Rousas

Fairly well, Sasun. If you would like examples of the internal contradictions of false religions from within the worldview of said religion, I would be glad to do so. The Scriptures have no internal contradiction when one lets Scripture interpret Scripture. All other philosophies and religions are based upon the autonomy of man, and are when exposed contradictory to this very presupposition. When looking from within the worldviews of all religions, one cannot help but see the very basic contradictions from the premises and presuppositions of the religions themselves. I do not speak of a contradiction on an experiential level, but on a presuppositional level, based upon the very presuppositions of which the religion is founded on. Also, God is knowable, yet not exhaustively. That is, man cannot know God as God knows Himself. Man can only know God as He reveals Himself to man. Thoth was very right in asking the question of authority. This was the very question of which the poll asks. Who has the authority to determine the reality of all things, God or man? Now he asked me, basically what man has the authority to determine who God is. His presupposition is clearly evident. Yet, Thoth when you say that you cannot have any clue as to what reality is, you have stated at least one thing of which is absolutely known, according to yourself, that is, that we cannot know what reality is. Do you know, or don't you? According to the Bible, if God exists, then all of reality is based upon Him and Him alone. This could only possibly be because God Himself had revealed it as such. This is the Biblical answer to the question with no internal contradiction. The attack is often that this is circular reasoning. Yet, all of man's reasoning is circular. In the end of all rationalization, one must choose an ultimate authority and then regiment their reasoning in terms of it: the Christian looks to God to make sense of things, while the non-Christian looks to himself. What Thoth did was reason all things in terms of himself. In determining, for himself, that reality is not knowable in any 'real' sense he has determined what reality is, namely that it is 'not knowable.' Thoth also said that 'there is no God,' yet Thoth said that man cannot truly know the nature of existence? Can you reconcile these two conflicting statements, Thoth? If you are unable to know the nature of existence, then (1) how are you even able to say that 'man cannot truly know the nature of existence' and (2) then how can you go on to claim that you know that there is no God? It is beyond me, as to how you can claim to not know the nature of reality, and then be so certain that there is no creator of reality.

Sasun, If we cannot know God's standards, then either God cannot make Himself clear or man cannot understand. If man cannot understand, then we cannot know God and Christ's words are meaningless to us. If God cannot make Himself clear to us, then He is an inept God. If either of these are the case, then there is no purpose for man to attempt at following God's standards, simply because it is not possible to understand them. The Bible is clear that all men know both God and His word (i.e. standard), because God has revealed it unto man, some simply chose to suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Also, if you don't know God's standard, how can YOU live by something of which you have no understanding of? I say to you, if you do not follow God's word, then you follow man's....man cannot have two masters. The question is extremely telling. Thoth, If you want me to provide a thorough defense of the Triune God and the authority of the Bible, I would be more than happy to do so in another posting. I would, also, recommend for you to read the works of the Christian apologist, Dr. Cornelius Van Til. The authority to interpret the Scriptures lies solely on God. Man has no authority to interpret anything that God has not revealed to man. God in His natural revelation and special revelation (the Bible), interprets His word to man; man is then a re-interpreter. Everytime that the would-be autonomous man attempts to claim the authority to interpret reality in terms of himself, he cannot help but break his own 'definition' of the 'law of contradiction.' Because God is alone autonomous, he is then the sole interpreter of reality. The proof for the existence of God (the only God...the God of the Christian scriptures) is in the impossibility of the contrary. All other religions and false faiths begin with the autonomy of man, and end with a self-contradicting philosophy. Again, when man attempts to interpret reality in terms of himself, he cannot help but contradict himself in anything and everything of which he says. I, also, never said that morals cannot be found elsewhere.

This is in response to another poll concerning the death penalty. It is clear to me that this question needs to be asked. For is something as great a penalty as death, something that is for man to ordain, or is it in God's domain? This question would have been too specific, yet the answer is telling as to what standard each man lives by, hence I simply asked the greater question.

SASUN, The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is a summary of all of God's law concerning murder, which includes the punishment for murder. It is clear that the when studying the entire teaching of this law, that God definitively commanded the death penalty to be imposed on certain law-breakers. To disagree with this is to disagree with Scriptures plain teaching. The ten commandments are not contradictory with Scripture, they are a summary of the whole of the law contained in Scripture, of which Christ summarized even further when asked what is the greatest commandment. This includes the punishment which God requires, by law, for the breaking of the law. What you have done is to rid all law of the punishment which God requires with no Biblical warrant to do so. It is clear to me that it is your word, not God's word that matters to you. I have given a reasonable explanation of this text concerning the adulterous woman. It is clear, according to Christ himself, that He did not come to abolish, or destroy, the law. It is obvious that you don't want to say that Christ abolished the law, so you say that the death penalty never was part of God's law. Well, dreaming something away, doesn't make it go away. Scripture is clear, as indicated in the texts I have shown you, that the death penalty was and is a requirement for the breaking of God's law in certain instances. To say that it wasn't is to ignore Scripture. To say that it isn't is to place your word above God's.

