Tab Content
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    Today, 07:10 PM
    That is amusing, though I think Calvin would have been just as disappointed as I was at the graven image at the beginning. I'm surprised you didn't notice that :)
    14 replies | 332 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    Today, 06:36 PM
    Psalm 5:5 says God hates all workers of iniquity. Not just the sin, the sinner. What now: Arminians?
    14 replies | 332 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Today, 05:55 AM
    Hillary and everyone who supported her are such sore losers. If she had won the election, then there would've never been any "threat" of "fake news" to warn the public about. But because the results of the election didn't match with the narrative of the mainstream media, oh, now there is a new terrorist threat in social media. What a bunch of megalomaniac crybabies!
    30 replies | 460 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:23 AM
    I would have voted for WikiLeaks (Julian Assange).
    21 replies | 409 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    12-07-2016, 08:24 AM
    Guess who it is. Donald Trump
    21 replies | 409 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    12-07-2016, 06:50 AM
    52 replies | 708 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    12-07-2016, 05:14 AM
    Indeed. Sure enough, Trump did say that:
    52 replies | 1017 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    12-07-2016, 05:03 AM
    I really don't get Trump supporters. To be "liberty-minded" is a packaged deal, encompassing many related and consistent positions on public policy towards the goal of less government intervention and more private entrepreneurship and charity. It's not just saying the right thing on one issue. Every time Trump says one thing that is even remotely close to a conservative or libertarian position, Trump supporters here rage on like, "Look! Trump is going to lead us towards liberty! Woooooooo!" forgetting the tens of other positions that Trump holds when it comes to things like eminent domain, stealing oil from other nations, using executive orders for his own means, and a slew of other non-liberty views. Forget Trump's rhetoric; look at his history of what he's stood for, used the government to do on his behalf, and how many times he's flip-flopped on issues. That's what counts.
    52 replies | 1017 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    12-07-2016, 02:17 AM
    In his own words, of course:
    6 replies | 262 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    12-06-2016, 10:06 AM
    The article continues here.
    6 replies | 262 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    12-06-2016, 05:20 AM
    I understand that, UWDude. My point is that Dr. Carson has special expertise in the field of medicine in contrast to housing and urban development. In any case, I really don't trust Trump's appointments because they're all going to be bad for the States and the people. Trump will appoint individuals who believe that America's domestic issues and foreign interests must be solved, first, by federal intervention.
    58 replies | 1162 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    12-06-2016, 03:55 AM
    68 replies | 1017 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    12-06-2016, 03:47 AM
    I would've thought Dr. Ben Carson would be tapped for, you know, Surgeon General, seeing as how he is a neurosurgeon, after all...
    58 replies | 1162 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    12-05-2016, 04:01 PM
    But you probably still view me as a heathen for disagreeing with you on the New Covenant ;)
    309 replies | 4231 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    12-05-2016, 03:56 PM
    I agree. But if we use "free" in the ordinary sense that most people use it today, people are going to get confused. "I have a car I want to give you for free" is free in the ordinary sense of the word. That is not, however, salvation.
    309 replies | 4231 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    12-05-2016, 03:53 PM
    Sola and HU are the two posters that make me interested enough to keep posting here :p
    309 replies | 4231 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    12-05-2016, 03:36 PM
    They mean free in layperson's terms. For instance if I offer you a car and say you don't have to pay for it you can accept the car or not. That's "free" in the standard, cultural definition of the word. The problem is that this isn't the Biblical analogy. Salvation isn't a transaction, its Christ's accomplished redemption on the cross for sinners. Its dead men being brought back to life. Dead men who can't respond at all, can't even choose. In other words, you're right. But "free" needs to be defined for them first.
    309 replies | 4231 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    12-05-2016, 03:18 PM
    I'd do that if I thought he didn't have anything worth saying, but given that that isn't true (Though I don't 100% agree with him) I won't.
    309 replies | 4231 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    12-05-2016, 03:17 PM
    Its an equivocation on the word "free." The Arminians mean that you don't have to pay anything for it. You mean that the person can't even take it. Really I don't think the correct accusation against them is that they deny salvation being free (they would accept that it is free) but rather that they deny that the person who's supposed to be receving the free gift is actually dead, and the gift is actually life.
    309 replies | 4231 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    12-05-2016, 11:44 AM
    I've used Karm but I've never looked up that particular heresy. That said now that I'm seeing the serpent thing I've probably seen that before and just didn't remember the name. oh well :)
    122 replies | 1708 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    12-04-2016, 07:50 PM
