to public policy is just the adoption of another religious authority, which in our current state of affairs is secular humanism. Some group of citizens will be judged and sanctioned by the law, based on the religious foundation of those who create laws. That's why homosexuals, for example, are using state and federal legislatures to impose their morality upon Christians (and other groups) through "hate crimes legislation." Once again, that's just a reflection of someone's religious worldview. It's simply inevitable.
    62 replies | 750 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:41 AM
    Okay, maybe I misunderstood you, so let me back up and ask if you have a problem with sexual acts like bestiality.
    62 replies | 750 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:13 AM
    29 replies | 325 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:52 AM
    It doesn't matter which of the two tod evans was referring to because both of them are judgments of a sexual act. That was simply my point. Now, concerning how that relates to this thread, as Christians, we know the Bible teaches that God is sovereign over His creation, which means that He has authority over every aspect of human life. So, when we are discussing public policy about certain behaviors which are public taboos in our society, then our first question to ask is, "What has God said about it?" From there, we use wisdom from the Scriptures to understand how that behavior ought to be dealt with in society by all levels of government (self, family, church, and civil) in order to please God.
    62 replies | 750 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:24 AM
    My point is that you have a moral declaration about a particular sexual behavior, and that declaration is, in fact, passing judgment upon those who engage in the act (which, in the case I quoted you from, was bestiality). In fact, everyone passes judgment on sexual behaviors. I'm sure that no one here accepts that rape is a moral sexual behavior. But, hey, if there is no God, and thus, there is no ultimate ethical standard for sexual behavior, so, therefore, humans are nothing more than evolved bags of meat with electricity running through themselves, then some people can't help their sexual preference to rape others. And we can apply that same reasoning to other sexual behaviors. So, then, where is the room to judge any sexual behavior, if God hasn't set up some rules for standard sexuality? Thus, the prerequisite in this whole discussion is marked by one simple question: "By whose standard?"
    62 replies | 750 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-22-2016, 08:31 AM
    Bachmann must have been inspired by Trump's "Two Corinthians" speech:
    33 replies | 498 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-22-2016, 05:38 AM
    Oh, so it's not okay for Christian Liberty to pass judgment on other people's sexuality, but it's okay for you to do so when it comes to bestiality? Remember this?
    62 replies | 750 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-21-2016, 10:32 AM
    Yes, I could have looked it up, myself, but I was interested in your view on it, in relation to Islamic theology. Are there any other passages in the Qur'an where casus belli is taught? Is that principle derived originally from Islamic thought?
    49 replies | 767 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-21-2016, 04:42 AM
    What, pray tell, is a "casus belli"?
    49 replies | 767 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-21-2016, 04:33 AM
    Thanks for the video, luctor. It's people like John Oliver, though, who would have us believe that it's individuals like Toby Young who are using fear, not facts in this "BREXIT" debate:
    382 replies | 7694 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-20-2016, 06:20 AM
    Nice try, Ronin Truth. Do you have any favorite movies and/or TV shows about fatherhood?
    5 replies | 188 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-19-2016, 07:22 AM
    In honor of Father's Day, let's post our favorite films and shows about fatherhood. One of my picks is Interstellar. Basically, it's about a single father who has to go on a space mission to save Earth from extinction, but he needs his daughter's help:
    5 replies | 188 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-19-2016, 04:26 AM
    Hey, but having sex with animals is just someone's sexual preference, right? It's just as natural as two guys or two girls being attracted to each other, so who are any of you to call it "disgusting?" That's discrimination, bigots! In fact, Canada's Supreme Court is also bigoted for not allowing penetration in addition to oral sex because it is trying to dictate what kind of sex a person can have with his pet. So, Canadians should be saying, "Fuck you for not letting me fuck ewes," right?
    35 replies | 637 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-19-2016, 03:55 AM
    Once again, you're putting words into my mouth. Where did I say equate reliance on police (or government) with faith in God, especially given the fact that I've already claimed that we should arm ourselves for our own protection in addition to having law enforcement? There is no "dick waving" going on here. We need to be honest about what flows from our philosophical beliefs during these types of discussions. I'm simply speaking from my worldview, as a Christian, so naturally, the Scriptures will be brought up because the word of God is the ultimate standard for my beliefs on police, guns, government, or anything else. Since the Bible is not your ultimate standard for truth, then, you, too, will speak from your own authority just as religiously as I do from mine. So don't try to make this into some "Religion vs. Reason" type of debate. It's clearly "Religion vs. Religion," and if you consider yourself an atheist, then you're just as religious about your beliefs as I am about mine, except your gods are the random electrochemical processes inside your brain that you rely on for reason. As always, we are debating worldviews here about, in this case, the need for police. If you don't understand that, then you're just going to be arguing arbitrarily.
