Michael Schiavo - General Discussion - Third Millennium Discussion Groups - Third Millennium Ministries Discussion Forums - Message Board

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Goldberry of Withywindle	But the problem is...	#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 435 03/26/05 13:17:47	that according to law, there is a mechanism for ending a marriage. Yet Terri does not have access to it, for obvious reasons. So now what? Is there a point at which a spouse who cannot act on her own but is in a situation (that is, open and acknowledged adultery) where the law has always, even prior to no-fault divorce, acknowledged her right to be free, becomes free, or at least has the option of having someone other than the legally vow-violating spouse determine whether it is in her best interests to be freed? IOW, is there a point at which he actually loses the right to his covenantal privileges as a result of legally violating his covenantal obligations? (Not being nice to her is also violating his covenantal obligations, but common law has always recognized that adultery is a legal violation as well.) I'm Goldberry, and I support this post.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
rodkirby	Re: But the problem is...	#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 493 03/26/05 15:22:57	I agree. However, I guess I am looking at this from the point of view of making a strong argument in the whole issue. What arguments do we use -- those of us who are appalled by the removal of the feeding tube? Yes, there should be some way of dissolving this marriage. But, whether there is or not, Michael is still her husband. Yes, he has been unfaithful. But he is still her husband. I wonder if that is what makes public opinion so much in favor of him -- that there is still a concept that, as her spouse, he has the responsibility and right to make health care decisions for her. If I were incapacitated, I would trust my wife to be making the right decisions, and if that involved removal from life support, I have confidence that she would be doing the right thing. I think most married couples, Christian or not, believe the same thing. So I think our argument is not helped by talking about his unfaithfulness -- he is still her husband, and thus is able to decide her health care. I'm just concerned that, when we (conservatives and Christians) argue for our positions in the court of public opinion, we need to be using our strongest arguments, and not using weak or ambiguous arguments. Rod Kirby, Ph.D. Dominion Christian High School Marietta, GA dominionchristian.org
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
The Clinging Vine	Except his adulterous relationship is doubtless....	#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 12 03/26/05 15:37:37	....one of the motivating factors behind her murder. IOW, he has a vested interest in seeing her dead, and it's BECAUSE of his mistress and their children. Were he just flitting from one woman's bed to another, living a playboy lifestyle, then actually he might be far more willing to keep her alive. Marvelous protection from any expectation of marriage . . . he's already married! But this isn't the case. He's lived with this other woman for years and had two sons by her. His real "married" life is with her. Therefore, it's to his benefit Terri die. Personally, ISTM we need to be agitating for legislation saying that no one who stands to benefit from someone's death, whether monetarily or because it frees them to marry another, etc., can make decisions regarding plug-and/or-tube-pulling. Anne, a Predestinarian Complementarian The Vine's Blog "The saints of old have always placed their happiness, peace, and comfort in their perfect and complete justification, rather than in their imperfect and incomplete sanctification." -- Thomas Brooks (1608-1680)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
abewoelk	Come Again?	#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 648 03/26/05 15:53:20	"Personally, ISTM we need to be agitating for legislation saying that no one who stands to benefit from someone's death, whether monetarily or because it frees them to marry another, etc., can make decisions regarding plug-and/or-tube-pulling." I think the practical effect of that would be to remove from the decision-making process all spouses and children since pretty much every spouse and/or child will get life insurance, inherit property, or be free to remarry. So, the question then is who would be left to make the decision? Second cousins twice removed? I also don't see how letting Terri die frees him to remarry any better than simply filing for divorce. If that were his motivation, why didn't he simply file for divorce and leave her parents to take care of her?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
The Clinging Vine	Isn't he at least nominally Catholic?	#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 12 03/26/05 16:13:41	If he is - though, granted, he's surely not practicing it now - he would want to be married in the RCC. Got those boys, after all. If he divorced her, he couldn't do that. For a proper, official RCC marriage, only Terri's death will do. I've got lots of relatives from whom I shan't receive a significant inheritance. Actually, the more I mull on it, the more ISTM such a decision ought not to be in the hands of one person. Maybe three? Preferably from different branches of the family, as opposed to three children of the patient, or three siblings. If there's not enough family, the decision-team can be augmented by friends or court-appointed whatdoyoucallem's. But having someone's life in the hands of one person, and that person having a real motive for wanting that someone dead, is really stupid. That's fallen humanity for you, though. They prate on about the "essential goodness of human nature," without grasping the evilness that lurks inside us all. Anne, a Predestinarian Complementarian The Vine's Blog "The saints of old have always placed their happiness, peace, and comfort in their perfect and complete justification, rather than in their imperfect and incomplete sanctification." -- Thomas Brooks (1608-1680)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
