Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 60

Thread: A Thread for Christian Liberty

  1. #1

    A Thread for Christian Liberty

    I will preface this thread with the admission that I am not the most religious person around. I am not particularly versed on the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Torah, or any of the many religious texts available. Any discrepancies in my questioning are not intentional. As well, I will attempt to keep blasphemy to a minimum (it will be unintentional as well).

    From the KJV Bible (Deuteronomy 25:5-9):

    5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of an husband's brother unto her.

    6 And it shall be, that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead, that his name be not put out of Israel.

    7 And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then let his brother's wife go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, he will not perform the duty of my husband's brother.

    8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand to it, and say, I like not to take her;

    9 Then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother's house.
    This verse is talking about giving your sister-in-law children in the event of the death of her husband (your brother), correct?

    Let's assume the sister-in-law wishes for this.

    Would your ideal society enforce this?

    How about:

    If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
    You are pro-life, correct? And if so, how do you reconcile post birth abortion with such views?
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    What are your thoughts on the writers of the Bible?

    Were they ordained by God to write as much? That is, were God's Words transcribed or paraphrased and are there any verses that lead you to the conclusions you've come to?
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    Execution by the State, with the testimony of at least two witnesses or equivalent levels of evidence, after a trial, and only for action, not identity. Not vigilantism.
    Was Jesus Christ executed in accordance with Old Testament law?

    If not, why not?
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 View Post
    I will preface this thread with the admission that I am not the most religious person around. I am not particularly versed on the Bible, the Qu'ran, the Torah, or any of the many religious texts available. Any discrepancies in my questioning are not intentional. As well, I will attempt to keep blasphemy to a minimum (it will be unintentional as well).

    From the KJV Bible (Deuteronomy 25:5-9):



    This verse is talking about giving your sister-in-law children in the event of the death of her husband (your brother), correct?

    Let's assume the sister-in-law wishes for this.

    Would your ideal society enforce this?

    How about:



    You are pro-life, correct? And if so, how do you reconcile post birth abortion with such views?
    The first one is probably ceremonial in nature and intended to preserve the lineage of Jesus CHrist (which was important in case anyone challenged his legitimacy as Messiah) and thus not binding today. I have yet to see any theonomic thinker argue otherwise, but there might be one. (full disclosure, I don't know everything either.)

    The second one is often overapplied. The intent is not a five year old makes a disrespectful comment and so he gets stoned. The point is that the parents reach a point from continual rebellion that the covenant family cannot deal with the problem on their own and so they need the sword of the State to intervene. The phraseology of "glutton and drunkard" would also imply at least a teenager, not a little kid.

    Most of Biblical law is victim's based, so this could only be enforced if the father and mother decided to bring the son to the elders. And then the elders would also have to decide to actually carry out the execution (which they shouldn't if there's evidence that the parent is lying.) Admittedly, there is still the issue of terrible parents AND terrible town elders, in which case injustice can happen. In today's society all it takes is a corrupt State to ruin someone's life. In most cases under Biblical law it would at least take a corrupt State + some other corrupt institution.

    Keep in mind that false witnesses in capital cases are to be executed so that's an incentive not to do it.

    ALso, keep in mind that parents could ask the magistrate for a lesser penalty (this possibility is implied in any victims rights case) so while death is possible it isn't required even in this situation.

    And finally... modern society has treason against the State because the State matters more to man than any other institution, and our modern soceiety is a product of this. In Biblical society "treason against the State" doesn't exist. No sane Biblical ruler would ever consider himself to have a case (say) on Edward Snowden, or on "draft dodgers." However, the basis for Biblical society is the faith and the family, which is why treason against these institutions are capitally punishable. I think pretty much any capital crimes law can be explained by one of those two things.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 View Post
    Was Jesus Christ executed in accordance with Old Testament law?

    If not, why not?
    The Pharisees lied, and everyone present (including Pilate) knew it. Of course, that execution (from a providential standpoint) had to happen so we could be saved. But from a justice standpoint, that was obvious corruption.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 View Post
    What are your thoughts on the writers of the Bible?

