There are two kinds of tolerant societies. The first is one which contains the principles of liberty within its framework of foundational values, and the second is a society in transition, flipping from one set of intolerances to another set. During the switch, during the transition, demands for tolerance are the battering ram used against the establishment intolerance, in order to make way for the new set of intolerances. As it suits them, advocates of the rising intolerance may pretend to be principled in their tolerance, but it is all just a sham.
Speaking frankly, just between us girls, the first kind of tolerant society is a Christian society. Liberty of conscience is something that we Christians invented. “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship” (WCF 20.2). This is a topic well worth pursuing, and I would recommend this book as part of that pursuit.
Now we are currently in the late stages of transition, from a formerly liberal society to a very illiberal one. That liberal society was the leftover detritus from a formerly Calvinistic and truly tolerant society. Consequently, our tattered liberal society does not have any principles that are fixed in transcendent realities, and hence they are not capable of answering the new totalitarians.
It is not quite over and done, however. We know that we are still in transition because of how the debates can run:
1. “We can no longer tolerate hatred, however much it might be decked out in the language of traditional values. Either that traditional view must be eradicated or the new view of absolute human autonomy must be eliminated.”
2. “Very well, then. Since you force us to choose, we will stay with traditional understanding of society, sexuality, and marriage. The new understanding of absolute human autonomy must go.”
3. “You can’t do that. The free exchange of ideas in the marketplace of ideas is one of the hallmarks of a great society.”
As soon as the comeback under #2 disappears, so will the freedom. But as long as there are some Christians around to observe that the emperor is in fact nekkid, there will some others waving learned references to fig leaves they read about in a book once.
Like a circle, every society must have a center. That center is defined by the central principle of worship. The center must actually be a center, and a society cannot have two centers, any more than a circle can have two. If you have two centers, that means you have two societies, and one of them must prevail. So one circle can displace another one, and one center can replace the previous center. That can happen, but when a circle tolerates a new center it is in the process of ceasing to be a circle. Just so you know.
So Christian societies have a center, just like Muslim societies do, or Hindu societies do, or secular societies do. A society must have a center. The thing that distinguishes Christian societies is not the fact that they have a center. Christ is the arche, the principle of all integration, the center of all things. How could He not be? He rose from the dead, and He is Lord.
The thing that distinguishes Christian societies is not the fact of their center, but rather the size of their circumference — which is only possible because the center is a true center. Christians can afford liberty for others because Jesus rose from the dead, which was kind of a show-stopper. It is not easy for Christians, who serve a risen Lord, and who believe in the general resurrection of the dead, to be threatened by an atheist baker who doesn’t want to bake a cake for a little Catholic girl’s first communion party. Compare this to how threatened secularists are — the phrase “freak out” comes to mind — when someone politely declines to celebrate their lesbian nuptials with them.
And so this is why progressive bigots would have real freedoms in a Christian society, the kind of freedoms that Christians could not have in theirs. But there is more to it than that. Progressives would have many more freedoms in a Christian society than they would have in any particular hellholes that they might fashion for themselves. The revolution does not just devour God’s people like bread, the revolution also devours her own. Robespierre was not executed by the Christian Coalition. Trotsky was not taken out by the pope. Filostrato and Straik are sacrificed by Wither.
Real Christians love liberty, and real Christians love to share. But the only thing we cannot surrender is the one possible foundation of love and liberty, revealed first to Mary Magdalene. If the dead are not raised, there is no reason not to bite and devour.
The devil eats his children.
The circle illustration is helpful. Perhaps the reason the current ideas of toleration and heresy change so much is because the circle’s boarders are merely following the shifting center.
and you know what a wheel does when it is out of balance…….it wobbles and looses it way. Destroys the vehicle.
“All the kids have always known
That the emperor wears no clothes
But they bow down to him anyway
’cause it’s better then being alone.”
-Arcade Fire: Ready to Start.
The fact of the matter is that we are in the midst of a cold civil war and to the victor come the spoils of Western Civilization. Still the North American Church sleeps, awaiting some Call that will never be heard because of our practiced responses to the former Calls. Awake Church and step into your destiny…your Wilberforce Moment is here!… or…God is patient and will wait for another generation; another Church Body to enter into this particular Promised Land. Promised Land-taking is not for cowards (or the lazy)
Who is this cold civil war between? If we don’t get the “spoils of Western Civilization”, it is solely the North American Church’s fault? If so, why? What do you mean by “spoils”? What does “stepping into your destiny” look like on a practical level? What ought the church to be doing in this Wilberforce Moment? Where did they miss the call before? What do you mean by the “enter into this particular Promised Land”? Not an effort to jab or even debate, just to listen and fit some pieces together. Trying to see how much of the theology primarily… Read more »
Those are excellent questions. It is my opinion that there is a concerted effort to replace the foundational notions of community and the social contracts that, in the past, glued us all together. The new social contracts are rewritten with the ideological base of Christian philosophy notably absent. Many of those new ways of relating are untried in history or forgotten in the successes of the Christian worldview. That is why it is (so far) a COLD civil war. There is no promise that it will remain cold. Using the term “spoils’ may be a little hyperbolic but you get… Read more »
when you have sheeople thinking that a man that burned & raped and stole & destroyed other citizens, that just wanted to be left alone, is a Christian, you have more than Bible illiteracy, you have ignorance and apathy. They don’t know, don’t care. They have no hope. Socialism will give them the chaos they crave. They will die.
The same parties the last two wars on the American continent were between: Massachusetts and Christendom.
Full, FULL tact mode engaged now, with ballet slipper boosters worn and hobnail boots left back in the hangar. Pastor Doug is giving Jesus too much credit here. Our USA was set up so that NO faith – – or any denomination of any faith – – would run the place. (See Art 11 below.) It was set up so that all could worship (or not) as they saw fit. That’s why every attempt to put Jesus in the Constitution was defeated. He’s completely correct that a Christian ethos of tolerance prevailed (in no small part to the horrors of… Read more »
There are ample questions as to the authenticity of the text of the Treaty of Tripoli, and the intent of the words therein, to prevent anyone from quoting it as an authoritative source of the supposed secularism of the US. It is not a binding document, whatsoever, upon anyone in the United States, and was expressly written to assure the “Musselmen” that the Christianity of the US didn’t prevent them from entering into agreements therewith. One need only point to various state charters and constitutions in force during the first decades following the establishment of the country to show the… Read more »
Forget the tact. Not even gonna try, Overshooting final go around.
“Ample questions?” It’s in the official records of the Senate and the Dept of State. “not a binding document?” It’s a TREATY, submitted by the President and ratified by the Senate.
