View Full Version : Trump: 'I'm much better for the gays'
Trump: 'I'm much better for the gays'
Donald Trump boasted Tuesday that he would be a better president than Hillary Clinton for the LGBT community.
Trump criticized the Clinton Foundation's acceptance of money from countries, such as Saudi Arabia, that discriminate against the LGBT community.
"Here's a woman that takes all of this money from all of these countries, and then she says that she loves women and she's totally with the gays and, you know, whatever group you might talk about; the gays and lesbians," he said in excerpts of a Fox News interview scheduled to air Tuesday night.
"They want to kill — they throw them off buildings," he said of some Islamic countries. "They actually throw gays off buildings."
Trump called on Clinton to return the money she's taken from these countries, before touting himself as the better candidate.
"I'm much better for women than she is," he said. "I'm much better for the gays."
Trump first made the argument about the LGBT community in a Monday speech responding to the shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando by a man who pledged allegiance to terrorist groups during his attack.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/283498-trump-says-he-shamed-clinton-into-saying-radical-islam
enhanced_deficit
06-14-2016, 04:49 PM
If Trump avoids Bush/Obama/neocons types foreign occupations and wars, that should reduce risk from blowbacks in general both for gays and straights.
Orlando club Witness: Fla. gunman attacked to get US 'to stop bombing his country' (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?496668-Orlando-club-Witness-Fla-gunman-attacked-to-get-US-to-stop-bombing-his-country&)
Related
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/images/misc/poll_posticon.gif Poll: Doctors Without Borders airstrike: US alters story for fourth time in four days (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?483234-Doctors-Without-Borders-airstrike-US-alters-story-for-fourth-time-in-four-days&)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVo2YCBVgbg
Tywysog Cymru
06-14-2016, 05:15 PM
If Trump avoids Bush/Obama/neocons types foreign occupations and wars, that should reduce risk from blowbacks in general both for gays and straights.
If Hillary gets rid of the federal reserve, it should usher in a new era of prosperity for all Americans!
Doesn't change the fact that it's not going to happen.
cajuncocoa
06-14-2016, 05:39 PM
I'm starting to think Trump doesn't want to win this thing.
AngryCanadian
06-14-2016, 06:51 PM
I'm starting to think Trump doesn't want to win this thing.
I should worry about Hillary not want to win this thing.
acptulsa
06-14-2016, 06:56 PM
I'm starting to think Trump doesn't want to win this thing.
You finally see it.
Friend of Clinton secures the nomination with shameless pandering in a seventeen candidate field, then proceeds to piss of as many conservatives as he possibly can.
Gee. Why could he conceivably want to do that?
cajuncocoa
06-14-2016, 06:59 PM
You finally see it.
Friend of Clinton secures the nomination with shameless pandering in a seventeen candidate field, then proceeds to piss of as many conservatives as he possibly can.
Gee. Why could he conceivably want to do that?I wouldn't say "finally." I've had this thought for awhile. It explains the ridiculously outlandish things he says, but his supporters never let him off the hook! I've said here a few days ago, he could slit the throats of 5 children under the age of 10 on live television and his supporters would cheer wildly (especially if those children weren't white.)
ChristianAnarchist
06-14-2016, 07:11 PM
Oh Trump has gays. He has the best gays. He has e-uge gays...
I wouldn't say "finally." I've had this thought for awhile. It explains the ridiculously outlandish things he says, but his supporters never let him off the hook! I've said here a few days ago, he could slit the throats of 5 children under the age of 10 on live television and his supporters would cheer wildly (especially if those children weren't white.)
Because it's not enough for him to just throw the POTUS election, they need Congress to start trending Dem again, so by 2020, they have the Senate and the House. But wait, there's more. The small segment of the GOP that has become problematic, they need to be marginalized, so whip them into a frenzy so they do things like:
742443606032683008
The only good thing that can be done from this election cycle is to keep the liberty crowd from being lumped in with the whitewingers, because that's what is happening.
RonPaulMall
06-14-2016, 07:35 PM
You finally see it.
