Constitutional Convention

BY SKY-OPERA I am not trying to avoid offending people of other religions, but what about freedom of religion? I am okay with people worshiping in their own way as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Because freedom is probably the most valued thing in our society the only way to make it fair and work for everyone in a corrupt society is that we make sure that other people's rights don't infringe on each other. Now thankfully, we still have laws that prevent legal smoking and growing etc. of "bad" drugs etc. That would be an example of a moralistic law still in place, and for that matter so is the law against murder. Because we want to have many freedoms, we legislate in a way that everyone works together and is willing to work together to provide for them. Sometimes that makes things what they can be , not necessarily always what they should be. Is there anything wrong with that? No, I don't think so, because our society today would not exist if people weren't willing to come together and make enough compromises to agree and please everyone or the majority on major issues. You see, freedom is one of the most valuable things we have as Christians. If the world had its way, they would have power over us and restrict or try to cause us to go against our beliefs. But when people are willing to come together secular and Christian and agree to provide for freedom for all; they have their freedoms; and we have ours, then we can have a successful government in this fallen world. Like I said we were blessed as a nation to have so much Christian leadership. Perhaps, if more Christians took an interest in their government we could continue that trend and try to impact the secular world around us for the better.

Are you really going to be able to stop these ills, without taking away the rights to private property etc.? If you transgress those rights I feel that will open the flood gate for others to transgress the rights of Christians and homeschoolers etc.
Granted abortion and such stuff that takes away another person's right, should be forbidden in a free society. Otherwise, its not really free for everyone, just the ruling or grown-up class.
I believe freedom is one of the many valuable gifts God gave men. Freedom is a good thing; although its not perfect. Because its a good thing, I know it comes from God, because the Bible says everything good comes from God.
I've heard it said that Freedom is messy, and that's very true.

Still confused, you would enforce the above laws? Because I am not sure that we as humans have the authority to carry those out, do we think we are capable judges?

Also this would noooot fly in a free society.

No just kidding! :mrgreen:
No, what I meant was that when I hear people say it and the way they say it I perceive it as a way to appeal to the audience to get votes. I recently went to a debate for one of Texas's national Senate offices, (our senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson is retiring), and many of the candidates when talking about themselves would come out and say "I'm a conservative Christian and believe in God.", which they would use to back up their beliefs primarily against abortion. Well in this case, the audience was almost entirely senior citizens. Now to me, it is my opinion that being the case, that these candidates were trying to appeal to this older audience with Christianity because they probably believed that these older generations were more "religious".
To me claiming you are a Christian to try and motivate people to give their vote is insincere coming from a Christian and immature of a Christian to do so. If you want to be against moralism, I would say that doing that is very moralistic, and gives no real indication that they are a Christian. So my question is why say it in a campaign speech? I can't judge their heart, but from the outside it appears by saying, they are a Christian (provided they are not asked) while campaigning for themselves in order to appeal to an audience, is talking the talk more than walking the walk.

Yes, especially for your type of government but you can do everything right in political office without being a Christian. A political office does not require being saved. But if you are a Christian hopefully we can expect great things from you in action and understanding while in office.

I just don't want to see people use it as slogan to get selfishly what they want.

Additionally I might challenge you and say that regardless of how many laws you take directly from the Bible you are still taking its principles of right conduct and expecting them to be implemented in government, regardless of what everyone else really believes in terms of religion. Therefore, I would still call that a moralistic government. Because you can't force anyone to truly believe in another religion you will have to sell them the idea of accepting these tough laws, as looking out for their individual rights. People are too selfish to willingly comply or consent.

I know they cannot be separated and am not advocating complete separation. Don't you see, I am just tired of hearing people stand at the podium to campaign and end up preaching. One of our local grassroots leaders for our party was supposed to be at the podium to talk about and encourage everyone for our next political goals and agendas. Instead, he stood at the podium for probably over thirty minutes and discussed something from the book of Daniel in the Bible. After it was over I was kind of embarrassed for him. I left feeling kind of cheated out of hearing a political plan of action, to change the community and political offices for the better; and that the goals of that meeting were not reached. I knew there were other people in the room who probably weren't Christians, and because we were not in a church, and this man was not elected to this voluntary (unpaid) position to preach; it didn't seem right. There is a time and a place for everything.

True but we can live it out as Christians (only with God's help) without those laws in our government. I do admit God can use the laws and does. They would and do serve only as a restrainer to everyone, Christian or not. As long as we have freedom; it gives us the ability to try and influence others and society as much as we can, with or without legislation.
In this case of 2014 and the complete chaos scenario, I think that these laws particularly the Biblical common law would possibly pass, but honestly I know currently in 2012 they would not be well accepted even by the Christian community; regardless of whether that's real Biblical justice.