BTW, no clue how deep your legal credentials are, but not only do I have some, but in my time in law school I discussed that treaty with more than one prof, all of whom agreed it was valid.
Forget the treaty, the Constitution clearly states “No religious test” for holding federal office. The government of the USA is officially atheist.
Interesting that this same language does not appear in the treaty replacing this one after the Marines shellacked the Tripolitanian pirate navy a very short time later. Hmmmmm……
Maybe that’s why the Jesus is cited in the Declaration of Independence? And in the Constitution? And why everyone had to swear an oath upon taking an office instead of being given the option to only “affirm?”
Or maybe that’s why the Treaty of Paris was made “…in the name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity…” or the Articles of Confederation (part of the organic law of the US in Title I) are dedicated to “The Great Governor of the World” in “the Year of Our Lord (Jesus) One thousand Seven hundred Seventy eight” or the Constitution in the “year of our Lord (Jesus) one thousand seven hundred Eighty seven.” Or perhaps why the Declaration (organic law Title I) is replete with references to the “Creator (Jesus), “Nature’s God (the Trinity),” “Divine Providence (the Trinity),” etc.… Read more »
Other than the revolutionary French, who did not use “AD” or similar as a dating convention? Does that mean those who instead use “B.C.E.” (before common era) in academic writings today have somehow repudiated Christ? Or that geologists who use BP (before present) are somehow doing the same? Besides, you’re inserting such terms as “(Jesus)” by interpretation into documents where they do not appear. That’s why Jefferson did not write “Jesus.” In fact, since EVERY attempt to insert His name, by name, into both the Dec and the Constit failed to pass, what does that say? Obviously the Founders knew… Read more »
BCE is definitely a repudiation of Christ. If you can’t grasp that removing Christ as the center of everything including time then you don’t get it. Yes, BP is the same. It is a deliberate disconnection of Christ from His creation. I feel confident in relating “Christ” to “Creator” because I grasp late 18th century understandings of these terms while you want to cast them in an early 21st century light. That is a category error. You also don’t seem to grasp that Jefferson was merely a drafter of the Declaration. There was a 5-member committee (Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Livingston,… Read more »
Didn’t think there was anything new or different to be said. I’ve heard all of this before. (In fact, one of the Const Law profs started with the Articles of Confed my 1L year. BTW, that’s the main reason the profs are largely afraid of what a state-called convention would report out. That’s why so many of the Ruling Class always bring up fears of a second “runaway” convention when that topic is raised.) VA was the last state to abolish an “established” church; 1837 if memory serves. Yes, I know about the “wall of separation” letter to the Danbury… Read more »
This is an area where I am VERY well read and have participated in presentations with representatives of Convention of States. I can tell you this- there is no such thing as a “runaway” convention. Conventions do what they are called to do. Alter the government of the political entity they are fiduciaries for. Article V has no provision for a “state called” convention.” A convention is called at the application of 2/3 of the states. Congress controls the process. There is no further provision for the action of the states until ratification. I am not a member of the… Read more »
Agree full marks on the readings. But the Great Society was not a coup.
Other than the revolutionary French, who did not use “AD” or similar as a dating convention? Does that mean those who instead use “B.C.E.” (before common era) in academic writings today have somehow repudiated Christ? Or that geologists who use BP (before present) are somehow doing the same? It used to be that the years of an era were enumerated from the beginning of the reign of the current king. Thus the designation “In the third year of King Whatshisbucket…” It was Bede, I believe, in this “History of the English Church and People” who constantly marked his chronology with… Read more »
We’ll just have to agree to disagree, I hope agreeably.
Well, it’s more something to consider in the vein of subjugating every thought to Christ, rather than something to accuse others of being insufficiently Christian about. As I said, most don’t know better, because their education has been in the hands of those who hate God.
As long as one understands that there is a deliberate attempt by the rebellious faction to erase the King’s Name from all historical record, then it is a matter of one’s own conscience whether to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous revisionists, or whether to oppose them by refusing to use their terms.
You know, there is another alternative: a quasi-libertarian society in which people are mostly free to do as they please and the power of the state is not used to further anybody’s agenda. You know, a place in which gay people are free to marry and bakers are free to refuse to make cakes for them. A place in which Christ Church is free to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed by the Episcopal church up the street (or, for that matter, by the county clerk). Back when Christians had political power, you abused it horribly. You’re now afraid that… Read more »
What do you mean “you,” dude?
Let me lay it out for you, real simple. The younger Christians (like me) have no memory of such times, if they ever existed, and we have no patience with being punished for the supposed sins of our fathers.
That having been said, your last sentence sounds awesome. Crying shame is that no one’s going for it, because people want power.
Tom, as Faulkner pointed out, sometimes the past is not even past. If such times were in the past and going to stay there, that would be one thing. But they’re not. Read this blog. Most of the regulars here are simply beside themselves that gays can marry, whether bakers have to bake cakes for them or not. I have repeatedly seen demands on this very blog that homosexuality be re-criminalized. I’ve even seen demands that it be a death penalty offense. I’ve seen support for Uganda’s kill the gays legislation. The regulars here are not, by and large, supportive… Read more »
“I would also like to believe that the vicious, vicious hostility toward gays that I repeatedly see here is not representative of most Christians in this day and age. But it’s probably representative enough to not trust Christians with political power, at least on issues that affect gays.” And if I went to pro-LGBT websites, I could collate quotes enough to demonstrate that we shouldn’t trust the LGBT movement with political power, at least on issues that affect Christians. (Which the nation is kind of doing right now, in case you haven’t noticed.) Furthermore, in case you haven’t noticed, you’re… Read more »
I have been screamed at on pro-LGBT Web sites for taking the position that bakers who don’t want to bake cakes for gay weddings shouldn’t have to. You’re absolutely right; they’re just as intolerant as you are. Which is why I don’t think either side should be able to use the power of the state against the other. No, I wouldn’t give people hostile to Christianity political power over Christians either.
“No, I wouldn’t give people hostile to Christianity political power over Christians either.”
It’s a little late for that protestation.
Agreed, but your remedy is to promote a truly tolerant society of live and let live, rather than continue the arms race by which both sides try to seize the power of government.
In that case, the only option is to ally with whoever the minority viewpoint is, and switch sides with some level of frequency.
Or you could, on principle, oppose state intervention against whomever happens to be the minority viewpoint at any given time.
Isn’t that what I just said?
Sorry, I misunderstood you.
Laycock, U Va law prof, said back in March that the intolerance of gays was a far bigger problem for him (he supports SSM) than was opposition from conservatives.
I never understood the “Swamp Wackadoo” reference. What are characteristics of those people? This could be important to my sanity, truly. .