Friend of Clinton secures the nomination with shameless pandering in a seventeen candidate field, then proceeds to piss of as many conservatives as he possibly can.
The idea that you have to act like you hate gay people in order to appease Conservatives is nothing but leftist hogwash. Reagan didn't hate gay people. And Trump won the GOP primary in a landslide despite everyone knowing that he's got nothing against homosexuals. Homosexuals have lived in the United States since the foundation without incident. Immigration and the Economy are what Conservtives care about.
This guy live tweets from the Trump rally in Greensboro NC:
742890971679969280
742877977424371713
742860760179707904
742861600625983490
Christian Liberty
06-14-2016, 07:48 PM
The idea that you have to act like you hate gay people in order to appease Conservatives is nothing but leftist hogwash. Reagan didn't hate gay people. And Trump won the GOP primary in a landslide despite everyone knowing that he's got nothing against homosexuals. Homosexuals have lived in the United States since the foundation without incident. Immigration and the Economy are what Conservtives care about.
Homosexual contact was a felony until the 1960s in every state, and it remained a crime on the books since 2003. I agree that a President shouldn't have to hate gay people, I wouldn't want a President who does. However, a good president would hate the behavior of homosexuality and seek to see the filthy behavior criminalized.
but worse, today, to campaign on "being good for the gay community" cannot be good for Christians.
cajuncocoa
06-14-2016, 08:09 PM
Homosexual contact was a felony until the 1960s in every state, and it remained a crime on the books since 2003. I agree that a President shouldn't have to hate gay people, I wouldn't want a President who does. However, a good president would hate the behavior of homosexuality and seek to see the filthy behavior criminalized.
but worse, today, to campaign on "being good for the gay community" cannot be good for Christians.No.
Ender
06-14-2016, 08:17 PM
Homosexual contact was a felony until the 1960s in every state, and it remained a crime on the books since 2003. I agree that a President shouldn't have to hate gay people, I wouldn't want a President who does. However, a good president would hate the behavior of homosexuality and seek to see the filthy behavior criminalized.
but worse, today, to campaign on "being good for the gay community" cannot be good for Christians.
Take it to the Religion forum.
oyarde
06-14-2016, 08:18 PM
WTF
heavenlyboy34
06-14-2016, 08:22 PM
Homosexual contact was a felony until the 1960s in every state, and it remained a crime on the books since 2003. I agree that a President shouldn't have to hate gay people, I wouldn't want a President who does. However, a good president would hate the behavior of homosexuality and seek to see the filthy behavior criminalized.
but worse, today, to campaign on "being good for the gay community" cannot be good for Christians.
How do you expect such a law to improve anything? Why?
Danke
06-14-2016, 08:44 PM
I've said here a few days ago, he could slit the throats of 5 children under the age of 10 on live television and his supporters would cheer wildly (especially if those children weren't white.)
Trumphobia is very strong with this one. Wow.
ChristianAnarchist
06-14-2016, 08:57 PM
Homosexual contact was a felony until the 1960s in every state, and it remained a crime on the books since 2003. I agree that a President shouldn't have to hate gay people, I wouldn't want a President who does. However, a good president would hate the behavior of homosexuality and seek to see the filthy behavior criminalized.
but worse, today, to campaign on "being good for the gay community" cannot be good for Christians.
Listen to yourself "Christian Liberty". You sound neither "Christian" nor "Liberty-arian". You want "filthy behavior" criminalized? Who determines what is "filthy behavior"? You? Me? Trump? Hillary? Sorry but if there's no victim (real flesh and blood victim) there's no crime...
cajuncocoa
06-14-2016, 10:37 PM
Trumphobia is very strong with this one. Wow.
With good reason, too.
phill4paul
06-14-2016, 10:45 PM
I'm starting to think Trump doesn't want to win this thing.
C'mon, lady, you know better than that. Headlines say "I'm much better for gays" for 3-5 days and then he spins it. He's a fuggin' master at this and once you see through his M.O. you know he squeezes the media just right. He sucks, but not at manipulation.
phill4paul
06-14-2016, 10:48 PM
Trumphobia is very strong with this one. Wow.
The fear of a very real possibility of Donald Trump being POTUS is not extreme or irrational.
oyarde
06-14-2016, 10:48 PM
Well , Clinton could just say she is a gay and better for it.
nikcers
06-14-2016, 10:49 PM
Well , Clinton could just say she is a gay and better for it.
Isn't that what her gay surrogates are for?
has gays. He has the best gays. He has e-uge gays...
ROFL. Just re dub his steaks commercials - we need ads asap!
phill4paul
06-14-2016, 10:57 PM
Listen to yourself "Christian Liberty". You sound neither "Christian" nor "Liberty-arian". You want "filthy behavior" criminalized? Who determines what is "filthy behavior"? You? Me? Trump? Hillary? Sorry but if there's no victim (real flesh and blood victim) there's no crime...
Christian Liberty came to us under a different name as a "16-yr. old trying to understand libertarianism", agreeing with most everything and racked up rep, then went Eduardo. ;)
TheTexan
06-15-2016, 03:38 AM
Trump is better, for the gays, the blacks, the mexicans, the episcopalians, the nortarians, the platarians, the colarians,
Hes just Great, for everybody, really
openfire
06-15-2016, 03:48 AM
The irony of this thread is that he is better for the gays.
fedupinmo
06-15-2016, 06:37 AM
Because it's not enough for him to just throw the POTUS election, they need Congress to start trending Dem again, so by 2020, they have the Senate and the House. But wait, there's more. The small segment of the GOP that has become problematic, they need to be marginalized, so whip them into a frenzy so they do things like:
742443606032683008
The only good thing that can be done from this election cycle is to keep the liberty crowd from being lumped in with the whitewingers, because that's what is happening.
So people (plural) yell stuff, and one person holds up a Trump sign. One person.
Ah... blaming the group because they brought that one guy with them... it is a universal tendency.
oyarde
06-15-2016, 07:24 AM
Trump is better, for the gays, the blacks, the mexicans, the episcopalians, the nortarians, the platarians, the colarians,
Hes just Great, for everybody, really
the episcpalins should be ok
CaptUSA
06-15-2016, 09:23 AM
Actual Trump quote:
Ask yourself, who is really the friend of women and the LB…and LGBT community: Donald Trump with actions, or Hillary Clinton with her words? I will tell you who the better friend is, and someday, I believe, that will be proven out, bigly.
BIGLY!! Do you hear that?! Bigly! That's how much it's true!
If Trump avoids Bush/Obama/neocons types foreign occupations and wars, that should reduce risk from blowbacks in general both for gays and straights.
We are now well beyond "blowback". The general circumstance is now one of a clash of basic philosophies. How deeply rooted this clash is remains to be seen in terms of its viability in the absence of what would otherwise be "blowback generating" acts on the part of some actor, the USA being an example.
The question then, is whether "jihadism" (there goes another ISM.) would retain its presence and power if all "non-Islamic" parties were to stop poking at the sand-fleas. Twenty years ago the answer may have been far easier to correctly predict than it is today because the continued poking and prodding by "outsiders" over the intervening years has bolstered the fundamentalist mindset that calls for the Islamization of the entire world. The "world is ours" contingent is growing daily, it seems.
While I am all for attempting the "leave them alone" approach first, it may be too little too late and we may be faced with the choice of wiping them out or being subsumed by them. I for one, have no intentions of praying to Mecca, running around exclaiming "Allahu akbar", and screwing camels for what remains of my days.
I'm starting to think Trump doesn't want to win this thing.
More likely, he doesn't care whether he wins and will play it off the cuff and as he pleases to the bitter end, come what may.
But to your point, could you blame him? What if this whole thing started off as a gag for him, the unexpected results having hooked his morbid sense of curiosity leading him to keep at it just to see how far he could take it (read: how stupid is the average American).
The simple fact that so many retards would want to send me a bullet would be enough to steer me away from such a job.
Interesting times.
TheTexan
06-15-2016, 10:32 AM
The simple fact that so many retards would want to send me a bullet would be enough to steer me away from such a job.
