Status
Not open for further replies.
None at the current time.

That contradicts your post here. Who determines what is illegal? I say that Satanists in Oklahoma City should have their liberties curtailed. The US Supreme Court curtailed the liberties of the Temple of Aphrodite in Ca. years ago. Were those actions just?

In any case, what constitutes illegal and legal changes, so we need something besides that.
 
The US Supreme Court curtailed the liberties of the Temple of Aphrodite in Ca. years ago. Were those actions just?

I've never heard of this and am interested in learning about this incident. Would you mind elaborating or linking me to information about this topic? I googled it to no avail.
 
I've never heard of this and am interested in learning about this incident. Would you mind elaborating or linking me to information about this topic? I googled it to no avail.

Not directly. I heard it in a Bahnsen lecture. He was referencing an event in Southern Cal in the early 90s. It was a front for prostitution.
 
That is called an assertion, not an argument. Anyway, I am not a theonomist.
I did not hink
That contradicts your post here. Who determines what is illegal? I say that Satanists in Oklahoma City should have their liberties curtailed. The US Supreme Court curtailed the liberties of the Temple of Aphrodite in Ca. years ago. Were those actions just?

In any case, what constitutes illegal and legal changes, so we need something besides that.
Here in the USA, its our Constitution that determines what is considered to be legal/illegal, not the Bible, as much as we would want the scriptures to be.
 
Depends on if we are a republic, a Democracy, or what, as the Lord does allow for sinners to have whatever wrong theology they have, as long as it does not involve breaking the law. For example, I could practice Voodo in my house, but If I was to start killing off animals and people to do my rites, that makes it illegal activity.

What? The Lord is only bothered when we break a country's laws?

If a religion involves deliberate jaywalking, is that more hateful to God than a religion that denies the Trinity?
 
Here in the USA, its our Constitution that determines what is considered to be legal/illegal, not the Bible, as much as we would want the scriptures to be

So, the Scriptures are acceptable at home, with family, and at church. But they have no place in government? Interesting view, if I'm understanding you correctly.
 
I did not hink

Here in the USA, its our Constitution that determines what is considered to be legal/illegal, not the Bible, as much as we would want the scriptures to be.

All the Constitution says is that Congress cannot establish a federal church (it allowed for the already existing state churches). So there isn't anything in the Constitution about allowing Lavey's disciples to worship freely.
 
All the Constitution says is that Congress cannot establish a federal church (it allowed for the already existing state churches). So there isn't anything in the Constitution about allowing Lavey's disciples to worship freely.

I used to get Anton and Vincent Price mixed up....hahahahahaha....
 
What? The Lord is only bothered when we break a country's laws?

If a religion involves deliberate jaywalking, is that more hateful to God than a religion that denies the Trinity?
There is no mandate from the scriptures to have any nation set up under directly the Laws of God, as Israel was under the old Covenant between them and God.
 
All the Constitution says is that Congress cannot establish a federal church (it allowed for the already existing state churches). So there isn't anything in the Constitution about allowing Lavey's disciples to worship freely.
It falls under the area of a citizen of this land being freely allowed to attend and perform their religious activities, or prefer to not have any at all.
 
So, the Scriptures are acceptable at home, with family, and at church. But they have no place in government? Interesting view, if I'm understanding you correctly.
This republic was based on a scripture viewpoint regarding its moral basis, and standards for laws, but was a Republic being set up, not a Theonomy. The ways of God was used indirectly in our formation, but we were not set up to be as Israel was under the old Economy.
 
All the Constitution says is that Congress cannot establish a federal church (it allowed for the already existing state churches). So there isn't anything in the Constitution about allowing Lavey's disciples to worship freely.

Actually, the constitution says this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
 
I am late to this parade, so apologies if someone has already raised this point but where, in scripture, has God forbidden the state from upholding the first table of his law? Since all men everywhere are bound to obey both tables of the law, then what reason have we to believe that the civil magistrate is forbidden from upholding the first and third commandment by punishing notorious heretics?

Under the United States Constitution, this question is hypothetical. Until such a time as the prohibition on the federal government establishing true religion is replaced with a Christian amendment, then the American civil government cannot prosecute heresy.

That is why I dissent from the US Constitution and would not vote in American elections, despite the fact that I largely align with the Trumplican Republicans on other issues.
 
I'm wondering whether this precludes any role whatsoever for the state in preventing the propagation of heresy and blasphemy


Yes. The civil magistrate ought to prevent idolatry. The civil magistrate is required to uphold the first table just as much as the second.
 
There is no mandate from the scriptures to have any nation set up under directly the Laws of God, as Israel was under the old Covenant between them and God.

This republic was based on a scripture viewpoint regarding its moral basis, and standards for laws, but was a Republic being set up, not a Theonomy. The ways of God was used indirectly in our formation, but we were not set up to be as Israel was under the old Economy.

