We live in a generation that is totalitarian in principle, having accepted all the basic totalitarian premises. Denying the Lordship of Jesus Christ drives you to those premises — for if Jesus is not Lord, then there is a vacancy that men will always want to fill. Without an exhaustive rule through the predestinating love of the Father, unbelieving men will always see a job opening. They will want to fill that gap. They mimic the Father’s omnipotence, which is where we get the totalitarian part. They also try to mimic His love, which is how we get the tolerance farce. And so it is that we find ourselves suffocating under this totalitolerance.
Examples pour in daily, but here is a fresh one. Gov. Brown of California has signed a bill requiring private pro-life counseling centers to distribute abortion information. Anyone who can look at the news without seeing how everything is coming to a grotesque and convulsive head is simply not paying attention.
Secularism is simply not capable of sustaining limited government. It cannot be done, and this is a problem. Because men are sinners, they require governance. Because men are sinners, they cannot be trusted with governance. Limited government is therefore the first and foundational problem to be solved in any exercise of practical theology. That said, it is a problem that cannot be solved apart from the widespread dissemination of the gospel among the people.
Incidentally, if you solve the problem of limited government by denying any real need for limited government, this is not an exercise in creative problem-solving, but rather an example of going over to the adversary. The Spirit of God is the spirit of liberty. The Holy Spirit is not the spirit of coercion. The impulse to control everything is the machinery of Isengard, and those who want to be a cog in that machinery have all their aspirations pointed in the wrong direction.
If the gospel runs freely, enough people are converted to enable them to understand the problem. If that happens, enough people are converted to enable them to begin to execute a biblical solution — a sample of which we can see in the form of government our nation had at the Founding (checks and balances, separation of powers, etc.). That form of government really was a glorious achievement, and it should be no surprise that it is routinely disparaged by our generation of soi disant political theorists, a.k.a, fiddlers and fussers. “You can’t put banana peels in that can! What are you, evil?”
The gospel, pure and unadulterated, is therefore the thing that Christians must emphasize, and which the adversary will always attack. The adversary will attack it from without by malevolent persecution and from within by disingenuous corruption. If we don’t understand the tactics behind the corruption, then when the time comes we will be mystified by the persecution. We will not understand what our persecutors are up to because we have not understood what our preachers were up to.
There is one truth, the Lord Jesus. There are a million ways to lie. The ways to corrupt the gospel are manifold, and I just want to speak to one of the central tactics here. This is not the only lie, but it is one of the big ones.
Contrary to what you have heard, truth is objective, fixed, everlasting, eternal, unchanging, timeless, and personal. It is not subjective, transitory, temporal, mutable, or impersonal.
One of the central designs of the enemies of our liberties is therefore to detach truth from all of reality, and to detach true statements from any objective correlation to their referent. The former allows for the privatization of “truth,” and the latter reinforces the same kind of privatization in another way, by another route.
By denying the exhaustive authority of natural revelation/natural law, room is created for someone over there to be occupying a realm where a “different truth” might govern. This is followed up by denying the exhaustive authority of Scripture, saying that it is simply the constitutional basis of “our faith community.” By denying natural law, and by denying the absolute nature of Scripture, when the Word of God is laid over the surface of the world, it turns out that a good portion of the world is left sticking out. There is quite a bit of remainder. Like a six foot man under a four foot blanket, the Word is not sufficient. This is what “retreat to commitment” means — foolish Christians trying to curl up under the blanket.
And by denying the correspondence view of truth, room is created for the establishment of a subjective view of truth, which is another way of reinforcing the need for a “retreat to commitment.” We retreat to the places where everyone who says “this is true for me” is affirming the same “truths.” For the present. There are soldiers gathering in the street outside, and they are interested in confiscating our privatized truth, which we weren’t using anyway.
Because of the theological and philosophical malpractice of our Christian leaders, we are now discovering, as the overt totalitarian play is coming together, that our leaders have been quietly emptying out the church’s arsenals and armories for the last half century. This is the trahison des clercs — the treachery and/or fecklessness of the ruling class. It has been very effective.
This is why and how we have gotten to the place where feelings trump everything — inside the church and out. This is why the government believes that it has the authority to regulate absolutely everything — inside the church and out. This is why those who explain what is actually happening are disparaged as being the source of the problem themselves. Everywhere Gandalf went, trouble followed. What is wrong with him?
We started by believing, as we ought to have done, that every man had a right to his own cabbages. We have ended by believing that every man has a right to his own truths. That ends with goons coming from the Department of Agriculture to seize the cabbages, and not one minister of the gospel in ten can explain how all such events are connected.
The California pro-life counseling centers should set up a screen that plays the Planned Parenthood videos that the media claims were “heavily edited”. The literature that explains abortion as an option should include ALL the details concerning fetal organ and tissue mutilation and distribution to labs. If California wants information distributed then it should be distributed in whole, no facts withheld. This is a gift. It should be used as such.
“California law requires us to provide you with data about where you can go to get your baby hacked to bits and removed, if that’s what you want.”
Right. Like the laws that require medical practices to disclose all possible side effects of a procedure or medicine. I have no objection to pro-life centers providing all side effects of abortion. Describe the procedure in detail. Show pics.
Spot on.
Can I up-vote this a couple hundred times??
In fact it’s a great idea. They should require pictures as well.
Do you think women that get abortions are unaware of what is going to happen? They are terminating a pregnancy. It’s possible that pro-choicers or women thinking about abortions might change their minds if they saw detailed pictures of abortions. But probably not much. If you went on a tour of a meat packing plant would it change your ethical feelings about eating meat? Probably not much. The gruesomeness of an act does not necessarily make it immoral. If it did, we’d all be vegetarians.
So, women who go to a prolife pregnancy center should expect only prolife counsel and not expect or need to be informed that the government of California wants to slaughter their baby.
“The government of California wants to slaughter their baby”. Hard to respond to this seriously and without sarcasm. Women in California can get pregnant without fear that the government will attempt to slaughter their baby. Really. They can. I don’t think any woman in California worries that the government is going to attempt to slaughter their baby. Now, does the government want young women to understand the options if they become pregnant but aren’t ready for it? Yes. But this is not nearly the same thing as “wanting to slaughter their baby”.
Well, we could say, “The government of California offers affordable and often free services for avoiding pregnancy and terminating an unwanted pregnancy. In addition, scientific research companies working in important research in the medical field partner with California to procure specimens from donated tissue. Products of conception may be donated to aid in this important field.” It sounds lovely and altruistic, doesn’t it? It does, until you move through the steps. Slaughtering is merely brutal, violent killing or butchering. If a vacuum suction was so strong as to tear my limbs from my body, I would consider that slaughtering. I… Read more »
Interestingly, new footage was leaked to the media yesterday, of meetings where abortionists discuss their trade. Here’s a sample of the transcript: “Ignoring the fetus is a luxury of activists and advocates… The women know what’s in there. They’re not stupid… I actually think we should be less about denying the reality of those images and more about acknowledging that, yeah, that’s quite a truth. So, given that we actually see the fetus the same way, and given that we might actually both agree that there’s violence in here, ask me why I come to work every day… Let’s just… Read more »
Spike Pittard: short sighted fool extraordinaire. In the past Pharaoh gave the order to kill the Hebrew boys at birth and the terrorist Assyrian government liked to make a show of ripping open pregnant Hebrew women and throwing their babies off the city wall. But even now, the scum that calls itself state or federal government has Pharaoh beat about million to one here in the states. Not one governor, attorney general, county sheriff, mayor, police chief, or cop on the beat in the whole country has the balls to put a stop to the daily murder of babies. Why… Read more »
That is exactly how I would word it. Still, what an example of an over reach by the Governor of California
Well, pro-life states have for years been requiring abortion providers to read anti-abortion screeds to women seeking abortion, so other than that the shoe is on the other foot, is this really any different? If Texas and Mississippi can require women seeking abortion to get pro-life “counseling”, then why can’t California require pro-life counseling centers to provide pro-abortion information? What’s good for the goose and all that.
Because aborting a baby is bad. Being pro abortion is being pro infanticide and pro life counsellors are not in business to promote death.
If both abortion providers and pro-life providers are neutral or equal goods, then yes. But that is something that neither side believes.
Hear, hear, well spoken!
But the issue here is promoting a certain viewpoint, and under the First Amendment the government is not supposed to prefer one viewpoint over another.
Then two wrongs don’t make a right. (But two left turns do)
No, no, no…two left turns make a U-turn! It takes THREE left turns to make a right.
…kids these days…
Krychek_2 thinks he lives in a world where his government doesn’t prefer one viewpoint over another. I think that says a lot about Krychek_2.
The illusion of neutrality is the opiate of the masses
The idea that the government can’t be neutral is mainly pushed by people who don’t want the government to be neutral.
It would help to define “government”:
A collection of parasites whose work it is to live off productive people.
A corollary: Government has nothing it has not stolen from the people over which it rules.
Please note that the concept of neutrality is completely irrelevant when discussing government.
Sincerely,
David Parker
David, if it makes you feel better to believe that, then go right ahead and believe that.
And the illusion of being right is the opiate of conservative Christians.
Spike approves of rightness in some sense. Is wrong, wrong?
And opiate imbibers need more opiates to placate themselves.
I suppose we could finger point and accuse each other of taking opiates till the cows come home. And I suppose there is not much point in me posting in this comment section, as I clearly am not a Doug Wilson follower. But I can’t helps but point out the foolishness behind the general world view espoused by you and others on here. It is curious to me to see y’all so fired up about political issues, when Jesus himself said to render unto Ceasar. It’s as if you really believe that Christ came to set up an earthly kingdom,… Read more »
Spike, thanks for the coherent rant. Forgive me, but you sound like somebody I know here but with a new Spikey handle. Totally cool.
That eschatology thing, well, Postmill futurism might fill in the blanks and misunderstandings as to why a Christian will pray a prayer for God to destroy his political enemy and then strategize an offensive plan of attack. Remember, no neutrality. We aren’t getting raptured out of the imminent task before us. Have you drank lots of retreatist tea? Just curious.
Tim, Postmill Futurism is not much different than an L. Ron Hubbard science fiction tome. At best it is a theory supported by not much in the Bible. And what support you find has to be interpreted heavily to yield the results you desire. Your “no neutrality” militant Christianity is not supported by the teachings of Jesus, and it is no better than the ideology that flew two planes into the world trade center. The fact that you can not see that is disturbing. Jesus himself was a retreatist, if that’s how you want to label it. He told Peter… Read more »
Dianetics is bad science fiction. I loved to read science fiction (actually written by real physicists back in the day) and made the mistake of picking up Dianetics by L. Ron Hubbard. Postmillenialism bears no resemblance whatever to the ruminations of L. Ron Hubbard. That would be like saying that you are promoting theonomy by commenting here. No, once again, the atheist is pretending to an understanding of Christianity. Postmillenialism is entirely biblical, it is the only eschatology that is biblical, no hoops to jump through, no inventive interpretations, no complicated timelines, no helpless hand-wringing piety. You repeatedly show your… Read more »
Jesus didn’t exactly tell the Disciples to arm themselves. They tell him they have two swords and he says “that is enough.” So two swords for the twelve. He never says exactly what to do with the swords. But I’ll grant you that Jesus does not seem to be against self defense, which is what appears to be the idea behind the swords here. He is certainly not telling them to get ready for warfare against secular scum. The Disciples are never shown to us swords in an aggressive fashion after the passage you mention. And of course you are… Read more »
Spike,
That was my old Bull Dog’s name…
I defer to David Parker, solid.
The Constitution for the united States is doing nothing. The human filth that calls itself government says it is nothing but a piece of paper. It was destroyed in the War of Northern Aggression and the so-called ‘USA Patriot Act” finished it off as far as the federals are concerned. Furthermore, it is always amusing when an atheist attempts to use what God said against Christians. Yes, Jesus did say to render unto Caesar the things that belong to Caesar, which brings up the question exactly what did belong to Caesar? Obviously the Roman coin that the Pharisees had in… Read more »
David, please tell me that you understand that your interpretation of Scripture is just as much a mortal thing as the values of a secular humanist. If you can’t see that, then there is no point having a discussion. The doctrine of the trinity, the doctrine of the innerancy of the Bible, the very canon itself–all are mortal things. My neutrality, as you call it, is simply an awareness that individual interpretations of Scripture and the doctrines built upon those interpretations are man-made and therefore fallible. As far as Christianity saving the world, you are mistaken. The prinicples of free… Read more »
David, if it makes you feel better to believe that, then feel free.
What is a conservative Christian?
Sincerely,
David Parker
A Christian that lands on a particular point along the wide spectrum of approaches to Christianity. The approach, in this case, is a literal one without a willingness to accept that sacred writings in any tradition are generally not meant to be taken literally. It is a fundamentalist approach, like all fundamentalist approaches to religion–one that is guaranteed to understand the letter of the law but miss the heart of it.
Understood, Eric, but I had gleaned that, as opposed to a clinic receiving state or federal funding, one which provides abortion services, where pro-life advocates have argued that they should have to also provide a list of alternative choices (other “medical options” if you will) since tax payers help to support their work, and since some of those tax payers are pro-life, that Gov. Brown is talking about any counselor or provider, even one not receiving a penny from the state or federal government, having to provide material which describes abortion. Is that not correct?
I don’t know if that’s true or not, but I’m not sure it changes the analysis. If the government can regulate what people in the business of counseling pregnant women must say, then it can do so in both directions.
Eric, I could see your point if we were talking about two different state or federally funded counseling groups each of which preferred one of two choices but both of which received taxpayer money, and therefore they had to present both sides of the issue. But if what I wrote above is correct, then what you have is a very dangerous precedent for people who are not receiving taxpayer money and who are simply providing counsel according to their conscience and their understanding of a matter, and now they are being compelled to offer counsel such is completely alien to… Read more »
I think that what’s really frightening is the idea that on an issue as controversial as abortion, that the government can compel anyone to say anything. This is a classic example of speech the government should not be able to require, because it is advocacy speech, pure and simple. And the way to fix the problem is by both sides knocking it off – no mandated anti-abortion speech in Texas, and no mandated pro-abortion speech in California.
The Precedent for California was set in Texas. If pro-lifers don’t like that precedent, they shouldn’t have set it.
I think that if a pair of scissors was aimed at the back of your head, you would turn into a prolifer instantly. It is only because you are shielded from the consequences of your insane babbling that you babble on about precedents as if this were about some academic exercise in law. The issue is that killing babies is murder and from the moment of conception it’s a baby, not some lifeless glob of tissue. Get it? Are you as gutless and wilfully stupid as SCOTUS to say that you can’t determine when life begins? Did you flunk biology… Read more »
David, if it makes you feel better to believe that, then knock yourself out.
The fact is that some 4,000 babies are being murdered in extremely painful ways, aka tortured to death, per day. That is the issue. All your secular babbling is intended to disguise that fact. Only satanists can say that legalized death by torture is not the political issue in America today. The girls made a mistake or whatever, I can sympathize, but there are Christians lined up to the horizon willing to pay for that child to be delivered alive and to raise that child (autistic or whatever) because God said the child is precious to him. Government is the… Read more »
The government is not supposed to prefer one viewpoint over another?
So it can’t have anti-smoking campaigns? Nutritional guidelines? “Stay in school” PSAs?
I look forward to seeing the immediate cessation of those activities.
Nobody is going to make an issue out of stay in school campaigns because those aren’t controversial – no one seriously thinks it’s a bad thing to encourage kids to stay in school – but if someone did, the answer should be the same. Under the First Amendment, the government may not take sides.
I noticed you ignored the nutritional guidelines (which people do have varying viewpoints on) and in which the government is most certainly taking sides.
I also ignored anti-smoking, and I’m sure there are smokers who don’t approve of anti-smoking campaigns. But neither smoking nor nutrition is controversial in the same sense that abortion, gay marriage or the death penalty are; you don’t need 100% unanimity to say that it’s mostly a settled issue (or at least as settled as any issue ever is). When people start blocking the entrance to the CDC and the NIH, or shooting the doctors who make the nutritional recommendations, or tying some state legislatures in knots over the issue, then get back to me. All that said, if somebody… Read more »
Nutrition is not controversial in the same way that other things are? Have you read the Internet lately?
Of course “good nutrition is good” is uncontroversial, but that’s like saying “marriage is good.” What constitutes good nutrition and legitimate marriage are subject to vehement disagreement, and not just on the fringes in either case.
And that’s a quibble over specifics. As you acknowledge, the broader question of whether good nutrition is good is not controversial. Certainly not enough that CDC doctors are being shot the way abortion providers are.
“Grains are good” vs. “Paleo everything” are viewpoints. “Animal protein is necessary for good health” vs. “vegan” are viewpoints. The government prefers one option in each of those cases. Why does a “quibble over specifics” make it not viewpoint discrimination.
You’re moving the goalposts now. So the government IS allowed to discriminate between viewpoints if people aren’t being shot over it?
“Good nutrition is good” is a settled issue. Whether good nutrition is gluten based or gluten free is an issue on which the people who do nutrition for a living have mostly reached a consensus on, and the government is doing little more than to take that consensus and run with it.
That said, to my knowledge nobody has filed a lawsuit about it, and if they did, I would hope the answer would be that the government shouldn’t be taking a position on it.
No one thinks that? Well, I do. Have you read the crap they’re trying to pass off as “education” these days?
Speak for yourself: Indoctrination into secular humanism is most definitely “controversial”. I seriously believe the government fool system is a bad thing. Only parents have the authority and the responsibility to raise their children from infant total dependency to young men and women total independence. It is a bad thing for parents to turn their children over to people like you for exploitation and indoctrination in the government religion of secular humanism. Just not as horrible as torturing babies to death under the euphemism of abortion. For general information: world population is decreasing. Even among people the abortionists say “breed… Read more »
because requiring documentation on the negative effects (which would include, but not limited to, being chopped up into little bits, yanked almost all the way out and then having your spine snipped with scissors… you know, that kind of stuff… sorry, where was I?)
oh, right… requiring anti-abortion literature does not violate anyone’s religious liberties, and posting pro-abortion literature does.
unless, of course, the secularists want to admit that they are indeed a religion. In which case, I’d be all for it.
But the issue here is promoting a certain viewpoint, and under the First Amendment the government is not supposed to prefer one viewpoint over another. Religion has nothing to do with it.
Except that they are citing a violation of their religious liberties perfected under the 1st amendment.
And besides… A government that legalizes abortions doesn’t have a worldview preference?
Sorry, that should say ‘protected’, not ‘perfected’. Freudian auto-correct.
No, the mere fact that something is legal doesn’t mean the government has a worldview preference; it means the government is staying out of it and leaving it up to individuals to decide for themselves. If the government required abortions, as they do in China, that would be a worldview preference.
And the real issue here is equal protection, not religious freedom. If the government can require one side to do something, it can require the other side to. It can’t treat pro-choice and pro-life providers differently on the basis of viewpoint.
