Posted on 10/23/2002 1:04:07 AM PDT by Roscoe
No, I don't believe that God gets "queasy"; I believe that He finds home-invasions for reasons which are not Biblically sanctioned to be offensive -- and certainly not Jesus-like Moral behavior.
Appealing to Romans 13:1-10 does you no good whatsoever. There is nothing in Romans 13 which provides moral justification to the Believer to commit Trespass for reasons which are not Biblically ordained. If a Believer appeals to the Civil Law to permit Trespasses which are not Biblically ordained, he is just using the Civil Law to disavow his duties under Biblical Law.
A Christian cannot morally use the Civil Law to disavow his duties under Biblical Law. If the Civil Law permits Trespasses which are not Biblically ordained, then the Civil Law is in violation of the Biblical command against Trespass. In order for the Civil Law to conform to Biblical Law on Trespassing, the Believer must have a valid Biblical reason to approve the Trespass.
You do not have one verse of Scripture which ordains Trespassing to prevent private intoxication. Absent that Scriptural support, the Civil Law's permission of Trespass is a violation of the Biblical Law's command against Trespass.
After all, the "Civil Law" can permit genocide (see the example of Esther and Haman). But when the Civil Law permits that which is contrary to Biblical Law, the Civil Law is wrong and must be reformed (see the example of Esther and Haman).
And so, I will await your Scriptural Proof that Believers are ordained to commit Trespass to prevent Private Intoxication.
If you don't have any, then an appeal to Romans 13 to permit trespass (against 1 Kings 8:31-32) is no more Biblically-valid than an appeal to Romans 13 to permit genocide (per the example of Esther and Haman) -- in both cases, if the Civil Law seeks to ordain that which is contrary to Biblical Law, then the Civil Law is wrong.
I totally agree with all the above. And the Bible speaks of degrees of reward and punishment:
However, I would just advise you to personally consider the fact that, while in following the Golden Rule, you are following Jesus Christ's example... you will never be able to follow Jesus' example perfectly. And our God is a perfect God.
As such, if you have not done so already (and I am not making any "judgments" of you on the matter), I would humbly advise you to avail yourself of the Perfect righteousness which Jesus promised to secure (and did, in fact, complete) for all those who trust in Him.
By ourselves, our Good Works can never secure for us the Right to boldly enter into the Holiness of God. But by one offering, Jesus Christ has Perfected forever all those who trust in Him, By a new and living way, which he has consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh.
For your prayerful consideration...
God bless, OP
Well said, spoken like an orthodox Presbyterian, and clearly not disputable by Free Will Baptists or libertarians.
The bible said it. God will judge who qualifies to be what.
According to #3Fan, he can be sent to hell for certain vices (too many jelly donuts?, bad breath?--it depends on his definition of "sorcery"),...
The word from the original manuscripts translated into sorcerer is the same word that developed into "pharmaceutical", it's pharmakeus.
...but the crimes of the thugs in power and his crimes in support thereof are justified just because the thugs are in power.
The powers that be are ordained of God. It doesn't mean they're all going to heaven, it just means that the powers that be are in power because God wants them in power. Sometimes a people deserve what they get.
So I don't think you're going to get anywhere trying to get this guy to develop a conscience or learn anything about his personal responsibility to his neighbors.
Busting drug dealers is the height of responsibility to neighbors.
*** I think the Golden Rule (as cited by Jesus and others) is a pretty good standard to use to decide how much importance will be placed on criminal behavior versus private personal behavior at the Great Judgement. If we use this standard, then our first obligation as human beings is to not commit crimes against others. Our private lives, then, are secondary compared to our duty to respect others.
The golden rule says to treat others as you would have yourselves be treated. If I became a whacked out drug user, I would hope that there would be some kind of stop to it before I was dead or destitute. I don't get addicted to substances though so most likely it won't happen.
Now, it is possible that our private non-criminal earthly behavior will carry some weight at the Great Judgement. But if our behavior on this planet means anything at all, then the Great Judgement cases of those who directly and in-directly carry out Joseph Stalin-style pogroms will be much different than the Great Judgement cases of those who repented for their crimes and proved through their subsequent behavior on earth that they learned that the Golden Rule trumps supreme court decisions and majority votes.
