Persecuted Christians finally getting noticed

Yes you are right about the legal situation in Sudan. Her defense could really be considered to be an objection to the law itself IF as you say simply being born to a Muslim father is enough to define her as apostate, despite her having been brought up a Christian by her mother after he deserted the family. Of course since she has always lived as a Christian she's going to object to the imposition of a Muslim law. Especially having never lived as a Muslim in her 27 years and having been married to a Christian man for three years before this happened to her. Israel is no longer a theocracy and Christianity certainly isn't, so you are very wrong about what "our" religious laws are.Your accusation of Christianity of being soft on what YOU think we should do about apostasy is based on the usual confusion between Old and New Testaments.First, the ENTIRE context of Deut 13: 6-10 is about enticing others to follow other gods, it's not about the person's own apostasy. Go read verse 6 again.I haven't read enough of Rushdoony to have a clear idea of what he thinks but imposing Old Testament law in today's pluralistic society makes zero sense. Ancient Israel was a specially created earthly theocracy, while Christians are to understand our citizenship is in heaven, not on earth. There is nothing in the New Testament to justify such measures against apostates anyway. Kick them out of the church, that's about it. Of course the RCC took it quite a bit further but Protestants consider them the apostates. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yeah, those Old Testament penalties were probably meant to be taken as a metaphor.HBD

No, they were meant for the theocracy of Israel.

Now they are accusing Meriam Ibrahim of forging her papers from South Sudan and threatening to jail her for that. GuardianDaily MailEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

From what I see in the Guardian article, she has South Sudanese issued papers with citizenship based on her marriage. However her marriage to a Christian, is by Sudan law, illegal.Pretty bizarre in my opinion. Logical in the same way the Dred Scott verdict was logical. Scott could not sue in a US court because he could not prove that he was a citizen of the US or any other country. Not a surprising result after you have been enslaved and brought to a new country without any identity papers.

Sure. And isn't a theocracy exactly what you'd like to have if you could? Why, yes it is Message 332

Fox and ABC news are reporting that Mariam Ibrahim has been released again. This time I'm going to wait to hear about her arrival in some town with a sane legal situation before I celebrate.

I'd love to live in a theocracy myself, but all that really means is I'd like to live among true believers, because it would only work for true believers, and in that case there really wouldn't be any need for laws anyway as we'll all be following God. It's not something I want to impose on unbelievers, which is why I said it wouldn't work in this world, and Christians aren't a theocracy, that's just my own personal choice. The only way I'll get that kind of life is in heaven.I too am just going to wait for definite news about Meriam Ibrahim rather than trying to keep up with all the conflicting reports.

I'd say that's a bit of a revisionist recollection. Maybe it is what you actually feel, but it is not exactly the sentiment you expressed during the thread. You came to the realization that a theocracy would not work after a huge discussion in which we convinced you that the US Constitution would not allow things like denying political power to non-believers in your state. So apparently you accepted that there would be non-believers.

You are right, that is not the way I remember it and since you don't offer proof I don't have any reason to change my mind. I definitely remember not wanting to be in the position of persecuting unbelievers.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No news about Meriam but I thought this was interesting: "Christians deface our honor and we know how to get revenge for that" said Meriam's brother, HERE.

That does not require a theocracy. You could do that today with a home owners association (in a planned development project).... and you would probably have as many disagreements with your neighbors as you have today.

The only reason to change your mind would be to acknowledge the truth. You would not have to do that even if I did provide prof. In this case though, the entire sorry discussion is archived, and anyone can see your plans for people who don't agree with you and who find themselves in your theocratic state.

Basically that they wouldn't have a place in my theocratic state as I recall. I was trying to find a way to secede from the US in that thread, didn't want to deal with people who would hate being ruled by the Bible, but since it would mean having to make them leave I realized that such a state is impossible on this planet.

You said a bit more than that. You said that they could stay but would have no political power. You did acknowledge that they could leave. You suggested letting states vote on being the new Puritan state.On the other hand, you did seem to be a bit surprised that people would not voluntarily leave when you took over. Perhaps you simply did not think things through.