Posted on 10/23/2002 1:04:07 AM PDT by Roscoe
Frustrated by the Libertarian Party's failure to make progress nationally, Jason Sorens GRD '04 decided the best course of action would be to take over Wyoming. Or maybe Alaska.
The plan, which Sorens calls "The Free State Project," is ambitious. It calls for moving 20,000 people -- including the one additional Yalie who has signed on so far -- over the next nine years to a sparsely populated state where they would take to the ballot boxes in order to repeal most drug and gun laws, eliminate the income tax, and privatize most government-run industries.
So in July 2001, he posted an essay on the project on the Internet. Within a few days, he had over 200 e-mails from people who were interested.
"The response was positively overwhelming," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at yaledailynews.com ...
Where is this pecedented in the bible? Publicans and tax collectors never did this. Public property existed in biblical times also, there were no velocity limits. You're setting a precedent that's not in the bible.
What I cannot do, is commit Trespass to prohibit them on your Property.
Where does the bible say that the law can't be enforced on a person's property? When I read the laws and ordinances all through time, there is no mention of leaving someone alone if they're on their own property. It says to apply punishment with no conditions, except near the sanctuary, that being God's home, not the people's. In other words it doesn't say a man is allowed to lie with a man on his own property but not in public, for one example. If a community found out this man committed this act even in the privacy of his own home, the community was biblically allowed to punish him the same as if he did it in public. You're setting precedent again.
Shhh. He's busy "discovering" imaginary laws and facts.
In the very specialized orthodoxy of Libertarian justification. :^)
You mean like this:
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.--#3Fan
Hi Roscoe,
Good to see you bot-ting in favor of numerology (can you follow the arithmetic too?) and divine right.
God to Roscoe at the Judgement: "Have you ever heard of the Golden Rule?"
Roscoe: "No, but I've got supreme court cases and statutes passed by a majority of the legislature."
God: "Is that your final answer?"
Roscoe: "Wait, let me call this guy I used to know on FR that knows about bible stuff like "the 144,000." He said that Romans chapter 13 says that whatever the state does is fine with you--even Stalin-esque pogroms I suppose...right?"
You think you're God?
Figures.
You're twisting again. Do you think you'll get away with that stuff at the Final Judgement?
Maybe your case will go something like this, but I wouldn't count on it, if I was you:
God to Roscoe at the Final Judgement: "Did you bring the court decisions and the statute books?"
Roscoe: "Yes, they're right here. See, all of my crimes were 'legalized.'"
God: "Golden Rule, Shmolden Rule! How about your vices? Did you smoke, drink, chew, or go with girls that do?"
Roscoe: "No way!"
God: "How about dancing? Playing cards?"
Roscoe: "No way, I'm clean!"
God: "That settles it then. You've learned your lessons well. You obeyed every dictate of the state no matter how brutal without even giving a thought that some sissy liberal 'higher law' might obligate you to do otherwise."
Are you pretending to be God or are you just pretending to speak for him?
You're a religious fraud, either way.
So the Libertarians might not starve.
In either case, if the State usurps such "authority" to itself, the State is wrong.
Actually massacres have biblical precedent. It is biblically legitimate to follow civil law.
If the State authorizes itself to commit Killings which are Biblically forbidden, is the State morally right to do so?
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. 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).
The verse applies to a Brother (i.e., a fellow Christian). Cite me one verse that says that the State cannot prohibit the practice of false Religions. Verses which apply to "brother Christians" will not be admitted as evidence.
You have made the State your God, now show me how you intend to cram the genie back in the bottle.
And incidentally, while you are lecturing on "Christianity 101", how about citing the specific verse which confirms "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" -- you made the claim, back it up. A specific verse citing the 7,000 "very elect", thanks.
I read the laws and ordinances all through time, there is no mention of leaving someone alone if they're on their own property.
The Bible forbids Trespass.
In either case, if the State usurps such "authority" to itself, the State is wrong.
If the State authorizes itself to commit Killings which are Biblically forbidden, is the State morally right to do so?
So you are saying that Christianity is no different than Islam?
God ordained the state, not I
God recommended against a state but in fact asked the Jews what kind of government they preferred and then allowed them a King.
Even God acknowledged that governments received their power from man's consent. If the men in government go against God's law then that government ceases to be legitimate. Your position would logically follow that Hitler's government was ordained by God.