Since “the government is staying out of it and leaving it up to individuals to decide for themselves”, why does there exist a federal Office of Population Affairs (no worldview preference to see here) which is in charge of Title X funding of Planned Parenthood (which received over $540 million in overall tax-supported funding in 2013)? The government seems to be “staying out of it” to the tune of half a billion dollars a year. Krychek_2 wrote: It can’t treat pro-choice and pro-life providers differently on the basis of viewpoint. Oh? So if the Office of Population Affairs (no worldview… Read more »
Under the Hyde Amendment, which has been law for 30 years or so, federal dollars may not be spent on abortion. The money to Planned Parenthood is for other services PP provides, like women’s health and birth control. And by the way, PP probably prevents a lot of abortions by providing birth control to keep unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place.
The federal government also subsidizes religious social services, but that doesn’t mean it’s endoring religion. It means it’s subsidizing social services.
Krychek_2 tries to dodge and weave the topic at hand, which was his claim that governments don’t prefer one view over another. He didn’t even address the mandatory health insurance scheme. What he euphemistically calls “social services” is contraception (under the auspices of the federal Office of Population Affairs, no less). That Title X money only goes to those who agree to provide contraceptives that the government is preferring from a particular worldview, over against other worldviews that would oppose contraception. This is what Krychek_2 thinks is “the government is staying out of it and leaving it up to individuals… Read more »
Actually, when I said social services I was thinking more in terms of religious organizations like the Salvation Army which feed and shelter the homeless, offer rehab to addicts, and do other things that clearly are social services. That the government subsidizes it doesn’t mean the government endorses the Salvation Army’s religious mission; it means it’s paying the Salvation Army to feed the homeless. Likewise, though you’d never know it from reading the comments here, Planned Parenthood does a lot of things besides abortion. That the government subsidizes those other things doesn’t mean it is taking a position on PP’s… Read more »
I’m sure that Krychek_2 was thinking of anything besides the issue at hand, which was his claim that the government doesn’t prefer one worldview over another. I pointed out two examples, one in which the government Office of Population Affairs defines and subsidizes Federally Qualified Health Centers that provide contraceptives. What funding does a health provider receive which is not on board with the contraceptive population agenda of the Office of Population Affairs? Are they federally qualified or disqualified according to the government that Krychek_2 says is not picking sides? The other example that I mentioned is Obamacare, which mandates… Read more »
Notice katecho does not ‘go on and on’ to call out krycheck2 on his failure to recognize the government holding it’s biased position on picking up garbage, delivering the mail, it’s sinful support of public transportation, the military, safety standards for foods and any number of other evil socialist government intrusions.
What is katecho thinking? He is clearly not. He throws out the kitchen sink and fails to include the plumbing. How is krycheck2 suppose to drown in irrelevancies if katecho will not furnish them all? Notice how he is blind to his duty here in misrepresentation and misdirection.
I thank RandMan for conceding what Krychek_2 refuses to admit, that a government, by imposing any project on society, must necessarily be enforcing a particular worldview. If it has to be enforced, it isn’t neutral. However, notice that I never said that having a particular non-neutral worldview is evil. Neutrality is a myth. For example, a supposedly neutral stance toward killing unborn babies is depraved, and therefore not neutral at all. I’m a Christian, which is certainly not a neutral worldview. I affirm a legitimate role for government funded military, since the civic magistrate bears the sword as a minister… Read more »
katecho moves the goalposts to make his preferred government socialism okay. He concedes this with no irony. Notice that he slyly avoids once again the the point at hand here which is that the government is not supposed to prefer one viewpoint over another and implies an over-arching bias where one does not exist.
No moving of goalposts from me. Wilson has often stated that the question is not whether we will have a worldview preference, or impose a standard. The question is which worldview, and which standard. In a state of denial, Krychek_2 may insist on wearing his neutrality blinders, but it’s trivial to demonstrate that our government is enforcing a particular worldview. We are overflowing with examples of government imposed worldview standards. In our case, that particular worldview is statist, socialist and secular. Only the blinkered find this situation neutral.
Rand’s immediate point, with which I agree, is that even if I responded to all of the examples Katecho gives — none of which are relevant to the thread, but yet another attempt to do a thread hijack about my worldview — he would then complain about another ten or twenty that I hadn’t mentioned. And I’m reluctant to engage Katecho on them because if I do we will have yet another thread hijack about my world view, and everything isn’t about my world view, Katecho’s attempts to make it about my world view notwithstanding. So instead, I will simply… Read more »
This is false. I’m not asking Krychek_2 to tackle any of the examples I’m mentioning on their own merits. They are all just examples of a pervading lack of government neutrality, and the enforcement of a particular worldview preference against other worldviews. Krychek_2 is desperately trying to deflect from this reality by citing things like garbage collection, which he hopes will pass as something neutral. Meanwhile he just ignores my examples of government enforcement of non-neutral social agendas involving population and contraception, mandated health insurance, etc. Krychek_2 wants to continue pretending that he lives under a polite and neutral government,… Read more »
like garbage collection, which he hopes will pass as something neutral.
A man cannot even throw away his garbage without ticking off some government busybody.
Depends on where he throws it.
I use my Take It To The Curb Orlando containers for everything but recycling, for the benefit of the environment. It really irritates the lefties of Thorton Park.
If indeed neutrality is impossible — and I do not concede that it is — it is only because one or both sides will not be satisfied with neutrality; they continue to agitate in favor of a government that furthers their particular social views. This in turn results in a fairly nasty arms race, since the other side then sees attempting to get their social views enacted into law as self-defense against the first group. The problem is not that neutrality can’t work; the problem is that neither side is willing to let it work. Now, as a matter of… Read more »
May I point out that if you wouldn’t take katecho’s troll bait these threads wouldn’t be hijacked? Just respond – – if you must – – with “Noted.”
Shame on you. You are confirming EtR in his ignorance and sin.
Shame on you. You are more interested in winning a secular legal argument with K2 than in his soul. You are driving him away, not bringing him closer to faith.
The fact that you’re not even right about secular law is just a bonus.
A legal argument is not about first things, it rests on them. There are all kinds of ‘secular laws’ out there in the world built on a foundation of lies. Because they get the first things wrong (more accurately, evade and deny them) the edifice–your beloved ‘secular law’–becomes a corrupt dead mass that enslaves men and does not protect their God given liberty. American secular law is now a branch cut off from the Root; it is dead. You, in your love for American secular law, have set your focus there. In itself, this can be a noble thing–as long… Read more »
If you two are doing the Lord’s work you’re pretty bad at it. But my bet is that you’re indulging your egos, not working for Christ.
Pray about it and ask God about us. Then, pray for me.
There is no subterfuge here, Mr. Haggar; this is honest, plain dealing.
blessings.
t
I was too harsh; I apologize.
Trying to be helpful instead. Pray about trying this instead:
K2 often says he sees no evidence of any God at all, much less that He cares for or aids his Earthly children. Odd that a seminary student would reach that conclusion, but he’s hardly alone. The PhD on the CD my Sunday school class is using became an agnostic over the question of evil.
So perhaps you and katecho can assemble some proofs/evidence of His good in the world?
“So perhaps you and katecho can assemble some proofs/evidence of His good in the world?”
Though this may be helpful at some level, ultimately it doesn’t get at the root of the problem. We believe that people hate God because they love their sin. All the proofs and evidence in the world won’t change that. Man’s problem is ultimately a moral problem, not a mental, emotional, or physical problem.
The Spirit of God uses the Word of God to create children of God. Oftentimes that Word seems harsh to our sinful ears.
I sent K2 a few inquires. (The Jews have an injunction against attempting reconciliation until one has reason to believe the other party is ready. Otherwise it just exacerbates the situation.)
Kelly, Evan, Katecho and Timothy: To whatever limited extent Katecho and Timothy actually care about the welfare of my soul (and they have both left me with the strong impression that they do not; that that’s just a cover), it is Basic Calvinism 101 that nobody comes to God unless and until God draws him. If God exists, which I doubt, he has not revealed himself to me, and until he does, my salvation is a pointless discussion. I’ve already been thoroughly evangelized, and you’re not going to say anything I haven’t already heard. And Evan, I don’t hate God… Read more »
K2, Evan, Katecho and Timothy:
Let’s all just set this whole sub-thread aside and let it perc for a day or so. The believers can pray about it while the atheist(s) [there are others on the thread] can think about it. Or not.
Have a good weekend . . . whether you attend any services or not . . . . – – ;).
kmh
Since Disqus does not have a “reply private” button (at least not one I see), I’ll not reply since it would be talking about K2 but not to him. So, let’s see if replies to either your comment or to my Qs.
Kelly, Sharp elbows do not hurt me. This is an adult blog and blunt talk is part of the warp and woof. There are no hard feelings on my part. Katecho gives an excellent overview of the “why” vis-a-vis EtR and I would like to offer a few more… First off, there are those of us who think like this all the time and find the secondary things to be amusing trifles. This is not a ‘tactic’ this is who we are. Second, is that there are others we are speaking to beside EtR and RandMan–specifically the faithful who do… Read more »
still following my own advice to let things perk a day or two . . . .
I understand that Haggar has apologized for his harshness toward me, but there really is a divergence in methodology between us. Haggar accepts the unbeliever on their terms, and concludes that the issue is not a heart issue, or a presuppositional issue, but rather just an information or intellectual issue. Thus Haggar thinks that what Krychek_2 needs is just more information, more evidences, etc. That is simply false. This is a heart problem for Krychek_2. He is an apostate from the Christian faith, and he is here to tear down Christ. There is nothing neutral about his agenda here. As… Read more »
Seems my “let it perc a day” comment has not appeared on the thread yet. No idea why not. This ought to link to it:
https://disqus.com/embed/comments/?base=default&version=665f67f5fd3435d6a45d975c4ee7cbeb&f=dougwils&t_u=https%3A%2F%2Fhttp://dwils.wpengine.com%2Fs7-engaging-the-culture%2Fcurling-up-under-the-blanket.html&t_s=curling_up_under_the_blanket&t_e=Curling%20Up%20Under%20the%20Blanket&t_d=Kelly%20M.%20Haggar%20%C2%B7%20Profile%20%C2%B7%20Disqus&t_t=Curling%20Up%20Under%20the%20Blanket&s_o=desc#
So I’m taking my own advice and letting things perc.
