Subscribe: Comments on Brain Cramps for God: Toward a Definition of Theocracy
http://braincrampsforgod.blogspot.com/feeds/113614283055976485/comments/default
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
Tags:
abortion  back  change constitution  change  changing constitution  changing  constitution  earth  god  heaven  kingdom  privacy  rights 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Comments on Brain Cramps for God: Toward a Definition of Theocracy

Comments on Brain Cramps for God: Toward a Definition of Theocracy





Updated: 2017-11-17T03:07:19.648-08:00

 



Dear friends,Can I start by emphasising how theocr...

2007-09-03T19:32:00.000-07:00

Dear friends,
Can I start by emphasising how theocracy comes into affect. Not by will of man nor by morals all are guilty of breaking. One who is governed by the law is under the law but we were originally placed here to have dominion over the earth by way of Divine Realization of Who You Are. If nothing is impossible with God and you were meant to do the works that Jesus (Who is One with God) did and Greater works, then it is plain to see that putting on the mind of Christ would mean equality with God (Phil.2:5,6) meaning that in truth you are one with God or otherwise said, God having a human experience. With this mind of Christ one begins to actualize the actributes and ways of God. The Kingdom of God is Ruled by Divine Protocol where God Realization sits on the throne not man's concepts (:Adamic). The Gospel of Jesus Christ merely brings one into Supreme citizenship but the return of Jesus is through His Soldiers who know who they are (Read Joel 2) for even death will have to take a back seat when the Gospel of the Kingdom is Globally Realized. I don't care what things appear like to the human eyes, God's Kingdom Will Replace the government of this little god. When God rules there is No respector of persons. There's about 6 or 7 billion people on the global map and yet this country has already thrown away more than 12 billion dollars on a senseless war. Having this much funds, EVERYBODY should have at least a million dollars pocketed in a world where God overlooks NO ONE.. as opposed to the present rule where the "elite few" 20% in approximation rules with wealth while the approximate 80% struggle. A government is supposed to take care of it's citizens. Who would You rather see on the throne? A society where resorces divided evenly that none should go without or the present unequal system of this little god. Theocracy dosen't fight people but misconceptions ruling outside of "thy kingdom come, thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven". God is not trying to populate heaven. Read Rev.21:1. If there's a new heaven and earth yet to come, what happens to those who cross over to a place called heaven as of today? We weren't put here to lay down and "die" but to carry out the original mandate set for all mankind: to have dominion over the earth. (Genesis 1:26)
-Apostle Reiki Melchizedek- My handle in yahoo is DoctorSoulFoot



Thank you,I am half-asleep and that seems right.Wh...

2006-01-07T21:44:00.000-08:00

Thank you,

I am half-asleep and that seems right.

What I meant when I wrote it was that there was no way the framers would have written anything that supported gay rights, or abortion, in the Constitution - and would have probably been more explicit if they thought it was going to be used that way.

When we made the change to the current state - abortion in, gay rights up in the air really - people in favor of abortion didn't think it constituted a fundamental change in the fabric - just an outworking of a right to privacy in the 9th amendment.

If it is changed back it still is not a fundamental change in the Constitution - just a re-evaluation of the privacy coverage. Incidentally, I have no real problem with privacy as an right under the 9th. I have a problem with the things they cover with privacy.



It's actually a debate within constitutional theor...

2006-01-07T05:50:00.000-08:00

It's actually a debate within constitutional theory whether abortion or homosexuality changes over the last decades count as a change in the Constitution. Justices Scalia and Thomas, for instance, consider those judicial fiats to be judges rewriting the Constitution, and overturning those decisions would, on their view, be changing the Constitution back to what it says. Others thing the Constitution is open on the question, and judges made it determinate. Changing it back would, for them, be a change in what the Living Constitution means. A third group thinks these decisions are simply an outworking of the Constitution. In that case, the rights in the Bill of Rights guarantee the right to abortion or to gay sodomy. If this view is correct, then changing them back would indeed be changing the Constitution, because the laws all along conflicted with the Constitution. They would count it a judicial fiat that rewrites the Constitution the same way Scalia and Thomas think Roe v. Wade and Laurence v. Texas did.

I can't think of any other options. In all three cases, changing the laws back would constitute changing the Constitution. If all you meant is that no one sees these as altering the fundamental structure and nature of the Constitution, maybe that's right. But it sounded to me on my first reading that you might be saying that no one thinks of this (in either direction) as a change in the Constitution at all, which simply isn't true.