• Christian Liberty's Avatar
    Today, 03:23 PM
    I do, very much so :D If you werent generally opposed to discussing I could explain how, but you've never really been interested.
    34 replies | 540 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    Today, 03:11 PM
    Jesus also called the Pharisees some pretty nasty names at times. The Biblical view is to take ALL of God's Words, whether through God the Son directly or written by apostles as equally inerrant. 2 Timothy 3:16.
    34 replies | 540 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    155 replies | 4407 view(s)
  • Feeding the Abscess's Avatar
    Today, 03:18 AM
    Yay secession. Boo impending US and Russian meddling and jockeying.
    382 replies | 7694 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    Today, 12:15 AM
    LOL! I think Rockwell is only concerned with the political aspect and not the theologian, Vance is a radical libertarian, ergo Rockwell is pleased. They don't want the same kind of holistic Reformation we want. Some of his writers are atheists as well. Do any of these happen to be available online? Because I'd be curious to read what he says about it if they are available. As for my home environment oh very much yes. I'm definitely looking to leave the church I'm in right now (In public I'll simply say that its not the best), though I'll likely have the choice between an OPC or a church that is probably as conservative as the WPCUS but quasi-congregational. I'm leaning towards the latter right now despite very much disliking the form of government, but at any rate i'm likely going to end up in one or the other. Either way I am going to be leaving the baptistic church I'm in right now before too long and am grateful to God that he's allowed me to do so in a mostly peaceful fashion.
    62 replies | 750 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    8 replies | 189 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:49 PM
    Vance is a dispensationalist and "fundamental" baptist, which in my mind isn't much better than some of the better Romanists. These days I only call Presbyterians and other Reformed, Lutherans, and Anglicans "Protestants".... baptists of any stripe are a different breed entirely and while some are faithful Christians, they arent Protestants in any historical sense. Considering Vance's type he may call himself Protestant or be one of those "i'm a baptist not a Protestant" types. Not sure. Yeah, I think he has the "only the New Testament is applicable" thing at its root. I hold to the regulative principle of civil government in some sense though I do not call myself a reconstructionist. This was something I wanted to discuss with you at some point. I suspect Calvin would agree with you. I am more curious (though in bringing this up I don't mean to deny that you would know better than me) whether George Gillespie would considering, though he did hold to the normative principle of civil magistracy (something I'm not in agreement with) he did believe that all of the judicial death penalties were binding in all nations. That said, I'm not sure that would rule out a (fixed and gradual) transition period. I havent fully developed a theory here beyond saying that only those who led the nation into sin can possibly be punished ex post facto from 2 Kings 23. I welcome any thoughts you might have on any of these points.
    62 replies | 750 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:37 PM
    Depends on if I'm a rightful authority or not in the nation in question.
    62 replies | 750 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:44 PM
    You're talking about different things, but I have in mind 1 Corinthians 5. The church does not refuse to have relationships with sinners in the world, but it totally cuts off the unrepentant among itself. I agree on calling the unbelieving to repentance but that's a different issue And of all people I would think you wouldn't say I'm one that's influenced by our culture. Agreed
    62 replies | 750 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:56 AM
    I don't want to sepak for my family because they're evangelicals and thus we don't agree much on theology. But speaking for myself. The church should only discipline those who are a part of it. Thus the church, as the church, should not shun homosexuals, fornicators, etc. unless they are identifying as CHristians. If they are identifying as such we should "not even eat" with them, something that is rarely truly followed. However, families should discipline their households, and civil governments should discipline their subjects, whether they are believers or not. So yes, as a head of household I would not allow anyone to engage in homosexual contact, nor would I allow them to work the sabbath, etc. And yes, if they continually did these things and didn't repent, I would throw them out. I don't necessarily disagree with you on "focus" especially considering how corrupt most of the nation is right now. But that doesn't change the fact that civil magistrates have obligations and "libertarianism" really isnt it in the scripture.
    62 replies | 750 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:43 AM
    To be clear, I'm against the use of prisons as punishment. I'm also against fines being paid TO GOVERNMENT, fines should be paid only to aggreieved parties. Now... I'm with you on parking tickets and things like that, I guess ultimately my contention would be that sexual immorality is not minor and actually brings severe covenantal sanctions against a nation, that though it may not technically fit the libertarian definition of aggression that it does wreck lives and also severely offends God. I know that's not a popular position here, but I'm not advocating wrecking people's lives over minor matter, rather I'm challenging the very definition of minor. In God's mind (as defined by the scriptures) adultery and homosexuality and even fornication is worse than stealing a candy bar, yet every libertarian would use force against the latter. So should the former.
    62 replies | 750 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    06-22-2016, 03:00 PM
    LOL! True statement 1: Government policy matters. It matters a lot. That is true. True statement 2: You, CL, do not and cannot really affect government policy. That is also very true. Put the two statements together = this is something irrelevant to your life. Irrelevant is the perfect word. If you can't affect it, can't do anything about it, then....... there you have it. He, he, I know! :D [/QUOTE} I'm primarily concerned about this from a theological perspective at the moment. I don't expect to see the BIblical model implemented in my lifetime, though I believe eventually it will be implemented everywhere.
    62 replies | 750 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    06-21-2016, 10:18 PM
    I still think many (though I don't think so much the more radical/ancap ones) do think this way but you have a point. I think government policy matters too, especially in a world where the government does have a substantial role (which I wish didn't exist.) Mormonism is nowhere remotely near my orthodoxy radar but I'm still very curious how you would make any kind of Christian libertarianism work without that assumption. If you see the OT as authoritative on moral issues, it majorly presents problems for libertarian assumptions. On the other hand if you're talking the extra mormon books, that wasnt my point :p Though, in fairness, I was mostly addressing Laurence Vance's libertarianism and his arguments, not necessarily those of all others.
    62 replies | 750 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    06-21-2016, 04:38 PM
    A concubine was still a wife though (albeit one with lesser privleges) which again is not the same as fornication. It would be criminalized and punished by either the woman having to marry (in a case of fornication) unless her father refused, or death if it was adultery (either party was married to someone else)
    62 replies | 750 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    06-21-2016, 02:25 PM
    JM, you're confusing the evangelists role with that of civil authority.
    62 replies | 750 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    06-21-2016, 01:59 PM
    I think that if you were correct about the interpretation of that law, I'd be inclined to agree that its equity is also particular to the circumstances. But I don't think that's what that law was saying. Earlier in the passage rapists are shown as being killed because "it is like a man who attacks and murders his neighbor." So I think a better understanding of that passage is that a man who SEDUCES a woman into sex must marry her, while a rapist is killed. See here for further discussion (This one was not written by me) https://reformedtheonomy.wordpress.com/2016/03/14/the-punishment-for-rape-and-bad-translations/ As for rejecting Jesus, I understand your point but I don't think that's the way the OT law was intended to work. Personal heart problems were not punishable by the State. External blasphemy (which is more than personally professing unbelief) is. As is preaching false gospels to other people. I know that seems harsh to people today but that's more because of modern norms than anything else. The Reformers did not think so and even often took it for granted (if you read men like Gillespie and Rutherford you'll know what I'm talking about, not to mention the often twisted matter of Michael Servetus, who absolutely deserved the penalty the Genevan Council gave him) Yes. I am. Because that's what God says, and I care more about what God thinks than other people :) I don't see how concubinage, whatever we might say about it, is relevant here. You're talking about a case where a man arranges a marriage (ie. makes a covenant with) more than one woman. I don't really see Biblical basis to criminalize these, and while I think they go against normative Biblical design, they are irregularly valid once entered into. But prostitution is not that. Prostitution is a form of fornication or adultery,both of which were criminal offenses.
    62 replies | 750 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    06-21-2016, 01:09 PM
    At least until every county or so willingly decided to submit to Christ, which I think will happen eventually because I'm a postmillennialist.
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    06-21-2016, 01:09 PM
    I wish things were a lot more local too. I'm really not looking for a country of 300 million at all. I think that's too big. Those who didn't want to live by Christian law could live somewhere else and choose God's judgment over his blessings.
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    06-21-2016, 01:07 PM
    Going in the religion section, as I'm primarily directing this at others who acknowledge the authority of scripture (as Vance does.) For those who dont, I'm not really addressing this at you. https://reconvenantersassanach.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/libertarianism-and-its-problems/ This was my response to Vance's article today.
    62 replies | 750 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    06-21-2016, 01:06 PM
    And while I do believe the BIble requires civil authorities to punish homosexuality, and with death as the maximum penalty, I don't think it would be legitimate even for the government to just round up people in a gay bar. My reasons on the bearing arms bit are much closer to yours (resistance against tyranny.)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    06-21-2016, 01:05 PM
    To be perfectly clear, I absolutely oppose vigilantism. I know you were joking around but I just want you to be clear on where I stand.
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    06-20-2016, 09:32 PM
    Why are a bunch of Democrats voting no on this but Rand Paul voted yea? do you have any idea what's going on?
    10 replies | 417 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    06-20-2016, 09:13 PM
    That comment was directed at me thank you very much :)
    363 replies | 5545 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    06-20-2016, 08:50 PM
    Its really hard to do that when one isn't married. Also eww :p
    363 replies | 5545 view(s)
More Activity