“If you two are doing the Lord’s work you’re pretty bad at it. But my bet is that you’re indulging your egos”
I’m sure Timothy doesn’t appreciate getting hit from behind as he engages the front. You may want to re-think who you want to throw stones at here.
I did and I apologized. See:
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/curling-up-under-the-blanket.html#comment-2322795876
Nothing that is said here can hurt me. My focus is the mission. Katecho is a leader on it and I saw the mission undercut by Kelly’s mistake and called him on it. Kelly, a good and generous soul, apologized.
You’re right, and that’s a good idea. Going forward, instead of saying “if you want to believe that, knock yourself out,” I’ll just say “noted”.
Krychek_2 may as well be arguing that one of the colors of the rainbow is neutral, and that the rest are biased. In his materialism, all of the colors are arbitrary, and none of them are intended by anything. It’s all just a sea of particles banging into each other. Therefore he has no frame of reference to know what to value more or less than any other thing, and he has no prescriptive authority by which to say that anything ought to be other than it is. Krychek_2 bemoans a “nasty arms race” but he seems to forget that… Read more »
Who gets to determine neutrality? Someone *has* to be an authority in order to do so, which is to say that they are not neutral. You said, “perfect neutrality may be unattainable. It’s still a goal to be aspired to.” It’s not that “perfect neutrality [is] unattainable” but that perfect neutrality is *non-existent*…. UNLESS you have some authority that’s not contingent upon anything in our closed system…. buuuuuut…. we both know you don’t want *that* (or Him, as it is) :) The Swiss aren’t neutral by not going to war. They just determined neither side was beneficial enough to die… Read more »
You are correct that if somebody actually invaded Switzerland, the Swiss would lose their neutality in a hurry, but that is not the same thing as saying they can never be neutral on any issue. And I haven’t said the government ought to be neutral about everything. One of the things I find unpersuasive about your overall paradigm is that it seems to say that there is no room for consideration issue-by-issue; that handling one issue a certain way precludes dealing with a different issue a different way, which is a classic example of the logical fallacy of the false… Read more »
“And I haven’t said the government ought to be neutral about everything.” I don’t believe I implied you said that the government ought to be neutral about everything, only implying, or explicitly stating, that the government (or anyone) can be neutral about anything. “One of the things I find unpersuasive about your overall paradigm is that it seems to say that there is no room for consideration issue-by-issue; that handling one issue a certain way precludes dealing with a different issue a different way, which is a classic example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative.” I’m actually curious… Read more »
After agreeing on which color of the rainbow is neutral, perhaps the people of the earth can all get together and talk it out and agree on which of earth’s languages is neutral, and then agree to use only that language.
Krychek_2 seems to be suggesting that language itself is neutral. Wilson just addressed this fallacy in his latest post (Immanuel Kan’t). There’s a reason that mainstream media calls us anti-abortionist instead of pro-life, and it’s not because they are being neutral.
Oh, of course neutrality is possible. Neither I, nor the government, take any position on what color you should paint your bedroom. I don’t care if you have pancakes or eggs for breakfast, or if you skip breakfast altogether, and neither does the government. I am neutral on whether you go to the gym or not, what kind of car you drive, and which religious service (if any) you attend on Sunday morning (or Saturday morning), and last I checked, the government doesn’t care about any of those either. Your statement that neutrality is impossible is just absurd. Unless you… Read more »
Well, first off, let’s go through some incidentals that admittedly don’t prove my argument or the principle, but do show that your examples may not be the best: 1) Room colors are not neutral. Green is used in OR’s and scrubs because of the effect on the eyes and nerves that it is thought to have; prisons and jails (“gaol” for our English friends) use pink so as to calm inmates; OSHA has recommendations for signage color; the NFPA and NEC dictate wire coloration and striping according to voltage for electrical construction. True, none of these directly affect the wall… Read more »
Krychek_2 wrote: “And as far as who gets to determine neutrality, most of the time it’s fairly obvious. On those few occasions when it is not, we talk until we reach consensus.” Krychek_2 assumes that people actually desire neutral indifference. Where has he shown that this is the case? Even the mainstream media refers to us has “anti-abortionists” rather than “pro-life”. Is this because they want to be neutral? They certainly have a motivation to portray themselves as neutral, but are they? Unfortunately, Krychek_2 probably thinks that calling us “anti-abortionists” is neutral. Which says a lot about the hopelessness of… Read more »
I think this sums it up quite well: Who gets to determine neutrality? Your post seems to cover this, but to contribute my own ramblings to the discussion: Suppose it were possible for someone (let’s say Person A) to hypothetically be truly neutral. Well, assuming neutrality is anything but an inane concept, it should probably go without saying that not everyone would agree with Person A’s views. In this example, I’ll focus on Person B who opposes one of Person A’s positions. Well, it might be easy (in some sense) to say that Person B is less favorable, because he’s… Read more »
You hit on the crux of EtR’s sense of reality; its an appeal that his in-group is it and that is where ‘the issues’ lie. If we accept EtR’s premises, he is correct. Fortunately, we do not accept EtR’s premises, we start with Christ. We live in Him; he lives in La-La-Land. Since these disputes exist because of the difference in our perception of reality, it is incumbent on EtR to ‘maintain his frame’ and allow no competing vision to disrupt his premises. There is good progress being made. EtR is now sticking his fingers in his ears and attempting… Read more »
Krychek_2 thinks he lives in a world where his government doesn’t prefer
one viewpoint over another. I think that says a lot about Krychek_2..
I didn’t say it doesn’t prefer one viewpoint over another; I said it isn’t supposed to prefer one viewpoint over another.
I see your point. I do think that judgments about abortion, which you understand many of us see as being an extremely aggravated form of murder for hire, must be reached before the government would allow it to be legal. We see all of this as quite repugnant, since it puts the decision (from our perspective) of whether or not to pay a doctor to murder your unborn child (and in the most violent terms possible, I am afraid) is now a matter of personal preference, not too far from the decision whether to pursue getting a nose job, or… Read more »
Gasp! Tyrants don’t give a dern about Modified Humian Utilitarianism! Say it ain’t so?
Krychek_2 thinks he lives in a world where governments even have the option to not prefer one viewpoint over another. It’s a very naive supposition, and one that seems to come from nowhere in particular, given his accidental worldview.
If it makes you feel better to believe that, go right ahead.
And I would like to live in a world in which Katecho actually reads what I say before he responds to it; this is the second time in 24 hours he’s claimed I said something that I hadn’t.
Sorry to intrude, but I’m reading what you’re saying, and I don’t understand how you’re claiming that katecho is misinterpreting you. Are you saying that the government can and should stay neutral or are you not?
I’m saying that the government can and should stay neutral even though it doesn’t always do so. Katecho started off by claiming that I had said that the government succeeds in staying neutral, which is not what I said. I said it’s supposed to.
But when you corrected him and said that the government doesn’t always stay neutral, but it should, he revised his critique of your position and called you naive for claiming that neutrality can even potentially exist (from a government or from any organization or individual) and that’s where you accused him of misreading you. That’s why I was confused. It seems he’s reading you correctly and responding to that–correctly.
Ah. I understand your confusion. My reference to this being the second time referred to a different thread, in which someone asked what would be the argument for banning polygamy. So I stated what the argument would be (which is not the same thing as saying I agree with the argument) and Katecho then claimed that my explanation of what the argument was meant that I was agreeing with the argument. Sorry, I should have been more clear.
It’s becoming quite clear enough. This is another way of saying that not even Krychek_2 believes what he writes about here. He’s just sending up trial balloon arguments, and running away from them when they pop badly. After the fact, he distances himself and says that these are just what the argument “would be”. How coy. Commitment is dangerous to him and his worldview. He wants to pretend to be an enlightened critic of other people’s worldviews when he is actually standing on nothing but hot air. He rebukes Wilson of the slippery slope fallacy in raising polygamy as the… Read more »
Katecho, if it makes you feel better to believe that, knock yourself out.
Can you cite the clause in the First Amendment that says something about preferring one viewpoint over another? I’m pretty sure there are lots of viewpoints the government openly prefers over others.
I can cite about a dozen Supreme Court decisions that say that. Google “government viewpoint discrimination” and you’ll find plenty.
Our government takes a very strong stance on not preferring one viewpoint over another. They are dead set on this viewpoint. It’s codified in Supreme Court decisions. Got it?
Almost all of what crisis pregnancy centers do is speech. A very small amount of what abortion mills do is speech. Therefore, regulating the content of the crisis pregnancy center’s speech is a much greater violation of its mission than doing so to the abortion mill.
It’s still treating one of them differently than the other based on viewpoint.
How about treating one of them differently from the other based on the fact that they’re entirely different intsitutions with entirely different functions, not just different viewpoints?
It’s not like it’s Catholic pro-life center vs. atheist pro-life center. It’s advocacy and social assistance center vs. baby grinding business.
They are both in the business of offering counseling and services to pregnant women. That you don’t like the counsel and services one of them provides doesn’t change that.
One of them sells a service that would be hurt if more people believed the other side’s view, the other gives stuff away and is materially unaffected by what people who don’t go there, believe. That both are based on believing that what they are doing is good, doesn’t change the fact that they’re not parallel.
You can always find distinctions between any two businesses, even if they are in the same business, but the relevant category is that they are both providing counseling and services to pregnant women.
