# Liberty Movement > Liberty Campaigns >  Columbia Christians for Life says Nancy Mace not allowed to run because she's a woman

## supermario21

Wow, considering Lindsey is pretty much the devil. Does this occur in SC politics much. Really a black eye if you ask me.




> Andy Shain ‏@AndyShain 1h
> Columbia Christians for Life sends email saying Bible shows US senate hopeful @nancymace cannot hold political office because she's a woman



Excerpt from Columbia Christians for Life email about why @nancymace can't become a senator vs. @LindseyGrahamSC

----------


## LibertyEagle

Well, that would mean that Lindsey couldn't run either.

----------


## angelatc

LOL, LE.

I can't believe that groups holds much sway

----------


## supermario21

I've never heard of this group before, though I don't live in SC so I wouldn't be aware of their clout. Did they say anything about Haley? Could this be a front group for Lindsey? I could see him running a family values campaign talking about FITS News to keep the Santorum-ites behind him.

----------


## TaftFan

4,800 visits on their website since 2011. They have no influence.

----------


## eduardo89

Unpopular opinion around here, but I agree with them. 

I support Lee Bright in this race.

----------


## jurgs01

> Unpopular opinion around here, but I agree with them. 
> 
> I support Lee Bright in this race.


You agree with them that a woman shouldn't be able to hold office?

There is no way you could derive that opinion from an libertarian philosophy, so what is your reasoning?  Libertarians only look at individuals, and blanket classifying someone in a group is collectivist.

I think some of the people who claim to support Ron Paul on here need to go to Mises.com and start ordering recommended books and reading.

----------


## anaconda

This must be some disinfo group funded by Soros or the SPLC. No one could be that retarded.

----------


## eduardo89

> You agree with them that a woman shouldn't be able to hold office?


Yes. 




> There is no way you could derive that opinion from an libertarian philosophy, so what is your reasoning?   Libertarians only look at individuals, and blanket classifying someone in a group is collectivist..


I'm not a libertarian. Never have been.

----------


## TaftFan

Sending to Fits

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, that would mean that Lindsey couldn't run either.


_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to LibertyEagle again._

----------


## jmdrake

> Unpopular opinion around here, but I agree with them. 
> 
> I support Lee Bright in this race.


So then the popes that acquiesced to the rule of queens during the middle ages were wrong.

----------


## eduardo89

> So then the popes that acquiesced to the rule of queens during the middle ages were wrong.


Which Queen regnants were there during the Middle Ages?

And yes, the Popes would have been wrong, IMO.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Which Queen regnants were there during the Middle Ages?
> 
> And yes, the Popes would have been wrong, IMO.


So papal infallibility is ridiculous?  Good I agree.

----------


## Petar

> Unpopular opinion around here, but I agree with them. 
> 
> I support Lee Bright in this race.


Wouldn't it be smarter if God would just change that rule?

Seems kinda outdated I mean...

----------


## eduardo89

> So papal infallibility is ridiculous?  Good I agree.


I don't think you even know what that means.

Edit: Dammit! I didn't realize I was replying to you and broke my rule of ignoring idiots.

----------


## Petar

> So papal infallibility is ridiculous?  Good I agree.





> I don't think you even know what that means.
> 
> Edit: Dammit! I didn't realize I was replying to you and broke my rule of ignoring idiots.


You guys are like a miniature version of the Reformation and the religious wars that followed...

Can't you both just pick on Mormons like civilized people?

----------


## clint4liberty

I had already donated to Richard Cash is this race.  Is Nancy Mace more liberty oriented on the issues and does she had a great chance at winning?  Could someone provide me with information and web links on Nancy Mace.  We need less candidates in the US Senate South Carolina Republican Primary.  So many more questions to ask, but I will wait until I research.

----------


## Keith and stuff

This seems to be important to this um, organization.




> (Audio) SC Senate debate and 24 - 18 vote against motion to Recall Personhood Bill ( S.450) - April 13, 2010
> - Republican-Majority SC Senate rejects opportunity to advance Personhood Bill; abandons pre-born children
> - Over 40% ( 12 out of 27) of  SC Senate Republicans voted against Recall effort led by Christian Pro-Life Senator Lee Bright
> 
> Part 1  (1:20 min.) - Religious exercise ("prayer") by Senate chaplain, Dr. James St. John (PCUSA minister - Columbia)
> Part 2  (14:26 min.) - Recall motion by Senator Lee Bright (R-Spartanburg); Rant in opposition by Senator Glenn McConnell (R-Charleston)
> Part 3  (19:28 min.) - Senator Lee Bright (R-Spartanburg) - primary sponsor of SC Personhood Bill ( S.450)
>                                ( Note:  Bright incorrectly stated MT and ND each passed Personhood legislation into law )
> Part 4  (10:34 min.) - Senator Jake Knotts (R-Lexington) attack on Senator Lee Bright and Personhood Bill ( S.450) 
> ...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You guys are like a miniature version of the Reformation and the religious wars that followed...
> 
> Can't you both just pick on Mormons like civilized people?


You can thank what inkling of liberty you have today because of the struggle of Christians against the tyranny of Rome.

----------


## James Madison

> ...is it biblically proper for a woman to hold political office, and thus *rule over men*?


Government isn't meant to rule over men. Men are meant to rule over government.

----------


## jmdrake

> Which Queen regnants were there during the Middle Ages?
> 
> And yes, the Popes would have been wrong, IMO.


http://www.thefinertimes.com/Middle-...ddle-ages.html

Edit: And while the organization cited in the OP commented that they would "deal with the often cited Deborah example", there really isn't any way to honestly deal with that except to admit that it is an example of a woman wielding political power.

----------


## mad cow

> _You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to LibertyEagle again._


I have got the same problem.
Well,at least we don't have to worry about them voting for Hillary.

----------


## Smart3

Greek misogyny masquerading as G-d's intentions.

----------


## Petar

> You can thank what inkling of liberty you have today because of the struggle of Christians against the tyranny of Rome.


Not to start another Holy War, but I do happen to be a big fan of the Reformation. 

I think that it was a phase of the whole process of the Enlightenment period that culminated in the U.S. Revolution.

But then so was the Renaissance before it, but I digress...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Not to start another Holy War, but I do happen to be a big fan of the Reformation. 
> 
> I think that it was a phase of the whole process of the Enlightenment period that culminated in the U.S. Revolution.
> 
> But then so was the Renaissance before it, but I digress...



