“don’t often cite” — is that because of the whole stoning-to-death-anyone-who-isn’t-a-calvinist thing? He’ll only proceed with those plans when he’s brainwashed society to such an extent that he can get away with it.
I kind of exaggerated a bit there. It is more accurate to say that his ideal society is one where anyone who sins is publicly stoned or flogged, possibly to death. I had an email exchange with him about this a number of years ago. I pointed out that Jesus said “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, quite correctly, ie. we are all sinners. He responded by asking me if the Old Testament meant nothing to me. I answered yes, it means nothing. He said that he was unhappy with Jesus’ “turn the other cheek” attitude. So North rejects the central fact of the New Testament: that we are all sinners and that Jesus was required to die to redeem us (at least this is how I understand it). North must therefore not be a sinner himself, which is a remarkable achievement.
He suggested that I should read his book “Victim’s Rights”, an appalling bunch of drivel. I won’t link to it, since he clearly wants it spread around as much as possible…oh screw it, here it is.
Gary North is apparently unaware of the proper Biblical Attitude towards sexual assault, since he seems unconcerned that the victim he mentioned in his preface was not executed. Perhaps he’d prefer it if only the attacker were punished. This is an imposition of modern liberal values. Man, those things are sneaky.
Ditto, I’ve seen this accusation posted elsewhere, but I’ve never seen or heard this from North in spite of the many articles and speeches I’ve read/heard over the years.
Well, I don’t know of a particular article off-hand where he addresses stoning directly, but he’s a Theonomist / Christian Reconstructionist, and that’s what they advocate (a return to the laws of Deuteronomy).
“don’t often cite” — is that because of the whole stoning-to-death-anyone-who-isn’t-a-calvinist thing? He’ll only proceed with those plans when he’s brainwashed society to such an extent that he can get away with it.
Nah, it’s because he likes Shane.
Definitely never thought I would see a post tagged “Left-Libertarian” linking to a Gary North post.
Oh, theonomy…
“the whole stoning-to-death-anyone-who-isn’t-a-calvinist thing?”
link?
I kind of exaggerated a bit there. It is more accurate to say that his ideal society is one where anyone who sins is publicly stoned or flogged, possibly to death. I had an email exchange with him about this a number of years ago. I pointed out that Jesus said “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, quite correctly, ie. we are all sinners. He responded by asking me if the Old Testament meant nothing to me. I answered yes, it means nothing. He said that he was unhappy with Jesus’ “turn the other cheek” attitude. So North rejects the central fact of the New Testament: that we are all sinners and that Jesus was required to die to redeem us (at least this is how I understand it). North must therefore not be a sinner himself, which is a remarkable achievement.
He suggested that I should read his book “Victim’s Rights”, an appalling bunch of drivel. I won’t link to it, since he clearly wants it spread around as much as possible…oh screw it, here it is.
Gary North is apparently unaware of the proper Biblical Attitude towards sexual assault, since he seems unconcerned that the victim he mentioned in his preface was not executed. Perhaps he’d prefer it if only the attacker were punished. This is an imposition of modern liberal values. Man, those things are sneaky.
Ditto, I’ve seen this accusation posted elsewhere, but I’ve never seen or heard this from North in spite of the many articles and speeches I’ve read/heard over the years.
Well, I don’t know of a particular article off-hand where he addresses stoning directly, but he’s a Theonomist / Christian Reconstructionist, and that’s what they advocate (a return to the laws of Deuteronomy).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism