Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 391

Thread: My response to Laurence Vance's "Should a Christian support criminalizing prostitution"

  1. #31

    Sexual Judgments Become Arbitrary

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Of course I remember that post, 'twas only a few days ago I made it.......

    That said, have you ever seen me cry for government to do anything to another person because of who or what they screw?

    How 'bout, have you ever seen me try to justify government behavior I'd like to see by quoting scripture?

    And finally have you seen me ever call for government to kill a person in God's name because of who they screw?

    I may be a bigot, or homophobe, or any number of P/C labels but I can assure you that other peoples bed partners that don't directly affect me and mine don't cause me any stress at all...

    And........Any "judgement" of another that spews forth from my lips will NEVER condemn someone to hell in the name of God.

    [edit]

    I've read and reread my post you quoted and can't in any way see how it could be construed as me passing judgement........

    Help me out here......
    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?"
    "Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the battle lines of Israel, Whom you have reproached.'" - 1 Samuel 17:45

    "May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in moment of great crisis, stood up to their politicians, the opinion-makers, and the Establishment, and saved their country." - Dr. Ron Paul



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32

    Whose Judgment Counts First?

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Pass judgment as in saying "Ewww" or saying "That's wrong" or "that's a sin" or pass judgment as in saying "Time him and the animal up while I find some large stones?"

    Again I point you and Christian Liberty to the Samaritan village. They were rejecting God in the flesh! Yet when Jesus was asked to send down fire He declined and said he did not come to destroy but to save.
    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.
    "Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the battle lines of Israel, Whom you have reproached.'" - 1 Samuel 17:45

    "May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in moment of great crisis, stood up to their politicians, the opinion-makers, and the Establishment, and saved their country." - Dr. Ron Paul



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    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?"
    Would you care to point out said "declaration"?

    When you originally accused me of "bigotry" all I had done was cut-n-paste an article, the post you drug into this thread from that thread was agreeing with you in that some folks would accuse me of bigotry, racism, sexism and classism...

    Now with this post you've taken to attributing a "declaration" to me.........

    Sorry dude, what you've tried to pin on me isn't what I wrote, it's what you wrote and then attributed to me.

    Why do you want to behave in this manner?

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    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.
    Repeating yourself doesn't lend creedence to your assertions.

    [edit]

    To link to the thread Theo has pointed to in which I supposedly "passed judgement"........
    Last edited by tod evans; 06-23-2016 at 06:00 AM.

  7. #35
    Only the statist ones. The libertarian ones will probably just say MYOB!

    Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do (pdf)


    "7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." -- (King James Bible, Matthew)
    Last edited by Ronin Truth; 06-23-2016 at 06:02 AM.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    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.
    Now how 'bout getting into where your position here fails on its face?

    First and foremost though; You have failed to address the question I keep asking you.

    "We" as Christians are but a small faction of the populace, and even if "we" were an overwhelming majority the fact remains that it is not "our" place to impose "our" interpretation of scripture upon other men either by force of law or by coercion.

    Spreading the Word does not in any way involve using force to impose your will.
    Last edited by tod evans; 06-23-2016 at 06:23 AM.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Now how 'bout getting into where your position here fails on its face?

    First and foremost though; You have failed to address the question I keep asking you.

    "We" as Christians are but a small faction of the populace, and even if "we" were an overwhelming majority the fact remains that it is not "our" place to impose "our" interpretation of scripture upon other men either by force of law or by coercion.

    Spreading the Word does not in any way involve using force to impose your will.
    That's quite a conundrum there, if you think about it and place it into perspective with the tyrants we call government.

    These points, for example....

    1. The fundamental principle underlying the traditional American philosophy is that the Spiritual is supreme--that Man is of Divine origin and his spiritual, or religious, nature is of supreme value and importance compared with things material.

    5. This concept of Man's spiritual nature excludes any idea of intrusion by government into this Man-to-Man spiritual relationship. It excludes the anti-moral precept that the end justifies the means and the related idea that the means can be separated from the end when judging them morally. This concept therefore excludes necessarily any idea of attempting to do good by force--for instance, through coercion of Man by Government, whether or not claimed to be for his own good or for the so-called common good or general welfare.

