Question For The Christians Of The Board

[Natural Citizen]

That has nothing to do with it. Liberty, as it was used in that sentence, and as it is used in the New Testament, has to do with freedom from the judgment of God's moral law, not anything about earthly political liberty.

Well. You're wrong. As usual.

I'll share with you a quote from a great book on the topic. One which is fundamental to self-governance thatis premised upon the primary foundation for moral code (
Natural Law...God's Law)

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.

This governmental philosophy is, therefore, essentially religious in nature. It is uniquely American; no other people in all history have ever made this principle the basis of their governmental philosophy. The spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is a concept which is basic to this American philosophy. It expresses the spiritual relationship of God to Man and, in the light thereof, of Man to Man. To forget these truths is a most heinous offense against the spirit of traditional America because the greatest sin is the lost consciousness of sin.

The fundamentally religious basis of this philosophy is the foundation of its moral code, which contemplates The Individual's moral duty as being created by God's Law: the Natural Law. The Individual's duty requires obedience to this Higher Law; while knowledge of this duty comes from conscience, which the religious-minded and morally-aware Individual feels duty-bound to heed. This philosophy asserts that there are moral absolutes: truths, such as those mentioned above, which are binding upon all Individuals at all times under all circumstances. This indicates some of the spiritual and moral values which are inherent in its concept of Individual Liberty-Responsibility.

An Indivisible Whole

3. The American philosophy, based upon this principle, is an indivisible whole and must be accepted or rejected as such. It cannot be treated piece-meal. Its fundamentals and its implicit meanings and obligations must be accepted together with its benefits.

The Individual's Self-respect

4. The concept of Man's spiritual nature, and the resulting concept of the supreme dignity and value of each Individual, provide the fundamental basis for each Individual's self-respect and the consequent mutual respect among Individual's. This self-respect as well as this mutual respect are the outgrowth of, and evidenced by, The Individual's maintenance of his God-given, unalienable rights. They are maintained by requiring that government and other Individuals respect them, as well as by his dedication to his own unceasing growth toward realization of his highest potential--spiritually, morally, intellectually, in every aspect of life. This is in order that he may merit maximum respect by self and by others.

Some Things Excluded

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.
6. Only those ideas, programs and practices, regarding things governmental, which are consistent with the concept that "The Spiritual is supreme" can justly be claimed to be truly American traditionally. Anything and everything governmental, which is in conflict with this concept, is non-American--judged by traditional belief.

This applies particularly to that which is agnostic, or atheistic--neutral about, or hostile to, positive and affirmative belief in this concept based upon belief in God as Man's Creator. There is not room for doubt, much less disbelief, in this regard from the standpoint of the traditional American philosophy. Its indivisible nature makes this inescapably true. This pertains, of course, to the realm of ideas and not to any person; it is the conflicting idea which is classified as non-American, according to this philosophy.

America a Haven For All Religions

7. The traditional American philosophy teaches that belief in God is the fundamental link which unites the adherents of all religions in a spiritual brotherhood. This philosophy allows for no differentiation between them in this unifying conviction: ". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." This philosophy is all inclusive as to believers in God. Although America was originally colonized predominantly by adherents of the Christian religion, and principally by Protestants, the Founding Fathers steadfastly conformed to this all-embracing character of the approach of the American philosophy to religion. This was expressly and affirmatively indicated in the proclamation of 1776 of the fundamental American philosophy, of its basic principles, in the Declaration of Independence. This was further indicated, negatively, in 1787-1788 by the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution--as a "blueprint" for the structure of the then proposed Federal government, with strictly limited powers--by not permitting it to possess any power with regard to religion. This implied prohibition against the Federal government was reinforced by the addition of the First Amendment expressly prohibiting it, through the Congress, from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."--the words "an establishment of religion" being intended to mean, specifically and only, a church or religious organization which is established, supported and preferred by the government, like the Church of England establishments then existing in some of the States.
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.

[Jamesiv1]

That has nothing to do with it. Liberty, as it was used in that sentence, and as it is used in the New Testament, has to do with freedom from the judgment of God's moral law, not anything about earthly political liberty.

