145 replies to this topic

[Rousas]

According to Old Testament Law (God's law), where an offense is treason against society, there are particularly severe penalties imposed. The death penalty was not limited to those who commit murder, but others crimes as well, mainly against the family and society, including adultery. It is simply an application of God's law (that is, Biblical law) to modern society which he taught. I would need much more time to properly explain this, though. So, if you would like me to do so, I will post something on the Theology board when I have a spare moment or two, where I believe such a thing would be much more appropriate. There are many misunderstandings (deliberate or not) which people believe he taught, we can discuss those as well, if in that you will contend.

Are you voting for 'Aunold?'

[MosJan]

will i'm going to be voting for Larry Flynt it's time to bust the porn in CA

[gamavor]

I will deliberetly save moment or two to Rousas

http://armenians.com...68&hl=rushdoony

Edited by gamavor, 11 August 2003 - 04:28 PM.

[America-Hye]

Biblical Law has no place in a free society. When Biblical law takes precedence you end up with a place like present day Iran. As for the Old Testament, if my ancestors wanted to follow it instead of the New Testament they would have remained Jews instead of converting to Christianity in the twelfth century.

I do think that Davis has put himself into the situation he finds himself. His past campaigns have been atrocious, as the pro-Armenian Atty. Gen. Lockyer clearly stated last week. His campaign against Riordan was despicable. As for "Aunold", Riordan would have been a more seasoned governor.

If Davis was behind the statements of Democratic operative Robert Mulholland, then he should definately be removed. Those statemnts are the most despicable political comments I have ever heard. To terrify Arnold's wife at such a time is absolutely despicable.

[Armat]

I KNOW YOU AND YOUR LIKES.YOU ARE FROM THE MINOROTY THAT BURIED THE ARMENIAN FLAG FOR MORE THAN 75 YEARS.AND NOW SUDDENLY YOU ARE A TRUE ARMENIAN.YOU BROWN NOSE THE SOVIATE UNION.AND NEVER HAVE FAITH THAT WE CAN HAVE AN INDEPENDENT STATE.I AM GLADE THAT WE DID NOT LISTEN TO YOU AND YOUR LIKES.OR ELSE EVEN ARTSAKH WAS LOST.THANK YOU.YOU ARE SWIMING AGAINST THE TIDLE.

Same "arguments" no connection to anything meaningful.Armenians are people!!! and as such we are as diverse as any other races or coltures: To insist that your special brand of... you get the drift...ask for unity not more tribal small vision reality.My two cents..

[Rousas]

Biblical Law has no place in a free society. When Biblical law takes precedence you end up with a place like present day Iran. As for the Old Testament, if my ancestors wanted to follow it instead of the New Testament they would have remained Jews instead of converting to Christianity in the twelfth century.

The law of modern society in the West was actually based primarily on Biblical law. It was not until the recent rise of humanism in the 20th Century U.S. Courts that a dramatic change of direction has been realized. More and more, Biblical law is replaced with man's law, and the impact on society is grave. "Freedom" means nothing apart from Biblical law; man's law mean's nothing but slavery, a simple example of this is taxation. As long as man's law takes precedence over Biblical law, law in general will become less law-like in nature.

As for the 'old' testament, the distinction was not made until the heretical Marcion inserted a page between what we know of today as the 'old' and 'new' testaments. The early church had only one testament, not two. Marcion taught a hertetical doctrine of the being of God. Marcion believed that the 'old' testament was the period of time of which the Father ruled, and the 'new' was of the Son's rule. Believing as such, he made a delineation between 'old' and 'new' testaments. This distinction, obviously, still exists and is a direct result of Marcion's heresy.

To deny the validity of 'old' testament law is to deny Christ's work of restitution on the Cross. Without the old testament there is no Christ. God's word does not fade away, but endures forever. Is not Christ the Living Word (Jn 1)? So then, is not the whole of God's word, Christ's word? Christ's attack on the Pharisees was their interpretation of the Law, not the validity of it. Those who say otherwise, always end in replacing God's infinite word with man's finite word.

[Sasun]

The law of modern society in the West was actually based primarily on Biblical law. 
......

How can you apply the Biblical law in the modern society? IMHO, there are not many specifics in the Bible that could be used as law. So it could only be used as a general guidance, and there can be numerous instances where the Bible doesn't give any specifics and therefore we would have to interpret or perhaps misinterpret. So how can you apply the Biblical law?
And I don't think anyone has a right to kill a person. It says explicitly "Do not kill" - period. So if somebody kills it is not because the Bible allows but they find some excuse.