You say the relevant category is that they both provide counseling and services to pregnant women.
And the fact that one profits from performing abortions, and the other does not profit in any case, is apparently entirely irrelevant. Is there an actual reason to prefer the viewpoint that only one category is relevant?
Profit/non-profit status is irrelevant. A lawyer who is acting pro-bono has the same duty to a client as one who is being paid. A doctor who is doing volunteer work is just as bound by laws regulating physicians. The law is directed at the services being given, not whether anyone is making money at it.
It’s not merely profit/non-profit. Neither profit from giving counseling, but one does profit from one option being taken. Simply to dismiss the fact that a vast number of institutions on one side exists for the business purpose of selling abortions as “not being relevant” is begging the question. It’s like holding an Internet website discouraging cosmetic surgery to the same standards as a cosmetic surgeon. They’re simply not parallel.
And I would not say that there are no circumstances under which they can’t be held to different standards. Just that compelled speech isn’t one of them.
Look, your side isn’t even pretending that the anti-abortion speech is about giving information to pregnant women so they can make informed choices; they very blatantly admit that the point is to try to talk women out of having abortions. This is advocacy speech, pure and simple. If the State of Texas wants a forum to discourage women from having abortions, let them pay for it themselves.
Krychek_2 wrote:
Indeed, the Christian side isn’t pretending to be neutral with respect to the unborn. We leave such pretense and subterfuge to the secularists.
“Look, your side isn’t even pretending that the anti-abortion speech is
about giving information to pregnant women so they can make informed
choices; they very blatantly admit that the point is to try to talk
women out of having abortions.”
Are we supposed to be ashamed of this?!
Forced advocacy speech is about as blatant a violation of the First Amendment as I can imagine.
Well, the laws that a clinic must abide by would naturally be different than those regulating a counseling and support ministry. For example, a clinic that provides bariatric surgery would be subject to different laws than a weight watchers support group. The bariatric surgery clinic might be required to inform a patient of other options available before undertaking irreversible surgery, but should Weight Watchers be required to shill for it? If a command from on high suddenly required them to provide this information, Weight Watchers might respond thus: We shouldn’t have to provide this info, but if you make us,… Read more »
Ok, but what is being regulated in both cases here is the information that must be provided to pregnant women.
So, you are saying that the law in California now states that ALL pregnant women in California must be provided abortion information…by whom? Is that the way this governor’s mandate is written? If a woman is pregnant in California but never sets foot in either a crisis pregnancy center or abortion clinic, how is this information going to be provided to them?
If you are a licensed facility, you have to hang a poster telling your clients that the government offers a full array of reproductive services to low-income women. If you are not a licensed facility but you offer pregnancy testing and counseling, you have to post a message that you are not a licensed medical facility. I didn’t follow this legislation as it went through, but I believe the concern was about crisis pregnancy centers which appear to be, and could be confused with, medical clinics offering services to pregnant women. I live in California, and I have seen lots… Read more »
Show me where I said that.
I am asking you. I made a distinction between types of facilities, but by your reply, it appears you are saying that it is not the facility that matters, but the fact that the women are pregnant.
I read your question to me to imply that all pregnant women must be given information whether they go to clinics/counseling centers or not, which of course would be absurd. As a policy matter, I don’t think the government should mandate that either pro-life or pro-choice information be given out, but if it is going to, I think it has to treat both the same. The common element in both is that you have pregnant women seeking counseling and services. For the same reason that it cannot require the local humanist center to provide information about evangelical churches without also… Read more »
But I’m not seeing anywhere that this is a tit for tat law about fairness. Are abortion clinics required to provide pro-life pregnancy center information, addresses and phone numbers at their clinics? Where is that happening?
No, they’re being required to read their patients a script about how life begins at conception. Which means that they actually have it worse off than pro-life centers do in California; an exact parallel would be to require the pro life centers to read a script about the benefits of abortion.
You mean they’re required to explain the biology underlying the medical procedure they’re giving? That would be like a pro-life center being required to explain pregnancy and childbirth. I doubt any of them would object to that.
Except that the people who actually do biology for a living mostly disagree with you. Funny that.
Aside from his fallacy of appeal to authority, we’ve covered this extensively before. At that time Krychek_2 failed to provide any biological criteria by which the newly conceived unborn are not alive, or not human. Instead, Krychek_2 brought in the metaphysical concept of consciousness, which he was unable to provide a method to measure or detect biologically. (See the Chinese Room thought experiment.)
Noted.
Krychek, you have been giving variations on this perspective over several posts. While I disagree on your views of neutrality, can I suggest that even from a more secular perspective, the command to do something (perceived) immoral and command not to do something (perceived) moral are not identical. It is one thing to stop a man from consuming alcohol when he thinks it beneficial; it is quite another to command a man to drink alcohol when he thinks it is a demon drink. The requirement for an abortionist to tell of other options is permissible as no one thinks it… Read more »
As an academic philosophical point I agree with you; in fact I think you’ve made one of the better arguments for “the other side” that I’ve heard. The issue, though, remains compelled speech: Under what conditions may the government require speech that the speaker doesn’t want to make, especially when the requirement is not viewpoint-neutral. Now, you’re right that the burden on the conscience of the abortionist is less than the burden on the conscience of the pro-life group. But that’s like saying that the burden on a wealthy victim of a mugging is less than the burden on an… Read more »
I find it ironic that Krychek_2 wants to talk about compelled speech and extol secular neutrality, all while our current government compels, not only speech, but action (“bake the cake!”). It also compels health insurance, and narrowly was prevented from compelling it in the form of direct employer reimbursements for contraceptives. I acknowledge that Krychek_2 has said that he is not in favor of requiring businesses to “bake the cake!”, but he apparently is in favor of compelled health insurance. I hope he can see that our secular government has a thing for compelling others toward its social agenda. So… Read more »
Health insurance isn’t speech.
Krychek_2 will kindly notice that I didn’t refer to compelled health insurance as speech, but apparently he thinks that compelled health insurance is okay because so long as it isn’t speech. In progressivism, this is what passes for neutral secular government “staying out of it”.
Wow! Abortion clinics are required by law to read a script to their patients that life begins at conception? That is very new news to me. Is this nationwide or just California? Even if that is true, it would not be an exact parallel. Requiring a statement of when life begins has nothing to do with providing contact info for state funded services.
Abortion clinics in Texas, Mississippi, Pennsylvania and some other states are required to read a pro-life script to their patients. “Life begins at conception and please don’t kill your baby” is not a word for word quote, but that’s the gist of it.
Didn’t know that. IMHO, the content of that text is over the Wooley line. I would vote to strike it down.
I assumed you knew for sure that CA had one and were quoting it. Again, your argument here is a first. In not seeing a reference to this ‘script’ by the CA governor or lawmakers.
Why should we have to rely on Krychek_2’s paraphrasing? Can’t he provide a link to this alleged script? The Guttmacher review article that I found online was from 2007, and had to do with required reporting of possible links to breast cancer, possible pain experienced by the “fetus”, and possible remorse of the mother. I didn’t see anything about life beginning at conception. Call me skeptical. At any rate, I hope Krychek_2 will acknowledge that not all Christians are in favor of the government compelling speech (just as we acknowledge that Krychek_2 is not in favor of compelling Christian bakeries… Read more »
This is like saying that requiring warning labels on cigarette packaging is exactly the same as requiring doctors to tell all of their patients the best places to go to get affordable cigarettes.
Bingo!
Rules for Radicals #4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
well played, sir.
err… ma’am. my bad.
Hahaha. NP. :)
I came down here to the comments section to say exactly this!
Spot on, Laura!!
“If God is dead, somebody is going to have to take his place. It will be megalomania or erotomania, the drive for power or the drive for pleasure, the clenched fist or the phallus, Hitler or Hugh Hefner.” ― Malcolm Muggeridge
And we all said “both please!”
Actually, we are seeing a replay of Satan’s three temptations of Jesus: lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, pride of life. In our culture, these translate as sex, money and power. And we say “all three, please!”
Be honest, did you actually get that quote from reading Muggeridge himself, or did you just get it from Ravi Zacharias using it all the time? :)
I don’t get the last paragraph. I thought I did have a right to my own cabbages.
I think Wilson was comparing the work done to cultivate homegrown cabbages to the unwitting work pastors have done to validate homegrown truth. When truth becomes a matter of personal opinion, the secular state takes over as the arbiter of truth – and cabbages.
Everyone will have a right to your cabbages someday. They are working on medical care first. Everyone has a right to medical care, so if thats what you provide, everyone has a right to your work. But once that is all hammered out, cabbages will be next.
They have been working on children for years.
It takes a village to eat your cabbages! But, you didn’t grow those cabbages. Someone else did that.
Well, at least giving them back to the “migrants” who picked them will complete the life cycle. Or something.
Please, take all the cabbages. I feel about cabbages the way George H. W. Bush felt about broccoli.
Amen! But I’m still going to quibble over this part, “This is why and how we have gotten to the place where feelings trump everything — inside the church and out.” Feelings can be a very moral, while pure intellect can be evil. We can deny our own feelings and rationalize ourselves into believing that a fetus is just a clump of meaningless cells, for example. One of the characteristics of totalitarians is that they cannot feel, they do not empathize. What appears to be a very emotional political climate right now is actually cold, hard hearted, and detached. People… Read more »
Nicely put! Men without chests, as Lewis aptly put it.
True, that. The “feeling” is all ritualized. Nobody is actually offended; they are just theoretically offended that some hypothetical other might supposedly be hurt.
John 11:34-36
34 “Where have you laid him?” he asked. “Come and see, Lord,” they replied.
35 Jesus wept.
36 Then the Jews said, “See how he loved him!”
So many times in debates about what the Government can take, the whole notion that there are other institutions who have a claim on our right and time (i.e. the church) and have responsibilities and roles that need to be left to it is simply not even brought to the conversation, even with Christians. They say the creed, but their view of the state is still following their script.
I disagree with this bill, but it is not quite as dire as I had imagined. Pregnancy centers that are licensed as clinics must post a sign that says: “California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to comprehensive family planning services (including all FDA-approved methods of contraception), prenatal care, and abortion for eligible women. To determine whether you qualify, contact the county social services office at [insert the telephone number].” An unlicensed clinic that offers pregnancy testing is required to inform women that it is not a licensed clinic for medical care. This is not quite… Read more »
It is not as bad as it could be, but it is still a compulsion of speech, and as such, tremendously tyrannical.
So you’re with me that anti-abortion states shouldn’t require pro-life counseling either, for the same reason?
K2 – please bounce the law part against Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-1391.ZO.html and let me know what you think. Thx
Rust was about government funding for speech, and the burden there is different than it is for speech, which is what this is about. I actually think the dissent had the better argument in Rust, but the standard for requiring the government to spend money, even in a fair way, is different than the standard for the government to compel private speech.
Is posting a notice as part of a business license “compelled” speech in the way that “Live Free or Die” was on a license plate? I see this as along the lines of the certificate in every fast food place that “John or Jane Smith has passed the Health Dept’s Food Safety Course.” Or the notice in a hotel elevator that the annual inspection notice is available in the office. The Prop 65 warning in Calif is closer to Pastor Doug’s objection as to the content of some required notice not being neutral. That warning says, roughly, “Materials known to… Read more »
I think that depends on what the notice says. Requiring a safety inspection, and a notice that you have passed the safety inspection, is not the same thing as requiring a notice that articualtes a viewpoint that is at odds with the goods or services that you offer.
As jillybean wrote,”This is not quite the same thing as forcing pro-life counselors to provide specific information about abortions. If they are licensed, they are required only to post the sign. If unlicensed, they should not be holding themselves out as licensed, even in the service of preventing abortions.” I see no problem whatsoever with the second half; no businesses can hold themselves out as licensed if they aren’t – – in NO field. If there is an issue here, it’s the first half; “content neutral” question on the informative sign? T-shirts in KY? License plates in NH? Or the… Read more »
First, I have belatedly realized how much I have been posting about you but not to you. I also apologize for that. If you know of a way in Disqus to reply to more than one poster at the same time, please clue me in. Also, unlike LinkedIn, I’m not seeing a way to reply privately. Second, I see that I should have directly addressed your views with you and not via third parties. Of course if you’re not interested in pursuing such a line of inquiry, simply tell me so, and I’ll drop the topic. But, in that spirit:… Read more »
Yup, you’ve done an accurate and thorough job of representing my position. If you want to talk privately, send me an email at blogger@mindspring.com
I have a tendency to drop off threads once they reach a certain number of comments, which this one is close to, so if I don’t respond that’s sometimes the reason.
Here’s a pair of law profs arguing that the sign on the wall of clinics in CA is OK. I think they’re correct; the sign ought to be upheld on these facts.
https://verdict.justia.com/2015/10/23/why-the-challenges-to-californias-reproductive-fact-act-are-likely-unpersuasive?utm_source=Justia+Law&utm_campaign=72170b442b-summary_newsletters_jurisdictions&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_92aabbfa32-72170b442b-405937282
I’m not aware of pro-life counseling being required anywhere. Can you point me to where that’s happening?
I read today that the new California law is being challenged by the Pacific Justice Institute on behalf of two crisis pregnancy centers. I did more reading, and there seem to be a number of issues: Some of these centers receive state and/or federal funding. Do you think that makes a difference in terms of whether, as a facility licensed and presenting itself as a medical clinic, there is an obligation to inform prospective patients of other options? Secondly, there is a lot of documentation (and have been a lot of lawsuits) about CPCs engaged in deceptive advertising practices such… Read more »
Deceptive practices are wrong, but unless I’m mistaken, there are already laws against that. New laws compelling centers not guilty of that are still an overreach, and not the appropriate way of addressing the problem. Laws designed to prevent people from doing something bad, as opposed to punishing them if they do it, almost never serve their intended purpose and usually restrict freedom in some other way.
Can’t we also blame Julio Iglesias, just a little bit,
for his rendition of “Feelings”?
Why the huge gap of white space now to scroll down between ‘visit NSA’ and this blog stuff?
That is bugging me as well. Am I missing a banner or something?
Bug and MaBug
The problem with the phrase “limited government” is the passive voice. Limited by whom, or what?
The foolishness of the American founders was believing they could construct a piece of Constitutional machinery to replace the need for a wise and responsible ruling class. Pastor Wilson is correct that the totalitarian impulse is always a threat, but it’s a threat magnified by the American system due to how it disguises personal responsibility behind a democratic-republican fog.
What makes the ruleing class less suceptable to totalitarian impulse than constitutional machinery?
Wrong sort of question. Every society has a ruling class. The American political formula is flawed, insofar as it distracts people from the need for aristocratic virtues in the ruling class.
What are aristocratic virtues?
to summarise: courage, loyalty, honour, justice, and noblesse oblige. Part of loving your neighbour is using the power derived from your position in society to benefit those you have power over.
But why are those particularly aristocratic virtues? Only aristocrats ever possess them? Aristocrats always possess them? Commoners are cowardly, dis-loyal, dis-honorable, unjust, and self-centered? Why can’t the virtues you list just be virtues that ought to be cultivated among all people? Or do you say only those who manifest such virtues should rule? In that case I’d agree with you.
I am saying that people who rule should manifest those virtues — and that we should throw out phrases like “limited government” and “sovereignty of the people” as deceptive façades used by rulers who want to blame their problems on their subjects.
What do you do with rulers who don’t display virtue?
Lamp posts?
Pray for their repentance… and if they don’t repent, try to stand out of the way when God’s judgement falls on them.
My dear departed father used to say that only the independently wealthy should be trusted to govern, because only they were immune from self-interest.
Think he’d vote for Trump? ;-)
I sure wish I could ask him–I loved him, but didn’t appreciate him as I should have. As he grew older, he veered gradually left-ward; as I grow older, I go the other way! I think he would have thought Trump was unprincipled on the grounds that, if you make that much money, you may have had to cut too many ethical corners along the way. And Trump’s boastfulness would have stuck him as ungentlemanly. He liked Barry Goldwater a lot.
Will all due respect to you and your father – they aren’t.
I know. But I wonder if, back in his day, they might have been more like that. People who saw a role in government as an exercise in patriotism and service. People who thought it was inconceivable for a gentleman not to be upright, truthful, and honorable. My dad was, always. He expected people to be like him.
Jilly my dear, you are on the right track yet again! Psalm 127 1 Unless the Lord builds the house, the builders labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the guards stand watch in vain. 2 In vain you rise early and stay up late, toiling for food to eat— for he grants sleep to those he loves. Our Father, God, is independently wealthy, and His only self-interest is His children. Us, the governed. This blog is all about Our Father God Governing our hearts. We can trust God and His Word with the Governance of our… Read more »
Those my friend are Christian virtues.
Precisely the reason Charles Finney opined “Politics are a part of religion in a country such as this, and Christians must do their duty to the country as a part of their duty to God. God will bless or curse this country according to the course Christians take in politics.””
What I would like to see happen is a woman under twenty challenge the 21 handgun laws. Equal protection don’t Cha know
You write this: “The Spirit of God is the spirit of liberty. The Holy Spirit is not the spirit of coercion. The impulse to control everything is the machinery of Isengard, and those who want to be a cog in that machinery have all their aspirations pointed in the wrong direction.” Doug, please tell me you see the irony in this statement. Your kind of Liberty is a limited one at best–freedom only to live within the constraints of your own brand of theology. And if you think you are free of the impulse to control, I suggest taking a… Read more »
De Tocqueville wrote that our form of government was only suitable for a moral people. He knew what Doug knows.
Sin enslaves, corrupts and destroys. Like Gollum clutching his precious, your sin is consuming your nation.
My sin? I like what you did with that. I’m not sure what this has to do with my point. My claim is that Doug talks of Liberty yet espouses a kind of Christain faith that is not liberating. And that if he and his follower had their way, and our government was as moral and Christian as he wants it to be, there would be plenty of coercion and lack of Liberty to go around. Name me a religiously Christian government that did not abuse its power.
Douglas specifically seeks a ‘biblical republic’. Whatever that is. It frankly sounds frightening if the dissension of christians (even here in Wilson-ville) is any indication of the consensus.
It is frightening. It is also a fantasy. Wilson’s Biblical Republic, if established in the US, would be a nightmare for anyone that wasn’t part of the ruling sect.
A feminist once (1993) gave me a paperback of The Handmaiden’s Tale. I told her I liked the original better. What? Huh? What book is that? So I gave her a paperback of Heinlein’s Future History stories, which included the two-part Revolt in 2100, circa 1941.
True, and again there doesn’t seem to be much of a christain consensus about anything- even here. And no true valuation of the free exchange of ideas, just lip service and ideological topsy-turvy-dom. A slight suggestion doctrinal change or critical evaluation gets you hammered.
Forget about my stuff! :)
Actually Wilson is declaring that the biblical republic aka Kingdom of Christ is a fact and will be made manifest worldwide. That every knee will bow, and those who do so with a free and open heart will like it a lot more than those who do not.
Nothing sells the true heart of christianity like a thinly veiled threat.
1) I don’t see any veil.
2) Can statements of fact be legitimately be considered threats?