abewoelk	Catholicism and Committee Decisions	#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 648 03/26/05 18:36:39	I don't claim to be an expert in Catholic polity, but I do know that these days there are enough divorcing and remarrying Catholics that death can't possibly be his only option. As much grief as the Catholic church has given him over this issue I'd be surprised if he's raising his sons Catholic anyway, but I don't actually know. And I confess to being troubled by your willingess to assign to him the worst possible motives. OK, so you disagree with his decision, but please at least consider the possibility that he's doing what he thinks is right. Please see Matthew 7:1 and the second half of I Samuel 16:7. And the problem with the committee approach to end of life decisions is that it guarantees that you will have situations like this where family members don't agree. I know up front that my spouse and my mother would make different choices -- he'd carry out my wishes not to be kept alive by machines; she'd keep me alive as long as possible regardless of my wishes. If someone's wishes are clear, that person shouldn't need anybody's permission to have them carried out. If they aren't clear, call me old fashioned but I think the marriage relationship is a special relationship that trumps everything else. "Therefore shall a man leave both his father and his mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh."
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
The Clinging Vine	[astonished] WHAT grief?	#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 12 03/26/05 19:27:53	The bishop of his diocese is on his side; so much so he'd forbidden Terri Schiavo's name be mentioned in churches, though he finally relented to the point she can be prayed for. Big of him, isn't it? According to a reporter for World magazine, there hasn't been a single priest outside the hospice in which Terri's being killed. The Catholic presence - or lack thereof - is puzzling. Granted, the pope came down hard on the side of not starving or dehydrating Terri, but that's about it. He hasn't received any significant grief at all from the local RCC. And shame on them! What wishes are you talking about? If everything's spelt out in a legal document, that's one thing. Not the situation with Terri, though, is it? All we've got is Michael - the one bound and determined to see her d.e.a.d., dead - and his siblings claiming she made a comment years ago about not wanting to be kept alive by machines. I don't suppose it matters to you that a feeding tube is not a machine? Didn't think so. For crying out loud, the person who has the most to gain by her death is the one claiming she once said she wouldn't want to be kept alive by machines and also the one making the decision to kill her. Wouldn't you prefer to not have the same person occupying all three of those positions? Used car salesmen must love to see you coming . . . you're an extraordinarily trusting soul. Anne, a Predestinarian Complementarian The Vine's Blog "The saints of old have always placed their happiness, peace, and comfort in their perfect and complete justification, rather than in their imperfect and incomplete sanctification." -- Thomas Brooks (1608-1680)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
abewoelk	Re: [astonished] WHAT grief? and yet another issue	#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 648 03/26/05 23:48:47	I was referring to the Vatican. Technically a feeding tube is a machine, but even if it weren't I don't think that changes the analysis. And you've never met me but I'm actually fairly cynical where human nature is concerned. I'm willing to acknowledge the possibility that Michael Schiavo may well be the "self seeking reptile" Tom Fleming called him; I just don't think the Schindlers have come within a country mile of proving it. I just wish you would acknowledge the alternative possibility: that he may be doing what he thinks is right. And I also think that because of human nature any system that gets implemented will lead to bad results in particular cases; I'm concerned with finding the system that works the best the greatest number of times, and I think the one we have now does that. Hate the Schiavo result as much as you like, most of the time the current system more or less works. Most family members will have personal interests and I'm not sure family gridlock -- which is how this case dragged on for 15 years in the first place -- would be better. Decide who the decisionmaker should be and get out of their way. But since you want to talk about financial motive, here's an interesting question that I was going to start a new thread on: Once upon a time not so very long ago people got sick and died. People did not linger for 15 years because there was no technology to keep them alive. Had Terri Schiavo had her stroke in 1890 rather than 1990 she would have died within a day and that would have been that. We are now at the point where lots of people who would have quickly died a generation ago are being kept alive for five or ten years at a cost of a million dollars each. What happens when we reach the point where all of us can have our lives extended five or ten years but at a cost of a million dollars each? It is well and good to say we are pro-life and believe that life should be preserved, but somebody has got to pay for all this expensive technology. I agree with you that money is not the supreme value, but neither is it entirely irrelevant. At what point does the pro-life position become too expensive to maintain?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
