tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.comments2017-10-25T06:50:06.484-05:00Dollar Non¢entsPeter Allisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-46822822526221302432017-10-25T06:50:06.484-05:002017-10-25T06:50:06.484-05:00I am so glad I was referred to DC lawyerfor my DUI...I am so glad I was referred to <a href="https://plus.google.com/+BruckheimPatelLLCWashington" rel="nofollow">DC lawyer</a>for my DUI case. My case went very well and I cannot express how pleased I was throughout the whole process. Not only was Mike very professional, but he was also very personable and pleasant to talk to, which definitely helped me feel like I was in safe hands, especially when I was anxious. Thank you, Mike!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07712462188077025016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-50156760989293540672015-11-27T09:05:59.092-06:002015-11-27T09:05:59.092-06:00Those of us that see that our leaders do not confi...Those of us that see that our leaders do not confine themselves to the constititution now, have an obligation to point this out to others that may not be as politically astute. Most of our representation in Montgomery County are pushing an Article V convention. In a way I think its cover for them being disciplined enough to restrain themselves! If they want the budget cut, cut it. If they want term limits, do not run again, or use your free will to vote out incumbents. Putting laws down on paper isn't going to make them enforce themselves. Our elected officials must do the hard uncomfortable work of applying political pressure to stay within the confines of our constitution, and we must do the same. It may be uncomfortable for us also, but it must be done. <br />rightsidehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00521644042932754688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-65923278166943899222015-05-11T23:12:45.068-05:002015-05-11T23:12:45.068-05:00Chuck, I don't think that is likely. I conside...Chuck, I don't think that is likely. I consider it very unlikely that the result would be as good as what we have now. If we just restricted participants to evangelical voters, I am convinced it would not be as good as we have now. Peter Allisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-58592871318814936832015-05-11T23:08:33.023-05:002015-05-11T23:08:33.023-05:00Yes Dan. They did what they were supposed to do. T...Yes Dan. They did what they were supposed to do. That is exactly the problem!Peter Allisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-26383704376955298372015-05-11T22:11:45.988-05:002015-05-11T22:11:45.988-05:00revised means rewrite, Einstein. they did exactly ...revised means rewrite, Einstein. they did exactly what they were supposed to do.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09760433649859373077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-25478991953551080032015-05-11T22:03:01.202-05:002015-05-11T22:03:01.202-05:00revised means rewrite, Einstein. they did exactly ...revised means rewrite, Einstein. they did exactly what they were supposed to do.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09760433649859373077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-16321568921339537672015-01-29T21:15:50.564-06:002015-01-29T21:15:50.564-06:00But, given the steady and relentless nature of Ame...But, given the steady and relentless nature of America's turning from God going back 400 years, isn't it likely that the result of a Con-Con would be at least as good as what we have now?Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260090304918987038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-42706319748512582002013-02-26T08:50:09.324-06:002013-02-26T08:50:09.324-06:00{Continued}
Not only was it the usual practice for...{Continued}<br />Not only was it the usual practice for men and women to be covered in the sermon and uncovered during communion, but we also have examples where the session of a church commanded men and women to sit uncovered throughout the entire service as a sign of their repentance. If they believed it was a sin for a woman to pray uncovered, why would they command a women to sin as a sign of her repentance?<br /><br />March 1581<br />The which day, Thomas Reif younger, confessed to having committed adultery with Margaret Cluny, is discerned to compear upon Sunday next [and] to come with the said Margaret, clothed in sackcloth, bare headed and bare footed, and stand at the Kirk door from the second to the third bell to sermon before noon, and thereafter to compear upon the adulterers place of the penitent stool within the Kirk, and sit therein until the sermon be ended, and so forth to continue each Sunday until the Kirk be satisfied (The Register of the Minister[,] Elders and Deacons of the Christian Congregation of St. Andrews, Comprising the Proceedings of the Kirk Session, and of the Court of the Superintendent of Fife, Fothrik, and Strathhearn, 1559-1600, pp. 475, 476,<br /><br />January 1584<br />The which day, compears Jhone Paterson, merchant and citiner in St. Andrews, who grants and confesses that he has had carnal dealings with Issobell Gray in adultery, he being married to Jonet Trymlay his spouse (he then admits his guilt but denies part of Issobell's statement). The Session, in respect of his confession, with one voice ordains the said Jhone Paterson, and also the said Issobell in respect of her confession, to begin, upon the Sunday next to come, their humiliation for the said offense; to wit that both together to compear clothed in sackcloth, bare headed, and bare footed at the Kirk of the said city, at the second bell to sermon before noon, and to stand there until the third bell to sermon be ceased; and thereafter to compear together on the highest degree of the penitent stool, and sit as said until the sermon and prayers be ended, and so forth to continue each Sunday until the Kirk be satisfied (The Register of the Minister[,] Elders and Deacons of the Christian Congregation of St. Andrews, Comprising the Proceedings of the Kirk Session, and of the Court of the Superintendent of Fife, Fothrik, and Strathhearn, 1559-1600, p. 551, emphases added).<br /><br />We find similar rulings on pages 441, 572, 705, 731, 767, 785, 793, 866, 877, 886, and 921.<br /><br />The Geneva Bible adds in its notes to 1 Corinthians 11:4 the following statement which clearly show that at least Theodore Beza [the author of the notes] understood the head coverings to be a custom of the culture and not a command of scripture. <br /><br />{3} By this he gathers that if men do either pray or preach in public assemblies having their heads covered (which was then a sign of subjection), they robbed themselves of their dignity, against God's ordinance.<br />{b} It appears, that this was a political law serving only for the circumstance of the time that Paul lived in, by this reason, because in these our days for a man to speak bareheaded in an assembly is a sign of subjection.<br /><br />I don’t know what tradition you come from, but many who believe the Westminster Confession accurately summarizes the teaching of scripture would view the Presbyterian church of Scotland in the 17th century to be exemplary. This doesn’t make their views correct. They could be dead wrong. But they are a significant part of the Presbyterian tradition and they clearly disprove any notion that “the church” has uniformly required women to be veiled while praying and prophesying for 1000’s of years as a moral duty commanded in scripture. Peter Allisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-17993845755063728182013-02-26T08:47:40.001-06:002013-02-26T08:47:40.001-06:00Anonymous,
You ask, "The biggest question is ...Anonymous,<br />You ask, "The biggest question is this: if you asked your wife to wear a covering on Sunday, would she be obedient in an Eph.5 manner, or would she laugh at you (and your supposed authority?)<br /><br />The answer to that is easy. She would gladly wear a veil. It wouldn't be more than a 5 minute conversation. Shortly after we were married I asked her not to wear pants. It was a 5 minute conversation and she has not worn them since. She has taught our daughters likewise. <br /><br />We've now been married well over 25 years and her submission is a mature fruit of God's grace. Such a request would be no more trouble than a request to invite certain families to our house for dinner. The real issue and much longer conversation would be explaining why I was wrong in my understanding of 1 Cor 11 for 25 years.Peter Allisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-54277689437462186912013-02-25T12:13:28.760-06:002013-02-25T12:13:28.760-06:00Anonymous,
Why do you think the church got this w...Anonymous,<br /><br />Why do you think the church got this wrong for 1000's of years? Are you saying the church has required women to wear veils and hats in public worship and forbidden men to do so for 1000’s of years?<br /><br />This is easily disproven. <br /><br />The church of Scotland in the 16th and 17th centuries believed the head covering of 1 Corinthians 11 was a cultural custom in the church at Corinth, not an inviolate principle. It was their practice for people to be covered during the sermon and uncovered during the Lord’s Supper. George Gillespie, a pastor of the Church of Scotland, writes:<br /><br />Customable Signs; and so the uncovering of the head, which of old was a sign<br />of preeminence, has, through custom, become a sign of subjection (Dispute<br />Against English Popish Ceremonies, Naphtali Press, p. 247).<br /><br />Secondly, customary signs have likewise place in divine service; for so a man<br />coming into one of our churches in time of public worship, if he sees the hearers<br />covered, he knows by this customary sign that sermon has begun (Dispute<br />Against English Popish Ceremonies, Naphtali Press, p. 248).