• Christian Liberty's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:01 PM
    But you probably still view me as a heathen for disagreeing with you on the New Covenant ;)
    309 replies | 3982 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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 | 3982 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    Yesterday, 03:53 PM
    Sola and HU are the two posters that make me interested enough to keep posting here :p
    309 replies | 3982 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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 | 3982 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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 | 3982 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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 | 3982 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    Yesterday, 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 :)
    44 replies | 577 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 | 3982 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 | 3982 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    12-04-2016, 03:14 PM
    I have never heard of it.
    44 replies | 577 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    12-03-2016, 11:28 PM
    Sounds like a good excuse for some Kool & the Gang ... (not that any excuse is needed ...) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwjfUFyY6M
    267 replies | 7189 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    12-03-2016, 10:24 PM
    Or you could look at it as not being an "either-or" dilemma. Both spending and taxes should be reduced. I'm categorical about tax hikes. It's just wrong to take other peoples' stuff. It's more wrong to take more of their stuff. (And it's being "the end of the world" or not hasn't got anything to do with it.)
    424 replies | 5478 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    12-03-2016, 09:23 PM
    Further to which, reductio ad absurdum may be applied here ... The argument as given implies not only that such tax reductions should be opposed, but also that tax increases of the same kind should not be opposed. Consider a proposed tax increase of either "general" or "targeted" variety. Suppose the increase passes and is enacted. At this point, there is no functional difference whatsoever between opposition to the increase and any subsequent support for a decrease of the same variety and of equal magnitude. Thus, if support for the decrease is not to be approved by "free market people," then neither was opposition to the increase - and for exactly the same reasons.
    424 replies | 5478 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    12-03-2016, 08:17 PM
    The author of "End the Fed" certainly cannot be accused of being unaware of the government's ability to fund itself by way of the printing press. Ron Paul has elsewhere repeatedly and explicitly identified three basic ways government funds itself: (1) through "direct" taxation (in various forms) (2) through "indirect" taxation (such as the so-called "inflation tax" inherent in fiat monetary inflation - i.e., the "printing press" option) (3) through borrowing and debt issuance (which must ultimately be paid for via (1) or (2)) In his commentary in the video under consideration, he is concerned solely with (1), as that is the only of the three options which is relevant to the Carrier "tax break" issue. And none of this accounts for his numerous assertions elsewhere of the importance of real and significant spending cuts as a critical element in any effort to shrink the size of government ...
    424 replies | 5478 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    12-03-2016, 06:45 PM
    I cannot tell a lie - Douglas Adams plagiarized that phrase from me ... :toady:
    14 replies | 207 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    12-03-2016, 06:39 PM
    :eek: Maybe Aldrin and Kerry aren't Aldrin and Kerry anymore ...
    23 replies | 940 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    12-03-2016, 06:13 PM
    Regardless of how much business you do with whom, you have the "right" not to have your money involuntarily taken from you in the first place - and it having been taken, you have the "right" to get all of it back (not merely "some" of it). Whether you will actually be able to do so is another matter (and there is not anything wrong with lobbying in such an effort - any more than there is anything wrong with lobbying on behalf of the right to keep and bear arms, for example). When something is returned to them that rightfully belonged to them in the first place, they are not being "rewarded." Also, getting "fat government contracts" (on the one hand) and getting "tax breaks" (on the other hand) are two different things. The first can be considered a form of subsidy (depending on how "fat" the contracts in question are). The second cannot.
    424 replies | 5478 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    12-03-2016, 05:20 PM
    Muh federal standards.
    14 replies | 207 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    12-03-2016, 04:33 PM
    Ron's exact words at that timestamp (emphasis added): "My policy over the years has always been to support anything that looks like a tax abatement or a tax credit even though I didn't like the condition where you're giving it to one not the other ..." I don't like the condition where you're giving it to one but not the other, either. But it's better than the case where you're not giving it to anyone at all. It is always better, ceteris paribus, when less of peoples' stuff is being expropriated. It is always worse, ceteris paribus, when more of peoples' stuff is being expropriated. One cannot achieve "fairness" in any meaningful sense by refusing to steal less of particular peoples' stuff so that people will be robbed more "equally" in general - "fairness" got chucked right out the window the moment any of their stuff was expropriated in the first place. Subsidies are another matter altogether (and I mean REAL subsidies, NOT tax credits/breaks/rebates/abatements/etc.). If Carrier or its parent company is receiving any actual subsidies that were involuntarily mulcted from others, then I will happily criticize them for it. But that is a separate issue. And for the record, I could not care less about this having been promulgated by Trump - or about what Trump's motivations are (Carrier is in no way accountable for Trump's motivations, whatever they might be). I'd be of exactly the same opinion if this occurred under the auspices of Obama, or Bush the Second, or Clinton, or Bush the First, or etc. Nor do I give a fetid dingo's kidney for what this might mean (one way or the other) in regard to "jobs" or whatnot.
    424 replies | 5478 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    12-03-2016, 11:38 AM
    Apparently, you also agree more with Sarah Palin than you do with Ron Paul. Furthermore, Palin simply reiterates the "subsidies" canard. Stealing less of what already rightfully belongs to others is NOT a "subsidy" ...
    424 replies | 5478 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 | 3982 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    12-03-2016, 09:42 AM
    :confused: You need to learn to express your thoughts intelligibly. As stated, this sentence makes no sense. Where, for example, is "Ron Pauls video that is for this type of government?" (After going to the trouble of trying to parse out what you might possibly have meant by this strangely worded clause, I can only assume that you actually meant to say something like "Has anyone who is for this type of government watched Ron Paul's video ..." rather than "Anyone watch Ron Pauls video that is for this type of government ...") Is this supposed to be some kind of threat? My neg-rep hammer is a lot bigger than yours ...
    424 replies | 5478 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    12-03-2016, 02:53 AM
    In that case, Missourians are the ones being "subsidized," which is "unfair" to Floridians, and exactly the same "logic" applies. Arguing for the "fairest" way of robbing people (so that "winners and losers" are not "picked," for example) makes my head hurt ...
    424 replies | 5478 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    12-03-2016, 01:41 AM
    The bold is what I'd dispute. Arminians teach pervenient grace, that God gives everyone enough grace to believe and then its in "their court" so to speak. Calvinists believe that God chose before the foundation of the world who would be saved and who wouldn't. That choice is manifested through belief but its not actually man's choice (in the ultimate sense) to believe. As Romans 9 explains very well.
    309 replies | 3982 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    12-03-2016, 01:17 AM
    Calvinists agree with that passage. The question is, what is the origin of belief?
    309 replies | 3982 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    12-03-2016, 01:16 AM
    I don't think its controversy for controversy sake. The dispute is at a minimum very important, and potentially has salvific implications given that denial of Calvinism can (though does not always) lead to self-trust for salvation. Plus the Bible is clear that seekers don't exist, so why you'd worry about "looking bad in front of them" I don't know :/
    309 replies | 3982 view(s)
  • Christian Liberty's Avatar
    12-03-2016, 12:44 AM
    Actually Sola is correct, at least doctrinally speaking. I'd suggest taking the tone a bit less personally (whatever you may think of it) and seriously consider the very important doctrinal point being made.
    309 replies | 3982 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    12-02-2016, 06:51 PM
    One Tax Code to rule them all, One Tax Code to find them, One Tax Code to bring them all and in the darkness bind them In the Land of D.C. where the shadows lie. Missourians have to pay state income taxes. Floridians do not have to pay state income taxes. This is grossly unjust!
    424 replies | 5478 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    12-02-2016, 06:18 PM
    He said "a silver .10 dime" - not merely any coin (or combination of coins) having "10 cents" of "face value." The current* melt value for US silver dimes is $1.21. The current* price for a gallon of gas (national average) is $2.16. So two US silver dimes are currently worth more than a gallon of gas. * current = as of 2016-12-02
    54 replies | 574 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
8,209
Posts Per Day
3.46
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
11
Most Recent Message
08-17-2014 10:43 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Today 12:10 AM
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 3 123 LastLast

11-21-2016


11-10-2016


11-09-2016


11-04-2016


10-21-2016


10-13-2016


10-09-2016


09-30-2016

  • 09:09 PM - Hidden
  • 09:02 PM - Hidden

07-25-2016


07-24-2016


07-23-2016


07-08-2016


06-24-2016



Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast