What is Theonomy?

[Dee Dee Warren]

It depends. In such a case as this, I would start my own thread. Lately if someone annoys me that much, I put them on ignore. It has been a great way to enjoy the Internet more again. I am getting too old and crabby to deal with some of the nonsense. Thank God for the great admins here so I can skate.

[Arnold]

This is now for you to regard as a warning, since you didn;t take my comments on board. I will engage the issue. However, this is not - I repeat NOT - a flame zone. It will not be tolerated here. The most appropriate thng to do would be to acknowlegde the flames and see that they were not conducive to our potential discussion. I'll comment on the substantial comments that you made among those other comments a little later today.

I did not flame you - get over it. I am however glad that you have seen the wisdom in answering my objections instead continually brushing me off...

[Dee Dee Warren]

why did you delete your post and then repost the exact same thing?

[Arnold]

why did you delete your post and then repost the exact same thing?

I didn't - what's going on?

[Glenn P]

Arnold, if you really think the standards of this thread are too high, and that you have a divinely ordained right to invade other people's threads with accusations of being cult like and propagating unwanted vitriol and ruining potentially rewarding discussions, please, start a locker room thread and complain that you ought to have this right. Don't post here about it. This request has been made to you very clearly, and not at all in the spirit of your posts. Respect it. Even if you think it's stupid and unreasonable for other people to expect these standards.

Having identified the obvious flaming and borderline trolling on your part, I have said that I will select out of your posts those comments that are related to the thread, and I will comment on them.

[Arnold]

Arnold, if you really think the standards of this thread are too high, and that you have a divinely ordained right to invade other people's threads with accusations of being cult like and propagating unwanted vitriol and ruining potentially rewarding discussions, please, start a locker room thread and complain that you ought to have this right. Don't post here about it.

Having identified the obvious flaming and borderline torlling on your part, I have said that I will select out of your posts those comments that are related to the thread, and I will comment on them.

Stop hiding behind your artificial indignation. If you had just addressed my questions in the first place instead of just brushing me off there would not have been a problem. Your intransigence is the problem here.

But it is easy to see why you wish to avoid me...

[Dee Dee Warren]

settle down boys

[Ryokan]

OK that kind of rhetoric is ridiculous. You are injecting the false claim that Theonomy = the form of government whereby a select few act lke God and control the nation. Forewt this. Get it out of your head. It didn't come from me, and it is not entailed by anything I've said. I smell a preconcieved animosity to Theonomy.

You claim theonomy is: to live by Gods law. i am saying, that sounds great. However, you also want to base your government on a paticular part of God's law. Which is divided, interpretted, and enforced based wholly upon human ideas. Whether a small elite, or the masses, human beings are taking what is written in the bible, interpretting it, and forming it into modern laws. Some men, somehwre, are pretending they are God writing a legal code. This is similiar to what they did in Iran. just a different source material. ITs not a mischaracterization at all.

In fact it is relative. That's brute. Otherwise there is literally no such thing as cultural relativity, because anyone could say "well in my culture, this is absolutely the way we do things." To use language as you sare now using it makes the terms mean brand new things, and this is never conducive to communication.

If I am a God, and I ordain to moral codes, at the beginning of time, for two differents peoples and times, Am I being relative? Or excercising my perogative as a diety. Misrepresenting others statements is not conducive to communication.

That depends on what you think is being said in Kosher law. If you think that they express moral judgements in the first place, you could raise a fair objection. That would be a very difficult case to argue, however, especially in light of th eway various ritual las distinguished between Israelites and foreigners.

But then, ultimately, you are having men divide the law. And once you do that, however good they may be at it, it is still a man made law.

To say that the moral law changes over time and in differnt places just is relativism. That's what it is.

Then the majority of CHristians could be understood as moral relatavists. This is not right theonomy. its like the way LGM used to call the early christians cultists. in a technical since, that is exactly what they were. But in the popular usuage of the word, cultist is a derogatory name. It is relatvie, to the time and place. But it is not moral relativity as espoused by some secularists, and based not on cultural whims, but on God's objective, divine will. So, to call it relativity is misleading in a general conversation.

If by "the Hebrew codes" you're referring to things that God did not command, we fully agree.
So the laws of morality remain constant but the code of morality changes? You'd need to unpack this in order for it to make sense.

