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

God doesn't need "the magistrate" to enforce His law. Furthermore, "the magistrate", as you have already agreed, is not exempt from His law. Aaaaand, in a republic when the state meets your neighbor with violence then that is YOU meeting out that violence by proxy. Why is loving your neighbor so difficult for you? It's actually pretty easy. A lot of times it wholly consists of simply leaving him alone.

 

What does forceful coersion have to do with not recognizing something?
In fact, marriage is all about coersion. Two people enter into a contract and the government enforces it. So gay marriage would mean more coersion, not less.

 

The issue is not what God needs. The issue is, what has God ordained? Lawful Magistrates are called “gods” as they are representatives of God in judgment (Psa 82:1, 2 Chron 19:6, Prov 8:15). That is what God has ordained (Rom 13:1-5).

 

The concept that “all men are created equal” is the essence of the Golden Rule and the notion put forth by Jesus that we pray to OUR father in heaven.

Communism is not based upon the Golden Rule but upon something that is “still subsisting,” which is oppression, as communism cannot be maintained with freedom of speech and representative government. Simply because something is subsisting, and logic and its power did not or has not overcame or brought reciprocity to the slave traders of MoHamMad does not justify the Koran or some idiot Dabney.

MoHamMad and your Dabney are one in the same, they are birds of a feather.

The PDF file you directed me to read is not open to all to view, it requires signing into Google. Regardless of what it says, the rants of one person are not PROOF some illuminati controls the world.

Logic cannot grasp Dabney's refutation of the “Yankee Communist interpretation” of the Golden rule, because Dabney’s illogic claims that the remaining in existence of thing makes it a proof that said thing is in compliance with the Golden Rule.

By Dabney’s illogic if an article tells you there is a nationwide complicity with Rome, it is in compliance with the Golden Rule and you must submit:

“And this means, not emancipation from servitude, but good treatment as servants under ‘liberal’ social and economic justice; which is proven by the fact that the precept contemplates the relation of masters (Neocommies) and servants (Comrades) as still subsisting.”

We the People own this land, whether we vote for socialism or redistribution by “A Congregation working toward ECONOMIC PARITY,” and it is not up to one idiot Dabney or a Ron Pod and their delusional followers to rule us all or to usurp any inch of our land.

I justify the existence of logic by using it, and winning (no matter how long it takes).

 

The term used was elohim. It was also used in the Bible to refer to pagan deities and demons. You should be careful as to whom you hold as a "god".

Also, you're dodging the issue. Are "magistrates" required to keep the commandments or not? If they are then meeting peaceful people with violence is not reconcilable with loving your neighbor.

 

“But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” (Leviticus 19:34)

Jefferson’s understanding of the Golden Rule is illustrated by our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, which allows for a land of Egypt being different from Israel or Florida (Bible Belt) being different than Nevada (Bunny Ranch). There is nothing in the Bible about forcing Egypt to be Jew, or of the book, that is an anti-Christ corruption in the Koran.

The concept that Christians would insist all City/States must be coerced to being Christian is in fact anti-Christ; Christ only instructed that when a city mistreated the teachers that the dust be knocked off their shoes upon leaving and they be left to judgment day. We are supposed to conquer with love, not hate and sword.

Jesus Christ did not come to rule and conquer, if he did he would have called down host of angels and like the false prophet MoHamMad had an entire book dedicated to WAR BOOTY.

 

There is no going back to Christian theocracy. That system relied heavily on the ignorance of the raging masses and too many folks are just not that gullible these days.

While folks are still religious most Christians do not buy into the idea that religious leaders speak for God, especially in Europe.

 

The modern Trinity doctrine (Jesus and God the Father are the same entity) was heresy for the at least the first 250 years of Christianity.

 

You asked about producing a system of law with a materialist philosophy. From that I think you mean, “without religion”. I've shown you. Law is really an extension of custom among humans, it regulates human behaviour in social settings. It doesn't depend on religion but it has and continues in some jurisdictions, to use it.

The Soviet Union's law is just one example of a legal system that doesn't refer to religion in any major way.

“Popular sovereignty”? Do you mean the replacement of the Divine Right of Kings and its appeal to God as supporting an absolutist monarch with a more democratic form of government?

I'm not going to see the end of government and I would be very surprised if even the youngest member of PF saw the end of government. It will happen but not for many lifetimes.

Human tribalists, abstract ideas and knowledge. We're talking about homo sapiens here. Abstract thinking was and is part of homo sapiens cognitive abilities, even primates demonstrate abstract thinking - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultan_(chimpanzee) . As for trial and error, that's only one of the ways that humans – and primates – learn. Both species are capable of transmitting knowledge to one another without the requirement for trial and error and for primates which don't have the ability to speak that's a pretty neat trick. Primates in social situations will influence each other - http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/ht...g.com/htmlsite/editors_pick/1947_12_pick.html - http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_monkey_banana_and_water_spray_experiment_ever_take_place – sources are at the end of the item.

The idea of gods is an abstract idea and it seems to have been present from a very early point in homo sapiens' existence. I think the ability of our species to think in an abstract manner is shown.

 

Marriage has its origins in the concept of property. The father owns his daughter, she was his property. He would accept propositions from suitors and make a decision as to whom he would sell her. The daughter then becomes a wife and the property of the husband. The contractual ideas were instituted to give the wife some sort of property rights in marriage. Not the earliest but possibly the most detailed laws governing marriage can be found in Roman Law.

The problem here is that throughout history and across the world marriage has had many different forms and associated customs, I'm trying to limit it to the form that most of us are familiar with and looking at its origins. And those are its origins in western culture at least. Given that then it's obvious why gay marriage never came up as an issue until recent years when western societies (and others of course, but I'm limiting my comment to my own cultural experience) broke free from the property-being-traded paradigm and moved to a voluntary union between two people. When that happened it became theoretically possible for same-sex marriage to exist.

 

True morality comes voluntarily from within, whether you're Christian, Muslim, atheist or whatever.
Only an idiot would think that true morality can be coerced.
Are you saying that the Bible was written by idiots?

 

This is terribly simplistic. Are all men equally men, well yes, but that is tautological. It depends what you mean by equal. I do not believe that all men have an equal right of franchise, and I do not believe that all men are equally valuable. I do not believe that all cultures are equal. The fundamental aspects of modern civilization were created by white men in protestant countries. Why should I think anyone else is equal to my ancestor's culture. The white protestants opened the freedom of the press and created the most powerful nations in the history of the world. WE have NO equals. The Roman Catholic Countries were left in the dark ages that they are still under: Mexico is a prime example. The Communists produced no culture, only wide spread massacre. They produced no significant literature, no great author, no great painter, no great philosopher. No culture. Why should I believe any other movement or people are equal to the Protestants that descend from the British isles and Northern Europe? Please explain this to me?

I understand that. I am not harping against the golden rule but the yankee communist interpretation of it. It is hard to positively predicate much about Communist Philosophy because it is in its very nature a Hegelian anti-thesis.

Resorting to insults, prior to refutation, is the most graceless way to admit your arguments have filed and you cannot answer the man.

I put no restrictions on that file. It is open to the public. Did you hit the black arrow on the right?

Word pasta. This is a way to protect yourself from having to deal rationally with what is before you. You didn't even respond to a single statement he made.

You are a complete buffoon. Dabney's statement on the golden rule had nothing to do with Rome. You didn't even read his quote did you? I'm done with you.

Actually the Roman Catholic Church owns quite a bit of the United States.

Then you have provided no justification for it. You are clearly an unstable person who cannot follow an argument or write coherently. Goodbye. Don't expect me to reply to much else you have to say.

 

You are operating off of a faulty interpretation of the Golden Rule:

Dabney, Defence of Virginia, 195-198

 

This contradicts nothing of what I said.

I never said that Christians should insist that all the people should be coerced into being christians but that the GOVERNMENT should acknowledge the authority of Jesus Christ and rule according to the Bible. There is no alternative ethical foundation. None. Ziltch. Nada. As for the coercing people to be christians thing, Rutherford refuted this misrepresentation a long time ago:

Free Disputation Chapter 4 by Samuel Rutherford,

But Jesus Christ's earthly coming has expired. He ascended to the right hand of God as the mediatorial king of all.

Isa 60:12 For the nation and the kingdom which will not serve you will perish

Dan 7: 13 “I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14 “And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed.

Rev 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood

Ps. 89:27 "I will make him my first born, higher than the kings of the earth."

1 Cor 15: 24 then comes the end, when He hands over the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be abolished is death. 27 For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him.

Here in verse 25 we have the greek word for reign: basileuō. This is Present, Active, Infinitive. Thus this reigning is not something in the future. It is something happening right now. This is buttressed further by the subsequent preposition until. Thus reigning is something happening now that will continue to happen UNTIL all his enemies are supplanted. This is connected: Psalm 110:1 The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.” [Compare with-DS] Hebrews 1:13 But to which of the angels has He ever said, “ SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET”?

