Would you vote for a candidate who

[Brian4Liberty]

Would there be any money reserved to take care of the needy? A 10% tithe usually fulfills that purpose. But would it be just for citizens, or could non-citizens receive aid?

[Christian Liberty]

Would there be any money reserved to take care of the needy? A 10% tithe usually fulfills that purpose. But would it be just for citizens, or could non-citizens receive aid?

That's the church's domain, and tithe payment isn't civilly enforced. I do think the church should help non-believers as well.

OP has no answers to these questions?

Yes to the first one. Mormons, JWs, and Roman Catholics are all non-Christians. Polygamy is a sin, but I'm not sure its a crime. Will answer more later.

[Brian4Liberty]

That's the church's domain, and tithe payment isn't civilly enforced. I do think the church should help non-believers as well.

I was thinking more in terms of Ben Carson's comparison of a ten percent flat tax to tithing. With a ten percent tax, would some of that be used by government to aid the needy, and would that include non-citizens, or even people in other nations.

Mormons, JWs, and Roman Catholics are all non-Christians.

Good news for traditional Protestants!

Polygamy is a sin, but I'm not sure its a crime.

Is it? Polygamy was common place in the OT. Wasn't it the Romans who clamped down on polygamy?

[Christian Liberty]

I was thinking more in terms of Ben Carson's comparison of a ten percent flat tax to tithing. With a ten percent tax, would some of that be used by government to aid the needy, and would that include non-citizens, or even people in other nations.

Yeah, and Ben Carson is being blasphemous. Taxes must be BELOW 10% (I'd say below 5% is better). Taxes must be less than the tithe.

Welfare isn't the State's job.

Good news for traditional Protestants!

Indeed

Is it? Polygamy was common place in the OT. Wasn't it the Romans who clamped down on polygamy?

I can't really go in depth now, but its implicit in Genesis 2:24. It seems like it was legally tolerated, and distinct from true adultery, but it was never moral or ideal.

[adissa]

Yes to the first one. Mormons, JWs, and Roman Catholics are all non-Christians. Polygamy is a sin, but I'm not sure its a crime. Will answer more later.

You realize Catholics worship and recognize Jesus Christ, right? How does that exclude them from being Christians?

Also, please clarify what exactly you meant by "yes to the first one." Did you mean "yes" to my first question about killing people for the crimes I mentioned?

Also, for bonus points, does this hypothetical person you want to know if we would vote for (that 7 people on this site said "yes" to) share all these views you're posting right now?

[kcchiefs6465]

How should public idolatry be suppressed?

A band of 'chosen' men raiding/razing museums/otherwise igniting the countryside?

[Christian Liberty]

You realize Catholics worship and recognize Jesus Christ, right? How does that exclude them from being Christians?

Galatians 1:8-9.

Also, please clarify what exactly you meant by "yes to the first one." Did you mean "yes" to my first question about killing people for the crimes I mentioned?

Correct.

Also, for bonus points, does this hypothetical person you want to know if we would vote for (that 7 people on this site said "yes" to) share all these views you're posting right now?

Yeah because I'm pretty much just talking about myself

[William Tell]

Is it? Polygamy was common place in the OT. Wasn't it the Romans who clamped down on polygamy?

Correct, some of CL's beliefs were passed down to him from the Roman Empire, and or Catholic church which he ironically does not like. This is the same for a lot of Christians. It gets troublesome from even a religious perspective when they start projecting their personal views into their political system which they caim is based on what the Bible says.

[adissa]

What about those other things that were listed? Adultery, blasphemy, lying about virginity, homosexuality, etc. Would this hypothetical candidate of yours kill people for those acts?

You realize Catholics worship and recognize Jesus Christ, right? How does that exclude them from being Christians?

Also, please clarify what exactly you meant by "yes to the first one." Did you mean "yes" to my first question about killing people for the crimes I mentioned?

Also, for bonus points, does this hypothetical person you want to know if we would vote for (that 7 people on this site said "yes" to) share all these views you're posting right now?

Galatians 1:8-9.



Correct.



Yeah because I'm pretty much just talking about myself

And 7 people on this site said they would vote for this....that this person is a "liberty supporter." That's interesting. What happened to the nonaggression principle, RPF?

[adissa]

Galatians 1:8-9.

Galatians 1:8-9 -- ⁸But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! ⁹As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

Who died and left you to be judge and jury of what is a "contrary gospel?" Yours doesn't sound all that peachy, talking about killing people.

[brandon]

I would need more info on the character of the person. Are they trustworthy? Do they flip flop? Are they hateful or spiteful? Do they have a spine? Are they mentally stable?

