Having the Jim Jams Over Blasphemy Laws | Doug Wilson
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 сен 2024
- I want to begin with the fact that consistent Christians necessarily have a deep wariness over blasphemy laws. This is deep within our DNA, and I believe it is there for good reason. I want to begin with that fact, and lay this down as the base coat for all our subsequent reasoning. The reason for this begins where all Christian reasoning should always begin, and that is with Christ Himself.
Pastor Doug Wilson's Blog and Mablog video is presented by Canon Press.
![Cody Johnson - I'm Gonna Love You (with Carrie Underwood) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yy9PuYMU29g/mqdefault.jpg)
Only 8 days till No Quarter November.
I think I smell smoke.
@@johnlocke6800shut up lol😅
I am stoked!!! 🎉
A very interesting proposal.
Tomorrow Doug could do a 180 on blasphemy laws and 98% of his sheeple followers will follow along like he was never against blasphemy laws.
He never said he's against them. He's saying that you need to first implement the blasphemy law of forbidding the state from demanding worship, before you can make the state enforce laws forbidding such blasphemy
@@cosmictreason2242 perhaps in a few hundred years...and who is going to successfully bind the state first? Repentance and stark godly changes happen in a generation. Don't be a DW fanboy; he's leading a lot of people astray now.
@@JR-rs5qsperhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but when you say 'perhaps in a few hundred years" you are echoing what Doug has said on this channel. Doug has repeatedly said in these blog posts, as well as written in Mere Christendom, that blasphemy laws would have a place in a future theonomic nation, but that a nation must demonstrate many years of faithfulness to the second table of the law before introducing enforcement of the first. Have you been watching this channel or reading his blog consistently?
@duneregent1033 I'm poking fun at Doug for this statement about hundreds of years. I've been listening to Doug closely for 4 years. Trust me, if people won't obey the 1st table of the Law, they surely won't obey the 2nd. Doug has become much more pietistic this last year and I am one of few who have noticed the difference. This kind of incrementalism is the kind that leads to very little improvement made. Types of blasphemy Laws must be first rather than last. It's a pipe dream to try implement blasphemy laws against the State if the people won't apply them amongst themselves first. When was the last time you or I said to someone on the street to not take the Lord's name in vain?
@@JR-rs5qsi am always going to be wary of someone who was on dougs left until 5 minutes ago and now proclaims that where he's been for 40 years is milquetoast . Your predisposition should be to question yourself when you find yourself condemning the elders whose teachings led to your own awakening. They have a lifetime more wisdom than you, and it's worth trying to understand why disagree with you, the upstart
I really don't want to be jailed or fined or killed because I said omg. And if Islam takes over, everyone is in trouble.
It wasn't Muslims marching on DC on January 6.
Blasphemy laws already exist and will always exist. You will always get in trouble for speaking out against the religion of the society. This society’s religion is racial and homosexual worship. Speak out publicly against those and see what happens.
The Westboro Baptist church has literally been doing this for decades without a single member of theirs throne in jail! Spare me your manufactured Chistian fundamentalist persecution fairy tale.
@@stevendouglas3781 Ever hear of Lenny Bruce? George Carlin? How many times were they arrested for speaking out against religion? How about Sam Harris? Bertrand Russell? David Hume? Friedrich Nietzsche? How many times were any of them arrested for speaking out against religion?
I believe Mr. Wilson is referring to “idolatry” as “blasphemy” a lot in this video. The issue still stands. Who is God is important, and so is how one speaks about God. I do believe that it is correct, however, to refer to hate speech legislation as blasphemy laws. It is really not whether, but which.
You realise that idolaters don't like it when you blaspheme their idols. This is what hes talking about.
@@junkerjorg6310you ever think about believing in things that are real? Like idolizing your fellow neighbor? Idolizing nature? Idolizing something OTHER THAN MONEY?
@@junkerjorg6310you ever think about believing in things that are real? Like idolizing your fellow neighbor? Idolizing nature? Idolizing something OTHER THAN MONEY?
Can't accuse Pastor Doug of being afraid to address the issues
Doug always backs away from criticizing T***p too much. The reason is obvious, he has many T***p supporters that support his church, and buy his books.
Im going to think on this one for a while. I'm not sure just yet what to think. But I will ask one question to those who may bristle at the idea of blasphemy laws-
Do you bristle against the current blasphemy laws we have right now with the exact same level of frequency, volume, and conviction? For example, if someone is arrested and thrown into jail because he wiped his hind end with a Rainbow Jihad flag, or spoke out against the evils of doctors cutting off the perfectly healthy chests of 11-year-old girls because its phobic, do you condemn it as strongly as you would laws against blasphemes against God?