    Were they ordained by God to write as much? That is, were God's Words transcribed or paraphrased and are there any verses that lead you to the conclusions you've come to?
    Yes, everything in the 66 books of scripture are the infallible, inerrant words of God.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    The first one is probably ceremonial in nature and intended to preserve the lineage of Jesus CHrist (which was important in case anyone challenged his legitimacy as Messiah) and thus not binding today. I have yet to see any theonomic thinker argue otherwise, but there might be one. (full disclosure, I don't know everything either.)

    The second one is often overapplied. The intent is not a five year old makes a disrespectful comment and so he gets stoned. The point is that the parents reach a point from continual rebellion that the covenant family cannot deal with the problem on their own and so they need the sword of the State to intervene. The phraseology of "glutton and drunkard" would also imply at least a teenager, not a little kid.

    Most of Biblical law is victim's based, so this could only be enforced if the father and mother decided to bring the son to the elders. And then the elders would also have to decide to actually carry out the execution (which they shouldn't if there's evidence that the parent is lying.) Admittedly, there is still the issue of terrible parents AND terrible town elders, in which case injustice can happen. In today's society all it takes is a corrupt State to ruin someone's life. In most cases under Biblical law it would at least take a corrupt State + some other corrupt institution.

    Keep in mind that false witnesses in capital cases are to be executed so that's an incentive not to do it.

    ALso, keep in mind that parents could ask the magistrate for a lesser penalty (this possibility is implied in any victims rights case) so while death is possible it isn't required even in this situation.

    And finally... modern society has treason against the State because the State matters more to man than any other institution, and our modern soceiety is a product of this. In Biblical society "treason against the State" doesn't exist. No sane Biblical ruler would ever consider himself to have a case (say) on Edward Snowden, or on "draft dodgers." However, the basis for Biblical society is the faith and the family, which is why treason against these institutions are capitally punishable. I think pretty much any capital crimes law can be explained by one of those two things.
    Also keep in mind that Jesus fulfilled the Law.

    HIS LAW IS: LOVE GOD; LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR.
    There is no spoon.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Also keep in mind that Jesus fulfilled the Law.

    HIS LAW IS: LOVE GOD; LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR.
    This is one of the most abused statements in scripture. First of all, "fulfill" means to establish or confirm, not abolish. Second, both loving God and loving neighbor are in the OT law. They aren't new commands. The case laws, including the ones you no doubt hate and consider barbaric, are part of doing that.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    This is one of the most abused statements in scripture. First of all, "fulfill" means to establish or confirm, not abolish. Second, both loving God and loving neighbor are in the OT law. They aren't new commands. The case laws, including the ones you no doubt hate and consider barbaric, are part of doing that.
    Abused? Love is abuse? Sorry, but I'll take Christ's words over anyone else's anytime and any day.

    LOVE is the Higher Law- all law is built upon LOVE.
    There is no spoon.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Abused? Love is abuse? Sorry, but I'll take Christ's words over anyone else's anytime and any day.

    LOVE is the Higher Law- all law is built upon LOVE.
    Love was in the OT.

    http://biblehub.com/leviticus/19-18.htm

    You are, once again, an idolater that ignores what the Bible says when it suits you. Christ also said that the law continues to apply. Matthew 5:17-18
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    Love was in the OT.

    http://biblehub.com/leviticus/19-18.htm

    You are, once again, an idolater that ignores what the Bible says when it suits you. Christ also said that the law continues to apply. Matthew 5:17-18
    Ahhh.... a name-caller when the answer doesn't suit you.

    John 8

    1Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. 2And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
    There is no spoon.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    The second one is often overapplied. The intent is not a five year old makes a disrespectful comment and so he gets stoned. The point is that the parents reach a point from continual rebellion that the covenant family cannot deal with the problem on their own and so they need the sword of the State to intervene. The phraseology of "glutton and drunkard" would also imply at least a teenager, not a little kid.
    I understand who it will be applied to. It would be applied to the same sorts Margaret Sanger would apply said 'law' towards. Specifically, the schizophrenic, debilitatingly insane, mentally retarded, as well as the scapegoat of the day, among various others depending the king.