    Well for one thing because the synergism accusation isn't actually true, anymore than the accusations against you being a hyper-calvinist are true. But second of all, what the heck does Deuteronomy 13 have to do with Rome? Joel McDurmon makes this same idiotic accusation and its not true. Third of all, I'm not totally convinced that soteriological errors deserve capital punishment in the same way Christological ones (worshipping a god with a different identity) do. I'd say outright pelagianism also deserves it in that Pelagianism essentially says "I am the Lord your God, but I didn't bring you out of Egypt, you brought yourselves out", but once people start granting that the cross did save them its a bit more complicated. I'm inclined to say that the civil magistrate can still punish the spreading of gross errors but "the punishment should fit the crime" so to speak. I definitely don't want to sound like the anabaptist/modern evangelical "The Reformed were just a bunch of murderers" because I know that's not true, but I really do think this is wrong, assuming anyone was actually killed just for preaching against paedobaptism (which I'm not sure if was actually the case.) You can make a decent case that credobaptists should be denied citizenship from Genesis 17 (which I believe is the standard covenanter position.... I don't claim certainty on this issue however) but to actually execute them for preaching the false doctrine on a non-primary matter I believe is excessive. I can't agree to that because I believe it goes against the OT law as well. The OT law perfectly fits the punishment to the crime. Preaching a false god (as Servetus did) deserves death. I don't think preaching against paedobaptism (though wrong) does. OK fair enough.
    309 replies | 4231 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    12-04-2016, 03:16 PM
    To be clear I'm not defending Phelps, but what capital crime has he committed according to Biblical law? To be clear, I am not familiar with the details of his teaching, I know he's a baptist (which is an error but I don't think would qualify as a capital crime), a Hyper-Calvinist (ditto) and extremely abrasive in how he conducts himself (ditto.) Servetus was teaching a different (non-trinitarian) God which certainly warrants "roasting" (I prefer stoning or firing squad ;) ) according to Deut 13, but I am not sure what capital crime you see Phelps as being guilty of (not disagreeing necessarily, and I do NOT defend Phelps.)
    309 replies | 4231 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    12-04-2016, 03:14 PM
    I have never heard of it.
    122 replies | 1708 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    12-04-2016, 10:28 AM
    I, too, enjoy using the King James (Authorized Version) Bible, and it has been my main translation since I was a young boy. In fact, several years ago, I would have almost considered someone a heretic if he didn't use the KJV. However, as we become older and, hopefully, more mature in our faith, we come to realize that many of the theological positions we used to hold were wrong. The exclusivity of the KJV is one of those positions, for me. Though I believe it to be the premium version for English-speakers, I also recognize that its language can become a stumblingblock for many people. Therefore, other translations have to be used for understanding, memorizing, and citing of God's word. So, I am not a "KJV-Only" person. Having said that, I find that the ministry website of the Trinitarian Bible Society has some very good information and insights about why the KJV still ought to be used as the standard version for English-speaking Christians and churches.
    122 replies | 1708 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    12-04-2016, 10:07 AM
    Call me "biased," but I still prefer Dr. Paul's videos. There's nothing like good ol' fashioned substance and truth in a video for a Presidential candidate, without all the bells and whistles (no pun intended). Case in point:
    6 replies | 266 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    12-04-2016, 09:50 AM
    That depends on your worldview, particularly as it relates to whether human beings have souls or not. From a Christian worldview, no, consent is not always the precondition for any behavior. In fact, if God did not give us new hearts by the Holy Spirit ("being born again") to trust and follow Him, then no one would consent to believing in Him. That's because we're all born in sin, and our natural selves don't want anything to do with God, due to that sin nature. But once again, if one rejects the Christian worldview about the nature of human beings, then that person has to justify why pedophilia is objectively wrong, given the assertion that human beings are just biological machines subject to the laws of chemistry and physics. And to insert the need for consent in sexual behavior goes way beyond biology, chemistry, or physics. Otherwise, consent becomes an impossibility, or, at best, just something that is dependent upon impersonal and random material forces which no human being can control unto himself.
    41 replies | 1391 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    12-04-2016, 09:27 AM
    This video is very relevant to the subject of the thread:
    7 replies | 277 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    12-03-2016, 10:52 AM
    We aren't forced against our will. I agree with that. The problem is you believe people are actually able to choose God of their own volition. But we won't. The only person who we could maybe say had a totally free choice (though even still, God put the tree there intending but not causing the Fall for his own good purpose) is Adam. That would even be speculative but you could maybe make that Biblical argument. Everyone else is born in slavery to sin. The Bible says we were dead in our tresspasses. God has to remove your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh so that you will believe. So you're right that its not "forced" but its not free will either.
    309 replies | 4231 view(s)
More Activity