If the answer is yes, then I sincerely commend your consistency.
If not, you will not be able to justify both positions without the charge of hypocrisy leveled against you. The Rainbow Jihad is a rival religion and a rival nation, as Doug has written about in the past, with its own doctrines of what is right and wrong, its own gods and goddesses (from the individual jihadi to Asherah/Ishtar), and you are not allowed to speak against it without being canceled at best.
I bristle against the blasphemy laws you described because they are condemning blasphemy against the wrong things.
You're really committed to confusing the metaphorical and the literal. Christians believe in a supreme being who made 10 commandments, one of which is not to take their name in vain, right? Believing that trans people exist is not the same, is not close to equivalent, and there is no belief in gods or goddesses. Also, is there a law against using a rainbow flag as loo paper? There's probably a law against public defecation, but you're yet to hit upon any actual laws!
Doug is once again, trying to implement Van Til's methodology in these matters. According to Van Til, one cannot use logic without presupposing the "Christian worldview" (what ever that is). And from there, Van Til (and Bahnsen, Frame, et al) they conclude, a logical proof for God, and disproof of God are both proofs of God. This approach is always fraught with the same logical fallacy (pettito princippi) which they one again say cannot be cited without the "Christian worldview". Thus, even their fallacies are proofs. All of these folks seem to forget there are different levels of inquiry. When we say "Inference A is invalid." We are evaluating outside (and above) of "Inference A". And this is the case with Doug's analysis. Just because we have laws that restrict blaspheme (according to Doug's understanding), doesn't require blaspheme laws, only laws that evaluate such things from a level above the laws. . And that evaluation is always outside the laws themselves. From there, everything Doug asserts is an inaccurate understanding because his analysis doesn't recognize (either purposely or from ignorance) they are not the same level of analysis.
Thus theonomy is the only reasonable system of just law.
@joshhigdon4951 I don't disagree necessarily. The problem I have is with those who run the system. In this world, until His kingdom comes, we have weeds as well as wheat in the fields, and the weeds keep finding a way to infiltrate our systems of justice and badly twist them. Then everyone screeches that Christian rule is terrible and awful because of legitimately wicked men and women usurping honest men and women.
But ad Doug has said elsewhere, the question is not whether, but which. Someone will rule. And there will be a system in place. Which people do we want ruling over us? Unfortunately, too many people want the weeds, and we are reaping a harvest of useless plants, with devastating effects
The beast of Revelation was the Roman Empire? Ugh... Click...
Wouldn't Nero's statue of himself as the sun god technically be Idolatry and not Blasphemy? Or is there some reason why it is blasphemy that I do not understand?
I've been wrestling with this issue, in particular, as it regards John Calvin.
I understand that we have to consider things in the time and place in which it happened, so I don't have any issues understanding the historical context.
What I'm struggling with is the attitude, and motivation Calvin had in seeing people who blasphemed, and or simply and openly criticized him. Does anyone know if there was anything Calvin said which indicates he was repentant or remorseful of the people he stood in judgement of?
We certainly know Jean Cauvin (John Calvin) approved of the sentence of torturing Servetus to death because he rejected trinity
@@manager0175 yes.
Are you guys still post millennial?
A clearer approach, akin to a Rutherford/Lex Rex approach would require us to take a second look at the Lord's trial. Caiaphas and his gang brought two charges: (1) blasphemy under Jewish law; (2) treason/insurrection under Roman law. For the first charge, the court (Pilate) dismissed it (i.e.- What is truth?). For the second charge, Pilate ruled that Jesus was innocent. (i.e. - I find no fault with this man.). The same is the case with blasphemy laws. Neither Pilate, nor any human government, has the authority from Christ Jesus to try blasphemy violations. That is the purview of Church courts alone, as is the case with adultery, or any other notorious sin ('notorious' being the operative word). And, the logical extreme for any notorious sin, judiciously tried by any genuine church court, is excommunication.
Now, if we wanted to go further, we could potentially posit that any public servant would have to be a member in good standing in any evangelical Bible-believing church. But, that would run counter to the very Constitution that Doug references. There can't be any religious test for public office.
In any case, the question is one of authority. The reason the civil government doesn't have the authority to try blasphemy laws is precisely because the only civil government that the Lord ever delegated that authority-to was His Old Testament theocracy.
Jesus came in the flesh, and has done away with that system, primarily at the crucifixion when the Temple curtain was torn, then secondarily when He erased that nation-state, in fulfillment of His prophecy - in AD70.
