Rasmussen Reports: 65% See Gun Rights As Protection Against Tyranny

You have to apply Yahweh’s standards to ALL documents from men, regardless if said document claims or is believed to conform to Biblical standards.

His workable plan is the same as mine, and should be the workable plan for ALL pronomians: Yahweh’s perfect, immutable, law, as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments. ANYTHING less eventually leads back to the exact same place as here, if not worse.

Since the Founding Fathers where not attempting establish a theocracy especially at the federal level I see no problem with the 1st amd. This aspect was left to the states where state churches were established and funded. The federal government was to have very little to do with our day to day lives. There is nor was one denomination that they could foster on the nation as a whole. To establish a state religion at the federal level would have ended our chances to begin this nation. Not once in history have we sustained harmony of the Body enough to do so. Even when Jesus walked the earth His followers clashed with the disciples of John, the Pharisees, Sadducees etc. Then later we have Gnostics, Nicolatians, those of Apollo’s, those of Paul etc. None of us have the right to force our personal convictions on fellow believers. Where in the Bible does it command that all governments we establish in this New Covenant age must be theocracy? It is not the only form of government God ordained and established in the Bible so why do you only advocate this one form?

Do you believe in freewill? This is what the 1st Amd is based on. Show me where in the Bible it commands us to force conversion or death in the New Covenant age?

Freedom of speech like all freedoms comes with responsibilities which is why I do support obscenity laws in accordance with the 3rd commandment and laws against pornography in accordance with the 7th commandment. And when this nation was founded they had such rules on the books

Do you have any evidence showing that was the Founding Father’s intent like an actual quote or is this just your opinion? The English language is not static. Word use and meaning changes and evolves through out history. Today sadly because of the influence of the Humanist doctrine of multi-centralism, when we hear the word “religions” we think all the beliefs of the world whereas in the time of the Founders, the word “religion” meant only Protestant Christianity, most maybe the Catholic church, which most of them viewed as pagan and superstitious.

We are debating forms of government so in this discussion and in reality not all governments are theocracies. You can’t change word meanings to suit your doctrine. We all know law is someone’s morality, but that is not what we are debating here. Ted you cannot legislate morality, if the people won’t elect Christian leaders, it won’t matter how many “tests” are given if the person only lies or is allowed to get by. It is the job of the people to make sure the men they elect are Christians or they will suffer for it if they don’t. So it is a mute point. Besides to begin with the states did have requirements for their state officials to be Christians.

A state religion is exactly what you will get with your form of government whether you want to face that or not. Just as happened under the Pharisees, Catholics, Muslims etc.

Davy: “Do you believe in freewill? This is what the 1st Amd is based on. Show me where in the Bible it commands us to force conversion or death in the New Covenant age?

Please cite ONE instance where Mr. Weiland ever claims a Biblical “command” instructing forced conversion or death. If your are implying that is Mr. Weiland’s position, you might want to conduct a heart check, lest you be guilty of the Ninth Commandment.

You seem to place faith in the framers motives for the First Amendment. You believe that the First Amendment restricts government ONLY at the federal level, allowing the states to establish whatever theocratic system they so desired. You also continually champion a return to original intent. Please note the “doctrine of selective incorporation”, commonly referred to as the “incorporation doctrine”. This doctrine uses the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to force the application of the Bill of Rights upon the states. And if you were to argue the validity of the Fourteenth Amendment, and claim that returning to the original CON
would remove the theory and application of the “incorporation doctrine”, remember that the Fourteenth Amendment was made possible by the amendable nature of the original CON itself. This removes ANY possibility that the framers intended to allow the states to set up Christian based governments. Their chicanery is obvious, their motives crystal clear. The CON is based, philosophically, on the precepts of the Age of Enlightenment, not the Bible.

There is absolutely no contradiction in my comments. Ted has indeed addressed your questions, in depth, in his writings, all easily obtained online, most for free. It speaks volumes for you to say that we NEED the First Amendment, because Yahweh’s law is insufficient. You fail to see that the framers had no intention of setting up a Godly based system of governance. Had they intended to do so, they would have left a trail of evidence. The architects of the Constitution, and of the Declaration that preceded it, were heavily influenced by the Age of Enlightenment that swept the European continent in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries. Humanism was the religion of favor and influence of the day. Jefferson was a blatant anti-Christ, and the entire concept of “natural rights” was an attempt to usurp the Divine perfect order of Yahweh.