    It excludes disbelief in--even doubt as to the existence of--God as the Creator of Man: and therefore excludes all ideas, theories and schools of thought--however ethical and lofty in intentions--which reject affirmative and positive belief in God as Man's Creator.

    8. Belief in Man's Divine origin is the foundation of the fundamental American principle which controls his relationship to government: that Man--The Individual--is of supreme dignity and value because of his spiritual nature.


    I hocked em from here...saves typing... http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Am...stick/pr1.html It's a good read.

    The ""That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." part of the Declaration of Independence is where it gets jiggy because our particular government in its current state is not an example of Man organizing Government to be his tools. It's quite the opposite as it is. What we have going on is a government that acts contradictory to those points. And that's, unfortunately, what Theo seems to be endorsing so far as I can tell.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 06-23-2016 at 07:03 AM.

  10. #38

    A Point on Animal Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Would you care to point out said "declaration"?

    When you originally accused me of "bigotry" all I had done was cut-n-paste an article, the post you drug into this thread from that thread was agreeing with you in that some folks would accuse me of bigotry, racism, sexism and classism...

    Now with this post you've taken to attributing a "declaration" to me.........

    Sorry dude, what you've tried to pin on me isn't what I wrote, it's what you wrote and then attributed to me.

    Why do you want to behave in this manner?
    Okay, maybe I misunderstood you, so let me back up and ask if you have a problem with sexual acts like bestiality.
    "Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the battle lines of Israel, Whom you have reproached.'" - 1 Samuel 17:45

    "May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in moment of great crisis, stood up to their politicians, the opinion-makers, and the Establishment, and saved their country." - Dr. Ron Paul

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    Okay, maybe I misunderstood you, so let me back up and ask if you have a problem with sexual acts like bestiality.
    Whether or not I find such behavior abhorrent is irrelevant in a discussion that is about government holding practitioners accountable under their laws.

    If you or I as Christians want to codify our interpretation of scripture into law, why shouldn't some other religions interpretation of their scripture be codified also?

    Using a religious foundation to aid in the vetting of potential law is wise and good but..............If one would codify their religions scripture as law one must accept anothers scriptures as law too.

    As for the query you pose........

    Any problem I have with bestiality, or homosexuality or any other inter-person/inter-species sex act will never be presented to government or her courts for disposition.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post

    Any problem I have with bestiality, or homosexuality or any other inter-person/inter-species sex act will never be presented to government or her courts for disposition.
    Yes,,
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Any problem I have with bestiality, or homosexuality or any other inter-person/inter-species sex act will never be presented to government or her courts for disposition.
    Surely you've gotta understand this is a quantifiably -- and hugely -- different form of "judgment" that Tod is talking about vs. what CL is proposing, Theocrat. One consists of:

    Thoughts inside Tod's head.

    The other consists of:

    Forming enforcement squads, locking people in cages, stealing their money, tearing apart their lives, their careers, and their families, and, most seriously, killing people in cold blood if they too successfully resist being taken. The threat of literal death is always there behind every decree of the State, no matter how stupid and arbitrary (or Godly and Biblical).

    So there's a bit of a difference between "comply or cooperate with my judgment or I will murder you" and incurring some disapproval from some guy named Tod. The second you can live with. You probably didn't want his approval anyway! The first you cannot live with. Literally.

    Does this make sense, Theocrat?

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Whether or not I find such behavior abhorrent is irrelevant in a discussion that is about government holding practitioners accountable under their laws.

    If you or I as Christians want to codify our interpretation of scripture into law, why shouldn't some other religions interpretation of their scripture be codified also?

    Using a religious foundation to aid in the vetting of potential law is wise and good but..............If one would codify their religions scripture as law one must accept anothers scriptures as law too.

    As for the query you pose........

    Any problem I have with bestiality, or homosexuality or any other inter-person/inter-species sex act will never be presented to government or her courts for disposition.
    THE WORLD'S MOST DANGEROUS BOOK (essay)

  16. #43

    Law is Inherently Religious

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    Whether or not I find such behavior abhorrent is irrelevant in a discussion that is about government holding practitioners accountable under their laws.