The Renaissance did not have a Biblical basis to it like the Reformation did, and this can be seen in the French Revolution and how its atheistic worldview could not sustain liberty like the American Revolution.

The principles of Liberty...freedom, property, sound money, etc...come from the Bible and from the Reformation which was a restatement of the Biblical faith.

----------


## rp08orbust

> Unpopular opinion around here, but I agree with them.


I agree too but would go further and say that *men* shouldn't be allowed to rule over other men (or women) either.

----------


## luctor-et-emergo

> Yes.


Question, is it your opinion that;

1. Women shouldn't be allowed to hold office 
2. Women aren't capable of holding office

Or do you hold neither/both of these opinions.

----------


## kathy88

Why does every $#@!ing thread on RPFs turn into a damned religious debate? This place has changed so much and not for the better.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why does every $#@!ing thread on RPFs turn into a damned religious debate? This place has changed so much and not for the better.


You shouldn't be concerned about that.

----------


## torchbearer

the content in the OP comes from 2 Timothy, where indeed- Paul claimed that women should not hold positions over a man, should keep their heads cover at church, and sit in the back.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Well, that would mean that Lindsey couldn't run either.


LOL

----------


## cajuncocoa

> Why does every $#@!ing thread on RPFs turn into a damned religious debate? This place has changed so much and not for the better.


I agree, but I think one or two people in this thread are just looking for attention.  It's working, too.

----------


## kathy88

> You shouldn't be concerned about that.


It's a little presumptuous of you to decide what I should and should not be concerned about. You can really be a neanderthal, you know that?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It's a little presumptuous of you to decide what I should and should not be concerned about. You can really be a neanderthal, you know that?


It came across like you were trying to control debate.  People talk about religious things because people are made in God's image and they are by nature intensely religious.  This goes for atheists as well.  It's simply an inescapable aspect of life.  People like to talk about religious things because they are interested in it.

----------


## Petar

> The Renaissance did not have a Biblical basis to it like the Reformation did, and this can be seen in the French Revolution and how its atheistic worldview could not sustain liberty like the American Revolution.
> 
> The principles of Liberty...freedom, property, sound money, etc...come from the Bible and from the Reformation which was a restatement of the Biblical faith.


What I like about the Reformation is that is decentralized power from the dominant empire at that time, bringing people that much closer to the idea of personal liberty, and also got them reading.

The renaissance is something that I value insomuch as it introduced reason and logic to a culture that was absolutely devoid of any form of it at the time. 

Galileo would be a good example, and that was despite what was written in the bible.

----------


## kathy88

> It came across like you were trying to control debate.  People talk about religious things because people are made in God's image and they are by nature intensely religious.  This goes for atheists as well.  It's simply an inescapable aspect of life.  People like to talk about religious things because they are interested in it.


Some people talk about religious things because they are obsessed with twisting the bible to fit their world view. That's what is happening here, and, oddly enough, in every thread you enter.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What I like about the Reformation is that is decentralized power from the dominant empire at that time, bringing people that much closer to the idea of personal liberty, and also got them reading.
> 
> The renaissance is something that I value insomuch as it introduced reason and logic to a culture that was absolutely devoid of any form of it at the time. 
> 
> Galileo would be a good example, and that was despite what was written in the bible.


Logic was the foremost principle of the Reformation.  Don't buy in to the secular revisionism.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Some people talk about religious things because they are obsessed with twisting the bible to fit their world view. That's what is happening here, and, oddly enough, in every thread you enter.


Well, what do you think my worldview is and how am I twisting the Bible to fit it?

----------


## erowe1

> There is no way you could derive that opinion from an libertarian philosophy, so what is your reasoning?  Libertarians only look at individuals, and blanket classifying someone in a group is collectivist.


I don't see how it has anything to do with libertarian philosophy.




> I think some of the people who claim to support Ron Paul on here need to go to Mises.com and start ordering recommended books and reading.


Have you read many of those books? Which ones say that being against women leaders is not libertarian?

----------


## klamath

> Well, that would mean that Lindsey couldn't run either.


You owe me for a nasal surgery as I just snorted hot coffee reading your post

----------


## kathy88

> Well, what do you think my worldview is and how am I twisting the Bible to fit it?


I'm not getting into this with you here today. I'm busy. As a Catholic, you offend me frequently. I am not going to hell.

----------


## jurgs01

> Have you read many of those books? Which ones say that being against women leaders is not libertarian?


It's libertarian to tolerate the ability of people's right to have views that women should not be leaders, but it makes absolutely no sense for a libertarian to believe that.  Libertarians are individualists, thus they evaluate every single person on their individual merits and don't put them into groups like collectivists do.

I honestly am surprised there are bigots on a Ron Paul forum.  Ron Paul even said himself that it was impossible for a libertarian to be racist (and by extension sexist) due to the rejection of collectivist thoughts.

I don't expect everyone to believe what I believe, but I am really disheartened to see bigotry and collectivist thought on a Ron Paul forum.  You guys are taking the stereotypes that are placed on the Tea Party and Republican Party and bringing it into an area that honestly shouldn't welcome it.  We are all individuals, and Nancy Mace has every right to be a Senator or whatever she wants based on her personal ability to execute that office.

----------


## erowe1

> It's libertarian to tolerate the ability of people's right to have views that women should not be leaders, but it makes absolutely no sense for a libertarian to believe that.  Libertarians are individualists, thus they evaluate every single person on their individual merits and don't put them into groups like collectivists do.
> 
> I honestly am surprised there are bigots on a Ron Paul forum.  Ron Paul even said himself that it was impossible for a libertarian to be racist (and by extension sexist) due to the rejection of collectivist thoughts.
> 
> I don't expect everyone to believe what I believe, but I am really disheartened to see bigotry and collectivist thought on a Ron Paul forum.  You guys are taking the stereotypes that are placed on the Tea Party and Republican Party and bringing it into an area that honestly shouldn't welcome it.  We are all individuals, and Nancy Mace has every right to be a Senator or whatever she wants based on her personal ability to execute that office.


Where did your view of what libertarianism is come from?

Since you mentioned books on mises.org, do any of those books actually espouse what you're saying here?

----------


## jurgs01

Oh, and the mods should move this thread.  If the topic of discussion is the right of a female to hold elected office, then this is not a liberty candidate thread and is philosophical in nature.

----------


## angelatc

> Unpopular opinion around here, but I agree with them. 
> 
> I support Lee Bright in this race.


LOL. Yeah, men have done such a stellar job moulding society it would be silly to let the majority have a go at it.  

But for the record, I also support Lee Bright.

----------


## fr33

Well it proves that there is a "war on women" being waged by _some_ republicans.

----------


## jurgs01

> Where did your view of what libertarianism is come from?
> 
> Since you mentioned books on mises.org, do any of those books actually espouse what you're saying here?


If you hold the view that no women should hold public office, and it is just a personal belief, then there is nothing in libertarian philosophy that contradicts your right to collectivist opinions.  If you think you should enforce that on others (i.e. making a law), then you are restricting the rights of others by force and you are countering libertarian principles.

The non-aggression principle means that you can't force others to comply with your will.  Hence, you may hold that opinion, but you are not a libertarian if you try and enforce it by force (which includes laws).

Edit: I think if you are looking at the Rothbardian point of view, then sexism should be completely legal (however deplorable).  So, I will concede that a libertarian can be a sexist, but in my eyes that makes them an immoral libertarian.  I was convoluting individualism and libertarianism...possibly because most libertarians are individualists (including Ron Paul).

----------


## erowe1

> If you hold the view that no women should hold public office, and it is just a personal belief, then there is nothing in libertarian philosophy that contradicts your right to collectivist opinions.  If you think you should enforce that on others (i.e. making a law), then you are restricting the rights of others by force and you are countering libertarian principles.


What kind of law are you talking about? And how does that relate to the OP?

----------


## erowe1

> Well it proves that there is a "war on women" being waged by _some_ republicans.


I didn't see anything in their site about them being Republicans. Did you?

----------


## willwash

> Not to start another Holy War, but I do happen to be a big fan of the Reformation. 
> 
> I think that it was a phase of the whole process of the Enlightenment period that culminated in the U.S. Revolution.
> 
> But then so was the Renaissance before it, but I digress...


Yeah but Henry Viii was a douche.  He didn't care about any of that, he only wanted to consolidate himself into absolute power.

----------


## FSP-Rebel

If you're a subscriber to Ayn Rand, this is her view on the matter as written in the Dec 1968 version of The Objectivist: 
Femininity 



> For a woman qua woman, the essence of femininity is hero-worship—the desire to look up to man. “To look up” does not mean dependence, obedience or anything implying inferiority. It means an intense kind of admiration; and admiration is an emotion that can be experienced only by a person of strong character and independent value-judgments. A “clinging vine” type of woman is not an admirer, but an exploiter of men. Hero-worship is a demanding virtue: a woman has to be worthy of it and of the hero she worships. Intellectually and morally, i.e., as a human being, she has to be his equal; then the object of her worship is specifically his masculinity, not any human virtue she might lack.
> 
> This does not mean that a feminine woman feels or projects hero-worship for any and every individual man; as human beings, many of them may, in fact, be her inferiors. Her worship is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical concept of masculinity as such—which she experiences fully and concretely only for the man she loves, but which colors her attitude toward all men. This does not mean that there is a romantic or sexual intention in her attitude toward all men; quite the contrary: the higher her view of masculinity, the more severely demanding her standards. It means that she never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother—*or leader.*


That said, I want Mace in the Senate. We're severely lacking any libertarian-republican women in high office now and would be great for our liberty movement.

----------


## jurgs01

> What kind of law are you talking about? And how does that relate to the OP?


The OP posted an email that said that women are not biblically permitted to hold political office over men.  Another poster stated that he agreed.  If you are not permitted, then people are using force or violence to stop you.  If someone believes that the bible prohibits women from holding office over men, but doesn't take any action to forcibly prohibit it, then there is no beef.

----------


## jurgs01

Oh, and even though it is your right as a free individual to have collectivist and bigoted beliefs, it is my right as a free individual to think you are a backwards thinker who is not IMHO properly integrating their faith and logic.  I personally have a lot of liberty movement friends who treat everyone as an individual based on their merits, and these are the people I choose to associate with.  You have the right to express your opinions, but I think you are personally out of sync with what Dr. Paul was trying to espouse.

----------


## FrankRep

The only information about this is this thread.

Could it be B.S?

----------


## Smart3

> the content in the OP comes *from 2 Timothy, where indeed- Paul claimed* that women should not hold positions over a man, should keep their heads cover at church, and sit in the back.


Not that it probably matters to you, but scholars (of all persuasions except the most fundamentalist) accept that 2 Timothy (and also 1Tim and Titus) were not authored by Paul, nor indeed were they even authored in the first century. They reflect second-century problems and also later Greek (indicative of their later origins)

to say Paul wrote 2 Timothy is equivalent to saying we never landed on the Moon. That's how far-fetched it is to an educated ear.




> Yeah but Henry Viii was a douche.  He didn't care about any of that, he only wanted to consolidate himself into absolute power.


Henry VIII has very little relevance to the Reformation. He merely assumed control of the pre-Roman Church of England that claimed lineage (incorrectly) to Joseph of Arimathaea or at the very least the first century of the religion. He executed members of all Reformed groups and that is precisely why Lutheranism never caught on in England.

----------


## juleswin

OFC the Christian Taliban wing of RPF will support this orgs misogynist view on political leaders. Too bad the banned christian Taliban wasn't here to chime in.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Unpopular opinion around here, but I agree with them. 
> 
> I support Lee Bright in this race.


OK, but if  it came down to Nancy Mace VS Graham, would you really vote for Graham or not vote just because Mace is a woman?

----------


## Christian Liberty

I see no reason why from 2  Timothy a woman would be prohibited from being in leadership anywhere other than the church.

----------


## erowe1

> to say Paul wrote 2 Timothy is equivalent to saying we never landed on the Moon. That's how far-fetched it is to an educated ear.


That's not true.

It's a debated issue among scholars, as any perusal of scholarly commentaries on the pastoral epistles will show you.

----------


## fr33

> I didn't see anything in their site about them being Republicans. Did you?


That's the party most social conservatives tend to identify with.

----------


## erowe1

> The OP posted an email that said that women are not biblically permitted to hold political office over men.  Another poster stated that he agreed.  If you are not permitted, then people are using force or violence to stop you.


That is a ridiculous non sequitur. If you hear a Christian say that the Bible doesn't permit worshiping idols, would you assume they mean to use violence to stop people from doing it?

----------


## erowe1

> That's the party most social conservatives tend to identify with.


Maybe, if you use the label "social conservative" loosely enough to include people who are a lot less conservative than that website. But, given what little I know about them from this thread, I don't expect them to be enamored with the GOP, if they even identify with it at all.

----------


## Carlybee

Who gives a crap what they think?

----------


## Carlybee

> Well it proves that there is a "war on women" being waged by _some_ republicans.



It's a war they don't want to start.

----------


## T.hill

> The Renaissance did not have a Biblical basis to it like the Reformation did, and this can be seen in the French Revolution and how its atheistic worldview could not sustain liberty like the American Revolution.
> 
> The principles of Liberty...freedom, property, sound money, etc...come from the Bible and from the Reformation which was a restatement of the Biblical faith.


The differences between how the french revolution and american revolution concluded had more to do with the forms of government than religious beliefs.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The differences between how the french revolution and american revolution concluded had more to do with the forms of government than religious beliefs.


No sir it didn't. It had precisely to do with the radically different worldviews that undergirded each.  It is a fascinating example of how Biblical Christianity can sustain freedom in a culture while secular atheism cannot.

----------


## eduardo89

> The OP posted an email that said that women are not biblically permitted to hold political office over men.  Another poster stated that he agreed.  If you are not permitted, then people are using force or violence to stop you.  If someone believes that the bible prohibits women from holding office over men, but doesn't take any action to forcibly prohibit it, then there is no beef.


Where does the Bible say to use violence against non-believers and those who don't follow it's teachings and commandments?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The OP posted an email that said that women are not biblically permitted to hold political office over men.  Another poster stated that he agreed.  If you are not permitted, then people are using force or violence to stop you.  If someone believes that the bible prohibits women from holding office over men, but doesn't take any action to forcibly prohibit it, then there is no beef.





> That is a ridiculous non sequitur. If you hear a Christian say that the Bible doesn't permit worshiping idols, would you assume they mean to use violence to stop people from doing it?


Yes, and its one of the most pervasive non sequiturs around.  Some people are so uneducated about the Scripture that they will pick it up and read Jesus saying "give to the poor" and think it must be a government pronouncement.   What people come up with just absolutely blows the mind sometimes...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Where does the Bible say to use violence against non-believers and those who don't follow it's teachings and commandments?


It doesn't,  which is why the tyrannical history of the Papacy proves it is the synagogue of Satan.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

The "war on women" meme has been pushed as a divide and conquer strategy by Democrats preparing for the Hillary run.

Threads like this indicate that some are falling into that trap.

There is nothing constructive being accomplished here, other than to make this forum look bad.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Where does the Bible say to use violence against non-believers and those who don't follow it's teachings and commandments?





> It doesn't,  which is why the tyrannical history of the Papacy proves it is the synagogue of Satan.


Well, there is Leviticus 24:16.


I'm not saying I believe that should be enforced now: I don't believe that, but it is there.

----------


## jurgs01

> That is a ridiculous non sequitur. If you hear a Christian say that the Bible doesn't permit worshiping idols, would you assume they mean to use violence to stop people from doing it?


A non-sequitor means a conclusion does not follow the premise.  I listed both cases and did not make any conclusions.  If you skipped the last sentence of what I wrote, you would have a point, but I actually did write that last sentence.

By force or violence I mean laws or actual force.  Education is neither of these things.  Although I think educating people that other individuals should be denied certain things because of their gender is an absurd thing to do, especially since the book you are doing it from was written and translated over the years by many different people with different agendas and biases (which makes taking individual passages literally even more absurd).

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

> The "war on women" meme has been pushed as a divide and conquer strategy by Democrats preparing for the Hillary run.
> 
> Threads like this indicate that some are falling into that trap.
> 
> There is nothing constructive being accomplished here, other than to make this forum look bad.


Kudos + Rep

----------


## erowe1

> A non-sequitor means a conclusion does not follow the premise.  I listed both cases and did not make any conclusions.


Yes you did. You said, "If you are not permitted, then people are using violence..." The part after "if" is a premise, and the part after "then" is a conclusion. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. And it's so obvious that it doesn't follow that it's ridiculous.

Your last sentence that you're apparently referring to said, "If someone believes that the bible prohibits women from holding office over men, but doesn't take any action to forcibly prohibit it, then there is no beef."

But that's precisely the point. In the OP we have someone saying the Bible prohibits something without taking any violent action. The other poster you mentioned did the same (except for the Bible part). And yet you said there was something incompatible with libertarianism about that.

----------


## eduardo89

> Well, there is Leviticus 24:16.
> 
> I'm not saying I believe that should be enforced now: I don't believe that, but it is there.


Christians are not bound to OT law.

----------


## cajuncocoa

> It doesn't,  which is why the tyrannical history of the Papacy proves it is the synagogue of Satan.





> *2) Treat other people with respect.*
> • No insulting, antagonizing or personally attacking other users.
> • No posting of anyone's personal contact information or members personal details.
> • Ad hominem attacks on any individual or groups is strongly discouraged, use proper names.
> • Be respectful of others religion.


neg rep.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> neg rep.


I'm sorry but I cannot respect religions that twist the Scriptures and send people to Hell.  I'd rather be banned than to acquiesce to that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Christians are not bound to OT law.


You have no idea what you are talking about.

----------


## eduardo89

> neg rep.


He's said worse, this for example:





> TO HELL with Aquinas' socialistic religion.  You and Aquinas are ministers of Satan.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> He's said worse, this for example:


That is the nature of things in the religion forum.  Should I post all the quotes from the council of Trent that tell me I'm going to hell?

----------


## torchbearer

> I see no reason why from 2  Timothy a woman would be prohibited from being in leadership anywhere other than the church.


sorry, my bad 1 Timothy chapter 2:12



> I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Christians are not bound to OT law.


Yes, I agree with you.  

So... do any of the Biblical Christians on here actually see anything to the idea that 2 Timothy somehow prevents a woman from being in political power?  Because honestly, I don't see it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> sorry, my bad 1 Timothy chapter 2:12


Oh, I knew exactly what verse you were talking about.  But that's only talking about leadership in the church.  Its not talking about politics at all.

----------


## torchbearer

for better context-
the entire passage concerning women:



> *9*Likewise, _I want_  women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and  discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments,*10*but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.*11*A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness.*12*But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.*13*For it was Adam who was first created, _and_ then Eve.*14*And _it was_ not Adam _who_ was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.*15*But _women_ will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You have no idea what you are talking about.


Do you believe that blasphemers should be put to death?  I didn't think you believed that.  In fact, that would be an extremely stupid belief for a Calvinist of all people. 

What's your take on Leviticus 24:16 as it relates to Christians today?

I happen to agree with eduardo on this particular issue.

----------


## torchbearer

> Oh, I knew exactly what verse you were talking about.  But that's only talking about leadership in the church.  Its not talking about politics at all.


the last part of the text does not limit these instructions to church, it places these burdens on women because it was a woman who was deceived- then she tricked adam into sinning too, apparently.
but women can be save be having children and following Paul's instructions.
pretty certain the child birth part wasn't exclusive to in-church behavior either.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> the last part of the text does not limit these instructions to church, it places these burdens on women because it was a woman who was deceived first.
> but they can be save be having children and following Paul's instructions.
> pretty certain the child birth part wasn't exclusive to in-church behavior either.


In context it is clearly limited to the church.

As for the saved by childbearing bit... I'm not totally sure what that means (Any Evangelical Protestants that want to take this on... be my guest) but the entire rest of the Bible makes it pretty clear that that is not meant to be taken literally.

----------


## torchbearer

> In context it is clearly limited to the church.
> 
> As for the saved by childbearing bit... I'm not totally sure what that means (Any Evangelical Protestants that want to take this on... be my guest) but the entire rest of the Bible makes it pretty clear that that is not meant to be taken literally.



the women will be save by good works, not clothing. that isn't a church behavior statement, that is a life statement.
if you understood the culture inwhich these instructions were given, it wouldn't be shocking.
look at muslim cultures today with women oppressed and hidden- that was judaism back then.
Saul was a man of that world, that believe in those traditions as a matter of godliness.

----------


## erowe1

> the last part of the text does not limit these instructions to church, it places these burdens on women because it was a woman who was deceived- then she tricked adam into sinning too, apparently.
> but women can be save be having children and following Paul's instructions.
> pretty certain the child birth part wasn't exclusive to in-church behavior either.


A little bit later in chapter 3, he writes:



> These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly; 15 but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

----------


## BlackTerrel

Some random group with 7 members that no has ever heard of said something stupid and controversial... 88 posts later.

----------


## erowe1

> the women will be save by good works, not clothing. that isn't a church behavior statement, that is a life statement.
> if you understood the culture inwhich these instructions were given, it wouldn't be shocking.
> look at muslim cultures today with women oppressed and hidden- that was judaism back then.
> Saul was a man of that world, that believe in those traditions as a matter of godliness.


Why do you use the word "oppressed"?

When he talks about childbirth, that doesn't sound like oppression, that sounds like a great blessing that God gives only women and not men.

----------


## erowe1

> Some random group with 7 members that no has ever heard of said something stupid and controversial... 88 posts later.


7 members may well be generous.

----------


## torchbearer

> A little bit later in chapter 3, he writes:


now i'm wondering if the living church of god- is talking about church as the community in abstract, and not a building?
or was the whole letter written because the people couldn't figure out how to act in church?

----------


## torchbearer

> Why do you use the word "oppressed"?
> 
> When he talks about childbirth, that doesn't sound like oppression, that sounds like a great blessing that God gives only women and not men.


let's see, since you and I are married- you are my property.
You go where i tell you to go- which is no where but home.
If you step out of the house, you have to where a tent over your head.
If I even think you cheated, you will be killed without trial.
Don't ever think about being superior than me- don't ever pretend to know more than me-
as you will never hold a position over me.
now- you filthy whore who is responsible for original sin-
If you want to be 'preserved' you best get back to the kitchen and pop out a few kids.

----------


## erowe1

> now i'm wondering if the living church of god- is talking about church as the community in abstract, and not a building?
> or was the whole letter written because the people couldn't figure out how to act in church?


It's definitely a community and not a building. They probably met in houses. But it's still talking about behavior in those meetings, when they come together as a church (that is, an assembly).

----------


## torchbearer

> It's definitely a community and not a building. They probably met in houses. But it's still talking about behavior in those meetings, when they come together as a church (that is, an assembly).


didn't the early communities live as a church? every day?

----------


## eduardo89

> let's see, since you and I are married- you are my property.
> You go where i tell you to go- which is no where but home.
> If you step out of the house, you have to where a tent over your head.
> If I even think you cheated, you will be killed without trial.
> Don't ever think about being superior than me- don't ever pretend to know more than me-
> as you will never hold a position over me.
> now- you filthy whore who is responsible for original sin-
> If you want to be 'preserved' you best get back to the kitchen and pop out a few kids.


I don't know what you're trying to describe, but that certainly isn't Christian marriage.

----------


## erowe1

> let's see, since you and I are married- you are my property.
> You go where i tell you to go- which is no where but home.
> If you step out of the house, you have to where a tent over your head.
> If I even think you cheated, you will be killed without trial.
> Don't ever think about being superior than me- don't ever pretend to know more than me-
> as you will never hold a position over me.
> now- you filthy whore who is responsible for original sin-
> If you want to be 'preserved' you best get back to the kitchen and pop out a few kids.


I agree with the part about being one another's property.

But the rest of what you said doesn't resemble the following from Ephesians 5 at all:



> 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself up for it; 26 that he might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 Even so ought husbands also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his own wife loveth himself: 29 for no man ever hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as Christ also the church; 3


And the part you said about original sin is the 180 degree of what was in precisely the passage from 1 Timothy 2 that you quoted above. There, the point was that the man is responsible in the church, just as he was responsible in the garden, where the woman, on the other hand, was merely deceived.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> let's see, since you and I are married- you are my property.
> You go where i tell you to go- which is no where but home.
> If you step out of the house, you have to where a tent over your head.
> If I even think you cheated, you will be killed without trial.
> Don't ever think about being superior than me- don't ever pretend to know more than me-
> as you will never hold a position over me.
> now- you filthy whore who is responsible for original sin-
> If you want to be 'preserved' you best get back to the kitchen and pop out a few kids.





> the women will be save by good works, not clothing. that isn't a church behavior statement, that is a life statement.
> if you understood the culture inwhich these instructions were given, it wouldn't be shocking.
> look at muslim cultures today with women oppressed and hidden- that was judaism back then.
> Saul was a man of that world, that believe in those traditions as a matter of godliness.


OK...   Since you obviously aren't a Christian, I see no point in bothering to debate Christian theology through you.




> A little bit later in chapter 3, he writes:


Yes, and as for the "Is it a building?" question: no, but its talking about authority in the context of a church.  A woman could not, Biblically, be a pastor.

----------


## ladyjade3

> Why do you use the word "oppressed"?
> 
> When he talks about childbirth, that doesn't sound like oppression, that sounds like a great blessing that God gives only women and not men.


BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  Yeah...  good one.  And um, guys.  Ladies are reading all this too.  

Yes, this is an inconsequential group.  But they've given all the really ugly misogynist Christians on this board a lovely excuse to poke their noses out from under their rocks.  Yuck.

People quoting the Apostle Paul gave me ample motivation to leave evangelical Biblical Christianity years ago.  Now the libertarians are following suit?  That abhorrent article on Lew Rockwell by Fred Reed and now this tripe?  

Women are 51% of the population.  Alienating them is an awesome way to spread your message, be it Christianity or liberty.  

Yay, you.

----------


## torchbearer

> I agree with the part about being one another's property.
> 
> But the rest of what you said doesn't resemble the following from Ephesians 5 at all:


well, i admit- i was being hyperbolic, but only a lil'.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  Yeah...  good one.  And um, guys.  Ladies are reading all this too.  
> 
> Yes, this is an inconsequential group.  But they've given all the really ugly misogynist Christians on this board a lovely excuse to poke their noses out from under their rocks.  Yuck.
> 
> People quoting the Apostle Paul gave me ample motivation to leave evangelical Biblical Christianity years ago.  Now the libertarians are following suit?  That abhorrent article on Lew Rockwell by Fred Reed and now this tripe?  
> 
> Women are 51% of the population.  Alienating them is an awesome way to spread your message, be it Christianity or liberty.  
> 
> Yay, you.


You do realize that the main proponent of this view on here isn't even professing to be a Christian?

----------


## torchbearer

> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  Yeah...  good one.  And um, guys.  Ladies are reading all this too.  
> 
> Yes, this is an inconsequential group.  But they've given all the really ugly misogynist Christians on this board a lovely excuse to poke their noses out from under their rocks.  Yuck.
> 
> People quoting the Apostle Paul gave me ample motivation to leave evangelical Biblical Christianity years ago.  Now the libertarians are following suit?  That abhorrent article on Lew Rockwell by Fred Reed and now this tripe?  
> 
> Women are 51% of the population.  Alienating them is an awesome way to spread your message, be it Christianity or liberty.  
> 
> Yay, you.


I am the devil's advocate on this one.
I know where the OP info came from.
It is in the Bible.
If you believe the Bible is the word(or inspiration) of god...
Then you have to accept these words as god inspired.

If a person picks and chooses want they want to believe is god inspired in the bible, then really, you couldn't be sure if any of it is at all.

----------


## erowe1

> didn't the early communities live as a church? every day?


I'm not sure what that means. But their actual assembling with one another was something that happened at certain set times, generally once a week. These were people with jobs and families.

----------


## erowe1

> didn't the early communities live as a church? every day?


I'm not sure what that means. But their actual assembling with one another was something that happened at certain set times, generally once a week. These were people with jobs and families.

----------


## ladyjade3

And PS.  You may have whatever opinions you like about women in leadership in the cult of your choosing.  I don't give a rat's ass, since I won't be joining any time soon and that's your right.

However.

Your cult and my government are TWO TOTALLY SEPARATE THINGS.

And PPS  Aren't these also the same people who get totally freaked out by the prospect of Sharia Law coming to the US, which is different from OT Biblical law, how, exactly?

----------


## torchbearer

> You do realize that the main proponent of this view on here isn't even professing to be a Christian?


I don't consider these teachings to be very moral.

----------


## erowe1

> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  Yeah...  good one.  And um, guys.  Ladies are reading all this too.


I know a lot of ladies who believe in distinctions between the roles of men and women and cherish them. There may be more than you think.

----------


## torchbearer

> I'm not sure what that means. But their actual assembling with one another was something that happened at certain set times, generally once a week. These were people with jobs and families.


jobs in the communal- families in the communal.
were these not communal communities?
or am i thinking of other early christian groups?

----------


## erowe1

> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  Yeah...  good one.  And um, guys.  Ladies are reading all this too.


I know a lot of ladies who believe in distinctions between the roles of men and women and cherish them. There may be more than you think.

----------


## Christian Liberty

And you are wrong, since God is the standard.

Also, in my opinion, you don't completely understand what is being taught.  Neither does the group linked in the OP: Nancy Mace running for Senate doesn't violate anything in 2 Timothy with which I am familiar.

----------


## torchbearer

> And you are wrong, since God is the standard.
> 
> Also, in my opinion, you don't completely understand what is being taught.  Neither does the group linked in the OP: Nancy Mace running for Senate doesn't violate anything in 2 Timothy with which I am familiar.



My God is the standard, not Your god.

----------


## Nirvikalpa

> BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!  Yeah...  good one.  And um, guys.  Ladies are reading all this too.  
> 
> Yes, this is an inconsequential group.  But they've given all the really ugly misogynist Christians on this board a lovely excuse to poke their noses out from under their rocks.  Yuck.
> 
> People quoting the Apostle Paul gave me ample motivation to leave evangelical Biblical Christianity years ago.  Now the libertarians are following suit?  That abhorrent article on Lew Rockwell by Fred Reed and now this tripe?  
> 
> Women are 51% of the population.  Alienating them is an awesome way to spread your message, be it Christianity or liberty.  
> 
> Yay, you.


Agreed.  Hopefully they'll crawl back under their rock again real soon...

----------


## erowe1

> jobs in the communal- families in the communal.
> were these not communal communities?
> or am i thinking of other early christian groups?


I don't know what groups you're thinking of, maybe you got the idea from Acts 2, where it talks about some Christians having everything in common.

But that definitely wasn't the norm, and I can't think of anything in any of Paul's epistles that depict the groups churches to which he wrote being anything like that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> My God is the standard, not Your god.


Your God is not the God of the Bible.  Its an idol of your own choosing.

----------


## ladyjade3

> I am the devil's advocate on this one.
> I know where the OP info came from.
> It is in the Bible.
> If you believe the Bible is the word(or inspiration) of god...
> Then you have to accept these words as god inspired.
> 
> If a person picks and chooses want they want to believe is god inspired in the bible, then really, you couldn't be sure if any of it is at all.


You are correct, sir.  Which is why I reject the whole concept of scripture.  I decide for myself which parts of the Bible seem true and inspired, and I also explore other texts.  Some of them ring true, and others I reject.  I reject the idea that the whole of the Bible is prefect and always true for every time and every place or that any of it really actually happened.  The more you look into how it was assembled (centuries after the life of Christ) the more you see obvious opportunities for corruption among the power hungry over the sheeple of the time.