Reread Romans. It doesn't say those that enforce civil law are going into damnation, it says those that are terrified of the civil authorities are going into damnation. You and OP like to put things in the bible that aren't there.
Not biblically sanctioned? Show me where the bible says no-knock raids are prohibited. God foresaw drug use and terrorism and told of what would happen to these people. Why didn't He go ahead and instruct us specifically on home invasion? Because He knew it was covered by Paul's teachings on civil law in Romans.
Observation 1: Believers are forbidden to commit Trespass against a neighbor's property: I Kings 8: 31-32 -- If any man trespass against his neighbour,...
Jesus told us who our neighbors are. Our neighbors are those that would help us and be our friend. Drug dealers don't qualify. And on top of that, this is speaking of man to man, not of the actions of a civil authority.
...and an oath be laid upon him to cause him to swear, and the oath come before thine altar in this house: Then hear thou in heaven, and do, and judge thy servants, condemning the wicked, to bring his way upon his head; and justifying the righteous, to give him according to his righteousness. Observation 2: Intervention to prevent Murder does not constitute a Trespass: Proverbe 24: 11-12 -- If thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn unto death, and those that are ready to be slain; If thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not; doth not he that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth not he know it? and shall not he render to every man according to his works?
This is a prophesy for Satan's tribulation as proverbs 24:10 proves. It's very telling that you've decided to drop Proverbs 24:10 all of a sudden. You know I'm right or else you wouldn't have done it. Removing the context...bad, bad, bad.
Observation 3: There is not a single verse of Scripture which justifies a Believer trespassing on a neighbor's property to prevent private intoxication. If you think that there are any, point them out.
Romans. Cite a verse that says we're not allowed to enforce the law on at someone's home.
Appealing to Romans 13:1-10 does you no good whatsoever. There is nothing in Romans 13 which provides moral justification to the Believer to commit Trespass for reasons which are not Biblically ordained.
The powers that be are ordained of God and are a terror to the evil. That's proven on this thread. Looks at who feels terrified of this...pro-druggies.
If a Believer appeals to the Civil Law to permit Trespasses which are not Biblically ordained, he is just using the Civil Law to disavow his duties under Biblical Law.
It's ordained in Romans.
A Christian cannot morally use the Civil Law to disavow his duties under Biblical Law. If the Civil Law permits Trespasses which are not Biblically ordained, then the Civil Law is in violation of the Biblical command against Trespass. In order for the Civil Law to conform to Biblical Law on Trespassing, the Believer must have a valid Biblical reason to approve the Trespass.
The powers that be are ordained of God.
You do not have one verse of Scripture which ordains Trespassing to prevent private intoxication.
Romans.
Absent that Scriptural support, the Civil Law's permission of Trespass is a violation of the Biblical Law's command against Trespass.
Where's this at?
After all, the "Civil Law" can permit genocide (see the example of Esther and Haman). But when the Civil Law permits that which is contrary to Biblical Law, the Civil Law is wrong and must be reformed (see the example of Esther and Haman).
Cite one verse that says the law can't be enforced at someone's home.
And so, I will await your Scriptural Proof that Believers are ordained to commit Trespass to prevent Private Intoxication.
The powers that be are ordained of God to enforce the law. Whether or not they are believers are irrevelent.
If you don't have any, then an appeal to Romans 13 to permit trespass (against 1 Kings 8:31-32) is no more Biblically-valid than an appeal to Romans 13 to permit genocide (per the example of Esther and Haman) -- in both cases, if the Civil Law seeks to ordain that which is contrary to Biblical Law, then the Civil Law is wrong.
Kings is man to man and is neighbor to neighbor. Jesus taught who are neighbors are with the story of the good Samaritan. Drug dealers aren't our neighbors. Paul teaches of the power of civil authorities and the civil authorities are ordained of God to enforce the law.
It clearly isn't covered under Romans 13, because Romans 13 cannot grant the Christian authority to Trespass where a Christian has no Biblical authority to commit a Trespass.