The Clinging Vine	Now, BION, you and I agree on something.	#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 12 03/27/05 00:15:04	Understand, I draw a distinct line between feeding someone who cannot otherwise feed themselves, since we each and every one of us arrive in the world in that condition (I've a two week old grandbaby, and if she were dumped on the floor and ignored, she'd die of dehydration and starvation, seeing as how she's no more capable of feeding herself than Terri Schiavo), and throwing one treatment after another at someone in a bid to stave off the inevitable. Remember when Micky Mantle received an organ transplant at an advanced age, and with him in poor health anyway? And he still died, big surprise. That was simply ludicrous. The man was in bad shape, plus in his 60's, and they STILL performed an organ transplant! You are quite right that the mad chasing after immortality our society seems to be bent upon is foolish in the extreme, but deliberately killing (for that's what it IS) someone by withholding their food and water is wicked. Mark my words, a "right" to die, such as the current law permits, will sooner rather than later become an obligation to die. A willingness to be "permitted" to die so as not to be a burden to our families and society will devolve into a responsibility to die so as not be a burden. Anne, a Predestinarian Complementarian The Vine's Blog "The saints of old have always placed their happiness, peace, and comfort in their perfect and complete justification, rather than in their imperfect and incomplete sanctification." -- Thomas Brooks (1608-1680)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
ramclaughlin	ethical systems	#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1455 03/28/05 16:43:21	*Quote:* And I also think that because of human nature any system that gets implemented will lead to bad results in particular cases; I'm concerned with finding the system that works the best the greatest number of times, and I think the one we have now does that. Hate the Schiavo result as much as you like, most of the time the current system more or less works. Most family members will have personal interests and I'm not sure family gridlock -- which is how this case dragged on for 15 years in the first place -- would be better. Decide who the decisionmaker should be and get out of their way. The question of what an ethical system should look like has been and is still debated. Some advocate rules-based systems, others do not. I am of the opinion that the Bible does not endorse a pure rules-based system. It's rules are expressions of divine character, and divine character is the ultimate standard. Political systems have related problems. Rules (laws) exist that enable to government to rule more efficiently and more fairly. But the laws are not perfect, nor are they ever the best solution. Laws speak in generalities, but get applied to specifics. Ever application of a law is unique in some way, and the law does not take these unique elements into account. Our current laws acknowledge this, which is why we speak of such things as "mitigating circumstances," etc. We also have a process whereby the applicability of laws to particular cases can be tested. We also have a process whereby laws can be changed, and even one whereby they can be rendered ineffective by other laws. When we find weaknesses in our laws (as some see now in the Shiavo case), it is appropriate to rewrite them. No human law is ever perfect; every law can be improved. In all cases, laws should be guidelines, not hard and fast rules (I'm essentially opposed to mandatory sentencing on principle). When the circumstances of a particular case warrant it, the government should have the ability apply justice and fairness rather than law.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
rodkirby	Re: ethical systems	#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 493 03/28/05 17:04:39	It's the age-old problem: no matter how good the laws are, if the people (both the people interpreting/enforcing the laws, and the people subject to the laws) do not have the proper attitude and motivation, the laws are ineffective. Laws cannot make people good, cannot make people obey. Less extreme example than Terri Schiavo: at my school, we have rules about the dress code. 75% of the students, who come from godly homes and have been taught Biblical submission to authority, see those rules as reasonable and have no problem following them. The other 25% -- either from non-Christian homes, or who have not been raised in a Christian way -- buck and rebel against the rules, and manage to find loopholes and exceptions consistently. No matter how much detail we specify, these students will find some way around it. We still need the rules, but we also realize that writing a bunch of rules is not what defines us as a Christian school. Likewise with the civil law. Even if we rewrite the laws post-Schiavo, other situations will come up in which those laws either don't apply, or in which a wooden application of the laws will result in injustice. This is not the case with God's Law, but all human law systems are, at best, imperfect attempts at implementing God's perfect system of justice and righteousness. Rod Kirby, Ph.D. Dominion Christian High School Marietta, GA dominionchristian.org
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
abewoelk	OK, how about another approach	#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 648 03/28/05 17:34:55	Ra's system of justice and a good result is appealing, but the problem is: justice and a good result as defined by whom? In this case, Michael Schiavo thinks there is a just and good result; Terri's parents disagree. There will always be a winner and a loser, and the winner will think the result was perfectly fine and the loser won't. So how about having a conversation about values: Which values are important. Is it more important to live in a free society than a society with a presumption in favor of life, for example, which is the real nub of what we've been talking about here. Once we figure out what values are important for a legal system to foster, then and only then can we start to write rules.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Goldberry of Withywindle	The problem with...	#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 435 03/28/05 23:56:15	"decide who the decisionmaker should be and get out of the way" is that there must be some limit on what a decisionmaker can decide. For example, the decisionmaker is not allowed to decide that the person be slowly tortured to death with dull knives, during a ritual involving the decapitation of live cats. So given that there must be limits, we still have to decide the outer limits of what is acceptable to be done to people under what circumstances, and what is not. I'm Goldberry, and I support this post.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
abewoelk	Re The Problem With . . .	#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 648 03/29/05 02:30:48	Well, I'm in favor of decapitating as many cats as possible, and Noah should have tossed both cats overboard (as well as swatted both flies), but on your broader point, I think that goes to the values question I raised in my "another approach" comment. I'm not a pure libertarian though I do have tendencies in that direction, and I place a high value on individual autonomy. So if somebody really wants to be tortured to death with dull knives, I would not accommodate him myself but I'm not sure I'd prosecute a volunteer who stepped forward. After all, we allow people to go to churches whose theology is the spiritual equivalent of being tortured to death with dull knives (and I would argue the stakes are higher since such churches destroy souls and spirits whereas the guy with the actual dull knife only destroys the body). I would argue that if you are a theocrat who wants to make God's law the law of the land that euthanasia does far less social harm than does Mormonism so you'd be better off going after the Mormons.. But again, this really comes down to a clash of premises. I start with the premise that the government's primary objective is get out of the way. You don't.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
ramclaughlin	Re: Re The Problem With . . .	#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1455 03/29/05 13:37:53	*Quote:* Well, I'm in favor of decapitating as many cats as possible, and Noah should have tossed both cats overboard (as well as swatted both flies), but on your broader point, I think that goes to the values question I raised in my "another approach" comment. gasp! Even Bucky? My Favorite Cat *Quote:* I'm not a pure libertarian though I do have tendencies in that direction, and I place a high value on individual autonomy. So if somebody really wants to be tortured to death with dull knives, I would not accommodate him myself but I'm not sure I'd prosecute a volunteer who stepped forward. After all, we allow people to go to churches whose theology is the spiritual equivalent of being tortured to death with dull knives (and I would argue the stakes are higher since such churches destroy souls and spirits whereas the guy with the actual dull knife only destroys the body). I would argue that if you are a theocrat who wants to make God's law the law of the land that euthanasia does far less social harm than does Mormonism so you'd be better off going after the Mormons.. I have to agree with you that more harm is done by bad religion. But utilitarian arguments such as this are only part of the picture. The greatest good is important, but there are many other factors to consider as well. In any event, I do favor a theocracy, specifically one in which King Jesus turns over the kingdom to his Father. Maranatha! At any rate, it seems to me that the best human approximation of the reign of God is not a democracy or a republic. I would prefer a righteous theocratic monarchy to what we have now. *Quote:* But again, this really comes down to a clash of premises. I start with the premise that the government's primary objective is get out of the way. You don't. I think you mean "should be to get out of the way," not "is." I don't think this is a scripturally defensible picture of human government's obligations.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