Interesting times.
Yes, he is courageous indeed. Few people have the guts to do what needs to be done,,,, like he does
cajuncocoa
06-15-2016, 11:10 AM
More likely, he doesn't care whether he wins and will play it off the cuff and as he pleases to the bitter end, come what may.
But to your point, could you blame him? What if this whole thing started off as a gag for him, the unexpected results having hooked his morbid sense of curiosity leading him to keep at it just to see how far he could take it (read: how stupid is the average American).
The simple fact that so many retards would want to send me a bullet would be enough to steer me away from such a job.
Interesting times.
Lots of truth and interesting points in your post. I do tend to think it started as a gag. And then, with his immigration comment, it took off beyond his wildest dreams (and control.)
Your comment about retards sending a bullet...yeah. I often think he won't survive past his first 3 months in office if elected. When it looked like he was getting under the skin of the GOP establishment, I thought they might do this deed. I still wouldn't rule that out if they think they can't control him. But there are many whose ire he's raised with rhetoric he's used, so there's that too. I'm sure all of this is on his mind...it's more than he asked for when he signed up for this as a little gag.
But there's the Trump ego that makes him keep going...to see, as you said, how far he can take it.
Interesting times indeed.
ChristianAnarchist
06-15-2016, 11:29 AM
We are now well beyond "blowback". The general circumstance is now one of a clash of basic philosophies. How deeply rooted this clash is remains to be seen in terms of its viability in the absence of what would otherwise be "blowback generating" acts on the part of some actor, the USA being an example.
The question then, is whether "jihadism" (there goes another ISM.) would retain its presence and power if all "non-Islamic" parties were to stop poking at the sand-fleas. Twenty years ago the answer may have been far easier to correctly predict than it is today because the continued poking and prodding by "outsiders" over the intervening years has bolstered the fundamentalist mindset that calls for the Islamization of the entire world. The "world is ours" contingent is growing daily, it seems.
While I am all for attempting the "leave them alone" approach first, it may be too little too late and we may be faced with the choice of wiping them out or being subsumed by them. I for one, have no intentions of praying to Mecca, running around exclaiming "Allahu akbar", and screwing camels for what remains of my days.
I also have no intention of doing such but I think the correct response to the threat is to shoot anyone who tells you to convert or die. If that happens in sufficient numbers, the threat ceases... (it would work "over there" as well if the peons there were armed and free).
Christian Liberty
06-18-2016, 05:55 PM
How do you expect such a law to improve anything? Why?
I'm being selective about who I decide to answer on this forum, but since you're one of the ones that I think might at least consider what I say (even if not being likely to accept it), I'll answer this.
I don't think such a law would fix much on its own. This culture is unthinkably depraved, wanting legislation to do everything for them EXCEPT uphold basic decency. People want the freedom to be selfish and be perverted and not much else. That's not going to get us much of anywhere.
But more to the point, my issue isn't so much what "works" and more what has God asked civil authorities to do on his behalf. And I believe the civil penalties in the Old Testament for moral transgressions are the guideline God has given us for that purpose.
Listen to yourself "Christian Liberty". You sound neither "Christian" nor "Liberty-arian". You want "filthy behavior" criminalized? Who determines what is "filthy behavior"? You? Me? Trump? Hillary? Sorry but if there's no victim (real flesh and blood victim) there's no crime...
As mentioned above, I believe the general equity of the Mosaic penal code should be the basis. That's much more pro-liberty than what we have today, but would admittedly be what many would consider "harsh" on certain things. I would contend that that's because modern Christianity doesn't understand just how serious certain things are in God's eyes. For instance physical murder is terrible, but murdering someone's soul by giving them a false gospel is far worse. So what Christian reason on earth should civil magistrates not try and execute those who do so? There's no good philosophical reason except cultural pressure and such.
Christian Liberty came to us under a different name as a "16-yr. old trying to understand libertarianism", agreeing with most everything and racked up rep, then went Eduardo. ;)
Meh, it wasn't intentional. In fairness I'll grant that libertarianism gets a lot more right than contemporary evangelicalism when it comes to politics. But the logical implications of libertarianism are fundamentally anti-Christian. I could pretty easily prove this using just reason and the New Testament, though this becomes even more apparent if you consider the OT authoritative as I do.
FindLiberty
06-18-2016, 06:22 PM
Yikes, you scare me.
Christian Liberty
06-18-2016, 06:27 PM
Yikes, you scare me.
Sorry about that, but I don't determine my Biblical exegesis by what is popular and what isnt
Ender
06-18-2016, 07:49 PM
I'm being selective about who I decide to answer on this forum, but since you're one of the ones that I think might at least consider what I say (even if not being likely to accept it), I'll answer this.
I don't think such a law would fix much on its own. This culture is unthinkably depraved, wanting legislation to do everything for them EXCEPT uphold basic decency. People want the freedom to be selfish and be perverted and not much else. That's not going to get us much of anywhere.
But more to the point, my issue isn't so much what "works" and more what has God asked civil authorities to do on his behalf. And I believe the civil penalties in the Old Testament for moral transgressions are the guideline God has given us for that purpose.
As mentioned above, I believe the general equity of the Mosaic penal code should be the basis. That's much more pro-liberty than what we have today, but would admittedly be what many would consider "harsh" on certain things. I would contend that that's because modern Christianity doesn't understand just how serious certain things are in God's eyes. For instance physical murder is terrible, but murdering someone's soul by giving them a false gospel is far worse. So what Christian reason on earth should civil magistrates not try and execute those who do so? There's no good philosophical reason except cultural pressure and such.
Meh, it wasn't intentional. In fairness I'll grant that libertarianism gets a lot more right than contemporary evangelicalism when it comes to politics. But the logical implications of libertarianism are fundamentally anti-Christian. I could pretty easily prove this using just reason and the New Testament, though this becomes even more apparent if you consider the OT authoritative as I do.
Sorry, Dude but the Mosaic Law was for idol-worshipping Jews- Jesus fulfilled all the law and left us basically with the 2 Great Commandments.
Christ said:
Love God with all your heart, might, mind, and strength.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
ALL THE LAW RESTS IN THESE 2 COMMANDMENTS.
As far as a false gospel- look in the mirror. The ONLY people Christ chastised were the hypocritical Pharisees.
ChristianAnarchist
06-18-2016, 09:40 PM
Yikes, you scare me.
And me... Listen to Ender above...
so is this...
http://www.lubezilla.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/1200x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/a/s/astroglide-liquid-water-based-np-5oz-front.jpg
Christian Liberty
06-18-2016, 09:59 PM
Sorry, Dude but the Mosaic Law was for idol-worshipping Jews- Jesus fulfilled all the law and left us basically with the 2 Great Commandments.
Christ said:
Love God with all your heart, might, mind, and strength.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
ALL THE LAW RESTS IN THESE 2 COMMANDMENTS.
I believe that those two laws are a summary of the entire (moral) law, not an abolishing of the rest of it. Following the first four commandments and their case applications is how we love God, following the second six is how we love both God and man (There is some overlap of course, for instance letting one's workers rest on the sabbath is part of loving one's fellow man as well, but the general idea is that these two commandments are summing up the two tables.)
As far as a false gospel- look in the mirror. The ONLY people Christ chastised were the hypocritical Pharisees.
Christ was the most concerned with the hypocrites, yes. Though I am not perfect I am not sure what your basis for calling me a hypocrite for. unlike a pharisee I do not believe I am justified by law-keeping, nor do I believe that I keep the law perfectly, nor do I pretend like the law's requirements are only that which is literally written on the tablets rather than the implications.
Christian Liberty
06-18-2016, 10:00 PM
And me... Listen to Ender above...
Ender's theological point there wasnt quite accurate. But I cant dispute that I'm scaring you :p
FindLiberty
06-18-2016, 10:12 PM
Maybe I didn't understand what was being discussed, but there is some
nasty DIY violence in the Old Testament of the Bible that's unacceptable
in America. Please, no more eye gouging, stoning etc. People doing, "what
God tells them to do" scare me.
Our gov handles wars and rape-caging offenders of victim-less crimes.
I guess I need to get some sleep.
BTW, lol
I don't care about AstroGlide or pillars of salt and just prefer to MMOB, thank you.
Christian Liberty
06-18-2016, 10:18 PM
Maybe I didn't understand what was being discussed, but there is some
nasty DIY violence in the Old Testament of the Bible that's unacceptable
in America. Please, no more eye gouging, stoning etc. People doing, "what
God tells them to do" scare me.
Our gov handles wars and rape-caging offenders of victim-less crimes.
I guess I need to get some sleep.
BTW, lol
I don't care about AstroGlide or pillars of salt and just prefer to MMOB, thank you.
I don't think what we consider acceptable in America is the standard. Our government is evil though. Aggressive war and rape-caging isn't right.
Natural Citizen
06-18-2016, 10:24 PM
In fairness I'll grant that libertarianism gets a lot more right than contemporary evangelicalism when it comes to politics. But the logical implications of libertarianism are fundamentally anti-Christian. I could pretty easily prove this using just reason and the New Testament, though this becomes even more apparent if you consider the OT authoritative as I do.
This would make for a good discussion if it could be kept respectful. You're talking about the Man-over-God versus God-over-Man problem?
I don't think that it is naturally that way in libertarianism itself, as a group of principles, but, I do see a lot of Man-over-God spew from some friends who self-define as libertarian from within libertarian circles. I think this comes as a product of differing views/disagreement or even a lack of understanding of the true fundamental principles of natural law. Some lack an understanding of where rights actually come from. Which is, itself, a consequence of fallen Man. While man certainly may organize government to be his tools, he cannot organize the spiritual. Not even if he thinks he can. He isn't of the position. Not even if he grants himself the position. He isn't. Nope. Natural law is not at the discretion of man to determine and make applicable in a way that is tailored to his personal moral code or lack thereof. But the phenomenon is actually observable from within libertariabnism (the movement) given that so many isms exist and function under the banner, so to speak.
Christian Liberty
06-18-2016, 10:38 PM
This would make for a good discussion if it could be kept respectful. You're talking about the Man-over-God versus God-over-Man problem?
I've never heard this expressed this way, but I'm guessing its something along those lines. libertarianism ignores the rights of God in a society, as well as compassion overriding the NAP in certain instances. I understand that the first bit would be unimportant to an atheist, and the second bit can be explained away, but I think libertarianism has problems being meshed with Christianity. I think it has a lot of admirable points though
r3volution 3.0
06-18-2016, 10:45 PM
Because it's not enough for him to just throw the POTUS election, they need Congress to start trending Dem again, so by 2020, they have the Senate and the House. But wait, there's more. The small segment of the GOP that has become problematic, they need to be marginalized, so whip them into a frenzy so they do things like:
742443606032683008
The only good thing that can be done from this election cycle is to keep the liberty crowd from being lumped in with the whitewingers, because that's what is happening.
Yep
Trumpkins are going over a cliff, we don't have to go with them.
Natural Citizen
06-18-2016, 10:46 PM
I've never heard this expressed this way, but I'm guessing its something along those lines. libertarianism ignores the rights of God in a society, as well as compassion overriding the NAP in certain instances. I understand that the first bit would be unimportant to an atheist, and the second bit can be explained away, but I think libertarianism has problems being meshed with Christianity. I think it has a lot of admirable points though
Yeah, I kind of added to my thought there after you responded to try to be more specific. I'm just posting on the fly, really. Start a thread on this if you want. I'll shoot the breeze with you about it.
Christian Liberty
06-18-2016, 10:53 PM
Yeah, I kind of added to my thought there after you responded to try to be more specific. I'm just posting on the fly, really. Start a thread on this if you want. I'll shoot the breeze with you about it.
I'm getting tired now but maybe tomorrow or monday.
nikcers
06-18-2016, 10:54 PM
Trump: 'I'm much better for the gays' (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?496669-Trump-I-m-much-better-for-the-gays/page2)
Trump is on GRINDER now? What does that even mean? What does he even mean by that??