    The "sword of the state," huh?

    So to be clear, you are for stoning a woman to death upon evidence (two witnesses, I presume) of her crime of aborting her six week old fetus, yet if the same mother (and father) came before a supposed group of the 'anointed' when their child was fourteen years and said group approved that the previous fetus developed into a man absent of earthly salvation, he would or could be legitimately buried and then pelted with stones until death?

    That's not a misrepresentation, is it?

    So I ask, what makes those men so wise as to decide the life of any one and then further what makes you so wise as to condemn partial birth abortion? Might a group of 'wisemen' simply rubberstamp abortions? If their hearts are hardened enough to concave a body [slowly] with rocks, what saves the children to be born absent your holstered sword?

    Most of Biblical law is victim's based, so this could only be enforced if the father and mother decided to bring the son to the elders.
    And the victim in this instance would be the child brought unto the elders. How do you become an 'elder,' by the way?

    And then the elders would also have to decide to actually carry out the execution (which they shouldn't if there's evidence that the parent is lying.)
    Would they be of the sort who talk a lot in text but have never so much as been in a fight?

    Admittedly, there is still the issue of terrible parents AND terrible town elders, in which case injustice can happen.
    Just because it seems a little peculiar, you are saying that a woman who aborts a two day old fetus ought be buried and then pelted with stones until death, and you are further saying that should said woman or family not have murdered the child, any time they so choose they ought be able to come before a group of elders and if the elders agree, that child, who would have been the death of the mother if the mother decided singularly to murder them, could then be murdered?

    In today's society all it takes is a corrupt State to ruin someone's life. In most cases under Biblical law it would at least take a corrupt State + some other corrupt institution.
    I could not ever imagine a corrupt state having corrupt organizations or institutions under this current society. You sound like the folks who tell me, "Well, they at least have to violate the Constitution to do what they do."

    Oh, that's right. No Constitutionalists tells me that.

    Keep in mind that false witnesses in capital cases are to be executed so that's an incentive not to do it.
    If it kept them (the false witness) alive for the foreseeable future, I could imagine a few incentives to do it.

    Also keep in mind that parents could ask the magistrate for a lesser penalty (this possibility is implied in any victims rights case) so while death is possible it isn't required even in this situation.
    But you don't particularly object to death being an option, do you?

    So why is it a crime to drown babies, snip their spinal cords, or otherwise murder them? Some elders agreed at one time that this was that so, why not?

    And finally... modern society has treason against the State because the State matters more to man than any other institution, and our modern soceiety is a product of this. In Biblical society "treason against the State" doesn't exist. No sane Biblical ruler would ever consider himself to have a case (say) on Edward Snowden, or on "draft dodgers." However, the basis for Biblical society is the faith and the family, which is why treason against these institutions are capitally punishable. I think pretty much any capital crimes law can be explained by one of those two things.
    The biblical ruler you imagine would say the caliphate is a problem, would read (misinterpret) that the bible ostensibly justifies the taking of Christians to fight their holy war.
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

  15. #13
    You guys, I'm going to be absolutely honest with you. I started reading the Bible recently on a regular basis. And it's sort of turning me off from Christianity. Some of the stuff in there is so ridiculous I just end up shaking my head. I'm not an atheist believe me. But I've never sat down and really read the Bible before. And some of the stuff in there is just so...bad. I can't handle it very well. I'm at the point where I'm trying to reject the bible and simultaneously accept the faith as a whole, and I'm finding it very difficult to do, especially from a libertarian perspective. Atheism is looking more and more attractive every day. It just seems that an atheist point of view is more compatible with libertarian principles. I'd hate to choose one or the other.

    What do you think???