abewoelk	Re: Re The Problem With . . .	#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 648 03/29/05 16:23:00	On the Scripturally defensible issue, this is not Israel and we are not under the Law of Moses. Jesus explicitly eschewed political power, saying that his Kingdom was not of this world. Paul in Romans 13 did say that the civil magistrate is the minister of God, but which civil magistrate was he referring to? Nero! In Timothy Paul exhorts us to pray for kings and for all that are in authority that we might lead quiet and peaceable lives. In sum, I see nothing in the New Testament that suggests that Christians are to try to control civil government. The New Testament recognizes, if not explicitly then at least by implication, that in this age governing would largely be the purview of the pagans. You will search the New Testament from Matthew to Revelation in vain in an attempt to find a passage anywhere in which Christians were told to try to seize the reins of power in Rome (or even Jerusalem). On a more practical level, there are a number of reasons why America isn't and can't be a theocracy: 1. While evangelical Christians form a substantial minority of the population, America's population is in no way a Christian population. What makes you think __your__ theocracy would be the one that ultimately prevailed? 2. That rigid wall of separation between church and state that many evangelicals decry has in fact kept us from the sectarian violence that characterizes other countries that mix church and state. Personally, I have no real interest in living in Northern Ireland, Iran or Pakistan. And even nominally Christian European nations like France and Germany that have official state churches without sectarian violence have churches that don't try to get involved in politics -- they take their taxpayer money and keep quiet about matters of state. 3. In America, religion thrives in part because of separation of church and state. Again, I would cite Western Europe: In England, France and Germany, all of which have state churches, approximately 3% of the population is regular churchgoers. In America, with a wall of separation, the population of regular churchgoers is about 60%. These results speak for themselves. 4. Churches, like other institutions, are run by fallible humans, and power tends to corrupt. Again, Europe provides the example: The corruption that inevitably comes from mixing church and state ultimately led Martin Luther to condemn both institutions and start a Reformation. 5. Finally, our Constitution forbids it. I realize the Constitution is not always perfect and it can be changed, but for Reasons 1-4 above I think this particular change would be a bad idea.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
JohnCallaghan	A small correction	#17	[url]	[-]
Posts: 117 03/29/05 17:08:44 Guest	France does not have a state church. Since the French Revolution, the French government has been more or less at odds with the church. In fact, troughout most of Europe, socialist governements in the last two hundred years have been more or less explicitly anti-Catholic. On the other end of the political spectrum, Bismark's Kulterkampf and and Hitler's policies were aimed at weakening the Catholic Church.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
ramclaughlin	Re: Re The Problem With . . .	#18	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1455 03/29/05 17:09:03	That's a rather truncated and simplistic response. There are many good scriptural arguments for a theocracy, some of which have been discussed on the boards before. Your answer ignores many points made already that refute your arguments. I won't bother to rehash them here. I will, however, point out that Scripture is not the New Testament. It is both Testaments. Good arguments can be formed from both Testaments. The theonomists have done a decent job of pointing out some of these, as have many others. I might add that many ancient philosophers also advocated a theocracy (e.g., Plato). And Christians need not "seize" power. The point is that the government should uphold God's standards, regardless of its personal faith or lack thereof. On your numbered practical matters: 1. It's not "my" theocracy. Scriptural principles should rule. I'm not the be all and end all of what is scriptural. In any event, this same problem is shared by all governments: who decides what is right and wrong? Your argument is not specific to theocracy; it is an argument against all government. You are essentially advocating anarchy here. 2. Separation of church and state may have prevented some sectarian violence, but you have not demonstrated this. A biblical theocratic monarchy would prevent violence, not permit or endorse it. Besides this, our current system endorses and even funds the killing of babies. Personally, I'd rather have people killing Christians than killing babies. The former reaps eternal rewards for the martyrs, the latter does not. I wonder how the numbers stack up. I suspect that we kill more babies per capita than other countries kill in religious oppression. In any case, if Christians were more faithful and more dedicated to prayer, we might be able to suppress at least some of that violence (1 Tim. 2:1-2). And if we had a more biblical theology of suffering, we might welcome it (e.g., Phil. 1:29). 3. I am not arguing for a state church, per se. I am arguing for a theocratic monarchy. That need not involve a state church. In any event, the numbers do not speak for themselves. You have not demonstrated a causal connection between separation of church and state, and regular church attendance. Perhaps such a connection exists, but it needs to be demonstrated. 4. Are you saying that power is more likely to corrupt when it is religious than when it is not? How do you come to such a conclusion, other than the obvious anecdote you offer? Contrary examples also exist. Israel under David and Solomon was certainly a better place than contemporary Assyria. 5. Well, of course our constitution forbids a monarchy. But that is not a practical argument against the superiority of a theocratic monarchy. It makes it hard to implement here, but it is no argument for a monarchy being inferior.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