[Rousas]

You're right, there is the commandment: "Thou shalt not kill." The Bible also speaks of instances where the death penalty is commanded to be justly upheld. Both commands must be seen in the context of God's holy word. The sum of the fifth commandment is, that we should not unjustly do violence to any one; capital punishment, legitimate warfare, self-defense, and similar acts are not forbidden, as revealed elsewhere in Scripture. The law makes it abundantly clear that capital punishment, the death penalty, is a part of this law, so that it involves no murder to take life on God's terms and under His law. The terms of life are established by God. God as the giver of all life establishes the laws for all of life, and for all things else. Both giving and the taking of life are aspects of man's religious duty, for all aspects of this law is a religious duty. This means that a man must not only avoid committing murder, and seek the apprehension of a murderer, but he must also seek the death penalty for murder. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he him." (Gen. 9:6)

As to your saying that the law is inadequate for modern society. It is the principle of the law of God which is always applicable to any society. A simple example is that of the thief who steals an ox and keeps it. The restitution required by God's law is for that thief to return the ox and to pay back with another ox. A man who never owns an ox may believe that this law does not apply to him, but he is sorely wrong. Applying this to modern industrialized culture, we could say that if a thief stole $100, his restitution is to be that $100 plus another $100. The principle stays the same even when the object changes. All of Biblical law can be rightly applied to modern society. God's word never fades.

It is good that you said..."I don't think anyone has a right to kill a person." This is your belief and supposition concerning murder, it is your finite word, and would be a Biblical answer if you had written "I don't think anyone has a right to [unjustly] kill a person." This is the point of which Rushdoony emphatically made, whose word shall men obey: God or man's? One is that of the infinite Creator, while the other is that of the finite creature.

[MJ]

Those with a credible claim on a better knowledge of Hebrew claim that the commandement "Thou shalt not kill" manifests an inaccurate translation of one which should be translated as "Thou shalt not murder."

[Sasun]

Thanks for your explanation. I have some questions.

The Bible also speaks of instances where the death penalty is commanded to be justly upheld. Both commands must be seen in the context of God's holy word.

Could you point me to those. As far as I understand you are referring to stories in the Bible which are not explicitly called commandments. Also, what exactly means "justly". Who and how decides what is just? Who knows God's will? Every crime can be related to some Bible story in some way or another for the purpose of justifying it. That is only a matter of finding the "right" passage and the "right" way of interpreting.

The sum of the fifth commandment is, that we should not unjustly do violence to any one; capital punishment, legitimate warfare, self-defense, and similar acts are not forbidden, as revealed elsewhere in Scripture. The law makes it abundantly clear that capital punishment, the death penalty, is a part of this law, so that it involves no murder to take life on God's terms and under His law.

Well, how about I say it is abundantly clear that killing is wrong. I only accept self-defence and taking someones life for defense exclusively if that cannot be avoided. And I justify this only because dying is not commanded by the Bible. The others (capital punishment, war that is not defensive) are a crime and not allowed by God.

As to your saying that the law is inadequate for modern society. It is the principle of the law of God which is always applicable to any society. A simple example is that of the thief who steals an ox and keeps it. The restitution required by God's law is for that thief to return the ox and to pay back with another ox. A man who never owns an ox may believe that this law does not apply to him, but he is sorely wrong. Applying this to modern industrialized culture, we could say that if a thief stole $100, his restitution is to be that $100 plus another $100. The principle stays the same even when the object changes. All of Biblical law can be rightly applied to modern society. God's word never fades.

This is a very easy case, and the majority of lawsuits are not so easy to apply the Biblical law. Tell me please, what kind of justice does the Bible provide for LovSam worm creators and the Microsoft monopoly and its crappy software?

This is the point of which Rushdoony emphatically made, whose word shall men obey: God or man's? One is that of the infinite Creator, while the other is that of the finite creature.

I agree that man should obey God's word. But the problem is in most cases God's word is simply unknown even to the most devoted believer. How can one ever be sure that what he thinks as just is indeed just?

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he him." (Gen. 9:6)

Frankly, I don't accept this. It may have been the right thing in its time (thousands of years ago), but it is clearly wrong for today. Did Christ ever said the same thing? No. Then if somebody is using it he either doesn't believe in or doesn't understand Christ. If we follow this principle bloodshed will never stop. Someone kills, then the second killer has to kill the first killer, then a third killer has to kill the second killer, and this goes on. They all can quote this same passage and keep killing. We are all men, who is to say that any man is not made in the image of God?

EDIT: I fixed the quotes - hope you don't mind...

Edited by vava, 12 August 2003 - 06:12 PM.