It had everything to do with the witnesses. No one can be condemned to die if there are not two or more witnesses to witness against them. Because they abandoned their accusations by leaving, there was no witness against her. Therefore, the woman could not be condemned to die. What if you were accused of this in court, and the judge reminded your accusers that a false witness will be convicted of the death penalty as well, would not the charge be dropped if the 'witnesses' suddenly left? Should their hasty exit not have told us something concerning their testimony? Did not Christ ask the woman where her accusers had gone? The law is clear, without two or more witnesses a man or woman cannot be condemned to die for a crime. Christ upheld the law and confirmed the death penalty, by inviting the same penalty on the men who accused the woman if they were themselves guilty of the same sin of adultery. To say that Christ meant sin in general when he said "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7), is to say that Christ destroyed any punishment for the breaking of law. It is to make the court of law an impossibility. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. (Matt. 5:17,18)

The witnesses left. According to the law, there must be two or more witnesses for the sentence of the death penalty to be invoked. Since there were no longer any witnesses against the woman, she was free to go.

Yikes! I plagerized my own grandfather. My last posting from the second paragraph on is quoted from Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, p. 702 ff. (These are the things that happen when one works all night.)

Perhaps the prime example used by antinomians as an instance of Jesus’ setting aside of the law is the story of the woman taken in adultery in John 8:1-11. This particular incident needs further attention because it in fact is a confirmation of the law. Had the incident been at all antinomian, it would have provided the scribes and Pharisees with exactly the charge they wanted with which to condemn Jesus. The charge of Jesus against the scribes and Pharisees was precisely their antinomianism. He had strongly denounced them publicly for their neglect of the law for tradition (Matt. 15:1-10). No answer was possible against this charge: clearly, the leaders of the people had set aside the law by means of their humanistic legal tradition. The whole point of the attack of these leaders was to try to show that Jesus, when confronted by the hard facts of a concrete case, would be no more a strict champion of the law than they were. The culminating example of this attempt to embarrass Jesus was this incident of the woman taken in adultery. To ask for the full enforcement of the law, the death penalty, would have been to invite hostility, because the prevailing attitude was one of moral laxity. To deny the death penalty would have enabled the Pharisees to charge Jesus with hypocrisy: He would then have been in the same school of thought as the Pharisees He condemned. Quite obviously, Jesus did not take an antinomian stand, because the Pharisees left, confounded, and the incident obviously confirmed Jesus as the champion of the law. A woman had been “taken in adultery, in the very act” (John 8:4). The woman was “brought unto him.” We cannot assume that she came voluntarily. She may have been dragged there, but the text does not indicate this. Apparently “the scribes and Pharisees” involved had police powers, or had, with the assistance of the authorities, used such legal powers as were necessary to compel her compliance. Having such legal authority, they were also requiring that Jesus preside at the hearing. The man involved in the act was not brought forward; we have no knowledge of the reason for this, although it would appear that it would have aggravated the “offense” of Jesus had He either demanded the death penalty for a woman, or, on the other hand, allowed an adulterous woman to go free. More emotional reaction could be milked by the use of an adulterous woman than an adulterous man. “Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him” (John 8:5-6). The reason for the incident is plainly stated: grounds for an accusation against Jesus were sought. Would Jesus persist as the champion of the law, or would He retreat into the use of some aspect of the pharisaic tradition? “But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not” (John 8:6). At this point, the comment of Burgon is most telling and deserves full citation: The Scribes and Pharisees bring a woman to our SAVIOR on a charge of adultery. The sin prevailed to such an extent among the Jews that the Divine enactments concerning one so accused had long since fallen into practical oblivion. On the present occasion our LORD is observed to revive His own ancient ordinance after a hitherto unheard of fashion. The trial by bitter water, or water of conviction (See Num. 5:11-31), was a species of ordeal, intended for the vindication of innocence, the conviction of guilt. But according to the traditional belief the test proved inefficacious, unless the husband himself was innocent of the crime whereof he accused his wife. Let the provisions of the law, contained in Num. 5:16-24, be now considered. The accused Woman having been brought near, and set before the LORD, the priest took “holy water in an earthen vessel,” and put “of the dust of the floor of the tabernacle into the water.” Then, with the bitter water that causeth the curse in his hand, he charged the woman by oath. Next, he wrote the curses in a book and blotted them out with the bitter water; causing the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse. Whereupon if she were guilty, she fell under a terrible penalty,—her body testifying visibly to her sin. If she was innocent, nothing followed. And now, who sees not that the Holy One dealt with His hypocritical assailants, as if they had been the accused parties? Into the presence of incarnate JEHOVAH verily they had been brought: and perhaps when He stooped down and wrote upon the ground, it was a bitter sentence against the adulterer and adulteress which He wrote. We have but to assume some connexion between the curse which He thus traced “in the dust of the floor of the tabernacle” and the words which He uttered with His lips, and He may with truth be declared to have “taken of the dust and put it on the water,” and “caused them to drink of the bitter water which causeth the curse.” For when, by His Holy Spirit, our great High Priest in His human flesh addressed these adulterers,—what did He but present them with living water (v. 17. So the LXX) “in an earthen vessel” (2 Cor. 4:7; 5:1)? Did He not further charge them with an oath of cursing, saying, “If ye have not gone aside to uncleanness, be ye free from the bitter