abewoelk	Re: Re The Problem With . . .	#19	[url]	[-]
Posts: 648 03/29/05 18:03:11	I wasn't actually making a dispensational argument in the sense of setting aside the Old Testament. Rather, I was arguing that the theonomic arguments from the Old Testament assume conditions that no longer exist -- this is not a majority Christian nation, we don't have a theocratic form of government, we don't have prophets with direct lines from God to tell the civil leadership what God's will is, etc. None of these are true in our day and none of them has been true for a very long time. Further, the writers of the New Testament were well aware that times had changed and the assumptions implicitly found in their writings, which I detailed in my previous post, indicate that. 1. No, I'm not advocating anarchy; I'm arguing for minimalist government. There is a crucial difference. Under the system I advocate, government does the minimum necessary to maintain peace and order so people can get on with their lives. And my question about __your__ theonomy wasn't directed at you personally as much as what makes you think __Christianity__ would prevail in a free-for-all fight among competing sects for power. 2. A theocratic monarchy would only prevent sectarian violence if it were strong enough to suppress any rival sects and had the stomach to use the mullahs' methods on their own people whenever a rival sect arose. You might try asking those who deal with suicide bombers how easy it is to maintain a homogenous theonomy when not everyone agrees with your particular faith. 3. A theocratic monarchy would, of necessity, be a state church or its functional equivalent. Maybe not a denominational church, but by making Big-C Christianity the official state religion and the basis for the civil laws, you've given us a state church. As to church attendance numbers, my broader point is that the free market almost always does things more efficiently than does centralized power. Here in America, churches don't get government subsidies (unless you consider being tax exempt a subsidy); churches have to go out and compete in the free market of ideas for worshippers and gifts. So of course they do better than their European counterparts who preach to empty churches and then go back to their offices to cash their government checks. 4. I'm saying all power corrupts, civil and religious, and when you mix the two the corruption level goes up exponentially. I'm sure exceptions can be found, but I'm equally sure that that is the general rule.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
ramclaughlin	Re: Re The Problem With . . .	#20	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1455 03/30/05 18:38:46	*Quote:* I was arguing that the theonomic arguments from the Old Testament assume conditions that no longer exist -- this is not a majority Christian nation, we don't have a theocratic form of government, we don't have prophets with direct lines from God to tell the civil leadership what God's will is, etc. None of these are true in our day and none of them has been true for a very long time. Huh? I'm have never heard of a single theonomist who did not recognize that these conditions no longer exist. Perhaps there are some, but the overwhelming majority agree that we are not a Christian nation, that we don't have a theocracy, and that we have no more prophets. These details do not impact the argument that a theocracy is inherently superior to a democracy or republic. Also, for accuracy's sake, we have records of only a few inspired prophets who informed the kings. Most had to make do without prophets. The fact is that God established many different governments in Scripture, and that they were almost all theocratic governments with a monarchical head: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Saul, David, Jesus. I know Moses wasn't a king, but he functioned like one. And yes, there was a period of judges, the point of which was to indicate to God's people that they needed a righteous king (e.g., Jdg. 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). God himself is the great king -- always has been and always will be. But I rehash. 1. Minimalist vs. Anarchy. Fair enough regarding what you intend to advocate. I was simply pointing out that the same problem exists with any law. Whether we make lots of laws or only a few, the problem someone has to make them. So, will "I" make them or will "you"? 2. It is illegitimate to compare a non-Christian/non-biblical theocracy to a Christian/biblical theocracy. One has a real God to back it up, the other doesn't. One has true morality as its basis, the other doesn't. 3. I am willing to set aside the debate regarding whether or not such a state church is necessary and stipulate that I think a state church is preferrable because it is more biblical. God does not need us to build a special kind of government in order to make sure he gets his numbers up in the pews. What he demands is our voluntary submission to his authority. He can make Christians out of rocks if he needs to (Luke 19:40). 4. I'd love to see your argument for this. Sounds preposterous to me to say that a Christian in government is almost always exponentially worse than an atheist. In any event, in government, there is always a mix. Everyone has a religious aspect to his worldview, even if its agnostic or atheistic, and this aspect impact his ethical beliefs. And everyone in government has some type of civil power. There is no way not to mix it. Thus, you are essentially saying that an atheistic worldview yields less corruption than a religious worldview. That's absurd.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking

Yuku free message boards