<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16481" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I assume that the part of this article that
has your panties gathered is "<EM>Of course, there would be laws enforced
against certain crimes which are currently ignored, such as
homosexuality.</EM>"</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From the same article:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>"<EM>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."</EM> A case of homosexual sin that
has gone largely unpunished by civil government would include priests and
young boys as but one example.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Decidedly no mention of execution for our
homosexual friends and neighbors in any case.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>g<BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>----- Original Message ----- </FONT>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>From: "Andreas Schou" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:ophite@gmail.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>ophite@gmail.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To: "g. crabtree" <</FONT><A
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>jampot@roadrunner.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Cc: <</FONT><A
href="mailto:nickgier@adelphia.net"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>nickgier@adelphia.net</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>; "Tom
Hansen" <</FONT><A href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>thansen@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>; <</FONT><A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>vision2020@moscow.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2007 5:25 PM</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Trinity Festival
protest</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><BR><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></DIV><FONT face=Arial
size=2>> On 8/12/07, g. crabtree <</FONT><A
href="mailto:jampot@roadrunner.com"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>jampot@roadrunner.com</FONT></A><FONT face=Arial size=2>>
wrote:<BR>>> Mr. Gier disingenuously inquires:<BR>>><BR>>>
"I'm very curious why Crabtree did not finish his exegesis of Greg
Dickison,<BR>>> the great Christ Church magistrate and jurist, who writes
that "if we could<BR>>> have it our way," then there would be capital
punishment for "kidnapping,<BR>>> sorcery, bestiality, adultery,
homosexuality, and cursing one's parents."<BR>>><BR>>> And in reply
all I can say in is, I did. It was a short, fairly straight<BR>>> forward
piece, to have gone on at any greater length would have been to risk<BR>>>
becoming... lets just say that long winded and pedantic is already
covered<BR>>> on this list perfectly well by
*others.*<BR>>><BR>>> For the record taking two quotes and mashing
them together to create the<BR>>> impression that someone has said
something they haven't doesn't display very<BR>>> much intellectual
honesty. (brief pause as I get over my surprise) Believe<BR>>> me, as
often as your foolish friend hansen has cluttered up my inbox with<BR>>>
the article in question, I'm quite sure that if the quoted phrase "if
we<BR>>> could have it our way," then there would be capital punishment
for<BR>>> "kidnapping, sorcery, bestiality, adultery, homosexuality, and
cursing one's<BR>>> parents." was contained therein I would have noticed.
It wasn't<BR>>><BR>>> Another case of repeat the lie often and loud.
While this may be tactically<BR>>> strategic, it's morally
bankrupt.<BR>> <BR>> Okay, Gary, how about this? It's from another
article, by the same<BR>> author. You can find it here:<BR>>
</FONT><A href="http://www.credenda.org/old/issues/vol3/magi3-11.htm"><FONT
face=Arial
size=2>http://www.credenda.org/old/issues/vol3/magi3-11.htm</FONT></A><BR><FONT
face=Arial size=2>> <BR>> <BR>> "There is one more step to take before
we are ready to begin. In order<BR>> to enforce laws, there must be a
punishment for violation. If biblical<BR>> law is to be biblically applied,
then the biblical punishment must be<BR>> used. At this point a curious thing
happens: we find that not all the<BR>> commandments have assigned
punishments. Not so surprisingly, this<BR>> causes some problems of
application. Several commandments have<BR>> punishments with which we are
familiar, and for which we can readily<BR>> see the sense. You shall not
murder is a good example (Ex. 20:13). We<BR>> can cite chapter and verse to
show that a man shall be put to death if<BR>> he kills another with
premeditation, and we accept this as valid (Ex.<BR>> 21:12-14). However, what
about coveting your neighbor's possessions<BR>> (Ex. 20:17)? Try as you
might, you cannot find anything for the<BR>> magistrate to do when one
charged with covetousness is brought before<BR>> him. Part of the problem
lies in proving the guilt of someone accused<BR>> of a purely subjective
violation, as it is impossible for one man to<BR>> judge the heart of
another. So what about something more objective,<BR>> like drunkenness? If
someone is drunk, he has clearly broken the law<BR>> of God (Eph. 5:18).
Again, however, there is no assigned biblical<BR>> penalty.<BR>> <BR>>
This points out the difference between calling something a sin and<BR>>
calling something a crime. A sin is any violation of God's law (1 Jn.<BR>>
3:4). A crime is a violation of God's law which carries a temporal<BR>>
punishment to be meted out by the civil authority. Crime is a subset<BR>> of
sin. Thus, while all biblical crimes are sins, not all sins are<BR>>
crimes.<BR>> <BR>> Many Christians will have a problem with this when they
realize that<BR>> many of the things which they rightly consider morally
abhorrent were<BR>> perfectly legal in ancient Israel, and would again be
legal in a<BR>> biblical society. We must keep in mind, however, the
sovereignty of<BR>> God and the various jurisdictions He has assigned to
different<BR>> governments He ordained. The lack of a civil penalty for a sin
does<BR>> not mean that the sinner gets away with it. Punishment can also
come<BR>> through the conscience, the family, the church, the nature of
things,<BR>> and in the last judgment. No sin will ever go unpunished. The
only<BR>> question is: which government was assigned to the task?
When<BR>> punishment comes from a government which has no proper authority
to<BR>> administer the penalty, the results are usurpation of the
proper<BR>> authority, ineffective discipline, contempt for law, and, in
the<BR>> temporal realm, abdication of responsibility by the authority
which<BR>> was supposed to administer the penalty.<BR>> <BR>> So it is
important to realize that a civil government based on<BR>> biblical law would
not be the oppressive system feared by<BR>> non-Christians. Of course, there
would be laws enforced against<BR>> certain crimes which are currently
ignored, such as homosexuality.<BR>> However, there would be much more
freedom than exists at present. A<BR>> man could work at whatever job he
pleased, he could do whatever he<BR>> wanted with his property, and he would
be assured of protection<BR>> against the assaults of others. There would be
no bureaucracies trying<BR>> to build a perfect society by regulating all of
creation. In fact, it<BR>> is this very freedom that non-Christians fear, for
it replaces the<BR>> messianic State, which they trust, with the sovereign
God, whom they<BR>> hate.<BR>> <BR>> The law of the Lord is perfect,
and is something in which Christians<BR>> should find great delight (Ps.
19:7; 119). A government based on that<BR>> law would result in great
freedom, and would be a witness to all<BR>> nations of the sovereignty and
goodness of God."<BR>> <BR>> Is this clear enough?<BR>> <BR>> --
ACS<BR>></FONT></BODY></HTML>