58 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    For curiosity, have you been reading my theonomy posts?
  2. View Conversation
    Regarding the whole "only the radical libertarians" will enter the gate, a similar thing was brought up at Eric Peters Autos:

    http://ericpetersautos.com/2014/12/1...comment-544496

    "David" is my username. Moleman is coming close to arguing the position that only libertarians are Christians.
  3. View Conversation
    Just an FYI:

    1. My answer to my own poll question is probably "yes", though its an exceedingly reluctant "yes."

    2. The more reluctant someone is, the less quick I'm going to be to judge them. You, frankly, are not the type of person I was considering when I made my OP, even if you techncially qualify. You're against legal torture and you agree that its almost always wrong. There are a lot of people who support legal torture and who think at least some of what was in the Senate Report was morally permissible (At least at my school there are, admittedly, my school is pretty "conservative"). I much more had in mind the neoconservative who says "torture is always justified against terrorists if there's a chance to save even one life" than I am a generally peaceful person that reluctantly says they could justify torturing someone if it meant saving their family, or something like that.
  4. View Conversation
    OK, so in that situation you're almost dealing with Hiroshima and Nagisaki again (not as it actually occured, but what most people think of it as.) Fair enough...

    Still distressing.... I'm not sure what that says of those people who actually think these were all ticking time bomb situations.
  5. View Conversation
    Do you think it would ever be moral to let someone die of hypothermia in a cold cell? Do you ever think it would ever be moral to break someone's legs and force them to stand for hours or days? Do you ever think it would be moral to consecutively waterboard someone 183 times?

    Is your only issue with this the potential for abuse, or do you understand that there is something deeply immoral about this?
  6. View Conversation
    There's something sickening and inhumane about about what was described in the CIA report. Killing someone in self-defense when they are trying to shoot you isn't comparable to that.
  7. View Conversation
    Sorta, but there are plenty of people here who think it should be legal. So, where's the line where the form of torture becomes inhumane no matter what?
  8. View Conversation
    TC, I apologize for the neg rep. I was in a really bad mood today, both from seeing the CIA report and seeing people here at school defend it. I took it out on you. I deserved the neg rep you threw back. Sorry...
  9. View Conversation
    Am I also a hardcore extremist?
  10. View Conversation
    The same one you said you'd never be extreme enough in. The one about police.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 58
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
About Brett85

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
21,928
Posts Per Day
8.93
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
58
Most Recent Message
03-04-2015 02:22 PM
General Information
Last Activity
11-26-2016 11:28 PM
Join Date
03-21-2010
Referrals
0

10 Friends

  1. Christian Liberty
  2. compromise compromise is offline

    Banned

    compromise
  3. Coolidge/Dawes '24
  4. DonVolaric DonVolaric is offline

    Member

    DonVolaric
  5. MichaelDavis MichaelDavis is offline

    Banned

    MichaelDavis
  6. realtonygoodwin realtonygoodwin is offline

    Member

    realtonygoodwin
  7. Southron Southron is offline

    Member

    Southron
  8. Spoa Spoa is offline

    Member

    Spoa
  9. Theocrat Theocrat is offline

    Member

    • Send a message via Skype™ to Theocrat
    Theocrat
  10. Zatch Zatch is offline

    Member

    Zatch
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 10
No results to display...
No results to display...
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

11-20-2016


10-13-2016


10-12-2016


08-03-2016


07-30-2016


07-29-2016


07-13-2016


07-12-2016


07-10-2016


06-23-2016

  • 02:53 AM - Hidden

06-22-2016

  • 09:54 PM - Hidden
  • 09:53 PM - Hidden
  • 09:36 PM - Hidden
  • 08:13 PM - Hidden
  • 08:03 PM - Hidden
  • 07:32 PM - Hidden
  • 07:22 PM - Hidden

05-29-2016



Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast