Cruz, Huckabee, Jindal Attend Insane Anti-Gay Rally

[erowe1]

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?

If the conference were for a good cause and were a good venue to garner support from a large number of Iowa or New Hampshire Republicans, then yes, I would advise him to attend.

 

[jmdrake]

If the conference were for a good cause and were a good venue to garner support from a large number of Iowa or New Hampshire Republicans, then yes, I would advise him to attend.

Well it's a good thing you are not his political advisor then. The problem is while this may garner some support in Iowa it will kill Cruz in New Hampshire and it should. Jindal and Huckabee are already DOA anyway.

 

[hells_unicorn]

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?

Not to chime-in unwanted here, but if I were advising Rand Paul (given recent precedence for elections) I'd advise him to steer clear of anything that even slightly resembles an orthodox view of Christianity if he wants to be president. America hates Christianity, especially in Federal politics (having that ridiculous "rainbow" light-show celebrating the triumph of sodomy over God's law was a bit eye-opening for me), and has for most of its existence, which can be easily surmised by the types of persons that have come into leadership positions, particularly following the reign of Abraham Lincoln. Rand embracing the Old Earth view and Darwin's pseudo-philosophy is also fairly smart politics (John McCain did the same thing and would up with the GOP nomination, though he was defeated by a more consistent heathen in Barack Obama).

Now, as to why I'd lend my support to a guy who has embraced a number of things that are antithetical to the Christian religion? Let's just say that there are many different types of heathen, heretical or schismatic governments out there, and some are better than others. If I was living in 16th century Scotland, I would absolutely not support someone like Rand, but in 21st century America, he's as good as it gets.

 

[Christian Liberty]

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."

What a progressive idiot. Seriously, you're trying to argue that the Holocaust is totally justified under theonomy? Seriously I'm not going to engage with you anymore, this ridiculous.

I do not share your modernistic views of progress.

Not to chime-in unwanted here, but if I were advising Rand Paul (given recent precedence for elections) I'd advise him to steer clear of anything that even slightly resembles an orthodox view of Christianity if he wants to be president. America hates Christianity, especially in Federal politics (having that ridiculous "rainbow" light-show celebrating the triumph of sodomy over God's law was a bit eye-opening for me), and has for most of its existence, which can be easily surmised by the types of persons that have come into leadership positions, particularly following the reign of Abraham Lincoln. Rand embracing the Old Earth view and Darwin's pseudo-philosophy is also fairly smart politics (John McCain did the same thing and would up with the GOP nomination, though he was defeated by a more consistent heathen in Barack Obama).

Now, as to why I'd lend my support to a guy who has embraced a number of things that are antithetical to the Christian religion? Let's just say that there are many different types of heathen, heretical or schismatic governments out there, and some are better than others. If I was living in 16th century Scotland, I would absolutely not support someone like Rand, but in 21st century America, he's as good as it gets.

I'm starting to question on Christian principle whether I should vote at all in such a nation. Your points here are all true.

If anyone is going to convince me on this, its probably going to be you, especially since incidentally all of the other covenanters I interact with on a daily basis do nto think I should vote. So... what's your best case for why I should actually vote for Rand? (or anyone at all really.) Keep in mind that I'm coming from a similar perspective to yours in general here.

 

[Tywysog Cymru]

I don't see the problem with voting for non-Christians for political office. I'd prefer that they'd be Christian but I'm just interested in who's best for the job.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I don't see the problem with voting for non-Christians for political office. I'd prefer that they'd be Christian but I'm just interested in who's best for the job.

Yeah that makes sense based on libertarian presuppositions. I know I still owe you a long explanation for why I no longer accept those assumptions, but I've been super busy at school. The long and short on it, this is all post-enlightenment assumptions that aren't actually Biblical.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I don't see the problem with voting for non-Christians for political office. I'd prefer that they'd be Christian but I'm just interested in who's best for the job.

Yeah that makes sense based on libertarian presuppositions. I know I still owe you a long explanation for why I no longer accept those assumptions, but I've been super busy at school. The long and short on it, this is all post-enlightenment assumptions that aren't actually Biblical.

 

[Zippyjuan]

I don't see the problem with voting for non-Christians for political office. I'd prefer that they'd be Christian but I'm just interested in who's best for the job.

Not voting for your guy has the same effect as voting for the other guy.

 

[hells_unicorn]

I'm starting to question on Christian principle whether I should vote at all in such a nation. Your points here are all true.

If anyone is going to convince me on this, its probably going to be you, especially since incidentally all of the other covenanters I interact with on a daily basis do nto think I should vote. So... what's your best case for why I should actually vote for Rand? (or anyone at all really.) Keep in mind that I'm coming from a similar perspective to yours in general here.

It should be pointed out that what I am going to say here will be me speaking for myself, and not necessarily a reflection of the proper covenanter position. My reasons for still participating to any extent in electoral politics are largely based on a somewhat unique understanding of the history of the church, both the early church and during the Reformation, and some of these positions put me closer to being either a Ultrajectine or a conservative Anglican, which is a testament to my family's church roots.

The principle justification for voting in this climate, particularly if you've already been registered, would be tantamount to something along the lines of Paul invoking his Roman citizenship when under duress. Granted, this is not the same thing as voting, and it would be a stretch even under the concept of Christian prudence. Likewise, the Scottish Covenanters did form an alliance with the House of Stuart when it became clear that the Independents under Cromwell were going to plunge the 3 Kingdoms into tyranny, though this proved to be a mistake given that it ended in betrayal. Non-involvement has often been the preferred route for dealing with severely backslidden magistrates, but there is historical precedence for involvement throughout history.

The most important thing to understand is that a Rand Paul presidency would be the least of all possible evils at this juncture, and probably would end with the least degree of ongoing persecution of the church, but it would be an exercise in slowing down the decline and should not be viewed as a victory for the Reformed cause. I can't say with any certainty how Reformed Rand Paul actually is, but he and his father are probably the closest thing to even nominal Christians that I've seen involved in presidential politics in my lifetime.

If you really feel drawn to the covenanter position and are having moral difficulties with the state of this country's politics, my advice would lean towards telling you to dispense with voting, but even if you decide to do so, you are not prohibited from offering advice so that others would vote for Rand since it would result in a better outcome for everyone. It's a judgment call, and I don't quite feel qualified to tell you one way or the other.

 

[Christian Liberty]

It should be pointed out that what I am going to say here will be me speaking for myself, and not necessarily a reflection of the proper covenanter position. My reasons for still participating to any extent in electoral politics are largely based on a somewhat unique understanding of the history of the church, both the early church and during the Reformation, and some of these positions put me closer to being either a Ultrajectine or a conservative Anglican, which is a testament to my family's church roots.

The principle justification for voting in this climate, particularly if you've already been registered, would be tantamount to something along the lines of Paul invoking his Roman citizenship when under duress. Granted, this is not the same thing as voting, and it would be a stretch even under the concept of Christian prudence. Likewise, the Scottish Covenanters did form an alliance with the House of Stuart when it became clear that the Independents under Cromwell were going to plunge the 3 Kingdoms into tyranny, though this proved to be a mistake given that it ended in betrayal. Non-involvement has often been the preferred route for dealing with severely backslidden magistrates, but there is historical precedence for involvement throughout history.

The most important thing to understand is that a Rand Paul presidency would be the least of all possible evils at this juncture, and probably would end with the least degree of ongoing persecution of the church, but it would be an exercise in slowing down the decline and should not be viewed as a victory for the Reformed cause. I can't say with any certainty how Reformed Rand Paul actually is, but he and his father are probably the closest thing to even nominal Christians that I've seen involved in presidential politics in my lifetime.

If you really feel drawn to the covenanter position and are having moral difficulties with the state of this country's politics, my advice would lean towards telling you to dispense with voting, but even if you decide to do so, you are not prohibited from offering advice so that others would vote for Rand since it would result in a better outcome for everyone. It's a judgment call, and I don't quite feel qualified to tell you one way or the other.

