• Theocrat's Avatar
    Today, 01:22 AM
    The only way we can answer the question, "Should X be criminalized," is by, first, answering, "What does God say about X?" The two questions go together, when we are discussing what sexual sins should receive civil sanctions. But, of course, it takes wisdom to understand how to apply those sanctions in our modern world, and that can be challenging at times, I admit. But, nonetheless, it still needs to be considered when we're assessing public policy and its relation to sexual taboos. Another thing to keep in mind is that the page marked "New Testament" in our Bibles is not inspired by God. That fact is very important because when we are talking about continuities and discontinuities between the Old and New Covenants, we need to realize that the Old Testament laws still applied when the New Testament was being written. Thus, the authors' approach to how Old Testament laws would apply to them in their own day would not have been riddled with many of the assumptions that we face today in modern Christianity (with ideas such as the "Two-Kingdoms Approach," "Law vs. Gospel" dichotomies, Dispensationalism, and other concepts which inherently but inadvertently pit the Old Testament against the New Testament). Unfortunately, you, yourself, are guilty of those very approaches to the New Testament, which is why you fail at understanding how the Old Testament applies to us today. Remember, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..." (2 Timothy 3:16). If sexual acts were condemned with civil penalties in the Old Covenant, then those penalties apply civilly, in some way, in the New Covenant. Otherwise, you would have to say that God made a mistake when He decreed those sexual acts as punishable by civil law under the Old Covenant. But, once again, it takes wisdom to understand how they apply today because the world has changed since the times of the Old Covenant. But the moral indictment against certain sexual behaviors does not change because moral laws are eternal, by nature.
    76 replies | 942 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Today, 12:48 AM
    Ronin, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about in relation to Paul's theology. It's funny how you consider yourself more educated about the relationship between Jesus and Paul when world-renown Biblical scholars, such as N.T. Wright, have been applauded for their research and writings about Paul's life and theology. If you have any serious, objective interest in how Paul's theology was consistent with Christ's doctrines, then I recommend that you watch this lecture from one of the best Pauline scholars in the world, and learn something:
    27 replies | 206 view(s)
  • LibertyEagle's Avatar
    Today, 12:37 AM
    I do. I hate globalists and useful idiots for them.
    169 replies | 3093 view(s)
  • LibertyEagle's Avatar
    Today, 12:25 AM
    She has a brain. You do not.
    66 replies | 840 view(s)
  • heavenlyboy34's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:49 PM
    No, you misread my post you quoted right there^^. (Intentionally?) Note I said "debate and discourse". The positive claim is the thesis of your copypasta. Did you forget to read it? I've read it. It doesn't prove what your claiming in this thread.
    27 replies | 206 view(s)
  • heavenlyboy34's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:38 PM
    Theo didn't do that in this thread. And King James was a "Paulinist" by your deifnition, FYI. ;)
    27 replies | 206 view(s)
  • heavenlyboy34's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:34 PM
    This^^ And the people Paul converted/ministered to were in communion with the rest of the Christian world till the Great Schism. This would not have happened if there was a disagreement between what Paul taught and what everyone else taught.
    27 replies | 206 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:32 PM
    Question. If you assume that governments are just puppets of the mega elite, bankers, whatever, then why do you worry about stopping their influence? If they are going to have coercive influence anyway whether or not there is a government they way pay taxes to have a government? Isn't that like sacrificing captives in order to prevent a solar eclipse and or make it end "early?"
    48 replies | 626 view(s)
  • heavenlyboy34's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:30 PM
    In rational debate and discourse, the positive claimant (you in this case) is required to provide evidence of a claim. If you are too lazy to do so, fine. But you won't persuade anyone if you choose not to. Cheers! :)
    27 replies | 206 view(s)
  • ronpaulhawaii's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:09 PM
    http://www.pnj.com/story/opinion/2016/06/25/marlette-debate-began-gop-hug/86386594/
    12 replies | 1184 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:34 PM
    I had a friend from Saudi when I was in college in the late 80s / early 90s. He fit in quite well with the coed blonde bimbos that wanted to jump his bones. I often wished I had fit in half as well as he did. :( It must have been his Tom Selick mustache that did it.
    66 replies | 840 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:20 PM
    What "uncontrolled systems" are you referring to, fisharmor?
    48 replies | 626 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:16 PM
    Exactly, erowe1. That's all Ronin Truth does. He can't give a definitive, comprehensive rebuttal to anything in which he disagrees with. All he knows how to do is copy and paste links. That's why his credibility, especially in these kinds of discussions, is always suspect because of his laziness and ignorant flippancy of facts that he has no intention of researching. He seriously needs to leave these forums and stick to playing Solitaire online or something.
    27 replies | 206 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:02 PM
    jmdrake replied to a thread "Texit?" in U.S. Political News
    Back to Brexit / Texit. I mentioned one way this could happen without another civil war. So what's left? If there's no mechanism for secession in the constitution....you can change the constitution. Mark Levin et al (and I don't trust them) are pushing for an article 5 convention of the states. Well in that convention a "secession amendment" could be added. Or the new constitution could be ratified to just leave out Texas and anyone else that doesn't want to be part of the U.S. Is that idea appealing to anyone? Just curious.