11 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    I may just be tired. I don't generally care what people think, but being considered crazy by pretty much everyone gets exhausting after awhile.
  2. View Conversation
    I'm disappointed WRT your comment in my rep. I didn't know that about Rand. Disappointing. One more reason for me not to be thrilled, I guess. What would Rand's proposal accomplish? I mean, if security procedures were left up to the individual airport that might be a significant improvement (although I think even better would be to leave it to the airlines) but as long as DHS is running it, how is that helping anything?

    I wish I could ask Rand Paul that question. I do really want to know what he's thinking.
  3. View Conversation
    WRT: Coercion, yeah, I get what you're saying, and technically what you describe would be coercion, but I wasn't really thinking along those lines. I guess "aggression" was the word I was looking for.
  4. your inbox is full....was trying to let you know that I found another source for the Jones story. I have no idea if this site is any more credible, but it does collaborate the story LE posted:
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread311540/pg1
  5. View Conversation
    Actually I live in Ramona. And thanks, by the way.
  6. View Conversation
    haha no worries. And yea, I think you might be right about what you said.
  7. View Conversation
    I think you just negged repped me accidentally. haha
  8. View Conversation
    It's from an essay Ron Paul wrote called "The Political Importance of Murray Rothbard"here's a tinyurl to the source on books.google.com. http://tinyurl.com/3le98og
  9. There's often different discussion on the two forums, figured I'd see which took off. My threads don't show up on the home page list, for whatever reason.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 11
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
About Feeding the Abscess

Basic Information

Signature


Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
The epitome of libertarian populism

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
8,170
Posts Per Day
3.70
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
11
Most Recent Message
08-17-2014 10:43 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Today 02:39 PM
Join Date
06-09-2010
Referrals
0

8 Friends

  1. Christian Liberty
  2. green73 green73 is offline

    Member

    green73
  3. madfoot madfoot is offline

    Member

    madfoot
  4. noneedtoaggress noneedtoaggress is offline

    Member

    noneedtoaggress
  5. Occam's Banana Occam's Banana is offline

    Member

    Occam's Banana
  6. randroots randroots is offline

    New Member

    randroots
  7. sophietheand sophietheand is offline

    New Member

    sophietheand
  8. Voluntary Man Voluntary Man is offline

    Member

    Voluntary Man
Showing Friends 1 to 8 of 8
No results to display...
No results to display...
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

06-24-2016


06-07-2016


05-25-2016


05-24-2016


05-20-2016


05-04-2016


05-03-2016


04-30-2016


04-28-2016

  • 09:20 AM - Hidden

04-27-2016

  • 03:07 AM - Hidden

04-13-2016


04-04-2016


04-02-2016


03-31-2016



Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast