The hypocrisy of modern society is evident in its tolerance of Onlyfans, a platform that exploits and degrades women, while claiming to combat human trafficking and protect women's rights.
I vote for a theocracyā¦.
Discussion
It's the mentality of you can't objectify me if I objectify myself, it's very sad honestly, I truly hope they will see the errors of their ways and change from them. Lord have mercy.
Great point. Itās sad.
Itās the fact that 18 year old girls are doing it. I remember being so dumb at 18. These poor girls have their entire body on the internet forever. Try explaining that to a future spouse or child.
Exactly. We need strong fathers to protect these girls from ever getting to that point.
...respectfully...which kind of theocracy? Muslim? Jewish? Christian? If Christian, then which sect, Roman? Baptist? Presbyterian? Episcopalean? The Christian Zionists?
Will we imprison people for their views on the sacraments? Or on Zionism? Or for their loyalty to (or rejection of) Rome? Or on some other finer point of doctrine?
...no. We started a country and fought a war of independance precisely to escape religious civil wars "over there." We have separation of church authority and state authority, and freedom of religion, _for good reason_.
"The Church grasps not after the sword the State."
The gospel is the solution.
Not coersion.
āļø
Whatās up bro. We could go on for a long time about this. Iāll pose a simple question and then we can go from thereā¦
Is Godās law a good standard for civil justice, or should we prefer autonomous human reasoning? Thatās the deeper issue beneath the theocracy question.
I'd say that's a false dichotomy, my friend.
Natural Law *is* God's law -- and that's the basis for a just civil society. This law, written on every heart (Romans 2), has been known as the _lex talionis_ (the law of retribution), "eye for an eye," the "light of nature," the "law of nature," etc. Even the pagans know this law ("things that ought not to be done." [Gen. 20:9]). If this is all one means by "theocracy," that we ought to have civil laws like "don't hurt people and don't take their stuff," then--while I'd quibble with the terminology--fine. But normally "theocracy" is used quite differently.
Scripture and its story of redemption is for the church. The theocracy of Moses is over, and its civil laws were never meant to be an example for setting up a civil society--its civil and ecclesiastical laws, as the divines put it, "expired together with that state."
In other words...I'll see a "Bahnsen," and raise a "Vos."
š¤
I appreciate the nuance here, brother. Youāre right that natural law reflects Godās moral order written on the heart. But hereās where Iād press back gentlyā¦
While Romans 2 affirms general moral knowledge, Romans 1:18 also tells us fallen humans āsuppress the truth in unrighteousness.ā Natural law gives us some moral intuition, but we consistently distort it. When cultural consensus breaks down on abortion, marriage, property rights, justice for the poor, how does natural law alone adjudicate these disputes? We inevitably need special revelation to clarify what natural law actually requires.
I agree the Mosaic theocracy as a nation-state is over. But even Westminster Confession 19.4 says those civil laws contained āgeneral equityā that āmay requireā application today. The question isnāt whether to reinstitute every ceremonial detail, but whether Godās revealed standards of justice remain instructive. Did the moral content of justice change, or just its administration? Does ādo not murderā or ādo not stealā mean something fundamentally different now?
You mention ādonāt hurt people and donāt take their stuff,ā but thatās precisely where it gets complicated. Whose definition of hurt? Of property? Of justice? In our pluralistic society, natural law reasoning constantly conflicts. When it does, where do we turn?
If we say āautonomous human consensus,ā weāve still chosen a theological standard, just secular humanismās rather than Scriptureās. Thereās no neutral ground.
So hereās my questionā¦.When natural law reasoning produces contradictory conclusions (as it demonstrably does), what authority clarifies and corrects our understanding, or are we left to mere power politics?