True, but what holds them accountable except judgement day? Law should have dominance, but as the law is an instrument, not only, of God; so the people are an instrument of the law. I see it more as a partnership between the people and the government we pay them to protect us and our rights and they protect us and our rights to get paid. Whether its with legislation or with a machine gun. That was one of the main reasons we needed a government.
God did that for His people, only He went above and beyond by also providing them with almost everything they could ever want in the promised land.

Interesting question. I think as part of the ordinary masses we consider it better, because today we only see the government getting bigger and encroaching on our rights. Today the balance is not in our favor and the partnership or transaction has cheated us. One particular way it has, is in illegal immigration. We particularly in the border states here in Texas and Arizona etc. have felt the burden of the government not willing to protect us.
Granted the people (masses) have also transgressed the transaction by demanding benefits when originally they agreed to earn what they got. We want someone to take care of us. Instead of leaving that to God we pursue the government for not only all our needs but also our wants. I believe this is where we need good pastors who have the courage to preach hard sermons. We so desperately need them, who have courage in this capacity because of the selfishness of the generations. Just think pastors depend on tithes which are willingly given, versus the government who depends on money that is coerced. It would be amazing if under those circumstances the churches made just as much as the government! I don't think that we can solve this country's spiritual problems through government if we're fortunate, we may get good leaders who have constituents that will agree with them to make more moral laws.

I'd appreciate the same from you aswell! Thank you.

Well I like it!
The only thing I am slightly worried about is the national government having the power to void all province laws. The only reason I say that is because as I speak the Supreme Court is discussing/debating the constitutionality of the law SB1070 that Arizona passed to protect its borders and economic system from the effects of illegal immigration. I will be fine with it, but I would like it also if we can somehow enforce the government to protect the borders and province economies from illegal immigration.

Mr. President : I second Mr. Stahlberg's motion.

High Prince Christopher wrote:

BY SKY-OPERA I am not trying to avoid offending people of other religions, but what about freedom of religion? I am okay with people worshiping in their own way as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Because freedom is probably the most valued thing in our society the only way to make it fair and work for everyone in a corrupt society is that we make sure that other people's rights don't infringe on each other. Now thankfully, we still have laws that prevent legal smoking and growing etc. of "bad" drugs etc. That would be an example of a moralistic law still in place, and for that matter so is the law against murder. Because we want to have many freedoms, we legislate in a way that everyone works together and is willing to work together to provide for them. Sometimes that makes things what they can be , not necessarily always what they should be. Is there anything wrong with that? No, I don't think so, because our society today would not exist if people weren't willing to come together and make enough compromises to agree and please everyone or the majority on major issues. You see, freedom is one of the most valuable things we have as Christians. If the world had its way, they would have power over us and restrict or try to cause us to go against our beliefs. But when people are willing to come together secular and Christian and agree to provide for freedom for all; they have their freedoms; and we have ours, then we can have a successful government in this fallen world. Like I said we were blessed as a nation to have so much Christian leadership. Perhaps, if more Christians took an interest in their government we could continue that trend and try to impact the secular world around us for the better.

So, should I, a warrior of the Kingdom of God, compromise with the Kingdom of Satan?! Should I compromise on Justice, Peace, Righteous government, and the duty of government to God and man?! God forbid that I should back down upon these things, and come crawling to my enemy in defeat! I will not, no, I cannot compromise upon these! May the stars fall from the sky, and the Earth be burned in fire and sulfur before I sell my cause to the enemy!
I did not say to compromise on Justice and Righteous government etc. What I was referring to was that how can we as fallen humans dictate pure justice? We can't; therefore, to assume that even if we put in place all core (excluding dietary laws, which were abolished by the NT) laws coming from the Bible how can we expect that it will always turn out right; or that it would not be more thoroughly unjust to more people? Things like homosexuality would be hard to punish, because you can't judge by appearance that someone is living in that lifestyle. You would have to catch someone in the act, and that would require in most cases an invasion of privacy, private property and a transgression of Constitutional rights.
Can I compromise upon Monarchy, or certain ways in which the government is set up? Yes. However, compromising upon any of the above moral principles is completely different! To me, it is like compromising upon my theology in order to please the Catholics!
So, I am to make compromises to please the majority of citizens?! The "people" is a great beast! From their mouth pours out blasphemy, and cursing! From their hearts pour forth rebellion and the darkest, most ungodly thoughts! Their fingers are stained with the blood of millions of infants! Their fists are clenched against Godly rule! Their eyes tarry upon the nakedness of other humans, and continually search for darker, more sickening sights to fill their lusts! Their horn is raised up against the Almighty, and their faces are twisted with glee when they see the fall of the Righteous! They are, and always have been, opposed to righteous, just, Godly rule! Am I to compromise with them?!
No. You are using collective terms however. Looking at the American public for instance when you go to store how can you dictate them as all guilty? For instance I would agree that as an instituted nation we are guilty of crimes against the unborn, and as a nation we have neglected our greatness through that. There are a lot of things also though less serious that we have fallen way short on as nation, such as each individual's personal responsibility to their government. However, individually you cannot label someone as an abortionist just because some of their tax money may have been used for that. You know that verse in the Bible that talks about rendering unto Caesar the things that are his etc.? I have always thought that, that was acceptable as long as the government doesn't cause me to sin. So of course I had struggled with the thought that maybe I should rebel against the government because they use tax dollars to fund abortion. Would that make me guilty? I have thought though and taken comfort in the fact that there is so little of my money going for taxes who's to say that it is "my" money that is being spent on that.
Anyway, I digress. My main point is that the group cannot be punished like individuals and vice versa.