I never said it had anything to do with earthly political liberty. You did.

The oppression of the common man by the Jewish elite, in cahoots with the Roman Empire was a huge issue of the day. Imagine trying to keep all those Old Testament laws. Ridiculous.

And you had the Pharisees and Jewish elite strutting around like they are keepers of the law, and holier than thou.... Meanwhile, the average Joe can't feed his family because he's required to give half his income to the Temple.

The climate was ripe for a Rebel With a Cause.

[Natural Citizen]

I hope that one day the mods here will really study S_F's practices here for what they are. I think that he takes advantage of the fact that they really don't understand what he's actually doing. I don't think they understand the actual movement of this modern, authoritarian, doctrine. It is authoritarian by rule. And it has gradually been growing into a political movement, too. I'm kind of tired of being the only one pointing this fact out.

S_F knows nothing of Individual Liberty. What he's doing here is patently anti-liberty. He's authoritarian by doctrine. The very foundation of Individual Liberty is that Man is spiritual by nature. S_F patently rejects that. He rejects that all men are spiritual and created equally. His doctrine rejects this fact. And it's not even legit doctrine. It's some bull pucky that some guy pulled out of his revisionist butt in the 16th century that says that some christians are more worthy than others. It's unbiblical. Which is why he always proof-texts scripture and ignores its tenor. Of course people are gonna jump on that meme. It makes em feel like they are the only real christians. And they sure do tell you that, too. As we can clearly see by S_F's spew here.

[Natural Citizen]

I never said it had anything to do with earthly political liberty. You did.

You should have. Don't let that punk spin the discussion into his own terms. That's what he wants you to do.

[Jamesiv1]

You should have. Don't let that punk spin the discussion into his own terms. That's what he wants you to do.

I'm not backing off of it, just pointing out that S_F was mistaken about what I wrote.

My point was they didn't distinguish between the secular and the religious the way we do today. It was all the same.

Sola gets so consumed by his dogmatic Paulism's that he seems unable to put the words of Jesus and his followers in a real-life context. Who was Jesus' audience? Why did they turn out huge crowds to see him and hear him? What was he really saying to them? Why did it anger the elite so much that they had to kill him?

[Sola_Fide]

I hope that one day the mods here will really study S_F's practices here for what they are. I think that he takes advantage of the fact that they really don't understand what he's actually doing. I don't think they understand the actual movement of this modern, authoritarian, doctrine. It is authoritarian by rule. And it has gradually been growing into a political movement, too. I'm kind of tired of beng the only one pointing this fact out.

S_F knows nothing of Individual Liberty. What he's doing here is patently anti-liberty. He's authoritarian by doctrine. The very foundation of Individual Liberty is that Man is spiritual by nature. S_F patently rejects that. He rejects that all men are spiritual and created equally. His doctrine rejects this fact. And it's not even legit doctrine. It's some bull pucky that some guy pulled out of his revisionist butt in the 16th century that says that some christians are more worthy than others. It's unbiblical. Which is why he always proof-texts scripture and ignores its tenor. Of course people are gonna jump on that meme. It makes em feel like they are the only real christians. And they sure do tell you that, too. As we can clearly see by S_F's spew here.

You're an idiot. I am a voluntarist.

Secondly, man is not spiritual by nature. Man has a soul, but His nature is not spiritual. Man is flesh. God is spiritual by nature, man is not.

1st Corinthians 15:42-46

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead: What is sown is perishable; it is raised imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being;” the last Adam a life-giving spirit.

The spiritual, however, was not first, but the natural, and then the spiritual.

[Sola_Fide]

Well. You're wrong. As usual.

I'll share with you a quote from a great book on the topic. One which is fundamental to self-governance thatis premised upon the primary foundation for moral code (
Natural Law...God's Law)

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.

This governmental philosophy is, therefore, essentially religious in nature. It is uniquely American; no other people in all history have ever made this principle the basis of their governmental philosophy. The spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is a concept which is basic to this American philosophy. It expresses the spiritual relationship of God to Man and, in the light thereof, of Man to Man. To forget these truths is a most heinous offense against the spirit of traditional America because the greatest sin is the lost consciousness of sin.