I’m not entirely sure, honestly–wackadoo means “fanatical or crazy person,” and I suppose the “Swamp” is an adjective.
An example, I suspect, is the guy who was on here a few days ago and claimed that nations and states don’t actually exist because reasons.
Krychek_2 regales us with delusions of his own calm neutrality. But we recall that he’s the one who thinks that it should be legally permissible for a mother to cut up a fully conscious, fully human being. This also reminds us of Wilson’s important principle that it is not whether, but which. I would also like to believe that the vicious, vicious hostility toward the unborn that I repeatedly see from folks like Krychek_2 is not representative of most progressives in this day and age. But it’s probably representative enough to not trust progressives with political power, at least on… Read more »
Katecho, if it makes you feel better to believe that, you go right ahead.
He also refuses to fully explain his positions; I can only conclude that is because “we” are not intelligent enough to understand them. After all, as Eric has told us, he is smarter than Paul.
From a purely pragmatic perspective, and given that Obamacare makes all of us responsible for paying for the poor health of our fellow Americans, it surprises me that you would allow for homosexuality, especially considering the prevalence of (avoidable) disease that directly results from the modern homosexual lifestyle.
Since (IIRC) you are a pragmatist, I would have expected you to oppose it on the same grounds as one would oppose, say, morbid obesity or drunkenness.
But then one would also have to not allow for heterosexuality, since it leads to Ted Bundy, children being raised by single mothers, abortions, teen pregnancy, adultery and Ashley Madison. Without heterosexuality, we would have none of those problems, so obviously the solution is to ban heterosexuality, right?
As ArwenB effectively demonstrates, the solution is for Krychek_2 to stop arbitrarily appealing to pragmatism whenever it suits him, and then rejecting pragmatism when it doesn’t.
And as I effectively demonstrated, ArwenB is using a double standard. I would wager that heterosexuality has caused far more harm to society over the years than homosexuality has just because there are so many more heterosexuals.
What? ArwenB isn’t a pragmatist, and isn’t offering it as the standard in any of the cases presented, let alone a double-standard. ArwenB was offering a challenge to Krychek_2 “From a purely pragmatic perspective” concerning Obamacare and higher prevalence of disease among homosexuals. But Krychek_2 wants to accuse ArwenB of using a double-standard? Shameful. Rather than answer ArwenB, Krychek_2 effectively just added his own examples of why his utilitarian pragmatism makes a lousy standard. Projecting his pragmatism onto ArwenB assumes that none of us have any reading comprehension. What a cheap shot. Evasion 101. Didn’t even respond to the substance… Read more »
ArwenB hasn’t offered any actual evidence that homosexuals do in fact put a higher strain on the health care system than heterosexuals do, but assuming for sake of argument that he is right about that, pragmatism has to be applied even handedly. You don’t seem to be able to apply more than one point at a time.
Krychek_2 isn’t aware of the evidence? Here’s some from the CDC: Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) represent approximately 2% of the United States population, yet are the population most severely affected by HIV. In 2010, young gay and bisexual men (aged 13-24 years) accounted for 72% of new HIV infections among all persons aged 13 to 24, and 30% of new infections among all gay and bisexual men. At the end of 2011, an estimated 500,022 (57%) persons living with an HIV diagnosis in the United States were gay and bisexual men, or gay… Read more »
Katecho, google the logical fallacy of composition, then get back to me.
I was reading your comment quite leisurely and at ease…and then…my eyes widened…and, well, you know me…couple of clarifications would be nice: “Back when Christians had political power, you abused it horribly. You’re now afraid that gay people with political power might treat you as badly as you used to treat them.” 0) Who is the “you”? 1) When “back when” 2) Are you lumping republicans in with Christians and politically “conservative” in with Christians, Deists?…do you have specific Christians in mind? 3) “had political power”…what do you mean? “only Christians” have never just been in charge…always a representation and… Read more »
Alex, I think my response to Tom below is mostly responsive to your questions; if I missed something, let me know. And if you think I overstate my case, let me know.
“free to marry”?
Who asks the government for permission to marry?
I may ask the government to recognize my marriage, but I sure don’t ask them to allow me to marry.
Which IS what it is about. Not permission, but recognition, and the willingness to force others to take part in the ceremony reveals that, presumably, mere recognition isn’t enough.
Wesley, marriage means many different things in many different contexts. In this context, it’s a government benefit program. I don’t suppose most gay couples candidly care if you consider them married or not, but when it comes to things like survivor benefits and emergency medical decisions and favorable tax treatment, those things all require government recognition of the relationship. So it’s not such much freedom to marry as freedom to have the marriage recognized by the government. Which really isn’t that much different than your own marriage.
So, your libertarian talk was all bluster?
And you mean, it’s *not* about the freedom to define yourself as you please, contrary to the Obergefell decision?
I’m not trying to be overly antagonistic. I see and know what you’re saying and acknowledge it’s rational. I just think posturing in such a way gives a government too much power–not in that I want to usurp its God-granted rightful authority to punish evil and promote good, but in allowing it to define who we are and whether or not we have dignity.
I said I have libertarian tendencies, which is not the same thing as being a pure libertarian. I’m also a cold, hard realist who recognizes that in order for a spouse to be able to make emergency medical decisions, or inherit when there’s no will, or not be required to testify against a spouse in court, somebody has to have the authority to determine who is or is not a spouse. If you’re in the hospital, unconscious, and I show up claiming to be your spouse, should they just take my word for it? What if two people show up… Read more »
This is false. An alternative to address each of these cases is, as Wilson already pointed out, any other sort of contract than a marriage. What has happened is that our feral government has decided to resolve such issues, not by recognizing a civil union, but by redefining marriage and forcing other jurisdictions to do the same.
A point I had not yet made but was intending to
Well, katecho, is that something you would be satisfied with for your own marriage? The state won’t recognize it, but you can make a contract (and, if an emergency arises, hope that you happen to have a copy with you)?
If you would not find that acceptable for yourself, and I doubt that you would, why should gay people?
Krychek_2 seems to think that this is about satisfying man on man’s terms. I wasn’t offering to damage or lower the institution of marriage in order to accommodate the perversion of least-common-denominator. I was simply pointing out Krychek_2’s false claim that there was no practical alternative to his issues but to redefine marriage.
