Reaction score

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • Did I say anything of Paul writing Psalm 110? That will be humbling if I did.

    You said you accept OT prophecy, I asked specifically about Psalm 110 as prophecy. It seems you evade again. Or I'm about to be humbled for slipping up my claim.
    Glad to see you've regained control of yourself.

    See the post I just made about 20 minutes ago. Five or six boxed questions. Be my Huckleberry and stand up straight at the plate, or go away.
    I am extremely calm in what I said. If you are going to evade questions there is no talking. There are very few reasons for someone to evade. I listed all of them.
    :think: I probably should have gone with my first instinct, given our lack of back and forth so far, which was, "No, it's by and large the doilies and poetry reading accompanying that does that."
    The second group, like me, are (broadly) Rothbardian libertarians, who believe that people should be left alone so long as they follow the non-aggression principle (which is not to say that all actions which are consistent with the NAP are "moral", only that one should have the political liberty to do them.) This is effectively the ultimate limited government position. Liberals AND conservatives hate this position because they both want bigger government. A good portion (though not all) in this group are actually very socially conservative, including myself. We just believe that socially conservative values should be advanced by persuasion rather than legal force. There is also a significant minority of libertarians (I am in this group) that are all for criminalizing abortion.

    As for the "rot" of current society, I agree with you on the vast majority of it being a rot. I don't think more government control can fix it.
    All laws are an enforcement of morality. True.

    The question is partially WHO'S morality but its also HOW MUCH morality should be enforced.

    Most Christians would agree, for instance, that gluttony is sinful but shouldn't be criminal.

    There are really two types of "libertarians." Some are essentially, as you're describing, "fiscally conservative/socially liberal." The Libertarian Party has mostly been taken over by these types. These guys are often more like leftists, as you say.

    Another post to be added in a minute due to length restrictions.
    So the question is, WHOSE moral preferences do you want to see imposed? SOMEONE'S will be. Someone's always is. So pick a side...the ones promoting license in the name of liberty (which is ultimately corrosive to the freedom of all)? Or those who insist a free society cannot exist without a baseline morality to which all must adhere? Which of those two options was in the mind of this nation's founders? Which side are we on? Which side are you on?

    But of course all this is academic. The rot is spreading and has never been stopped in any nation in which it was allowed to start. Ours will prove no different. If you, perchance, do not acknowledge it AS rot -- but instead happen to do as the fools and call it "progress" -- then we have no shared basis for discussion and this is all a waste of our time.
    Second, it is also a fact that libertarians closely resemble leftists, morally speaking. That's why many (if not most) on your side have ceded all authority to make moral distinction and judgments when, as I said above, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT LAWS HAVE ALWAYS DONE. You complain like leftists about socons "imposing our morality" when all we're really doing is trying to hold to what was laid out by the founders of this nation. You're on the side that seeks to undo all of that and replace it with mob rule, leading to anarchy, leading to dictatorship.
    "You see theonomists and people like aCW as fundamentally misguided..."

    My problem is with WHY they do it: to force mankind to become morally worthy of Christ's return. That's why they're so dangerous.

    "Yet, you oppose libertarians because "they aren't socially conservative enough." Social conservatism, of course, requires government control to be enforced, FORCE used against those who don't comply. Why are you OK with that?"

    First, ALL law is the imposition of someone's moral preferences onto everyone else. That is a fact.
    Here's what I don't get. You see theonomists and people like aCW as fundamentally misguided (or worse) because they wish to impose Christian morals on an unbelieving world. Yet, you oppose libertarians because "they aren't socially conservative enough." Social conservatism, of course, requires government control to be enforced, FORCE used against those who don't comply. Why are you OK with that?

    Also, why so certain there's no solution? We don't know when the world will come to an end.
    Libertarians, in my experience, are so almost invariably socially liberal - to the point of being essentially no different from democrats - that they negate any fiscal conservatism they adhere to. They end up being part of the problem rather than the solution (hint: there is no solution).
    There's plenty of water in the four cans of butter beans, so none needs added, even after a little cooks out of it.

    As to a far as I know I invented it, but never gave it a name. Kinda like Frankenstein's Monster, only tastier. Seriously, if you're not snob, it's tasty, filling and cheap, and 2x better the next day.
    What do you call that bean concoction you posted in the chat? Don't you add liquid to that at all? It sounds a bit thick.
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…