Freedom?! Bah! That is a word whose meaning has been so twisted, and diluted to where it means allowing satanic acts and deeds without punishing them! Today, people say, "I have freedom to be a homosexual", or, "I have freedom to do with my body whatever I want (so, let me abort my baby)", or even, "I have freedom to do anything"! Is that what we want?! "No", you say. Well then, what is this freedom that you talk about? Freedom to worship in my own way, which of course would be what God had revealed through His Word on how we should worship. Civil freedom must be completely limited to being allowed to do that which God has told the government not to punish you for. Thus, homosexuality, thievery, bestiality, and the like will not be allowed. This is the only way to have any sort of just society, and if the majority of people do not like it, then that is their problem. We as government leaders answer to God, and we must obey Him no matter how many citizens do not like the idea. I agree. I am just discussing how its implemented.

Besides, when did our country, or any country for that matter, start to fall apart? It was when we compromised! No, I will not start off by compromising to make people happy, thus beginning the fall of our Republic.

Are you really going to be able to stop these ills, without taking away the rights to private property etc.? If you transgress those rights I feel that will open the flood gate for others to transgress the rights of Christians and homeschoolers etc.
Granted abortion and such stuff that takes away another person's right, should be forbidden in a free society. Otherwise, its not really free for everyone, just the ruling or grown-up class.
I believe freedom is one of the many valuable gifts God gave men. Freedom is a good thing; although its not perfect. Because its a good thing, I know it comes from God, because the Bible says everything good comes from God.
I've heard it said that Freedom is messy, and that's very true.

The instant that we allow evil, and injustice, thus refusing to do what God commanded us, we are no longer a free society (whose Sovereign must be the Lord), but rather a tyranny of evil!
"Freedom" of sexuality, pornography, bestiality, and the like, are rather chains of evil that will, if they are allowed, grip our society and strangle it to death! That is not freedom, that is suicide!
By punishing these things, government is not trampling upon anyone's rights, for rights come from God, and I nowhere see in the Bible a "right to pornography".
Like I said above I am debating over the implementation. I think I agree with you in theory, but practice looks a lot more complicated. I honestly don't think that you would be able to implement this in today's world, or least you may be able to but without the desired results.
So I guess I should ask are we debating just for our mock background of world chaos in 2014, or are we discussing also for solutions and relevance for today?

Now, I would prefer to "open the floodgate" for people to transgress my rights by giving the government the power and the duty of carrying out the commands that God has given it, rather than strangle the nation to death, and thus instant tyranny, by weakening the government to such a point that it can't legally obey God's commands and enforce justice!
I know what you mean. Again if you implemented those things today, 2012, it would probably result in tyranny for Christians etc. just by the laws of majority/minority.

Still confused, you would enforce the above laws? Because I am not sure that we as humans have the authority to carry those out, do we think we are capable judges?

Yes, I would enforce these laws. Yes, humans have the authority to carry those out (since those commands were given by God to be enforced by depraved, fallible humans without modern technology). [color=orange]Not sure I can agree on the right to authority here. The reason being that in the OT the Israelites had direct communication with God who was their King and Sovereign. God told them exactly what He expected of them and He gave them laws to live by. Today and even in the NT however, they didn't and we don't. Even when Jesus was on earth the world wasn't ruled that way. Jesus gave us the final Covenant which brought us closest to God to have a relationship with Him and to have Him reign in our hearts and lives, regardless of earthly governments . The Israelites though they heard from God directly their relationship with God was still close, but different. God was not only the loving God with a father figure type, but was also all the inventor and administrator of many government functions. Today and even in Jesus time He used men to provide government for not only the world but also His people, i.e. the Romans.

Also this would noooot fly in a free society.

Free society? You mean a society that is being strangled to death by chains of depravity of its own making? I could not care less about the opinions of the "suicidal", all I care about is obeying the decrees that God has set forth, thereby insuring Justice, Tranquility, and true, Godly, Liberty.
That is a high standard, for mortal man to keep. Afterall even when God spoke
directly and explicitly to Moses and Aaron about what He wanted they still failed. While Moses was on Mt. Sinai, Aaron who was with the people built a golden calf for them to worship. (Ex. 32) Even God's leaders cannot keep and carry out His Laws and expectations perfectly. Moses, whom the back of God and some of His Glory passed before, was kept out of the promised land for not following God's instructions to the letter.