Consequently, He rules over earth and heaven from His ascension until now, and all human government has been delegated the responsibility- from Him- to simply punish evil and reward good (Rom. 13). The basic general equity template for HOW that's accomplished is found both in His Word and in His creation, via natural revelation.
So, ceremonial laws are signs and seals of the covenant of grace, and Jesus changed those through His commands for baptism and in the Upper Room. Then, civil laws are exemplary, and Jesus illustrated the way in which that's to be dealt-with both at His crucifixion and through the apostles (honor the king, et al). And finally, the moral law is binding on all men, and that is dealt with through church discipline - and applied primarily and normally through the preaching of the gospel.
So far as powerful blasphemers are concerned, the Lord Himself promises to deal with them when He promises to "come quickly." He came quickly using Antiochus Epiphanies as His iron rod, and He routinely topples blasphemous world systems, if they blasphemy long enough and nastily enough. Most recently, the Soviet Union was toppled. Jesus "came" with a "little c," just as He came with a "little c" using Antiochus as His rod. That is how He 'comes' via secondary causality.
He will continue to topple evil, rebellious systems, whether they be large governments or multinational conglomerates, because He always keeps His promises.
And one day, it will be His Day. And He Himself will Come and topple all sinful world systems, and then He'll consummate the Kingdom forever.
Until then, we have to obey Him. And we have to tell the systems that they owe Him obedience. Because it's simply in their best interest to obey. That's the loving and honorable thing to do, because of what He's done for us.
Blasphemy is a noral law violation, nor civil or ceremonial
Do you see any inconsistency in claiming that god / Jesus toppled the Soviet Union but also presumably oversaw the war in Vietnam, secured victory for the Vietcong and established their Communist Party and its Socialist Republic? Or is that just one of those 'god works in mysterious ways' thangs?
@@aallen5256 why would there be an inconsistency? Borh russia and vietnam became communist because the USA gave up fighting
@@cosmictreason2242 I was asking OP. And I was asking why Jesus would topple the USSR, but allow the socialist republic of Vietnam to flourish, after 50,000 American troops were killed there.
@@aallen5256 idk man, is it possible that they were different places with different circumstances? 🤷🥱
Our leaders lack wisdom.
Including Doug
@JR-rs5qs wisdom is in a category all its own. While no person can possess all wisdom, the ones who can participate are ones who are capable of giving glory to Jesus and humble themselves. I think Doug is wise, but I'll admit we as humans all lack wisdom. It just so happens I think Doug has more than most which is why I follow his channel
@Guy-xr8lj true but he's lacking wisdom on this issue
@@JR-rs5qs how would you frame it?
The US & its government are in Roman's 1:18-32
Here before people will flood the comment section 😅😂
Here before someone mentions Calvin and Servetus!
@@hudjahulos You got it 🙂. Go tell that to the states with the largest populations of Christian. They lead the nation in divorces, obesity, violent crime, poverty, teen pregnancy, and many other societal ills. Let's not forget our Christian history. It was Jean Cauvin (John Calvin's real name) that approved of Servetus being tortured to death because he didn't believe in trinity. To this day I have never heard any Calvinist say he was wrong in that judgement.
Your most enjoyable post to date, sir!!!
Good until the end. I just don’t see the reason to wait a few hundred years to fully usher in christendom. Imagine the founders of this country saying well let’s set up an American government in the 1700s and wait until the 2000s to start actually practicing it.
It’s a self defeating system not to mention irrational to say you want to encourage your great great….great grandchildren to do the business you were sent to do.
The founding fathers talked of "all men being created equal", which was not fully implemented by the government until the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights act of 1964, 1965. So we did wait for nearly 200 years to practice it.
Actually they did do that day 1. They clearly viewed all people as born in the image of God, it is just some were citizens and some were not. They clearly defined what it means to qualify to vote. Men being created equal doesn't equate to equality of voting.
If you truly believe all men being created equal endows them with the right to vote than why even have a citizen / non citizen distinction. Shouldn't anyone in China, or Japan, or England or Mexico or even a resident of North Korea get a chance to vote in our elections too since they were created in the image of God too? Especially if they just so happen to travel here during election season for some reason.
Why do we ban felons from voting...after all Paul and Peter were incarcerated so therefore we must never ban felons from voting too right or else we run the risk of not viewing them as a true creation of God?
Point being, how we chose to set the rules for our democratic republic operates doesn't make era one more or less practicing our Christian world view that all humans were made in the image of God. Being born in the image of God doesn't mean that life is inherently fair or that there aren't different rules for people based on various distinctions. As an American I have no authority to vote in Uganda's elections, but that doesn't mean Uganda is somehow antithetical to the Gospel because they don't give me voting rights or the rights of a citizen.
