Christian Reconstructionism...
-
Ian Darling wrote: No bloody wonder the Christians made a big thing of the new covenant yes, and yet they fight to have the 10 commandments in schools ( the 10 commandments are part of the OT Law ) Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: yes, and yet they fight to have the 10 commandments in schools ( the 10 commandments are part of the OT Law ) Now you mention it, that is curious. Why not just stick up some variation of the Golden Rule instead - it's not like that's unique to Jesus - just about every moral system acknowledges that one in some way.
-
Christian Graus wrote: yes, and yet they fight to have the 10 commandments in schools ( the 10 commandments are part of the OT Law ) Now you mention it, that is curious. Why not just stick up some variation of the Golden Rule instead - it's not like that's unique to Jesus - just about every moral system acknowledges that one in some way.
Ian Darling wrote: Now you mention it, that is curious. It's really just a throwback to two things 1. people not knowing how the Bible works ( in terms of OT vs NT ) 2. people naturally being drawn to lists of rules. Ian Darling wrote: Why not just stick up some variation of the Golden Rule instead Jesus said that the law is contained in two things, love God with all your being, and love other people the way you want to be loved. That's definately something worth putting on the wall, but even then, words on a wall are pretty useless IMO. If you show those attitudes ( or just the second, if you don't believe in God ), then you're far more likely to pass them on than if you just write them somewhere and forget about them. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
(Time to be more serious) JoeSox wrote: biblical law This, as I understand it, refers to the Old Testament laws detailed in the Torah. So for the edification of people here, I'll put in some of the laws that will be need to be obeyed: Wearing bells to church[^] How to deal with your sister-in-law if your brother dies[^] (or put to death?[^]) Punishing children for the parents lack of religious observation[^] Rebellious children are to be put to death[^] (also here[^] and here[^]) How to deal with the owner of an animal that kills someone[^] Damn, no more Black Pudding, or Big Macs[^] No more cotton-polysester blends[
and let's not forget the rules on how to sacrifice sheep and smaller animals (L 3:6). ahem Cleek / Software
-
(Time to be more serious) JoeSox wrote: biblical law This, as I understand it, refers to the Old Testament laws detailed in the Torah. So for the edification of people here, I'll put in some of the laws that will be need to be obeyed: Wearing bells to church[^] How to deal with your sister-in-law if your brother dies[^] (or put to death?[^]) Punishing children for the parents lack of religious observation[^] Rebellious children are to be put to death[^] (also here[^] and here[^]) How to deal with the owner of an animal that kills someone[^] Damn, no more Black Pudding, or Big Macs[^] No more cotton-polysester blends[
I'm not keen on than translation of the OT. I checked it against my KJV OT version and the meanings are quite different. Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
(Time to be more serious) JoeSox wrote: biblical law This, as I understand it, refers to the Old Testament laws detailed in the Torah. So for the edification of people here, I'll put in some of the laws that will be need to be obeyed: Wearing bells to church[^] How to deal with your sister-in-law if your brother dies[^] (or put to death?[^]) Punishing children for the parents lack of religious observation[^] Rebellious children are to be put to death[^] (also here[^] and here[^]) How to deal with the owner of an animal that kills someone[^] Damn, no more Black Pudding, or Big Macs[^] No more cotton-polysester blends[
Let my try to explain some of this. Please note though, I am not a Christian, not a Jew. Ian Darling wrote: Wearing bells to church That was only for the High Priest when entering the Holy-of-Holies. Not for the common person. Ian Darling wrote: How to deal with your sister-in-law if your brother dies If you think about it, it's really not all that bad of an idea. It allow the persons lineage to be carried on. Ian Darling wrote: Punishing children for the parents lack of religious observation Your summary of this is incorrect. The idea was if a child were to curse his parents (not swear, but to curse them with witchcraft), they would be put to death. Think about this. If they were to curse their parents using witchcraft, they wouldn't be following God would they? Ian Darling wrote: How to deal with the owner of an animal that kills someone The bull must be killed. And if the owner has been told to put up his bull, but doesn't, he is put to death as well. Sounds fair to me. Ian Darling wrote: Damn, no more Black Pudding, or Big Macs Leviticus 3:17 This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood. Is eating blood such a good thing? As for fat, well, we commonly think of <<fat>> as gristle in cooked meat, but in that passage it means the uncooked, raw cartilage and other junk. Ian Darling wrote: No more cotton-polysester blends The meaning of that passage was simply tring to save people some work. What if people had to learn the hard way not to weave flax and wool? Ian Darling wrote: All those evangelists, preachers and pastors who's behaviour or attitude turned people away from God should be killed They would be teaching false stuff (i.e., lying). If you were a god, would you want people trying to turn your followers away? Ian Darling wrote: Man can't wear aprons, or cross dress - even for fun I didn't see anything about aprons in that passage. However, the idea for this passage is good. What would the world be like if all the guys dressed and looked like girls, and all the girls dressed and looked likes guys? Nasty thoughts run through my head. Ian Darling wrote: Would you want your daughter married to someone who rapes her?
-
Let my try to explain some of this. Please note though, I am not a Christian, not a Jew. Ian Darling wrote: Wearing bells to church That was only for the High Priest when entering the Holy-of-Holies. Not for the common person. Ian Darling wrote: How to deal with your sister-in-law if your brother dies If you think about it, it's really not all that bad of an idea. It allow the persons lineage to be carried on. Ian Darling wrote: Punishing children for the parents lack of religious observation Your summary of this is incorrect. The idea was if a child were to curse his parents (not swear, but to curse them with witchcraft), they would be put to death. Think about this. If they were to curse their parents using witchcraft, they wouldn't be following God would they? Ian Darling wrote: How to deal with the owner of an animal that kills someone The bull must be killed. And if the owner has been told to put up his bull, but doesn't, he is put to death as well. Sounds fair to me. Ian Darling wrote: Damn, no more Black Pudding, or Big Macs Leviticus 3:17 This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood. Is eating blood such a good thing? As for fat, well, we commonly think of <<fat>> as gristle in cooked meat, but in that passage it means the uncooked, raw cartilage and other junk. Ian Darling wrote: No more cotton-polysester blends The meaning of that passage was simply tring to save people some work. What if people had to learn the hard way not to weave flax and wool? Ian Darling wrote: All those evangelists, preachers and pastors who's behaviour or attitude turned people away from God should be killed They would be teaching false stuff (i.e., lying). If you were a god, would you want people trying to turn your followers away? Ian Darling wrote: Man can't wear aprons, or cross dress - even for fun I didn't see anything about aprons in that passage. However, the idea for this passage is good. What would the world be like if all the guys dressed and looked like girls, and all the girls dressed and looked likes guys? Nasty thoughts run through my head. Ian Darling wrote: Would you want your daughter married to someone who rapes her?
Aaron Eldreth wrote: As for fat, well, we commonly think of <> as gristle in cooked meat you've obviously never had a good steak, or any butter, or cheese or anything deep fried or stir-fried. Aaron Eldreth wrote: Nasty thoughts run through my head your problem, not mine. see a doctor or a priest. Aaron Eldreth wrote: But, it would make a rapeist think twice before raping a girl. Wouldn't it? no. it would make men think that rape would be a good way to secure the hand of the prettiest girl on the block. -c Cleek / Software
-
"Christian Reconstructionism - The Foundation of Modern Conservativism By revscat Sat May 22nd, 2004 at 03:47:58 PM EST "He presses the crown rights of the Lord Jesus Christ in every sphere, expecting eventual triumph." Christian Reconstructionism is a little heard of religious philosophy that preaches that every aspect of society must come under biblical law. In their view, secular governments are in opposition to the word of God, and therefore they seek to eliminate all legal barriers between church and state. Founded in 1973 by R.J. Rushdoony, it has had wide influence in the modern Republican party. The overriding goal of Reconstructionism is the absolute control of the reigns of government so that the world may be properly prepared for Jesus's return, and that achieving this goal will demonstrate the fulfillment of God's will...." http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/21/13392/6893[^] Keep voting for those Reps and Dems. Oh YEAH!!! :sigh: What's the deal with Christian extremists??? I don't get it.:confused: So I am thinking Canada or Australia for my next home.:) Later, JoeSox ""Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
Guess they didn't read in the New Testament where Jesus says: "Give unto Ceasar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" (or something to that affect). ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned
-
Guess they didn't read in the New Testament where Jesus says: "Give unto Ceasar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" (or something to that affect). ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned
Jim Crafton wrote: "Give unto Ceasar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" (or something to that affect). :confused: There is no mention of Ceasar in the bible.<Oh, I see there is mention of Caesar in the footnotes however> Perhaps you where thinking of this... "1 1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. 2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, 4 for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. 6 This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. ...." 1 [1-7] Paul must come to grips with the problem raised by a message that declares people free from the law. How are they to relate to Roman authority? The problem was exacerbated by the fact that imperial protocol was interwoven with devotion to various deities. Paul builds on the traditional instruction exhibited in Wisdom 6:1-3, according to which kings and magistrates rule by consent of God. From this perspective, then, believers who render obedience to the governing authorities are obeying the one who is highest in command. At the same time, it is recognized that Caesar has the responsibility to make just ordinances and to commend uprightness; cf Wisdom 6:4-21. That Caesar is not entitled to obedience when such obedience would nullify God's prior claim to the believers' moral decision becomes clear in the light of the following verses. http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans13.htm[^] "Paul does not say here that all leaders are good or right. He says the KIND of authority is established by Go
-
JoeSox wrote: So I am thinking Canada or Australia for my next home Come to the UK! We may have an established church, but that's probably going to change soon (when Prince Charles becomes King is my guess), plus it's largely irrelevant as it is anyway, and we have a good ratio of loonies to mostly sane people (and our loonies usually end up doing things like Monty Python) We also have the added advantage of fantastic Real Ales :-D The downside of living here is unpredictable weather, slow fast food, and sports such as cricket and darts on TV(hides in asbestos bunker ;P).
-
"Christian Reconstructionism - The Foundation of Modern Conservativism By revscat Sat May 22nd, 2004 at 03:47:58 PM EST "He presses the crown rights of the Lord Jesus Christ in every sphere, expecting eventual triumph." Christian Reconstructionism is a little heard of religious philosophy that preaches that every aspect of society must come under biblical law. In their view, secular governments are in opposition to the word of God, and therefore they seek to eliminate all legal barriers between church and state. Founded in 1973 by R.J. Rushdoony, it has had wide influence in the modern Republican party. The overriding goal of Reconstructionism is the absolute control of the reigns of government so that the world may be properly prepared for Jesus's return, and that achieving this goal will demonstrate the fulfillment of God's will...." http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/21/13392/6893[^] Keep voting for those Reps and Dems. Oh YEAH!!! :sigh: What's the deal with Christian extremists??? I don't get it.:confused: So I am thinking Canada or Australia for my next home.:) Later, JoeSox ""Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest
JoeSox wrote: The overriding goal of Reconstructionism is the absolute control of the reigns of government so that the world may be properly prepared for Jesus's return, and that achieving this goal will demonstrate the fulfillment of God's will...." I'm curious... in what way is this philosophy different from the extremist Islamic philosophy that is the driving force behind current terrorist activity? They're waiting for the return of the twelfth imam, IIRC, but that's not really a fundamental difference. At the core, both movements want to replace rationality with irrationality. I have trouble visualizing either as a Good ThingTM. BTW, it's "reins" as in horses, not "reigns" as in kings...;P Also BTW, I looked into emigrating to Australia - they don't want anyone as old and out of date as I am. I don't qualify...:( Some people think of it as a six-pack; I consider it more of a support group.
-
JoeSox wrote: The overriding goal of Reconstructionism is the absolute control of the reigns of government so that the world may be properly prepared for Jesus's return, and that achieving this goal will demonstrate the fulfillment of God's will...." I'm curious... in what way is this philosophy different from the extremist Islamic philosophy that is the driving force behind current terrorist activity? They're waiting for the return of the twelfth imam, IIRC, but that's not really a fundamental difference. At the core, both movements want to replace rationality with irrationality. I have trouble visualizing either as a Good ThingTM. BTW, it's "reins" as in horses, not "reigns" as in kings...;P Also BTW, I looked into emigrating to Australia - they don't want anyone as old and out of date as I am. I don't qualify...:( Some people think of it as a six-pack; I consider it more of a support group.
Roger Wright wrote: Also BTW, I looked into emigrating to Australia - they don't want anyone as old and out of date as I am. I don't qualify... What a pity, otherwise I could pop over for a cold :beer: with you. Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
JoeSox wrote: The overriding goal of Reconstructionism is the absolute control of the reigns of government so that the world may be properly prepared for Jesus's return, and that achieving this goal will demonstrate the fulfillment of God's will...." I'm curious... in what way is this philosophy different from the extremist Islamic philosophy that is the driving force behind current terrorist activity? They're waiting for the return of the twelfth imam, IIRC, but that's not really a fundamental difference. At the core, both movements want to replace rationality with irrationality. I have trouble visualizing either as a Good ThingTM. BTW, it's "reins" as in horses, not "reigns" as in kings...;P Also BTW, I looked into emigrating to Australia - they don't want anyone as old and out of date as I am. I don't qualify...:( Some people think of it as a six-pack; I consider it more of a support group.
-
Let my try to explain some of this. Please note though, I am not a Christian, not a Jew. Ian Darling wrote: Wearing bells to church That was only for the High Priest when entering the Holy-of-Holies. Not for the common person. Ian Darling wrote: How to deal with your sister-in-law if your brother dies If you think about it, it's really not all that bad of an idea. It allow the persons lineage to be carried on. Ian Darling wrote: Punishing children for the parents lack of religious observation Your summary of this is incorrect. The idea was if a child were to curse his parents (not swear, but to curse them with witchcraft), they would be put to death. Think about this. If they were to curse their parents using witchcraft, they wouldn't be following God would they? Ian Darling wrote: How to deal with the owner of an animal that kills someone The bull must be killed. And if the owner has been told to put up his bull, but doesn't, he is put to death as well. Sounds fair to me. Ian Darling wrote: Damn, no more Black Pudding, or Big Macs Leviticus 3:17 This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood. Is eating blood such a good thing? As for fat, well, we commonly think of <<fat>> as gristle in cooked meat, but in that passage it means the uncooked, raw cartilage and other junk. Ian Darling wrote: No more cotton-polysester blends The meaning of that passage was simply tring to save people some work. What if people had to learn the hard way not to weave flax and wool? Ian Darling wrote: All those evangelists, preachers and pastors who's behaviour or attitude turned people away from God should be killed They would be teaching false stuff (i.e., lying). If you were a god, would you want people trying to turn your followers away? Ian Darling wrote: Man can't wear aprons, or cross dress - even for fun I didn't see anything about aprons in that passage. However, the idea for this passage is good. What would the world be like if all the guys dressed and looked like girls, and all the girls dressed and looked likes guys? Nasty thoughts run through my head. Ian Darling wrote: Would you want your daughter married to someone who rapes her?
Aaron Eldreth wrote: Your summary of this is incorrect. The idea was if a child were to curse his parents (not swear, but to curse them with witchcraft), they would be put to death. Think about this. If they were to curse their parents using witchcraft, they wouldn't be following God would they? I think you got this confused with another point. So I'll reiterate. Under biblical law, if a male was not circumcised (and this is his parents responsibility), then he had to be punished through exile. As for my other points, there is a degree of tongue-in-cheekness going on (like my apron comment) - which also does try to interpret the law in the context of applying it to Western civilisation. You might also consider the needs to the transgendered (where's Anna when you want her?). Many people undergoing gender reassignment do exactly what that law opposes - present themselves to the world as their preferred/opposite sex, even if they haven't completed all their surgery. Nasty thoughts run through your head? Well, next time you see someone walking down the street - consider that it might be someone suffering from gender dysphoria - and are presenting themselves as the gender they wish to be, not the gender many would assume they are. Aaron Eldreth wrote: Would I personally like it? No. But, it would make a rapeist think twice before raping a girl. Wouldn't it? That is moronic on so many levels. Sorry - but it is. Given the tendency today for rapists frequently to be serial rapists, rapists in various regions of Africa to rape virgins because they think it will cure their AIDS, plus the existence of paedophilia, and other nonsense, that law is so undesirable, immoral (and results in some rapists getting multiple wives, and some even child brides), it doesn't bear thinking about. And no, it wouldn't make them think twice. So please go and reconsider your statement in light of the real world. It is evil and stupid.
-
Let my try to explain some of this. Please note though, I am not a Christian, not a Jew. Ian Darling wrote: Wearing bells to church That was only for the High Priest when entering the Holy-of-Holies. Not for the common person. Ian Darling wrote: How to deal with your sister-in-law if your brother dies If you think about it, it's really not all that bad of an idea. It allow the persons lineage to be carried on. Ian Darling wrote: Punishing children for the parents lack of religious observation Your summary of this is incorrect. The idea was if a child were to curse his parents (not swear, but to curse them with witchcraft), they would be put to death. Think about this. If they were to curse their parents using witchcraft, they wouldn't be following God would they? Ian Darling wrote: How to deal with the owner of an animal that kills someone The bull must be killed. And if the owner has been told to put up his bull, but doesn't, he is put to death as well. Sounds fair to me. Ian Darling wrote: Damn, no more Black Pudding, or Big Macs Leviticus 3:17 This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood. Is eating blood such a good thing? As for fat, well, we commonly think of <<fat>> as gristle in cooked meat, but in that passage it means the uncooked, raw cartilage and other junk. Ian Darling wrote: No more cotton-polysester blends The meaning of that passage was simply tring to save people some work. What if people had to learn the hard way not to weave flax and wool? Ian Darling wrote: All those evangelists, preachers and pastors who's behaviour or attitude turned people away from God should be killed They would be teaching false stuff (i.e., lying). If you were a god, would you want people trying to turn your followers away? Ian Darling wrote: Man can't wear aprons, or cross dress - even for fun I didn't see anything about aprons in that passage. However, the idea for this passage is good. What would the world be like if all the guys dressed and looked like girls, and all the girls dressed and looked likes guys? Nasty thoughts run through my head. Ian Darling wrote: Would you want your daughter married to someone who rapes her?
(I missed one) Aaron Eldreth wrote: If you think about it, it's really not all that bad of an idea. It allow the persons lineage to be carried on. Except you don't carry on that mans lineage at all, because brothers only shares half their DNA with each other on average. To increasingly ensure that lineage, you'd need to include the brothers father and maternal grandfathers right up the line as far as possible (unless you can impregnate a woman with her dead husbands mothers genetic material) to carry on the line too. The other point is - what so important about lineage? And it's completely unnecessary when you understand "kin selection" anyway.
-
Ian Darling wrote: and we have a good ratio of loonies to mostly sane people So which way does JoeSox tip the balance?? :-D Dave
DRHuff wrote: So which way does JoeSox tip the balance?? It doesn't matter :-) Like I said, most of our loony people end up doing things like Monty Python, so we win either way :-D
-
Jim Crafton wrote: "Give unto Ceasar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's" (or something to that affect). :confused: There is no mention of Ceasar in the bible.<Oh, I see there is mention of Caesar in the footnotes however> Perhaps you where thinking of this... "1 1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God. 2 Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, 4 for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience. 6 This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due. ...." 1 [1-7] Paul must come to grips with the problem raised by a message that declares people free from the law. How are they to relate to Roman authority? The problem was exacerbated by the fact that imperial protocol was interwoven with devotion to various deities. Paul builds on the traditional instruction exhibited in Wisdom 6:1-3, according to which kings and magistrates rule by consent of God. From this perspective, then, believers who render obedience to the governing authorities are obeying the one who is highest in command. At the same time, it is recognized that Caesar has the responsibility to make just ordinances and to commend uprightness; cf Wisdom 6:4-21. That Caesar is not entitled to obedience when such obedience would nullify God's prior claim to the believers' moral decision becomes clear in the light of the following verses. http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/romans/romans13.htm[^] "Paul does not say here that all leaders are good or right. He says the KIND of authority is established by Go
JoeSox wrote: There is no mention of Ceasar in the bible. To the contrary, there are quite a few references: Mathew: Mt 22:17 Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” Mt 22:18 But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Mt 22:19 Show me the coin used for paying the tax.” They brought him a denarius, Mt 22:20 and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?” Mt 22:21 “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Mark: Mk 12:14 They came to him and said, “Teacher, we know you are a man of integrity. You aren’t swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are; but you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not? Mk 12:15 Should we pay or shouldn’t we?” But Jesus knew their hypocrisy. “Why are you trying to trap me?” he asked. “Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.” Mk 12:16 They brought the coin, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Mk 12:17 Then Jesus said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s.” Luke: Lk 20:22 Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?” Lk 20:23 He saw through their duplicity and said to them, Lk 20:24 “Show me a denarius. Whose portrait and inscription are on it?” Lk 20:25 “Caesar’s,” they replied. He said to them, “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” There are another 10 or so references to Caesar in other contexts. John Carson "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishoners for whom to vote ... and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. - John F. Kennedy