If Romans 13 conferred such authority, why would it not authorize a Christian to Trespass the property of a False Religionist? False Religions destroy many more Souls than do all the intoxicants in the world combined. Should the State outlaw False Religion, and authorize Trespass against False Religionists??
Jesus told us who our neighbors are. Our neighbors are those that would help us and be our friend. Drug dealers don't qualify. And on top of that, this is speaking of man to man, not of the actions of a civil authority.
If Romans 13 conferred such authority, why would it not authorize a Christian to Trespass the property of a False Religionist? False Religions destroy many more Souls than do all the intoxicants in the world combined. Should the State outlaw False Religion, and authorize Trespass against False Religionists??
This is a prophesy for Satan's tribulation as proverbs 24:10 proves. It's very telling that you've decided to drop Proverbs 24:10 all of a sudden. You know I'm right or else you wouldn't have done it. Removing the context...bad, bad, bad.
#3Fan, that's inane. The Proverbs are Moral Instructions for Believers. There isn't a Whit of "tribulation prophecy" anywhere in Proverbs 24:10-12. If such were the case, Proverbs 24:10-12 would have no Moral Application to believers except in the "tribulation". That's clearly absurd.
Tell you what -- I say that the Proverbs are what they claim to be: the Moral Instructions of Solomon unto Believers. If you assert that this is in fact a "tribulation prophecy", in applicable to believers in general -- despite the fact that Solomon himself said nothing of the sort -- I'd like to see you cite one reputable expositor in all the history of Christendom who believed such a thing.
Otherwise, you are just adding to the Scriptures by eisegesis.
Romans. Cite a verse that says we're not allowed to enforce the law on at someone's home.
Romans does not grant the Christian authority to commit Trespasses which are not Biblically ordained. If Romans 13 conferred such authority, why would it not authorize a Christian to Trespass the property of a False Religionist? False Religions destroy many more Souls than do all the intoxicants in the world combined. Should the State outlaw False Religion, and authorize Trespass against False Religionists??
The fact is, There is not a single verse of Scripture which justifies a Believer trespassing on a neighbor's property to prevent private intoxication. If you think that there are any, point them out.
If the Civil Law permits Trespasses which are not Biblically ordained, then the Civil Law is in violation of the Biblical command against Trespass. In order for the Civil Law to conform to Biblical Law on Trespassing, the Believer must have a valid Biblical reason to approve the Trespass.
And so, I will await your Scriptural Proof that Believers are ordained to commit Trespass to prevent Private Intoxication.
Otherwise, you are just using the Civil Law as an excuse to commit Trespasses which you have no Biblical authority to commit.
Where does it prohibit a civil authority from enforcing the law at someone's home?
If Romans 13 conferred such authority, why would it not authorize a Christian to Trespass the property of a False Religionist? False Religions destroy many more Souls than do all the intoxicants in the world combined. Should the State outlaw False Religion, and authorize Trespass against False Religionists??
If the state would outlaw false religions, then it wouldn't be of God since God said leave the tares alone. Our government is of God since it does not conflict with God's word and Romans applies to civil laws.
If Romans 13 conferred such authority, why would it not authorize a Christian to Trespass the property of a False Religionist? False Religions destroy many more Souls than do all the intoxicants in the world combined. Should the State outlaw False Religion, and authorize Trespass against False Religionists??
If the state would outlaw false religions, then it wouldn't be of God since God said leave the tares alone. Our government is of God since it does not conflict with God's word and Romans applies to civil laws. Do you enjoy repeating yourself?
#3Fan, that's inane. The Proverbs are Moral Instructions for Believers. There isn't a Whit of "tribulation prophecy" anywhere in Proverbs 24:10-12. If such were the case, Proverbs 24:10-12 would have no Moral Application to believers except in the "tribulation". That's clearly absurd.
You are short of wisdom. The "day of adversity" is Satan's tribulation.
Tell you what -- I say that the Proverbs are what they claim to be: the Moral Instructions of Solomon unto Believers. If you assert that this is in fact a "tribulation prophecy", in applicable to believers in general -- despite the fact that Solomon himself said nothing of the sort -- I'd like to see you cite one reputable expositor in all the history of Christendom who believed such a thing.