Luk 22: just as My Father has granted Me a kingdom, I grant you 30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Acts 5:29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. 30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross. 31 He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Eph 1: 19 And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, 20 Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places,21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:

Notice he says that God raised Christ above everyone in this world. It does not say that his kingdom was completely separate from this world. There is a relation of authority there.

2. First, an imperative is not punctuated with a question mark. Do you even pay attention to the things you are saying? You see questions are punctuated with a question mark.

Second, I understand that the gospel is not to be forced onto pagan nations by the sword. That is not my intention. The points are these:

1.All nations, whether Christian or non Christian have a natural right to use force to promote moral behavior among their people.

2.Nations who have entered into Covenant with the Lord, as our original 13 colonies were under the Solemn League and Covenant via the British Empire, have the right of coercion to keep their people faithful to that covenant (which this country has failed to do).

 

You avoided what I said. European people are being abused by their invaders made possible by atheism and secularism and liberalism that tell them that all religion is meaningless and there is no supremacy in the different cultures. Soon enough they will connect the dots that pluralism, and freedom of religion reults in their persecution and genocide. It is only a matter of time. And btw, the Theocracy in scotland was established by the People with the national covenant of 1638 against the will of their rulers. Your State Universities give you a (*)(*)(*)(*) poor survey of History and I ma finding out they do it on purpose.

If you don't believe me just look at what is happening in South Africa and France.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePvE2azaFRc

 

I ask you about scripture and you quote a white supremacist? Your views are becoming quite clear.

Gay marriage bad but slavery good...Does that sum up your views accurately?

 

Agreed. The Nicene Creed did not teach that the Father, Son, and HS were one entity. I lost my career in the ministry over that.

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/08/29/homoouiosgeneric-or-numeric/

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/09/06/jnd-kelly-on-homoouios-generic-or-numeric/

http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/bare-bones-definition-of-nicene-monarchism/

 

Two issues could hardly sum up my views. I have written 11 books, one more on the way, and an almost 800 page summary of western philosophy and patristic and protestant theology and you think you can sum up my views with two issues?

I do believe that gay marriage is bad and I do believe that the slavery institution is good in its substance, but may be bad in its modes and circumstances. I utterly condemn a slave trade where people have been kidnapped.

 

Atheism and secularism had little to do with it and I doubt you know the meaning of the world Liberalism from how you are using it. Especially in a European context.

The backlash in Europe is against religious nutterdom, not in favor of returning to it.

 

Oh, a charlatan then. I never would have guessed.

Like I said, you hold the position that "Gay marriage bad but slavery good". It's good to know that you aren't to be taken seriously.

 

Interesting. I studied many of the early Church fathers and found that most of them believed Jesus was subordinate to the Father.

The views of folks such as Origen were certainly different from todays doctrine.

Certainly these fellows would not have agreed with forceful conversion. As for the disciples .. lol .. it is doubtful that many of them even thought that conversion of non Jews was desirable never mind forcing them to convert.

Paul of course is a different story but he had some strange ideas what were not really in keeping with the ministry of Jesus.

It is out of the question that the Israelites in the OT would approved of converting any non Israelites. They were not supposed to mix with non Israelites.

 

I always thought it was obvious that those of us who think the state shouldn't enforce Christian morality didn't believe in the Bible.

 

If only the Christians understood that.

- - - Updated - - -

Charlatan? How so? Are we melting down Tomfoo?

Asserting it is not the same thing as proving it.

It looks like you are in meltdown mode. Goodbye.

 

That is obvious. http://eternalpropositions.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/2576/

Who said anything about forceful conversion?

I disagree. Which ideas are u speaking of?

Generally yes. However, exceptions could be made in the case that a Gentile came to the faith, per Ruth and Boaz.

 

Thought I should say something related to the thread

Sola Fide "salvation by faith alone" The Church still divided over that one to this say. Protestants accept the doctrine started by Luther. Orthodox kind of take a middle position and Catholics do not accept.

Personally I think Paul was wrong. Whenever Jesus speaks about how to get into heaven it is always through works.

James (Brother of Jesus and leader of the Jerusalem Church) of course thought Paul's doctrine was heresy. James 2 states that "faith without works is dead/useless no less than 3 times" and calls those who believe it foolish and gives the example of how Rahab the prostitute was put right with God through works.

Considering Paul never met Jesus and not seem to know much about the life of Jesus nor have much contact with the disciples and was looked down upon by the disciples I don't put much stock in his writing.

In Paul's defense he wanted to make it easier for gentiles and probably did not know much about the teachings of Jesus as per Mark which had not yet been put to paper.

Paul also had a poor attitude towards women IMO - silent in Church and not to teach men.