[blackoyster]

Originally Posted by zoe r

First of all, who’s the say they are? What has given us that right or responsibility? Second of all, you are missing the point of this passage. Nowhere does it say that a government has the right to exercise its power or standards over another government (which, by the way, was also ordained by God). It is only saying that we are supposed to obey our own government because (A) The government was ultimately established by God and (B) God has given them the right to punish those who disobey the law.

Then there should never have been any wars at all in the Bible. While God ordered a lot of the wars directly, many were simply God's people fighting for what was right. Like when Jacob and sons made war against the city that had violated their daughter/sister.

[JerryLove]

We are, but we're also citizens of the United States, which is one of, if not THE the greatest propogator of religious liberty on the planet, nationally speaking.

Which most Christians here will tell you is bad. Why should you accept idolatry and eresy under the name of "liberty". There are many (Travis comes to mind) who would choose to enact a governement exactly likt eht Taliban, but Christian instead of Muslim.

Similalry, the apostles (and Jesus himself) were Romans and Isrealies... yet his kingdom was not here. Can you offer a prescedent?

When a government is oppressing people, they are not acting as God's servant to do good. They may well be an agent of wrath, but, as in the case of Judas Iscariot, who's betrayal was part of God's plan, he was not held guiltless for his part in it. Who's to say that OUR nation, and our allies, may not also be God's agents of wrath against Saddam Hussein or his ilk? It works both ways.

Where does the Bible say it's OK to overthrow a government?

It was worth a try. Actually, the scriptures say that one should repay what he stole and then some. This brings up the whole concept of debtor's prisons, which I'm sure you're against. LOL

Debtor's prisons are silly (and sometihng the founding father explicitly wanted to avoid). Slavery makes more sense.

Are you not also a citizen of the US, and therefore compelled to abide by it's laws, so long as those laws don't contradict biblical actions?

What has he said in opposition to obeying US law?

[+Donny]

I'm not interested in arguing semantics as they are irrellevent.

They are not semantics and not irrelevant.

You cited and OT law as proving something was OK in the present; but you acknowledge that many things said in the OT are not to be done now... ergo, you cannot support a claim that something is good now merely by pointing out that it was commanded in the OT.

If you would like to discuss the nature of Christ's fulfillment of the laws on warfare, just say so.

[Jas de F]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

There are many (Travis comes to mind) who would choose to enact a governement exactly likt eht Taliban, but Christian instead of Muslim.

the Taliban is accused of the following:

"'They burnt some of us alive.' It was almost the first thing he said to us. In the dust and squalor of a refugee camp, Salahuddin told yesterday how the Taliban burnt an entire family to death in their own home in revenge for the American bombing. He says he saw them bringing out the blackened bodies of the children. Then the Taliban took Salahuddin and the other villagers to the front line, where they ordered them to gather up scattered bits of bodies, all that was left of Taliban soldiers killed by the American bombs." (Source: The Independent U.K. 11/9/01)

September 1996 -- Upon capturing Kabul the Taliban castrated President Najibullah, dragged his body behind a jeep for several rounds of the Palace and then shot him dead. His brother was similarly tortured and then throttled to death. (Source: Department of Defense)

August 1998 -- The Taliban entered Mazar-I-Sharif and went on a frenzy killing shop owners, cart pullers, women and children shoppers. (Source: Department of Defense)

"A woman who was walking with a man who was not related to her received 100 lashes to the cheers of 30,000 men and boys who filled the Olympic Sports Stadium to watch."

"An elderly woman was beaten with a metal cable until her leg was broken because her ankle was accidentally showing."

"One woman was shot and killed in front of her husband, daughter, and students for defying the Taliban by running a home school for girls."

