Does the Bible support forceful coercion as a means to true morality?

No.I will not.

 

So then what was the point of even bringing up the fact that the Bible has many versions?

And what you avoided is that I showed you already that no system of law is a-religious or a-philosophical.

Please give me an example of a system of law not influenced by religion.

Tell me, exactly how does one know that a government should exist at all? I know by revelation in the bible. Thus, for me, religion is the fountain of government. You have the state above the church. Rome has the Church above the state. I have religion (not the church) above the state.

You avoided this statement: "Secondly, empiricism can provide no justification for law. Can you smell law? Can you taste it? This was the problem in the pre-socratic era."

You secularists truly are chips off the old Roman Hierarchical block. You are designed to think just like the Jesuits who created you.

St. Ignatius Loyola: Spiritual Exercises, Rule 13:

 

Oh dear...

 

1. Define tyrant.

2. By what standard do you judge between a lawful ruler and a tyrant?

3. Can you please give examples of how the God of the Bible is a tyrant.

4. What is your alternative philosophy to the Bible?

 

Sure. I think it is immoral for someone to walk into a convenience store and kill the clerk for the money in the till. So indeed the government does enforce morality to a degree. Personally I do not consider gay being immoral.

I been screaming that from the mountaintops for years!

 

.

Yep so effective in fact that there are now over four hundred varieties of Christianity in California alone. It is even debateable whther or not ELCA and The LCMS worship the same God Let alone the LCMS and the Catholics. Or the old Line Presbyterians and the Catholics

 

An authority that punishes people for frivolous crimes.

Violation of basic human rights.

Death, destruction, punishment of thought crimes, and eternal punishment for crimes committed in a single insignificant lifetime.

Eastern philosophy.

 

That could be a police officer. How do you determine what is and not frivolous?

What is a right? Can you taste it? Touch it? Smell it? See it? Hear it? If not, how do you know about it?

Most of these are generalizations not specific examples. So are you saying it is morally wrong to kill absolutely?

You are conflating the essence of an activity with its modes and its circumstances. The fact that an action is committed in a certain circumstance does not undo its nature. Shedd says, "When a crime is condemned, it is absurd to ask, "How long is it condemned?" The essence of the activity is where the judgment is directed. The issue is, the essence of the activity incurs an eternal guilt. Stealing is a sin always. Thus, Shedd is correct when he says,

"Suffering that is educational and corrective may come to an end, because moral infirmity, and not guilt, is the reason for its infliction ; and moral infirmity may cease to exist. But suffering that is penal can never come to an end, because guilt is the reason for its infliction, and guilt once incurred never ceases to be"

Dogmatic Theology Vol. 2. Eschatology Chapter VI. Hell

http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com...of-christianity-ed-loftus-reply-to-chapter-10

I have given eastern philosophy a huge undertaking: http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/drakes-triadology-stuff/

My primary problem is that this is the exact same philosophy of authority as Roman Catholicism and Plotinus was never able to describe how distinction could extend from an absolute singularity. Thus the East's One, precludes our very existence.

 

Galatians 5

5 Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free,[a] and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage. 2 Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. 3 And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. 4 You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love.

7 You ran well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion does not come from Him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump. 10 I have confidence in you, in the Lord, that you will have no other mind; but he who troubles you shall bear his judgment, whoever he is.

11 And I, brethren, if I still preach circumcision, why do I still suffer persecution? Then the offense of the cross has ceased. 12 I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!

13 For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another. 14 For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 But if you bite and devour one another, beware lest you be consumed by one another!

16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,[c] fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders,[d] drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

 

What is this in response to? You are turning this into a justification debate?

 

Wow! You really don't pay attention to your opponent at all. I don't believe in the Jeffersonian pluralism here. That is kind of the whole point of this thread. I understand that American religion is fractured, and that is precisely because we live in a Country and under a Government that does not allow state religion and national councils.

 

Creating unity on the basis of delusion is not generally effective.

 

Define delusion.

 

I'd have to say religion. Suddenly, truth is in a book. Happens to be in this book. No, you don't need corroboration, we have the Pope.
Happens to COME from the book. That's right, truths not out there, it comes from the book.

 

To think that the part of the Bible that says "Give unto Caesar..." has nothing to do why people even think there is something called "secular" in the first place would probably be counter-intuitive, though calling it delusional might be a bit of a stretch.

 

Please, explain. Sure, maybe Jesus had a few good values. That's no reason to put it off on the Jewish god. Keep the bearded monsters out of it.

 

Funny how God is never around for the discussions, edits, compromises, and re-interpretations. Its just a bunch of guys getting together and offering their opinions on what this means or what that means.