-
Let my try to explain some of this. Please note though, I am not a Christian, not a Jew. Ian Darling wrote: Wearing bells to church That was only for the High Priest when entering the Holy-of-Holies. Not for the common person. Ian Darling wrote: How to deal with your sister-in-law if your brother dies If you think about it, it's really not all that bad of an idea. It allow the persons lineage to be carried on. Ian Darling wrote: Punishing children for the parents lack of religious observation Your summary of this is incorrect. The idea was if a child were to curse his parents (not swear, but to curse them with witchcraft), they would be put to death. Think about this. If they were to curse their parents using witchcraft, they wouldn't be following God would they? Ian Darling wrote: How to deal with the owner of an animal that kills someone The bull must be killed. And if the owner has been told to put up his bull, but doesn't, he is put to death as well. Sounds fair to me. Ian Darling wrote: Damn, no more Black Pudding, or Big Macs Leviticus 3:17 This is a lasting ordinance for the generations to come, wherever you live: You must not eat any fat or any blood. Is eating blood such a good thing? As for fat, well, we commonly think of <<fat>> as gristle in cooked meat, but in that passage it means the uncooked, raw cartilage and other junk. Ian Darling wrote: No more cotton-polysester blends The meaning of that passage was simply tring to save people some work. What if people had to learn the hard way not to weave flax and wool? Ian Darling wrote: All those evangelists, preachers and pastors who's behaviour or attitude turned people away from God should be killed They would be teaching false stuff (i.e., lying). If you were a god, would you want people trying to turn your followers away? Ian Darling wrote: Man can't wear aprons, or cross dress - even for fun I didn't see anything about aprons in that passage. However, the idea for this passage is good. What would the world be like if all the guys dressed and looked like girls, and all the girls dressed and looked likes guys? Nasty thoughts run through my head. Ian Darling wrote: Would you want your daughter married to someone who rapes her?
Aaron Eldreth wrote: But, it would make a rapeist think twice before raping a girl. Wouldn't it? are you suggesting the victim has to marry and live with his torturer? :omg::omg::omg:
Il n'y a que deux puissances au monde, le sabre et l'esprit : à la longue, le sabre est toujours vaincu par l'esprit.
-
Roger Wright wrote: they don't want anyone as old and out of date as I am So that was why Rob Manderson had to leave. ;)
"if you vote me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine" - Michael P. Butler.
-
JoeSox wrote: The overriding goal of Reconstructionism is the absolute control of the reigns of government so that the world may be properly prepared for Jesus's return, and that achieving this goal will demonstrate the fulfillment of God's will...." I'm curious... in what way is this philosophy different from the extremist Islamic philosophy that is the driving force behind current terrorist activity? They're waiting for the return of the twelfth imam, IIRC, but that's not really a fundamental difference. At the core, both movements want to replace rationality with irrationality. I have trouble visualizing either as a Good ThingTM. BTW, it's "reins" as in horses, not "reigns" as in kings...;P Also BTW, I looked into emigrating to Australia - they don't want anyone as old and out of date as I am. I don't qualify...:( Some people think of it as a six-pack; I consider it more of a support group.
-
"Christian Reconstructionism - The Foundation of Modern Conservativism By revscat Sat May 22nd, 2004 at 03:47:58 PM EST "He presses the crown rights of the Lord Jesus Christ in every sphere, expecting eventual triumph." Christian Reconstructionism is a little heard of religious philosophy that preaches that every aspect of society must come under biblical law. In their view, secular governments are in opposition to the word of God, and therefore they seek to eliminate all legal barriers between church and state. Founded in 1973 by R.J. Rushdoony, it has had wide influence in the modern Republican party. The overriding goal of Reconstructionism is the absolute control of the reigns of government so that the world may be properly prepared for Jesus's return, and that achieving this goal will demonstrate the fulfillment of God's will...." http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/21/13392/6893[^] Keep voting for those Reps and Dems. Oh YEAH!!! :sigh: What's the deal with Christian extremists??? I don't get it.:confused: So I am thinking Canada or Australia for my next home.:) Later, JoeSox ""Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." -- Albert Einstein joeswammi.com ↔ humanaiproject.org ↔ joeswammi.com/sinfest