In the same manner Paul sometimes appealed as a Jew, sometimes as a Roman, and sometimes as a citizen of Tarsus; we too have various earthly identities as well that grant us different rights than others. Paul being a Roman citizen afforded him more rights than a non-Roman citizen in the Roman Empire. He never once said we must abolish the Roman Empire because my other brothers and sisters in Christ don't have the same rights that I do.
@@manager0175
@@michaelclark2458 You said: "They clearly viewed all people as born in the image of God," Do Christians, Unitarians, Deists, and atheists all define "..born in the image of God.." the same way? Clearly, they do not.
Doug Doug Doug! This is the first time I've heard something that contains whole truths. The microscopic part as well! This tells me you are well aware of our true surroundings as we speak. True faith and belief override all those blasphemy convictions. when you truly realize who is with you and caring for you all that blasphemy stuff is in the hands of God. These things are just the same as they were then! Same yesterday, today and always I suppose! Our Father is always questioned on why this and why that. How can a loving God let this happen and yea, blah blah blah! He also questions how a people created in his image can hurt each other and him to a point that his heart is breaking! Simple foundational principles to abide by cannot even be achieved. Same as if your own child hurts and disrespects you to a point of no understanding! The understanding of the descriptive title of God almighty should never be questioned! It should be accepted and revered as the only true authority to abide by. He givith and he taketh away as seen fit. May mercy and peace overcome these lusts for money and power before it's to late.
I think Pilate was not being blasphemous but more philosophical over truth. Many people fight because of their version of the truth and I believe he was commenting on that. And as far as Nebuchadnezzar is concerned he was reacting to his dream that Daniel confirmed to him the meaning of. So, he built a statue that was fully gold and not just the head of gold to let people know his kingdom would not be overthrown. And by throwing people into the furnace he may have thought, "if I do this I can get rid of all my enemies". Instead he himself was the cause of Babylons down fall.
4:45
Is the Angel of the Lord who smote Herod with worms the same theophanic Jesus from the OT?
I know by definition, theophany is preincarnate visits from Christ, but Jesus is also supertemporal and exempt from the restrictions we might place on events and themes in the Bible.
"Blasphemy headquarters" is my new favorite name for DC.
What Bible are you reading because that's not what it says in the King James
Fallen man’s coddiwomple sure has some strange pit stops.
Fair point.
I would posit that the death penalty is not viable as punishment in a modern nation because the modern nation is not a theocracy. I also believe that officials in a government should be required as prerequisite for candidateship to swear to their adherence to the Nicaean Creed.
You said: "I would posit that the death penalty is not viable as punishment in a modern nation.." I agree with you. The reason I reject the death penalty is that we have executed innocents. And we have had crooked prosecutors create false evidence to get the death penalty. Additionally, one of the former governors of Texas quashed exculpatory evidence to allow an innocent man to be executed.
We should not make laws that uphold the first table of the law or that would be a state church and even loss of freedoms for certain Christians. The second table of the law is different. In fact we already have laws that uphold it
Go tell that to the states with the largest populations of Christian. They lead the nation in divorces, obesity, violent crime, poverty, teen pregnancy, and many other societal ills. Let's not forget our Christian history. It was Jean Cauvin (John Calvin's real name) that approved of Servetus being tortured to death because he didn't believe in trinity. To this day I have never heard any Calvinist say he was wrong in that judgement.
Amen. The “ordo protrudis”
Well said.
Brother, the Roman Empire was not the Beast of Revelation.
Depends on your eschatology.
ruclips.net/video/y8i0blqacQw/видео.htmlsi=beocDJYb270_EhzR
Sorry, but it was.
Yes. Yes it was.
I mean you could argue more specifically Nero….
This is an interesting discussion, but Christians are in no position to implement any of this.
Well, not yet of course. The leaven doesn't make the dough instantly rise, nor does the mustard seed instantly make a bush.
Nor should they.
@@manager0175 Really? Why's that?
@@stegokitty Things are always worse when political power is put in the hands of religious folks. Typically, they are more corrupt, more violent, and more incompetent than their secular counterparts.
Thank you Doug for this. Our declaration of Independence lays out the foundation upon which our constitution is built. We have a duty to our creator because he has endowed us with gifts they are his, he has given them to us and he can take them away and will remove us and we will have to give an account for the gifts that we had to exercise in this life. Government is only here to protect individuals ability to use his gifts for God's glory. Government is here to restrain the wicked who would infringe and trespass on their neighbors liberty. As I've heard others say government is restrained so we can be free. I would just add free to be godly in our individual lives our families our communities are churches and ultimately our nation all to the glory of our creator amen.
Go tell that to the states with the largest populations of Christian. They lead the nation in divorces, obesity, violent crime, poverty, teen pregnancy, and many other societal ills. Let's not forget our Christian history. It was Jean Cauvin (John Calvin's real name) that approved of Servetus being tortured to death because he didn't believe in trinity. To this day I have never heard any Calvinist say he was wrong in that judgement.
You said: "duty to our creator .." You do understand that the vast majority of our founding fathers were deists, unitarians, or atheists?
@@manager0175 Compared to the Christianized society around them, maybe, but even Thomas Jefferson had a Bible (that he tried to rip all of the supernatural elements out of because he thought those superfluous to the moral teachings, but still he was not ready to throw out the whole project)
@@dotwarner17 If I may be so bold, the "supernatural elements" of the Bible ARE the "whole project".
@@manager0175 That's the Christian claim, yes. But my argument is that the self identified deists, unitarians, and atheists among the Founding Fathers still lived in, assumed, and appealed to a generically Christianized common core which believed in and practiced generically Christian ethics regardless of their personal doctrinal hangups (which I think they were able to have good-faith debates in parlor rooms with because of said generically Christianized culture, plus peace of Westphalia, plus trauma from past state-sponsored church).
I reject the notion that we need "many years" or centuries to be able to uphold the first table of the Law (for all, not just the powerful). One standard of law for all I'll add.
And the choices aren't limited to instantaneous or many many years / centuries. But this kind of discourse does nothing to actually advance towards the goal. It's not equal weights and measures. It's at 1 class of people up as being outside of the law. And it would actually catechize generations of people into considering such a thing as an acceptable standard. And no matter what you try to say an argument, that is what it would actually do. The log inspect issue is whether or not we're going to be a hypocrite in how we implement this or not. Hypocrisy unless we have a standard that applies to all
So we win the White House and a majority of Congress in 2024 and publish a wonderful set of blasphemy laws, fully in accordance with Scripture. Then in 2028 the Democrats win back the White House and Congress (since the average American despises God and His word) and now Gavin Newsome is in charge of enforcing all our new speech laws. How would you write those laws to ensure they don't get turned on Bible-believing Christians or immediately repealed?
@@brentives4688 Good point! Book-banning laws introduced in Utah, Florida and other states are already being inverted and used to ban The Bible from high schools due to it's 'sex-ridden' contents.
This is a deception 🌏
We should wait many years to establish true Christian governance, we know this is the right path bc of all the verses telling us to gradually be more obedient to God and not get too hung up early in life
This might be too subtle for some.
We've been subtle for too long. It's time for a bold stand.
If you haven't noticed, the Constitution begins with "We The People" not "As God as ordained" nor "According to God's law". We began as a secular, humanist, and utilitarian, government.
@@manager0175 you mistake me for someone who cares what the constitution says
@@manager0175 you're deluded.
Here, I fixed it for you:
The spurious blasphemy charge came straight from a group of leaders who’d got more than a little zealous about Theonomy….and Christ throughly thumped them for it on multiple occasions. He also promised his apostles they’d experience nothing but trouble and death from the same sort of individuals until He returned.
Theonomy done wrong is not only more common, it’s more dangerous to true followers of Christ. Whatever is born out of Moscow into America in the next decades will surely persecute the Faithful, just as their forefathers did.
# of moscowites arresting the citizenry: 0
# of moscowites arrested for blasphemy: at least one.
You're on the wrong side of this
@@cosmictreason2242 most recently one of the moscowites was arrested last year, a deacon who was charged a felony for having cp on his iPhone.
Sounds like someone would prefer the godless government of secular society to me.
@@aallen5256 ao your argument is that he was persecuting non presbyterians? Because otherwise you're just slinging mud that's irrelevant to the argument
@@cosmictreason2242 Um its not mud. It's a felony charge. And you said in another comment that we should concentrate on combatting marxists and " 👶🍆" - do you think it's weird that Doug has mentioned nothing about his deacon of 4 years who was indicted in 2022?
"Using the standard of scripture" to define blasphemy laws also means nothing. Anyone can interpret the Bible any way thay want. And unlike churches, in which submission to such beliefs is voluntary (i.e., you can change church), the State can't be escaped so... No blasphemy laws
Also, it's not reasonable to make this argument thinking it somehow validates the idea of CN since, after all, nothing guarantees that does in power wuld in fact focus on shrinking the size of the State.
This is a great argument against protestantism.
@@benjamingallows
no, it's really not.
It's an argument against blasphemy laws.
Two birds with one stone! @@LRibeiro97
If people can interpret things however they want, then I choose to interpret your post as supporting blasphemy laws.