No just kidding! :mrgreen:
No, what I meant was that when I hear people say it and the way they say it I perceive it as a way to appeal to the audience to get votes. I recently went to a debate for one of Texas's national Senate offices, (our senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson is retiring), and many of the candidates when talking about themselves would come out and say "I'm a conservative Christian and believe in God.", which they would use to back up their beliefs primarily against abortion. Well in this case, the audience was almost entirely senior citizens. Now to me, it is my opinion that being the case, that these candidates were trying to appeal to this older audience with Christianity because they probably believed that these older generations were more "religious".
To me claiming you are a Christian to try and motivate people to give their vote is insincere coming from a Christian and immature of a Christian to do so. If you want to be against moralism, I would say that doing that is very moralistic, and gives no real indication that they are a Christian. So my question is why say it in a campaign speech? I can't judge their heart, but from the outside it appears by saying, they are a Christian (provided they are not asked) while campaigning for themselves in order to appeal to an audience, is talking the talk more than walking the walk.

Understood. Just making sure you weren't attacking Christianity as a good qualifier.

Yes, especially for your type of government but you can do everything right in political office without being a Christian. A political office does not require being saved. But if you are a Christian hopefully we can expect great things from you in action and understanding while in office.

As I wrote to you in a PM, wisdom comes from the fear of the Lord, and wisdom is necessary to be a just ruler. Although God can use the citizens of Satan's Kingdom to do justice, and bring good for His people, this is rather an exception and not the rule. I will make a very important, and divisive statement: the best rulers are Christians. Now, let me further add to that: the best rulers are Biblical, God-fearing, Christians.

I just don't want to see people use it as slogan to get selfishly what they want.

I agree, it is quite sickening when this happens.

Additionally I might challenge you and say that regardless of how many laws you take directly from the Bible you are still taking its principles of right conduct and expecting them to be implemented in government, regardless of what everyone else really believes in terms of religion. Therefore, I would still call that a moralistic government. Because you can't force anyone to truly believe in another religion you will have to sell them the idea of accepting these tough laws, as looking out for their individual rights. People are too selfish to willingly comply or consent.

I cannot force people to believe in Christianity, that is true. Nor could the Puritans, or King Alfred the Great, or the Scottish Covenanters, or even Israel for that matter. Yet each of these took their powers, and laws, and principles from the Bible itself, and proclaimed in their covenants and constitutions, that God is the Sovereign over all, that man has certain duties to perform unto Him, and that the government must find its authority only in the Almighty. These groups (although for the Scots, not so much) were blessed with Godly, just, righteous rule for many centuries, as long as they did not compromise with paganism, humanism, or any other satanic belief structure. Once they did compromise, and denied God His rightful place, then they were destroyed.
Notice, the people in each of these nations were definitely selfish, and completely depraved, yet there was peace, justice, and all other blessings which flow from righteous rule.
Not sure I would say peace. Looking at the old testament, a lot of Israelites and people of other nations died because of God's justice.

I know they cannot be separated and am not advocating complete separation. Don't you see, I am just tired of hearing people stand at the podium to campaign and end up preaching. One of our local grassroots leaders for our party was supposed to be at the podium to talk about and encourage everyone for our next political goals and agendas. Instead, he stood at the podium for probably over thirty minutes and discussed something from the book of Daniel in the Bible. After it was over I was kind of embarrassed for him. I left feeling kind of cheated out of hearing a political plan of action, to change the community and political offices for the better; and that the goals of that meeting were not reached. I knew there were other people in the room who probably weren't Christians, and because we were not in a church, and this man was not elected to this voluntary (unpaid) position to preach; it didn't seem right. There is a time and a place for everything.

You mean that you are tired of men like Santorum, Cotton Mather, King Alfred, King David, King Solomon, King Josiah, Samuel the Prophet, etc.?
Out of all of these individuals, none of these were both a political and a spiritual leader to the full extents of the word. Even Samuel the Prophet though, he ordained the kings, the kings still led the army.
I believe what you said earlier, that the government involves morality and vice versa. But they aren't equal. Government is a tool of morality. Therefore it is much more in the line of work for Cotton Mather to lecture on how things should be done more Biblically in government, than it is for Santorum to start campaigning and lecturing on how people should spend their money because they are sinning by getting into debt and living riotously, costing the nation, because they are caught up in consumerism to the point that they will support local businesses to their hurt, less than they will support communist China just to get something for a buck cheaper!
All of government is morality, all of it deals with religion, and all of it must be dealt with from a religious platform and dealt with using religion. With the "non-religious" government, it is dealt with using humanism, thus pandering to the masses (as we see today).
I agree. You are not a Christian if you are living a double life. Everything a Christian does should flow out of their belief in God and relationship with Him. And it would be better if government followed that. However, to see my political leaders get up and preach straight from the Bible when they should be laying out campaign plans etc. against their liberal opponents is not only patronizing but also out of place, in many cases. You can preach to the choir and expect change to come but be wasting you're breath because that's not where a lot of the problem lies, or you can preach to the secular person expecting change and not get it because they could care less to begin with, because they are not a Christian. So when something is inappropriate or out of place it is ineffective. I think that in certain cases when that happens it is destructive of both political and spiritual ends.
I must say, I wish we had more truly christian politicians who spoke directly to the people of their evil, and were courageous enough to actually tell the people the only way out of this mess, which is through following the Bible. I agree to a point. I think there should be a difference in a political leader and a spiritual leader, and I am talking strictly in the here and now, today. In the old testament we see that they were the same, but after Jesus came they were separated.

True but we can live it out as Christians (only with God's help) without those laws in our government. I do admit God can use the laws and does. They would and do serve only as a restrainer to everyone, Christian or not. As long as we have freedom; it gives us the ability to try and influence others and society as much as we can, with or without legislation.
In this case of 2014 and the complete chaos scenario, I think that these laws particularly the Biblical common law would possibly pass, but honestly I know currently in 2012 they would not be well accepted even by the Christian community; regardless of whether that's real Biblical justice.

I agree with all of the above. I am not worried about what people believe, I am worried about having the government do what God has called it to do. That is all.

True, but what holds them accountable except judgement day? Law should have dominance, but as the law is an instrument, not only, of God; so the people are an instrument of the law. I see it more as a partnership between the people and the government we pay them to protect us and our rights and they protect us and our rights to get paid. Whether its with legislation or with a machine gun. That was one of the main reasons we needed a government.
God did that for His people, only He went above and beyond by also providing them with almost everything they could ever want in the promised land.

Where in the Bible is the government seen as a partnership between the rulers and the ruled?
God said that if the Israelites kept His commandments He would protect them and bless them. Obviously they failed but because God is a covenant keeping God and loves His people He still pursued the relationship with them ultimately through Christ. One of the whole points of the Laws of God are to show us that we can't keep them perfectly. We will always fail. Therefore our salvation is solely dependent on God's bountiful grace and we know Him because He pursued us.

Government in the Bible is treated just like a Family and a Church: the rulers are given power and duties from God which they are to exercise regardless of what the ruled want. The father, the elder, and the ruler are agents of God, and His subjects. Thus, they must obey only Him.

Interesting question. I think as part of the ordinary masses we consider it better, because today we only see the government getting bigger and encroaching on our rights. Today the balance is not in our favor and the partnership or transaction has cheated us. One particular way it has, is in illegal immigration. We particularly in the border states here in Texas and Arizona etc. have felt the burden of the government not willing to protect us.
Granted the people (masses) have also transgressed the transaction by demanding benefits when originally they agreed to earn what they got. We want someone to take care of us. Instead of leaving that to God we pursue the government for not only all our needs but also our wants. I believe this is where we need good pastors who have the courage to preach hard sermons. We so desperately need them, who have courage in this capacity because of the selfishness of the generations. Just think pastors depend on tithes which are willingly given, versus the government who depends on money that is coerced. It would be amazing if under those circumstances the churches made just as much as the government! I don't think that we can solve this country's spiritual problems through government if we're fortunate, we may get good leaders who have constituents that will agree with them to make more moral laws.

I agree with most of the above, other than, "the people (masses) have also transgressed the transaction by demanding benefits when originally they agreed to earn what they got". This implies that if the masses wanted a communist government, and made it so from the beginning, then it is only right that the government be communistic. I see what you mean here. I think I agree. I believe communist government is wrong, even if the people wanted it. Some of my reasons stem back from my Biblical beliefs and others from just my beliefs about justice, peace, freedom and individual rights.
I do not believe that the government gains its powers from the masses. No, it finds its powers from God, and that is all. No social contract can give the government "just" powers that go against the Bible.
Ultimately, yes I think the above is true, and God can use the collective decisions of the masses to carry out His plans for earthly government.
Originally I don't think the U.S. government had powers that went against the Bible, but so much has been misinterpreted to fit some other mold.

I'd appreciate the same from you aswell! Thank you.

Government is my passion, and this debate has thrown me into somewhat of a "passion". Thus, I will say very heated things that would burn the hide of a horse from three mile away. It has nothing to do with anyone personally, but it is rather my war against ideas which I see are wrong. My political war is not against flesh, but against ideas, and I shall attack the latter with all the ferocity of a WW1 trench battle. If I cannot harness this ferocity and use it in a kindly, gentle manner, my apoligies.

Certainly, understood.! Glad some people are interested in politics like this. I know a lot of other people are, but are not in a position to do much about it.

Well I like it!
The only thing I am slightly worried about is the national government having the power to void all province laws. The only reason I say that is because as I speak the Supreme Court is discussing/debating the constitutionality of the law SB1070 that Arizona passed to protect its borders and economic system from the effects of illegal immigration. I will be fine with it, but I would like it also if we can somehow enforce the government to protect the borders and province economies from illegal immigration.