Definitely would not have any type of association with Gary North at all.

[Brian4Liberty]

Yeah, and Ben Carson is being blasphemous. Taxes must be BELOW 10% (I'd say below 5% is better). Taxes must be less than the tithe.

Uh oh, What's the penalty for that? Are there different levels of blasphemy?

[Christian Liberty]

Uh oh, What's the penalty for that? Are there different levels of blasphemy?

Yeah, that's not a capital offense. I should have been more precise and said the implications are blasphemous.

[Christian Liberty]

And 7 people on this site said they would vote for this....that this person is a "liberty supporter." That's interesting. What happened to the nonaggression principle, RPF?

You don't have to be strictly NAP to be pro-liberty.

[adissa]

You don't have to be strictly NAP to be pro-liberty.

What is pro-liberty about killing adulterers, homosexuals, etc.? What is pro-liberty about denying the vote to non-Christians (as defined by you)?

[Christian Liberty]

What is pro-liberty about killing adulterers, homosexuals, etc.? What is pro-liberty about denying the vote to non-Christians (as defined by you)?

Its presuppositional. Liberty is defined by scripture. Plus those aren't the only issues.

[adissa]

Its presuppositional. Liberty is defined by scripture. Plus those aren't the only issues.

Has anyone here ever told you that you're nuts?

[acptulsa]

Has anyone here ever told you that you're nuts?

Yes, many times. He has also been told this...



But if you told him that you might trust a proponent of Sharia Law to be just before you trusted him to be just, he'd go nuts talking about your blasphemy, just as if he's not following the Man who said, 'Judge not, lest ye be judged.' He has so much misplaced faith in his own silly dogma that he won't even realize that you're not expressing any lack of faith in Jesus. He thinks his misinterpretation of the Bible is so infallible that he's just as good a judge as Jesus. Which might just go beyond 'nuts'. But 'nuts' is what I say to the whole idea of his Christian Sharia Judgmentalism.

Good luck with him. You'll need it.

[adissa]

But if you told him that you might trust a proponent of Sharia Law to be just before you trusted him to be just, he'd go nuts talking about your blasphemy, just as if he's not following the Man who said, 'Judge not, lest ye be judged.'

Good luck with him. You'll need it.

I see. I don't need luck with him, I think he's nuts.

What bothers me most is, 7 people voted in favor of this person as a liberty candidate. I wonder if they read through the whole thread before voting. There was some disturbing stuff posted early on in the thread that should have given a few people pause it seems.

In any case be careful talking about blasphemy around Christian Liberty. That's one of the crimes he advocates stoning someone over. LOL

[acptulsa]

And yet he refuses to obey when instructed to differentiate what is of Caesar and what is of God.

Little does he know that the day will come when things go better for Sodom than they go for him.

I find both the idea that God did not reserve judgment in cases of blasphemy unto Himself to be blasphemous--and the notion that He cannot handle it in His good time and needs our puny help to be moreso. SMDH

But at least five of those people probably read nothing but the OP. Don't go rushing to judgment yourself.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Theonomy is a prominent wing of Neoreaction, and though I don't hold to it, I have been giving it some thought. I am not a Christian, but it's possible I would rather live in the kind of Christian society talked about here, than a progressive hellhole that pushes "egalitarianism". I can understand why a gay person would disagree, however.

[adissa]

I can understand why a gay person would disagree, however.

Of course! They would fear for their lives. And I would disagree with this too, although I'm not gay myself. I have some friends who are, however, and I love them dearly. I would not want to live in such a society.

[ThePaleoLibertarian]

Theonomy is a prominent wing of Neoreaction, and though I don't hold to it, I have been giving it some thought. I am not a Christian, but it's possible I would rather live in the kind of Christian society talked about here, than a progressive hellhole that pushes "egalitarianism". I can understand why a gay person would disagree, however.

Okay, never mind. After looking more into Gary North, he apparently wants to to kill "unbelievers" via stoning, and he wants his theocracy to cover the globe. If that's the case, forget it. I wouldn't have a problem for someone to try this in a decentralized way, where the right of exit was respected, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. This sounds like the Christian ISIS. Lets leave that barbarity to the Muslim savages.

[kcchiefs6465]

Okay, never mind. After looking more into Gary North, he apparently wants to to kill "unbelievers" via stoning, and he wants his theocracy to cover the globe. If that's the case, forget it. I wouldn't have a problem for someone to try this in a decentralized way, where the right of exit was respected, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. This sounds like the Christian ISIS. Lets leave that barbarity to the Muslim savages.

Lmao.

[Christian Liberty]

I see. I don't need luck with him, I think he's nuts.

What bothers me most is, 7 people voted in favor of this person as a liberty candidate. I wonder if they read through the whole thread before voting. There was some disturbing stuff posted early on in the thread that should have given a few people pause it seems.

In any case be careful talking about blasphemy around Christian Liberty. That's one of the crimes he advocates stoning someone over. LOL

Don't worry, I'm not the State. I'd just tell you to repent and preach the gospel to you

Theonomy is a prominent wing of Neoreaction, and though I don't hold to it, I have been giving it some thought. I am not a Christian, but it's possible I would rather live in the kind of Christian society talked about here, than a progressive hellhole that pushes "egalitarianism". I can understand why a gay person would disagree, however.

Okay, never mind. After looking more into Gary North, he apparently wants to to kill "unbelievers" via stoning, and he wants his theocracy to cover the globe. If that's the case, forget it. I wouldn't have a problem for someone to try this in a decentralized way, where the right of exit was respected, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. This sounds like the Christian ISIS. Lets leave that barbarity to the Muslim savages.

OK, two things...

1. I'm almost positive the "unbelievers" thing is false. I've never seen this proven, and even those in the more radical (covenanter) camp of theonomy nobody advocates this. This just sounds like secularists taking things out of context for their own agenda. If you can give me a quote that actually proves it, let me know.

2. I don't think you fully understand the ideology. Gary North is a postmillennialist (I lean toward postmillennialism as well, but I'm less sure than him.) Postmillennialism teaches that eventually, before Christ comes back, there will be a period of time in which most people are converted to the Christian religion. They will then be taught Biblical law which they will eventually accept, which means that every part of the world (perhaps not every single individual, but certainly the vast majority of people in each area) will willingly covenant with Jesus Christ to follow his law. Gary North isn't advocating a powerful centralized government trying to force everyone to convert by the sword (which is what ISIS is.) Theonomists are for decentralization and for free markets and for liberty. Not "liberty" the way modern libertarians define it, but a lot closer than ISIS or modern statists.

I imagine you'd see a difference between a hypothetical situation in which every county on earth winds up deciding to implement theonomy on its own, and a situation in which a centralized government forces it on everyone, correct?

I definitely support the right to secede. I do lean toward Christian communities seceding from pagan ones though, which you'd probably be OK with anyway. From what I understand of neo-reactionary I probably agree with a lot of it. I think we think on a more similar wavelength than you'd think (and no, I don't want to kill you for being an unbeliever )

[Christian Liberty]

Lmao.

Yeah, I agree with you guys, except for the fact that the accusation isn't actually true

[adissa]

Don't worry, I'm not the State. I'd just tell you to repent and preach the gospel to you

You'd have to catch me first, and then I'd probably tell you to go $#@! yourself.

[Christian Liberty]

You'd have to catch me first, and then I'd probably tell you to go $#@! yourself.

lol

[adissa]

Yeah, I agree with you guys, except for the fact that the accusation isn't actually true

What about it isn't true?

[Christian Liberty]

What about it isn't true?

Its just a blatant lie. No theonomist advocates criminalizing personal unbelief. There are differences among theonomists regarding to what extent propegating false religion is criminal and to what extent the 1st table of the law should be enforced, but even the more extreme ones do not want to make conversions by the sword. It just doesn't exist. Ever. Anywhere. Its a lie made by secular leftist tyrants who want to make US look like the bad guys when really they are thieving, lying, murderous scumbags. I don't think paleo is lying BTW. I think he read the lie somewhere else and wrongly came to the conclusion that it was true.

And as previously mentioned, most theonomists (though not all and its not a prerequesite) are postmillennial. That means eschatologically speaking the belief that there will be great evangelistic revival in the world sometime between now and Jesus Christ's second coming, during which all nations (not every individual but most individuals in each nation) will convert to the gospel, which will lead to each nation adopting a Biblical law code. In a sense that could be described as "one world theocracy" (I've never heard a theonomist say everything would be all one government though, and I think that's a bad idea at any rate... Gary North MIGHT advocate this but I doubt it) but its not nearly what Paleo is imagining which is some theocrat running a theonomy that covers the globe with an iron hand and with most people hating it and yet nobody able to flee elsewhere. That is, again, just simply false. Most theonomists are strict decentralizationists, but even the ones who aren't wouldn't advocate any nation forcing any other nation to be theonomic. So again, its just a lie. Not "what part." The entire thing is a lie...