Huckabee, leader of the american taliban?

and more...


So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God. -- Gary North, "The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right" in Christianity and Civilization: The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, No. 1 (Spring, 1982), p. 25.



Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ - to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.

But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice.

It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.

It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.

It is dominion we are after.

World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less.

If Jesus Christ is indeed Lord, as the Bible says, and if our commission is to bring the land into subjection to His Lordship, as the Bible says, then all our activities, all our witnessing, all our preaching, all our craftsmanship, all our stewardship, and all our political action will aim at nothing short of that sacred purpose.

Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land - of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God's Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations. True Christian political action seeks to rein the passions of men and curb the pattern of digression under God's rule.

-- George Grant, The Changing of the Guard (Ft. Worth, TX: Dominion Press, 1987), pp. 50-51.



The bible permits slavery. This statement will come as a shock to most people. The laws in the Bible concerning slavery have very seldom been studied, much less preached upon. But the biblical laws concerning slavery are among the most beneficent in all the Bible....

1. Obtaining slaves. Kidnapping is forbidden as a method of acquiring slaves, and deserves capital punishment (Exodus 21:16). Basically, there are only four legal ways to get slaves. They may be purchased (Leviticus 25:44-46), captured in war (Numbers 31:32-35; Deuteronomy 21:10-14), enslaved as punishment for theft (Exodus 22:1-3), or enslaved to pay off debts (Leviticus 25:39; Exodus 21:7). We should especially note God's merciful justice here. Heathen slaves who were purchased or captured in war were actually favored by this law, since It placed them in contact with believers. They received the relatively lenient treatment of the biblical slavery regulations, and they were also able to hear the liberating message of the gospel....

2. The care of slaves Slaves have no economic incentive to work, since they cannot improve their situation regardless of how hard they labor. Therefore the master is allowed to provide that incentive by beating them (Exodus 21:20-27). Obviously, the slave is not regarded as having equal rights as a free man. But this very fact would keep a man from entering slavery too hastily. Slavery has certain benefits (job security, etc.), but it has serious drawbacks as well. Slavery was not allowed to become irresponsible welfare or paternalism. The law limited the master, however. If he murdered his slave, he was executed (Exodus 21:20). On the other hand, if the slave survived a beating and died a day or two later, there was no punishment (Exodus 21:21); there was no evidence that the master had actually intended to murder him. Again, this risk was a serious incentive against enslaving oneself. God did not want men to heedlessly abandon their freedom, and this law would tend to keep men working hard and living responsibly in order to avoid the threat of losing their liberty and civil rights. Relatively minor but permanent injuries (such as the loss of an eye or a tooth) resulted in the slave's freedom (Exodus 21:26-27). This was also an economic incentive to keep the master from hitting the slave in the face, since a heavy blow could mean the loss of his "investment." Naturally, this law protected slaves from severe mutilation. -- David Chilton, Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt Manipulators (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1981), pp. 61-62.


The cultural mandate is thus the obligation of covenant man to subdue the earth and to exercise dominion over it under God (Gen. 1:26-28). The law is the program for that purpose and provides the God-ordained means of improving and developing plants, animals, men, and institutions in terms of their duty to fulfil God's purpose. In every age, men have a duty to obey God and to train and improve themselves, i.e., to sanctify themselves, in terms of God's law. All enemies of Christ in this fallen world must be conquered. St. Paul, summoning believers to their calling, declared,

(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled (II Cor. 10:4-6).

The Berkeley Version renders verse 6 thus: "We are prepared also to administer justice upon all disobedience, when your obedience is fully shown." Moffatt brings out the force of this verse even more clearly: "I am prepared to court-martial anyone who remains insubordinate, once your submission is complete." Moffatt renders verse 5, "I demolish theories and any rampart thrown up to resist the knowledge of God, I take every project prisoner to make it obey Christ."

St. Paul was talking about the cultural mandate. Before the fall, the task was less complicated. Now man needs regeneration. Thus, the first step in the mandate is to bring men the word of God and for God to regenerate them. The second step is to demolish every kind of rampart or opposition to the dominion of God in Christ. The world and men must be brought into captivity to Christ, under the dominion of the Kingdom of God and the law of that kingdom. Third, this requires that, like Paul, we court-martial or "administer justice upon all disobedience" in every area of life where we encounter it. To deny the cultural mandate is to deny Christ and to surrender the world to the devil.

-- R.J. Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, NJ: Craig Press, 1973), pp. 724-725.

This is from an article:

Mercersburg Activist Insists Bible Mandates Execution

The Bible mandates death by stoning for rebellious teenagers, according to a Pennsylvania preacher and Religious Right activist.

The Rev. William O. Einwechter's article, "Stoning Disobedient Children," appeared in the January issue of Chalcedon Report, a monthly journal published by the Chalcedon Foundation in Vallecito, Calif.

In the article, Einwechter cites Deuteronomy 21:18-21, which advises parents to take "a stubborn and rebellious son" before city elders to be stoned to death if he will not change his ways.

Einwechter's viewpoint drew criticism from church-state separationists.
 
Werbung:
I'm guessing the argument next will be "But that's only that part" or "that's not what it LITERALLY means" or "but those are extremists. I'm talking about evangelicals who are pure and perfect and will lead us to the light."

I don't know--what do you think the response is going to be.

Great references people are bringing out about this. Truly great.
 
Do tell which of the Ten Commandments is oh so horrible? Do not lie? Do not cheat? Do not steal? Do not murder? Which one is so much twisted bull**** and so on?
You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. - So I can't say "Goddamnit!" when I stub my toe? Breach of free speech.
You shall not covet your neighbour’s house. - Wait a minute. Now he's telling us what we can and can't think? Look, I appreciate the sentiment but I quite enjoy coveting things. If my neighbour (or anyone for that matter) has a nice house, I want to be able to think "Wow, I wish I lived in a house like that! That guy's a jerk, he doesn't deserve that house." As long as I then don't go and kill that guy, steal his house (and wife and ox, for that matter) that's OK in my book.

The very fact you have the right to vote, is a testimony of our founding fathers who didn't follow the secular laws of the day that said the King of England was ruler of our land. Rather, that our God was our King, and under him we have freedom from tyranny.
I won't deny that religion is, on the whole, responsible for the society that we have today. However, for every good thing religion (to use a blanket statement there) has done in the past (and there have been many) I could point to an instance where religion has done things to the detriment of progress, or I could point to an instance of religious persecution. I'm not saying that this negates the good things that it has brought about, I'm just saying that this argument isn't the best.
I can't really think of any modern Christian theocracies that use Biblical law to the detriment of the people, but I can't actually think of any modern Christian theocracies at all. I'm sure that if a Christian theocracy was formed in an unstable region the result would be quite similar to those Islamic theocracies

If you say 'BLUE'... that is a color that everyone knows. But if you say blue doesn't always have to mean that particular color, that 'BLUE' could also mean orange... what you have done is removed the meaning from the word.

What if I say that the word 'BLUE' no longer refers to the colour blue, it refers to the colour orange. I have not added a meaning, I have completely changed the meaning. You say that the word 'marriage' cannot have two meanings. Well, we can quite easily change the word 'marriage' from meaning a union between an adult man and an adult woman to a union between two adult people, regardless of gender. It no longer means nothing, instead, the meaning has changed.
This has happened before and it will happen in the future. The meaning of words (especially words such as 'marriage' and 'equality' that have a direct effect on society) needs to change as our society, in turn, changes.
Consider the world of the past, where the word 'equality' only applied to white, male land-owners. This meaning completely contradicts modern usage of the word, as its meaning is far more universal.
 
While they may not literally desire to kill women for not wearing head coverings they would be quite happy to kill women and other people for equally barbaric reasons

Thanks, but I'm looking for real situation in which a person was in fact killed by a group of 'Christians' for Biblical reasons. If you can't list me one, then I'll accept that the premise was false.
 
Nice

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name. - So I can't say "Goddamnit!" when I stub my toe? Breach of free speech.

