10-21-2016, 05:20 AM
If she doesn't, I will. And eagerly. Your shortcoming here (assuming that it is as such...although it is possible...even probable...that you're being deliberately dishonest and deceptive given your posting history and consistent anti-Individual rhetoric in promoting Monarchy...albeit some misguided and poorly thought out ideology of Anarcho-Monarchy...as your preferred form of government) is the single reason why you have no business speaking in Liberty. Individual Liberty as it relates to the traditional American founding philosophy is dependent upon both its primary foundation for moral code ...Natural Law...God's Law...as well as its principles together if a legitimate claim to its benefits is to be made. They cannot be accepted and rejected piecemeal. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not any day. To attempt to do so undermines the very concept of Individual Liberty fully and mak3s illegitimate any claim to its benefit. Again, though, I'll give her a chance to touch on objective versus subjective morality from a biblical perspective on the matter. Osan, we'll have to have words on this, too. I want to better understand what you're saying about relations. I contend that proper man to man relations are the product of man's Divine origin. Man's spiritual relationship with God is the bencmark for proper relations with his fellow man and government. Man has a moral duty to it. And to forget that or to make a clever attempt to minimize or to remove that primary relationship from the terms of controversy is the most critical of naw naws. As I've mentioned many times...perhaps to deaf ears but said none the less, Liberty must always be discussed in dialogue with responsibility for the purpose of proper context of Individual Liberty as it relates to the traditional American philosophy of self governanc3. Liberty-Responsibility. And I'd like to touch on why only worthy men are deserving of the benefits of Individual Liberty. Once I get back up and running anyway. I'm on my phone now. Respectfully, though, I can't let you guys roll with that unchallenged because it'd be a disservice to the less informed casual passer-by to do so given that they likely couldn't see the distinction such as we. I think that everyone here with even a dollar's worth of public library receipts can see rev3's agenda which is patently aggressive toward Individualism and deceptively under the cloak of its very baanner, but yours lends it credence, osan. So I want to make sure I understand what you're saying here in scope. I'd also add that while Man was certainly endowed, he was firstly created. By way of my own study, likely around 3882 or 3 BC. Which is a completely different topic. Albeit one that I intend to introduce.