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

You sound just like the Communists in the mid 20th Century. Have your fun now. It will be short lived. This pluralist fatalism is biologically impossible. After the Europeans have been killed off and raped enough by all these foreign pagan invaders they will have to go back to Christian Theocracy in order to survive and unite. That is going to happen.In 20 years the children of liberals will be paying to hear me talk.

 

Oddly enough neither one of those gives you license to visit your neighbor, either personally or through a proxy, with violence. Congratulations, you just disproved your own stance.

 

Lay off the acid.

 

You believe in it too. Don't pretend that you don't. I'll prove you wrong just as I've done with virtually every other poster that's challenged me on this.

 

Good luck with that. "Decency" is terribly subjective.

 

Which is irrelevant to what I said, isn't it?

 

Seems terribly relevant to me, but please continue.

 

Really? So are you game then? Would you like to take the test?

 

The Bible's versions are indicative of its origins as compilation from various sources. It is a very human document for a revealed text. That was the point.

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

I don't understand your point here. Law is about social conduct. Law regulates social behaviours and that sometimes includes religious practice. The origins of law are not always in religion. Religion is frequently used to bolster law though. The Code of Hammurabi is a good early example of an interesting mix between law which built on some customs but extinguished others and the force of religion. I'm not for a moment discounting the effect of law in religion, after all many witnesses in secular western states swear an oath (that's if they wish to, many can take an affirmation instead) on the Bible and the wording of the oath may mention that the witness is testifying not just before the court but before God.


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

I suppose I could go and dig out the old law from the Soviet Union which probably wasn't based on or influenced by religion, but it certainly was influenced by Marxist-Leninist philosophy.

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.

The concept of someone giving the orders predates the Bible and for me that's how government got started. I don't know that a government should exist at all, I just know it does. My preferred position is that it doesn't exist at all but I'm not going to see that.

Government as a concept comes from early human tribalism and as humans have progressed intellectually and socially, government too has developed to the point where in a liberal democracy it's fairly sophisticated. I'm not arguing an “End of History” moment here, government will continue to develop until it's no longer needed (the “withering away of the state”) but it will and should exist as long as it is needed.

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."


I didn't understand what you were getting at so I didn't respond. Is there a justification for law based on empiricism? For me empiricism is part of epistemology. Law is a different concept or idea and it has its own philosophical bent – naturalism – positivism and all the rest of it, but that's about origin and conduct rather than a justification for its existence. Any justification for the existence of law is a bit empty, it's there because it grew out of human custom so I don't understand why there is any need for justification for law, empiricist or otherwise.

Interesting you should mention the Jesuits. Clever little buggers. But be assured, I wasn't created by a Jesuit, they didn't get me at or before 7, in fact they never got me at all (which might be a good or bad thing, I'll never know).

 

Read the very last page of the King James Bible to see what the punishment is for "adding" to the Bible, which you have done. The Bible says nothing about gay marriage.

 

what the hell does that have to do with the price of fish?

I'm continually stunned by this delusion that the internet is America, and any incursion by 'foreigners' is noteworthy. very (*)(*)(*)(*)ing freaky.

 

I like how the reference in the Revelation scroll is made into a reference to a compendium of religious texts compiled long after that particular text was written and included in it.

Seriously, how clueless can people be? The word used in the Greek to refer to "this book" is clearly not even about anything as grandiose as the Bible. The word has a meaning more akin to "booklet" in modern parlance.

 

after the Europeans are killed off, then raped 'enough' by foreigners, they'll go back to christianity?. wow, that's an impressive feat for dead sufferers of 'enough' necrophilia.

 

oh yeah, that'll be the problem.

just what we need, superstitious govts making decisions based on a 2000 year old bronze age cult.

 

Sounds like you make up your own rules. Nice!

 

Because I investigate the facts more closely than the believers do? Yeah, ok.

 

What the hell does the internet have to do with the price of fish? I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was simply pointing out that different places have different history, foundations, and customs. Which tend to make a difference in how those countries are run. I don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) how Australia is run. I've never been there, and I'll probably never see there. If they want to implement anti-Christian policies into their legislation, that's their call. It's simply different from how America was designed to be. That was all. Not sure why that was such a big deal.

 

I have shown that your secularist communism is equally archaic and exponentially more superstitious and preventative of human progress.

http://eternalpropositions.wordpres...-of-karl-marxs-dialectic-the-filioque-heresy/

Your Marxism was an extension of old Pantheistic Monadism from which Hegel developed his Historiography.