A popular religious cop out is that man cannot know the mind of god and his mysterious ways.

Yet getting together for an ecumenical council to determine the "proper" theology is considered a legitimate process. IOW, its man determining Gods intentions and meanings, and since he doesn't come round much anymore, their word must be taken as the "authorized" version of religious truth.

 

It's in response to your entire argument.

"You shall love your neighbor as yourself"

Condoning/perpetrating violence against someone for a non-violent action is not loving your neighbor...it is the opposite of that.

 

“And this means, not emancipation from servitude, but good treatment as servants; which is proven by the fact that the precept contemplates the relation of masters and servants as still subsisting.” http://eternalpropositions.wordpres...s-the-abolitionist-appeal-to-the-golden-rule/

The illogic of a proof against the Golden Rule because an inequality is subsisting is totally ignoring the reality of occupation; Helots never won, Spartacus lost, and so did John Brown. Lincoln sent Lee in to prevent a repeat of a recent Caribbean reciprocity wiping out the whites; with 60% of the heart of the Deep South Negroid, and most abolitionists of the period from Polk to Lincoln against a “Brown America,” it is no wonder it took so many years to draft an emancipation proclamation that did not call for kicking the freed slaves out to Liberia or South America as the first draft did.

An illogical idiot who does not understand reciprocity deserves what Lincoln was trying to prevent; you live by coercion and the ethic of reciprocity means your MoHamMad deserves to be coerced into bending over and taking it from the rear as Gay Slave booty. You slave others, your slave has the right to give you what you want for others, your enslavement; coerce and you get coercion.

We have had representation long before my Great Uncle went to Atlanta to get his runaway slave back during FDR.

If you really believe all that crap, what are you a cowardly traitor among millions of cowardly white traitors?

 

Then I will laugh as you fail miserably.

 

I was not asking for denotation I was asking for connotation.You did not define delusion you gave me an example of what you think delusion is.

Are you saying that I am roman catholic? If so that is a laugher. I am a Protestant.

What r u talking about?

- - - Updated - - -

I believe in a separation of church and state as two distinct institutions. So I do believe in the secular aspect to society. What I do not say is that the state should be a-religious.

 

I think you are conflating deliberation with opinion. You are conflating the activity of an essence with its object. Do theologians tell what they think about a certain passage? Yes of course. Does that mean it is their mere opinion? No. People like Charles Manson and Buddha or others teach their opinion. Theologians study what the bible says in its original languages etc. That is very different. The former's teaching is based on one's own authority, the latter on the authority of scripture. I continue to be intrigued with how similarly Atheists and Roman Catholics think. What you just said is verbatim what Roman Catholics say about Protestants.

That is a product of Neoplatonism that came into the church through Victorinus and Pseudo Dionysius. I have given many years of my life to document that claim: http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/drakes-triadology-stuff/

That is simplistic. The Nicene Council simply creedalized what had been a popular notion for centuries. They determined little. Mostly the wording.

Almost word for word out of the mouth of a Roman Catholic Apologist. Thinking just like your Jesuit creators have programmed you to think.

 

Love for God comes before love for neighbor. Mathew 22:36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” 37 And He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

 

Only Protestantism believes that "Heaven is a Gift" "Sola Fide - salvation by faith alone" This concept came about because of Luther = Lutheranism or the first protestant church.

Catholics and Orthodox do not hold Sola Fide as doctrine.

It the Pauline material in the Bible that professes this doctrine. Pretty much everything else in the NT suggests that salvation is on the basis of works.

 

I (via Dabney) was not arguing against the Golden Rule. I was arguing against the nonsensical Abolitionist Interpretation of it.

Please stick to the point sir. You have failed to address my (via Dabney) refutation of the Yankee Communist interpretation of the Golden rule.

How do you justify the existence of logic?

Reciprocity was not given to the slave traders who first loaded the South with slaves in the first place:

http://eternalpropositions.wordpres...a-in-the-hopes-of-avoiding-a-coming-race-war/

http://eternalpropositions.wordpres...es-part-2-identifying-the-real-slave-traders/

And the fact that you appeal to reciprocity tells me you still did not grasp Dabney's refutation.

MoHamMad? What the hell are you talking about? What does MoHamMad have to do with me?

How do you know this?

Really? Then please explain to me this article:

http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/concerning-roman-catholicism/archbishop-quigley-s-confession

That article tells me there is a nation wide complicity with Rome.

Traitor to who? You Jeffersonians are the traitors. The Solemn League and Covenant is still over you which you rejected here with that Luciferian. You Jeffersonians are the traitors. His Communism (all men are created equal) was evident from his first major work.