BY THIS STANDARD-Greg L. Bahnsen

[Esaias]

Aquila apparently supports this type of lawlessness:

WE RESIST GRAND JURIES
An anarchist/antifascist statement
Monday, September 10, 2018

A group of Washington DC anarchists and antifascists issues the following statement:

We will not be intimidated by the state. We will not comply with grand juries.

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018, a subpoena to a grand jury was issued to one of our comrades. Our comrade was asked to report to a DC courthouse on Tuesday, September 11, 2018. That subpoena asked for footage taken by a camera held by the comrade in the streets of Washington DC on August 12, 2018, a day when the streets were full of thousands of antifascist and anti-racist activists opposing a small white supremacist group. This trusted comrade is an independent journalist who often films protests in the city, and was doing so on August 12, 2018.

Local anarchists and antifascists will convene to make a statement against grand juries at 8:30 AM, Tuesday, September 11, 2018, at the courthouse at 500 Indiana Ave NW, Washington DC. All are invited to join us to resist state repression.

https://itsgoingdown.org/we-will-not...washington-dc/

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Aquila apparently supports this type of lawlessness:

WE RESIST GRAND JURIES
An anarchist/antifascist statement
Monday, September 10, 2018

A group of Washington DC anarchists and antifascists issues the following statement:

We will not be intimidated by the state. We will not comply with grand juries.

On Wednesday, September 5, 2018, a subpoena to a grand jury was issued to one of our comrades. Our comrade was asked to report to a DC courthouse on Tuesday, September 11, 2018. That subpoena asked for footage taken by a camera held by the comrade in the streets of Washington DC on August 12, 2018, a day when the streets were full of thousands of antifascist and anti-racist activists opposing a small white supremacist group. This trusted comrade is an independent journalist who often films protests in the city, and was doing so on August 12, 2018.

Local anarchists and antifascists will convene to make a statement against grand juries at 8:30 AM, Tuesday, September 11, 2018, at the courthouse at 500 Indiana Ave NW, Washington DC. All are invited to join us to resist state repression.

https://itsgoingdown.org/we-will-not...washington-dc/

I'm talking about "Christian anarchists".

[Wilsonwas]

I was gonna let this dog lie, as I tbink the original poster wanted to end it but...

Taliban V. Ultra-con oneness groups.


From the BBC...
predominantly Pashtun movement, the Taliban came to prominence in Afghanistan in the autumn of 1994.

It is commonly believed that they first appeared in religious seminaries - mostly paid for by money from Saudi Arabia - which preached a hard line form of Sunni Islam.

The Taliban's promise - in Pashtun areas straddling Pakistan and Afghanistan - was to restore peace and security and enforce their own austere version of Sharia, or Islamic law, once in power.


I would expect that an emboldened UPCI articles of faith post the 70s and WPF perhaps, would behave in much the same way. I.E enforce an austere version of Christianity based on the conformist values of the US in the mid 1900s.

Note the BBC article has the Taliban enforcing beards, and dress and behavior codes for women - destroying the historical places of other faiths and forcing peace based on power backed by the infallibility clause of being like the blues brothers "on a mission from god".

There are already pastors, and higher placed individuals in charge of churches or organizational units, generally not the heads of the movements themselves at this time, that endorse austere non-biblical principles as doctrine.
I would imagine a thocracy of these folks, could arise from the process currently en vogue with our government to never waste a good crises to tighten up the screws of justice, even if it is the twisted SJW version now. Like now one still has the option to move to another location. An option not so available in other locations and regimes, that might suit the Bernie Bots better.

I am saying that no government not headed by Christ himself will move toward tyranny, if religious toward fundamentalist- to crazy. If godless from idiocracy to Soviet style Orwellian overreach.

The powerful will seek to inflate and secure that power in the name of good, but in the manner of evil. Not that they would set out to lie, cheat, and murder, but rather they would twist scriptures to support its eventual outcome.

Though very isolated abuse of power has happened in churches, just like it does in the secular.

As well as you guys think we are nuts for not seeing how "wonderful" your reconstructionist utopia would be, I find it nuts that you think it would be any less prone to corruption than any other human endevor.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

I was gonna let this dog lie, as I tbink the original poster wanted to end it but...

Taliban V. Ultra-con oneness groups.


From the BBC...
predominantly Pashtun movement, the Taliban came to prominence in Afghanistan in the autumn of 1994.

It is commonly believed that they first appeared in religious seminaries - mostly paid for by money from Saudi Arabia - which preached a hard line form of Sunni Islam.

The Taliban's promise - in Pashtun areas straddling Pakistan and Afghanistan - was to restore peace and security and enforce their own austere version of Sharia, or Islamic law, once in power.


I would expect that an emboldened UPCI articles of faith post the 70s and WPF perhaps, would behave in much the same way. I.E enforce an austere version of Christianity based on the conformist values of the US in the mid 1900s.

Note the BBC article has the Taliban enforcing beards, and dress and behavior codes for women - destroying the historical places of other faiths and forcing peace based on power backed by the infallibility clause of being like the blues brothers "on a mission from god".

There are already pastors, and higher placed individuals in charge of churches or organizational units, generally not the heads of the movements themselves at this time, that endorse austere non-biblical principles as doctrine.
I would imagine a thocracy of these folks, could arise from the process currently en vogue with our government to never waste a good crises to tighten up the screws of justice, even if it is the twisted SJW version now. Like now one still has the option to move to another location. An option not so available in other locations and regimes, that might suit the Bernie Bots better.

I am saying that no government not headed by Christ himself will move toward tyranny, if religious toward fundamentalist- to crazy. If godless from idiocracy to Soviet style Orwellian overreach.

The powerful will seek to inflate and secure that power in the name of good, but in the manner of evil. Not that they would set out to lie, cheat, and murder, but rather they would twist scriptures to support its eventual outcome.

Though very isolated abuse of power has happened in churches, just like it does in the secular.

As well as you guys think we are nuts for not seeing how "wonderful" your reconstructionist utopia would be, I find it nuts that you think it would be any less prone to corruption than any other human endevor.

So you oppose all government, then, since it is all liable to abuse? Do you oppose marriage, because it is liabe to abuse? Do you oppose any and all forms of church government because they are liable to abuse?

Or do you just oppose society looking to the Bible for solutions?

[Wilsonwas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So you oppose all government, then, since it is all liable to abuse? Do you oppose marriage, because it is liabe to abuse? Do you oppose any and all forms of church government because they are liable to abuse?

Or do you just oppose society looking to the Bible for solutions?

Really, you are one of the most intelligent people on here, and you have to resort to coloring the position?

All government should be severely limited, and the people should always possess a means to oppose it.

I said nothing of marriage

Church government should have checks and balances, but one can leave a church, and the cost will only be some freinds....so...some latitude may be afforded.

People should love god and keep his commandments of their own accord.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

Really, you are one of the most intelligent people on here, and you have to resort to coloring the position?

All government should be severely limited, and the people should always possess a means to oppose it.

I said nothing of marriage

Church government should have checks and balances, but one can leave a church, and the cost will only be some freinds....so...some latitude may be afforded.

People should love god and keep his commandments of their own accord.

You didn’t have to say anything about marriage. That is just the quandary this argument creates. Leaving church? Is just losing some friends? Really?

[Wilsonwas]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You didn’t have to say anything about marriage. That is just the quandary this argument creates. Leaving church? Is just losing some friends? Really?

Yes leaving a church and going to another, is not a big deal. This is called association by choice.

A marriage that is abusive may be left. Though a christian marriage should not be abusive.

It is difficult to impossible to leave a government- hence it should be limited so as to allow that it not become abusive.

The argument that all authority is equal seems Orwellian. It is a best an incorrect one because it is premised on "all authority must be obeyed". The three hebrew children, Lot leaving Sodom, Isreal leaving slavery are all cases where this was not true. Only authoritarians would disagree. I cannot see how you cannot see that.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So you oppose all government, then, since it is all liable to abuse? Do you oppose marriage, because it is liabe to abuse? Do you oppose any and all forms of church government because they are liable to abuse?

Or do you just oppose society looking to the Bible for solutions?

That is what the argument ends up becoming. Circular reasoning. Since man supposedly can’t get it right therefore its inevitable end is failure. Yet, marriage should also be eliminated, working for an employer, answering to clients, anything that would concern hierarchy of any kind. Especially church, because of its structure of church eldership.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

That is what the argument ends up becoming. Circular reasoning. Since man supposedly can’t get it right therefore its inevitable end is failure. Yet, marriage should also be eliminated, working for an employer, answering to clients, anything that would concern hierarchy of any kind. Especially church, because of its structure of church eldership.

Exactly. If godly government is bad, then no government of any kind can possibly be good.

It's amazing to me how people rationalize surrender. Yet the rationalizations make no real sense. It's like the atheist's arguments: they all presuppose God exists. Self-refuting.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm talking about "Christian anarchists".

No difference. You were claiming that people ought to be able to just withdraw from civic obligation. That IS the anarchist position held by these dimwits who choose to "not recognise" the legal authority of a grand jury.

It is one thing to reject governmental authority as illegitimate because of corruption. It is another thing to reject governmental authority because one believes he is simply not subject to civic obligations. Anarchism is the philosophy that demands the abolition of the state.

"Christian anarchism" is in the same place as "Christian communism" or "Christian Nazism" - la la land.