Mr. President : I second Mr. Stahlberg's motion.

Thank'e kindly. I will do my best to work on the issues of illegal immigration, and soothe the fears of the border states (which my state is also a part of).
Sounds good.
God Bless, and long live the Republic.

___________________________

Sky-opera, do you have a reply?

You mean that you are tired of men like Santorum, Cotton Mather, King Alfred, King David, King Solomon, King Josiah, Samuel the Prophet, etc.?

I must say, I wish we had more truly christian politicians who spoke directly to the people of their evil, and were courageous enough to actually tell the people the only way out of this mess, which is through following the Bible.

Where in the Bible is the government seen as a partnership between the rulers and the ruled?

I do not believe that the government gains its powers from the masses. No, it finds its powers from God, and that is all. No social contract can give the government "just" powers that go against the Bible.

Certainly, understood.! Glad some people are interested in politics like this. I know a lot of other people are, but are not in a position to do much about it.

Yet, that has nothing to do with the government directly. Things like personal debt, idolatry, etc., are not within the powers of government to do anything about. However, things like National debt, Homosexuality, Stealing, Foreign Policy, and Taxation are within the sphere of government, and directly affect it. These things involve national morality, and these things must be spoken of in a moral context. However, if we speak about them from a strictly secular (another word for humanistic) context, then its authority is subject to man's faulty reasoning, and if they disagree with it, then it has no power. If we go at it from a religious context using the Bible, then it gains authority from an unchanging moral power, and the citizens are subject to these laws for conscience's sake. (if none of that made sense, I'm a little distracted right now)

My campaign plan comes straight from the Bible, "If my people who are called by my name humble themselves and pray, I will heal their land." The Bible speaks to every part of our lives, and is the best place to find campaign plans, and defenses of them. "How will we turn our country around? What kind of economy is most just? What should the punishments for crimes be? How can we deal with our debt crisis? How should we treat the poor?" All these campaign issues and more can be found in the Bible. The very essence of our problem in America is that the Bible is not the center of our lives, including our government. Rather, human "wisdom" is the center.
To say that the Bible is not a powerful tool, or is destructive, when used in politics, is a dangerous idea in and of itself. That is why we have thrown out prayer in schools, the ten commandments are pulled from our court houses, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation has such power over our domestic affairs. The Bible is the only weapon I know of that is, "living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, (and) penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; (and) judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12) We as christians have the greatest weapon in all of history, and it speaks to every part of our lives. Why should we discard it?

I did not say discard it. If you'll look back, I said that when something is inappropriate or out of place it is ineffective. Do you believe it is possible to use Scripture inappropriately? Perhaps a better phrase would be, Is it possible to misuse Scripture and construe the meaning? Or to take it out of context? Is any of that possible?
That was my main point. In other words in the example from my personal experience, I think that the Scripture being used was out of context and misused. Even if the text from the book of Daniel was correct for the comparisons or scenarios of today that it was used for, the man delivering it, did poorly in delivering the points and I misunderstood his points and finally he was not qualified in that setting to teach God's Word.
Do you mean by saying that your campaign plan comes straight from the Bible that, your goals and vision and philosophy in government come straight from the Bible? In other words if you were running for Judge or even the County Chair of the Republican Party, for your county, you would say that (this) and (this) are the principles you stand for and this is why. Then you would point to the Bible. Is all that correct? Are those things above what you mean?

I digressed... that whole discussion above I believe was related to instituting Biblical common law and who in the world has rightful authority for what.

Not every Political leader is a Spiritual Leader, but there is nothing in the Bible that says that they should not be both! Rather, God calls the rulers of the Church and State and Family to follow His commands and give glory to Him, thus being spiritual leaders in every sphere of their lives.

This Psalm is self-explanatory, the rulers are to serve the Lord, for they are His agents, not the agent of the Demos. The rulers gain their authority and power from God alone, and they must follow His commands alone. This is not a partnership or covenant between the People and the Rulers, but rather between the Rulers and God Almighty. If the Demos has any say in electing rulers to be over them, it is but an acknowledgement of the authority that God has bestowed upon the ones who shall become rulers, it is not a pact saying, "if the rulers don't obey our (the People's) will, then you shall not have power, but if you do as we wish, you shall continue to have authority."