[America-Hye]

There are those whose "bullets" kill not the one they are aiming at, but innocents.
The religious fervor becomes so intense that the protagonist is unconcerned with any collateral damage. Take an 80-something Genocide survivor whose death was directly caused by the serious illness of her caregiver, whose illness was in turn the result of the preachings of Rev. Rushdoony and his fellow travellers. In this case the caregiver's incidents were 20 years in the past, but it was felt that the sin required the punishment nonetheless. Does any religious scholar have the right to cause the death of an innocent?

[Sasun]

EDIT: I fixed the quotes - hope you don't mind...

Not at all. I didn't understand why they didn't work.

[vava]

EDIT: I fixed the quotes - hope you don't mind...

Not at all. I didn't understand why they didn't work.

This is off topic, so i'll send you a PM.

[KnightOfArmenia]

whose illness was in turn the result of the preachings of Rev. Rushdoony and his fellow travellers

Explain how a religious sermon caused a serious illness?

I, myself, am an ardent Democrat, and am actually volunteering for Dennis Kucinich for the 2004 Democratic candidate. I think, in the matters of US politics, the Republicans are travelling the wrong road.

But if, right now, Bush comes out and recognizes the Armenian Genocide, demands that Turkey return to us our occupied homes, and pay reparations for the decades of pain and anguish, I would not only vote Republican for the rest of my life, but I would die for the man.

To me, my politics here matter only so far as they benefit the Mother Country. Kucinich has voted pro-Armenian in every vote I have seen in Congress; therefore, he has my vote as well.

[America-Hye]

Knight of Armenia,

Kucinich is a confirmed vegan as am I. I also appreciate his consistent pro-Armenian stances. However, I believe in the art of the possible. The only kind of Democrat who can win is a moderate with roots in the South. The last Democrat, and the last President to be elected, Republican or Democrat, from outside the South or West was Kennedy, 43 years ago. Johnson was from Texas. Nixon from California. Ford was appointed, not elected. Carter was from Georgia. Reagan left Illinois for California right after college. Bush Sr., although born in New England had long resided in Texas. Clinton was from Arkansas. of the present candidates, my choices are Edwards, Graham, or Gebhart, not necessarily in that order. The strongest Democrat has not yet announced, General Wesley Clark. I hope that someone is inquiring as to his view of the Armenian Cause, because if he enters the race he will be the nominee. He hails from Arkansas.

[America-Hye]

These religous extremists are inducing the mentally disturbed among us to kill and maim others. They are making it justifyable to kill and maim. Rev. Rushdoony's grandson clearly stated in this thread that killing is not necessarily murder. This can be understood in time of war or if one commits a murder. But these preachers are espousing the right of people to go out on our streets and murder those whom they dislike.

[America-Hye]

Futhermore, as far as the 2000 Presidential election cycle is concerned, I would have much preferred to have seen the recovered phycially broken war hero as the Republican nominee instead of the recovered alcoholic.

[KnightOfArmenia]

I honestly don't care whatsoever that Kucinich is a vegan; Hitler was a vegetarian, you know. I'm voting for him because I believe in his views.

The true translation from Hebrew is "Thou shalt not murder;" if you've ever read the Old Testament, you'll see that the Hebrews wiped out the Philistines to the man, as per God's specific commands of not letting a single male Philistine live.

And Western law IS based on a mixture of Roman law, Biblical law, and Napoleonic law. Europe has banned capital punishment; where do you think the idea of not killing anyone came from?

The most annoying type of person, in my eyes, is the type that argues for equality and lashes out at anyone who has a different point of view; the irony of that just annoys me to no end. "Everyone should say what they want, and if you don't like it, you can just go to hell!" naturally leaves dissidents out of the "everyone" group. You speak against the religious activists, (seemingly) against the Armenian church, and even against the Armenian community's mindset in general; think of it this way: if it wasn't for that mindset, for that church, for those activists, the Armenian side of you would be long dead, or have been dilluted into some turk mongrel's litter.

[America-Hye]

Should I consider that you agree that religious persons should be empowered to go into the streets and kill and maim those they dislike at will?
Nations fight wars against their enemies and soldiers die in battle.
For an Armenian to discuss what the Israelites did to all the Philistine men as a biblical justification for killing is the most nauseating thing I have ever heard.
It gives justification for what the Turks did to both my grandfathers and two-thirds of our extended family. So this is the kind of Christian you are?

[axel]

There seems to be a lot of self-proclaimed religious people that follow the letter of religion, but fail to understand its spirit. These people do a lot of harm to religion. In fact, they betray it. Each one giving his own interpretation of the texts makes the Truth an object of human subjectivity. In the Orthodox Christian view, one should only consider as valid the interpretations given by the Fathers of the Church (universally recognized as such, eg. St John Chrysostom)