Rand Paul Links Baltimore Riots to Breakdown of Family Values and Morals

[Theocrat]

Presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) weighed in on the turmoil in Baltimore on Tuesday, standing with police and blaming the violence on a lack of morals in America.

"I came through the train on Baltimore (sic) last night, I'm glad the train didn't stop," he said, laughing, during an interview with conservative radio host Laura Ingraham.

Railing against what he repeatedly called "thuggery and thievery" in the streets of Baltimore, Paul told Ingraham that talking about "root causes" was not appropriate in the middle of a riot.

"The police have to do what they have to do, and I am very sympathetic to the plight of the police in this," he said.

As for root causes, Paul listed some ideas of his own.

"There are so many things we can talk about," the senator said, "the breakdown of the family structure, the lack of fathers, the lack of a moral code in our society."

He added that "this isn't just a racial thing."

Paul, who has branded himself as an advocate of criminal justice reform, also said justice must come from an investigation of the case of Freddie Gray, a black man who died of a spinal injury while in the custody of Baltimore police.

There is an audio clip with Laura Ingraham here (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-freddie-gray-baltimore-morals). Do you agree with Rand?

[LibertyEagle]

Yes.

[specsaregood]

When our entire society teaches theft via the hands of govt is ok; why shouldn't people start to think its ok for them to participate in thievery as well?

[wizardwatson]

There is an audio clip with Laura Ingraham here (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rand-paul-freddie-gray-baltimore-morals). Do you agree with Rand?

I actually responded to this audio that someone posted in the Baltimore riot thread. It's good you broke it out. I'm adding here as well, since I also think it deserves discussion.

################################################## ##########


Here's what Rand has to say about it.

SEE OP OF THIS THREAD FOR AUDIO

So Rand says it's because of "moral decline".

Hmmm. Lack of what morals, Rand? How exactly do we become more moral? Seems to me the Rothbardians infesting these boards just want to kill all the immoral people. But Rand is scared to say the real answer. Why?


It's a moral decline to let yourself become wards of the state and in essence, rag dolls for the police state. What's the old saying? If you can't be responsible for yourself, then likely some government entity will do it for you? Do we see police rampaging in Asian communities?

Well, that's what I was getting at.

Abandoning "what" morals? Murray Wrathbards? No.

Leaning on the state instead of what? Ourselves? No.

We've abandoned God. Plain and simple.

Here's a real speech at the faith and freedom coalition by RON PAUL instead of pandering to Israel the way Rand did.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2011/06/07/ron-paul-liberty-comes-from-the-creator/8972/

"We have, as a people, have lost our confidence and understanding of what true liberty is all about and where it comes from. And it doesn't come from our king and it doesn't come from our government, our liberties come from our CREATOR. That's wheres our life and liberty come from. - Ron Paul"

You see but those liberties (which the seculars like to distill as fictional "rights" since they don't like the idea of having a Creator before whom they are powerless) come with conditions. God didn't cut you loose, and that's what Ron talks about in that video. That the moral decline leads to a loss of liberty. Break God's laws, God curses you.

So my "why?" to Rand is why can't he just come out and say the same thing Ron did. He obviously believes it by that radio interview. So what gives? The answer is, I think, that he's pandering to the seculars.

Here's a full video of ffcoalition speech, but the link above condenses the main points.


https://youtu.be/tkfRSTZ3rxE?list=PL4451E6050F3038B0

[Brian4Liberty]

Do you agree with Rand?

Yes.


Fearless looting

Many pundits have commented upon the lack of fear among rioters and looters. How could they steal right in front of vendors and police alike? Wouldn’t someone stop them, possibly hurting them in the process? The answer is that they have no fear of consequences. There is no accountability. They know that anyone who might stop them has been brow-beaten into inaction by our current politically correct and hyperbolic culture.

The looters and rioters know that in reality, and in everyday life for them, there is little risk of consequences from the police. Initiating violence or theft against others is rarely punished, unless the victim fights back. The police will not be there to stop them. The truly tragic interactions with police are rare and random, somewhat like being hit by lightning. It is not the consequence of doing wrong. In the sub-culture that exists in some bad neighborhoods, the real danger is from peers in the area, not from the police. The police are certainly an irritant to them, but how often do they stop actual crimes?

Inevitably, some criminals are caught. And what are the consequences for those under the age of eighteen? A slap on the wrist? A brief detention with friends until a quick release? This sets the expectation of no consequences. Single parent homes, often unsupervised for the most part, also lay the groundwork for a culture with no accountability.

In a larger sense, the kinder, unstructured, everyone is a victim, no one is accountable culture has taken over America. This is not just about law enforcement or inner-city looters. To different degrees, it has infected the entire nation.

Is there a solution?

So what is the solution? Obviously, right, wrong, consequences and accountability are taught at a very young age. This is the responsibility of parents. No amount of money, and no new government programs will solve this problem. It can be argued that government programs which favor and incentivize single parent households have made the situation much worse. Government is not the solution, it is part of the problem.

In our nation’s history, children have learned responsibility and values from a young age. They needed to work with their family to survive. They learned to reap the fruits of their labor, and they found satisfaction in producing something. And with learning the value of their own work, they also learned to value the property of others.

Obviously we do not want to return our children to the hard life of child labor on farms or in factories, but suitable and equivalent learning should be part of the upbringing of children, and teens can certainly do the entry level work that was common not more than a generation ago.

The leisure existence of children and young adults today is unusual in a historical sense, and there are consequences. Often there is no appreciation for the value of anything, especially the property of others, when everything comes easy and free. Combine that with a lack of accountability and no consequences, and entire generations may become severely handicapped in life.

[wizardwatson]

Yes.

Yep, and we have a similar problem in online forums with anonymity.

This is a fundamental human dynamic.

You all love John 3:16. Bryan here has encapsulated the verses directly after with his post above.

John 3:16-21 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

"Accountability", "anonymity in social networks", all this fancy psychological regurgitation is stuff that's been sitting in a book in plain view for 2000 years. And we still don't get it.

[wcasino]

The answer is, I think, that he's pandering to the seculars.

Wow, "THE SECULARS", as though we are some kind of sub-class of humans to be pointed at from afar...

Remember, freedom isn't free.

[wizardwatson]

Wow, "THE SECULARS", as though we are some kind of sub-class of humans to be pointed at from afar...

Remember, freedom isn't free.

Feeling persecuted are we?

Here let me "console" you.


Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong. - Simone Weil

[hells_unicorn]

We've abandoned God. Plain and simple.

When did this nation every embrace God wizard? I don't see any mention of a confession of the true religion ANYWHERE in the U.S. Constitution, and there's only a fickle nod to a Deistic god in the Declaration of Independence.

If you want to really hear the truth as to why Rand Paul isn't talking up the whole "God" thing outside of certain audiences, it's because America has been a thoroughly pagan nation since its founding. You are living in a non-Christian nation wizard, so your best course of action is to take the advice of the OT during the Babylonian captivity and be a good citizen and pray for a leader that has at least a firm grasp of the Light of Nature, because that is the best you can hope for.

This is pretty much why Rand speaks in a cunning and artful fashion, because he understands the subtleties of the Christian faith (though not perfectly) and also the current state of this nation, and I thank God for that.

[wizardwatson]

When did this nation every embrace God wizard? I don't see any mention of a confession of the true religion ANYWHERE in the U.S. Constitution, and there's only a fickle nod to a Deistic god in the Declaration of Independence.

If you want to really hear the truth as to why Rand Paul isn't talking up the whole "God" thing outside of certain audiences, it's because America has been a thoroughly pagan nation since its founding. You are living in a non-Christian nation wizard, so your best course of action is to take the advice of the OT during the Babylonian captivity and be a good citizen and pray for a leader that has at least a firm grasp of the Light of Nature, because that is the best you can hope for.