From what you said there, it seems that your political beliefs are somewhat separated from your Biblical beliefs.I see how you get that from what I said, but the reason it sounds that way is that I have never sought the Bible as a political textbook. Ultimately, yes true and complete justice comes from God and is yet to be seen. The same with peace. The freedom I receive Biblically speaking or better put spiritually speaking is that Christ freed me from my sin so that when God looks at me, He sees only Christ who is perfect, for me. As far as freedom on earth goes. I have all freedoms that don't cause me to sin. I also have duties to protect and help others if I allow them to suffer because I am obeying some higher authority I would be sinning and therefore I should instead pursue their rights to be safe and to receive help from me. Again my individual rights are wrapped up in what God expects of me and the same for any other person. Why did the pilgrims leave England? It wasn't for more land, more money; it was for freedom to worship in a way that they believed was God honoring versus what the king was mandating. But where can your beliefs about justice, peace, freedom, and individual rights come from if not the Bible? They do. Is the Bible not our standard for life and Godliness?Yes it is. If the Bible contradicts our moral beliefs, or we cannot find our moral beliefs in the Bible, then why should we have those beliefs?There is no reason to. At that point it is moralism. Good for the sake of good, instead of good for the sake of God.
There are two types of commands for the government in the Bible. The first is a negative law. This type of law tells you not to do something. You break this command (of course) by doing what the law commands you not to do. However, there is a second type of law which is just as important to follow, the positive law. This type of law tells you to do something. To break this law, you must not do what it tells you to do.
Question: Did the original constitution give the government the ability to make homosexuality, abortion, etc., illegal? In other words, did it institute a system that could truly enforce complete Justice? If not, then it made a government that went against the Bible.
Look at the Constitution. Where do we see that the Congress, or President, or anyone in the federal government, is allowed to make and enforce biblical laws such as these? Did we in our zeal for a limited government break God's positive civil Laws by preventing the highest government in our land from being able to make these laws which God deemed should be made?
Here you are talking about the sins of commission and of omission. Doing something and not doing something. That is a good question. Perhaps we did. I think though, on homosexuality it was so societally condemned, I guess it wasn't perhaps ever considered. Also men can't judge men completely, because they will never know their hearts.
We all are in a position to influence our government, but doing so requires us to do things that we may not like. If we step out of our comfort zone, amazing things could happen in our government. I don't do as much as I should, but it is still true.
Very true! I certainly fall far short of where I should be when it comes to being informed. I hope it doesn't take another war for the average American to at least decide to vote and be an informed voter.

sky-opera wrote:From what I understand and read here that is admirable determination.
Thank you. Still, determination is not the determining factor for instituting common law (ironic, right?).

However, what are the practical solutions for punishing something like homosexuality which is punishable with Biblical common law?
What would this look like? Could you give more specifics?
What about what I said about stoning?

Because God has determined what is justice and what is not, we must look at the Bible for answers to crime and punishment (gotta love Tolstoy). Why do we punish murder with death? Because God has said it is the just punishment. Why should a man who steals one-thousand dollars from someone be forced to give one-thousand dollars back to his victim? Because God has said it is the just punishment. Why should we punish, "an eye for an eye, life for a life, tooth for a tooth", in other words, punishment according to the severity of the crime? Because God has commanded it to be that way.
With the above, I doubt that anyone of us in this Convention would refrain from instituting or trying to enforce these laws upon the Nation, no matter how many people were against it. Our sense of conscience propels us to enforce these.
Why then should we not follow complete justice? If God has determined that certain things must be punished by death, why should we hold back because we fear that it may not be "practical" in this day and age?

Now that I have said this, I believe that we needn't use stoning in punishment. However, the principle is that certain crimes must be punished with death, no ifs, ands, or buts. Thus, if the Bible says, "this shall be punished with death", we punish it with death. Electrocution, lethal injection, hanging, however you wish, as long as it is lethal and swift.

Therefore, if we find someone who is a practicing homosexual, whom we find committing a homosexual act, then he shall go through a trial. If he is found guilty of homosexuality, he shall be sentenced to death. If he is found not guilty, then he shall be cleared of all charges, and society must treat him as if he were never charged with homosexuality.

It is the same with someone committing (or being accused of) bestiality, murder, incest, rape, and other crimes which deserve capital punishment. None of them shall be treated differently, and shall all go through the same process.

Interjection:
I know I just asked a bunch of questions, but I don't want to hold up our Constitutional process or prevent others' participation so I am willing to come to a vote when ever there is a consensus to do so.
Well, if I have your support for making a Biblical Common Law, then I will gladly ask for a vote. Aside from this, we need to get Jon back on here as president to help oversee us.

High Prince Christopher wrote:

sky-opera wrote:From what I understand and read here that is admirable determination.
Thank you. Still, determination is not the determining factor for instituting common law (ironic, right?).

However, what are the practical solutions for punishing something like homosexuality which is punishable with Biblical common law?
What would this look like? Could you give more specifics?
What about what I said about stoning?

Because God has determined what is justice and what is not, we must look at the Bible for answers to crime and punishment (gotta love Tolstoy). Why do we punish murder with death? Because God has said it is the just punishment. Why should a man who steals one-thousand dollars from someone be forced to give one-thousand dollars back to his victim? Because God has said it is the just punishment. Why should we punish, "an eye for an eye, life for a life, tooth for a tooth", in other words, punishment according to the severity of the crime? Because God has commanded it to be that way.
With the above, I doubt that anyone of us in this Convention would refrain from instituting or trying to enforce these laws upon the Nation, no matter how many people were against it. Our sense of conscience propels us to enforce these.
Why then should we not follow complete justice? If God has determined that certain things must be punished by death, why should we hold back because we fear that it may not be "practical" in this day and age?