water: but if ye be defiled”—On being presented with which alternative, did they not, self-convicted, go out one by one? And what else was this but their own acquittal of the sinful woman, for whose condemnation they had shewed themselves so impatient? Surely it was “the water of conviction” as it is six times called, which they had been compelled to drink; whereupon, “convicted by their own conscience,” as St. John relates, they had pronounced the other’s acquittal. Finally, not that by Himself declining to “condemn” the accused woman, our LORD also did in effect blot out those curses which He had already written against her in the dust,—when He made the floor of the sanctuary His “book.” (John W. Burgon, The Woman Taken in Adultery, p. 239 f.) Because this incident took place in the temple (John 8:2), Burgon’s comment is all the more to the point. The temple dust He wrote in met the requirements of the law. His action placed every accuser on trial immediately; that they were aware of this, the text makes clear, for we are told that all felt “convicted by their own conscience” (John 8:9). Charges had been made against this woman by the “scribes and Pharisees.” Their charges represented a clear-cut case against a woman taken in “the very act” of adultery. The counter-charges by Jesus, by His actions and by His declaration, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7), broke them. As themselves guilty men, they suspected secret evidence on His part against them. They were busy trying to collect evidence against Jesus; this made it easier for them to believe that Jesus had done the same to them. These scribes and Pharisees had preferred charges against the woman in the place of her husband; Jesus placed them in the husband’s category by invoking Numbers 5 by His writing in the dust. If they were guilty, and Jesus knew of their guilt, then, if He invoked the death penalty, could He not charge them also? By invoking Numbers 5, Jesus in effect placed them on trial also: did they come to judgment with clean hands? It will not do to plead the “high moral standards” of Pharisees. These men were planning the death of Jesus. In the face of their deliberate and calculating plans against God’s Messiah, the sin of adultery was a trifling matter to such men. They had no stomach for an accusation against them which could cite God’s requirement of a death penalty. When Jesus said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7), He was not referring to sins in general but to the sin of adultery. A general statement would mean no court of law is possible; the specific reference meant that men guilty of a crime were not morally free to condemn that crime in another unless they condemned it in themselves. We are told that all these scribes and Pharisees were then “convicted by their own conscience” (vs. 9). Moreover, Jesus had confirmed the death penalty; He had simply demanded honest witnesses to step forward and execute her, to “first cast a stone at her” (vs. 7). To remain witnesses against her was to invite witnesses against themselves; to testify to a witnessed fact and confirm a death penalty against the woman was to invite a witness unto death against themselves. They left. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: Go, and sin no more (John 8:10-11). At this point, it is necessary to distinguish between civil or juridical forgiveness. Civil forgiveness occurs when a condemned person pays the penalty for his crime, when restitution is made and the moral claims of the law are satisfied. A thief who had robbed a man of an ox and restored fivefold is thereupon forgiven. Religious forgiveness requires as a prior condition restitution, or civil forgiveness. A thief cannot be forgiven religiously if he has not made restitution. There is a similar distinction between civil condemnation and religious condemnation. Civil condemnation is for offenses against the civil law; religious condemnation is both for offenses against the civil law and for disbelief in God and His law-word. The two kinds of forgiveness and condemnation are distinct but related. Jesus had been asked to make a pronouncement on the civil law with respect to adultery; He affirmed the death penalty. The witnesses, however, had withdrawn their charge and had disappeared. There was thus no legal case against the woman. Legally, Jesus could not therefore sustain a case: “Neither do I condemn thee.” But a moral case existed. The humility of the woman, who acknowledged Him to be “Lord,” indicates some evidence of change in her, and perhaps regeneration. But Jesus simply said, “Go, and sin no more,” an echo of His words in John 5:14, “sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.” It is more than possible that she was religiously a changed person, and forgiven by God’s grace. We are simply told that no ground for legal condemnation existed at the moment. This does not rule out subsequent legal condemnation; her husband, if she had one, is not evident in this episode, but he would have had grounds for some kind of action, under existing law, if he chose. This is not the concern of the text. She was granted acquittal in terms of the evidences of the immediate “hearing.” Jesus recognized the reality of her offense by His warning, “Go, and sin no more.” The fact of this warning indicates some evidences of a change in her, since it was contrary to our Lord’s practice to warn those who would not be warned (Matt. 7:6). For Christ to tell an unregenerate person to “sin no more” is unreasonable. The particular sin referred to was adultery. She was charged with a responsibility to chastity as an aspect of her new life in Christ. The woman addressed Jesus as “Lord” (John 8:11); the scribes and Pharisees simply called Him “Master” (vs. 4), and the disciples themselves often spoke of Him as simply “Rabbi” (John 1:49). Her conduct here indicated a changed person. In brief, instead of any evidence of antinomianism, this episode confirmed emphatically the position of Jesus as the champion of the law, and He confounded the attempts of the scribes and Pharisees to prove otherwise. The sin of Phariseeism was thus exposed. Phariseeism, first of all, denied the necessity of conversion. Man, by his unaided free will, is able to save himself, to choose between good and evil and make himself good. Both free will and self-salvation were thus affirmed, and predestination and conversion or regeneration denied. Second, the Pharisees had, while professing to hold to the law of God, converted it into the traditions of men. Thus, they had denied the Biblical doctrines of justification and sanctification and were accordingly the particular target of Christ’s denunciation. The Pharisees, professing to be champion’s of God’s word, were in fact its enemies and perverters.

SASUN, What you just described is the dream of human autonomy, or self rule; the same sin which Adam fell into. This is utterly anti-Christian and anti-God. For man to define truth in terms of himself is to eradicate the need for God. God alone is autonomous, so he alone determines what is good and evil. Man knows nothing apart from what God has already revealed. It is because of God's revelation to man that man can know anything at all. If man determines truth on his own terms, then God is a liar. One cannot honestly profess that Christ is very God of very God and define what truth is for oneself at the same time. Man cannot serve two masters.

Correction: "Do you agree with the fathers position at the Council of Chalcedon?"

American-Hye, Everything that Christ said is a legal code of conduct. Do you believe in the Creed of Chalcedon? Because it is apparent to me that you do not.

"(Armenian) Biblical Law and Politics?" Yes, I don't like the title either, and supposedly I started it. ??? It has nothing to do with things 'Armenian'?

That is Christ's point. Look at the whole sentence. It starts with "But ye say..." Christ explains God's command in Verse 4 "For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." Christ explains the scribes and Pharisees traditions in Verse 5 and 6a"But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free." Christ then concludes in verse 6b, "Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition."

SASUN, you said: In a sense, what you have said is "Scripture says it, but I don't agree with it, so then Christ must have abandoned these laws." Now where in Scripture does Christ ever say to abandon these laws? Did you read Matthew 15:3ff? Let me quote it for you: 1 Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? 4 For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; 6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. According to this text, does Christ condemn or uphold the death penalty? Doesn't he say that the death penalty is commanded by God's law and that the tradition of the Jews, who thinking themselves more capable than God in lawmaking, have "transgressed the commandment of God" in this case. In Christ's every example of case law, he rejected the teaching of the Pharisees and commanded the correct teaching of the law. He did not eradicate Old Testament law, he revealed the correct and just teaching of the law, and in so doing, commanded that all men shall live by this law-word, even His law-word for He is very God of very God. By doing this, He revealed to all that His law is the same as God's law. He was not saying that His law is now God's law, and that the law the Pharisees taught was God's law and is no more. His law always was and is the same as God's law. Your ideas are more like the Pharisees than what Jesus taught concerning the law, which is His law. They are utterly humanistic. So then, please ask yourself if you are making your own laws or if you are following God's law, which is the same as Christ's law? By what authority do you say that Christ's teaching supercedes these laws? Because if it is your own, it means nothing. If it is the word of God, then I will listen. By the way, all the teaching concerning Christ's return is that he will proclaim judgment upon those who do not confess that he is Lord, while calling those who do, to glory. Christ did, indeed, speak of love. If you remember when he was asked "what is the greatest commandment?" His answer was a summary of the 'ten commandments,' which was a summary of the entirety of God's law. He basically pointed to the fact that it is one law, God's law of how man shall live in communion with God and with his fellow mankind. This is the intent of the entirety of God's law, which is the godly manifestation of a loving and righteous communion with God and with man.