Thank you for this. I'm not really going down the strict covenanter route both because I'm not strictly confessional (I'm pretty close, comparatively speaking, but if you don't think Schwertley is confessional enough you would not consider me even close to confessional enough, lol), I do definitely think the magistrate should protect all Christian denominations, and in my experience most covenanters want to suppress false religion even in private (I'm only for the suppression of false religion if its in the public.) Interestingly, I know a number of covenanters who will not even work with Christian Reconstructionists because of those differences (I don't see myself as 100% Chrsitian reconstructionist either, I'm just a theonomist that's willing to borrow from any camp to the extent that they are Biblical), so I just found that difference interesting.

That said, I have to admit covenanters have a strong case on the constitution itself. The 1st amendment isn't just prohibiting the establishment of a denomination, but ANY religion (except secular pluralism which is conveniently not counted as a religion) and this is a denial of Christ's kingship (Psalm 2.) I'm also not totally sure I want to delay the collapse... its going to happen eventually anyway and perhaps the sooner we get it over with the faster we can get to work at building Christian civilization. I have mixed feelings on this one. I have a feeling based on other stuff you've said that you'd strongly disagree with this thought process, so any thoughts you have here would be appreciated.

These are really the two main things I am working through here. As of now I plan to vote for Paul but those are the two reservations I have to voting.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Thank you for this. I'm not really going down the strict covenanter route both because I'm not strictly confessional (I'm pretty close, comparatively speaking, but if you don't think Schwertley is confessional enough you would not consider me even close to confessional enough, lol), I do definitely think the magistrate should protect all Christian denominations, and in my experience most covenanters want to suppress false religion even in private (I'm only for the suppression of false religion if its in the public.) Interestingly, I know a number of covenanters who will not even work with Christian Reconstructionists because of those differences (I don't see myself as 100% Chrsitian reconstructionist either, I'm just a theonomist that's willing to borrow from any camp to the extent that they are Biblical), so I just found that difference interesting.

That said, I have to admit covenanters have a strong case on the constitution itself. The 1st amendment isn't just prohibiting the establishment of a denomination, but ANY religion (except secular pluralism which is conveniently not counted as a religion) and this is a denial of Christ's kingship (Psalm 2.) I'm also not totally sure I want to delay the collapse... its going to happen eventually anyway and perhaps the sooner we get it over with the faster we can get to work at building Christian civilization. I have mixed feelings on this one. I have a feeling based on other stuff you've said that you'd strongly disagree with this thought process, so any thoughts you have here would be appreciated.

These are really the two main things I am working through here. As of now I plan to vote for Paul but those are the two reservations I have to voting.

You've gone off the rails man.

 

[Christian Liberty]

You've gone off the rails man.

Pick it apart, lol. Preferably using scripture and not using your modern presuppositions.

 

[hells_unicorn]

You've gone off the rails man.

Take a look at the state of the church Sola. If you think the 1st Amendment as drafted by the U.S. Constitution has done Christianity any good, you might want to reassess just who you think has gone off the rails.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Take a look at the state of the church Sola. If you think the 1st Amendment as drafted by the U.S. Constitution has done Christianity any good, you might want to reassess just who you think has gone off the rails.

Oh but look around. Now you have more "Reformed Baptists" who are the only true Christians in the world

 

[Sola_Fide]

Take a look at the state of the church Sola. If you think the 1st Amendment as drafted by the U.S. Constitution has done Christianity any good, you might want to reassess just who you think has gone off the rails.

Truth prevails in a condition of freedom. It's lies (of all kinds) that prevail in a condition of control. This is the case for all truth.

The state does not have the ability to maintain Christianity in the hearts of men. God alone has that ability. When the state usurp God's authority over the human heart, it asserts itself against the Lord.