    So for example:

    -The seemingly endless chapters opining on the political machinations of some ancient Jewish political leaders.
    -The way God seems to punish entire groups of people in a broad brush, kill em all type fashion. (I guess he made them in the first place? Is it his right to do that?)
    -All the weird animal sacrifice stuff. And the barbaric religious law. (I guess I should just throw out the whole old testament. -Maybe except Genesis, I like Genesis. Some very good allegory there)
    -Jacob, the double crossing backstabbing villain of the story. Cheats his brother out of his birthright, and his fathers blessing. Sends his brother into a murderous rage and is forced to run for the hills. He is rewarded by the title Israel, a huge wonderful, successful family with multiple wives and 12 sons, and then lives to the age of 180 dying peacefully with his name forever etched in history. How can this guy in any way be thought to be moral or scrupulous or godly.

    -Then there's Jesus saying that it's nearly impossible for a rich man to get to heaven. So he should just give away all his money to people who didn't earn it, until he's destitute and poor. Only then will he get to heaven. (Kind of violates the principles of self interest, capitalism, all the things we know actually enables a prosperous society to function)


    There was a bunch of other stuff too, but I forgot. On the balance the vast majority of the things I have problems with are in the Old Testament.
    Last edited by DevilsAdvocate; 09-01-2015 at 04:29 AM.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
    You guys, I'm going to be absolutely honest with you. I started reading the Bible recently on a regular basis. And it's sort of turning me off from Christianity. Some of the stuff in there is so ridiculous I just end up shaking my head. I'm not an atheist believe me. But I've never sat down and really read the Bible before. And some of the stuff in there is just so...bad. I can't handle it very well. I'm at the point where I'm trying to reject the bible and simultaneously accept the faith as a whole, and I'm finding it very difficult to do, especially from a libertarian perspective. Atheism is looking more and more attractive every day. It just seems that an atheist point of view is more compatible with libertarian principles. I'd hate to choose one or the other.

    What do you think???




    So for example:

    -The seemingly endless chapters opining on the political machinations of some ancient Jewish political leaders.
    -The way God seems to punish entire groups of people in a broad brush, kill em all type fashion. (I guess he made them in the first place? Is it his right to do that?)
    -All the weird animal sacrifice stuff. And the barbaric religious law. (I guess I should just throw out the whole old testament. -Maybe except Genesis, I like Genesis. Some very good allegory there)
    -Jacob, the double crossing backstabbing villain of the story. Cheats his brother out of his birthright, and his fathers blessing. Sends his brother into a murderous rage and is forced to run for the hills. He is rewarded by the title Israel, a huge wonderful, successful family with multiple wives and 12 sons, and then lives to the age of 180 dying peacefully with his name forever etched in history. How can this guy in any way be thought to be moral or scrupulous or godly.

    -Then there's Jesus saying that it's nearly impossible for a rich man to get to heaven. So he should just give away all his money to people who didn't earn it, until he's destitute and poor. Only then will he get to heaven. (Kind of violates the principles of self interest, capitalism, all the things we know actually enables a prosperous society to function)


    There was a bunch of other stuff too, but I forgot. On the balance the vast majority of the things I have problems with are in the Old Testament.
    The story of Jacob has a good bit more going on, and Jacob learns his lesson the hard way about screwing over family, by family member who one ups Jacob through deception. His reconciliation with his brother is a wonderful testimony of forgiveness and moving forward, rather than seizing the moment for revenge. Everyone makes crappy decisions from time to time, and if the Bible only showed infallible people becoming successful and favored by the Creator most folks would give up before they start a walk of Faith because they would not be able to connect with the story as they would be consumed by their own shortcomings and never see the broader picture of forgiveness as long as one is growing in Faith.

    As for the rich man, that is his stumbling block; wealth is that rich man's idol. It isn't that wealth itself is bad, but how one achieves or perceives the wealthy lifestyle. Those favored by the Creator can be prosperous as the Bible illustrates.

    The Bible has to be read with an open mind and a loving heart keeping the two greatest commandments as a focus for comprehension of the text, imo, and if in doubt as to interpretation of a particular passage sometimes one needs to dig around awhile to comprehend the forest for the trees.