    80 replies | 1441 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-19-2016, 12:33 AM
    There is no logical fallacy. The reason that I cited the Psalm 20 and Isaiah 31 passages was to back up the clause where I said, "...provided that we keep our faith in Him and not the object, itself." Those passages have nothing to do with God teaching that we shouldn't have armies. They clearly teach that we shouldn't put our faith in armies when it is God Who gives the power to be victorious. Also, those 2 passages were written after God had already commanded Israel to form armies, as I said was mentioned was recorded in the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, etc. To your point about Deuteronomy 17:16 teaching that kings weren't suppose to have armies because it says, "But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses, forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you, 'Ye shall henceforth return no more that way,'" you're taking it way out of context. The reason why the king wasn't supposed to multiply horses was to the purpose of trying to return to Egypt, as the text clearly says. Better commentators than you and me have even pointed that out, like the famous Matthew Henry: So, you're totally wrong about the Deuteronomy 17 passage. But the application of all of this still remains that God nowhere condemns having armies or security institutions, per se, nor does He command kings to own all weapons at the expense of his people not having any. In fact, the closest incident to something like that in Israel's history was when they were subdued by the Philistines for a time under King Saul in 1 Samuel 13. But it was always the norm for Israel to have weapons and armies, particularly when it came to possessing the "Promised Land." In fact, if Israel had no army nor was led into battles by Joshua (Joshua, of course, being a type of "Christ"), they would have never inherited the land promised to them by God. So, don't sit there and tell me that God never wanted His people to have horses for war because it's taught all over the place in Scripture.
    80 replies | 1441 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-18-2016, 11:13 AM
    Thank you for proving my point about your lack of scholarship.
    26 replies | 554 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-18-2016, 11:03 AM
    Voting isn't a sin, neither is having a representative government. But I don't expect you to understand why that's true because you're not interested in truth, and scholarship is not one of your fortes. So, just keep yourself busy with your "copy and pastes," like a good little boy.
    26 replies | 554 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-18-2016, 10:54 AM
    Yeah, right. I'm a follower of Satan for voting, but you're the one posting something entitled, "Christianity's Greatest Lies Exposed." :rolleyes:
    26 replies | 554 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-18-2016, 09:29 AM
    Unlike yourself, I am able to make the distinction between an institution and those who are members of the institution. Therefore, if Christians are arrested for their beliefs, let's say, then that would be a reason to appeal to other venues (like social/mainstream media, government representatives, churches, etc.) for exposing and condemning the actions of the arresting officers, in hopes that the officers will be held accountable and the law(s) in which they are enforcing may be repealed. But it would not be a sufficient reason to call for eliminating all police.
    80 replies | 1441 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-18-2016, 09:19 AM
    Spoken like someone who is a follower of Satan.
    26 replies | 554 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-18-2016, 09:11 AM
    Well, I don't agree that any law enforcement agency has the right to disarm law-abiding citizens for any reason. We have a God-given right to self-defense and security. That means that no person can take that right away when people are living righteously in society. Our dependency should be in the God Who graciously gives us our rights, not in the people who believe that our security is exclusively their responsibility. Once again, I don't agree that police should be solely armed at the expense of disarming citizens. That is a recipe for tyranny. Nowhere in the Bible does God ever call for kings and civil magistrates to have possession of all weapons while their citizens have none. In fact, Jesus even allowed His disciples to carry swords in Luke 22:35-38. We also have to be careful about arguing for normative cases from the positive cases. In other words, just because our current law enforcement has performed duties to the detriment of individuals and communities does not mean that we should never have law enforcement agencies. Such reasoning then opens the door for other proposals, as well. For instance, someone could argue that rape laws have not stopped people from raping others; therefore, we should get rid of laws against rape because they don't keep all women safe. But such reasoning really misses the point of having rape laws, in the first place. That same reasoning applies to those wanting to eradicate all law enforcement because of the actions of law enforcement agents who have abused their authority. No, I don't think that law enforcers have the right to do whatever they want just because they wear a badge. Yes, I do believe that citizens ought to be armed just as well as our current law enforcement agencies and military. But having a police system does not cancel out having the right to protect oneself by any means necessary, nor does advocating for the existence of police mean that the person has more faith in men than in God. You all need to realize that because, quite frankly, your arguments are absurd.