    If you or I as Christians want to codify our interpretation of scripture into law, why shouldn't some other religions interpretation of their scripture be codified also?

    Using a religious foundation to aid in the vetting of potential law is wise and good but..............If one would codify their religions scripture as law one must accept anothers scriptures as law too.

    As for the query you pose........

    Any problem I have with bestiality, or homosexuality or any other inter-person/inter-species sex act will never be presented to government or her courts for disposition.
    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:

    If you or I as Christians want to codify our interpretation of scripture into law, why shouldn't some other religions interpretation of their scripture be codified also? Using a religious foundation to aid in the vetting of potential law is wise and good but..............If one would codify their religions scripture as law one must accept anothers scriptures as law too.
    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.

    But all of this goes back to what I've said before about asking the question, "By whose standard" when discussing public policy and law to govern behaviors which are deemed taboo by society. You may not want sexually immoral acts like bestiality and homosexuality to be presented to the courts for disposition, but homosexuals are taking Christians to court for acting out on their Biblical convictions that don't support homosexual lifestyles. Such instances prove that homosexuals, in this case, are using their religious beliefs to impose their secular humanistic-driven morality on other people, by means of public policy to criminalize Christian thought and behavior.
    "Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the battle lines of Israel, Whom you have reproached.'" - 1 Samuel 17:45

    "May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in moment of great crisis, stood up to their politicians, the opinion-makers, and the Establishment, and saved their country." - Dr. Ron Paul

  17. #44

    Citation, Please

    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Surely you've gotta understand this is a quantifiably -- and hugely -- different form of "judgment" that Tod is talking about vs. what CL is proposing, Theocrat. One consists of:

    Thoughts inside Tod's head.

    The other consists of:

    Forming enforcement squads, locking people in cages, stealing their money, tearing apart their lives, their careers, and their families, and, most seriously, killing people in cold blood if they too successfully resist being taken. The threat of literal death is always there behind every decree of the State, no matter how stupid and arbitrary (or Godly and Biblical).

    So there's a bit of a difference between "comply or cooperate with my judgment or I will murder you" and incurring some disapproval from some guy named Tod. The second you can live with. You probably didn't want his approval anyway! The first you cannot live with. Literally.

    Does this make sense, Theocrat?
    Where did Christian Liberty ever say, "Comply or cooperate with my judgment, or I will murder you," as it pertains to prostitution?
    "Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the battle lines of Israel, Whom you have reproached.'" - 1 Samuel 17:45

    "May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in moment of great crisis, stood up to their politicians, the opinion-makers, and the Establishment, and saved their country." - Dr. Ron Paul

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    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.

    But all of this goes back to what I've said before about asking the question, "By whose standard" when discussing public policy and law to govern behaviors which are deemed taboo by society. You may not want sexually immoral acts like bestiality and homosexuality to be presented to the courts for disposition, but homosexuals are taking Christians to court for acting out on their Biblical convictions that don't support homosexual lifestyles. Such instances prove that homosexuals, in this case, are using their religious beliefs to impose their secular humanistic-driven morality on other people, by means of public policy to criminalize Christian thought and behavior.
    The solution isn't more laws/government, not now not ever!

    Live your life as you see fit and if somebodies behavior offends you then deal with it as you see fit.

    I do not see fit to use government to address issues I have, although it's quite likely others will call on government to deal with me...

    There is no amount of words or scripture-twisting that will convince me that God want's Christians to petition the money lenders in order to solve moral dilemmas..

    It's about time Christians distanced themselves from government.

  19. #46

    No Laws Against ANY Sexual Behavior?

    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    The solution isn't more laws/government, not now not ever!

    Live your life as you see fit and if somebodies behavior offends you then deal with it as you see fit.

    I do not see fit to use government to address issues I have, although it's quite likely others will call on government to deal with me...

    There is no amount of words or scripture-twisting that will convince me that God want's Christians to petition the money lenders in order to solve moral dilemmas..

    It's about time Christians distanced themselves from government.
    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.
    "Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the battle lines of Israel, Whom you have reproached.'" - 1 Samuel 17:45

    "May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in moment of great crisis, stood up to their politicians, the opinion-makers, and the Establishment, and saved their country." - Dr. Ron Paul

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    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.
    My thinking is that no group of men is qualified to write law that regards sexual behavior, period.