    ~~~peace on your path
    We will be known forever by the tracks we leave. - Dakota


    Go Forward With Courage

    When you are in doubt, be still, and wait;
    when doubt no longer exists for you, then go forward with courage.
    So long as mists envelop you, be still;
    be still until the sunlight pours through and dispels the mists
    -- as it surely will.
    Then act with courage.

    Ponca Chief White Eagle

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    This is one of the most abused statements in scripture. First of all, "fulfill" means to establish or confirm, not abolish. Second, both loving God and loving neighbor are in the OT law. They aren't new commands. The case laws, including the ones you no doubt hate and consider barbaric, are part of doing that.
    No they aren't. The moral law is different from the civil laws of Moses.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    No they aren't. The moral law is different from the civil laws of Moses.
    The civil law has to be consistent with love otherwise it would be inconsistent for God to command loving your neighbor as yourself and those particular case laws in that particular place. Yet we know that's not the case. And yet... that's the logical conclusion of some of the arguments I'm getting here. Honestly, I'm sure your best arguments are better than this... the logical flaw is just so obvious.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    The civil law has to be consistent with love otherwise it would be inconsistent for God to command loving your neighbor as yourself and those particular case laws in that particular place. Yet we know that's not the case. And yet... that's the logical conclusion of some of the arguments I'm getting here. Honestly, I'm sure your best arguments are better than this... the logical flaw is just so obvious.
    Yes. The civil laws were consistent with love, holiness, and perfect justice...but they existed for a certain time and a certain purpose.

    There is no "consistency" in not understanding the difference between the moral law which will abide forever, and the Mosaic civil laws that existed for a certain time and a certain purpose. That argument is like the insane Pentacostals who think being a Christian is having the exact same experience as the believers in the book of Acts.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Sola_Fide View Post
    Yes. The civil laws were consistent with love, holiness, and perfect justice...
    Well then really you don't have any excuse to not be a theonomist. But you ESPECIALLY should disagree with all the people that are bashing me on this thread. Who, BTW, don't understand the Reformed threefold division at all. They're morons who think in simple platitutdes like "not under law but under grace" without actually understanding what Paul was talking about or realizing that distinctions between different parts of the law are essential to understanding it.

    but they existed for a certain time and a certain purpose.
    This doesn't really make sense. It does for some of the laws, where there are clear differences in circumstances that would change the application. For instance, we don't build a fence around our roof because people don't walk on the roof. But how is it just to not punish acts of sodomy when God said that was an abomination worthy of death? How can it be consistent with the character of God to have people killed for a sin during one time in history, and then in another time say it shouldn't be punished at all?
    There is no "consistency" in not understanding the difference between the moral law which will abide forever, and the Mosaic civil laws that existed for a certain time and a certain purpose.
    The MORAL case laws (ie. ones that deal with the 10 commandments) are part of the moral law while also being part of the civil law at the same time. Proportional justice is written in the moral law of God. You can't say that proportional justice allowed homosexuals and adulterers to be executed in the Old Testament but somehow it would be sinful for civil government to do that now.


    That argument is like the insane Pentacostals who think being a Christian is having the exact same experience as the believers in the book of Acts.
    Except it really isn't. God never gave a command to have that type of experience, and its obvious that those experiences were for one particular time. Not the same thing at all.