AMERICAN-HYE, Notice that I wrote orthodox christianity and not Orthodox Christianity. I am speaking of an orthodox understanding of Scripture.

Is not the whole word of God, Christ's word? Is He not the word of God made flesh? How then is the old testament law not applicable? Did he ever contradict what was formerly written? God forbid! The mistake of the Pharisees was not the attempt to keep the law (this was a command of God), the mistake was the distortion of the law's intent. The Pharisees saw the law as the key to their salvation and practiced a work's righteousness. Christ condemned such teaching, and as Paul made clear, the patriarchs never believed that one could attain salvation through one's own works, but that all is by the grace of God. The law is the same, although in some places Christ's work on the cross finishes the need for some laws, particularly sacrificial law, as He is the lamb worthy to be slain for man's sin. Christ taught to obey the whole law of God, His law. Are we not to be holy, even as God is holy? So then, why do so many who profess in Christ's name ignore the WHOLE of God's law? Did not Christ keep the whole law of God? So then, we also are to keep the law of God with a distinct understanding that it is through Christ's work on the cross ALONE and not by our keeping of the law that we are saved. It is because of our salvation that we OUGHT to have a desire to keep God's law. It is because of our salvation that we OUGHT to do good works. This is orthodox christianity!

SASUN, as you requested: Below is taken from R.J. Rushdoony's book, The Institutes of Biblical Law, vol. I. I added in a few comments, and also added in some Biblical texts that were not in the specific section of the book which I copied this from but located elsewhere in the book. So this is not a word for word quote, but very close to it. Also, the emphasis is mine. As one can clearly see, there is a strong case for the death penalty on a strictly Biblical basis. And for those who think that God's law here is rather harsh, Solomon long ago wisely noted, that “the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel” (Proverbs 12:10). AMERICANHYE, As I suspected, you haven't read Rushdoony, but have read someone who claims that they have, and therefore have proclaimed the same judgment upon him without an reason or evidence for doing so. It is as if you have proclaimed Rushdoony's word as dung when you are in complete ignorance concerning his own statements and his life-long study concerning Biblical law. If you are angry with these laws, then your problem is with God's word, not R.J. Rushdoony.

AMERICAN-HYE, you said: This is a blatant lie. I never said this. My grandfather never said that the people have a right to go into the streets and murder those whom they dislike. Nothing further could be from the truth. Capital punishment is a matter of the court, utilizing Biblical law justly and rightly. He and I never said to form a mob and kill people we disagree with. That is a down-right LIE! You also told someone the following in a vain attempt to defend your statement: You will TRY indeed, and find nothing. Simply because the man never said anything that would give people the idea that the Bible allows them to... "Go out into the streets and kill or maim any who do not agree with you." Either you cannot understand what you read or you have never read that which you pretend to know. I will remind you that a godly man would keep silent about such things of which he does not know. It is statements such as the ones you have made that malign one of the most godly men I have ever had the pleasure of knowing, without any documentation backing up such spiteful words. Most likely someone whom you admire has said such things and you continue to spread lies and gossip about a man whom you have never known and of whose books you have never read. I think I am quite accurate in saying that everything you have posted concerning Rushdoony on this website is completely fabricated. I ask you in all fairness, why? Why would you tell people that he said things of which he did not speak nor write? SASUN, I am truly sorry that I have not replied to your request, as yet. I will do so this afternoon, when I have more time to be thorough in my response.

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.

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.

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?'

You mean 'da Turminator...'come on you gotta love him. Just kidding. I don't think there's anyone that's going to be able to turn California around, not even the Terminator. And no, I am not Rushdoony's son; I'm his grandson. ...Sheldon who???

Khodja, I hope you're not calling Rushdoony an anti-semite. If so, that's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.