This is pretty much why Rand speaks in a cunning and artful fashion, because he understands the subtleties of the Christian faith (though not perfectly) and also the current state of this nation, and I thank God for that.

Well, we do have "In God we trust" on our money. We do have to swear an oath to God in court and to join the military and to take public office.

But hey, sure, we're pagan. Thanks for pointing it out. All you did was summarize my accusation that Rand is pandering to pagans.

Rand supports this strategy, and you support this strategy, and you both say you are Christian, which means you're pandering to Christians too by pretending to be one.

I'm just here to make sure we're all on the same page and we know who is who.

[wizardwatson]

This is pretty much why Rand speaks in a cunning and artful fashion, because he understands the subtleties of the Christian faith (though not perfectly) and also the current state of this nation, and I thank God for that.

For those of you not paying attention, this is the line where Hells_Unicorn tells you that you aren't smart enough to "understand" Christianity if you don't realize that Jesus was really telling you to be cunning. Then he gives lip service to the Father to validate Rand's strategy.

Because again, the gatekeepers don't want the little people to understand Jesus themselves. He's just too darn straightforward and He makes them look bad. Better to complicate it, and bastardize it, so it can be used as a weapon.

This is high treason in Christianity.

[hells_unicorn]

1. Well, we do have "In God we trust" on our money. We do have to swear an oath to God in court and to join the military and to take public office.

2. But hey, sure, we're pagan. Thanks for pointing it out. All you did was summarize my accusation that Rand is pandering to pagans.

3. Rand supports this strategy, and you support this strategy, and you both say you are Christian, which means you're pandering to Christians too by pretending to be one.

4. I'm just here to make sure we're all on the same page and we know who is who.

1. Which god? Jefferson's apathetic creator who has no interest in our current state, or the Unitarian one of John Adams and the Massachusetts congregationalists perhaps? Or maybe the one that tolerated the Free Mason activity of other prominent founders who were nominally orthodox on Christian doctrine? So many to choose from, none of them hitting the biblical mark. And as for oaths, absent a clear definition of which deity I am invoking in the process, I prefer to affirm, which they allow us to do in Pennsylvania thankfully. As the good books states, "Yea, yea, and Nay, nay".

2. Indeed, just like Joseph did when he obeyed God and instructed Pharaoh on how to save Egypt and, consequently, also the future 12 tribes of Israel from starving to death. That doesn't sound like a negative thing for Rand Paul to be emulating to me. After all, "Blessed are the peace makers".

3. I'm no pretender, but I do try to avoid being obnoxious about my faith when it is clearly not warranted, nor prudent. "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." (Matthew 6:5)

4. We're not, because you have it backwards. But the conversation is definitely worth having, even if you don't end up figuring it out, since others likely will.

[hells_unicorn]

1. For those of you not paying attention, this is the line where Hells_Unicorn tells you that you aren't smart enough to "understand" Christianity if you don't realize that Jesus was really telling you to be cunning. Then he gives lip service to the Father to validate Rand's strategy.

2. Because again, the gatekeepers don't want the little people to understand Jesus themselves. He's just too darn straightforward and He makes them look bad. Better to complicate it, and bastardize it, so it can be used as a weapon.

3. This is high treason in Christianity.

1. I'm waiting for you to point out the actual errors in my exegesis, and I believe I will be waiting for quite a while.

2. Yes, foment paranoia about secret conspiracies, let me know when the shuttle lands. And for the record, prior to the advent of modern American Evangelical fanaticism in all its Independent glory, a person needed 3 years of catechism before being considered a properly instructed defender of the faith. This was based on the amount of time that Jesus spent instructing his apostles, and it was maintained through out the history of the church.

Saving faith is easy, putting on the armor and defending the faith properly as a teacher is more an adult's game, and you've yet to grow up my boy.

3. High treason against YOUR Christianity, remember who claims to be the only one who has it right here, and it wasn't me. Guilty as charged, tell me my punishment O great purveyor of the truth of the moment.

[wizardwatson]

This is pretty much why Rand speaks in a cunning and artful fashion, because he understands the subtleties of the Christian faith (though not perfectly) and also the current state of this nation, and I thank God for that.

Furthermore, where is your faith in Rand's "understanding of Christian subtleties" grounded? Does he have some Christian blog or something? A statement of faith? Because this is all I've ever found. (I actually check these things out believe it or not)




http://www.ontheissues.org/social/Rand_Paul_Principles_+_Values.htm

I'm a Christian, a husband and a father. I'm faithful to my wife and my family. I try to be good at all those things, though, of course, we all fall short of perfection in our lives. I try to adhere to the tenets of God's word in the New Testament. I take seriously my oath to defend the Constitution. And I try to fight for truth and my values regardless of the political outcome, regardless of how popular or unpopular they may be.
My faith has never been easy for me, never been easy to talk about and never been without obstacles. I do not and cannot wear my religion on my sleeve. I am a Christian but not always a good one. I'm not completely free of doubts. I struggle to understand man's inhumanity to man. I struggle to understand the horrible tragedies that war inflicts on our young men and women.

Now you just pointed out (as I have many times on this forum) that "oaths" are against Christ's commands. But Rand "takes his seriously". But he doesn't seem to be doing to well on the Christian knowledge side. Seems he's "struggling" with a lot of questions that are right there in the bible. And he doesn't adhere to God's words but what he thinks are the "tenets".

Translation. To Rand the bible is a book of morals about a God he is agnostic about.

But Hells_Unicorn wants to broadcast that Rand's use of subterfuge to manipulate his chances of being president is an outcome of his intermediate understanding of the "subtleties" of Christian faith.

Just stop lying dude. Why are you trying to validate Rand as a Christian when he himself doesn't? Rand is in WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better shape than you are right now. The BEST thing Rand has going for him now is he doesn't open his mouth about Jesus and God the way you do.

[wizardwatson]

3. I'm no pretender, but I do try to avoid being obnoxious about my faith when it is clearly not warranted, nor prudent. "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward." (Matthew 6:5)

And here you try to paint yourself as a sheep and me as an obnoxious vain person. I'm not praying, brother, I'm witnessing. This is the verse you are looking for:


Matthew 5:14-16 Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. 16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

So this whole "I don't where my religion on my sleeve" thing is BALONEY. How will anyone know about the good news of Christ if we all just keep it to ourselves? You want to use Christ's words to silence Christ.

Clever, but predictable. And, of course, always evil.

[hells_unicorn]

1. Furthermore, where is your faith in Rand's "understanding of Christian subtleties" grounded? Does he have some Christian blog or something? A statement of faith? Because this is all I've ever found. (I actually check these things out believe it or not)

2. Now you just pointed out (as I have many times on this forum) that "oaths" are against Christ's commands. But Rand "takes his seriously". But he doesn't seem to be doing to well on the Christian knowledge side. Seems he's "struggling" with a lot of questions that are right there in the bible. And he doesn't adhere to God's words but what he thinks are the "tenets".

3. Translation. To Rand the bible is a book of morals about a God he is agnostic about.

4. But Hells_Unicorn wants to broadcast that Rand's use of subterfuge to manipulate his chances of being president is an outcome of his intermediate understanding of the "subtleties" of Christian faith.

5. Just stop lying dude. Why are you trying to validate Rand as a Christian when he himself doesn't? Rand is in WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY better shape than you are right now. The BEST thing Rand has going for him now is he doesn't open his mouth about Jesus and God the way you do.

1. In the things that he has stated, and to an extent his affiliation with the PCA, which is a comparatively superior church in terms of properly disseminating the Gospel message and maintaining proper Church government. The fact that Ron Paul attends a Baptist church is a cut against him compared to his son, though the strong Lutheran roots that his family has would indicate that he is probably not a full out trustee of Baptist teachings.

2. I didn't say Rand was the perfect Christian, you actually quoted me suggesting just the opposite in the parenthesis further up in your own post. He is comparatively a more educated Christian than anyone else I've seen in recent history, including his own father. Furthermore, I'm not speaking in terms of sufficient Christianity because I'm not a Jesus-only heretic, when Paul states "Milk before meat", I consequently recognize a level of growth in peoples' faith throughout their lives, and it allows me to assess what they would do with great power.

3. Nope, dead wrong. He understands that The Moral Law of a broken covenant in Adam is not something that even the most pious Christian can perfectly keep, hence he says what needs to be said in order to deal with the state of things in a practical fashion. When Jesus gave the Pharisees his classic non-answer to a trap question in "Render unto Caesar", he was not lying or breaking a commandment, he was simply reacting appropriately to corrupt people who would attempt to subvert God's law for their own purposes. Kind of like you, O lone Christian and purveyor of the faith.

4. See my 3rd answer. Your definition of subterfuge applies to several tactics used by Jesus to avoid imprisonment by Rome until the appointed time. If you wish to call Jesus a liar for not speaking about the wickedness of Roman Politics when tempted by the Pharisees, you would be consistent with the standard that you've set here.

5. In other words, only people who think like you and slash a dozen books out of the New Testament are worthy to speak on the matter. I'm glad we're clear on that point yet again.

[wizardwatson]

1. I'm waiting for you to point out the actual errors in my exegesis, and I believe I will be waiting for quite a while.

Have some freakin' patience. You post so much garbage I have to sift through just to figure out what I have time to rebut. And you are just one person. There's lies abounding on this forum lately. And it isn't all religious. There's a lot of just plain violent secular people who have been around just as long. You could take Jesus out of your back pocket and help, but I'm not really that optimistic.


2. Yes, foment paranoia about secret conspiracies, let me now when the shuttle lands. And for the record, prior to the advent of modern American Evangelical fanaticism in all its Independent glory, a person needed 3 years of catechism before being considered a properly instructed defender of the faith. This was based on the amount of time that Jesus spent instructing his apostles, and it was maintained through out the history of the church.

Saving faith is easy, putting on the armor and defending the faith properly as a teacher is more an adult's game, and you've yet to grow up my boy.

Never said "conspiracy". Gatekeepers often work alone as they are typically vain. And we've already established that to you growing up means learning that lying is ok even though Jesus said liars will have their place in the lake of fire. I'm not going to rehash everything I've told you unless I think it will benefit the reader, but I will post link to prove that I told you if necessary.


3. High treason against YOUR Christianity, remember who claims to be the only one who has it right here, and it wasn't me. Guilty as charged, tell me my punishment O great purveyor of the truth of the moment.

Thought the conversation was "definitely" worth having? Giving up and resorting to mocking already?

Nothing is resolved here. It's up to the Spirit that works within the reader to decide how the truth will be shown.

[hells_unicorn]

1. And here you try to paint yourself as a sheep and me as an obnoxious vain person. I'm not praying, brother, I'm witnessing. This is the verse you are looking for:

2. So this whole "I don't where my religion on my sleeve" thing is BALONEY. How will anyone know about the good news of Christ if we all just keep it to ourselves? You want to use Christ's words to silence Christ.

3. Clever, but predictable. And, of course, always evil.

1. If this is your idea of witnessing, you are going to have a lot of violations of the 9th commandment to answer for come the Day of Judgment. Nevertheless, I didn't call myself a sheep, 10 years of studying systematic theology and catechism puts me more in the subordinate shepherd category. And yes, anybody who boasts of his own unique and peculiar takes on the faith is the biblical definition of obnoxious.

2. I didn't tell you to keep your religion to yourself, I'm attempting to convince you to correct your understanding and your methods, both of which are sadly wanting. I'm not interested in silencing you, I'm interested in you ceasing in misrepresenting the Gospel message. There is no light anywhere in the nonsense that you've been purveying here, nor any glory being brought to God's name.

3. Obnoxious to the core, not to mention an unqualified assertion. You groan on and on about my alleged twisting of scripture, while providing little to no examples except a vague appeal to a passage that speaks to a proper version of evangelism by example that I'm not seeing out of you anywhere.

[hells_unicorn]

1. Have some freakin' patience. You post so much garbage I have to sift through just to figure out what I have time to rebut. And you are just one person. There's lies abounding on this forum lately. And it isn't all religious. There's a lot of just plain violent secular people who have been around just as long. You could take Jesus out of your back pocket and help, but I'm not really that optimistic.

2. Never said "conspiracy". Gatekeepers often work alone as they are typically vain. And we've already established that to you growing up means learning that lying is ok even though Jesus said liars will have their place in the lake of fire. I'm not going to rehash everything I've told you unless I think it will benefit the reader, but I will post link to prove that I told you if necessary.

3. Thought the conversation was "definitely" worth having? Giving up and resorting to mocking already? Nothing is resolved here. It's up to the Spirit that works within the reader to decide how the truth will be shown.

1. If you need more time, you can simply say so without the colorful metaphors. And if you have so much other stuff to deal with, where do you find the time to speculate over the supposed wickedness of Ron Paul's son? Busy people don't usually have time for such expansive hobbies.

2. I don't work alone, my arguments are indebted to the study, efforts and trials of centuries of Christians from the early church to the 2nd Reformation. I don't believe in private interpretation (that's Fundy Baptist theology), I test my understanding of the scriptures via the testimony of the Holy Spirit and the wisdom of the church officials that have been faithful to The Word. If you think the entire Magistrate Reformation from Martin Luther to John Knox are gatekeepers working alone, you are sorely mistaken.

3. Mockery is a tool that is employed when standard reasoning has failed, read up on how Isaiah dealt with the priests of Baal for that one. If I consider the conversation between you and myself over, you will not see more posts out of me in response to you.

[Sola_Fide]

I agree that it is a breakdown of the family that is one of the root causes, but some "Christians" out there want to use the government to shore up the family, and that is about as rational as using the government to shore up the market.

[afwjam]

I think it's a lack of morals. But these morals get instilled in many ways. Religion, fathers, mothers, schools, work experience, etc... It was inevitable that this would happen in the inner cities that are the greatest victims of big government and the nanny state. I also think a lot of the anger they feel is real, they feel trapped and hopeless with nothing to live for. Not God, not family not a good job and self made prosperity. On top of all the hopelessness, the police come in and keep beating them down, again maybe because their black, but also because they are trapped in the inner city of the police state and targeted. They don't have healthy outlets for anything, aggression, anger, even happiness is warped in the inner city into materialism and drug use. Rand is oversimplifying and ignoring the bigger issue.

[Crashland]

I agree that the breakdown of the family and morals is part of the problem. I mean, obviously, lack of morals is a reason why people are doing immoral things like looting and destruction of property. Duh. And having strong families is conducive to virtue. But is this really what we need to be focusing on? There are two problems here, one of them being the violence itself, and the other one being the fundamental problem in the relationship between the police and the people. There are already plenty of Hannity's in the world doing nothing but focusing on the first one.

[wizardwatson]

1. If this is your idea of witnessing, you are going to have a lot of violations of the 9th commandment to answer for come the Day of Judgment. Nevertheless, I didn't call myself a sheep, 10 years of studying systematic theology and catechism puts me more in the subordinate shepherd category. And yes, anybody who boasts of his own unique and peculiar takes on the faith is the biblical definition of obnoxious.

