[aiwahead]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I said a religious state would be similar to Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Just wondering.. I know there is a high amount of religious extreamists in Saudi, but isnt it a monarchy? I dont know that you would consider them a religious state.. they're very capitalistic, if heavily dictator-ish.

[zoe r]

Originally Posted by disciple_419

Abolishing secular education and setting up parochial schools in it's place is going in the opposite extreme. Whatever happened to freedom of religion? It cuts both ways: we get to practice our religion however we want, but everyone else gets to practice theirs as much as they want, too.

Freedom of religion isn’t Biblical. We know from Scripture that God is going to judge non-believers by his law, which totally negates any concept of freedom of religion, because all those who do not follow Christ are going to hell. Tangibly, now, there is “freedom of religion”, in a sense, but ultimately, there is no such thing. Beyond that, Christians are forced to pay taxes to fund an anti-Christian education. If non-believers wanted to set up a school system of their own, and pay for it, so be it, although any education without God as the head is sinful.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Creating a religious state like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Like I’ve said before, the way ultra-religious governments have enforced themselves is sinful, not because they are a religious state, but because what they are enforcing on people is utterly false.

[JerryLove]

Just wondering.. I know there is a high amount of religious extreamists in Saudi, but isnt it a monarchy? I dont know that you would consider them a religious state.. they're very capitalistic, if heavily dictator-ish

It educates based on religious dogma, and enforces religious law. Being a onarchy certainly doesn't prevent that, nor does being capitalist.

[JerryLove]

Freedom of religion isn’t Biblical.

So the Bible requires you to force others to worship Jehovia? Could you cite please?

We know from Scripture that God is going to judge non-believers by his law, which totally negates any concept of freedom of religion, because all those who do not follow Christ are going to hell.

Well, if we were to legislate going to hell, you would have an argument... we are not.

Beyond that, Christians are forced to pay taxes to fund an anti-Christian education. If non-believers wanted to set up a school system of their own, and pay for it, so be it, although any education without God as the head is sinful.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, this mindset removes any collective actions. Don't tithe to a church that might pain mary a differnt shade than you like or that spends more than you want on decorating.

Like I’ve said before, the way ultra-religious governments have enforced themselves is sinful, not because they are a religious state, but because what they are enforcing on people is utterly false.

So then you agree "like Saudi Arabia".

Collecting taxes, creating regulation, and socalizing systems (such as regulation enforcement) is the *function* of a government. You are promoting anarchy... which is a utopian ideal that, like all other utopian ideals, has no practical value.

[zoe r]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So the Bible requires you to force others to worship Jehovia? Could you cite please? Well, if we were to legislate going to hell, you would have an argument... we are not.

The Bible requires that everyone worship the Lord (Deut 16:11), and obey him (Ezra 7:26). Even so, no one can force anyone to do this, but punishment will be inflicted on those who don’t; either by eternal damnation, or in a Theocracy, civil punishment, or both. Is it really freedom of religion if you are punished for it?

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Taken to it's logical conclusion, this mindset removes any collective actions. Don't tithe to a church that might paint nary a different shade than you like or that spends more than you want on decorating.

Hardly. A person painting a church a different color than you like is not sinful, neither is spending more than I would on decorating. It is obviously anti-Biblical to create and enforce laws that conflict with Scripture, and especially to force people to abide by them. Now, I am going to pose a couple questions that will inevitably come up so I don’t have to deal with it later:

1. Is paying tax that will or could fund anti-Biblical crap sinful?

No. (Luke 20:22-25; Romans 13:2; Titus 3:1) The government is the one that is designating the funds for sinful acts (e.g., performing abortion in hospitals; funding of unjust war; funding of anti-Biblical education; etc.). The government is liable for its own sinfulness, and we are not liable for how it has perverted our obedience. (Exodus 1: 10+11; Lamentations 3:35+36; 1 Samuel 2 16+17; etc.)

2. Does that require us or give us license to obey the government when it conflicts with Scripture?

No. If in our obedience, such as paying taxes, we are obeying God (Romans 13:2), then this is a non-issue. But if in our obedience to the government we are disobeying God, we are certainly liable for our sin (Daniel 6: 6-10; 1 Kings 12: 28-30; etc).

Originally Posted by JerryLove

So then you agree "like Saudi Arabia".

Yes. I agree in the sense that a Theocracy is a religious state/government. However, the way it is implemented, and what is implemented would be entirely different.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Collecting taxes, creating regulation, and socalizing systems (such as regulation enforcement) is the *function* of a government. You are promoting anarchy... which is a utopian ideal that, like all other utopian ideals, has no practical value.

Anarchy 4eva! But that is hardly what I am promoting. I am advocating a Scripturally based Theocracy, which has its own taxes, own regulations, and own social systems. My problem is not with those three general things; my problem is what those three general things have ended up being in this country (and others).

[JerryLove]

The Bible requires that everyone worship the Lord (Deut 16:11), and obey him (Ezra 7:26). Even so, no one can force anyone to do this, but punishment will be inflicted on those who don’t; either by eternal damnation, or in a Theocracy, civil punishment, or both. Is it really freedom of religion if you are punished for it?

Those are commands given specifically to the Jews... while you could argue that this would apply to any modern followers (though you may not succeed in that argument), it certainly was never intended to apply to non-believers.

Hardly. A person painting a church a different color than you like is not sinful, neither is spending more than I would on decorating. It is obviously anti-Biblical to create and enforce laws that conflict with Scripture, and especially to force people to abide by them.

But public school is not anti-Biblical... you are throwing out a red herring.

1. Is paying tax that will or could fund anti-Biblical crap sinful?

No.

"Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." - Rom 13

""Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."" - Matt 22, Mark 12, Luke 20

2. Does that require us or give us license to obey the government when it conflicts with Scripture?

No, but it does tell you to pay your taxes without exception. Paying your taxes is not a sin. Similarly, selling food to a sinner is not supporting sin.

[quote]No. If in our obedience, such as paying taxes, we are obeying God (Romans 13:2), then this is a non-issue. But if in our obedience to the government we are disobeying God, we are certainly liable for our sin (Daniel 6: 6-10; 1 Kings 12: 28-30; etc).[/qoute] OK. Now connect the dots... how is paying taxes, as required by the law, committing a sin. Do you think, when Jesus told his followers to pay the Roman taxes that Rome was doing nothing which was sinful?

Yes. I agree in the sense that a Theocracy is a religious state/government. However, the way it is implemented, and what is implemented would be entirely different.

Right. They don't stone kids to death for being insubordinate, nor for cursing their parents... There are more executable offenses and no mitigation under Judeo/Christian law. For example, Islamic law allows people to not obey religious requirement (such as not eating during the day during Ramadan, or making a pilgramige, or kneeling to Mecca) if circumstances make that dangerous or impractical... Biblical law offers no exceptions; in practice, an ambluance driver or policeman should be executed for reporting for work on Friday night.

Anarchy 4eva! But that is hardly what I am promoting. I am advocating a Scripturally based Theocracy, which has its own taxes, own regulations, and own social systems. My problem is not with those three general things; my problem is what those three general things have ended up being in this country (and others).

That's why there is a vote. Fortunetely, there aren't enough that share your beliefs to impose such an ill-concieved system.

[zoe r]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Those are commands given specifically to the Jews... while you could argue that this would apply to any modern followers (though you may not succeed in that argument), it certainly was never intended to apply to non-believers.

There is eternal damnation for anyone who does not believe (Matthew 3:10; Hebrews 12:25; etc), and civil punishment for anyone who does not abide by Mosaic Law (Leviticus 24:16; Leviticus 24:21-23; Numbers 15:15; etc).

Originally Posted by JerryLove

But public school is not anti-Biblical... you are throwing out a red herring.

Haha, I have no idea what “throwing out a red herring” means. Anyway, congregate schools are not anti-Biblical, but school systems that are foundationally secular, humanistic, and thus omit God from education are (1 John 4:3).

Originally Posted by JerryLove

No.

"Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." - Rom 13

""Caesar's," they replied. Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."" - Matt 22, Mark 12, Luke 20

Agreed.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

No, but it does tell you to pay your taxes without exception. Paying your taxes is not a sin. Similarly, selling food to a sinner is not supporting sin.

Agreed again.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Right. They don't stone kids to death for being insubordinate, nor for cursing their parents... There are more executable offenses and no mitigation under Judeo/Christian law.

Any comparisons you make between a system of Law that is absolutely just (Psalm 111:7), and ultimately the only valid law, to a system that is based on false presuppositions is ridiculous. God does not tolerate disobedience, and shame on those who do (1 Samuel 12:15).

Originally Posted by JerryLove

For example, Islamic law allows people to not obey religious requirement (such as not eating during the day during Ramadan, or making a pilgramige, or kneeling to Mecca) if circumstances make that dangerous or impractical... Biblical law offers no exceptions; in practice, an ambluance driver or policeman should be executed for reporting for work on Friday night.

Hardly.

Matthew 12:9-12
He went on from there and entered their synagogue. And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"--so that they might accuse him. He said to them, "Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."

[JerryLove]

There is eternal damnation for anyone who does not believe (Matthew 3:10; Hebrews 12:25; etc), and civil punishment for anyone who does not abide by Mosaic Law (Leviticus 24:16; Leviticus 24:21-23; Numbers 15:15; etc).

Well, let's drop the red-herring (perhaps you are more familiar with the term "pink elephant"?) of what does and does not garner damnation... that's not the subject.

As to civil punishments, in the OT God does instruct the Jews to enforce several of the laws on foreigners as well (and some only on foreigners). But you original comment is over compulsery observance of religion... "freedom of religion". God does not command his followers to stop followers of other faiths from having them.

Haha, I have no idea what “throwing out a red herring” means. Anyway, congregate schools are not anti-Biblical, but school systems that are foundationally secular, humanistic, and thus omit God from education are (1 John 4:3).

"Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world. " - 1John 4:1-3.

Could you tell me how testing spirits that appear and speak with you to find out if they are from God (and the rulling that any such spirits not from God oppose him) can possibly call you to conclude that secular edcation is anti-Biblical?

Any comparisons you make between a system of Law that is absolutely just (Psalm 111:7), and ultimately the only valid law, to a system that is based on false presuppositions is ridiculous. God does not tolerate disobedience, and shame on those who do (1 Samuel 12:15).

Regardless of the rhetoric you wrap it in, my statement remains true... there are more capital offenses and less mitigation under Jewesh law than under Muslim law.

Matthew 12:9-12
He went on from there and entered their synagogue. And a man was there with a withered hand. And they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"--so that they might accuse him. He said to them, "Which one of you who has a sheep, if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."

That does not discuss reporting for work. Or are cops allowed to stop crime but not fill out paperwork?

If you want to take the slippery slope, that police should report for work because it benifits someone; me working in the factory on the sabbath benifits my children; and me runing the convienence store benifits my patrons.

We are not discussing wheather it's OK for a doctor to perform CPR on a Saturday; I'm more interested in wheather the mechanic with the water dept can report for work or not.