I don't cite men, I read the bible. Look around, there are some that know. The bible says there are only 144,000 of the elect and only 7,000 of the very elect. The elect and very elect are Christians of wisdom. 151,000 out of more than a billion of Christians on the earth. Christians with wisdom are hard to come by. One out of every 10,000 Christians are a member of the elect.
Otherwise, you are just adding to the Scriptures by eisegesis.
The bible is written so that those with wisdom will understand. You don't know the meanings of the terms "day of adversity", "unto death", "neighbor". You are so lost.
Romans does not grant the Christian authority to commit Trespasses which are not Biblically ordained.
Cite a verse that says enforcing the law at someone's home is not allowed.
If Romans 13 conferred such authority, why would it not authorize a Christian to Trespass the property of a False Religionist? False Religions destroy many more Souls than do all the intoxicants in the world combined. Should the State outlaw False Religion, and authorize Trespass against False Religionists??
If the state would outlaw false religions, then it wouldn't be of God since God said leave the tares alone. Our government is of God since it does not conflict with God's word and Romans applies to civil laws.
The fact is, There is not a single verse of Scripture which justifies a Believer trespassing on a neighbor's property to prevent private intoxication. If you think that there are any, point them out.
Romans.
If the Civil Law permits Trespasses which are not Biblically ordained, then the Civil Law is in violation of the Biblical command against Trespass. In order for the Civil Law to conform to Biblical Law on Trespassing, the Believer must have a valid Biblical reason to approve the Trespass.
As Paul said, the civil authorities are a terror to evil. Oh how right he was. The evil howl about no-knock raids.
And so, I will await your Scriptural Proof that Believers are ordained to commit Trespass to prevent Private Intoxication.
While I wait for you to prove that the bible prohibits enforcement of the law at a person's home.
Otherwise, you are just using the Civil Law as an excuse to commit Trespasses which you have no Biblical authority to commit.
Romans says the higher powers are of God and there is no place in the bible that prohibits enforcement of civil law at a person's home. If civil law does not conflict with biblical teachings, it is of God and is ordained of God. If God wanted to prohibit enforcement of the law at a person's home, He would've said so, because like He said, He has foretold us all things.
Sorry, but Biblical Law enjoys absolute logical precedence over Civil Law.
Since the consideration of Biblical Law always precedes the making of Civil Law, if the Civil Law enjoins a Trespass which is not authorized by Biblical Law, the Civil law in Biblically invalid.
And so, knowing that Biblical Law must logically precede the making of Civil Law -- I will await your Scriptural Proof that Believers are ordained by Biblical Law to commit Trespass to prevent Private Intoxication.
Otherwise, you are just using Civil law as an excuse to commit Trespasses which are forbidden by Biblical Law.
As an example, in 1900 many Intoxicants which are illegal today (under Civil Law) were NOT illegal at that time (under Civil Law). So, for the purpose of making Civil Law, the Believer must first examine Biblical Law. PRIOR to any Civil Law on the subject.
And so, knowing that Biblical Law must logically precede the making of Civil Law -- I will await your Scriptural Proof that Believers are ordained by Biblical Law to commit Trespass to prevent Private Intoxication.
Otherwise, Civil Laws which have subsequently been made in violation of Biblical Commandments against Trespass, are Biblically invalid.
Logical? According to your "logic", speeding laws should not exist since there is no biblical sanction for issueing speeding tickets.
Prior to the formation of the State, would Abel have enjoyed the Moral Right to tresspass upon Cain's property to prevent Cain from committing a Murder (say, of one of their sisters)?
What has the formation of a state got to do with it. Murder was wrong then whether a state existed or not.
Yes, absolutely, because Believers are authorized by Biblical Law to physically intervene to prevent Murder.
Yep.
Prior to the formation of the State, would Abel have enjoyed the Moral Right to tresspass upon Cain's property to prevent Cain from imbibing in some intoxicants he had brewed? Absolutely not -- because Believers are NOT authorized by Biblical Law to physically intervene to prevent private intoxication.