    35 replies | 556 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:01 PM
    jmdrake replied to a thread "Texit?" in U.S. Political News
    I haven't done an exhaustive search but that's all I have ATM. And true. No one was arrested. They just lost about $1 million worth of plants. All is well in the land of the free...home of the brave. I'm pretty no dogs were killed either or AF would have covered it.
    35 replies | 556 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:37 PM
    jmdrake replied to a thread "Texit?" in U.S. Political News
    Did you read this article? http://truthinmedia.com/feds-raid-colorado-pot-industry-after-promising-not-to-intervene/ In Denver, recreational shops were scheduled to open in only a few short weeks. However, according to The Denver Post, federal agents raided the homes of two individuals and more than a dozen facilities selling the drug. All parties involved claim they were properly licensed, followed all state regulations and were not doing anything which would have prompted the feds to step in.
    35 replies | 556 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:35 PM
    Again, why should a steep drop off sign stop someone from putting his foot in the water? Not the same kind of danger even if you want to pretend it is. Steep drop offs don't jump out of the water. Gators do.
    266 replies | 3629 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:32 PM
    I'm still curious as to why you think this is an issue. I guess to you the words "steep drop off" means "If your feet touch the water you are likely to die." My brain isn't wired that way but perhaps yours is. I can walk with one foot on the sand and one foot in the water and be 100% safe even with a "steep drop off" some 10 feet or less into the water. Not so with a gator. Okay. That's a crocodile and since you seem so intent on being right you'll probably argue that's different somehow. Here's an alligator jumping into a canoe. Look! There was a sign warning of gators! How about that?
    266 replies | 3629 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:16 PM
    jmdrake replied to a thread "Texit?" in U.S. Political News
    Well good for them. Totally unnecessary and not authorized by the action taken by the law that decriminalized marijuana in Colorado. That law only addressed Colorado marijuana statutes. It didn't address federal drug laws. :rolleyes: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=DEA+raid+colorado Federal drug raids are still going on in Colorado. Edit: And looking at the stories of federal drug raids in Colorado, so far I don't see any cases of sheriffs standing down the feds. I do see cases of sheriffs joining in and helping with some of the raids. :( :mad:
    35 replies | 556 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:59 PM
    jmdrake replied to a thread "Texit?" in U.S. Political News
    Nope. Not at all. You either don't understand what Colorado did WRT its drug laws or Civil War history or both.
    35 replies | 556 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:57 PM
    Here's hoping Gary Johnson gets to 15%!
    14 replies | 213 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:55 PM
    jmdrake replied to a thread "Texit?" in U.S. Political News
    Colorado not enforcing federal drug didn't involve Colorado firing on the equivalent of Ft. Sumpter. :rolleyes:
    35 replies | 556 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:52 PM
    Okay. Since this hypothetical is apparently soooo important to you I'll answer it. A sign that says "No swimming, steep drop off" is equivalent to a sign that says "No swimming, alligators." Seriously it is. Both signs not only say "No swimming", but they also specifically warn about the danger. I'm thinking you didn't think your analogy all way through. Now I guess you will say I'm "name calling"? Saying your argument is "irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial" is not name calling. I guess you didn't watch Perry Mason? Anyway, if you wanted to have a correct analogy you should have said "If I had a sign that said No swimming and I didn't warn about a drop off would people be just as upset?" I dunno. Maybe. But the better question is, if the reason you're putting up the "no swimming sign" is because you're worried about the drop off, why not warn about the drop off? Seriously, why do you have this problem with signs that give adequate warnings? Is it because such signs cost a little more money in paint? Regardless of the legal issues I would want anyone I was inviting on my property to be as warned about hidden dangers as possible. Pennies aren't a hidden danger. A drop off you can't see is. Alligators are a hidden danger. If I knew there was a gator on my property and I invited someone on my property and their child got eaten and I hadn't warned them about the gator I would feel like shit. Maybe you would sleep just fine at night but I wouldn't. If I was the one eaten by a gator that I didn't know about but the property owner knew about, it wouldn't bother me one bit if my family sued. (Well I'd be dead and I don't believe in ghosts but I did have a ghost that could hang around and communicate it would be high fiving my family).
    266 replies | 3629 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:37 PM
    Okay. Well I voted Ron both times in the primary and for the constitution party in the general. In 2008 I was happy to see McCain loose because I hated how he and others had treated Ron and I seriously was hoping that at the very least Obama would stop the wars even though my gut told me he wouldn't. (My gut was right). In 2012 I was less happy to see Romney lose. I despised Romney as much as McCain, but Obama had already started doing real damage and hadn't stopped any wars. (Okay. We had "left" Iraq, but not a day before the date Bush had negotiated us to leave.) Still it was good to be able to say to the stupid Romney supporters who voted for him because "He's the one that can beat Obama" that "I told you so!" Now I can't stand Trump for what he did to Rand Paul, Ben Carson and Ted Cruz. And some of the folks around here who were on the "trash Cruz" bandwagon, to the point of spreading national enquirer lies about the man, I will have a hard time forgiving regardless of what happens next. That was disgusting and unbecoming of the liberty movement. And because of how foul and evil such Trump supporters were, there is a part of me, albeit a small part, that would love to say "I told you so" if/when he gets his butt handed to him by Hillary. But then I'm torn because I know Hillary will be terrible for the country. Not torn enough to even think about voting for that jackass in the general election mind you, but torn still. That said, Trump undermining the second amendment (already flip flopped on it and I've yet to see him come back and "clarify" his no fly list statement to any satisfactory degree), and Trump's support for touchback amnesty will be enough "I told you so." I hope Trump doesn't undermine the 2nd amendment, but I hope he does do his "touchback amnesty" plan and, as is the obvious result, Latino immigration goes through the freaking roof! It's not so much that I want more Mexicans here. I could care less one way or another. But for so many Trump supporters this is sooooooo important to them, that when Trump finally betrays them on this, as he has already promised to do, their collective heads will explode. That will make all of this current pain totally worth it.
    16 replies | 266 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:24 PM
    You know what? I didn't even bother reading the rest of your last post because it is irrelevant, incompetent and completely immaterial. We're not talking about choking on pennies or cliff diving or pit bulls or other dogs. We're talking about wild animals. And there is a legal standard for dealing with wild animals attacking on someone's property. It's called ferae naturae. And the standard is that if a wild animal attacks someone on your property you are not liable unless you have specific knowledge of the danger. If you do then you have a duty to try to ensure the safety of those you invite onto your property and/or warn them of the danger. If they already have equal knowledge of the danger than the duty is met even if you don't warn them or try to protect them. It's that simple. I think you're just trying to have the last word and you are not trying to have a serious discussion at this point. Fine. Have the last word. That doesn't in the least change the legal standard.
    266 replies | 3629 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:04 PM
    :rolleyes: Once again, please research ferae naturae because you clearly have no clue about what you are arguing. Presence was 100% correct in his assertion that in general it gives you great liability protection if a wild animal attacks someone on your property. That protection goes away if you know the wild animal is on your property. That protection comes back if the person injured also knows. That's the legal standard. Period. This ain't about swallowing pennies. It's not about dog bites. It's about dangerous wild animals. Here is the Georgia Court of Appeals decision on a similar case. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-of-appeals/1560852.html We do not view the common law doctrine of animals ferae naturae, therefore, as requiring a departure from Georgia's general principles regarding a landowner's duty to exercise ordinary care in keeping its premises safe.12 To the extent the owners would have us carve out an exception under the doctrine of animals ferae naturae and find that an owner or occupier of land enjoys a blanket immunity from liability for any harm caused by a free wild animal on the owner's land, we decline to do so.13 Although a defendant may be entitled to summary judgment where, as in Williams v. Gibbs, there is no evidence that the owners should have anticipated the presence of the wild animal that injured the plaintiff, there is no issue in this case regarding whether the owners should have anticipated the presence of alligators in their lagoons. Rather, the evidence is undisputed that the owners had actual knowledge that alligators were commonly present throughout the lagoon system. Because the undisputed evidence does not establish as a matter of law that the owners could not reasonably foresee that their lagoons would encourage alligators that would constitute a menace to people using the adjacent common areas and golf courses, see Division 1, supra, the owners are not entitled to judgment as a matter of law under the doctrine of animals ferae naturae. And here is the Georgia Supreme Court overturning the case.
    266 replies | 3629 view(s)
  • heavenlyboy34's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:46 PM
    Interesting, but...cui bono? If Western culture "dies", productivity will die too. That means the globalist elites don't have as many toys, foodstuffs, money, etc as they would otherwise have.
    66 replies | 840 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:43 PM
    jmdrake replied to a thread "Texit?" in U.S. Political News
    I never said anything about conquering the North or trying to take it over dimwit. A coup is a way to remove a head of state by force. One can have a coup and not "take over" the government. That happens all the time. A rebellion is a way to throw off an entire government you no longer agree with by force. You may or may not decide to try to take it over. The point, that's gone over your thick skull, is that the EU had a defined legal mechanism for Britain to leave just like the U.S. has a defined legal mechanism to remove a president. (Impeachment). I never said it was. Never said it wasn't. The point is that if you want to compare Brexit to Texit you need to specify what it the equivalent in the U.S. constitution to the provision in the Lisbon Treaty that will now be invoked to complete Britain's Brexit. Wrong rocks for brains. What Colorado is doing is perfectly legal. They repealed their drug laws. The federal anti drug laws are still in place but without the state and local governments enforcing state and local drug laws the federal drug laws are pretty much meaningless. It's local cops that bust the on the corner drug dealer or the person they pull over who smells like weed. It's well established that the Federal government can't force state governments to enforce federal law. If the feds want federal drug laws enforced they have to do that themselves. And they simply lack the manpower to do that for the average drug transaction.
    35 replies | 556 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:32 PM
    It's sad that even on this forum most people have missed the point. The roots of Brexit go back not to concern over brown people or "mooselums" immigrating in but of money being siphoned out because of white socialist countries like Greece. By making this all about immigration people are letting the socialist failure of Europe off the hook.
    66 replies | 840 view(s)
More Activity

