Tab Content
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    Today, 06:18 PM
    Johnson is terrible, but I am curious, why does this concern you? I'm not thinking of any realistic scenario in which Gary Johnson actually takes the election, so why does it matter? Also you should probably stick with not voting or write someone in ;)
    15 replies | 293 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Today, 03:45 AM
    Oh yeah. That video definitely proves that Black people cannot be racist...
    30 replies | 788 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:04 AM
    The neocons are not leaving the GOP, though.
    9 replies | 226 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    Yesterday, 02:34 AM
    The GOP is not worth saving. We can build better parties, and field candidates from them into local, county, and state positions.
    9 replies | 226 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    07-26-2016, 10:05 AM
    Definitions of terms are desperately needed here, both of "mainline" and of "fundamentalist." By some definitions only baptists and pentecostals would be fundamentalists, by other definitions fundamentalists would refer to a particular type of baptist, by still other definitions virtually any Protestant that actually believes in Biblical inerrancy would be a fundamentalist. What exactly we're talking about desperately matters here. Whether by "mainline" you mean conservative Presbyterians, Lutherans and Anglicans or only the liberal ones is also of desperate importance. For the sake of argument I'm going to define some terms. Perhaps my definitions are arbitrary, but they're no more arbitrary than anything else, so here goes. "evangelical" refers to baptists and pentecostals and "non-denominationals".... basically any conservative credobaptists. "fundamentalist" I'm going to ignore because its too vague for me to really define, I'm just going to use "evangelical." HU and I and any other Presbyterians, Lutherans, or Anglicans are conservative magisterial Protestants. "mainline" is usually used to refer to liberal "magisterials" so I'll just define it that way, that's stuff like the PCUSA, ELCA, and Episcopal Church. Now with that out of the way, I'd certainly agree that evangelicals are much more often on the receiving end of Ronin's style of argument from liberal magisterials. Evangelicals at least try to read Paul and they accept him as authoritative on principle even if I think they interpret him badly in practice. By contrast liberal magisterials (and liberal Catholics) certainly tend to do the type of thing Ronin is doing, to varying degrees. And when evangelicals are involved in that contest with liberal magisterials (or liberal Catholics) the evangelicals are going to be the ones to defend Paul. I'm certainly willing to grant this. But when conservative magisterials become involved it gets more complicated. In general conservative magisterials are MUCH more concerned with confessions and things like ecunemical councils, we don't see them as infallible but we see them as subordinate authorities, which to some would seem "more catholic" in that way. Evangelicals tend to have a lower view of the historic church and how much it got right than conservative magisterials. In our minds this winds up being "Jesus is cool but screw the church" to some extent.... yes that's crude and vague but its a tendency we see to ignore historic precedent in exchange for the innovations of the moment. Of course to a point all Protestants agree that the individual's interpretation gets some weight (as we reject the idea that the "catholic church" is infallible) but we tend to have a very high bar for making clean breaks with history, whereas baptists are more comfortable with doing that as long as they think they agree with Paul.
    148 replies | 4020 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-26-2016, 09:36 AM
    The article continues here.
    9 replies | 226 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-25-2016, 02:32 AM
    No, I'm looking for a candidate who has a proven record of keeping his vows, and fidelity in marriage is one of the best ways to verify that. Sure, many people can keep their affairs secret for a little while, but in the providence of God, their affairs are usually found out, just as it has happened numerous times to politicians (such as Mark Sanford). My point to Smitty was that I don't need to delve deeply into the sexual lives of politicians in order to know whether or not they've been faithful to their vows. If a person is a habitual cheater, then that behavior has a way of surfacing itself, especially through their political duties. It's almost inevitable. But my original point still stands: if a person (like Donald Trump) cannot keep his vows to the woman he claims to love with all of his heart, then what do you think he will do to strangers as a President? What you do in your private life reflects how you behave in your public life, especially with keeping one's word.
    69 replies | 888 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-24-2016, 02:21 AM
    1097 replies | 55458 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-24-2016, 12:48 AM
    But what did Mark Sanford do once his affairs were made public? Did he reason, "Well, I've been advocating for smaller government in my state, so I'll stay in office, even though I was caught cheating on my wife"? No, of course not. Sanford knew that his credibility as a principled governor was shot in the public's eye, so he resigned (and rightfully so). He understood the correlation between his infidelities to his wife and the ramifications of them in holding a public office in his constituents' trust.
    69 replies | 888 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 11:06 PM
    Yes, and that metric is simply a matter of public record. We all can find out how many times a candidate has been married or when his sexual infidelities have been exposed to the public. That's all I'm touching on when I mention Trump's multiple marriages as a basis for questioning his fidelities to the American people and the States. Obviously, I can't find out every instance of sexual deviancy from a candidate, so I can only stick with information that is known in the public domain. And to that point, I can generally say that Darrell Castle's marital commitment is much better than Trump's, as evidenced here.
    69 replies | 888 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 10:57 PM
    The irony of this (to use imagery from The Dark Knight Trilogy) is that Donald Trump serves more of a role as "The Joker," to his libertarian supporters because, for them, Trump is "destroying the establishment within the GOP," thus, weakening the two-party political structure, supposedly. So, in a sense, Trump's supporters "want to watch the world burn."
    48 replies | 631 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 10:47 PM
    I'm in Japan right now, and I'm not planning to vote by an absentee ballot, only because the candidate I would support is not on the ticket in my state--Darrell Castle of the Constitution Party. But, of course, sexual purity is just one of the prerequisites that I look for in a candidate of my choosing.
    69 replies | 888 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 10:36 PM
    A person's sexual purity is one of the most important factors about a person's character because it deals with his deepest commitments to intimacy. While I agree with you that Washington D.C. is filled with hedonism, that's all the more reason why we need a President (or any political figure, for that matter) who does not give in to his sexual desires that violate his commitment to his spouse, just as we want him to resist the temptation to take power that he is not authorized to have by the Constitution. The two are linked. The more we ignore the truth that what a person does in his private life comes to light in his public life, the more we will continue to allow corrupt people to sit in seats of public office because those people hide themselves under empty promises and false allegiances to correct principles and policies. I'm going to be crude here and say that, on a basic, ethical level, where a person chooses to stick his dick in at night determines how he uses his pen in the daytime.
    69 replies | 888 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 10:35 PM
    I'd agree though its hypocritical because that's not a right liberals want to share with us.
    26 replies | 553 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 10:17 PM
    The Trumpeteers in this forum will remain silent, I'm sure.
    53 replies | 933 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 10:13 PM
    Exactly. Generally speaking, we all look for some sort of credentials from a person before we trust them to perform a service to us, which in this case, we're investigating ethical credentials. Ethical credentials do matter, especially when a person is seeking the most prestigious office in America. If someone believes that it's okay to break sacred bonds whenever it's convenient for himself, then it's more than likely he will act on that in other areas of his life, such as in business or in civics.
    69 replies | 888 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 09:52 PM
    I would not be surprised if Donald Trump used their headlines to springboard himself as "The Dark Knight," coming to "save Gotham " from the evil, liberal villains...
    48 replies | 631 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-23-2016, 09:34 PM
    Yes, I understand that there have been Presidents who were faithful in marriage, and yet they did not uphold their oaths of office, betraying the American people and the States. But those Presidents were hypocrites. The point I'm driving at is that Donald Trump has a history of breaking his vows to love someone for all of his life, and that says a lot about himself as a person. If he were elected, then it would make sense for him to not be faithful to his oath because he has done that throughout his life with people who were supposed to be his highest object of love. As lilymc so eloquently put it: All I'm saying is that, at the outset of the general election, there is no reason to expect Trump to do any of the things that he claims to do (whether it's abolishing trade deals, having a sensible foreign policy, or anything else that members of this forum praise him for) because he does not honor oaths in his own personal life.
    69 replies | 888 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-22-2016, 10:30 PM
    No. Nonetheless, my point still stands about Trump's lack of commitment to one oath in marriage translating into his lack of commitment to his oath as a President of the united States.
    69 replies | 888 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-22-2016, 10:27 PM
    How do you know that? And even if it were true, it would still prove my original point about Trump, namely, that he can't be trusted due to his own personal infidelities.
    69 replies | 888 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-22-2016, 10:25 PM
    Why wouldn't Trump's wives stay faithful to him, especially since he's a billionaire?
    69 replies | 888 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-22-2016, 09:57 PM
    Donald Trump can't even stay faithful as a husband to one woman in his life, having been married three times now. So, how can I trust his oath to the American people and the States to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, as a President?
    69 replies | 888 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-22-2016, 09:51 PM
    I've been on these forums for a long time, and I've participated in plenty of forum polls to know that there are many members who vote in those polls, while simultaneously being against voting, in principle. So, I don't need names.
    113 replies | 1502 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-22-2016, 02:55 PM
    Isn't it ironic that those who are against voting voted for the option "Not Voting"? You just can't help yourselves, can you? :D
    113 replies | 1502 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-22-2016, 01:47 PM
    As one who is currently living in Japan, let me be the first to say that there is a lot of truth to the article in the OP. What is also interesting is that there are many social places called "Buy-Me-A-Drink Bars" (I forget the Japanese term for it) where men can rent women to sit with them over drinks and talk. It's essentially like being on a date, except there are restrictions on physical contact. Japanese men (usually singles) go to these places to express themselves with these gorgeous Japanese women, and the women are paid to just sit, listen, and make the customer feel accepted. It's a real social phenomenon all over Japan.
    34 replies | 510 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-22-2016, 01:29 PM
    Theocrat replied to a thread I love my wife in Open Discussion
    35 replies | 632 view(s)
  • Theocrat's Avatar
    07-22-2016, 05:14 AM
    What do I need to study?
    188 replies | 2472 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
21,907
Posts Per Day
9.44
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
58
Most Recent Message
03-04-2015 02:22 PM
General Information
Last Activity
07-23-2016 06:34 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 2 12 LastLast

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


05-06-2016


05-05-2016


04-28-2016



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast