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.
Neighbor to neighbor before the cricifixion. Read the story of the good Samaritan to find out who a neighbor is. Drug dealers are not neighbors to me or civil authority.
Since you've cited NO verse which authorizes Believers to commit Trespass to prevent Private Intoxication, the Commandment against Trespass stands uncontested.
Since you've cited no verse that allows the limitation of a brother's velocity, then you should not support speed limits according to your philosophy.
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.
Commandment? I don't remember any commandment that says that law is not to be enforced at a person's home. You need to learn the difference between a commandment and an ordinance. Do you also still perform blood sacrifices? Romans gives civil authority their ordainment.
Irrelevant.
Very relevant. You're trying to add to God's word.
The State cannot Morally make a Law which entitles it to violate the Biblical Commandment against Trespassing.
Which commandment would that be?
If the State authorizes itself to invade Property for a Cause which the Bible does not authorize, that's a Trespass -- and therefore Forbidden.
It's authorized in Romans.
The State owns the Public Roads -- ergo, it is not "trespassing" thereupon.
But speed limits are not specifically authorized. I thought you wanted biblical precedent for every law. Why are you sanctioning a person's home as a sanctuary? God's word doesn't do that.
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.
It could if it wanted to. Should real gladiator games be allowed on private property? Guaranteed death at with every match? Your philosophy is not logical.
That would be a Trespassing.
Show me where the law cannot be enforced at a person's home.
The State cannot Morally make a Law which entitles it to violate the Biblical Commandment against Trespassing.
Which commandment is this?
If the State authorizes itself to invade Property for a Cause which the Bible does not authorize, that's a Trespass -- and therefore Forbidden.
It's authorized in Romans.
No, the State is not bound only by the Ten Commandments, but be ALL Biblical Law -- including the Biblical Law against Trespass.
So do you still perform blood sacrifices? There's a difference between ordinances and laws.
The State does not have the Authority to overthrow the Biblical Commandment against Trespassing in the first place.
There is no commandment against enforcing the law at a person's home.
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).
Romans gives it the authority.
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.
There is no commandment that forbids enforcement of the law at a person's home.
BZZZZT... sorry, no dice. This was God's answer to Elijah. Ergo, Paul is describing an event which already happened.
You are biblically illiterate. Do you even believe in biblical prophesy?
Rev 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree.
Rev 7:2 And I saw another angel ascending from the east, having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,
Rev 7:3 Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.
Rev 7:4 And I heard the number of them which were sealed: [and there were] sealed an hundred [and] forty [and] four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
Don't tell me you think all this happened thousands of years ago.
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.
Look above, oh ye of little wisdom.
You botched that one pretty badly.
You're biblically illiterate.
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?
Reread that verse very carefully. Look at exactly what it's saying. It's saying that if we attempt to root up the tares we will uproot the wheat also. God is saying that we cannot judge who is right and who is wrong to the point of uprooting those that we think are wrong. If we try we will make mistakes and uproot the righteous, in other words we don't know the difference well enough.
If you believe that the State can authorize itself to commit Trespass, show me one verse which forbids the State from outlawing False Religions.
Mat 13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
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.
According to that logic we would not be able to jail murderers. We are specifically told not to interfere with a person's beliefs in God, except to plant seeds. We are not specifically told not to interfere with drug use.
Which means that it blows up your entire argument.
There's a difference between drug use, beliefs, murder, theft, etc.
"But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them."
Tares in respect to beliefs.
If the State Orders that a person or persons is not Legally allowed to Live, then it's just enforcing the Civil Law, right?
We are forbidden to commit murder. We are not forbidden to enforce the law at a person's home.
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?
Murder is against a commandment.
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.
There is no commandment that forbids the enforcement of law at a person's home, nor tresspass against an enemy. Apparently you still perform blood saccrifices since you think every ordinance is a commandment.
If the State must have a Biblical-authorized reason to Commit a Killing, then... The State must have a Biblically-authorized reason to Commit a Trespass on Private Property. (And I remind you, you do not have ONE VERSE stating that it is Morally Proper to commit a trespass to prevent Private Intoxication)
Romans says to obey civil authority.
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".
Murder is a violation of a commandment. There is no commandment that forbids the enforcement of law at a person's home.
You can't have it both ways.
I know the difference between ordinances and commandments. Apparently you think the ordinances concerning blood sacrifices are still in effect. Even so, there was never even an ordinance which made a person's home a sanctuary from the law. If there was show it to me. An enemy is not a neighbor.
You have made the State your God, now show me how you intend to cram the genie back in the bottle.
God ordained the state, not I.
My interest (one among many) is in divorcing alleged "christians" from the Idolatry of the false, and dangerous, "Divine Right" theory of Government.
As it relates to drug use. You're cherry-picking. You seem to have no problem with some government laws that have no biblical precedent, such as speeding laws. Do you think the old testament laws on blood sacrifices are still in effect?