Show me where they are biblically forbidden.
The State cannot Morally authorize itself to commit Killings which are Biblically forbidden.
I agree. But we are specifically forbidden to massacre non-believers. We are not specifically forbidden to enforce the law at someone's home.
In either case, if the State usurps such "authority" to itself, the State is wrong.
So why aren't they wrong in enforcing the speed limit? There's no biblical precedent for that.
If the State authorizes itself to commit Killings which are Biblically forbidden, is the State morally right to do so?
No. We follow civil law when as long as it doesn't go against the ten commandments, as Paul said.
The verse applies to a Brother (i.e., a fellow Christian). Cite me one verse that says that the State cannot prohibit the practice of false Religions. Verses which apply to "brother Christians" will not be admitted as evidence.
So you are judge who is right and who is wrong in their worship of God? No two people have the same belief in God since everyone's wisdom is at a different level. According to your logic everyone but one person would be banned. You call yourself "orthodox" and yet you and I believe very much differently. I don't even know that I would even consider you a brother since your only interest in the bible seems to be to justify drug use. You know nothing of prophecies and parables in my opinion. I don't appreciate people who use the bible and add to it or take away from it to mislead people on their single-minded agenda. However, I would not even consider having you banned from America and will let God be your judge. The parable of the tares of the field say do not root up the tares lest you root up the wheat with them.
Mat 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
And incidentally, while you are lecturing on "Christianity 101", how about citing the specific verse which confirms "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" -- you made the claim, back it up. A specific verse citing the 7,000 "very elect", thanks.
You and your stumblingblocks.
Rom 14:13 Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in [his] brother's way.
That's OK though, 400+ posts and I haven't stumbled yet. I'm going to have to teach you the whole bible. Haven't you heard any of this stuff before? If you really want to learn the whole bible, why don't you listen to a pastor, instead of a guy you don't even know on a political discussion site? The redeemed are the elect.
Rev 14:3 And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred [and] forty [and] four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.
The ones who won't be fooled at all are the very elect.
Rom 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to [the image of] Baal.
7000 are reserved because Jesus knows they will not bow to antiChrist.
The Bible forbids Trespass.
Neighbor to neighbor in the old testament. Drugs dealers are not my neighbors, nor are they neighbor to civil authority. The story of the good Samaritan explains who is considered a neighbor.
The State cannot Morally authorize itself to commit Trespasses which are Biblically forbidden.
Drug dealers are not neighbors to me or civil authority.
The State cannot Morally authorize itself to commit Killings which are Biblically forbidden. In either case, if the State usurps such "authority" to itself, the State is wrong.
Murder is the breaking of a commandment. Enforcing the law at a person's home is not forbidden.
If the State authorizes itself to commit Killings which are Biblically forbidden, is the State morally right to do so?
No, murder breaks a commandment. Show me where the law cannot be enforced at a person's home.
Christianity is true, Islam was written by one man with no prophecy. Only religions that have true prophesies have a possibilty of being true religions.
God recommended against a state but in fact asked the Jews what kind of government they preferred and then allowed them a King.
Yes, God wanted to be their king but the people wanted a man king. So God ordained Israel's kings. Sometimes He even ordained bad kings, the people get what they deserve. David would not kill Saul because even though Saul was possessed and was trying to kill David, David knew Saul was ordained. Civil authority is ordained now, as Romans proves.
Even God acknowledged that governments received their power from man's consent. If the men in government go against God's law then that government ceases to be legitimate. Your position would logically follow that Hitler's government was ordained by God.
If you'll look at this thread, you'll see several times that I said civil authority is legitimate if it follows God's laws. Hitler did not follow God's laws. American civil authority follows God's laws. Even so, Hitler was leader of the Germans, not of Christian America. God saw to it I was born American, not German. I had no worry of having to support Hitler's crimes. God decides who's souls get put in what situations.
1 Kings 8: 31-32. Trespass is Forbidden.
Since you've cited NO verse which authorizes Believers to commit Trespass to prevent Private Intoxication, the Commandment against Trespass stands uncontested.
Which means that the State cannot "vote itself the authority" to commit such a Trespass, as such a usurpation would be in violation of the Biblical Commandment against Trespass.
I agree. But we are specifically forbidden to massacre non-believers. We are not specifically forbidden to enforce the law at someone's home.