Natural Citizen
06-18-2016, 10:57 PM
I'm getting tired now but maybe tomorrow or monday.
Yeah, whatever. Let me know. I'm going to go watch cartoons.
RandallFan
06-18-2016, 11:05 PM
Trump is right. Gays would be safer in terms of physical violence with Don in charge.
Ender
06-19-2016, 11:51 AM
Ender's theological point there wasnt quite accurate. But I cant dispute that I'm scaring you :p
My theological point is quite accurate as my Jesus is a God of Love. And- take this carpe to the religion forum.
Suzanimal
06-19-2016, 11:53 AM
Better for the gays than who?:confused: Clinton? Maybe, maybe not. Christian Liberty? Most certainly.
I would be better for everyone. Plus, I won't do anything tacky to the White House. Feel free to write me in.:)
ChristianAnarchist
06-19-2016, 06:00 PM
I've never heard this expressed this way, but I'm guessing its something along those lines. libertarianism ignores the rights of God in a society, as well as compassion overriding the NAP in certain instances. I understand that the first bit would be unimportant to an atheist, and the second bit can be explained away, but I think libertarianism has problems being meshed with Christianity. I think it has a lot of admirable points though
Never heard of anyone discussing the "rights of God" and it really needs no discussion because God has ALL RIGHTS. The real discussion that needs to be made here is what are the obligations of men to "protect" God's rights?? In this discussion I say that men have no obligation to "protect" God and it's really absurd to think that such is man's duty. God is omnipotent. He does not need our protection and really we are infinitely too small to have any ability to "protect" the rights of God. God has always had the power to do so and if He chooses to do so He will.
If you think you are "protecting the rights of God" by punishing your fellow man for violating some perceived infraction of God's laws you are a bigger sinner than the ones you are condemning. THAT'S my take on it...
Natural Citizen
06-19-2016, 06:59 PM
Never heard of anyone discussing the "rights of God" and it really needs no discussion because God has ALL RIGHTS. The real discussion that needs to be made here is what are the obligations of men to "protect" God's rights?? In this discussion I say that men have no obligation to "protect" God and it's really absurd to think that such is man's duty. God is omnipotent. He does not need our protection and really we are infinitely too small to have any ability to "protect" the rights of God. God has always had the power to do so and if He chooses to do so He will.
If you think you are "protecting the rights of God" by punishing your fellow man for violating some perceived infraction of God's laws you are a bigger sinner than the ones you are condemning. THAT'S my take on it...
Well. Speaking for myself, I was talking about where rights come from. There does exist a fundamental disagreement among some with regard to the principles of natural law. And, again, I was specifically talking about the Man-over-God logic versus God-over-Man logic. I wasn't thinking anything in terms "protecting the rights of God."
ChristianAnarchist
06-19-2016, 07:01 PM
Well. Speaking for myself, I was talking about where rights come from. There does exist a fundamental disagreement among some with regard to the principles of natural law. And, again, I was specifically talking about the Man-over-God logic versus God-over-Man logic. I wasn't thinking anything in terms "protecting the rights of God."
Christian Liberty was the one who used the term. I had never even heard anyone bring up such a silly topic...
Natural Citizen
06-19-2016, 07:10 PM
Christian Liberty was the one who used the term. I had never even heard anyone bring up such a silly topic...
Oh. Hm. Ah well. I was kind of half asleep last night when I was reading through this thread anyway. But I am actually interested in discussing the phenomenon that I'd mentioned with regard to the varying perceptions of natural law. I think it's important to reach an agreement in terms of where our rights actually come from. So, then, to do that, we need to get natural law out of the way and everyone on the same page.
Ender
06-19-2016, 10:40 PM
Oh. Hm. Ah well. I was kind of half asleep last night when I was reading through this thread anyway. But I am actually interested in discussing the phenomenon that I'd mentioned with regard to the varying perceptions of natural law. I think it's important to reach an agreement in terms of where our rights actually come from. So, then, to do that, we need to get natural law out of the way and everyone on the same page.
I can live with this:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.