    But really, even if you think it is, you at least owe it to sanity to rebuke the people who are making stupid, anti-Christian arguments even if they somehow get to a similar conclusion as you.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    The Pharisees lied, and everyone present (including Pilate) knew it. Of course, that execution (from a providential standpoint) had to happen so we could be saved. But from a justice standpoint, that was obvious corruption.
    So, hang on.
    Are you not talking here about the exact form of government you're consistently advocating?
    What is materially different about Christ's trial? How is it something separate from what you suggest we should live under?
    Are you saying that corruption and sending innocent people to die is just part and parcel of Biblical government, but we should just accept this because God wanted it to happen?
    Why do I need a state at all for God to make innocent people die?
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    So, hang on.
    Are you not talking here about the exact form of government you're consistently advocating?
    What is materially different about Christ's trial? How is it something separate from what you suggest we should live under?
    Are you saying that corruption and sending innocent people to die is just part and parcel of Biblical government, but we should just accept this because God wanted it to happen?
    Why do I need a state at all for God to make innocent people die?
    Its not OK but its a fact of human nature...
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  24. #21
    Christian Liberty, how are the elders chosen?
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    Its not OK but its a fact of human nature...
    You dodged this one:
    Why do I need a state at all for God to make innocent people die?
    I'd like you to answer that one, plz.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    Yes, everything in the 66 books of scripture are the infallible, inerrant words of God.
    Without the present existence of the New Testament in its original Aramaic, such a belief is actually wholly impossible. If all that is left are translations, then who knows what kind of intended meanings have escaped this "word of God"?

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    Without the present existence of the New Testament in its original Aramaic, such a belief is actually wholly impossible. If all that is left are translations, then who knows what kind of intended meanings have escaped this "word of God"?
    .....um......
    Greek. It was all written in Greek.
    Which we have.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    .....um......
    Greek. It was all written in Greek.
    Which we have.
    Are the original tablets available?
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 View Post
    Are the original tablets available?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langua..._New_Testament

    Most biblical scholars adhere to the view that the Greek text of the New Testament is the original version. An opposite view, that it is a translation from an Aramaic original (recently called "Aramaic primacy") has not gained popularity. At any rate, since most of the texts are written by diaspora Jews such as Paul of Tarsus and his possibly Gentile companion, Luke, and to a large extent addressed directly to Christian communities in Greek-speaking cities (often communities consisting largely of Paul's converts, which appear to have been non-Jewish in the majority), and since the style of their Greek is impeccable, a Greek original is more probable than a translation.
    I didn't know about this Aramaic primacy idea - but to answer your question about originals, the originally penned documents do not exist for sure, but there are so many early copies of the NT books which all differ from each other so little that this angle of attack is fruitless (unless you're the type who believes unsubstantiated claims).
    The fact that the copies we have differ so little speaks to the idea of an Aramaic original, too - if there was an Aramaic original, then the multitude of Greek copies we have would not be all virtually identical.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    .....um......
    Greek. It was all written in Greek.
    Which we have.
    In the Greek New Testament, a number of verses include Aramaic phrases or words which are then translated into Greek. In the Peshitta, sometimes the word or phrase is quoted twice in Aramaic, indicating that the words needed to be translated from one Aramaic dialect to another.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_New_Testament

    Some of the books were surely first written in Aramaic, the primary language of every single one of Jesus's disciples and most people who would have seen or met him.

  32. #28
    They wouldn't all have to be written in the same language, since it's just a collection of writings. Same goes for old and new testament. There's not even agreement on who wrote what.
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Influenza View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aramaic_New_Testament

    Some of the books were surely first written in Aramaic, the primary language of every single one of Jesus's disciples and most people who would have seen or met him
    .
    There's a problem with this argument. No one who saw or met Jesus wrote the Gospels. They were entirely oral tradition until Mark was written in ~70 A.D. The other gospels were adapted from Mark for specific audiences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    There's a problem with this argument. No one who saw or met Jesus wrote the Gospels. They were entirely oral tradition until Mark was written in ~70 A.D. The other gospels were adapted from Mark for specific audiences.
    Then I'm still curious as to why freedomfanatic would claim all books of the bible to be the infallible words of God, a position that even many Christians wouldn't dare take. How can any series of books with such a fantastic list of authors be compounded and then claimed to have originated divinely? And what about all the Biblical writings that were rejected by the Byzantines in the formation of modern, mainstream Christianity?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Christian Liberty, Is Homosexuality A Sin?
    By Sola_Fide in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-03-2015, 07:14 PM
  2. The Christian Thread
    By nate895 in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 09-24-2010, 01:01 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •