[Vision2020] Trinity Festival protest

Sun Aug 12 19:08:20 PDT 2007

My my, it appears that you have been studying at the Mix-Campbell school of language usage. A institution that looks with pride on the use of phraseology such as "And that's the final word" being used to mean "More to follow I'm on a roll now." 

I assume that the part of this article that has your panties gathered is "Of course, there would be laws enforced against certain crimes which are currently ignored, such as homosexuality."

>From the same article:

"Punishment can also come through the conscience, the family, the church, the nature of things, and in the last judgment. No sin will ever go unpunished." A case of homosexual sin that has gone largely unpunished  by civil government would include priests and young boys as but one example.

Decidedly no mention of execution for our homosexual friends and neighbors in any case.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop this latest session of whack a mole we have been engaged in. I'm sure that you were right in that we are doubtlessly boring most of the list and I have a rather taxing week coming up and I've devoted too much of what should have been a more productive weekend to this game. (not that this hasn't been fun) I am going to fall back on the traditional usage of the phrase "and that's the final word" for this go around. The last "final word" is all yours.

g

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com>
Cc: <nickgier at adelphia.net>; "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 5:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Trinity Festival protest

> On 8/12/07, g. crabtree <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote:
>> Mr. Gier disingenuously inquires:
>>
>> "I'm very curious why Crabtree did not finish his exegesis of Greg Dickison,
>> the great Christ Church magistrate and jurist, who writes that "if we could
>> have it our way," then there would be capital punishment for "kidnapping,
>> sorcery, bestiality, adultery, homosexuality, and cursing one's parents."
>>
>> And in reply all I can say in is, I did. It was a short, fairly straight
>> forward piece, to have gone on at any greater length would have been to risk
>> becoming... lets just say that long winded and pedantic is already covered
>> on this list perfectly well by *others.*
>>
>> For the record taking two quotes and mashing them together to create the
>> impression that someone has said something they haven't doesn't display very
>> much intellectual honesty. (brief pause as I get over my surprise) Believe
>> me, as often as your foolish friend hansen has cluttered up my inbox with
>> the article in question, I'm quite sure that if the quoted phrase "if we
>> could have it our way," then there would be capital punishment for
>> "kidnapping, sorcery, bestiality, adultery, homosexuality, and cursing one's
>> parents." was contained therein I would have noticed. It wasn't
>>
>> Another case of repeat the lie often and loud. While this may be tactically
>> strategic, it's morally bankrupt.
> 
> Okay, Gary, how about this? It's from another article, by the same
> author. You can find it  here:
> http://www.credenda.org/old/issues/vol3/magi3-11.htm
> 
> 
> "There is one more step to take before we are ready to begin. In order
> to enforce laws, there must be a punishment for violation. If biblical
> law is to be biblically applied, then the biblical punishment must be
> used. At this point a curious thing happens: we find that not all the
> commandments have assigned punishments. Not so surprisingly, this
> causes some problems of application. Several commandments have
> punishments with which we are familiar, and for which we can readily
> see the sense. You shall not murder is a good example (Ex. 20:13). We
> can cite chapter and verse to show that a man shall be put to death if
> he kills another with premeditation, and we accept this as valid (Ex.
> 21:12-14). However, what about coveting your neighbor's possessions
> (Ex. 20:17)? Try as you might, you cannot find anything for the
> magistrate to do when one charged with covetousness is brought before
> him. Part of the problem lies in proving the guilt of someone accused
> of a purely subjective violation, as it is impossible for one man to
> judge the heart of another. So what about something more objective,
> like drunkenness? If someone is drunk, he has clearly broken the law
> of God (Eph. 5:18). Again, however, there is no assigned biblical
> penalty.
> 
> This points out the difference between calling something a sin and
> calling something a crime. A sin is any violation of God's law (1 Jn.
> 3:4). A crime is a violation of God's law which carries a temporal
> punishment to be meted out by the civil authority. Crime is a subset
> of sin. Thus, while all biblical crimes are sins, not all sins are
> crimes.
> 
> Many Christians will have a problem with this when they realize that
> many of the things which they rightly consider morally abhorrent were
> perfectly legal in ancient Israel, and would again be legal in a
> biblical society. We must keep in mind, however, the sovereignty of
> God and the various jurisdictions He has assigned to different
> governments He ordained. The lack of a civil penalty for a sin does
> not mean that the sinner gets away with it. Punishment can also come
> through the conscience, the family, the church, the nature of things,
> and in the last judgment. No sin will ever go unpunished. The only
> question is: which government was assigned to the task? When
> punishment comes from a government which has no proper authority to
> administer the penalty, the results are usurpation of the proper
> authority, ineffective discipline, contempt for law, and, in the
> temporal realm, abdication of responsibility by the authority which
> was supposed to administer the penalty.
> 
> So it is important to realize that a civil government based on
> biblical law would not be the oppressive system feared by
> non-Christians. Of course, there would be laws enforced against
> certain crimes which are currently ignored, such as homosexuality.
> However, there would be much more freedom than exists at present. A
> man could work at whatever job he pleased, he could do whatever he
> wanted with his property, and he would be assured of protection
> against the assaults of others. There would be no bureaucracies trying
> to build a perfect society by regulating all of creation. In fact, it
> is this very freedom that non-Christians fear, for it replaces the
> messianic State, which they trust, with the sovereign God, whom they
> hate.
> 
> The law of the Lord is perfect, and is something in which Christians
> should find great delight (Ps. 19:7; 119). A government based on that
> law would result in great freedom, and would be a witness to all
> nations of the sovereignty and goodness of God."
> 
> Is this clear enough?
> 
> -- ACS
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070812/cdf79467/attachment-0001.html 