No idea how this will turn out. Once again I must point out that Jesus allowed the rich young man to go away, only observing how hard it was for the rich to enter the Kingdom (which He pointed out elsewhere was not of this world). He didn’t send out the 12 to drag him back to hear more, He didn’t call down angels to “Job-i-size” his wealth away, He didn’t call down boils or sores on the young fellow to “concentrate his mind wonderfully.” Those of you, if any, who want to chase the theology of it all, (a)… Read more »
True statements Kelly.
,,and he kept declaring the Kingdom of God is at hand. and was very specific about just who has all authority.
I only see Doug Wilson saying Jesus’ words after Him. Paraphrased certainly from time to time but still….
Or did I miss your point? If so please let me know.
As best as I can tell, RandMan and Spike Pittard are afraid that Christianity MUST mean some sort of “Republic of Gilead” a la The Handmaiden’s Tale (a double entendre including her “tail”) will come to pass. They are reading the replies of several Wilson supporters about Psalm 2 trumping every secular law and no secular state being capable of neutrality as meaning a theocracy will be set up. Or that Christians have some sort of obligation to enact every Scripture such that we are to set up a theocracy. I don’t read the words of Jesus that way at… Read more »
Thankfully it is weird fantasy.
It’s not just “weird.” I believe “Republic of Gilead” stuff is a tiny minority of Christian thinking. Neither inerrancy nor elect nor literal are now or have ever been a majority view of Christians. For that matter, since his earlier denomination declared him guilty of heresy 13 years ago, Pastor Doug isn’t in the majority of Lutherans, much less of all Christians. That doesn’t mean I find his columns pointless or wrong. I agree with many of his points and appreciate his allowing Methodists – – and atheists – – to post here. In fact, I agree with him much… Read more »
fwiw, the doctrine behind the belief is post-millenialism (and a-millenialism, iirc) . In my case, the doctrine affirms my God-given optimism. The doctrine is at odds with pre-millenialism, which is quite common among many sects.
Just speculating here, but if Lutheranism is “Catholic Lite” then it probably/may be a-millenialist, which means your tradition is, doctrinally speaking, very close to Doug’s.
(:
Even after Jan 1st I’m going to skip the pre-/post-/a- argument, if one breaks out.
Let others who know speak up, but I do not believe that Pastor Doug was ever in the RPCUS, To write that “his earlier denomination declared him guilty of heresy” is simply false as it stands. And what does “Lutheran” have to do with it? I don’t think he was ever that either.
Regarding inerrancy, “the concept of an error-free text has certainly been embraced by a large segment of the professing Christian church since the first century” –Derek J. Brown.
http://derekjamesbrown.com/2014/12/15/is-inerrancy-a-recent-invention/
The Bible the Catholics have today wasn’t assembled until about 300 years after Christ’s ministry, and the Bible we Protestants have today isn’t the same as theirs. Those who are LDS (Mormon) have yet additional Scriptures neither Catholics nor Protestants have. All of that is hard to reconcile with infallibility and inerrancy being fixed doctrines in the 1st Cent. The Good Book wasn’t fixed yet – how could it have been infallible? For that matter, depending on which group you chose to follow, it isn’t fixed today. I was thinking of “What the Fundamentalists Want,” by Rev. Richard J. Neuhaus,… Read more »
The divine inspiration of words, written or unwritten, ensures them to be free from error. The trustworthiness of revelation is true apart from the question of which books are in the biblical canon. The historic Christian position is that all revelation is utterly reliable, and does not lead us into error. That is not called into question by the fact that the word “inerrancy” was coined relatively recently to summarize truth. The Handmaid’s Tale certainly is rooted in the liberal fears of the 1980’s, and was taken by many to accurately portray the views of the religious right, but it’s… Read more »
It’s also nothing new, which is why I gave her Revolt in 2100. But neither is it a relic on the 1980s. There’s no difference between “The Republic of Gilead” from 1985 and the “Republican War on Women” earlier this afternoon. Both are base, partisan, hack themes.
More:
Ehrman Lesson 18 (CD set on the New Test.) covered some of this material in today’s Sunday school lesson, plus I asked the Assoc Pastor if Methodists ever cover the Westminster Standards. No, we don’t. She vaguely recalls something about predestination and one debate on elect in seminary.
Bart Ehrman writes (in How Jesus Became God, “It will become clear in the following chapters that Jesus was not originally considered to be God in any sense at all, and that he eventually became divine for his followers in some sense before he came to be thought of as equal with God Almighty in an absolute sense. But the point I stress is that this was, in fact, a development” (p. 44). I hope your study group is refuting Mr. Ehrman’s conclusions.
The quote is from Michael Kruger’s review. http://www.reformation21.org/articles/how-jesus-became-god-a-review.php
No surprise at this point. When the series was ordered. no one knew that. None of us had ever heard of him but he came highly recommended in The Great Courses series. One person stopped attending after Lesson 2 because he was boring. Several of us began to suspect he was not a believer. I did a Web check and discovered he had moved from fundamentalist to agnostic over the problem of pain. Only two of us came today; the other arrived about 10 mins into 18. (I had been out of town for 16 & 17.) Mixed feelings about… Read more »
I assume we are not the same people when I used the word “you”, I was not referring to you specifically. That was poor grammar on my part. You did not address the De Tocqueville statement; have you considered his reasoning? Why he said what he said? What he knew that compelled him to state that? My hunch is that he know quite a bit more than you or RandMan know about how governments rise and fall. Name me a religiously Christian government that did not abuse its power. There has never been any earthly government that did not err;… Read more »
For what it’s worth the quote about “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people” is more properly attributable to John Adams (and in my opinion doesn’t speak well for the Constitution, but never mind.)
Romans 14 4 Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand. 5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind.6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Spikey, When we walk the earth, we are “under the thumb of gravity”, though if we think we can walk where ever we want, we think we are “free”. Freedom can… Read more »
Interesting scripture choices. Obviously, I’m not free to do whatever I want. I can’t fly, for example. There are laws of physics and such. My point is that the type of Liberty Wilson speaks of is a very narrow kind of Liberty, bounded by his particular take on theology. The freedom that comes from the truth, from having the living Word written on our hearts, is a freedom that goes far beyond tired, limited theologies. When you let go of the edge of the pool, at first it seems like you might drown. But then you realize you can swim.… Read more »
“…the truth, from having the living Word written on our hearts,…the creator.” So the creator, The Lord, is the master. “To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.” At the end of the day, we know people by their “fruit”. Mine and yours is comparatively invisible in the context of this blog. Wilson’s is pretty visible, and fruitful. The Word grounded boundaries Wilson relates may not be as limiting as you currently suggest. In any case, I do think freeing boundaries are not exactly the same for… Read more »
There is no where you can go that can separate you from the presence of the creator. That is freedom.
Assuming, by creator you mean God, then you must know that a free man can separate himself from God. You must also know that without repentance, salvation and sanctification by Him, that death is the end. Assuming you know that nations are governed by Him, you also know that a rebellious nation (yours) will be corrected one way or the other.
Assuming you know this, I find it amazing that you blame Wilson!
Even if I accepted all of those points as true, I could still blame Wilson for preaching a poisonous brand of Christianity. God can govern the nations, sure, but that doesn’t mean God wants to establish a Chrisitan republic in the US molded in the form that Doug envisions. The real problem here is that you and Doug and others on this site are not really spiritual Christians, but rather are cultural Christians that are looking to protect a particular way of life that you feel is slipping away from you. The truth is that you live in a secular… Read more »
It sounds like you think progressive liberalism will lead us towards a utopia if left untouched by conservatives.
No. But bullheaded Christianity will certainly not get us there. Thankfully, it is a very, very small minority of people that hold these views and there isn’t much threat of it spreading. Still, even in small doses, and especially in small communities and churches, it is harmful.
Our church started with a very small minority of eleven frightened men. We, having millenia of teaching do not share their fear. That growth is because of Him working in us.
He isn’t done and He will continue until every thing on this Earth is under His rule.(His words, katecho has the verse handy)
Thank you for your reasoned reply. I have seen this approach taken by others here–ryansather for example and JohnM to a lesser extent. I am not in Doug Wilson’s church, and I am unsure of my ‘doctrine’ beyond what I call ‘mere-Christianity’ ala c.s. lewis. My politics lean libertarian with a yuuuuge dose of federalism thrown in–in software design terms, loosely-coupled systems are fault tolerant and easy to repair, easy to extend… I have no problem with human diversity,beyond the lost souls, if a local people decide to kill themselves with sin–the world is not fully redeemed yet and I… Read more »
Interesting response. I concede that I am influenced by the spirit of the age–though the analogy to Sodom is misplaced. The US is not Sodom. The activities described in Genesis 19: 1-12 are all illegal in the US. They would all fall under sexual assault laws. If the analogy is due to the fact that same sex marriage is legal, then it is a broken analogy. The wickedness of Sodom was not simply that men wanted to sleep with men. It was that they wanted to rape the young men. That is still illegal in this country and no fear… Read more »
Your first paragraph ignores history and the history of men. The atheist Camille Paglia asserts that you will have temple prostitutes in the U.S. Rome had them. To look at present U.S. law and state it will not change is to be blind to deeper realities. Why bother setting up rules for Christian governance? So we have none–that us until Christ returns and takes over as King. Then we’ll have a monarchy, nothing at all like Federalism or Libertarianism. This is Scripturaly false/incomplete. Government and authority are ordained by God. He created them for our own good. It follows that…… Read more »
I never said US law will not change. I’m certain it will. All I said was that your analogy that the US is Sodom is misapplied. Who cares what Paglia says will happen? When it happens, when rape (homosexual or not) is legal and no one puts up a fuss, then I will accept your analogy. Currently, however, US law condemns rape of any kind, and Lot’s noble solution to the Sodomites request–to offer the virgins of the household to the men to en raped–is also against the law. Could this all change? Sure, but point to some evidence that… Read more »
Hi Spike. but there are no directions on how to govern given to Christians in the Bible. It is because it was not a concern of Paul, et. al. Trying to establish a Christian government would be rife with problems for many, many people. Christendom was not a “thing” then? We are to expect problems as we walk our path. There are plenty of examples from Scripture on how we are to govern ourselves and to insist that Christendom submit to Pagan-dom on political matters is not the Christian p.o.v that I share. The battle of Lepanto happened. The current… Read more »
Timothy, Before I respond, let me say thanks for this conversation. I appreciate the thoughtful and sincere responses. You say this above: “The battle of Lepanto happened. The current war with Islam exists. The pagan’s of America will follow their master and wage war against Him and His people. No, we cannot ‘all just get along’.” It sounds like you are suggesting that the Ottoman Empire trying to gain a foothold in the Mediterranean, and ISIS/Al Qaeda and such waging Jihad against Westerners is an example of the the Devil waging war against God’s people. And if you are equating… Read more »
And if you are equating aggressive, Jihadist Islam with the Devil waging war, would you also equate the Crusades with God waging war against the forces of evil? Am I reading you correctly? From my meager reading of the Crusades, they where a response to Islamic aggression. (I have a government education in History and it is not my ‘thing’). I don’t think in military terms. I think in “fruits of” terms. I have learned by my own redemption and struggle with God that sinful beings cannot stand the things of God–that includes His people. As we grow closer to… Read more »
Spike, not only did Paul not want to set up a Christian government, he recognized all established government as authority from God, and that the letter of the law, as long as it did not conflict with God’s law, should be obeyed.