But it’s not a practical alternative, which is my point. Gay couples have to spend several hundred dollars for necessary legal documents (yes, they can download them for free from the internet if they’re willing to take the risk that they might overlook something or fill them out wrong, but that’s a pretty significant risk). But since private contracts aren’t binding on non-parties, hospitals and the police might choose to ignore them, and in any event, you can’t contract for things like favorable tax status or social security survivor benefits. Plus you better carry those documents with you at all… Read more »
This is a load of pure nonsense from Krychek_2. The government could easily require hospitals and police to recognize other documentation, just like they already do for things like power of attorney, all without having to redefine marriage. The alleged need to “carry those documents with you at all times”, is still more nonsense. Anything that is significant enough to actually require such documentation will (or ought to) also require proof of marriage status. Is Krychek_2 suggesting that there are circumstances where officials are allowed to simply assume that a man and woman are married without any documentation? If it… Read more »
A related point being why make “transgendered” people a protected class? Isn’t the point supposed to be that they are as they define themselves to be? Is not calling a “transgendered” “woman” a “transgendered woman” defeating the purpose? Aren’t they supposed to just be a woman and not a man playing and pretending to be woman, as the special adjective implies? If self-definition is glorious, do I not get to self-define as someone who thinks a man who dresses like a woman shouldn’t be going into the women’s restroom? You have to draw the line somewhere, and I’ve yet to… Read more »
Krychek_2 self-identifies as neutral. Blissfully so.
And just out of curiosity, what would you consider to be neutrality?
I assume that Krychec_2 is asking about moral neutrality, and not the electro-chemical neutrality of his materialism. The attempt at moral neutrality is… not neutral. To be neutral toward my neighbor does not fulfill the duty of love. To be neutral toward the wolf does not fulfill a duty to love the sheep. So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth. — Revelation 3:16 In other words, Krychek_2’s goal is a sham. It is not only not our goal as Christians, it is not even attainable. As a relevant aside,… Read more »
OK, so you’re not denying that I’m neutral; you’re now claiming that neutrality is a bad thing?
Sure, I deny that Krychek_2 is neutral. He’s certainly not neutral or indifferent toward Christ or Christians. That much is painfully obvious. But I also claim that neutrality is a false goal. Neutrality is a vanishing mirage. Why? Because even if one could arrive at the end of that fairytale rainbow, they would find that God doesn’t treat it as neutral. He spits it out of His mouth along with the rest who did not honor Him and give Him thanks. Obligations of love and honor and gratitude to God reveal our neutral indifference to be, in fact, wicked. God… Read more »
There is no view from nowhere.
you can thank the tyrant and white supremacist Abe Lincoln for that one. Before 1865 the church of the local town, township or city ISSUED certificates and GOD gave HIS blessing. Now the STATE does. Is it any wonder that queers and other perverts are allowed this GOD ordained union ? Court ruled in 2003 that minorities (persons of color) were inferior to whites. The inferior (4/5ths a person) were to stupid to be offended. Thus proving the court correct. Just as in 1858, Dred Scott (3/5ths).
How quickly you are to dismiss the concerns of the lesbian couple who is confronted by a polite refusal to take part in their nuptials… Yet the flip side of this is equally true. The act of baking a cake does not prevent the baker from practicing their religion, your merciful God surely would be able to forgive this transgression since it would be simply the act of following the rule of man. I mean truly, baking a cake is simply for the act of baking a cake, yet somehow it takes a higher religious meeting. To the contrary, gays… Read more »
I’m guessing you’re new to this blog? Sounds like you aren’t familiar with Wooley (1977) or Thomas (1981) or the parts of Hobby Lobby (2014) which refute the “no negroes allowed” argument you’ve raised?
Let me know if you’d like to get up to speed on these matters. Fair warning; there’s a LOT of reading to do if decide to dig into this material.
I am new to this blog, and I do realize that you would take issue with my equating a Christian baker trying to refuse service to gays because many if not most Christians believe is against the bible with segregation, which we all “know” is morally wrong. Yet, I stated it that way because there is no difference…that is why the law in Oregon doesn’t allow the bakers to refuse service to any member of the public. That is why the bakers had to pay a fine. There is no amount of reading that will change this fact. Now, do… Read more »
Before bedtime I’ll send you a link to HandsOn from KY. If a law violates the Constitution it gets struck down, either “facially” or “as applied.”
Judges no longer “rule” by precedence from the bench, Kelly. The republic died in 1865. The constitution was abused as well as an INDEPENDANT nation. FORCED back into a union that they left voluntarily, and “told” that they were free ? Lincoln freed NO ONE, rather enslaved ALL to the District of Corruption and democracy (also known as MOB RULE). Then there was a coup in 1963 that welcomed the unGREATful SOCIETY. 48 years of that ? BANKRUPTCY. WE are the Evil Empire……
I was about to give you full marks for persistence and for studying so hard on the history of conventions. Also I was puzzled as to what I could have possibly written which made you think I had accused you of being in the Ruling Class. Not even K2 would be accepted as a member of that class because he opposes heavy fines in OR.
Then you go off on a tear like this one. Not going to follow you down this trail.
Here’s the opinion I promised; a district court in KY going the opposite way. T-shirt shop beats a gay pride parade in a place with both a Human Rights Commission and an anti-discrim ord which included gays as a protected class. 1st Ad won, this time:
IF a politician came to me for car repair, I would charge him 5 X’s the going rate. IT is not illegal to discriminate against the ignorant & ugly. IF he can legally steal from me, I can recoup some of my funds from the thief. Refuse to fix a car of a liar or a pimp. I do still have to support the murder of babies and giving lazy people food, electricity and housing, even though GOD says I shouldn’t. The first revolution was started in the churches of America by brave, fearless men. Today the emasculation of men… Read more »
I tend to believe Kelly maintains faith in his degrees and knowledge of the specious laws that at one time ruled this crumbling empire. It doesn’t matter anymore regarding objective legal theory with activist judges usurping their power. He comes by to show off his polished prized possession and most here just think “who gives a rat’s ass?” It’s coming down soon. “Well at least can’t we take an inventory of the deck chairs?”
As the great Humanist ship went down.
So then you, Evan, “mere Christian”, Travis and EchoChamber are of one mind and heart then regarding the law? As our host said, “Real Christians love liberty, and real Christians love to share. But the only thing we cannot surrender is the one possible foundation of love and liberty, revealed first to Mary Magdalene. If the dead are not raised, there is no reason not to bite and devour.” I have not seen you engage Kelly to even ask or clarifies if he believes this. More of this “it seems” “I tend to believe” assertions diversions about another commenter. And… Read more »
“So in real conversation with Kelly, I understand his faith in his God propels him (as it should any of us) to use the talents or knowledge he has to share it with others. He has clearly expressed the instability of the law and how the culture affects the law, etc…and how we use it as we can for as long as we can as a means for freedom for our faith (and other faiths). There are still laws that still are in effect, we still have the choice to use legal means to influence…why not” I’ve never disagreed with… Read more »
I used your name with with yours/theirs in relation to the law, not about Kelly’s “faith”. And so in regards to being of the same mind and heart about your view of the law, I don’t need to show you where. You serendipitously or not, ironically indeed showed me where you resembled my assertion. Yes, Echo stated it clearly (and that was the exact quote I said “maybe” I’d remind people where they stood). It is incredibly useful…”first things” and all. It will save a lot of thinking and confusion for people who stumble into this blog not of this… Read more »
It is my obligation and my privilege as a christian, to point people to the authority and the sufficiency of the scriptures (particularly other christians). That is basically my goal in commenting. I am well aware that my comments are often ‘ham-fisted’, irony-impaired, and mildly sarcastic. Work in progress buddy. :)
“Are you amillenialist? Dominionist? or post-millenialist?”
I probably lean towards post, why?
It is? I must not be considered a Christian from your vantage because I have blessedly not had the privilege of your not pointing me to the authority and sufficiency of scripture. Every comment I’ve had from you has been nothing along those lines. I do hope you’ll feel no obligation in the future towards me, as well. Oh. ho. I just now understand that this is what you mean by having the “same goal”… I hope Kelly saw that. You feel obligated to point Kelly in this direction. Well, don’t worry. Kelly doesn’t allegedly believe in inerrancy just as… Read more »
Alex the Contrarion throwing it down….nice.
Well, now, thank you, kind sir. You must be honored that I imitated you so well. Though I feel badly to earn that compliment where Timothy didn’t receive it with his “shoot the perverts in the head” comment.
I see EchoChamber liked your comment as she is the first one to give me that title among many, many others in my short time here. A privilege of the blog elite, I suppose.
Gays and lesbians _do_ suffer greatly in our current society, because they are encouraged in their sin and sickness rather than encouraged to repent and turn back to a healthy life. They aren’t our enemies and deserve our pity.
The political activists and social justice warriors who use them as a cover for their project of destroying civilization, however, deserve a short rope and a long drop.
Love the Hideous Strength reference. That book is so relevant these days.
Need to see if this is still in print. My copies are a bit worn. Perhaps a hard-bound omnibus…?
It still is.
Thanks, it’s on my list. :)
The other gun is missing. The one pointed at the pervert.
My turn to “tsk, tsk.” Please back off the “pervert” thing. And the implied threat of a gun pointing back at the “perv” just escalates feelings and makes debating harder. Just my approach yet again, but I’m staying with pluralism and laws which protect ALL parties. OK, OK, so a brothel is illegal. But if the owner has a Peeping Tom problem at the windows, and the ironworker is willing to fence the whole place (for safety) but not to install the stripper pole hardware, I think Thomas (1981) ought to cut him some slack. (In that true story, the… Read more »
You do your approach, I will do mine.
That’s just what the OTHER “King” said to Nixon! ;).
What a stellar example that was of, “And so this is why progressive bigots would have real freedoms in a Christian society,”
So these in the millenial age are okay with pointing a gun at the perverts. This is how they force, I mean, love them into the kingdom…HAHAHAHAHAHA
Real freedoms…HAHAHAHAHA. “Faith in action” HAHAHAHAHAHA
Too many laughs in one day :)
So these in the millenial age are okay with pointing a gun at the perverts The defense use of firearms is a good thing. It keeps the peace and if necessary, the freedom. The history of the 20’th century is hundreds of millions dead by the hands of governments that rejected God. Our founders recognized the tendency of any government to go totalitarian–as this one is–and encoded our right to shoot back and protect our God given freedoms from those who would deprive us of our life and liberty. Sin is enmity–hatred of–God. These perverts (look up the word, it… Read more »
START Here is the way the world used to work. I own a company that manufactures ornamental iron products – mostly railings, gates and fences. I had a local brothel (yes, we have those here) call asking me to put up a fence because various weirdos were coming on their property, knocking on windows and generally causing trouble. I viewed this as a safety issue for them and saw nothing about it that supported prostitution in any way so I did their job. I also have had a call from a local strip club asking me to install stripper poles… Read more »
“Is that really all that complicated?”
I feel like that is supposed to be a rhetorical question, but things are so mixed up these days, we aren’t even unanimous on a rhetorical question.
So, I won’t presume to answer for everyone else.
It shouldn’t be…but it IS.
“And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!” – Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons
You must be new here. I’ve cited that quote several times.
Not new, just wanted to point it out again. I was gone this weekend, though, so if you quoted it during that period, I missed it.
Fair enough. I used it about the rebel flag background cake Wal-Mart refused to bake in Slidell, La. If Wooley is no longer good law, then not only may HandsOn not refuse to make the t-shirts, and Elaine Photo not refuse to take the pix, but Wal-Mart can’t refuse to bake the cake.
Sauce/goose/gander? Except in NM, CO, and OR, where the only principle seems to be R2D2’s advice; “Let the Wookie win.” Interesting to see if KY holds up on appeal.
Ooops. Back to assignments . . . .
Consistency is only for those who hold that the rule of law should apply to all. Today, it seems both sides want the will to power…(that being said, I am still firmly a conservative, according to my understanding of the term.) (Which is no doubt very inadequate.)
R2-D2 actually wanted to win. It was C-3PO who advised R2 to let Chewbacca win at dejarik. (Adjusts glasses.)
Should have recalled that the golden robot was the one doing the talking; the fireplug just chirped and whistled.
BTW, did you ever come across The Enduring Lessons of Star Wars? Such as, “There will always be short, fat backseaters?” Or “They never did get serious about dive-toss?”
I burst out laughing at the last bomb run on the Death Star. “Luke, you’ve turned off the targeting computer!” What a hoot! A co-pilot visual save. Brings back some memories.
Your take, if you have time, on
1) the choices of “similar” cases this article mentions (are or are not significant for KY)
2) the perspective of this article
From the post, this stands out the most…
“And so this is why progressive bigots would have real freedoms in a
Christian society, the kind of freedoms that Christians could not have
Hm. “Do you find my lack of faith disturbing?” ;)
First, here’s my synopsis of the supplied baseline from which I was requested to answer Alex’s concerns: Clerk cites ‘God’s authority’ over Supreme Court on gay marriage. What now? http://news.yahoo.com/clerk-cites-god-authority-over-supreme-court-gay-164438038.html Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to ANY [emphasis added] couples – gay or straight – after the June Supreme Court ruling that affirmed gay marriage as a constitutional right in America. &&&&&&&&&&&& Is Kentucky’s Infamous Anti-Gay Clerk Getting Taken for a Ride by Her Lawyers? by Mark Joseph Stern http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/08/31/kim_davis_and_the_liberty_counsel_anti_gay_group_is_bad_news.html Right from the first few words, I’m wondering if Slate has its thumb on the scales; “On Friday, anti-gay… Read more »
“If you have two centers, that means you have two societies, and one of them must prevail.”
This says more about your own totalitarian inclinations than anything. Otherwise, you should probably study some history to learn just how tolerant those Christian societies were. Many of them weren’t even tolerant of other Christians.
Tolerant societies are only slightly less rare than hens’ teeth, generally speaking.
You’d prefer the tolerance shown by Muslims, atheists, or even the Hindus who burned Graham Starnes and his two sons to death, and who pass anti-conversion laws?
Sure, only lately have we begun to notice how libertarian (small-government) Jesus is, but since God is triune, the balance of unity and diversity is inherent in the way things are, and those who deny this tend to end up in tyranny. Mohammed, Stalin…
In prep for the Feb devotional on Islam, I dug deeper into my Bernard Lewis stack. He makes a good case that classical Islam – – before the Wahhabi poison spread – – had a great deal more tolerance than most of Europe had over that same 1,200 years or so. Here’s a tiny sample of Lewis: “I think I can say quite clearly and explicitly that the various types of actions which we call terrorism are not only not encouraged, they are explicitly forbidden by Sharia Law .. It is true that waging war is a religious obligation, but… Read more »
“He makes a good case that classical Islam – – before the Wahhabi poison spread – – had a great deal more tolerance than most of Europe had over that same 1,200 years or so.”
So, in your defense of Islam over and against European Christendom, European Christendom isn’t afforded the same defense that its adherents have perhaps abused it? Or is your defense of Islam not against European Christendom, but against European paganism?
First, I’m not “defending Islam over and against European Christendom.” I’m accurately stating historical facts. In any honest history, from time to time, we will be wrong. (If you want to get into such topics, compare Edward Said with Lewis. Said argues the West is always wrong. I think he was full of it.) In 2004, I took a night off in the middle of finals to listen to Lewis in person down in New Orleans. He said the Wahhabis were to Islam as the KKK was to Christianity. But for the freak accident of Westerners first finding uses for… Read more »
So in your mind “dhimmitude” is equivalent to “tolerance”? I think this illustrates Pastor Wilson’s point rather well.
ditto omnibus #2
Genuine question: Which (if any) of the Calvinist societies that led to the founding of the U.S.A. are being upheld as generally being the model? The Seperatists of Plymouth? The traditional puritans of Massachusetts Bay? The particular baptists of Rhode Island? Were these all more of “trial runs” and the final union hit closer to the mark? Is it the attempt at a confederation of all of these, distinct from one another as separate states but constitutionally united? Did the Quaker vision for society in Pennsylvania have any impact on the final form of this Christian society of liberty that… Read more »
I am interested in also knowing what is “being upheld as generally being the model” by the Calvinists–especially since we can easily recall not very tolerant details regarding the Anabaptists, etc. etc. etc.
I would like to know his best role model, or is he looking at it from an amillenialist/preterist or Dominion view point…that we need to get it better and better, that none of them were “good enough”…if so, what does it look like to know they are “getting it right” or closer to the approaching ideal?
To the Kentucky Clerk who is refusing to issue marriage licenses: Your job description is to execute the laws of Caesar. You knew you were working for Caesar when you took the job. For you to now complain that Caesar’s laws and God’s laws are in conflict, after you went on Caesar’s payroll, is a little like an Orthodox Jew taking a job at a non-kosher deli and then complaining about having to make ham sandwiches. Or to use John Corvino’s example, like an Amish farmer who takes a job as a school bus driver and then complains that it’s… Read more »
Obeying God rather than men, and defending the people from top-down abuses of authority, has everything to do with it though.
You mean abuses of authority like denying gay people marriage licenses? You’re right; that’s fairly abusive, which is why the courts had to intervene.
How does one stack of reactionary matter abuse the authority of another stack of reactionary matter? Don’t all atoms in the universe move with the exact same authority; namely that of the laws of physics? Krychek_2 never has explained himself out of that materialistic dilemma for us. Nor has he explained how even one atom in the universe can disobey the authority of the laws of physics acting upon it. It’s not as though any atom has ever moved with regard for abstractions like “abuse”. It seems that Krychek_2 should take up his argument with the laws of physics. In… Read more »
With respect to your first paragraph, if it makes you feel better to believe that, knock yourself out.
With respect to your second paragraph, are you listening to yourself? It’s special rights for gay people to be treated the same as everyone else, but it’s anti-Christian bigotry when Christians are treated the same as everyone else, since Christians are entitled to special rights. You, sir, are Exhibit A on why much of the world either treats you with contempt or ignores you.
Krychek_2 ignores his materialistic dilemma once again. Krychek_2 wrote: It’s special rights for gay people to be treated the same as everyone else, but it’s anti-Christian bigotry when Christians are treated the same as everyone else, since Christians are entitled to special rights. Same as everyone else? I thought Krychek_2 was supposed to have some background in law? Homosexuals have been asking for, and have now received, special protected class status. Public bakers are free to discriminate and refuse service to customers on whatever grounds they desire *EXCEPT* toward those with special protection status. Why does “sexual orientation” need to… Read more »
They will have to kill us soon. You will approve.
I’m already on record as saying bakers shouldn’t have to bake cakes for gay weddings, so what makes you think I want you dead? Persecution complex much?
You will approve on utilitarian grounds.
OK, I’ll bite. On what possible utilitarian ground would killing Christians be good policy?
Their carbon footprint is too large.
Now that there’s funny!
Laugh while you can! No one will be able to hear you once you’ve been delivered to your local Sustainable Recycling & Diversity Enhancement Facility.
I was trying to complement your wit.
You will make one up to suit the times. You will google a bit, find some scientists(!) who make a case, find it reasonable and use that.
You have already justified murdering babies; you will find another justification for murdering adults.
The problem is not what you believe now, but what beliefs you have no intellectual defences against. The great atrocities of the 20th century happened not because a great number of people were intent upon committing them, but because they had no foundation for opposing the few who did instigate them.
The great atrocities of the 20th century happened because by the time the people figured out that atrocities were happening, it was too late to do anything about it. You think the millions killed by Stalin would have been interested in a debate about the merits of Stalinism?
Nah, just an interesting twist or twisted interest on the command, “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”… shoot the perverts and all that…
Or do unto others before they do unto you.
To be fair, it’s a little more like an Orthodox Jew who works for years at a kosher deli, and then the supreme court mandates that from now on the word “kosher” includes bacon wrapped ham sandwiches. The Orthodox Jew has a problem with this new definition, and thinks perhaps the supreme court has over stepped its bounds, and so does not serve the “new kosher”.
That’s fine, but at that point the Orthodox Jew has two choices: Do his job, which now includes handling ham and bacon, or quit.
What do you suppose would happen if I told my boss that my religious beliefs precluded me from doing my job? I’d be out the door so fast I wouldn’t know what hit me. The bottom line remains: If your religious beliefs preclude you from doing your job, find another job.
Do you, then, believe that the Supreme Court does, in fact, have the authority to redefine Kosher, and that the deli and it’s Jewish employee need to yield to that or simply get out of the way? Is there anything at all that you believe the supreme court does NOT of the power to declare, redefine, or institute by it’s pronouncements?
No, the Supreme Court may not redefine kosher, because kosher is a religious term, and the First Amendment precludes courts from settling religious questions. Marriage, on the other hand, is a term of civil law. It’s also a religious term that the different religions are free to define in-house, but they don’t get to define terms of civil law any more than the civil courts get to define terms of religious law. The only exception to that that I can think of might be if Congress passed a statute relating to providing kosher meals in government cafeterias or some such,… Read more »
It’s a rather new idea that “civil law” is not religious, as ideas about law and religion go. Don’t expect it to last.
“No, the Supreme Court may not redefine kosher, because kosher is a religious term, and the First Amendment precludes courts from settling religious questions”
Would the SCOTUS be doing something morally wrong if they redefined it anyway? After all, while I’m sure lots of legal experts agree with you, your understanding of the limits of SCOTUS authority is just your interpretation, right?
It’s not just my interpretation; there’s a long line of cases going back a century in which the courts have repeatedly held that they can’t answer religious questions. The issue most often arises if a church splits and there is a dispute as to who gets the building, and one side or the other tries to argue that they are the doctrinally pure ones and therefore entitled to the building. The consistent answer is that doctrinal purity is beyond the competence of the civil courts, and the case will be decided using the same principles of contract and real property… Read more »
Krychek_2 wrote: It’s not just my interpretation; there’s a long line of cases going back a century in which the courts have repeatedly held that they can’t answer religious questions. This statement reveals a deep blindness in Krychek_2. Courts have now decided that the religious convictions of a shop owner can be overruled to force them to glorify a redefined sham marriage. We once had a Constitution that barred the government from interfering in the “free exercise” of these kinds of religious convictions, but the court has decided that religious owners are not free to exercise their religious convictions when… Read more »
Nice try, but no.
“Does the Bible condemn homosexuality” is a religious question. No court has ever answered that question, and I predict no court ever will.
“Are my religious beliefs about homosexuality objectively true” is another religious question. No court has ever answered that question; I doubt any court ever will.
“Does my religious view of homosexuality exempt me from obeying anti-discrimination laws” is not a religious question. The question is not what is orthodox doctrine; the question is whether that belief gets you a free pass from obeying the law. And that is a question of constitutional law.
Poor try from Krychek_2, but no. Notice that both of Krychek_2’s first examples pertain to the private beliefs and thought life of theists. Krychek_2 wants to argue, “see the government hasn’t made any decisions about what theists can believe and think”. So Krychek_2 has conceded my point, which was: I suspect that Krychek_2 has simply redefined “religious questions” to refer to “whatever religious people do in private”. He apparently assumes that everything in the public square is the domain of government, and that religious conviction and expression never intersects there. It’s the “whatever my net don’t catch ain’t fish” fallacy.… Read more »
Katecho: Categories. Try to keep them straight. Examples one and two both pertain to questions of what is true religious belief, and those are the questions courts are not permitted to answer. Example 3 is a different kind of question because that one goes to the inter-relationship between religious belief and civil society. We can’t protect _all_ expressions of religious belief, otherwise the 9/11 hijackers would have been protected. There are some forms of religious expression that simply can’t be tolerated because other people have rights too. Unfortunately, the law is now pretty much taking the position that if you… Read more »
We get it. When a law is already according to Krychek_2’s liking, he appeals to what is (begging the question). But when the law is not to his liking, he argues that the law should be changed. Krychek_2 wrote: There are some forms of religious expression that simply can’t be tolerated because other people have rights too. Getting a cake baked by Christians for a sham wedding is not a Constitutional right. Rights are opportunities which are protected from interference, but are not things that others are required to materially supply. Someone can have a right to own a car… Read more »
Katecho, if you ever take a class in either law or logic, halfway through the semester the professor will give you a note to the registrar so you can get your money back.
Hobby Lobby (2014) has a long quote from Thomas (1981) on why courts aren’t even supposed to INQUIRE into religious questions. I’ve quoted it at least once and cited it several times. Has not and will not make a difference to ashv, timothy, K1, etc. One or the other of them just keeps citing Ps 2 and getting up-votes from the others.
So the only reason I can see posting is for the undecided or those still trying to reach a conclusion. Or perhaps to support the believers who don’t go as far as the tag team?
I would not waste any time talking to Timothy and K1. I continue to post because there are other regulars here with whom I can sometimes have an interesting conversation.
Just for the sake of factual accuracy,
1. so far the gummit has won in NM, OR, and CO while the shop owner has won in KY.
2. only NM is final. The rest are somewhere in the appeals cycle.
BTW, Denver has retreated. Chick-fil-A got the requested airport lease.
Krychek_2 conveniently forgets the option for the lesser magistrate to simply ignore the corruption and abuse and continue to shield the people, faithfully, by honoring and obeying God before men.
At least until the lesser magistrate is removed from office, or jailed for contempt. Is she continuing to accept a salary for not doing her job?
The outcome depends on the lesser magistrate. It might be a General in the army, and he might authorize a violent overthrow of government. He might even find that he has a lot of supporters among the ranks. There are many cases where I could see myself fighting beside such a General.
However, there are worse things than being jailed for refusing to implement tyranny. I’m sure that Krychek_2 could never fathom this, being a utilitarian. His ethics are not based on virtue, but on efficiency.
Your last sentence is an example of why I normally try to ignore you.
It’s not an idle insult. I’m referring to the difference between virtue ethics in contrast to Krychek_2’s efficiency-based consequentialist ethics (i.e. utilitarianism).
My annoyance is not directed to whether it’s insulting, but that it’s wrong, and it’s wrong on an issue over which I’ve repeatedly corrected you in the past. Efficiency is a virtue; if you dispute that, try spending a day deliberately being inefficient and report back. So you’re drawing a nonsense distinction. Now, your immediate retort is going to be, But if efficiency is a virtue, than isn’t krychek advocating a non-neutral virtue-based government? So I’ll save you the trouble by responding now: There are two kinds of virtues. There are virtues that lead to good results (Hume and Bentham),… Read more »
Krychek_2 condescendingly wrote: Efficiency is a virtue; if you dispute that, try spending a day deliberately being inefficient and report back. Easily disputed. Is efficiency at killing unborn babies a virtue merely by being efficient? Contrary to utilitarianism, the value of the end goal is not determined by how efficiently we arrived at it. Nor is the value of the means determined by how efficiently we exercised them. The inability to determine the value of the end goal renders the value of efficiency in reaching that goal also indeterminate. For another example, Krychek_2 often assumes that an efficient society is… Read more »
Katecho, if it makes you feel better to believe that, go right ahead.
Please. You do realize that in order to accomplish what you say you want, the lesser mag has to march on Gettysburg and win this time, don’t you? Is this some kind of joke? It’s in really poor taste.
I covered this matter in reply to a prompt from Alex. It’s pretty long and goes back to a slightly different situation on June 29th. If you would, put your JD hat back on, run through my answer to Alex, and let’s see if your position changes any. Thx.
To Alex? I spent ten minutes searching your comments from the tail end of June and I didn’t see one that was a response to Alex that fits your description. There was a June 29 response to Gregory; might that be it? You talk at length about Thomas, and about cakes that are just for dessert versus cakes that are for gay weddings. Is that the one you meant? If that’s the post you mean, then here is my response: 1. i think Thomas (and Sherbert v. Verner, on which Thomas relied) were both effectively overruled by Smith. 2. In… Read more »
Sorry for the hunt; here it is: &&&&&&&&& First, here’s my synopsis of the supplied baseline from which I was requested to answer Alex’s concerns: Clerk cites ‘God’s authority’ over Supreme Court on gay marriage. What now? http://news.yahoo.com/clerk-cites-god-authority-over-supreme-court-gay-164438038.html Davis refused to issue marriage licenses to ANY [emphasis added] couples – gay or straight – after the June Supreme Court ruling that affirmed gay marriage as a constitutional right in America. &&&&&&&&&&&& Is Kentucky’s Infamous Anti-Gay Clerk Getting Taken for a Ride by Her Lawyers? by Mark Joseph Stern http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/08/31/kim_davis_and_the_liberty_counsel_anti_gay_group_is_bad_news.html Right from the first few words, I’m wondering if Slate has… Read more »
No question she’s gotten really bad legal advice. Also no question she wants to be a martyr, which she may well be, and she’s also being egged on by her supporters who are only too happy to bestow martyrdom upon her. But those human drama questions aside: 1. I don’t think there is a right to have a particular clerk issue a license; so long as someone in the office is willing to do so, the couple seeking it has what they were after — a marriage license. If they did decide to go after a lone individual who wasn’t… Read more »
“Two’s in!” (I agree.) If she’s in jail, her Chief Deputy will countermand her order.
Does the common law have a “writ of destringas?” Where a judge can order someone else to sign a paper?
Well, Title 28 of the United States Code has an All Writs Act, which allows federal judges to issue all writs necessary in aid of their jurisdiction. Never heard of it actually being invoked.
For the rest of the thread, skip this “inside baseball” stuff. If this were LinkedIn, I could make the following reply off line. NOT trying to show off. For family law we had to pick a day, any day, and sit through that day’s cases. Write up a trip report for the prof. Did we think the judge got it right; why or why not? One of them was a divorce where there was a lot of back-n-forth about selling the house and who wouldn’t sign and who had to wait for a power of attorney and so on. (It’s… Read more »
Maybe so, but it happened.
P.S. I cc’d both lawyers. The nurse (wife) was in law school at the other Univ in town and her lawyer was a prof over there. He got PO’d at me for meddling in his case. Hubby won up losing, so my prompt helped his client out. I always figured he was just unhappy ’cause he didn’t know about the motion.
The liberalism of the American Revolution is a heresy that must be expelled from our churches and our governments. Christians must learn to hate again.
Hate? Really? Seriously? Both the “sin” AND the “sinner?”
God is careful about delegating His hate and vengeance to those who are in particular offices representing Him and His authority. (For example, in Psalm 139, David prays imprecatory prayers proclaiming official hatred toward those God hates.) However, God delegates the display of His love and compassion more broadly to all those who are under authority. They are instructed to make way for God’s appointed means of wrath and vengeance. When God executes wrath and judgment, He executes it on the sin and the sinner. It’s not just sin that will be thrown into the Lake of Fire. If one… Read more »
Amen. That’s why I said “learn” — we need Godly teaching on how to love what is good and hate what is evil, to seek both mercy and justice, for ourselves and others. (… and that’s why a lot of us keep coming back to this blog. :)
Can’t ya just feel the love? Where, pray tell, are all those hymns extolling the hatred of God? Ah, Ketecho, you missed your calling!
Yes, really, seriously. “Hate the sin and love the sinner” has been a cover for all kinds of compromise with false religion. The message of the gospel is for sinners to repent and bow the knee before their King. We must seek maturity in understanding how to confront the world and the flesh; as the Psalmist put it, “The LORD is near to the brokenhearted and saves the crushed in spirit”, and we must do the same, extending mercy and compassion to those trapped in sinful ways, to heal their wounds and set them on the right path. But to… Read more »
Another omnibus . . . . timothy opened with a reply to franklinb23 with, in part, “The clerk is pointing the right way. I encourage her. Your “DISQUALIFY” fails.” There are two “up votes;” ashv and katecho. My very short response to timothy, “Sorry, but on these facts, the clerk should lose,” got the ball rolling. timothy refered me to “The Doctrine of The Lesser Magistrate” at http://lessermagistrate.com/, saying “Thanks Kelly. Our basic differences are getting clearer by the day. God bless.” That site opens with a link to crackpot motion by a judge who has no excuse for penning… Read more »
To say that Disqus is funky would be putting it mildly. It is very difficult to follow and participate in the threads I’m interested in without having to load all 400 comments, which is burdensome. This is in reply to Krychek_2 and would logically go under this comment here (if Disqus did things logically): https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/totalitolerance.html#comment-2232344324 Krychek_2, You are indeed a utilitarian when it comes to supporting your arguments. “Use whatever works” seems to be your only guiding principle when putting your hand into your grab-bag of moral theories. When I reflect on this it doesn’t surprise me – after all,… Read more »
Notice that neither the judge nor the plaintiffs care that she objects to the validity of the licenses, which now read “Rowan County” instead of “Kim Davis.”
Mr. Haggar, what do you think of this post?
Anyone and everyone has the right to say what they think the law OUGHT to be. And Ps 2 is a perfectly valid rationale for a believer to argue to a legislator as to which law that legislator ought to vote “yes” on. (Whether a legislator is bound by any particular believer’s interpretation on Ps 2 is a different question, especially once B tells him to vote “No” after A has told him to vote “Yes.” After all, we Christians have three flavors of Catholic and many flavors of Protestants.) But the history, political science, and law in this column… Read more »