Comments on: The Bill of Rights, RIP

By: Fr. John

Fr. John — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:39:12 +0000

Tim H- “magine a Presbytery elected one of its own as bishop and resolving itself into episcopacy.”

Well, yes. One can only hope for miracles in the Church of God…. lol

By: TJH

TJH — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 13:35:03 +0000

I thought warfare began just when apologetics broke down.

By: scott

scott — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:24:45 +0000

What do you guys think about warfare being just another form of apologetics?

I know that question doesn’t seem to have any explicit connection to this blog, but somewhere in the cloudy recesses of my brain, it makes sense.

By: GV

GV — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:29:59 +0000

Joshua, that is basically my position – that the taking of our guns is breech of contract (2nd Amendment) negating any legitimate authority the state has over us and relegating it to the level of petty raider against which we are morally bound to protect and defend.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:28:20 +0000

typo: “the former..”

By: Joshua

Joshua — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:27:03 +0000

When a government comes to take your guns or take your food, they are declaring war on you. They are not helping you, but assaulting your life.
As for comment 29, I guess then we’re all screwed. Most pastors are politically correct whores whose implicit trust in the government is so strong that they give their kids to government education. Giving their guns is would be no problem. They simply lack the ability to sound the horn. They would even warn the flock about radical detractors like you and me for taking a stance against “those ordained or God.” No doubt you would hear some pathetic appeal to Romans 13 or perhaps the pietistic reminder that our citizenship is in heaven.

Making things worse will be those Christian “leaders” that have mass influence. They will be perfect pawns for the police state, using kosher air waves to broadcast the message of surrender, whether it’s dressed in passivism, martyrdom, or the disgusting theological pretenses above. I’m afraid not much would change even when the stakes are raised: Evangelicals would remain evangelicals, radicals would remain radicals. The latter would be getting their message out as loud as we would ours.

By: GV

GV — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:31:46 +0000

Then my answer to the question squares nicely with yours and rests morally on the same justification. I just wanted confirmation that I was on the right track – morally first; pragmatically second.

Thanks for the help on the CRM question too.

By: TJH

TJH — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:12:43 +0000

I follow Samuel Francis, that a man’s right to self-defense and the corresponding right to acquire and use arms is fundamental, more basic than all the considerations that go into civil government. To those that say the magistrate can lawfully disarm us, I ask, “and may he also forbid us to eat?”

By: GV

GV — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 22:09:57 +0000

You’re right…it is definitely WE, and WE’ve already begun that discussion here, but I’d sure be interested in your piece of that discussion if you’d be willing to give it.

By: MRB

MRB — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:55:59 +0000

GV -

The real question is what WE will do if martial law is imposed. Christians had better start discussing these things. This means local churches and groups. No action will be successful without support from a local community.