Cruz, Huckabee, Jindal Attend Insane Anti-Gay Rally

[Christian Liberty]

What makes that unique? And why do you not only have the right, but also the duty, to do that? If the Law of Moses is binding for all people today, then aren't you as obligated to enforces it as individual ancient Israelites were obligated to under the covenant?

Even if you are right that individuals are required to enforce the law under that covenant, the obligation in this case still rests on living in a body politic that rightfully acknowledges those laws are just. This is part of why the civil law is rightly categorized differently than the moral law.

Here's what you should do: move to Iran.

LOL! I'm too Christian and not enough Muslim though

You were approaching that level.

Sola Fide was definitely on the same level of arguments as ISIS.

I generally like what both of you are contributing to other threads. But this is just out there. I'm not against religion. The world would be a worse place without it. I'm against people who argue that followers of all other denominations and religions should be deprived of their right to follow it. Or worse, be put to death.

The difference is that you guys are blowing up steam on a forum, and ISIS are blowing up people.

You know its funny. You say I'm "approaching" ISIS and Sola is already there. Yet Sola actually thinks I'm advocating tyranny

I don't think people should be put to death just for the religion they follow. Spreading damnable heresy under the cloud of Christianity should be a capital offense, and the open worship of false gods should be suppressed (though not necessarily punished by death.)

Iran has recently solved the "problem" of homosexuality by giving free sex change operations to one of the people in a gay relationship, if discovered. That way the mullahs can feel good about themselves without killing anyone. Still plenty of countries that have the death penalty for it, though.

Oh wow... In this case Iran is being overly liberal

Where have I ever said "people of other denominations and religions should be deprived of their right to follow it".

I'll wait for your answer.

Yeah, Sola is a total advocate for religious freedom. That's unbiblical but there you go. THis is what happens when you take baptist assumptions of discontinuity.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Ive been, and still am, Roman Catholic my whole life. Last I check, I have considered myself a Christian. I honestly dont know what Sola_Fide is talking about.

At one time, we wouldn't have had to listen to it.

...ah the good old days.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Isn't there something in it about "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "Judge not lest ye be judged" and "Thou Shalt Not Kill"?

LOL!

You realize "thou shall not kill" is in the same book that advocates the execution of homosexuals, right?

"let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is a command that only someone who did not commit the sin of adultery can cast the stone.

Judge not... seriously this one gets so abused so often. I'm really not in the mood to explain it to a liberal idiot. Go read a commentary. Or maybe erowe1 or Sola_Fide will have a bit more patience than me this evening.

 

[erowe1]

Even if you are right that individuals are required to enforce the law under that covenant, the obligation in this case still rests on living in a body politic that rightfully acknowledges those laws are just. This is part of why the civil law is rightly categorized differently than the moral law.

Where does the Law of Moses mention this qualification of belonging to a certain body politic? And why don't you and other theonomists already belong to one and start killing people like Phinehas did?

 

[Occam's Banana]

Homosexuality should be punishable by death. There, I said it.

Now, what are you going to do about it?

Nothing.

Now that you've said it, what are YOU going to do about it?

I'm going to advocate for justice in every way I can as a private citizen.

IOW: You're not actually going to "do" anything about it at all (other than merely say it).

So what's the point of challenging others to "do" something about you saying it?

 

[Zippyjuan]

LOL!

You realize "thou shall not kill" is in the same book that advocates the execution of homosexuals, right?

"let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is a command that only someone who did not commit the sin of adultery can cast the stone.

Judge not... seriously this one gets so abused so often. I'm really not in the mood to explain it to a liberal idiot. Go read a commentary. Or maybe erowe1 or Sola_Fide will have a bit more patience than me this evening.

So which part of the Bible was lying? (Exodus says you can be killed for sleeping with animals but doesn't say anything about persons of the same sex). And if you sleep with a virgin, you have to marry her and pay off her father.

16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

18 “Do not allow a sorceress to live.

19 “Anyone who has sexual relations with an animal is to be put to death.

It also instructed them to sacrifice their first born sons:

“You must give me the firstborn of your sons. 30 Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.

It also says:

“Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death.

so if you decide to kill a homosexual or any other person you too should be put to death.

How does one kill the sinners and still not kill which otherwise turns one into a sinner as well who must also be killed?

 

[Occam's Banana]

Iran has recently solved the "problem" of homosexuality by giving free sex change operations to one of the people in a gay relationship, if discovered. That way the mullahs can feel good about themselves without killing anyone.

... and Rick Santorum heaves a sigh of relief ...

 

[hells_unicorn]

Arguably the most tragic failure of the whole libertarian experiment is the notion of triangulating with vindictive vermin like Cenk Uygur (anybody want a recent history of Turkey's attitude towards political dissent?) and the box-eating monster formerly known as Mancow (let alone the rest of the loons on MSNBC) in the name of showing solidarity with sodomites, I suppose in some gloriously deluded belief that they share in the notion of liberty (the stats aren't proving this to be the case). Nonsense like this thread is pretty much why I stopped self-identifying as a Libertarian several years ago.

 

[Christian Liberty]

IOW: You're not actually going to "do" anything about it at all (other than merely say it).

So what's the point of challenging others to "do" something about you saying it?

It was mostly just for shock value

 

[Christian Liberty]

Arguably the most tragic failure of the whole libertarian experiment is the notion of triangulating with vindictive vermin like Cenk Uygur (anybody want a recent history of Turkey's attitude towards political dissent?) and the box-eating monster formerly known as Mancow (let alone the rest of the loons on MSNBC) in the name of showing solidarity with sodomites, I suppose in some gloriously deluded belief that they share in the notion of liberty (the stats aren't proving this to be the case). Nonsense like this thread is pretty much why I stopped self-identifying as a Libertarian several years ago.

Seriously dude. As I recall this pastor is friends with Joel McDurmon in which case I'd intuitively think highly of him although you'd probably still have objections to certain aspects (I don't agree with McDurmon on everything but he is seriously one of the best these days.)

 

[hells_unicorn]

Seriously dude. As I recall this pastor is friends with Joel McDurmon in which case I'd intuitively think highly of him although you'd probably still have objections to certain aspects (I don't agree with McDurmon on everything but he is seriously one of the best these days.)

I wouldn't disagree with you regarding McDurmon, though again, any objection that I would have would be rooted in whether I'd attend an OPC or RPCNA service, not necessarily an objection to them making a valid point in line with Reformed doctrine. I'm still at study on all of the various people tied in with the various conservative factions of the Reformed Faith, and I think I may have been a bit less charitable in my words previously out of a vigorous defense of purity of worship practice than something beyond that.

 

[Influenza]

God these two are just so funny

 

[Christian Liberty]

I wouldn't disagree with you regarding McDurmon, though again, any objection that I would have would be rooted in whether I'd attend an OPC or RPCNA service, not necessarily an objection to them making a valid point in line with Reformed doctrine. I'm still at study on all of the various people tied in with the various conservative factions of the Reformed Faith, and I think I may have been a bit less charitable in my words previously out of a vigorous defense of purity of worship practice than something beyond that.

Honestly I'd just be blessed if I could actually be in an OPC full time. The hard part for me is fellowshipping with baptists at home... nobody is perfect but the errors on sacraments and law and grace are just huge and pervade everything. I'm definitely a believer in the regulative principle of worship but I'm still less studied on how this applies to specific issues (a-capella exclusive psalmoldy, celebration of Christian holidays other than the sabbath outside of the place of worship, etc.) I totally get what you are saying though. I think I'd object more to specific details of covenanter politics than their views of worship, although I'd object way less strongly than anyone else on these boards. But I'm generally in favor of more tolerance for all true Christian churches, and stricter on regulative principle for civil government.

 

[Christian Liberty]

God these two are just so funny

Just treat it like you're watching a conversation from a few hundred years ago

 

[jmdrake]

I seriously doubt the presidential candidates realized he would be advocating what he did.

So the issue here is that some candidates were at a conference for religious liberty, and there was another guy there at the same conference who supported the death penalty for homosexuals. That's it?

Sounds like the Kevin Swanson guy organized the conference. This would be like attending a conference organized by Alex Jones and then saying "But I didn't think he was going to talk about 9/11 being an inside job."

 

[jmdrake]

Just treat it like you're watching a conversation from a few hundred years ago

Thankfully the rest of the world has progressed over a few hundred years. That's why Islam is viewed with disdain. Islam, by an large, is the same as Christianity from a few hundred years ago which is the same as you are today. Spanish inquisition? Justified under theonomy. The Holocaust? Justified under theonomy. After all Hitler gave the Jews the option to leave before imposing the "final solution."

 

[Peace&Freedom]

So which part of the Bible was lying? (Exodus says you can be killed for sleeping with animals but doesn't say anything about persons of the same sex). And if you sleep with a virgin, you have to marry her and pay off her father.

How does one kill the sinners and still not kill which otherwise turns one into a sinner as well who must also be killed?

The "judge not" verses are about avoiding hypocrisy, they are not denying that the sins were sin, or that they deserved death or condemnation. The law was revealed to man to show that no one with a sin nature could perfectly obey it, or enforce it. The point is not to kill sinners, the point is to go and sin no more, either by not doing it, or by getting your sins covered by Christ (in the latter case, they are wiped from the ledger).

 

[erowe1]

Sounds like the Kevin Swanson guy organized the conference. This would be like attending a conference organized by Alex Jones and then saying "But I didn't think he was going to talk about 9/11 being an inside job."

I would just attend and say that I don't agree with the organizer about that issue, but I do agree with him on some things, including the purpose of the conference.

 

[jmdrake]

Yeah, Sola is a total advocate for religious freedom. That's unbiblical but there you go. THis is what happens when you take baptist assumptions of discontinuity.

Jesus advocated religious freedom.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

Luke 9:49-46
49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

51 And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem,

52 And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.

53 And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.

54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.



Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43

24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
.
.
.
36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

You believe, without any evidence, that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday, yet you refuse to accept, in the face of overwhelming evidence that the idea of an earthly religious kingdom with the death penalty for moral laws is no longer in effect. You can't even bring yourself to honestly interpret the parable of the wheat and the tares. Jesus made it clear that the field is the world and not the church. The wicked are to live in the world with the righteous and God does the separation at the final judgement. It is not up to you or any other human living on earth to punish sin. It's up to God. The death penalty for the moral law as given by Moses was done in concert with the command to conquer Canaan and kill off all the inhabitants living there. Do you want to do that to? Are you ready to invade Israel and kill off all the Muslims and Jews? Cause if you aren't you are being inconsistent.

 

[jmdrake]

I would just attend and say that I don't agree with the organizer about that issue, but I do agree with him on some things, including the purpose of the conference.

Let me put the question another way. If you were Rand Paul's political advisor and Alex Jones organized a conference for whatever reason, would you advice Rand Paul to attend? Why or why not?