    80 replies | 1441 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-18-2016, 06:46 AM
    Where did I say that because we should have weapons and police that, therefore, we should have faith in man rather than faith in God? Also, I hope you're not trying to argue that the Bible teaches against having armies and defense because, if you are, I would invite you to reread the books of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua (for starters) to see that God clearly commanded His people to build armies so that His purpose in giving them the "Promised Land" would be fulfilled. That was my point. God uses ordinary means to accomplish His goals in this world (in this case, the need for enforcement of law and personal protection), and that characteristic simply reflects the transcendent and imminent nature of God towards His creation.
    80 replies | 1441 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-18-2016, 12:36 AM
    Lest I be misunderstood, let me say that I don't agree that police have the authority to control people, when those people are acting righteously in society. The role of law enforcement is to control the behavior of those who choose to live in society without moral and civil restraints towards other people. When the police begins to treat civilly innocent people the same as civilly guilty people by controlling their behavior though invasion of property or by inadvertent loss of life, then I would say that the police agents are acting unjustly and need to be held accountable. But that doesn't mean that the institution of police, itself, is evil. "Government is evil," "It's controlled by Satan," blah, blah, blah, the same talking points that have been proven false over and over again, I'm not even going to have an argument about. It's not germane to the topic at hand, anyway.
    80 replies | 1441 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-18-2016, 12:11 AM
    Pcosmar, you're just stating the obvious when you say, "I am opposed to armed enforcers of someone else's will. And That is by definition what Police are." Of course, any law enforcement agency (whether it's private or public) enforces laws that did not originate from inside itself. Therefore, one important issue is whether those laws (or the people who produced them, perhaps), are just, right, proper, etc. or not. Another important issue is whether the law enforcement agency, itself, is enforcing laws in a righteous manner or not (which begs the question, "By what authority," of course). So, you can't say that policing, as an institution (or means of protection and preservation), is evil in and of itself. That's committing the fallacy of reification. But, also important is to realize that policing is an inevitability. We all do it, in some area of our lives. It can be through (though not limited to) parenting or conscientious moral restraint. But I agree that in civics, we should focus on how policing is taking place, as well as why policing is taking place.
    80 replies | 1441 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-17-2016, 11:45 PM
    Okay. It's fine that you don't own a gun, but don't think that because I believe in paying for protection through certain means (like owning a gun or having police) that it means my God is weak or that I'm afraid of anything. Because we live in a sinful world, we have to arm ourselves for protection against people who have no moral nor civil restraints on their own behavior. So, it's wise to have those means of protection.
    80 replies | 1441 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-17-2016, 11:06 PM
    Well, that's an interesting line of reasoning. Do you own a gun, pcosmar? If you do, then let me ask you, "Are you afraid of anything enough to pay men for protection? Really?" And, no, God is not weak, but He's also sovereign enough to use ordinary means (like weapons) as instruments for deterring evil, provided that we keep our faith in Him and not the object, itself. That's what God reminds us to do in Scriptures like:
    80 replies | 1441 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-17-2016, 10:55 PM
    I hope you realize that the verse divisions in our current Bibles were not inspired by God. Therefore, when you lift the verses off the pages and study them within their respective contexts, you can clearly see that there are no contradictions between Jesus and Paul. I thought you knew that basic hermeneutic, at least. But, of course, you won't do that because you always seek to engage in cheap and lazy scholarship (copy and paste, copy and paste, copy and paste...), Ronin. It's time to put your "samurai sword" down, and go read some books in a seminary library.
    26 replies | 554 view(s)
More Activity
About Oh, Israel

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
21
Posts Per Day
0.01
General Information
Last Activity
09-06-2012 04:49 PM
Join Date
09-22-2008
Referrals
0

1 Friend

  1. Theocrat Theocrat is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via Skype™ to Theocrat
    Theocrat
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1
No results to display...
No results to display...
No results to display...