He was helping to grow whole communities of model citizens, yet at every turn he was ran out of town, beaten, stoned, and imprisoned. Why do you suppose this was?
Then, suppose the work of the Holy Spirit works and over time a Christian people decide to form their own state. They have to give it a structure and working from scriptural principles and historical realities, they do so, fail, try again, fail, try again…get better at it… Then having achieved a very good version of it in America and watching it disintegrate they are supposed to …give up? Why? We have our example of our actions in accordance with His will bearing good fruit. To paraphrase the noble Sam Gamgee, “There is some good in Christendom Mr. Frodo and… Read more »
Good old Sam.
I still salute Old Glory, but at this point it’s more like preserving the shards of Narsil.
It occurred to me that any affiliation with Samwise Gamgee is written off as radical idealism by John McCain.
Ha!
Baroque Italy was a worthy Christian civilisation. So was America. God will restore.
Tom, the Bible mentions two times that Paul is arrested. He is arrested for casting out an evil spirit from a slave women. Her owners were using her to make money by having her predict the future, so the owners complain. In this case, Paul is thrown in jail because he makes a couple of people mad, causes an uproar, and is seen as an agitator. I suppose you could argue that he was thrown in prison because he was helping to “grow whole communities of model citizens” but that does not appear to be quite accurate. The other time… Read more »
Spike Pittard, I haven’t followed the whole thread, and I suppose Tom could answer for himself, but I think you might have missed what he was driving at. Re-read: “not only did Paul not want to set up a Christian government, he recognized all established government as authority from God”. That doesn’t sound like “federalist/libertarian hero”. Of course too, Tom mentioned not only arrests by the authorities but also being run out of town, beaten, and stoned. Secondary to the point above, and I don’t have time right now to discuss all the circumstances, but in fairness it’s something that… Read more »
Nero’s claim that Christianity is a mischievous superstition sounds exactly like a response to a moral referendum.
Paul knew better than anyone how disingenuous the religious leaders appeal to Roman authority was. His claim to Roman citizenship in Philipi is consistent with his claim that the magistrate should be respected under God’s authority.
It is interesting to note that the Philippian jailer, and his entire family, were saved because of Paul’s knowledge and observation of Roman law.
Your first statement needs a lot more evidence to support it. What we know from the available evidence, from a non-Christian historian, is that Christians were considered as believing in a mischievous superstition. The persecution of early Christians was fueled mainly by local communities who were put off by the secrecy of the Christian practices, as pagan worship was quite public. When the early Christians gathered in secret and used language that was unusual (eating the body and the blood), it raised suspicion. When local municipalities in Rome got involved it was normally to intervene in communities where there was… Read more »
When I say it sounds like Nero viewed Christianity as a moral referendum I am only giving you my own opinion. Based on accounts, both Biblical and historical, of Nero’s moral character I would put money on it.
Of course Jesus and Paul’s persecution was incited by the religious leaders, but they used Roman law to achieve their own perverted interpretation of God’s law. Both Jesus and Paul were in compliance with Roman Law and ultimately and most importantly God’s law. Which was my original point.
Tom, Nero is not mentioned in the Bible. When you say “The religious leaders used Roman law to achieve their own perverted interpretation of God’s law”, what examples do you have of this? Evidence? Nothing wrong with having opinions, but when so much of what is written on a site like this is condemnation and hand-wringing and critique, I think it is paramount to back up one’s opinion with evidence. Putting money on a hunch is likely to leave you broke in the end. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you. It seems like you are admitting that the secular Roman laws were… Read more »
Nero is not mentioned by name, but is referenced. He reigned during Paul’s ministry and is known to have beheaded Paul and crucified Peter. He was so wicked he was thought to be the beast mentioned in Revelations. I’m not really a gambling man. Let me put it this way; the idea that Christianity is a mischievous superstition is ridiculous. What I have been trying to convey is how Jesus and Paul taught to act under secular law in accordance with God’s law, and contrasting that with the hypocrisy of the religious leaders. I really don’t know how to put… Read more »
Tom, Nero is alluded to but in such general terms (often just the name “Caesar”) that nothing can be gleaned about his character. He is “thought to be” the beast mentioned in Revelation. But this is not evidence–only a theory. Just like the traditions that Nero beheaded Paul and crucified Peter. These are only traditions and not supported by sufficient evidence. And I’m not saying that Christianity IS a mischievous superstition, only that this was what Taciturn said about the reasons why Nero was against it. As to the last part of your post, sounds like you are saying the… Read more »
Spike Pittard wrote:
Secular Roman government? What’s ironic is that the Romans called the early Christians “atheists”, because they refused the emperor cult worship. Nero tried to blame the Christians for angering the gods by not partaking in such worship. Those silly secularists.
Good point that the Romans indeed had religious beliefs of their own. I’ve been using “secular” as a descriptor because the Roman state religion and its ability and willingness to assimilate the beliefs of those it conquered is similar to the US, and because in terms of the argument, the relationship between pagan Rome and the early Christians is similar to the relationship between the secular US government and the modern Church. It is the established Jewish religious authorities that are unwilling to change or admit blindness, just like it is the established Christian authorities in the US that are… Read more »
just like it is the established Christian authorities in the US that are unwilling to change or admit blindness.
Blind to what?
Jesus referred to the Pharisees as blind guides. They were blind to their “perverted”, as you call it, interpretation of Scripture. Now, when I said “established Christian authorities”, I should have been more clear. It is not all Christian leaders that fall into the same trap as the Pharisees, but any of them (and I count Doug Wilson in this group) that adhere to the letter of the Bible as opposed to the heart of it fall into this camp. They are blind guides. Blind to the truth at the heart of it all.
When you say “The religious leaders used Roman law to achieve their own
perverted interpretation of God’s law”, what examples do you have of
this?
You just provided your example in your description of Pilate’s washing his hands of the matter.
I think I see what you’re getting at. Yes, the Jewish religious leaders were able to use Roman law to get Jesus crucified and to get Paul arrested in Jerusalem. I was thrown off by your use of the word “perverted” in this context. What’s interesting is that in the US, the tables are turned. The Jewish religious leaders were the literalists, adhering to the letter of the law but not the heart of it. They were the hard-liners that were able to use the Roman government and its fear of uprisings in its vast territories to get what they… Read more »
In the US, the religious right are the hard-liners, adhering to the
letter of the law and not the heart of it, and their views are not
supported by the government.
What is a hard-liner? What do they espouse that is not the heart of the law of Grace (the law we are under, btw) and why should they care that their views are not supported by the government?
thx.
Hard-liners in my definition are any Christians that are literalists, and in their literalism, hold zealously to laws that are not a part of the law of grace–the good news of Jesus Christ. Doug Wilson is one of these Christians. What some call the Neo Calvinists are. There are many, and the central problem they all share is that they, like the Pharisees, get too caught up in the details, in the letter of the law. What is necessary to believe ? Faith in Christ as Lord and Saviour. When Jesus began his ministry in Mark, we read the he… Read more »
I look forward to picking up on this line of thought in future blog posts.
Thanks for the conversation, Timothy.
It’s very unlikely that rape was formally legal in Sodom and rape does not need to be legal if laws are not enforced. Rape is common in American prisons and without corporal punishment there is little the system can do to prevent it. Rape may be spotlighted on American college campuses but ignored in Rotherham, England or Sweden where is might upset prog narratives. Like everything else, rape or enforcement of rape laws is a question of who whom. If an increased rate of rape results from our immigration policies or prison reform then that will just be the price… Read more »
Notice how diversity is a convenient means to an ends. A nation as one people, with one culture, and one religion can certainly demand government according to their beliefs. In a diverse country (an empire, not a nation) then compromises must be negotiated and the secularist is there to offer progressive secularist government. Pay no mind to the fact that it was the secularist progressive who manufactured the diversity in the first place.Take note all you Christians compelled by a globalist understanding of Deuteronomy, you’ve been conned. Diversity corrodes and organically ordered society and it has been weaponized against you.