It is glaringly obvious, that our opinions on the matter oppose one another. That is completely acceptable. But you argue from the weaker position, when you refuse to consider your adversary’s points, and study them to either disprove, or validate them. Again, you need to consider the motives of your heart in this matter. To have a countering opinion is perfectly fine, but it would seem that your true motivation is not to challenge ideas, but instead to be a thorn in Ted’s side, due to a personal disagreement in the reading and application of Biblical law.

David: ” If his [Ted Weiland's] doctrine is so convoluted that he cannot distill it into a post then he has lost sight of the truths he is trying to convey.”

By what standard do you judge his “doctrine” convoluted? If it is according to your own heart’s desire, be honest and say so. If, on the other hand, you judge it by Yahweh’s standard, then please point out Biblically where he is in error, or “convoluted”. He has been both articulate AND succinct in his his responses. And, he appears to have answered ALL genuine questions you have made public. It seems your mission to follow him from site to site, seeking to publicly challenge him, due to some personal vendetta.

David: “We do need to prevent the tyranny of a national state religion that would form under Ted’s government, just as it did in every other country that had a national state religion.

What is “Ted’s government”? If you mean a theonomy, theocratically administered, that would be Yahweh’s government, not Ted’s. We currently live under the oppressive “tyranny of a national state religion”, worshipping the false deity, WE THE PEOPLE.

David: “To say Jefferson is anti-Christ shows you have not studied his whole life, but chose to only focus on his straying in France.

You again show your absence of linear logic. You have completely insufficient data to determine what I have, or have not, studied. To DENY that Thomas Jefferson was an anti-Christ, shows that you do not take seriously his OWN words, including his blasphemous butchering of Scripture, and his correspondence with John Adams in his last days. He DENIED the deity of Christ his entire life, which, by definition, encompasses much more than just a little “straying in FRANCE”.

David: “‘Natural rights’ come from nature’s God, who is our God, Creator and Father.”

“Natural rights” are Humanistic and antithetical to Biblical law. There was a great deal of discussion among the early Church Fathers concerning “natural law”, which emanates from man’s heart, versus God’s law, which emanates from Yahweh’s heart. The two are completely incompatible, though there were many in the early church period who tried to integrate the two into one.

David: “This is how they used those words back in the 1700’s. English is not a static language and what a word means and how it is used changes over time. You cannot correctly understand history if you apply 21st century English on 1700’s men.

Your quite presumptive concerning my understanding of evolutionary, historical, and sociolinguistics. I am quite aware of the extant understanding of “natural law”, not only in the context of the eighteenth century English language, but of Western and Christian culture historically. Since I do “correctly understand history”, I remain adamant that we have been deceived regarding “natural law”, “natural rights”, and their anti-Christian “nature”. Those who equate the Masonic “nature’s God” with Yahweh of the Bible are described perfectly in Isaiah 5:20 –”Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”

David: ” You act as if the Age of Enlightenment was the only movement at that time. Have you heard or read about the great revivals that led up and sparked our Revolution like the Great Awakening?”

I am indeed aware of the period. Mentioning, as reference, the Age of Enlightenment, in no way indicates my blindness to other “movements” of the era. However, you show no evidence of understanding the influence of the Enlightenment on most of the framers. If I am wrong on that, please show me. But the same spiritual forces that surreptitiously crafted our Declaration and Constitution, were in full force during the French Revolution. Deny it if you wish, but the facts are irrefutable.

David: “So, do you think God’s Law addresses every situation we face? Can we legislate? Is there a need to?”

Yes. To think otherwise, would be to declare Yahweh’s perfect, immutable law, insufficient. Therefore, Yahweh Himself would be insufficient.

No, and no! Isaiah 33:22 –”For the Lord is our judge, The Lord is our lawgiver, The Lord is our king; He will save us—”

You are perfectly entitled to your views, as am I. We can disagree vehemently, and still attempt to engage in intelligent discourse. However, if your intent is solely to insult and attempt to smear Mr. Weiland, due to a matter of Yahweh’s law, it will most certainly expose your heart. Consider this prayerfully, and act accordingly. The decision is yours.

Dog poop? Really? No, I mean, REALLY. This is the point you “feel is most important…”, REALLY REALLY?

Proverbs 26:4 — “Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
Or you will also be like him.”