    Doesn't matter if the group writing law is Christian or goat-$#@!ers.

    The same sentiment applies to laws that prohibit discrimination, for any reason including sexual behavior.

    I will absolutely discriminate against whomever I choose for any reason I choose and I will ignore government mandates to the contrary.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    Where did Christian Liberty ever say, "Comply or cooperate with my judgment, or I will murder you," as it pertains to prostitution?
    He did not say "I" will murder you. He said, though -- in my interpretation, not directly -- that he thinks it would be right and Biblical for the agents of the state to say, "Comply or cooperate with my judgment, or I will murder you."

    He said this when he said he thinks the state should make prostitution illegal. The threat of literal death is always ultimately there behind every decree of the State. Refusing to cooperate with a law, no matter how "minor", even refusing to pay a parking ticket, leads to an inexorable escalation, legally-speaking. Ultimately the refusenik may legally be killed if they resist arrest sufficiently successfully.

    You are right, Theocrat, that it would be inconsistent to condemn all judgment while making judgments oneself. But you should and must admit that Tod's person "judgment" is extremely, hugely different than CL's proposed civil judgment.

    Thinking censorious thoughts is quite different than placing handcuffs around wrists or bullets in chests.
    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 06-23-2016 at 10:38 AM.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Surely you've gotta understand this is a quantifiably -- and hugely -- different form of "judgment" that Tod is talking about vs. what CL is proposing, Theocrat. One consists of:
    So there's a bit of a difference between "comply or cooperate

    Thoughts inside Tod's head.

    The other consists of:

    Forming enforcement squads, locking people in cages, stealing their money, tearing apart their lives, their careers, and their families, and, most seriously, killing people in cold blood if they too successfully resist being taken. The threat of literal death is always there behind every decree of the State, no matter how stupid and arbitrary (or Godly and Biblical).
    with my judgment or I will murder you" and incurring some disapproval from some guy named Tod. The second you can live with. You probably didn't want his approval anyway! The first you cannot live with. Literally.

    Does this make sense, Theocrat?
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    He did not say "I" will murder you. He said, though -- in my interpretation, not directly -- that he thinks it would be right and Biblical for the agents of the state to say, "Comply or cooperate with my judgment, or I will murder you."

    He said this when he said he thinks the state should make prostitution illegal. The threat of literal death is always ultimately there behind every decree of the State. Refusing to cooperate with a law, no matter how "minor", even refusing to pay a parking ticket, leads to an inexorable escalation, legally-speaking. Ultimately the refusenik may legally be killed if they resist arrest sufficiently successfully.
    To be clear, I'm against the use of prisons as punishment. I'm also against fines being paid TO GOVERNMENT, fines should be paid only to aggreieved parties. Now...

    I'm with you on parking tickets and things like that, I guess ultimately my contention would be that sexual immorality is not minor and actually brings severe covenantal sanctions against a nation, that though it may not technically fit the libertarian definition of aggression that it does wreck lives and also severely offends God. I know that's not a popular position here, but I'm not advocating wrecking people's lives over minor matter, rather I'm challenging the very definition of minor.

    In God's mind (as defined by the scriptures) adultery and homosexuality and even fornication is worse than stealing a candy bar, yet every libertarian would use force against the latter. So should the former.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post

    In God's mind (as defined by the scriptures) adultery and homosexuality and even fornication is worse than stealing a candy bar, yet every libertarian would use force against the latter. So should the former.
    I'm not a libertarian but I'll ask anyway.......

    Are you advocating the use of force by yourself or are you advocating having government agents use force in your stead?

    I'm asking about you, not anybody else and not philosophically or figuratively and I'm not asking about your interpretation of scripture, ONLY whether you will "use force" yourself or if in all these various discussions you are asking government to do your bidding...

  25. #51
    Well............

    Either that's to difficult of a question or I'm on FF's ignore list........

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    I'm primarily concerned about this from a theological perspective at the moment. I don't expect to see the BIblical model implemented in my lifetime, though I believe eventually it will be implemented everywhere.
    So you're just trying to figure out the right view to have. To get the correct answer. It's a puzzle. Fair enough!