The fundamentally religious basis of this philosophy is the foundation of its moral code, which contemplates The Individual's moral duty as being created by God's Law: the Natural Law. The Individual's duty requires obedience to this Higher Law; while knowledge of this duty comes from conscience, which the religious-minded and morally-aware Individual feels duty-bound to heed. This philosophy asserts that there are moral absolutes: truths, such as those mentioned above, which are binding upon all Individuals at all times under all circumstances. This indicates some of the spiritual and moral values which are inherent in its concept of Individual Liberty-Responsibility.

An Indivisible Whole

3. The American philosophy, based upon this principle, is an indivisible whole and must be accepted or rejected as such. It cannot be treated piece-meal. Its fundamentals and its implicit meanings and obligations must be accepted together with its benefits.

The Individual's Self-respect

4. The concept of Man's spiritual nature, and the resulting concept of the supreme dignity and value of each Individual, provide the fundamental basis for each Individual's self-respect and the consequent mutual respect among Individual's. This self-respect as well as this mutual respect are the outgrowth of, and evidenced by, The Individual's maintenance of his God-given, unalienable rights. They are maintained by requiring that government and other Individuals respect them, as well as by his dedication to his own unceasing growth toward realization of his highest potential--spiritually, morally, intellectually, in every aspect of life. This is in order that he may merit maximum respect by self and by others.

Some Things Excluded

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.
6. Only those ideas, programs and practices, regarding things governmental, which are consistent with the concept that "The Spiritual is supreme" can justly be claimed to be truly American traditionally. Anything and everything governmental, which is in conflict with this concept, is non-American--judged by traditional belief.

This applies particularly to that which is agnostic, or atheistic--neutral about, or hostile to, positive and affirmative belief in this concept based upon belief in God as Man's Creator. There is not room for doubt, much less disbelief, in this regard from the standpoint of the traditional American philosophy. Its indivisible nature makes this inescapably true. This pertains, of course, to the realm of ideas and not to any person; it is the conflicting idea which is classified as non-American, according to this philosophy.

America a Haven For All Religions

7. The traditional American philosophy teaches that belief in God is the fundamental link which unites the adherents of all religions in a spiritual brotherhood. This philosophy allows for no differentiation between them in this unifying conviction: ". . . all men are created . . . endowed by their Creator . . ." This philosophy is all inclusive as to believers in God. Although America was originally colonized predominantly by adherents of the Christian religion, and principally by Protestants, the Founding Fathers steadfastly conformed to this all-embracing character of the approach of the American philosophy to religion. This was expressly and affirmatively indicated in the proclamation of 1776 of the fundamental American philosophy, of its basic principles, in the Declaration of Independence. This was further indicated, negatively, in 1787-1788 by the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution--as a "blueprint" for the structure of the then proposed Federal government, with strictly limited powers--by not permitting it to possess any power with regard to religion. This implied prohibition against the Federal government was reinforced by the addition of the First Amendment expressly prohibiting it, through the Congress, from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."--the words "an establishment of religion" being intended to mean, specifically and only, a church or religious organization which is established, supported and preferred by the government, like the Church of England establishments then existing in some of the States.
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.

Whatever that comes from that has nothing to do with how the New Testament writers used the term "liberty". You are wrong, because you don't understand (and probably don't care to even study) what the Biblical writers meant when they used the term "liberty" in the New Testament. It has nothing to do with politics.

[phill4paul]

I really don't think that Jesus, would care to be called Christ at all.

[heavenlyboy34]

I really don't think that Jesus, would care to be called Christ at all.

Well,he claimed to be the Son Of God. Christ is a title that means the same thing. He accepts this title in the Gospel, too.(and calls Simon blessed for using it) Matthew 16:16-17. I reckon you think wrongly. ~hugs~

[phill4paul]

Well,he claimed to be the Son Of God. Christ is a title that means the same thing. He accepts this title in the Gospel, too.(and calls Simon blessed for using it) Matthew 16:16-17. I reckon you think wrongly. ~hugs~

Fair enough. And thanks for the correction. Squiggly hugs squiggly.

I just don't think he would want top billing in the triumvirate. No one ever talks about the holy ghost much these days.

[Jamesiv1]

Well,he claimed to be the Son Of God. Christ is a title that means the same thing. He accepts this title in the Gospel, too.(and calls Simon blessed for using it) Matthew 16:16-17. I reckon you think wrongly. ~hugs~

Unless the monks tweaked it just a smidge with encouragement from the Archbishop's rod per the Emperor's "gentle suggestion". Wouldn't want to risk losing that 501(c)3 status, after all. squiggly.hugz.squiggly

[Sola_Fide]

I really don't think that Jesus, would care to be called Christ at all.

Not only Christ, but Lord and God. He accepted worship from Thomas, not only accepted it, but praised Thomas for his worship toward Him.

[pcosmar]

So HOW does God show forgiveness to a man who is a lawbreaker, given the fact that He always requires a perfect lawkeeping from him?

Jesus Christ.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Do we really have to go back to the beginning when we are this near the end?

[Natural Citizen]

You're an idiot. I am a voluntarist.

No, you're not. You're dictatorial. To be dictatorial is to contradict voluntarism. Heck, you even supported Hillary clinton for President. Remember? Just like a lot of libertines identify as libertarian. They think they're libertarian, but they aren't. You're situation is much the same. You're just as authoritarian as any other authoritarian group that patently contradicts the moral foundation for Individual Liberty. You oppose man's spiritual nature, which effectually tells us that you believe that man cannot have have Natural Law as his primary foundation for moral code. Of course, that primary foundation for moral code must be accepted with fundamental principles. We call this Liberty-Responsibility.

And the sooner you're outta here for good, the better. If it was my choice alone, you'd already be gone. Like yesterday.

[Natural Citizen]

Whatever that comes from that has nothing to do with how the New Testament writers used the term "liberty". You are wrong, because you don't understand (and probably don't care to even study) what the Biblical writers meant when they used the term "liberty" in the New Testament. It has nothing to do with politics.

First of all, I didn't say that it did have to do with politics, per se. But it does reflect man's choices in properly self-governing. What I said was that the spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is a concept which is basic to this American philosophy. It expresses the spiritual relationship of God to Man and, in the light thereof, of Man to Man. And, of course, what is government but men? a proper government to man relationship is the product of a proper man to man relationship. Again, a spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God. And that's the only legitimate way to make Romans 13 applicable.

Don't try to spin words I place here. You're being a deceptive scoundrel when you do that.

[heavenlyboy34]

Unless the monks tweaked it just a smidge with encouragement from the Archbishop's rod per the Emperor's "gentle suggestion". Wouldn't want to risk losing that 501(c)3 status, after all. squiggly.hugz.squiggly

Got any evidence whatsoever that would lead you to believe such a thing would have happened? It's not like the gospels were one day written when Constantine converted. Mark (the first written Gospel) was written c. 40 AD. Constantine becomes emperor 306 AD. By the time of Constantine's conversion the Gospels existed in many, many copies and were understood by people who spoke the various Indo-European languages in the Byzantine empire.

[Sola_Fide]

No, you're not. You just think you are. Just like a lot of libertines identify as libertarian. They think they're libertarian, but they aren't. You're situation is much the same. You're just as authoritarian as any other authoritrian group that patently contradicts the foundation for Individual Liberty. You oppose man's spiritual nature, which effectually tells us that you believe that man cannot have have Natural Law as his primary foundation for moral code. Of course, that primary foundation for moral code must be accepted with fundamntal principles. We call this Liberty-Responsibility.

And the sooner you're outta here for good, the better. If it was my choice alone, you'd already be gone. Like yesterday.

You can believe that man has a spiritual nature, but that just shows that you are not a Christian and don't have Biblical view of man. You're fine. Go with it.

You can believe in natural law, but that just shows an you aren't a Christian and don't have the Biblical view of law, which is theonomy.

I allow all views in society because I am a voluntarist. Not only a voluntarist, but an intellectual, commited voluntarist, who knows the exact intersection between my theology and philosophy of ethics and politics.

You have no idea what you are talking about, as usual.

If I had my way, I'd want all views here on this forum, because unlike you, I have confidence in my worldview, and I like to engage with all theories. But you are a coward.

[Sola_Fide]

First of all, I didn't say that it did have to do with politics, per se. But it does reflect man's choices in properly self-governing. What I said was that the spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is a concept which is basic to this American philosophy. It expresses the spiritual relationship of God to Man and, in the light thereof, of Man to Man. And, of course, what is government but men? a proper government to man relationship is the product of a proper man to man relationship. Again, a spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God. And that's the only legitimate way to make Romans 13 applicable.

Don't try to spin words I place here. You deceptive scoundrel.

I'm a.... "scoundrel "? Sir, you are an uneducated idiot.

What you described in no way is "the only way" to make Romans 13 "applicable".

You don't understand that there is not a "spiritual brotherhood of man" in a country, there is a spiritual brotherhood in the church, but not in a country. Because in a country there are children of God and children of the devil.

Here's a question: What verse did Jesus say there are children of God and children of the devil? Look it up.

[Natural Citizen]

...you are not a Christian

You can believe in natural law, but that just shows an you aren't a Christian

I am...an intellectual,

Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.

But you are a coward.

Hehehe. Well, you just keep thinking that. I'll tell you, though, that my armor is gettng thicker by the day. It's way little thicker than yours. Granted, there was a time when I didn't have any. You're a mocker, S_F. Do you remember what the Good Lord said about mockers? Do you remember how He described, mockers, S_F? If not, then, you will. In time...

Look that up.

[Natural Citizen]

I'm a.... "scoundrel "? Sir, you are an uneducated idiot.

Yes. You're, as usual, being a deceptive scoundrel.

What you described in no way is "the only way" to make Romans 13 "applicable".

I disagree. Completely. I thought that you said you were an intellectual?

You don't understand that there is not a "spiritual brotherhood of man" in a country, there is a spiritual brotherhood in the church, but not in a country. Because in a country there are children of God and children of the devil.

Again a proper man to government relationship is the consequence of a proper man to man relationship. And, of course, a proper man to man relationship is the fruit of Natural Law. The spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God.

As usual, you're spinning words. As I said..a deceptive scoundrel.

[lilymc]

You're an idiot.

You can believe in natural law, but that just shows an you aren't a Christian

You have no idea what you are talking about, as usual.

But you are a coward.

Sir, you are an uneducated idiot.

Always telling everyone that they're not Christians while displaying completely unchristian behavior.

Always accusing and arrogantly condemning.

Who does that remind us of?

(Hint, it's not God.)

[Natural Citizen]

Always telling everyone that they're not Christians while displaying completely unchristian behavior.

Always accusing and arrogantly condemning.

Who does that remind us of?

(Hint, it's not God.)

Accuser of the Bretheren?

He was also condemning the Methodists earlier. Hm. I wonder who that might remind us of? Hmmm...who do we think of when we think of the condemner in the Bible? Well, I don't know about you guys, but I think it's time that we cast down this accuser of our brethren, which accuses us before our God day and night.

[lilymc]

Well, I don't know about you guys, but I think it's time that we cast down this accuser of our brethren, which accuses us before our God day and night.

When that happens… *singing with arms up in the air*

[Natural Citizen]

.


If I had my way, I'd want all views here on this forum, because unlike you, I have confidence in my worldview, and I like to engage with all theories.

No. You want to use the platform to divide Believers and to promote the idea that you're part of some special inner worthy circle of Christian. What you want to do is use the board to constantly reaffirm your own theological correctness by purposefully dividing Believers. And by your own words, the more people you can play 20 questions with in order to keep that bull pucky going, the better. In fact, I specifically recall you openly confessing that you rejected the section being called Peace Through Religion. You rejected it completely and promoted the idea that you were in a 'spiritual war' against Believers here who you personally feel aren't Christian. You claimed that you are at war with us since we, in your view, aren't a part of your theoretical inner circle of worthier-than-thou special snowflake Christians. Which is pretty much all of us here, in your view. You want total chaos. What you want to do is use the board to continually reaffirm your own theological correctness while dividing the Believers. And I'll tell you something. The way that you proof-text and remove scripture from its biblical context is really just an illustration of the futility of systematic theology. It makes you look foolish among Christians who recognize the actual tenor of scripture. Now, granted, I'm not perfect. I have much to learn. And I'm trying, man, I really am. sometimes a little blurb will come out. But what you're doing is Satan's work. You're playing the roles of Deceiver, Destroyer, Ruler, and Accuser all at the same time. And you're doing so in a very prideful way. Thats baaaaaad. Bad, bad, bad, S_F. Bad S_F.

[donnay]

I get that you are saying forgiveness, and I actually agree with that.

But there is a principle that is being expressed here. The principle is that God never ever ever adjusts the demands of His law. God will judge every man on the basis of His law. To be in God's presence, you must be holy as He is holy, you must be without sin.

So HOW does God show forgiveness to a man who is a lawbreaker, given the fact that He always requires a perfect lawkeeping from him?

To repent for your sins through Jesus Christ. It's not as complex as you make it.

[donnay]

Here's a pop quiz for you, Sola:

Which two churches out of the seven was Jesus pleased with?

[Superfluous Man]

The spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God is a concept which is basic to this American philosophy.

Are you trying to say that people should have to agree with this philosophy to be able to belong here?

If so, you're basically saying that Christians aren't welcome.

[Natural Citizen]

Are you trying to say that people should have to agree with this philosophy to be able to belong here?

If so, you're basically saying that Christians aren't welcome.

Absolutely not. Now, since you're cherry picking one sentence out of all of that, my point was that, yes, proper government to man relations are based on proper man to man relations which, itself, is a product of the the spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God. S_F tried to separate moral self-governance by saying that "liberty" in the NT wasn't germane to the way man should govern himself.

What S_F is doing is he's contradicting the very foundation of Liberty by claiming that man lacks a spiritual nature. He's setting up the terms to be that man cannot self-govern politically as if man cannot have a spiritual relationship with God. As usual, he's wrong. And as usual, he's doing so in order to project his own doctrinal superiority. As you may know, S_F believes that man is predestined. And I'm certain that he believes he is predestined to recieve Grace. So by S_F's model, man cannot apply moral standard politically.

As far as your little line about Christians not being welcomed, I was very clear to say that it is S_F who is purposefully dividing believers. And if you can't see that, then you're being intentionally ignorant of that fact. Everyone else here can see it. I'm trying to speak up for Believers. So don't spin my words, please.

[Superfluous Man]

Absolutely not. Now, since you're cherry picking one sentence out of all of that

In my defense, you highlighted that sentence.

[Superfluous Man]

Absolutely not. Now, since you're cherry picking one sentence out of all of that, my point was that, yes, proper government to man relations are based on proper man to man relations which, itself, is a product of the the spiritual brotherhood of men under the common fatherhood of God. S_F tried to separate moral self-governance by saying that "liberty" in the NT wasn't germane to the way man should govern himself.

What S_F is doing is he's contradicting the very foundation of Liberty by claiming that man lacks a spiritual nature. He's setting up the terms to be that man cannot self-govern politically as if man cannot have a spiritual relationship with God. As usual, he's wrong. And as usual, he's doing so in order to project his own doctrinal superiority. As you may know, S_F believes that man is predestined. And I'm certain that he believes he is predestined to recieve Grace. So by S_F's model, man cannot apply moral standard politically.

As far as your little line about Christians not being welcomed, I was very clear to say that it is S_F who is purposefully dividing believers. And if you can't see that, then you're being intentionally ignorant of that fact. Everyone else here can see it. I'm trying to speak up for Believers. So don't spin my words, please.

You seem to be saying that it's not enough just to disclaim the use of violence to subjugate others under one's own rule, but one must also agree with your philosophical basis for doing that, and can't reach that same conclusion by some other philosophy.

Perhaps some professing Christians will claim that all human beings are spiritual brothers under the fatherhood of God. But that belief contradicts Christianity, which teaches that one must be a Christian to have God as one's Father and spiritual brotherhood with other Christians, and it's not just some sectarian offshoot of divisive Christians who think so.