Taliban decrees:

Women must wear the all-encompassing burqua, shrouding the body like a tent, leaving only a heavy gauze mesh covering their faces through which the wearer can breathe and "see." There is no peripheral vision and accidents have occurred because the women were unable to see the vehicle or to move quickly.
Women are prohibited from working.
Women are not to go out in public without a male relative.
Homes where a woman is present must paint their windows black, so that the woman can never be seen.
Women must wear silent slippers, without heels, so that they are never heard.
When shopping, a woman must have her brother, husband, or father do her speaking for her, so that no man will be excited by the sound of her voice.
It is against the law of the Taliban for women who are not related to gather in groups.
Education for females over the age of eight is now banned in Afghanistan.
It is now illegal for women to wear cosmetics.
All songs except songs praising God or the Taliban are strictly prohibited.
Picnics, movies, television, wedding parties, New Year celebrations, any kind of mixed-sex gatherings, toys, cameras, photographs, paintings of people and animals, pet parakeets, magazines, newspapers, and most books are all prohibited and violators of these dictates can be beaten (or worse) on the spot.

Jerry, you said Travis would enact a government exactly like the Taliban (only Christian). I'll believe that if you can provide me with quotes from Travis where he advocates each and every one of the atrocities and laws of the Taliban which are listed in this post.

go ahead.

[JerryLove]

They are not semantics and not irrelevant.

Of course they are. The question is "If something is instructed in the OT, does that neccessitate that it be done now?", some side-discussion about wheather laws were "fullfilled' or "changed" and why is entirely irrellevent to the "yes or no" question before you.

If the answer is "no", which in your belief it is, then your use of "the OT tells us to" is not, in and of itself, useful for proving your case.

If you would like to discuss the nature of Christ's fulfillment of the laws on warfare, just say so.

No, that would be off-topic. I'm just pointing out that something being directed or prescedent set in the OT does not neccessatirily carry over to now.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by zoe r

Nowhere does it say that a government has the right to exercise its power or standards over another government (which, by the way, was also ordained by God).

nowhere does it say that a government can't excercise its power or standards over another government.

[+Donny]

Of course they are. The question is "If something is instructed in the OT, does that neccessitate that it be done now?", some side-discussion about wheather laws were "fullfilled' or "changed" and why is entirely irrellevent to the "yes or no" question before you.

If the answer is "no", which in your belief it is, then your use of "the OT tells us to" is not, in and of itself, useful for proving your case.

There is no problem with citing the OT Law in this present discussion. The assumed premise, of course, was that that specific law was still applicable. If someone wanted to challenge that premise (they did), it is fine. I never meant to imply (and I don't believe I did) that there should be no discussion on that premise. However, if from a non-dispensationalist outlook, I doubted that there would be any discussion needed.

No, that would be off-topic. I'm just pointing out that something being directed or prescedent set in the OT does not neccessatirily carry over to now.

I never claimed it did, and everyone here acknowledges that. You are pointing something out that everyone knows.

[JerryLove]

Women must wear the all-encompassing burqua, shrouding the body like a tent, leaving only a heavy gauze mesh covering their faces through which the wearer can breathe and "see." There is no peripheral vision and accidents have occurred because the women were unable to see the vehicle or to move quickly.
Homes where a woman is present must paint their windows black, so that the woman can never be seen.
It is now illegal for women to wear cosmetics.

"I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes" - 1Tim2:9
"If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head." - 1Cor11:6

Women are prohibited from working.

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." 1Tim2:12

Women are not to go out in public without a male relative.
When shopping, a woman must have her brother, husband, or father do her speaking for her, so that no man will be excited by the sound of her voice.

"Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." - 1Tim2:14

Women must wear silent slippers, without heels, so that they are never heard.

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission." 1Tim2:11

Education for females over the age of eight is now banned in Afghanistan.

As it is in Jewesh tradition.

All songs except songs praising God or the Taliban are strictly prohibited.

"He who is not with me is against me" - Mat12:30, Luke 11:23

Picnics, movies, television, wedding parties, New Year celebrations, any kind of mixed-sex gatherings, toys, cameras, photographs, paintings of people and animals, pet parakeets, magazines, newspapers, and most books are all prohibited and violators of these dictates can be beaten (or worse) on the spot.

We are back to women ebing the tempters of men:
"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. " - Mat5:28

Also of note:
For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. - 1Cor11:10


The details change a bit, but the Christian view of women (Biblically) is not signifigantly different from the Muslim view. In fcat, the Muslim view and Jewesh view are *very* close.

[JerryLove]

nowhere does it say that a government can't excercise its power or standards over another government.

nowhere does it say that it can.

[Jas de F]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

"I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes" - 1Tim2:9
"If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head." - 1Cor11:6

so women are to be modest. but you said Travis would enact a government exactly like the Taliban. the Taliban beat women until their bones were broken if they did so much as expose an ankle. the Taliban required women to wear head-to-toe coverings. the Taliban prohibited women from being *seen*. show me where Travis has advocated such punishments or such clothing. the above Scripture passages certainly do not.

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." 1Tim2:12

teach, Jerry, teach. there's a difference between teaching and working. you said Travis would enact a government exactly like the Taliban. the Taliban would not allow women to *work*. where does Travis say women should not be allowed to work (not teach)? the above Scripture certainly contains no such prohibitions.

"Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." - 1Tim2:14

what relevance does this have? you said Travis would enact a government exactly like the Taliban. the Taliban prohibited women from going out in public alone or from speaking in public. where has Travis advocated such a thing? the above Scripture has absolutely *no* relation to the Taliban laws I quoted.

"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission." 1Tim2:11

again, what relevance does this have? you said Travis would enact a government exactly like the Taliban. the Taliban forbade women from being *heard*, period. where has Travis advocated such a thing? this Scripture certainly does not.

As it is in Jewesh tradition.

so? Travis is not Jewish. and since theonomists believe civil law is to be taken from the *Bible*, you would need to offer proof from the *Bible* that Travis would enact a government policy of education for women exactly like that enacted by the Taliban.

"He who is not with me is against me" - Mat12:30, Luke 11:23

relevance? this isn't a law, and has no bearing on the Taliban law about all songs not praising Allah or the Taliban being prohibited. additionally, Travis listens to music that does not explicitly praise God. yet you said Travis would enact a government exactly like the Taliban. where has Travis advocated such a thing? this Scripture does not.

We are back to women ebing the tempters of men:
"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. " - Mat5:28

relevance? the Taliban prohibited pet parakeets and newspapers, and your proof that Travis would enact a government exactly like the Taliban is a Bible verse condemning adultery of the mind and heart? there is no relation, Jerry! you said Travis would enact a government exactly like the Taliban. so show me where Travis has advocated banning "picnics, movies, television, wedding parties, New Year celebrations, any kind of mixed-sex gatherings, toys, cameras, photographs, paintings of people and animals, pet parakeets, magazines, newspapers, and most books."

and remember, you said, and I quote, that Travis "would choose to enact a government exactly like the Taliban." you used the word "exactly." not "somewhat similar to" and not "reminiscent of" and not "like the Taliban, but with completely different rules." you said "exactly."

so prove it. all you've done so far is quoted several New Testament verses (theonomists believe in adhering to OT civil law) which support various principles (such as modesty, the proper place of women, control of one's thoughts, etc) and have no relation to any of the decrees and penalties issued by the Taliban.

[JerryLove]

so women are to be modest. but you said Travis would enact a government exactly like the Taliban. the Taliban beat women until their bones were broken if they did so much as expose an ankle.

And being immodest would be stoneable under Biblical law... what's your point?

teach, Jerry, teach. there's a difference between teaching and working. you said Travis would enact a government exactly like the Taliban. the Taliban would not allow women to *work*. where does Travis say women should not be allowed to work (not teach)? the above Scripture certainly contains no such prohibitions.

The are also not allowed to be in a position of authorit over men. How many jobs do you think someone can do without ever being in a position of authority over a man?

And so on and so forth... I'm not really interested in point-by-point teaching you Biblical law... I would suggest you go learn what God commands in the Bible on your own.

You seem overly concerned with the term "exactly", ready to nitpick that Biblical law says to stone them where the Taliban would hang them... I think you are missing the forest through the trees... feel free to ammend my statement to "substantially".

so prove it. all you've done so far is quoted several New Testament verses (theonomists believe in adhering to OT civil law) which support various principles (such as modesty, the proper place of women, control of one's thoughts, etc) and have no relation to any of the decrees and penalties issued by the Taliban.

The NT references establish tha tthe principles in question are still in effect. The OT provides plenty of examples of beating people with stones until they die for most every moral offence.