It was no mistake or accident that Protestant Theocratic England produced the likes of Shakespeare, Sir Isaac Newton and the like. It was no mistake or accident that Protestant Scotland produced Adam Smith. It was no mistake or accident that the Treaty Of Westphalia of 1648 and the beginning of Protestant Sovereign Nations is regarded as the beginning of the modern period. We are the ones who introduced freedom of the press. It was our movement that laid the foundations for civilization. Not yours. Our movement produced the likes of Bach and Rembrandt . All the fundamental devices of your modern civilization were invented by white men in Protestant countries. That has got to hurt! Your secularism is committing genocide against the WASP fountain of civilization and you are headed right back to the dark ages under your Roman Master's who trained you to be atheists. I care not for your ******* fopperies. Your children will be paying to hear me talk in the not too distant future.

 

You are shooting at a self manufactured target. I never said I had the right to execute people. I am talking about the rights and obligations of the magistrate not the common people.

 

In Isaiah it states "If my People who are called by my name will repent of their wicked ways and turn unto me with a whole heart then I will restore their land." So whose fault is it that this place is going to hell in a hand basket? Give you a hint, from a Biblical perspective it isn't the Gays, the ACLU, the Democrats or the Republicans. It's the Christians. And what are we doing wrong? Well it isn't for the most part that we aren't spending enough time bashing gays or picketing enough abortion clinics.

I'll tell you what I think it is and then it's up to you to decide whether or not you agree with me. Some where during the Great Depression Christians began to spend more time worshiping at the altar of government and all too little at the altar of God. And God decided that if you think you can replace and God who is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent with a government that is largely only omniannoying give it your best shot. We have and it is becoming increasingly obvious that we have failed in spades not to mention hearts clubs and diamonds.

 

I do not believe in the Bible. I also do not believe that a nation which recognizes freedom of religion as a basic right has the foundation to enforce religious ideas on its citizens as that clearly violates that freedom.

 

You are conflating its essence with its circumstances.

Are you saying that the law must be grounded in a religion to regulate social behavior or are you saying that law must regulate religion?

You are starting to grasp the point but as of yet unable to to answer the problem. How does one produce a system of law with a materialist philosophy? It cannot be done.

Wo is that damning! I bet it was painful to type that out yes?

And would it then not preclude the popular sovereignty doctrine from which the Enlightenment philosophers and the Communists operated?

Then by your own logic, there is not such thing as law, there is only coercion.

Not going to see that? What do you mean?

How did the human tribalists ever perceive an abstract idea when all their knowledge only came by particular experiences?

No no. Naturalism and positivism, I am guessing you are referring to logical positivism, are just extensions of empiricism.

Wo! That is more damning than the Soviet Union statement. You secularists seriously thrive off of people's ignorance. Christians don't realize how easily we could overthrow this secular regime here. It just takes someone who has the guts and the knowledge to pull back a few curtains.

Yet all of your life's philosophies came from their pens or their disciple's pens.

 

That is because gay people, once publicly recognized were to be put to death. There would be no reason to extrapolate on the civil rights or lifestyle of a person who has no rights to even exist given his MO. If you are wondering if I believe gays should be put to death my answer is yes. The magistrate, not the common people (There is a difference between the christian dispensation and the jewish commonwealth) does have that obligation put upon himself by God, Lev. 20:13.

- - - Updated - - -

"dead sufferers "?

 

Correct.

Correct.

Methinks Christians are suffering under the many extensions of pluralism. With Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine, these original 13 Colonies, once racially and religiously homogeneous, rejected the Solemn League and Covenant and opened their doors to every creed and color on the face of the earth and most destructively that old Roman religion of the Dark Ages. This came with a number of doctrinal compromises that has basically de-intellectualized Christianity. What was once a religion obsessed with philosophy and doctrine, is now a wet noodle, ready and willing to apologize whenever they have offended anyone or thought themselves arrogant for wanting to know things.

 

Agreed which is why I always point Christians to the fact that Thomas Jefferson was a Luciferian and a strong critic of the Bible and if you are careful in reading him, he acknowledged the Kingship of Christ Doctrine of the Bible and openly rejected it IN ORDER to maintain a Pluralistic philosophy of government. This system is designed to destroy Christianity and until Christians wake up to this fact they will continue to be invaded abused and disenfranchised by all the creeds and colors of the earth .