Irrelevant. The State cannot Morally make a Law which entitles it to violate the Biblical Commandment against Trespassing. If the State authorizes itself to invade Property for a Cause which the Bible does not authorize, that's a Trespass -- and therefore Forbidden.
So why aren't they wrong in enforcing the speed limit? There's no biblical precedent for that.
The State owns the Public Roads -- ergo, it is not "trespassing" thereupon.
Not so Private road-tracks on Private Property (i.e., NASCAR). The State does not own Private Property, and so it cannot "enforce the speed limit" ON Private Property.
That would be a Trespassing.
The State cannot Morally make a Law which entitles it to violate the Biblical Commandment against Trespassing. If the State authorizes itself to invade Property for a Cause which the Bible does not authorize, that's a Trespass -- and therefore Forbidden.
No. We follow civil law when as long as it doesn't go against the ten commandments, as Paul said.
No, the State is not bound only by the Ten Commandments, but be ALL Biblical Law -- including the Biblical Law against Trespass. The State does not have the Authority to overthrow the Biblical Commandment against Trespassing in the first place.
In other words, the State may ONLY make Laws which entitle it to invade Property on those specific issues where the Bible specifically permits the invasion of Property (i.e., to prevent Murder, etc).
The State cannot Morally make a Law which entitles it to violate the Biblical Commandment against Trespassing. If the State authorizes itself to invade Property for a Cause which the Bible does not authorize, that's a Trespass -- and therefore Forbidden.
Rom 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to [the image of] Baal. ~~ 7000 are reserved because Jesus knows they will not bow to antiChrist.
BZZZZT... sorry, no dice. This was God's answer to Elijah. Ergo, Paul is describing an event which already happened.
I challenge you to show me ONE Scripture which indicates that this is a Prophetic description of the Future -- whereas Paul says that it is an event which took place in the past.
You botched that one pretty badly.
The parable of the tares of the field say do not root up the tares lest you root up the wheat with them. Mat 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
Sorry, this does not prove that the State cannot prohibit the practice of False Religions. As I said before, they'll still be Tares; they'll just be Tares in Jail, right?
If you believe that the State can authorize itself to commit Trespass, show me one verse which forbids the State from outlawing False Religions.
After all, if this is your proof-text: "But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them." -- it applies equally well to Drug Users as any other sort of Tare.
Which means that it blows up your entire argument.
Neighbor to neighbor in the old testament. Drugs dealers are not my neighbors, nor are they neighbor to civil authority. The story of the good Samaritan explains who is considered a neighbor. Drug dealers are not neighbors to me or civil authority.
Murder is the breaking of a commandment. Enforcing the law at a person's home is not forbidden.
If the State Orders that a person or persons is not Legally allowed to Live, then it's just enforcing the Civil Law, right?
If the State can use the "Civil Law" to authorize itself to commit Trespass, why can it not use the "Civil Law" to commit Killings?
The fact is, you're behaving like a Bible cherry-picker -- you want to keep the State bound by the Commandment against Killing, but unbound by the Commandment against Trespass. But you can't have it both ways.
Fact is...
And your "the State is just enforcing the Law" argument won't WORK here... because if Trespassing to prevent Private Intoxication is just "enforcing the Law", then the State Killing of those whom the State has declared Unfit to Live is just "enforcing the Law".
You can't have it both ways.
You have made the State your God, now show me how you intend to cram the genie back in the bottle.
. I don't even know that I would even consider you a brother since your only interest in the bible seems to be to justify drug use.
My interest (one among many) is in divorcing alleged "christians" from the Idolatry of the false, and dangerous, "Divine Right" theory of Government.
If the State commits a Trespass without a Biblically-valid reason to Commit the Trespass, then the State is violating God's Law against Trespassing.
Nor can you argue that "if the State says Private Intoxication is against the Law, it is not Trespassing, it's just enforcing the Law" -- for by the exact same token, "if the State says that a person is Unfit to Live, then it is not committing Murder, it's just enforcing the Law".
Incidentally, the "orthodox" in my screen name refers to my Denomination...
...Founded by that great Fundamentalist, anti-evolutionist, and Anti-Prohibitionist Dr. J. Gresham Machen, personal tutor to Francis Schaeffer (the greatest Protestant theologian of the modern age).
Irrelevant to my question.
If you'll look at this thread, you'll see several times that I said civil authority is legitimate if it follows God's laws.
False. You have repeatedly argued against such a proposition.
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.