Drinking wine wasn't illegal then either by state law or by biblical law so your point is moot.
Since the consideration of Biblical Law always precedes the making of Civil Law, if the Civil Law enjoins a Trespass which is not authorized by Biblical Law, the Civil law in Biblically invalid.
Now all you have to do is cite the verse where it says that civil authorities cannot enforce the law at a person's home. You can't, because it doesn't exist.
And so, knowing that Biblical Law must logically precede the making of Civil Law -- I will await your Scriptural Proof that Believers are ordained by Biblical Law to commit Trespass to prevent Private Intoxication.
Romans.
Otherwise, you are just using Civil law as an excuse to commit Trespasses which are forbidden by Biblical La
Cite the verse where enforcement of the law at a person's home is forbidden.
The bible does not say we are forbiddened to prohibit chemical substances.
And so, knowing that Biblical Law must logically precede the making of Civil Law -- I will await your Scriptural Proof that Believers are ordained by Biblical Law to commit Trespass to prevent Private Intoxication.
Romans.
Otherwise, Civil Laws which have subsequently been made in violation of Biblical Commandments against Trespass, are Biblically invalid.
Where is this commandment?
Should speeding laws be dropped since there is no specific biblical sanction for them?
Begging the question. If the Bible does not first authorize you to Trespass to prevent Intoxication, then you cannot morally "vote yourself the authority" to commit Trespasses which are Biblically forbidden. That's just using the Civil Law to excuse Trespasses which are Biblically Forbidden.
By the same token, why not outlaw False Religions? The Tares will still remain Tares, you'll just be "voting yourself the authority" to Trespass on their Property and throw them in Jail, right? They'll still be Tares, they'll just be Tares in Jail.
And so, knowing that Biblical Law must logically precede the making of Civil Law -- I will await your Scriptural Proof that Believers are ordained by Biblical Law to commit Trespass to prevent Private Intoxication. ~~ Romans.
Nope. Nowhere in Romans does it say that, "Believers are ordained by Biblical Law to commit Trespass to prevent Private Intoxication". It says to obey the Civil Law, but in the making of Civil Law we must first consider Biblical Law.
And if in 1900 various Intoxicants were not Illegal, then you first have to have Biblical authorization to commit Trespass to prevent private intoxication before you can "vote yourself the authority" to commit such a Trespass.
Try again. I will await your Scriptural Proof that Believers are ordained by Biblical Law to commit Trespass to prevent Private Intoxication.
Otherwise, Civil Laws which have subsequently been made in violation of Biblical Commandments against Trespass, are Biblically invalid. ~~ Where is this commandment?
I Kings 8: 31-32; cross-reference Acts 5:29.
Should speeding laws be dropped since there is no specific biblical sanction for them?
As a Taxpayer, I own the Public Roads and may set Usage Rules on my Property.
But if you own a Private Track on your Property, I can't invade your Property to prevent you driving around on your track. Otherwise, NASCAR would be illegal. They drive a tad faster than 65 on that Private Property, you know.
But of course, I have no rights to set Usage Rules for their Property, because I have no Biblical Authorization to commit a Trespass to prevent "real fast driving" on a Private Track. Or to prevent private intoxication.
And if you don't first have Biblical Authority to commit such a Trespass, then you cannot morally "vote yourself the authority" to commit Trespasses which are Biblically forbidden.
So is Trespass (that is -- Trespass is wrong, whether or not a State exists).
If the State cannot morally ordain a Biblically-illegitimate Killing, it cannot morally ordain a Biblically-illegitimate Trespass.
BEFORE the Civil Law can authorize a Killing, or authorize a Trespass, the Killing or the Trespass must be Biblically permitted in the first place, under Biblical Law.
Trespass to prevent private intoxication, is not Biblically authorized.
Cite the verse that says it's biblically forbidden.
By the same token, why not outlaw False Religions? The Tares will still remain Tares, you'll just be "voting yourself the authority" to Trespass on their Property and throw them in Jail, right? They'll still be Tares, they'll just be Tares in Jail.
It's biblically forbidden to prohibit choice of religion.
Wrong. If a Trespass is Biblically forbidden, you cannot Morally "vote yourself the authority" to commit a Biblically illegitimate Trespass.
Cite a verse that says the enforcement of the law is forbidden at a person's home.
Nope. Nowhere in Romans does it say that, "Believers are ordained by Biblical Law to commit Trespass to prevent Private Intoxication". It says to obey the Civil Law, but in the making of Civil Law we must first consider Biblical Law.
Then cite the biblical law that prohibits the enforcement of law at a person's home.
And if in 1900 various Intoxicants were not Illegal, then you first have to have Biblical authorization to commit Trespass to prevent private intoxication before you can "vote yourself the authority" to commit such a Trespass.
Romans.
Try again. I will await your Scriptural Proof that Believers are ordained by Biblical Law to commit Trespass to prevent Private Intoxication.
Romans.
I Kings 8: 31-32; cross-reference Acts 5:29.
Kings is man to his neighbor, and a neighbor is someone that would help you when in need, not a criminal drug dealer. I don't think you know what a neighbor is. Jesus explained it with the story of the good Samaritan. Kings isn't man to civil authority. Acts says to obey God and God said to obey civil authority.
As a Taxpayer, I own the Public Roads and may set Usage Rules on my Property.
So even though there's no biblical precedent of one man controlling another man's velocity, you support speeding laws. Yet at the same time you say it's not right for one man to control the chemical possessions of another man since there is no biblical precedent of that specific act. You're cherry-picking.
But if you own a Private Track on your Property, I can't invade your Property to prevent you driving around on your track. Otherwise, NASCAR would be illegal. They drive a tad faster than 65 on that Private Property, you know.
If the citizens of a state wanted to make it illegal for anyone to drive a car anywhere more than 65 mph, they could do so. I, of course, would not support that seeing how they are not threatening their neighbors with such actions, unlike drug dealers and users who do insane works outside of their home at too high a rate.
But of course, I have no rights to set Usage Rules for their Property, because I have no Biblical Authorization to commit a Trespass to prevent "real fast driving" on a Private Track. Or to prevent private intoxication.
You have no biblical precedent to specifically prevent real fast driving anywhere.
And if you don't first have Biblical Authority to commit such a Trespass, then you cannot morally "vote yourself the authority" to commit Trespasses which are Biblically forbidden.
Cite a verse that says it's biblically forbidden to enforce the law at a person's home.
Cite a verse that even says a person's home is even a sanctuary. It's not biblical that I know of. You don't have the biblical authority to call a man's home his sanctuary if it's not written. The only sanctuary in the bible is the altar of God unless I've missed something. If a man speeds on the street, can he be arrested in his home according to your "logic"?
The why is it OK to trespass to stop a murder?
If the State cannot morally ordain a Biblically-illegitimate Killing, it cannot morally ordain a Biblically-illegitimate Trespass.
It's biblically ordained due to God's instructions for us to follow civil law.
BEFORE the Civil Law can authorize a Killing, or authorize a Trespass, the Killing or the Trespass must be Biblically permitted in the first place, under Biblical Law.
God ordaines the civil authorities in Romans.
The State cannot morally authorize Biblically-illegitimate Killings. The State cannot morally authorize Biblically-illegitimate Trespasses. Trespass to prevent private intoxication, is not Biblically authorized.
Romans is where it's biblically ordained.
The prohibition of chemicals needs biblical precedent, the prohibition of high velocity doesn't, don't you know. :^)
It's okay to Trespass to stop a Murder, because the Bible specifically commands Believers to physically intervene to prevent Murders (Proverbs 24:10-12). There is no such Scripture justifying Trespass to prevent private intoxication -- not one.
If the State cannot morally ordain a Biblically-illegitimate Killing, it cannot morally ordain a Biblically-illegitimate Trespass. ~~ It's biblically ordained due to God's instructions for us to follow civil law.
Nope.
Do you believe that the State has the moral right to order Biblically-illegitimate Killings (say, genocides)? If not, then neither does the State have the moral right to order Biblically-illegitimate Trespasses.
BEFORE the Civil Law can authorize a Killing, or authorize a Trespass, the Killing or the Trespass must be Biblically permitted in the first place, under Biblical Law. ~~ God ordaines the civil authorities in Romans.
The State cannot morally authorize Biblically-illegitimate Killings. The State cannot morally authorize Biblically-illegitimate Trespasses. Trespass to prevent private intoxication, is not Biblically authorized. ~~ Romans is where it's biblically ordained.
Sorry, there is NOTHING in Romans that says Believers are ordained to committ Trespasses to prevent private intoxication. Not one verse.
In 1900, many Intoxicants were Legal -- and there weren't any verses in the Bible then which commanded Believers, "Commit Trespass to prevent private intoxication", either.
If the Bible does not first authorize you to Trespass to prevent Intoxication, then you cannot morally "vote yourself the authority" to commit Trespasses which are Biblically forbidden. That's just using the Civil Law to overthrow Biblical Law, and excuse Trespasses which are Biblically Forbidden.
By the same token, why not outlaw False Religions? The Tares will still remain Tares, you'll just be "voting yourself the authority" to Trespass on their Property and throw them in Jail, right? They'll still be Tares, they'll just be Tares in Jail.
It's biblically forbidden to prohibit choice of religion.
Really? Since you believe that Romans permits the State to OVERTHROW the Law of God and authorize Trespasses which are Biblically forbidden, show me where "It's biblically forbidden to prohibit choice of religion".
You have made the State your God, not show me how you intend to cram the genie back in the bottle.
Oh, I can prohibit both intoxicants and high velocity on my Property.
What I cannot do, is commit Trespass to prohibit them on your Property.
Romans says to follow civil law.
Nope.
Yep.
If the Civil Law ordains a Biblically-illegitimate Killing, then the Civil Law is wrong. And likewise... If the Civil Law ordains a Biblically-illegitimate Trespass, then the Civil Law is wrong. Do you believe that the State has the moral right to order Biblically-illegitimate Killings (say, genocides)? If not, then neither does the State have the moral right to order Biblically-illegitimate Trespasses.
Actually massacres have biblical precedent. It is biblically legitimate to follow civil law.
Sorry, there is NOTHING in Romans that says Believers are ordained to committ Trespasses to prevent private intoxication. Not one verse.
Except the ones that say follow civil law.
In 1900, many Intoxicants were Legal -- and there weren't any verses in the Bible then which commanded Believers, "Commit Trespass to prevent private intoxication", either.
There's no verses in the bible that set precedent for a lot of civil law, that's why God said what He said in Romans, God knew civilization would modernize.
If the Bible does not first authorize you to Trespass to prevent Intoxication, then you cannot morally "vote yourself the authority" to commit Trespasses which are Biblically forbidden. That's just using the Civil Law to overthrow Biblical Law, and excuse Trespasses which are Biblically Forbidden.
There's no precedent to set velocity limits on humans either but you support that. You're cherry picking. Civil law against drugs violates no verse in the bible. If it does, point it out.
By the same token, why not outlaw False Religions? The Tares will still remain Tares, you'll just be "voting yourself the authority" to Trespass on their Property and throw them in Jail, right? They'll still be Tares, they'll just be Tares in Jail.
The bible specifically says to allow the people to believe as they wish. The bible does not specifically say to allow people to do drugs.
Really? Since you believe that Romans permits the State to OVERTHROW the Law of God and authorize Trespasses which are Biblically forbidden, show me where "It's biblically forbidden to prohibit choice of religion".
I'm convinced to are biblically illiterate. This is Christianity 101. You can't decifer parables and now you don't even know that God told us to leave the people alone in their beliefs except to plant seeds. Here's one of many:
Rom 14:15 But if thy brother be grieved with [thy] meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died
It's saying if you change the way someone worships God and cause that person to lose faith in so doing, you're not being charitable. Plant seeds but destroy not with meat (meat being correct teachings).
You have made the State your God, not show me how you intend to cram the genie back in the bottle.
God ordained the state, not I.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.