A: Free speech is the freedom to question government. It has nothing to do with this. B: If everyone went around saying "Damn David" all the time, you'd be ticked too. I do not think it is so unfair for God to ask that you respect his name.

You shall not covet your neighbour’s house. - Wait a minute. Now he's telling us what we can and can't think? Look, I appreciate the sentiment but I quite enjoy coveting things. If my neighbour (or anyone for that matter) has a nice house, I want to be able to think "Wow, I wish I lived in a house like that! That guy's a jerk, he doesn't deserve that house." As long as I then don't go and kill that guy, steal his house (and wife and ox, for that matter) that's OK in my book.

Where do those actions of stealing and adultery come from? Coveting. Wanting something that is not yours. Actions follow thought. Is it not funny how often we talk about how greedy other people are, yet here we have someone demanding the right to be. Maybe you haven't noticed, but thieves, adulterers, and envious people are the least liked in our society?

What if I say that the word 'BLUE' no longer refers to the colour blue, it refers to the colour orange. I have not added a meaning, I have completely changed the meaning. You say that the word 'marriage' cannot have two meanings. Well, we can quite easily change the word 'marriage' from meaning a union between an adult man and an adult woman to a union between two adult people, regardless of gender. It no longer means nothing, instead, the meaning has changed.

You missed the point, or I didn't communicate it correctly. You can't change the meaning of blue... it means the color that it means. The moment you divorce the word from it's meaning, yes you changed it, but then so can anyone. Once you make the ability to change what the words mean, you open it to be changed by anyone, to anything. And if a word can mean anything... then it really means nothing.

Marriage is one man, one woman.
 
Thanks, but I'm looking for real situation in which a person was in fact killed by a group of 'Christians' for Biblical reasons. If you can't list me one, then I'll accept that the premise was false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_persecution_by_Christians

Note the section on the 20th Century - that violence by Christians has diminshed due to the fact that states have secularized. This is a point that Coyote has been attempting to bring across for quite some time.
 
Thanks for the history lesson though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_persecution_by_Christians

Note the section on the 20th Century - that violence by Christians has diminshed due to the fact that states have secularized. This is a point that Coyote has been attempting to bring across for quite some time.

Right...

"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." (Matthew 5:38-44)

Those are the words of Christ, and those that are real Christians follow those commands. That's what a Christian is. Secularism told us that? No, that was Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Son of the living God.

All those groups listed on that site... did they follow this command by Christ himself? If not... were they really followers of Christ? I'll let you answer that.
 
Right...

"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." (Matthew 5:38-44)

Those are the words of Christ, and those that are real Christians follow those commands. That's what a Christian is. Secularism told us that? No, that was Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Son of the living God.

All those groups listed on that site... did they follow this command by Christ himself? If not... were they really followers of Christ? I'll let you answer that.

They may have been following this one instead: "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"

So which is the true Christian? Hard to say. The honest answer is both.
 
Easy

They may have been following this one instead: "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"

So which is the true Christian? Hard to say. The honest answer is both.

That is an easy one. Simply by applying it to Jesus other teaching you know that Jesus told his follower Peter to put away his sword, as depicted in Passion of the Christ.

Point being, when you read the context of the passage, mother against daughter, father against son, you know that he was referring to the sword of truth. That following him would bring strife between even families. And to this day, that is the case.

Jewish people who turn to Christ, are even now, ostracized by their families. Jesus was saying most will face the suffering for their faith, much like Stephen was murdered for his faith, or like the missionaries in China during the boxer rebellion were killed for their faith. Because? They have the sword of truth.

Clearly Jesus never meant a literal sword or he would not have said

"My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." John 18:36

Again... if someone is a true follower of Christ, he would obey that verse, and understand they are not to fight for dominion, like the crazy people you quote.

Btw, for what it's worth, given the number of crack pots out there claiming this and that while saying they are Christian... I totally understand your view. I too have met many people who say the words, hold the book, sit in church, but act nothing at all like the man they claim to follow.

I can only hope more people actually follow the words of Christ in the future.
 
Free speech is the freedom to question government. It has nothing to do with this. B: If everyone went around saying "Damn David" all the time, you'd be ticked too. I do not think it is so unfair for God to ask that you respect his name.


{"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." (Matthew 5:38-44) " end quote} That is a prohibition against asking God to damn someone, not damning someone yourself.


Those are the words of Christ, and those that are real Christians follow those commands. That's what a Christian is. Secularism told us that? No, that was Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Son of the living God.

{All those groups listed on that site... did they follow this command by Christ himself? If not... were they really followers of Christ? I'll let you answer that. end quote} The above words are not original to Christ. They are found in the teachings of Budha and in the ancient Egyptian tombs, where they were written many centuries before Christ.
 
{"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." (Matthew 5:38-44) " end quote} That is a prohibition against asking God to damn someone, not damning someone yourself.


Those are the words of Christ, and those that are real Christians follow those commands. That's what a Christian is. Secularism told us that? No, that was Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Son of the living God.

{All those groups listed on that site... did they follow this command by Christ himself? If not... were they really followers of Christ? I'll let you answer that. end quote} The above words are not original to Christ. They are found in the teachings of Budha and in the ancient Egyptian tombs, where they were written many centuries before Christ.
 
Interesting!

{"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." (Matthew 5:38-44) " end quote} That is a prohibition against asking God to damn someone, not damning someone yourself.


Those are the words of Christ, and those that are real Christians follow those commands. That's what a Christian is. Secularism told us that? No, that was Jesus Christ of Nazareth, Son of the living God.

{All those groups listed on that site... did they follow this command by Christ himself? If not... were they really followers of Christ? I'll let you answer that. end quote} The above words are not original to Christ. They are found in the teachings of Budha and in the ancient Egyptian tombs, where they were written many centuries before Christ.

Interesting views. :) So a command to bless and pray for your enemies is... not a prohibition against 'damning' them yourself? :confused: Wow... I don't think I've heard that one before!

That's also very interesting. Someone somewhere said something that might be similar to what Christ said?? :eek: Very interesting! Not sure what it has to do with the conversation, but interesting...

FYI, my point is there are people who claim to be followers of Christ, but... don't... follow. Whatever similar statements made by others, this is what Christ said his followers should do, and if they are followers, they will do them. If they do not, then it is correct to question whether they are really 'Christians'.
 
That is an easy one. Simply by applying it to Jesus other teaching you know that Jesus told his follower Peter to put away his sword, as depicted in Passion of the Christ.

Point being, when you read the context of the passage, mother against daughter, father against son, you know that he was referring to the sword of truth. That following him would bring strife between even families. And to this day, that is the case.

Jewish people who turn to Christ, are even now, ostracized by their families. Jesus was saying most will face the suffering for their faith, much like Stephen was murdered for his faith, or like the missionaries in China during the boxer rebellion were killed for their faith. Because? They have the sword of truth.

Clearly Jesus never meant a literal sword or he would not have said

"My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." John 18:36

Again... if someone is a true follower of Christ, he would obey that verse, and understand they are not to fight for dominion, like the crazy people you quote.

Btw, for what it's worth, given the number of crack pots out there claiming this and that while saying they are Christian... I totally understand your view. I too have met many people who say the words, hold the book, sit in church, but act nothing at all like the man they claim to follow.

I can only hope more people actually follow the words of Christ in the future.

I'm going by what it says and what it says is what has inspired much violence and the doctrine of a "just war" among other things, in the name of Christianity.

I won't label all Christians with that violent image for the same reason I won't label all Muslims with violence. There's diverse opinions in how doctrine is interpreted.
 
Werbung:
Ok

I'm going by what it says and what it says is what has inspired much violence and the doctrine of a "just war" among other things, in the name of Christianity.

I won't label all Christians with that violent image for the same reason I won't label all Muslims with violence. There's diverse opinions in how doctrine is interpreted.

Well, whatever. I personally haven't met anyone that used that verse to justify violence, but then I wager ungodly people use whatever they can to justify what they want. Since I know of many secularist who use secularism to justify violence, it doesn't surprise me much.
 
Back
Top