79 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Accept my FB friend request, plz? Thankee, ma'am. ~hugs~
  2. View Conversation
    You were aware that the comment in your sig was sarcastic, right?
  3. View Conversation
    You're a drunk, now? Unexpected.
  4. View Conversation
    Nikki, is it true you are an eduardo stalker? From a rep he gave me:

    Thread:
    Thoughts on using Facebook

    Dude! Don't share my real FB on here, I don't want Nirvikalpa stalking me
  5. View Conversation
    What was the censored word you accused me of using the rep message you left me?
  6. View Conversation
    I never claimed to be tolerant, I'm not. Tolerance is no virtue.

    And that rep message to HB was 1) private and 2) between friends.
  7. View Conversation
    Your new avatar pic is the most beautiful of yours I've yet seen. ~hugs~
  8. View Conversation
    Thanks for the kind +rep, snugglebear. ~hugs~
  9. View Conversation
    Kitter!
  10. View Conversation
    This made me think of you.

Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 79
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
About Nirvikalpa

Basic Information

Date of Birth
November 18, 1988 (27)
About Nirvikalpa
Interests:
Medicine, Biology, Nature
Occupation:
EMT, Graduate Student
Political Campaign Skills
Entertainers and Events:
Medical (EMT, nurse, doctor)

Signature



What do you want me to do, to do for you to see you through?
A box of rain will ease the pain, and love will see you through.
Box of Rain, Grateful Dead




Quote Originally Posted by PaulConventionWV
A real feminist would have avoided men altogether and found a perfectly good female partner. Because, y'know, all sexual intercourse is actually rape.
निर्विकल्पा
aka Wicked Heathen

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
5,242
Posts Per Day
1.71
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
79
Most Recent Message
05-13-2014 09:49 PM
General Information
Join Date
02-04-2008
Referrals
3

64 Friends

  1. idiom idiom is offline

    Member

    idiom
  2. Jason726 Jason726 is offline

    Member

    Jason726
  3. JasonC JasonC is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via ICQ to JasonC
    • Send a message via AIM to JasonC
    • Send a message via Yahoo to JasonC
    JasonC
  4. jdcole jdcole is offline

    Member

    jdcole
  5. jdmyprez_deo_vindice
  6. Jeremy Jeremy is offline

    Moderator

    Jeremy
  7. jmdrake jmdrake is offline

    Member

    jmdrake
  8. jon4liberty jon4liberty is offline

    Member

    jon4liberty
  9. kaleidoscope eyes
  10. keseygirl keseygirl is offline

    New Member

    keseygirl
Showing Friends 21 to 30 of 64
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
View Nirvikalpa's Blog

Recent Entries

Worth & Doubt

by Nirvikalpa on 07-20-2011 at 10:58 AM
“Nobody is superior, nobody is inferior, but nobody is equal either.
People are simply unique, incomparable. You are you, I am I.
I have to contribute my potential to life; you have to contribute your potential to life.
I have to discover my own being; You have to discover your own being.”
-Osho

Far to often in today's society we are struck by a need to prove our worth - our worth as a citizen, our worth as a mother or a father, our worth as a teacher, our

Read More

Updated 07-20-2011 at 11:01 AM by Nirvikalpa

Categories
Spirituality
No results to display...
No results to display...

06-23-2016


06-22-2016


06-04-2016

  • 07:19 PM - Hidden