The things GOd says are immoral could stay immoral, and be immoral, without the Hebrew legal system attached to them.

Oh, you mean like what we have now, with people interpreting the law?
How does it differ from the USA? Judges interpreting the law and applying it as they interpret it.

It doesn't. That's the point. Its just another theocracy. Men playing at God.

If Theonomy is correct, then the moral laws that Scripture indicates are so serious on a civil level that they should be legislated on, are the ones that should be legislated on.

And before we continue, can you tell me and all the readers of this thread what you mean by "theocracy"?

Theocracy(thanks Webster's) 1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.

I would add that the masses, in a democratic theocracy, could be interpretted as divinely guided, too.

[Arnold]

settle down boys

I thought moderators were not allowed to moderate threads they are posting in...

[Glenn P]

In spite of the fact that I have said I am willing to separarte out the trollng and flaiming from Arnold's posts and respond to the points he made among those other comments, he insists on continuing to be, in simply terms, a dork.

You were going to get responses from me, Arnold. Now you are not. Leave this thread and take your concerns elsewhere.

[Arnold]

In spite of the fact that I have said I am willing to separarte out the trollng and flaiming from Arnold's posts and respond to the points he made among those other comments, he insists on continuing to be, in simply terms, a dork.

You were going to get responses from me, Arnold. Now you are not. Leave this thread and take your concerns elsewhere.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderator Notice

Take it to the locker room Arnold.

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[SpinyNorman]

You are simply a whiner and a coward - and a cultist.

Case closed...

You Arnold, are a twit.

Plain and simple. Some of us are reading this thread to learn....you are seeking to start a fight.

Get lost.

[Glenn P]

You claim theonomy is: to live by Gods law. i am saying, that sounds great. However, you also want to base your government on a paticular part of God's law. Which is divided, interpretted, and enforced based wholly upon human ideas. Whether a small elite, or the masses, human beings are taking what is written in the bible, interpretting it, and forming it into modern laws.

Yes

Some men, somehwre, are pretending they are God writing a legal code.

No, and where on earth did this pop up from?

This is similiar to what they did in Iran. just a different source material. ITs not a mischaracterization at all.

OK, then if the only similarity between Theonomy and Iran is the fact that they are taking principles and applying them to contemporary situations, then it's no more similar to Iran than to a whole number of western democracies as well.

If I am a God, and I ordain to moral codes, at the beginning of time, for two differents peoples and times, Am I being relative? Or excercising my perogative as a diety.

Both.

Misrepresenting others statements is not conducive to communication.

I didn't misrepresent anything. The above scenario is moral relativism, since it denies moral absolutism.

Then the majority of CHristians could be understood as moral relatavists. This is not right theonomy. its like the way LGM used to call the early christians cultists. in a technical since, that is exactly what they were. But in the popular usuage of the word, cultist is a derogatory name. It is relatvie, to the time and place. But it is not moral relativity as espoused by some secularists, and based not on cultural whims, but on God's objective, divine will.

This is not really the usual way i think about the word "objective." Nor is this like what you are referring to in LGM's posts. I do think that far to many Christians are moral relativists to some extent, and I think this is a bad thing.

So, to call it relativity is misleading in a general conversation.

No, no! I really mean that it is moral relativism as traditionally understood. there's no equivocation or slippery word usage at all here.

The things GOd says are immoral could stay immoral, and be immoral, without the Hebrew legal system attached to them.

But you said that the moral code could change, even though moral truths don't. Is that what you meant?

It doesn't. That's the point. Its just another theocracy. Men playing at God.

If that's all you mean, then any government is an attempt at theocracy. But that's just not at all how I - or many people, I suspect - think about the idea of theocracy.

Theocracy(thanks Webster's) 1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.

I would add that the masses, in a democratic theocracy, could be interpretted as divinely guided, too.

Then theocracy becomes so trivial as to be unalarming. I do want to live in a society that endorses standards that are divinely ordained and just.

[Arnold]

You Arnold, are a twit.

Plain and simple. Some of us are reading this thread to learn....you are seeking to start a fight.

Get lost.

• Edited by a Moderator •

Moderator Notice

Locker room material

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[Ryokan]

I can't talk to you civilly about this subject, theonomy. We talk aside each other. I am bowing out. Sorry.