God tells us in Romans what the function of the State, national Government is, but he did not command all nations to be directly under His law.

I think you are missing a key point in this discussion, which is that all men are to obey God. You seem to have it in your head that only governers ruling a theonomy ought to "kiss the Son" (Ps. 2).

You have repeatedly asserted, without justification, that your "republic" is somehow exempt from obedience to God.

Again, the political system is not the issue. It's not about whether it's a republic or a kingdom or a commonwealth or an aristocracy. It's simply that God's law is to be obeyed by all men, high and low. Of course not all men will honour him, but they should.
 
Last edited:
Actually, the constitution says this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Right, and since many of the states who ratified that clause already had existing state churches, it is obvious that it didn't mean that.
 
It falls under the area of a citizen of this land being freely allowed to attend and perform their religious activities, or prefer to not have any at all.

That's what it means today, after its many reinterpretations by enemies of the cross (and America, for what it's worth). That's not what it originally meant.
 
Right, and since many of the states who ratified that clause already had existing state churches, it is obvious that it didn't mean that.

I was responding more to your assertion that there is nothing in the constitution that protects Lavey’s right to worship freely. This clause most certainly does protect the right of people to worship freely and has repeatedly been interpreted as such. Of course the issue is, just what constitutes a religion, and how far does this right extend. Obviously human sacrifice would not be protected.
 
I was responding more to your assertion that there is nothing in the constitution that protects Lavey’s right to worship freely. This clause most certainly does protect the right of people to worship freely and has repeatedly been interpreted as such. Of course the issue is, just what constitutes a religion, and how far does this right extend. Obviously human sacrifice would not be protected.

Correct. Today those who believe in blood and sex magick do have the same rights (if not more) than me or you. It's one of the reasons I no longer bother with "strict constructionist" views of the constitution. The constitution protects our rights only to the extent that Leftist judges will allow it.
 
Correct. Today those who believe in blood and sex magick do have the same rights (if not more) than me or you. It's one of the reasons I no longer bother with "strict constructionist" views of the constitution. The constitution protects our rights only to the extent that Leftist judges will allow it.

I am curious as to what you believe was originally intended by this clause if it was not intended to protect religious liberty? Have you ever read Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association? http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/jefferson-to-danbury.pdf
 
I am curious as to what you believe was originally intended by this clause if it was not intended to protect religious liberty? Have you ever read Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association? http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/jefferson-to-danbury.pdf

Jefferson's letter at the time had zero legal authority. The 13 states were 13 republics within one larger Republic.

The Constitution was designed to limit the powers of the federal govt. Therefore, the prohibitions were then aimed at the Federal govt, not the state govt.

Of course, none of that is true today. The Constitution is now a joke and only used when it can marginalize conservatives.
 
I am curious as to what you believe was originally intended by this clause if it was not intended to protect religious liberty? Have you ever read Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association? http://baptiststudiesonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/jefferson-to-danbury.pdf

Jefferson is not an authority on the meaning of the United States Constitution. He wasn't even at the Constitutional Convention and had zero role in the creation of the First Amendment. Someone who was was Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, a Madison appointee, who wrote the most important commentary on the United States Constitution ever published. In it, he said of the First Amendment's Religious Establishment Clause:

"It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape."

"The right of a society or government to interfere in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons, who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state, and indispensable to the administration of civil justice."

"And at all events, it is impossible for those, who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine revelation, to doubt, that it is the especial duty of government to foster, and encourage it among all the citizens and subjects."
 
Jefferson's letter at the time had zero legal authority. The 13 states were 13 republics within one larger Republic.

The Constitution was designed to limit the powers of the federal govt. Therefore, the prohibitions were then aimed at the Federal govt, not the state govt.

Of course, none of that is true today. The Constitution is now a joke and only used when it can marginalize conservatives.

I think I understand what you are saying. The first amendment only applied to the federal government, but the states were free to establish or prohibit religion as they saw fit. I would agree with that assessment, but as you pointed out, this understanding of the constitution has long been disregarded.
 
The Bill of Rights originally existed to chain down the federal govt, not the state. The prohibitions could not have applied to the states. Of course, that is illegal today, given the 14th amendment.

Now, the Federal Govt protects the people from the state governments.
 
I am late to this parade, so apologies if someone has already raised this point but where, in scripture, has God [you]forbidden[/you] the state from upholding the first table of his law? Since all men everywhere are bound to obey both tables of the law, then what reason have we to believe that the civil magistrate is forbidden from upholding the first and third commandment by punishing notorious heretics?

Under the United States Constitution, this question is hypothetical. Until such a time as the prohibition on the federal government establishing true religion is replaced with a Christian amendment, then the American civil government cannot prosecute heresy.

That is why I dissent from the US Constitution and would not vote in American elections, despite the fact that I largely align with the Trumplican Republicans on other issues.
It's times like this that I wish I could hit the Like button over and over again. In the words of American Fundamentalism, Preach it, brother!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top