Government is not some magic entity that has powers that normal people don't have. If one person can't maintain Christianity in the heart of another person, then a group of men in the government can't do it either.

 

[jmdrake]

What a progressive idiot. Seriously, you're trying to argue that the Holocaust is totally justified under theonomy? Seriously I'm not going to engage with you anymore, this ridiculous.

Jews aren't Christians. Jews were openly in defiance of what you call Christianity from opening their shops on Sunday, the day you call Sabbath, to denying that Jesus is God, to publishing books and writings of the same. It's no accident that some of your reformed "heros" persecuted Jews. Your answer to the truth you can't handle is ad hominem and the childish "I'm going to take my ball and go home" response.

Read the book by Martin Luther "On the Jews and their lies" where he advocated burning Jewish synagogues, churches, schools and the homes of rabbis and where he advocated that rabbis would be forbidden to preach. The Holocaust didn't start with the gas chambers. It started with the desecration of Jewish synagogues, homes and businesses and the suppression of the Jewish religion. All of that is acceptable under theonomy as you've described it.

I do not share your modernistic views of progress.

You share it when you apply it to others. "Those crazy Muslims shouldn't force their religion on others." But you would force your religion on others.

I'm starting to question on Christian principle whether I should vote at all in such a nation. Your points here are all true.

If anyone is going to convince me on this, its probably going to be you, especially since incidentally all of the other covenanters I interact with on a daily basis do nto think I should vote. So... what's your best case for why I should actually vote for Rand? (or anyone at all really.) Keep in mind that I'm coming from a similar perspective to yours in general here.

I know you asked this of HU, but I'm not sure you should vote. Maybe you should try to make a few million so you can buy your own island somewhere and create the theonomist paradise you think is supposed to exist on earth. I'm waiting on Jesus to establish His kingdom without human hands as prophesied in Daniel and like Daniel trying to be salt and light in the kingdom of Babylon that Daniel and Revelation predicted would be the dominant force in some form or another until Christ's return.

 

[jmdrake]

Truth prevails in a condition of freedom. It's lies (of all kinds) that prevail in a condition of control. This is the case for all truth.

The state does not have the ability to maintain Christianity in the hearts of men. God alone has that ability. When the state usurp God's authority over the human heart, it asserts itself against the Lord.

Government is not some magic entity that has powers that normal people don't have. If one person can't maintain Christianity in the heart of another person, then a group of men in the government can't do it either.

Wow SF! Best quote ever.

 

[jmdrake]

Pick it apart, lol. Preferably using scripture and not using your modern presuppositions.

"My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world then would my servants fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews."

I'm not sure what part of ^that you don't understand.

 

[hells_unicorn]

Truth prevails in a condition of freedom. It's lies (of all kinds) that prevail in a condition of control. This is the case for all truth.

The religious clause in the 1st Amendment is a license for state control of the church. Doubt me on this? Take a look at how it is being employed.

The state does not have the ability to maintain Christianity in the hearts of men. God alone has that ability. When the state usurp God's authority over the human heart, it asserts itself against the Lord.

The function of the state has NOTHING to do with the hearts of men. It has to do with bearing the sword against evildoers, which includes people who would attempt to destroy the church with their blasphemies. Read Romans 13 again, the only way a magistrate can usurp God's authority is by breaking God's laws, and God does not prohibit the magistrate from recognizing the true religion (several OT magistrates in Egypt and Persia did this) and defending it from its enemies.

Government is not some magic entity that has powers that normal people don't have. If one person can't maintain Christianity in the heart of another person, then a group of men in the government can't do it either.

The only magic entity I'm seeing here is the one you are calling upon to conjure up arguments that no one in this conversation is making. Nothing you have argued has any relevance to anything that I have stated, nor CL for that matter.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Sola is essentially arguing that magisterial authority doesn't exist in any meaningful sense.

Yes, I'm serious. Though to be fair, I too used to be an anarcho-capitalist

I'm not even going to bother responding to all the crappy hermaneutics in this thread, I've got better stuff to do.