    This is one of my major problems with Christianity these days. At the risk of being blunt I think Mormonism is a different thing entirely, and expecting a Mormon to interpret scripture "correctly' is kind of like expecting a Muslim to do so in my mind.
    Oh, I know! Don't worry, you're not going to hurt my feelings.

    Essentially both parties have other works that trump the Bible and you interpret scripture through that lens, so of course you're going to come up with wacky conclusions.
    We've all got a lens, CL. We've all got a lens. What's your lens?

    I think philosophically its problematic to say that God really just wants people to follow the non-aggression principle when actually the only legal code he ever gave wasn't nearly compatible with it.
    Maybe it was closer than you think.

    But the deeper theological problem is really dispensationalism.
    Dispensationalism
    ...By contrast covenant theology
    ...proto-church
    ...Christian magistrates
    ...premillennialists
    So, notice: I gave a very off-the-cuff reconciliation of libertarianism with these passages, and even though it was made up on the spot with very little effort or time taken, and even though since I am a Mormon all my thoughts ought to be full of "wacky conclusions" and easily dismissable, in order to counter it you had to resort to all kinds of technical terms and jargon. Super inside-baseball. And even then it was a counter, and not an actual refutation.

    I could probably come up with two or three completely different ones, and then if I studied up on other people's thoughts find three or four more still. And likely you would not be able to refute any of them. A couple may turn out to be technically irrefutable.

    Anyway, that doesn't prove you're wrong about prostitution. It does demonstrate that I'm right in that there is more than one way to combine "I'm a libertarian" with "I believe in the Bible."

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    rather I'm challenging the very definition of minor.
    If that's the basic crux of your arguments and feelings, I am in agreement with you. Believe it or not! Yes, virtue and morality are definitely not minor.

    In God's mind (as defined by the scriptures) adultery and homosexuality and even fornication is worse than stealing a candy bar
    Again: I'm in total agreement.

    So, are you shunning people who participate in or promote homosexuality or fornication? Are you, personally doing that, CL?

    See, there's more than one way to gut a fish. Widespread societal pressure and disapproval can accomplish the same thing without state involvement. In fact, it is nearly impossible to envision getting to a place where there are state sanctions on immorality but aren't widespread societal pressures and disapproval. The one is prerequisite for the other, and if you have the one, the other is redundant and highly ineffective compared to the first.

    Theocrat has a point that families, workplaces, etc., are types of "governments" in a way. There is no moral problem for these "governments" to clamp down on immorality and perversion. And, as I said above, their actions in doing so will be one hundred thousand times more effective than state legislation. So, why not focus on that?

    Are you?

    Has your family banned fornication? Homosexuality? Would you kick anybody with these behaviors out of your family? Are you shunning and excommunicating these people? Kicking them out of your family and inner circle? Refusing to do business or talk with them? Making their lives more difficult?

    Hmm?

  28. #54
    Drudge had this today;

    Geneva to get 'café fellatio' by end of year

    http://www.thelocal.ch/20160623/gene...by-end-of-year

    A firm in Geneva plans to open a café where customers can enjoy oral sex while they sip their morning coffee. Not everyone is happy with the idea.

    The idea for the sex café has been brewing for several months, Bradley Charvet of the Geneva firm Facegirl told Geneva’s Le Matin newspaper recently.

    Modelled on similar establishments in Thailand, the proposed Geneva café would add a new dimension to the sex trade in the city of the protestant reformer Calvin.

    Put simply, the business model would see men ordering a coffee and using an iPad to select a prostitute they want to perform oral sex on them. They would then sit at the bar.

    “In five or ten minutes, it’s all over,” Charvet explained to Le Matin.

    At 60 Swiss francs (€55), with a possible five-franc surplus for a latte macchiato the ‘coffee’ would be the most expensive in Geneva.

    It would, however -- in theory at least – be perfectly within the bounds of the law. Prostitution is legal in Switzerland although it is strictly controlled, with sex trade workers required to have valid permits as part of a bid to fight people trafficking.

    In cases where two or more prostitutes operate out of the same premises, the establishment has to be registered as a massage parlour. In 2015, 33 of these parlours were shut down in Geneva for not following the rules, according to France’s Le Monde newspaper.

    Geneva’s Department for Security and the Economy are now looking at the café plans.

    Not everyone is happy with the idea though. Grégoire Théry of France’s anti-prostitution group Mouvement du Nid told French newspaper L'Express the idea for a café serving up oral sex would only benefit the men behind the business.

    The business idea would, in effect, legalize pimping, he said.

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    If that's the basic crux of your arguments and feelings, I am in agreement with you. Believe it or not! Yes, virtue and morality are definitely not minor.

    Again: I'm in total agreement.

    So, are you shunning people who participate in or promote homosexuality or fornication? Are you, personally doing that, CL?

    See, there's more than one way to gut a fish. Widespread societal pressure and disapproval can accomplish the same thing without state involvement. In fact, it is nearly impossible to envision getting to a place where there are state sanctions on immorality but aren't widespread societal pressures and disapproval. The one is prerequisite for the other, and if you have the one, the other is redundant and highly ineffective compared to the first.

    Theocrat has a point that families, workplaces, etc., are types of "governments" in a way. There is no moral problem for these "governments" to clamp down on immorality and perversion. And, as I said above, their actions in doing so will be one hundred thousand times more effective than state legislation. So, why not focus on that?

    Are you?

    Has your family banned fornication? Homosexuality? Would you kick anybody with these behaviors out of your family? Are you shunning and excommunicating these people? Kicking them out of your family and inner circle? Refusing to do business or talk with them? Making their lives more difficult?

    Hmm?
    I don't want to sepak for my family because they're evangelicals and thus we don't agree much on theology.

    But speaking for myself.

    The church should only discipline those who are a part of it. Thus the church, as the church, should not shun homosexuals, fornicators, etc. unless they are identifying as CHristians. If they are identifying as such we should "not even eat" with them, something that is rarely truly followed.

    However, families should discipline their households, and civil governments should discipline their subjects, whether they are believers or not. So yes, as a head of household I would not allow anyone to engage in homosexual contact, nor would I allow them to work the sabbath, etc. And yes, if they continually did these things and didn't repent, I would throw them out.

    I don't necessarily disagree with you on "focus" especially considering how corrupt most of the nation is right now. But that doesn't change the fact that civil magistrates have obligations and "libertarianism" really isnt it in the scripture.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    Thus the church, as the church, should not shun homosexuals, fornicators, etc. unless they are identifying as Christians.
    Seriously? Have you run across the phrase "cry repentance" anywhere in your Biblical studies? Occasional references to "this untoward generation" and fearless, unequivocal condemnation of "abominations"? When people are bad, the prophets in the Bible seemed to, umm, tell them they were bad. To their face. Straight up. Now that act is not technically shunning, true, but I think most would call it "burning your bridges," after which chummy social relations cease to be. In today's fragile butterfly environment, harsh criticism is not compatible with friendship or close association. Thus, same result. Half a dozen, meet six.

    However, families should discipline their households, and civil governments should discipline their subjects, whether they are believers or not. So yes, as a head of household I would not allow anyone to engage in homosexual contact, nor would I allow them to work the sabbath, etc. And yes, if they continually did these things and didn't repent, I would throw them out.
    Cool. You don't have to wait until you're head of household to be an influence for good, though. You can be an influence for good in your dorm, in your classes, and everywhere.

    I don't necessarily disagree with you on "focus" especially considering how corrupt most of the nation is right now.
    Just from a practical perspective, you know? I'm not against philosophy, politics, and such as hobbies. Obviously! Here I am!

    But that doesn't change the fact that civil magistrates have obligations and "libertarianism" really isn't in the scripture.
    Well, it is in mine! That's one cool thing about being a Mormon! Theologically, it is highly libertarian. And that's not just wishful thinking coming from a libertarian. There are very deep tie-ins.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Seriously? Have you run across the phrase "cry repentance" anywhere in your Biblical studies? Occasional references to "this untoward generation" and fearless, unequivocal condemnation of "abominations"? When people are bad, the prophets in the Bible seemed to, umm, tell them they were bad. To their face. Straight up. Now that act is not technically shunning, true, but I think most would call it "burning your bridges," after which chummy social relations cease to be. In today's fragile butterfly environment, harsh criticism is not compatible with friendship or close association. Thus, same result. Half a dozen, meet six.
    You're talking about different things, but I have in mind 1 Corinthians 5. The church does not refuse to have relationships with sinners in the world, but it totally cuts off the unrepentant among itself. I agree on calling the unbelieving to repentance but that's a different issue

    And of all people I would think you wouldn't say I'm one that's influenced by our culture.

    Cool. You don't have to wait until you're head of household to be an influence for good, though. You can be an influence for good in your dorm, in your classes, and everywhere.
    Agreed

    Just from a practical perspective, you know? I'm not against philosophy, politics, and such as hobbies. Obviously! Here I am!
    I hear you.
    Well, it is in mine! That's one cool thing about being a Mormon! Theologically, it is highly libertarian. And that's not just wishful thinking coming from a libertarian. There are very deep tie-ins.
    lol. I don't doubt this. But ultimately this is the point of breakdown. I would contend (though some would disagree) that the mosaic judicials are nowhere abrogated in the NT and thus binding on all nations. But if you're bringing a whole different book into it, the validity of which I reject, it doesn't really go anywhere
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by tod evans View Post
    I'm not a libertarian but I'll ask anyway.......

    Are you advocating the use of force by yourself or are you advocating having government agents use force in your stead?

    I'm asking about you, not anybody else and not philosophically or figuratively and I'm not asking about your interpretation of scripture, ONLY whether you will "use force" yourself or if in all these various discussions you are asking government to do your bidding...
    Depends on if I'm a rightful authority or not in the nation in question.
    This post represents only the opinions of Christian Liberty and not the rest of the forum. Use discretion when reading

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Christian Liberty View Post
    Depends on if I'm a rightful authority or not in the nation in question.
    I'll just take that as a great big NO........

    WTF is "rightful authority" in the first place?

    Don't ask government to do what you're afraid to do yourself...

    Typical though...........Wanting to use the force of government to force others to do as you'd like them to, shame on you!

    How about when ol' Habib and his folks get together and through voting get government to force you to do something?

    I've got no say in how you lead your life until you try to make me lead mine in the same vein... Try to learn from others past failures, and their successes too...

  35. #60
    Overall that was a well worded response to a dubiously argued point by Laurence Vance. Although I've only had time to read through Lawrence Vance's original post once, his problem is that he is not making distinctions between Judicial laws in the OT that have both Moral-Natural and Moral-Positive connotations, in other words, moral precepts that apply at all times and places (natural) and moral precepts that were applied specific to Israel but carried permanent moral teachings. Your response to him could have gotten a bit more specifically into why he was messing up by conflating principles of general equity with ceremonial laws, but that may have been a waste of time since he is falling into the trap of thinking that Christ's coming wiped out the entire Old Testament from any consideration.

    Does Vance identify as a Protestant or a Romanist? Most of Lew Rockwell's writers are Papists and mixing up natural and positive law is a massive problem in Roman theology, but if he's a self-described Protestant, it appears he's been bitten by the Antinomian bug and fixing that mess would be a daunting task.

    The one area of disagreement on this that we may hold, depending on how much you are relying on Modern Theonomist thought here, is whether or not you think that the magistrate if required to adhere to the regulative principle or if it is simply charged with maintaining the natural-moral law and promoting general equity in light of the True Religion, the latter naturally being a bit dicey since America systematically renounced the True Religion more than 200 years ago.

    Prostitution should be discouraged civilly via law in the same way that other species of 7th commandment violations that reach a similar level of aggravation, but magistracy in a culture as deformed and depraved as post-Christian America is in a similar situation as the Roman Empire, thus any attempt to enforce biblical law without an eye to practicality of circumstance wherein the positive aspects of judicial law is concerned would be folly. The wisdom of Augustine of Hippo on this point is applicable in this modern context, and if John Calvin were in a societal situation similar to this one, he'd probably come to a similar conclusion.

Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast


Posting Permissions

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