I talk about the Word. I don't feel the need to explain "how I got here" all the time like you seem to do. The words speak for themselves or they don't and I process the feedback. With you so far, I'm more than satisfied. You keep saying my "unique" "version" or whatever, but I'm just posting and paraphrasing scripture for the most part. I mean I started with you with the most basic message of telling the truth is good, lying is bad, and you just keep digging for a loophole.


2. I didn't tell you to keep your religion to yourself, I'm attempting to convince you to correct your understanding and your methods, both of which are sadly wanting. I'm not interested in silencing you, I'm interested in you ceasing in misrepresenting the Gospel message. There is no light anywhere in the nonsense that you've been purveying here, nor any glory being brought to God's name.

Again, we've been over this. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO FIRST POSTED 2 TIMOTHY 3:16 DUDE! So get out your bible and correct me and stop talking about how much experience you have. If you've trained show me your skills not your diplomas.


3. Obnoxious to the core, not to mention an unqualified assertion. You groan on and on about my alleged twisting of scripture, while providing little to no examples except a vague appeal to a passage that speaks to a proper version of evangelism by example that I'm not seeing out of you anywhere.

I groan about you using scripture in the wrong context but mostly about your outright rejection of it. I've posted more scripture than you.


1. If you need more time, you can simply say so without the colorful metaphors. And if you have so much other stuff to deal with, where do you find the time to speculate over the supposed wickedness of Ron Paul's son? Busy people don't usually have time for such expansive hobbies.

Never said Rand was any more wicked than Ron or myself. I've only been discussing the strategy of lying for political gain and the slippery slope it entails. Playing politics essentially is the art of lying. I disagree with the strategy because it wasn't what Ron did and although I understand it that doesn't mean I can play along.


2. I don't work alone, my arguments are indebted to the study, efforts and trials of centuries of Christians from the early church to the 2nd Reformation. I don't believe in private interpretation (that's Fundy Baptist theology), I test my understanding of the scriptures via the testimony of the Holy Spirit and the wisdom of the church officials that have been faithful to The Word. If you think the entire Magistrate Reformation from Martin Luther to John Knox are gatekeepers working alone, you are sorely mistaken.

Hi, my name is David. I work for the tax department.


3. Mockery is a tool that is employed when standard reasoning has failed, read up on how Isaiah dealt with the priests of Baal for that one. If I consider the conversation between you and myself over, you will not see more posts out of me in response to you.

You know how many times people have told me they are "done" and still respond when I comment on their stuff later. What you're really asking is for me to leave you alone so you can go back to operating in the shadows. Well, I'm sure you will, I do have to sleep, work, and live, but I'll make no such promises. I see something I say something if inspiration strikes me.

[presence]

t;hat breakdown of family values could be due to all the fathers in minimum mandatory on non violent offenses.

[69360]

Mostly, but I have little need for police. If I owned a business that somebody tried to loot in feigned outrage at the the police, the only reason I would need the police is to come pick up the body.

[twomp]

Yeah because all those riots in Baltimore these last few years before the cop execution is proof of that. Oh wait, there were no riots in Baltimore these last few years? Well it still must be their fault. I mean, these riots have nothing to do with the fact that cops are getting away with murder all across our country and not a damn thing is being done about it.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

[Mr.NoSmile]

I've seen a lot of folks on Facebook dinging him for this remark when his son just had another run-in with the law.

[JohnGalt1225]

Well, we do have "In God we trust" on our money. We do have to swear an oath to God in court and to join the military and to take public office.

But hey, sure, we're pagan. Thanks for pointing it out. All you did was summarize my accusation that Rand is pandering to pagans.

Rand supports this strategy, and you support this strategy, and you both say you are Christian, which means you're pandering to Christians too by pretending to be one.

I'm just here to make sure we're all on the same page and we know who is who.
As a pagan, an actual one who isn't just a "non-Christian" I don't feel I've ever once been "pandered" to by Rand Paul. I don't think Rand has ever tried to hide his faith or his belief in Christianity.

As for Rand's points, I agree with him. I'm glad he said it and I'm sure he'll catch flak for them from SJWs and leftists whether they are on here, Tumblr, or the media.

[wizardwatson]

As a pagan, an actual one who isn't just a "non-Christian" I don't feel I've ever once been "pandered" to by Rand Paul. I don't think Rand has ever tried to hide his faith or his belief in Christianity.

As for Rand's points, I agree with him. I'm glad he said it and I'm sure he'll catch flak for them from SJWs and leftists whether they are on here, Tumblr, or the media.

Well, I used the term because Hells_Unicorn seems to believe the country itself is fundamentally pagan, where he really meant non-Christian. My original accusation was that (and I said "I think") he is pandering to seculars. So there is some mish-mashed vocubulary. Ultimately all I'm saying is that Rand is probably consciously not mentioning God because he thinks it's a turn off. It's passive pandering. Of course you don't "feel" it. I've said multiple times that Rand is lying by omission. This is what all politicians do I'm just commenting on how much and how often he's doing it.

I've also said many times that it isn't some special treatment I'm giving Rand, he just happens to be the chosen candidate of the site I frequent. I'm not "mad at Rand" for abandoning his principles. I'm simply disappointed he hasn't adopted some that I prefer. Some that Ron had.

[69360]

Yeah because all those riots in Baltimore these last few years before the cop execution is proof of that. Oh wait, there were no riots in Baltimore these last few years? Well it still must be their fault. I mean, these riots have nothing to do with the fact that cops are getting away with murder all across our country and not a damn thing is being done about it.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

You do realize whole sections of Baltimore have basically been lawless for a long time right?

They don't call it bodymore murderland for nothing.

[AuH20]

You do realize whole sections of Baltimore have basically been lawless for a long time right?

They don't call it bodymore murderland for nothing.

Bmore is the heroin capital of the U.S. 1 out of 10 residents are hooked on heroin. It's a hellhole.

[Natural Citizen]

What does Rand think of the peaceful protesters that went unreported prior to the rioting? Was he even asked? I'm going to just assume that the answer to that is "No" given the source. Of course, correct me if I'm wrong. I'd like to hear Rand's view of the family values of those peaceful protesters who gathered during those previous couple of weeks when the news entertainment platforms were absent from the goins-on.

It certainly doesn't seem very fair to just throw all of those peaceful citizens and community into the whole narrative that the media is rolling with just because they chose to focus on the rioters and completely ignored the peaceful protesters. There must be some accountability if we're going to just lump them all into one big group, I think.

[Brett85]

So how can anyone actually disagree with what Rand said here?

[Southron]

So how can anyone actually disagree with what Rand
said here?

I don't think you can but then what is the solution?

[RickyJ]

Do you agree with Rand?

No, revolutions aren't peaceful. The colonists weren't peaceful when they revolted against the British. The problem here is the police and the system that lets them get away with murder.

[Brett85]

I don't think you can but then what is the solution?

The solution is to change our culture from the bottom up.

[Brett85]

No, revolutions aren't peaceful. The colonists weren't peaceful when they revolted against the British. The problem here is the police and the system that lets them get away with murder.

So a bunch of thugs destroying private property is the equivalent of the colonists revolting against the British? :confused:

[hells_unicorn]

1. I talk about the Word. I don't feel the need to explain "how I got here" all the time like you seem to do. The words speak for themselves or they don't and I process the feedback. With you so far, I'm more than satisfied. You keep saying my "unique" "version" or whatever, but I'm just posting and paraphrasing scripture for the most part. I mean I started with you with the most basic message of telling the truth is good, lying is bad, and you just keep digging for a loophole.

2. Again, we've been over this. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO FIRST POSTED 2 TIMOTHY 3:16 DUDE! So get out your bible and correct me and stop talking about how much experience you have. If you've trained show me your skills not your diplomas.

3. I groan about you using scripture in the wrong context but mostly about your outright rejection of it. I've posted more scripture than you.

4. Never said Rand was any more wicked than Ron or myself. I've only been discussing the strategy of lying for political gain and the slippery slope it entails. Playing politics essentially is the art of lying. I disagree with the strategy because it wasn't what Ron did and although I understand it that doesn't mean I can play along.

5. Hi, my name is David. I work for the tax department.

6. You know how many times people have told me they are "done" and still respond when I comment on their stuff later. What you're really asking is for me to leave you alone so you can go back to operating in the shadows. Well, I'm sure you will, I do have to sleep, work, and live, but I'll make no such promises. I see something I say something if inspiration strikes me.

1. Simply talking about The Word is not an adequate position. Atheists talk about The Word. The question is are you speaking RIGHTLY about The Word, my assertion is that you are not, and I have provided scripture to back it up. Furthermore, you have stated to me several times that you are "by yourself" in your position, and you are pretending as though you did not say it and are simply quoting the bible. Furthermore, I never stated that lying was good, I was challenging your understanding of what a lie is, and also calling you out for being obnoxious. I only see one hole here between the two of us, and I have yet to pick up a shovel boy.

2. No we haven't been through this, I've been through this, and you've been spinning your wheels. You have simply stated by pure fiat that Paul is not a legitimate apostle, that is a claim that is directly debunked by 2 Peter 3:15-16 (you stated WRONGLY that the apostles never accepted Paul as a valid apostle). I have been using a variety of scripture, including but not limited to Paul's epistles, in full submission to 2 Timothy 3:16, while you've been babbling on and on about how if Jesus didn't say it, it's no good. I've been speaking about nuance because it is clearly necessary to understand certain things such as biblical prophecy since there is a good deal of metaphorical language, but the stuff we are going through is basic Scripture 101 and you've failed every single time.

3. You absolutely have not posted more scripture than me. You've posted only stuff from the 4 Gospels and have simply refused to acknowledge any of the other New Testament books. You are living in an alternate reality where the bible stops at the end of John's gospel and doesn't start again until John's final writings, since you've already disqualified Peter by refusing to acknowledge what is clearly written in 2 Peter 3:15-16.

4. Your hyperbolic language has gone well beyond just simply stating disagreement with strategy. If you don't want to be a part of Rand's approach, you don't need to rebuke everybody on here who concurs with it as being either "secular" or "evil", both of which are patently false statements.

5. And you wonder why I called you a fanatic?

6. Never said I was done with you, I just ridiculed you for having a ridiculous position, one does not imply the other except in your own head. Furthermore, your language suggests that this is more a psychological game for you than a serious consideration of what scripture has to say about this subject. If you can't give a viable explanation for why Paul is not a legitimate apostle and biblical author, I see no reason why I should call you a Christian. And I don't operate in the shadows you sick little man, what you see is what you get, if you can't handle it, just say so.

[wizardwatson]

6. Never said I was done with you, I just ridiculed you for having a ridiculous position, one does not imply the other except in your own head. Furthermore, your language suggests that this is more a psychological game for you than a serious consideration of what scripture has to say about this subject. If you can't give a viable explanation for why Paul is not a legitimate apostle and biblical author, I see no reason why I should call you a Christian. And I don't operate in the shadows you sick little man, what you see is what you get, if you can't handle it, just say so.

You know what, you're right. You said ' "IF" I consider the conversation over'. I misread. Wishful thinking perhaps.

What do you want to talk about seriously? Do you think my signature is a lie or something? That I'm being clever? I'm doing the best I can with what I have.

I hate politics. I hate lies. Politicians lie. Rand is a politician in a way his father was not. I will treat Rand the way I would any other politician. Rand is not an exception. That is all. I will gladly call every other politician a liar too if that will help Rand's campaign. Because that is what they do, my friend.

THE ONLY thing I've really directed at YOU as far as Christianity is that lying is against the bible, because as I've dropped my opinion on the subject here and there you're trying to publicly broadcast that Jesus Christ would be perfectly fine with all the things Rand is saying. And try as you might, I don't believe you stand a chance of ever convincing me otherwise. Because "truth" is such a fundamental biblical concept that I feel like a retard giving someone the time of day to argue this simple point.

But then again I have the same feeling when I'm on other threads trying to explain that you can't kill people, which I've had to do just recently to multiple people.

I know in this enlightened age, that killing people and lying are really hard moral concepts to swallow. Really advanced stuff. It's just so counter to our nature. Whatever will we do without those crucial tools for survival! I really feel for all of you.

But maybe one day mankind will realize that our world is going to remain screwed up until we start obeying the freakin' law instead of weaseling our way around it.

Have I lost you yet?


Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

[JohnGalt1225]

Yeah because all those riots in Baltimore these last few years before the cop execution is proof of that. Oh wait, there were no riots in Baltimore these last few years? Well it still must be their fault. I mean, these riots have nothing to do with the fact that cops are getting away with murder all across our country and not a damn thing is being done about it.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
Oh those modern day Sons of Liberty fighting for freedom, private property, and the NAP in Baltimore. Lovers of liberty for sure as evidenced by their principled destruction of private property, assaulting of innocent people, and looting.

[Brett85]

Can someone explain why Rand's comment about this is all over the news and is apparently "controversial?" I don't get it. What exactly did he say that was wrong or controversial?

[JohnGalt1225]

So a bunch of thugs destroying private property is the equivalent of the colonists revolting against the British? :confused:
Yes, to many here on RPF they are the same. Apparently we're all missing out on the Second American Revolution taking place in Baltimore right now. You know just our forefathers did when they looted liquor stores and burned a CVS to the ground in Boston.

[JohnGalt1225]

Can someone explain why Rand's comment about this is all over the news and is apparently "controversial?" I don't get it. What exactly did he say that was wrong or controversial?
Because he didn't coddle the rioters and blame everything on the police department. He refused to apologize or excuse violent, thuggish, criminal behavior.

[AuH20]

Can someone explain why Rand's comment about this is all over the news and is apparently "controversial?" I don't get it. What exactly did he say that was wrong or controversial?

Nothing he said was controversial, but his comments derail the narrative that is being pushed. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a ducks and smells like a duck.....then it's a duck.

[CPUd]

(CNN)Rand Paul's intensive effort to redeem himself -- and the Republican Party -- with minorities seemed to be on the verge of cratering.

He joked Tuesday to conservative radio host Laura Ingraham that he was happy his train didn't stop in the riot-scarred city of Baltimore. It was exactly the type of tone-deaf remark the Kentucky senator's group of black advisers urged him to avoid as he seeks to expand the GOP's outreach to minorities.

They immediately knew Paul's comment would pose a problem. They checked with other African-Americans to see how it was being perceived.

On Wednesday afternoon, Paul spoke for about an hour with black advisers who told him what they were hearing. The Republican presidential contender told them he understood the concern and expressed regret for his words.

"He said 'OK, I understand what everyone is saying, you're right. I shouldn't have said it that way,'" said Elroy Sailor, a senior adviser and director of strategic planning for Paul. "He recognizes that people listen and hear things differently. Certain words resonate with different constituencies.'"

The episode underscores Paul's complicated history with race. This is the man who openly questioned central tenets of the Civil Rights Act before he later voiced unequivocal support. He's partnered with New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker to push for criminal justice reform but also spoke this week of his sympathy for the "plight of the police."

...


This sorta looks like an attack, but it's a typical "presidential candidate not as slick as he thinks he is" type article. Reading further, it is relatively fair, and really shows how organized the campaign is.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/29/politics/2016-rand-paul-race-relations/index.html

[juleswin]

Bmore is the heroin capital of the U.S. 1 out of 10 residents are hooked on heroin. It's a hellhole.

Is that why Baltimore is the cheapest title on The monopoly game?

[juleswin]

This sorta looks like an attack, but it's a typical "presidential candidate not as slick as he thinks he is" type article. Reading further, it is relatively fair, and really shows how organized the campaign is.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/29/politics/2016-rand-paul-race-relations/index.html

Its an attack alright. I am sure 90% of Baltimore residents who weren't rioting were wishing there were having a horrible nightmare in which they hope to wake up from. Yes there was thuggery, thievery and all sorts of criminal acts going on. Its not dog whistle or racism, its just reality. Too bad he apologized, now the right would be pissed by him showing weakness. I wouldn't want my train to stop in Baltimore even now the riots have died down.

Btw, Obama also described the rioters as thugs. I guess there no article about that

[twomp]

Oh those modern day Sons of Liberty fighting for freedom, private property, and the NAP in Baltimore. Lovers of liberty for sure as evidenced by their principled destruction of private property, assaulting of innocent people, and looting.

You have a knack for exaggerating things.

[hells_unicorn]

This sorta looks like an attack, but it's a typical "presidential candidate not as slick as he thinks he is" type article. Reading further, it is relatively fair, and really shows how organized the campaign is.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/29/politics/2016-rand-paul-race-relations/index.html

It's from CNN, there is no possible way that it could have been fair, and it isn't. This isn't Rand Paul losing his appeal to minorities, this is Rand Paul avoiding sabotaging himself in a primary where everybody in the established elite is gunning for him. All he has to do is say ONE thing positive about these rioters, right or wrong, and he'll be sent to political oblivion just as his father was.

[twomp]

It's from CNN, there is no possible way that it could have been fair, and it isn't. This isn't Rand Paul losing his appeal to minorities, this is Rand Paul avoiding sabotaging himself in a primary where everybody in the established elite is gunning for him. All he has to do is say ONE thing positive about these rioters, right or wrong, and he'll be sent to political oblivion just as his father was.

He's a Senator, there's not much he could do about it anyways. The Federal government stepping in will only make it worse. All they need is for some people to step up in the Baltimore P.D. to have enough balls to charge these officers with some thing. Treat the cops the same way they treat any other criminal. It isn't that difficult and the fact that they don't do it now shows that they don't give a shit about the rioting or looting.

[CPUd]

It's from CNN, there is no possible way that it could have been fair, and it isn't. This isn't Rand Paul losing his appeal to minorities, this is Rand Paul avoiding sabotaging himself in a primary where everybody in the established elite is gunning for him. All he has to do is say ONE thing positive about these rioters, right or wrong, and he'll be sent to political oblivion just as his father was.

It doesn't say anything about him losing his appeal to minorities. It is about what he's doing to gain support, and how easy it is for him to undermine that goal by making certain comments. There are quotes from supporters and people who are on the fence about trusting him. Like I said, relatively fair; not my most favorite thing to read, but could have been Rubin or Rachel Maddow worse.

[FriedChicken]

He's a Senator, there's not much he could do about it anyways. The Federal government stepping in will only make it worse. All they need is for some people to step up in the Baltimore P.D. to have enough balls to charge these officers with some thing. Treat the cops the same way they treat any other criminal. It isn't that difficult and the fact that they don't do it now shows that they don't give a shit about the rioting or looting.

I'll go out on a limb and say that even if they hung the people responsible from the nearest tree they'd still riot. Of course, they won't hang them, so I can't be proven wrong or right.
But say they find them guilty of manslaughter and they serve some prison time ... I don't think "they'll" be happy about that either.

Rioters are rioters.
Its a disservice to those who want to make a difference in areas of discrimination and justice to associate them with each other.

But yes, if a cop commits a crime - I believe they should be held to an even higher standard than "the rest of us".

[hells_unicorn]

1. What do you want to talk about seriously? Do you think my signature is a lie or something? That I'm being clever? I'm doing the best I can with what I have.

2. I hate politics. I hate lies. Politicians lie. Rand is a politician in a way his father was not. I will treat Rand the way I would any other politician. Rand is not an exception. That is all. I will gladly call every other politician a liar too if that will help Rand's campaign. Because that is what they do, my friend.

3. THE ONLY thing I've really directed at YOU as far as Christianity is that lying is against the bible, because as I've dropped my opinion on the subject here and there you're trying to publicly broadcast that Jesus Christ would be perfectly fine with all the things Rand is saying. And try as you might, I don't believe you stand a chance of ever convincing me otherwise. Because "truth" is such a fundamental biblical concept that I feel like a retard giving someone the time of day to argue this simple point.

4. But then again I have the same feeling when I'm on other threads trying to explain that you can't kill people, which I've had to do just recently to multiple people.

5. I know in this enlightened age, that killing people and lying are really hard moral concepts to swallow. Really advanced stuff. It's just so counter to our nature. Whatever will we do without those crucial tools for survival! I really feel for all of you.

6. But maybe one day mankind will realize that our world is going to remain screwed up until we start obeying the freakin' law instead of weaseling our way around it.

Have I lost you yet?

1. I'm not accusing your signature of being a lie, it actually explains a fair bit about the tone of your words. I am very interested in the topic of scripture, particularly the epistles of the apostles as they constitute a significant historical link between Christ himself and his church following his ascension. When ever I hear ANYTHING critical of any of the apostolic authors, but particularly Paul because he is especially prolific and also critical to how a Christian relates to both the Moral Law and the Gospel message, red flags go up. I am not a believer in man-made political hierarchy being conflated with church government (as it is in the Church of England), but I am a very firm believer that the church needs to have form in order to function, and Paul's writings are critical to the form and any needed reforming of the church. When someone tells me "Paul doesn't count", they are telling me that they are in rebellion against Jesus since according to Acts 9 it was he who converted Paul and gave him his charge to evangelize the gentile nations.

2. Politicians are sinners like every other man on this planet. Their sins have far more impact because of the amount of power they hold, just as the sins of Kings harmed entire nations in the Old Testament. However, politics and government are a fact of reality as clearly as rain falling from the sky, so it is not wise to overreact to a tactful politician that is looking to restore both liberty and order to government. Politicians are not gods, and anyone who would deify them are idolaters, but they are not all equal, thus they are not all equally bad. Simply stating "sin is sin" and casting all distinctions to the wind is foolishness, there are degrees of aggravation in this, as there are in criminal behavior that is within the purview of both the state and God.

3. There's just a problem, I never stated that Rand Paul lied about anything, and I don't think he has. He has given opinions that you my consider wrong or mistaken, but he hasn't stated something false and passed it off as fact. Furthermore, I'm going to throw a few verses your way just to further illustrate what I'm talking about here.


"Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the Lord." (Lev. 19:16)
"A talebearer revealeth secrets: but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth the matter." (Proverbs 11:13)

There are times when the truth can be used as a weapon to deceive and to destroy, this type of sin will find a good number of journalists burning in hell I fear. There are matters that concern the greater public on an individual level, and other things that do not. For instance, the public has ZERO interest in caring about Rand Paul's son having a DUI from a public policy standpoint, and it is being used so that vile people will stand a better chance of standing in judgment over us and anyone else under the boot of Uncle Sam. It is truth, and it is used sinfully by wicked people.

When Rand Paul calls rioters in Baltimore thugs who are destroying private property, he is stating a fact, thus there is no lie. This is not tale-bearing since the matter is one of public safety and public policy, however, journalists trying to further foment racial animus by putting all but total emphasis on Rand Paul's point about his train not stopping are engaging in manipulative practices tantamount to tale-bearing, so the biblical thing to do would be to call out the dishonest journalists, not the man giving the opinion.

When Rand Paul says now is not the time to discuss underlying causes, he is giving an opinion, which can not be construed as being a lie even if it is based on bad information, which it isn't. You can't really even fathom underlying causes if you are in immediate physical danger or are charged with protecting lives and property. Those who have time to run their mouths about underlying causes while buildings burn are people who are not in the path of the violence and are likely not privy to sufficient facts to render a judgment on the matter anyway.

4. Can't kill people or can't murder people? Deadly force is permissible in certain cases of self-defense, as laid out in Exodus 22:2 "If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, [there shall] no blood [be shed] for him." Likewise, capitol punishment is clearly warranted in cases of premeditated murder according to Genesis 9:6, several passages in Exodus 20 and 21 (which also call for the death penalty for kidnapping in Exodus 21:16), and is reinforced in the epistle to the Hebrews 10:28. Circumstances determine whether killing by either an individual or the state is justified, and it is always in reaction to violence by an instigator. Christ's assertion of "Turning The Other Cheek" is a moral teaching meant to diffuse a situation so that it need not come to bloodshed, but a Christian is not forbidden from defending himself against unjust threats to his life.

5. Lying is evil, murder is evil. However, man is fallen, so we will be dealing with both until kingdom come. I'm not a Darwinist or an Enlightenment thinker, but I am very much a realist when it comes to what others tend to do with power once they have it.

6. "But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully" (1 Timothy 1:8) The law is to be obeyed, but in the hands of tyrants, it is a tool of destruction. If tyranny can be ended without a shot being fired, all the better, hence why I am supporting a practical approach to reform before I run off to become a lone voice shouting in the wilderness, and also why I don't condone either the rioters or the police who probably murdered Freddie Gray.

Have my points been clear?

[hells_unicorn]

It doesn't say anything about him losing his appeal to minorities. It is about what he's doing to gain support, and how easy it is for him to undermine that goal by making certain comments. There are quotes from supporters and people who are on the fence about trusting him. Like I said, relatively fair; not my most favorite thing to read, but could have been Rubin or Rachel Maddow worse.

Sure it could be worse, but it's still a lousy piece. And your argument on semantics is a bit misleading. You are essentially saying that the title and thrust of this article is "he isn't losing his appeal to minorities, but he is losing the support of minorities", it's 2 different ways of saying the exact same thing.

I thought we were past making excuses for dishonest media coverage because they decided to kick us in the face instead of the balls this time.

[Natural Citizen]

hells unicorn, huh. Heh. Now that's a cool name. Is original...

[RickyJ]

I've seen a lot of folks on Facebook dinging him for this remark when his son just had another run-in with the law.

Who doesn't get arrested for driving while drunk and hitting a parked car? Paul would look better here if the police would have arrested his son like they would do with anyone else that does something like this.

[RickyJ]

Is that why Baltimore is the cheapest title on The monopoly game?

That is not correct, Mediterranean Avenue is the cheapest title in The Monopoly game, Baltimore Avenue is the second cheapest.

[hells_unicorn]

hells unicorn, huh. Heh. Now that's a cool name. Is original...

Mostly original. It's pretty close to an enemy in the first Genso Suikoden game for the PS1, an undead unicorn monster that's a recurring enemy in a vampire's castle.

The implications of the name are a bit paradoxical, but I think it has a degree of compatibility with human nature, being good in original nature, but condemned by our choices.

[Tywysog Cymru]

Rand Paul is right, it's not a racial thing. Americans of all races have rejected God and have rejected moral decency.

[r3volution 3.0]

I don't think you can but then what is the solution?

Bad policy --> this current generation of degenerates

Unfortunately, I don't think there's much to be done about said degenerates. But eventually they'll get old and die, like the rest of us.

The solution then is to change the bad policy to make sure their children and grandchildren don't follow in their footsteps.

The basic problem is: Poverty + War on Drugs + Welfare State

What's needed are any policy changes which move toward laissez faire, reduce the intensity of the drug war, or roll back the welfare state.

Rand's platform has two of the three (welfare is virtually untouchable, third-rail) - Economic Freedom Zones and reducing mandatory minimums. That's a good start. No one else is offering anything of any value. The Dems will mostly just throw more welfare cash at the problem, and the GOPers will mostly do nothing, other than pay lip service to family values (without addressing the causes of the loss thereof).

At the same time as we begin to address the underlying causes, however, we need to be firm about maintaining lkaw and order. Both for political reasons with the GOP and because it's the right thing to do. Just because the state played a role in perverting this generation of people doesn't mean they should be given carte blanche to live out their perversion, at the expense of all decent law-abiding people. It's very much like the Islamic terrorism problem. Yea, US government policy inadvertently created these people, and those policies need to be reversed, but at the same time - we have this whole generation fo young Muslims overseas who are already radicalize. No matter what's done in the policy arena, these people are not going to just go away. Unfortunately, we'll be dealing with them for a long time.

[wizardwatson]

Mostly original. It's pretty close to an enemy in the first Genso Suikoden game for the PS1, an undead unicorn monster that's a recurring enemy in a vampire's castle.

The implications of the name are a bit paradoxical, but I think it has a degree of compatibility with human nature, being good in original nature, but condemned by our choices.

Why should I waste time responding to your manufactured walls of text that you direct at me to try to show others that I'm "wrong about you" and that you are much more of a "Christian" than I am when you don't even make an attempt to show your supposed Christian knowledge when speaking freely on the forum to others? I don't like being set up. I don't like speaking to the phony front of a liar so he can watch me react to his illusion and study me and devise ways to tear me apart.

All of that fancy Christian gymnastics talk in your post at me, and right here you're telling people that man's original nature is good? Please show me where Christ talked about man being good but only made bad by choices. Or are you going to go into how you studied at so-and-so for so many years and show me more of your diplomas?

Man is not good. God SPECIFICALLY cursed all of us. It's better that way, nobody can boast.


John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

That means that lack of belief shows that you remain in a condemned state. Lack of belief doesn't "cause" condemnation, lack of belief shows that you remain in the original state of sin. In other words THERE IS A CHOICE! But the choice is to BELIEVE so that you escape condemnation. There is no choice that condemns you God already condemned all of us.

Did you eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? No you didn't. Adam did and God cursed us all anyway. You didn't choose to be a sinner. You sin because you remain in a state of condemnation. Only being born again completely eradicates this condition which is rare, EXTREMELY rare in this day and age. Something I do not admit to being, not that even if I was I would necessarily advertise.

No one is "good".


Mark 10:17-18 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

That's Jesus saying that in case you've forgotten.

But Hells_Unicorn, the presbyterian whatever with his "years" of knowledge wants to go around saying all men are good in direct opposition to the teaching of Christ who he's so desperate to show is on his side. But the truth is YOU want to be liked and you know that telling men that they are sinners, the whole lot, isn't a good way to do that.

Christ offends you. You are following something or someone else.

[JohnGalt1225]

You have a knack for exaggerating things.
I only wish I was exaggerating. On the now defunct Baltimore thread and the thread for the Laura Ingraham appearance I saw things that blew my mind. People did directly compare the rioters to modern day Sons of Liberty, people compared the Baltimore riots to the American Revolution, etc.

[hells_unicorn]

1. All of that fancy Christian gymnastics talk in your post at me, and right here you're telling people that man's original nature is good? Please show me where Christ talked about man being good but only made bad by choices. Or are you going to go into how you studied at so-and-so for so many years and show me more of your diplomas? Man is not good. God SPECIFICALLY cursed all of us. It's better that way, nobody can boast.

2. That means that lack of belief shows that you remain in a condemned state. Lack of belief doesn't "cause" condemnation, lack of belief shows that you remain in the original state of sin. In other words THERE IS A CHOICE! But the choice is to BELIEVE so that you escape condemnation. There is no choice that condemns you God already condemned all of us.

3. Did you eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil? No you didn't. Adam did and God cursed us all anyway. You didn't choose to be a sinner. You sin because you remain in a state of condemnation. Only being born again completely eradicates this condition which is rare, EXTREMELY rare in this day and age. Something I do not admit to being, not that even if I was I would necessarily advertise.

4. No one is "good".

5. That's Jesus saying that in case you've forgotten.

6. But Hells_Unicorn, the presbyterian whatever with his "years" of knowledge wants to go around saying all men are good in direct opposition to the teaching of Christ who he's so desperate to show is on his side. But the truth is YOU want to be liked and you know that telling men that they are sinners, the whole lot, isn't a good way to do that.

7. Christ offends you. You are following something or someone else.

1. "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." (Ecclesiastes 7:29)
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26)

This stuff is easy to miss when you obsess over the 4 Gospels and don't study the rest of scripture. If man is evil from creation, then God's image and likeness is evil. The Fall is where the world is cursed, man was not created in bondage to sin, he sinned by disobedience (see Romans 5:12) and fell into sin. The ironic thing is, the attack you just attempted on me is the EXACT same attack that Rome tried on Martin Luther. And likewise, if we follow the logic that man was created sinful, it would reflect something sinful in God's nature since man is created in his image.

2. This is Arminian heresy, and diametrically opposed even to the crude, semi-Calvinism of the Westboro Baptists. Man's choices condemn him, for they reveal his corrupt nature, which was NOT corrupt prior to The Fall (as noted in my previous scripture quotations). Man has no choice to believe unless he is born again, and a man has no say in being born once of the flesh, let alone of the spirit (John 6:44; John 3:3-5). Once regenerated of The Spirit, man is capable of rendering good works. Try to be a little less liberal with your witnessing, for your own sake and everyone else reading.

3. Mindless rambling here, some sloppy paraphrases of scripture and a general butchering of the 2nd use of the Law.

4. "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." (Genesis 1:31)
"And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Mark 1:11)

According to scripture, Adam was good prior to the Fall, and Jesus was likewise good since God was well pleased in him. The crux of the initial metaphorical meaning of my moniker has to do with man as it pertains to Adam, who was created upright, and then fell. Sorry, but you are wrong yet again.

5. You stated that no one is "good", so by your open ended rambling, since Jesus became truly man while remaining a part of the Holy Trinity, that Jesus was not good. You really need to choose your words more carefully here.

6. Reading comprehension continues to be a weakness for you. Granted, it is to be expected since you only acknowledge about 1/2 of the New Testament as being truth, so it logically follows that you only read snippets of my words and run with them. And since you are a bit slow on what a Presbyterian is, I'll refer you to this website (http://www.covenanter.org/) for better reading. There is some heavy reading involved on this website, so you may just want to go to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church website (http://www.opc.org/) or the RPCNA's website (http://reformedpresbyterian.org/) first for a more watered down version of it, but they have some massive problems in a few areas. Suffice to say, I take The Bible seriously, far more seriously than you apparently do. The testimony of an individual who doesn't know the difference between an empty church ordinance and a sacrament pales to the testimony of the historical church, and all testimony answers to scripture, and when I say scripture, I mean ALL OF IT, not just a few select books out of the New Testament.

7. Here's that fanaticism again. If Christ offended me, I wouldn't be spending a significant chunk of my time reproving my understanding of his teachings and his church. For a man who complains at my lengthy responses, you sure seem to be in a hurry to lob more responses at me. A word of advice, read my posts more than once, make sure you read all of it, then form a response. It'll help you avoid mistakes.

[twomp]

I only wish I was exaggerating. On the now defunct Baltimore thread and the thread for the Laura Ingraham appearance I saw things that blew my mind. People did directly compare the rioters to modern day Sons of Liberty, people compared the Baltimore riots to the American Revolution, etc.

Yeah but I didn't so direct your wild exaggerations and knee-jerk reactions towards them.

[wizardwatson]

1. "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." (Ecclesiastes 7:29)
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26)

This stuff is easy to miss when you obsess over the 4 Gospels and don't study the rest of scripture. If man is evil from creation, then God's image and likeness is evil. The Fall is where the world is cursed, man was not created in bondage to sin, he sinned by disobedience (see Romans 5:12) and fell into sin. The ironic thing is, the attack you just attempted on me is the EXACT same attack that Rome tried on Martin Luther. And likewise, if we follow the logic that man was created sinful, it would reflect something sinful in God's nature since man is created in his image.

2. This is Arminian heresy, and diametrically opposed even to the crude, semi-Calvinism of the Westboro Baptists. Man's choices condemn him, for they reveal his corrupt nature, which was NOT corrupt prior to The Fall (as noted in my previous scripture quotations). Man has no choice to believe unless he is born again, and a man has no say in being born once of the flesh, let alone of the spirit (John 6:44; John 3:3-5). Once regenerated of The Spirit, man is capable of rendering good works. Try to be a little less liberal with your witnessing, for your own sake and everyone else reading.

3. Mindless rambling here, some sloppy paraphrases of scripture and a general butchering of the 2nd use of the Law.

4. "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." (Genesis 1:31)
"And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (Mark 1:11)

According to scripture, Adam was good prior to the Fall, and Jesus was likewise good since God was well pleased in him. The crux of the initial metaphorical meaning of my moniker has to do with man as it pertains to Adam, who was created upright, and then fell. Sorry, but you are wrong yet again.

5. You stated that no one is "good", so by your open ended rambling, since Jesus became truly man while remaining a part of the Holy Trinity, that Jesus was not good. You really need to choose your words more carefully here.

6. Reading comprehension continues to be a weakness for you. Granted, it is to be expected since you only acknowledge about 1/2 of the New Testament as being truth, so it logically follows that you only read snippets of my words and run with them. And since you are a bit slow on what a Presbyterian is, I'll refer you to this website (http://www.covenanter.org/) for better reading. There is some heavy reading involved on this website, so you may just want to go to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church website (http://www.opc.org/) or the RPCNA's website (http://reformedpresbyterian.org/) first for a more watered down version of it, but they have some massive problems in a few areas. Suffice to say, I take The Bible seriously, far more seriously than you apparently do. The testimony of an individual who doesn't know the difference between an empty church ordinance and a sacrament pales to the testimony of the historical church, and all testimony answers to scripture, and when I say scripture, I mean ALL OF IT, not just a few select books out of the New Testament.

7. Here's that fanaticism again. If Christ offended me, I wouldn't be spending a significant chunk of my time reproving my understanding of his teachings and his church. For a man who complains at my lengthy responses, you sure seem to be in a hurry to lob more responses at me. A word of advice, read my posts more than once, make sure you read all of it, then form a response. It'll help you avoid mistakes.

Mayhaps. :)

So I'm wrong out in the open.

You're right but never speak.

We argue and the gospel is preached.

Everybody wins.

You could be a little more proactive when I'm not around.

[Christian Liberty]

I agree that it is a breakdown of the family that is one of the root causes, but some "Christians" out there want to use the government to shore up the family, and that is about as rational as using the government to shore up the market.

God knew best from the beginning exactly how much government is needed. #theonomy.

[hells_unicorn]

God knew best from the beginning exactly how much government is needed. #theonomy.

Theonomy is a delicate subject. I consider myself a student of this idea, but it is important to note that the ceremonial aspects of OT law, and consequently some of their judicial standards, are not binding upon the New Testament church. Similarly, the necessity of a functional judicial system is essential to having needed interpretations of the degrees of infractions and avoid cruel and unusual punishment.

I know Theonomy gets a bad reputation in the media because modern journalists generally despise Christianity, and I don't mean to sound overly skeptical about it.

[Ron Paul in 2008]

I agree with Rand partially that a lack of black fathers is causing the blacks to be unrestrained but its mostly the media stirring up race hatred against whites. The media is obsessed with race and racism.