Now that I have said this, I believe that we needn't use stoning in punishment. However, the principle is that certain crimes must be punished with death, no ifs, ands, or buts. Thus, if the Bible says, "this shall be punished with death", we punish it with death. Electrocution, lethal injection, hanging, however you wish, as long as it is lethal and swift.
The way you had been phrasing things throughout this discussion I would have understood that you wanted to carry out the exact methods of punishment etc. which correspond to each Biblical common law. But here the above statements indicate that your philosophy is that of trying to create laws that don't necessarily carry out every method of execution prescribed but institutes laws which are patterned after morality as God defines it. Is that correct?

Therefore, if we find someone who is a practicing homosexual, whom we find committing a homosexual act, then he shall go through a trial. If he is found guilty of homosexuality, he shall be sentenced to death. If he is found not guilty, then he shall be cleared of all charges, and society must treat him as if he were never charged with homosexuality.

It is the same with someone committing (or being accused of) bestiality, murder, incest, rape, and other crimes which deserve capital punishment. None of them shall be treated differently, and shall all go through the same process.

Interjection:
I know I just asked a bunch of questions, but I don't want to hold up our Constitutional process or prevent others' participation so I am willing to come to a vote when ever there is a consensus to do so.
Well, if I have your support for making a Biblical Common Law, then I will gladly ask for a vote. Aside from this, we need to get Jon back on here as president to help oversee us.

sky-opera wrote:The way you had been phrasing things throughout this discussion I would have understood that you wanted to carry out the exact methods of punishment etc. which correspond to each Biblical common law. But here the above statements indicate that your philosophy is that of trying to create laws that don't necessarily carry out every method of execution prescribed but institutes laws which are patterned after morality as God defines it. Is that correct?
Yes. I believe that you use the principles of the punishments for determining our punishments. Thus, if death is required in the Bible, then we will punish with death. However, I do believe that using lashes (flogging) in certain cases is quite useful, and that we should get rid of prison and jail time for most crimes. I'll explain when we begin to make the common law, but at the moment, it is to long too write and off-topic.

I still find it difficult to agree that we should have capital punishment for homosexuality. I think its because I have looked at that as being a sin between the person and God, because usually there is not an unwilling party so no one else is "hurt".
Well, there are many people hurt by homosexuality (if the destruction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Pompeii, and so many Canaanite nations are considered). Homosexuality does leave a stain upon nations which, if not cleaned by punishment, will result in the destruction of the Family, and Nation. So, it does hurt people, just indirectly.
Aside from that, my main concern is that it would be highly unlikely that you would have many homosexual cases tried in a court because there would be no witnesses. It depends on what you define as a homosexual act, but I believe the real proof of the act would only be done behind closed doors, so there wouldn't be any witnesses. The only way you would catch them then, in that case, would be to encroach on the right to privacy.
I do not want to destroy the right to privacy. That is my main concern. Regardless of how you punish whether by death or not if you do not encroach on privacy the law would probably be enforced, so to speak, in name only. That's not to say that you shouldn't still necessarily make the law, because it would help hopefully to define morality for society.

I understand your concern. I certainly don't want some government agency sticking cameras throughout my house and watching my every move. So, no, I do not wish to get rid of privacy. Thus, if you are found guilty of homosexuality, it will probably be rather obvious that you are homosexual. Every now and then, we might find people who are secretive about it, and punish them, but it is highly unlikely. Still, as you said, it would help define morality for society even if it is rarely used.

Also with a law like that there would be no homosexual "couples" wanting to adopt, get marriage licenses etc. none of which I agree or like at all. So it may solve those problems as well.
Well that is the way I see it and I don't mean to drag this out to exhaustion, so depending on the definitions of things and how they turn out I would vote no if it destroyed the right to privacy and yes, probably otherwise.
As I said, I am not in favor of getting rid of privacy, nor do I plan on doing so. I do believe that having these laws will be best for our nation. It will not make us perfect, but it is the right thing to do nonetheless.
If you are ready to vote, let me know and I'll grab Jon (hopefully).

sky-opera wrote:Great, thank you for all the clarifications.
I am certainly ready to vote.

gmx0 wrote:
How would that be possible without me breaking a tie?

Jon David wrote:*assumes the President's chair and takes the gavel from Memphis*

Pardon me ladies and gentlemen, but who made Memphis the Sergeant at Arms?

I have returned to chair this convention. All discussion before this point shall be considered informal discussion. Mr Secretary, would you please post the most current edition of the agenda and remind the delegates of our current position on that agenda?

Also, is there a way to subscribe for the email alerts to threads as one can do on the College Plus! Student Forums?