Tab Content
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Today, 09:11 AM
    I believe in the decentralization of power, which is a Biblical principle, first derived in Genesis with the formation of the tribes of Israel (I don't have time to delve deeply into that, but it can be proven). So, to answer your question, I would advocate a system that is similar to what we had in our early republic, where local, state, and county governments are formed by Christians from various denominations to assess how crimes should be punished within their respective jurisdictions. So, for example, if a Presbyterian is living in a county full of Roman Catholics, and those Catholics have laws which he believes do not square with Biblical justice, then he can find another county where there are mostly Presbyterians and from there, they can work together to apply God's Law based on their Biblical convictions. That's what we had in the earlier days of America, with entire states being composed of one Christian denomination from another state of a different Christian denomination. It's one of the reasons why the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," because their definition of "religion" was related to Christian denominations, understanding that each state was by and large composed of a particular Christian denomination.
    60 replies | 793 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Today, 08:51 AM
    Because if you want to have a just society, then there needs to be an absolute standard for determining what is just and unjust behavior. Once you have established that, then you can deal with how unjust behavior ought to be punished. Why is that? Because God desires holiness from His creatures, not just internally but also externally, which is why God expects us to put away evil from society as it emerges. And, of course, evil is defined by God's Word, not majority opinion nor by current trends of acceptable behavior.
    79 replies | 1016 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Today, 08:45 AM
    If you're a Christian, then you should already know how one determines what governments God has ordained. That's why we have disciplines such as Biblical and systematic theology to delve into the subject on what the Bible teaches about the nature of government. But it is a topic that can be ascertained, and it is one that no other worldview (secular humanism, Islam, etc.) can account for.
    60 replies | 793 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Today, 08:24 AM
    No, it doesn't make me an anarchist; it just means that I hold to the view that God rules society, and therefore, He is the One Who delegates authority (those who minister to others) and sets their jurisdictions within a civilized society. That's why an elite subset of society should never manipulate the rest by force. All people should be self-governed by God's Law before they take any position of authority within God-ordained governments (family, church, and state) to ensure that an elite group do not take over society by their own whims. When that happens (as it is currently in American civics), then it is a good indication that people in positions of authority are not self-governing themselves in God's Law.
    60 replies | 793 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Today, 01:22 AM
    The only way we can answer the question, "Should X be criminalized," is by, first, answering, "What does God say about X?" The two questions go together, when we are discussing what sexual sins should receive civil sanctions. But, of course, it takes wisdom to understand how to apply those sanctions in our modern world, and that can be challenging at times, I admit. But, nonetheless, it still needs to be considered when we're assessing public policy and its relation to sexual taboos. Another thing to keep in mind is that the page marked "New Testament" in our Bibles is not inspired by God. That fact is very important because when we are talking about continuities and discontinuities between the Old and New Covenants, we need to realize that the Old Testament laws still applied when the New Testament was being written. Thus, the authors' approach to how Old Testament laws would apply to them in their own day would not have been riddled with many of the assumptions that we face today in modern Christianity (with ideas such as the "Two-Kingdoms Approach," "Law vs. Gospel" dichotomies, Dispensationalism, and other concepts which inherently but inadvertently pit the Old Testament against the New Testament). Unfortunately, you, yourself, are guilty of those very approaches to the New Testament, which is why you fail at understanding how the Old Testament applies to us today. Remember, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16). If sexual acts were condemned with civil penalties in the Old Covenant, then those penalties apply civilly, in some way, in the New Covenant. Otherwise, you would have to say that God made a mistake when He decreed those sexual acts as punishable by civil law under the Old Covenant. But, once again, it takes wisdom to understand how they apply today because the world has changed since the times of the Old Covenant. But the moral indictment against certain sexual behaviors does not change because moral laws are eternal, by nature.
    79 replies | 1016 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Today, 12:48 AM
    Ronin, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in relation to Paul's theology. It's funny how you consider yourself more educated about the relationship between Jesus and Paul when world-renown Biblical scholars, such as N.T. Wright, have been applauded for their research and writings about Paul's life and theology. If you have any serious, objective interest in how Paul's theology was consistent with Christ's doctrines, then I recommend that you watch this lecture from one of the best Pauline scholars in the world, and learn something:
    39 replies | 392 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:20 PM
    What "uncontrolled systems" are you referring to, fisharmor?
    60 replies | 793 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:16 PM
    Exactly, erowe1. That's all Ronin Truth does. He can't give a definitive, comprehensive rebuttal to anything in which he disagrees with. All he knows how to do is copy and paste links. That's why his credibility, especially in these kinds of discussions, is always suspect because of his laziness and ignorant flippancy of facts that he has no intention of researching. He seriously needs to leave these forums and stick to playing Solitaire online or something.
    39 replies | 392 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:56 AM
    Christians have provided evidence that Paul affirmed the doctrines of Christ. It's just that people like yourself refuse to accept the evidence.
    39 replies | 392 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:53 AM
    The claims that Jesus was an anarchist and that Paul was a statist are simply anachronisms. As such, they make both of your assertions moot points, so there's no need to argue with you about the merits of your claims.
    60 replies | 793 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:37 AM
    When you read much of the literature in favor of anarchism, it seems that anarchism starts off with 5 basic assumptions, philosophically speaking: Truth is relative. Life is random. People are basically good. A person can change his own life if he chooses to. The goal of life is self-satisfaction. Building a civic/economic philosophy on those basic assumptions opens the door wide open for an elite group to manipulate society very easily, in my opinion. Thus, anarchism (no matter if it's anarcho-capitalism, anatcho-communism, anarcho-primitivism, or any other school of thought) cannot solve the problem of having an elite manipulating and ruling over society.
    60 replies | 793 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:47 AM
    3823 replies | 163322 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-24-2016, 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.
    1047 replies | 52510 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-23-2016, 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.
    79 replies | 1016 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-23-2016, 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?
    79 replies | 1016 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-23-2016, 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.
    79 replies | 1016 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-23-2016, 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.
    79 replies | 1016 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-23-2016, 04:13 AM
    29 replies | 351 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-23-2016, 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.
    79 replies | 1016 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-23-2016, 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?"
    79 replies | 1016 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-22-2016, 08:31 AM
    Bachmann must have been inspired by Trump's "Two Corinthians" speech:
    33 replies | 515 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?
    79 replies | 1016 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 | 811 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    06-21-2016, 04:42 AM
    What, pray tell, is a "casus belli"?
    49 replies | 811 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:
    438 replies | 9053 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 | 190 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 | 190 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 | 647 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 | 1477 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 | 1477 view(s)
More Activity
About beaven

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
84
Posts Per Day
0.05
General Information
Last Activity
03-04-2016 07:19 PM
Join Date
09-24-2011
Referrals
0

2 Friends

  1. Chainspell Chainspell is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via MSN to Chainspell
    Chainspell
  2. Theocrat Theocrat is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via Skype™ to Theocrat
    Theocrat
Showing Friends 1 to 2 of 2
No results to display...
No results to display...
No results to display...