<br /><br />Uncovering the head, seemeth to be little older then Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians. The learned Salmasius thinketh it but a National sign of honour, no ways universally received: but certainly is not Adoration: though therefore we receive the supper of the Lord uncovered, no man can conclude from thence Adoration of the Elements, as we do from kneeling conclude the same, as we shall here for all bodily worship or expression of our affection to means of graces (though these means be but creatures) is not Adoration properly either of God, or of these means, it is Lawful to tremble at the word, and for Josiah to weep before the book of the Law read, and for the Martyrs to kiss the stake as the Instrument by which they glorified God, in dying for the truth: all these things being Ojectam quo, and means by which they conveyed their worship to the true God, and natural and Lawful expressions of their affection to God: For uncovering the head, it is a sort of veneration or reverence, not adoration; and Paul insinuateth so much when he saith, 1 Cor 11:4. “Every man praying and prophesying having his head covered, dishonoreth his head”: But it is not his meaning that he dishonoreth God. The Jews to this day, as of old, used not uncovering the head as a sign of honour: But by the contrary, covering was a sign of honour. If therefore the Jews, being made a visible Church, shall receive the Lords Supper, and Pray and Prophesy with covered heads, men would judge it no dishonoring of their head, or not of disrespect of the ordinances of God: Though Paul having regard to National custom in Corinth, did so esteem it (The Divine Right of Church Government, Still Waters Revival Books, pp. 89, 90).<br /><br />Those who speak more plainly than Bishop Lindsey, do here object to us, that reverence is due to the sacrament, and that we ourselves do reverence it when we sit uncovered at the receiving of it (Dispute Against English Popish Ceremonies, Naphtali Press, p. 217).<br /><br />Not only was it the usual practice for men and women to be covered in the sermon and uncovered during communion, but we also have examples where the session of a church commanded men and women to sit uncovered throughout the entire service as a sign of their repentance. If they believed it was a sin for a woman to pray uncovered, why would they command a women to sin as a sign of her repentance?<br />Peter Allisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-69212906685232343942013-02-25T11:13:16.859-06:002013-02-25T11:13:16.859-06:00So the church got this teaching wrong for over a t...So the church got this teaching wrong for over a thousand years, but remarkably, around the feminist uprising of the 1950's/60's, theologians remarkably determined that it's not necessary to wear the covering anymore.<br /><br />Hermeneutical backflips, basically because wives aren't comfortable being obedient to their husbands. The biggest question is this: if you asked your wife to wear a covering on Sunday, would she be obedient in an Eph.5 manner, or would she laugh at you (and your supposed authority?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-50755454618271906652012-09-04T09:57:02.941-05:002012-09-04T09:57:02.941-05:00Angie, I fully agree with you on that. These sorts...Angie, I fully agree with you on that. These sorts of judgments should definitely follow a women's husband's view and may be formed from other input. <br /><br />Just so this comment is not misunderstood by anyone reading this later, I should clarify that church elders (e.g Pastors) don't have any authority to specify the length of someone's hair. Anything they say is strictly an opinion that may be completely ignored.Peter Allisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-52676054227482867232012-09-03T21:32:38.712-05:002012-09-03T21:32:38.712-05:00Yes, I see what you are saying. I guess my thought...Yes, I see what you are saying. I guess my thought was that the "whole-picture judgment" would be more determined by external sources (such as a pastor, husband, or brother in Christ) as opposed to the individual's own judgment. As I only too well know, we are often quite able to deceive ourselves and rationalize away something that we really want to do/practice. Thank you for your reply, I really appreciate it!Angie Heppnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-2504718934874376422012-08-30T23:29:45.023-05:002012-08-30T23:29:45.023-05:00Angie, I think you are essentially correct. The sc...Angie, I think you are essentially correct. The scriptures forbid one gender wearing what pertains to the other gender. But it doesn't specify what types of clothes belong to each gender. I think it hints at it when commands the priests to wear pants. But it doesn't say that pants belong to the male gender and dresses to the female gender. Which clothes belong to each gender is culturally determined and that can change. For example, in Scottish culture, men did wear dresses. In Roman culture they wore robes. <br /><br />In our culture 120 years ago, pants pertained exclusively to males and dresses pertained to women. When the early feminist women wanted to show their rebellion against the created order, they did so by wearing pants. Over time more and more women wore pants and it became culturally acceptable to do so. Today many Christian women wear pants without any thought of rebellion. So I think that culture has changed what clothes pertain to females. For the most part pants have become part of the female wardrobe. Their pants are cut different and look different than male pants. Of course, pants are still used to signify male restrooms and dresses are still used to signify female restrooms. So it has not been a complete cultural shift yet. <br /><br />For me personally, I still associate pants on women with the feminists. I don’t expect other people have this association, I don’t condemn other women (or their husbands ) for wearing them, and I don’t teach that women have to wear pants. But I did ask my wife to not wear pants when we were married. It has turned out to be, very interestingly, a clear sign of her Christian faith. She has reported on more than one occasion to being treated as a lady because of her dress.<br /><br />You wonder if my comment on the length of hair being a matter of judgment doesn’t go dangerously close to relativism and offer that the length of hair could be determined by the whole picture that a woman portrays. Yes, I agree that the whole picture a woman portrays is important. But isn’t the “whole picture” a matter of judgment? I think you’ve simply provided more detail on the criteria by which a judgment is made. I think a woman’s motive is also important as is the length of her hair compared to the length of men’s hair, particularly her husband’s hair. Peter Allisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-78068734121787574462012-08-30T10:54:53.416-05:002012-08-30T10:54:53.416-05:00Excellent article. Thanks for addressing both side...Excellent article. Thanks for addressing both sides of the argument. Thank you for your gracious and humble attitude on this potentially divisive subject. This is one topic (of many, I'm sure) where I was aware of the controversy, but had never really studied for myself. I leaned toward the "hair as the covering" argument, but also respected those who chose to wear a veil, although I did see some inconsistencies with that view. I now am even more convinced in the "hair" argument, as well an an increased sense of the importance of the length of the hair.<br /><br />I remember reading a section in Rushdooney about women wearing pants. It was very good, and I believe applicable here, in that he shows that it is not simply the article of clothing (or exact length of hair) that violates God's Law-Word, but whether or not her entire appearance is more that of a man, or more that of a woman. I have met women who have long hair (past the shoulders) and who wear long skirts or dresses, and yet their demeanor and position in the home causes them to more closely resemble a man than a woman. On the contrary, I know women who can wear a short but feminine haircut (perhaps even above the ears) and slacks (not skin tight) while still appearing extremely feminine, due to their submissive and respectful attitude and position in the home. So, regarding your earlier comment on how the length of hair is simply a matter of judgment (which, respectfully, to me seems to go dangerously in the direction of relativism), might it be that the appropriate length of hair can be determined by the "whole picture" which the woman portrays? Is she humble and respectful to her husband? Is she subject to him in the home? Does she not try to assert authority over other men in the church?<br /><br />I am far from a scholar, so I would appreciate correction where I am wrong. These are just some of my thoughts. Again, I greatly appreciated the article, and thank you very much for the time and effort which you put into it.Angie Hepphttp://www.troccohepp.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-6588450958040053002012-08-29T17:03:08.687-05:002012-08-29T17:03:08.687-05:00Amen! It seems like the majority of Christians tod...Amen! It seems like the majority of Christians today believe that it's your "responsibility as an American" to vote for the party candidate, regardless of whether he/she is biblically qualified. If you tell them that you are not permitted to vote for the lesser of two evils, they ridicule and deride you for being "unpatriotic." They blame you for "letting" the opposing candidate win. They seem to have lost all sense of honor and integrity, i.e. doing what is right REGARDLESS of the outcome. Pragmatism has won out over fidelity to God's word.Angie Hepphttp://www.troccohepp.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-83252631046720491022012-08-11T23:24:58.012-05:002012-08-11T23:24:58.012-05:00Thank you for the kind words. There are more detai...Thank you for the kind words. There are more detailed essays on Biblical basis for liberty on <a href="http://blog.dollarnoncents.com/2010/11/are-airport-full-body-scanners.html" rel="nofollow">Nov 2010</a> and <a href="http://blog.dollarnoncents.com/2012/05/comparison-of-biblical-and-libertarian.html" rel="nofollow">May 2012</a>Peter Allisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-34431882402523233562012-08-11T23:08:03.490-05:002012-08-11T23:08:03.490-05:00Thank you for this post and blog. So glad I found ...Thank you for this post and blog. So glad I found it... I love how you explain concepts of liberty through the lense of scripture. This issue of sovereignty is incredibly overlooked if not misunderstood by far too many Americans these days. An appropriate understanding would go a long way toward 1. awareness of how close we are to voluntarily forfeiting our state sovereignty to an everincreasing federal government, and national sovereignty to intranational powers... 2. Recognizing counterproductive and selfdestructive legislation and policy positions within BOTH parties. Enjoying your book too! Very good read...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-2943585860166336382012-06-10T23:56:45.177-05:002012-06-10T23:56:45.177-05:00Biblical presuppositions are the only ones that ma...Biblical presuppositions are the only ones that make sense of anything. All other philosophies and presuppositions are internally inconsistent and thus irrational.<br /><br />But the fact that Christian presuppositions are the only ones that make sense of libertarianism doesn't change the teachings of libertarianism and make them biblical. The Libertarian foundation is radically different from the Christian's. For them, the individual is sovereign. For us God alone is sovereign. The radical divergence of these different foundations becomes apparent at certain critical intersections. For example, G. Edward Griffin, a leading libertarian voice today, would argue that if a third person approached a lifeboat for two, the two on the lifeboat two would be morally justified in pushing that third person away causing him to drown in order to preserve the lives of the first two. This is not Christian, but it is consistent Libertarianism.Peter Allisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-37192301619514638502012-06-10T19:50:30.818-05:002012-06-10T19:50:30.818-05:00Bojidar M. writes that libertarianism, undergirded...Bojidar M. writes that libertarianism, undergirded by the only presuppositions which can make sense of libertarianism i.e. Christian ones, is Biblical government. <br />I can talk that way, or I can and do talk the way you do e.g. "I'm aligned with libertarians, but I can't be one of them."<br />Thanks for clarifying your meaning.Chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260090304918987038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-41906317818780211662012-05-31T13:12:30.580-05:002012-05-31T13:12:30.580-05:00Chuck, that was behind my statement "While Ch...Chuck, that was behind my statement "While Christians and Libertarians often agree on many things in the practice of government...". In many ways a Biblical government does look a lot like a Libertarian one in many ways - and I think that was the point Rushdoony was making. In fact an advanced Biblical culture would be even more free than the Libertarian ideal. It's the foundation that is radically different. For more detail on the difference between Biblical liberty and the Libertarian ideal of liberty see http://dollarnoncents.blogspot.com/2010/11/are-airport-full-body-scanners.htmlPeter Allisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04880306160561449457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-13121113952681584602012-05-24T20:09:16.998-05:002012-05-24T20:09:16.998-05:00But what about Rushdoony's Christian Libertari...But what about Rushdoony's Christian Libertarianism?--ChuckChuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05260090304918987038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-22884008702783070242012-05-14T10:20:59.602-05:002012-05-14T10:20:59.602-05:00Maybe someone should create a game called "Wh...Maybe someone should create a game called "Where in the USA is Ron Paul?" or another one called "Where's Ron Paul?". These suggestions were from my wife; we have done enough searching for Carmen San Diego & Waldo.Tim, "really?"https://www.blogger.com/profile/13662100130629977145noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-86102730116852558642012-04-29T23:53:34.720-05:002012-04-29T23:53:34.720-05:00Who's Ron Paul? J/K
Our 45th President of th...Who's Ron Paul? J/K<br /><br />Our 45th President of the FREE America!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18915881.post-55442760288331454532012-04-29T23:29:29.448-05:002012-04-29T23:29:29.448-05:00AND prior to that, Austin...and prior to that El P...AND prior to that, Austin...and prior to that El Paso...<br /><br />I make every effort to avoid Fox - using channel changer to select instead of 'scrolling'. And yes, there was a time I wouldn't miss them at some point in time.<br /><br />"Fair and Balanced", my big toe!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com