----------


## torchbearer

> Your God is not the God of the Bible.  Its an idol of your own choosing.


the Bible is your idol. fool.

----------


## torchbearer

> I don't know what groups you're thinking of, maybe you got the idea from Acts 2, where it talks about some Christians having everything in common.
> 
> But that definitely wasn't the norm, and I can't think of anything in any of Paul's epistles that depict the groups churches to which he wrote being anything like that.


must have been early catholic communities i studied in high school.
you had to stick close to those who believe as you did, because you could get killed for your beliefs.
Thus, those families formed communals. they lived the teachings of christ. forsaking earthly wealth, and lived with each other as brothers and sisters. communal(like a nuclear family)

----------


## erowe1

> The more you look into how it was assembled (centuries after the life of Christ) the more you see obvious opportunities for corruption among the power hungry over the sheeple of the time.


That's not true at all. I've looked into that exact thing a great deal, and the more I do the more obvious it is that it wasn't at all how you describe. In fact, if anybody does conclude what you have, that would indicate that they haven't looked into the subject very deeply at all, and more likely base their view on the Da Vinci Code than anything scholarly.

----------


## jurgs01

Can a mod please move this thread?  This is in no way related to liberty candidates.

----------


## erowe1

> must have been early catholic communities i studied in high school.
> you had to stick close to those who believe as you did, because you could get killed for your beliefs.
> Thus, those families formed communals. they lived the teachings of christ. forsaken earthly wealth, and lived with each other as brothers and sisters. communal(like a nuclear family)


I think you're talking about monastacism. And yes, that came centuries later, after the development of what you probably mean when you say "catholic."

----------


## torchbearer

> Can a mod please move this thread?  This is in no way related to liberty candidates.


why you say that?

----------


## torchbearer

> I think you're talking about monastacism. And yes, that came centuries later, after the development of what you probably mean when you say "catholic."


but those were considered churches. your community.
is that not what the church is? it isn't a building.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> My God is the standard, not Your god.





> Your God is not the God of the Bible.  Its an idol of your own choosing.


Classic.  I couldn't +rep you ATM but... classic...

----------


## torchbearer

> Classic.  I couldn't +rep you ATM but... classic...


so you worship an idol too?
how is that a good thing?

----------


## erowe1

> but those were considered churches. your community.
> is that not what the church is? it isn't a building.


I agree that it isn't a building. Church buildings weren't there in the beginning.

But, no, as far as I know, I don't think those monasteries ever considered themselves churches, at least not normal ones.

Churches are communities, and Ron Paul Forums is a community. That doesn't mean that being a member of either community means its rules apply in aspects of your life that are outside it.

----------


## eduardo89

> Do you believe that blasphemers should be put to death?  I didn't think you believed that.  In fact, that would be an extremely stupid belief for a Calvinist of all people. 
> 
> What's your take on Leviticus 24:16 as it relates to Christians today?
> 
> I happen to agree with eduardo on this particular issue.


His theology just makes no sense whatsoever. 

Obviously the moral law of the OT is binding on Christians, morality never changes. We must hold to the Ten Commandments. But dietary and cleanliness laws are not binding on Christians. 

But who knows, maybe Sola doesn't eat shellfish (Leviticus 11:10), doesn't sleep on the same bed as his wife (lol imagine someone actually marrying him) or touch anything she touches while she's menstruating (Leviticus 15), and kills his children if they mouth off to him (Leviticus 20:9).

----------


## Sola_Fide

> the Bible is your idol. fool.


Your an idolater.  You reject the God of the universe as He has revealed Himself.  You have no excuse.

----------


## torchbearer

> Your an idolater.  You reject the God of the universe as He has revealed Himself.  You have no excuse.


you worship a book.
get the plank out of your eye.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Can a mod please move this thread?  This is in no way related to liberty candidates.


Shut up.  Im tired of all you atheist pussies and your constant pussy appeal to the mods to control discussion.

----------


## torchbearer

> I agree that it isn't a building. Church buildings weren't there in the beginning.
> 
> But, no, as far as I know, I don't think those monasteries ever considered themselves churches, at least not normal ones.
> 
> Churches are communities, and Ron Paul Forums is a community. That doesn't mean that being a member of either community means its rules apply in aspects of your life that are outside it.


they were all part of the catholic church.
small "c", using the word meaning universal.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Shut up.  Im tired of all you atheist pussies and your constant pussy appeal to the mods to control discussion.


LOL!

What's your take on the OP?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> you worship a book.
> get the plank out of your eye.


What does this have to do with planks?  This has to do with idolatry.

----------


## jurgs01

> Shut up.  Im tired of all you atheist pussies and your constant pussy appeal to the mods to control discussion.


Not to control discussion, to keep it in the right forum.  Talk about whatever you want.

You are certainly a tough internet guy.  I doubt you would take that tone if you met me in person, but

----------


## Smart3

> That's not true.
> 
> It's a debated issue among scholars, as any perusal of scholarly commentaries on the pastoral epistles will show you.


Colossians is 'debated', only because of its similarities to the Seven. I personally accept only Romans, 1-2 Cor and Galatians to be Pauline (whoever the author was, he authored all four of them).

----------


## torchbearer

> What does this have to do with planks?  This has to do with idolatry.


right, the plank in your eye keeps you from seeing the idolatry you are practicing.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> right, the plank in your eye keeps you from seeing the idolatry you are practicing.


I believe in the God of the Bible as He has revealed Himself.  You don't.  You are an idolater.

----------


## torchbearer

> I believe in the God of the Bible as He has revealed Himself.  You don't.  You are an idolater.


I believe that if god wants a relationship with you, he doesn't need a book.
I do believe there is an entire cult of people who worship a book called the Bible.
they get very upset when people challenge the content of the book.
these people have a weak god that cannot defend or speak for itself- outside of the contradictions of a book we call the bible.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> so you worship an idol too?
> how is that a good thing?


What God do you worship?




> His theology just makes no sense whatsoever. 
> 
> Obviously the moral law of the OT is binding on Christians, morality never changes. We must hold to the Ten Commandments. But dietary and cleanliness laws are not binding on Christians. 
> 
> But who knows, maybe Sola doesn't eat shellfish (Leviticus 11:10), doesn't sleep on the same bed as his wife _(lol imagine someone actually marrying him)_ or touch anything she touches while she's menstruating (Leviticus 15), and kills his children if they mouth off to him (Leviticus 20:9).


Well, in his theology, all he has to do is get someone to sleep with him, which MAY be easier in this culture

Seriously though, the view that OT Law is still applicable would contradict other things that Sola_Fide has already said on this forum.

----------


## torchbearer

> What God do you worship?
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in his theology, all he has to do is get someone to sleep with him, which MAY be easier in this culture
> 
> Seriously though, the view that OT Law is still applicable would contradict other things that Sola_Fide has already said on this forum.


God.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I believe that if god wants a relationship with you, he doesn't need a book.
> I do believe there is an entire cult of people who worship a book called the Bible.
> they get very upset when people challenge the content of the book.
> these people have a weak god that cannot defend or speak for itself- outside of the contradictions of a book we call the bible.


Right.  You believe in a god other than the one who has revealed Himself in the Scripture.  You are an idolater.  You don't think it wise to not go beyond what is written. Fine.

----------


## jurgs01

It was inevitable that the religious right infiltrated the liberty movement.  They just can't fathom that the most respectful way to believe in a free society is not to be in everyone's face about it.  There are plenty of strongly religious people in the movement that are my friends, and the best part about it is that you wouldn't know it unless you asked.  I think religion is very helpful in society when it helps people to ground their moral compass or form a health community, but there is nothing that bothers me more than preachy religious folk.  If your ideas are so compelling, then let them sell themselves.

----------


## Petar

> Right.  You believe in a god other than the one who has revealed Himself in the Scripture.  You are an idolater.  You don't think it wise to not go beyond what is written. Fine.


If you don't like the Bible, you may as well write your own, better Bible. 

Did you know that I am worshipped in as a God in 17 different star systems?

----------


## torchbearer

> Right.  You believe in a god other than the one who has revealed Himself in the Scripture.  You are an idolater.  You don't think it wise to not go beyond what is written. Fine.


the only god you know are those scriptures.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It was inevitable that the religious right infiltrated the liberty movement.  They just can't fathom that the most respectful way to believe in a free society is not to be in everyone's face about it.  There are plenty of strongly religious people in the movement that are my friends, and the best part about it is that you wouldn't know it unless you asked.  I think religion is very helpful in society when it helps people to ground their moral compass or form a health community, but there is nothing that bothers me more than preachy religious folk.  If your ideas are so compelling, then let them sell themselves.


_What are you talking about_?  Who here is advocating force?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> the only god you know are those scriptures.


There is only one God, and He has revealed Himself in His Word.  You deny Him.  Fine, just go with it.

----------


## torchbearer

> If you don't like the Bible, you may as well write your own, better Bible. 
> 
> Did you know that I am worshipped in as a God in 17 different star systems?


that is impressive. what happened to you in this star system?
someone beat you to the corner?

----------


## anaconda

> Unpopular opinion around here, but I agree with them. 
> 
> I support Lee Bright in this race.


Why can't a woman deliver messages to the seat of government on behalf of others? It's a job. Can a woman be allowed to work? Can she go to the village well for a jar of water? Is she allowed outside her residence without supervision?

----------


## jurgs01

> _What are you talking about_?  Who here is advocating force?


Where did you pull the word force out of the statement you quoted me on?

----------


## erowe1

> they were all part of the catholic church.
> small "c", using the word meaning universal.


I definitely agree if that's what you meant.

Monastacism didn't exist until something more resembling Roman Catholicism came into existence.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Where did you pull the word force out of the statement you quoted me on?


Are you saying that Christians shouldn't preach?  Should people who believe in liberty preach freedom to others?  Or should they just "let the ideas sell themselves"?  Makes no sense.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If you don't like the Bible, you may as well write your own, better Bible. 
> 
> Did you know that I am worshipped in as a God in 17 different star systems?


Well, I am worshipped by every form of life that exists outside of this solar system




> _What are you talking about_?  Who here is advocating force?


Well, you did argue when Eduardo said we aren't under OT law.  Although, I know you well enough to know you weren't advocating force.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Are you saying that Christians shouldn't preach?  Should people who believe in liberty preach freedom to others?  Or should they just "let the ideas sell themselves"?  Makes no sense.


That's exactly what he's saying ,and not only that, he's acting like that's an essential part of being in the liberty movement.

Which is insane.

Preaching is not a violation of the NAP.

Of course, I'm more in this particular discussion to debate with fellow Christians than to preach, but that's besides the point...

----------


## jurgs01

> Are you saying that Christians shouldn't preach?  Should people who believe in liberty preach freedom to others?  Or should they just "let the ideas sell themselves"?  Makes no sense.


I don't think people who believe in liberty should preach.  They are surely welcome to, but I have found that unwelcome discussion is a reason why libertarians turn off a lot of people.  I personally only discuss the subject with those who want to engage me in the discussion, and I try not to the the holier-than-thou attitude and demean people with contrary opinions.  If people are ready to learn about your topic, they will throw a lifeline, which I certainly jump on.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't think people who believe in liberty should preach.  They are surely welcome to, but I have found that unwelcome discussion is a reason why libertarians turn off a lot of people.  I personally only discuss the subject with those who want to engage me in the discussion, and I try not to the the holier-than-thou attitude and demean people with contrary opinions.  If people are ready to learn about your topic, they will throw a lifeline, which I certainly jump on.


And watch the country burn...

----------


## jurgs01

> That's exactly what he's saying ,and not only that, he's acting like that's an essential part of being in the liberty movement.
> 
> Which is insane.
> 
> Preaching is not a violation of the NAP.
> 
> Of course, I'm more in this particular discussion to debate with fellow Christians than to preach, but that's besides the point...


You guys are convoluting shouldn't and can't.  I never said can't, I said shouldn't, and that's my opinion.  You are making the same mistake I made earlier in this thread.  I find people who preach their religion annoying, and so do a lot of other people, but keep doing what you think is best...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You guys are convoluting shouldn't and can't.  I never said can't, I said shouldn't, and that's my opinion.  You are making the same mistake I made earlier in this thread.  I find people who preach their religion annoying, and so do a lot of other people, but keep doing what you think is best...


It may be annoying, but then again, its God's command.  Matthew 28:19-20.

Mind you, my style isn't quite as heavy-handed as Sola_Fide's, but nonetheless...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't think people who believe in liberty should preach.  They are surely welcome to, but I have found that unwelcome discussion is a reason why libertarians turn off a lot of people.  I personally only discuss the subject with those who want to engage me in the discussion, and I try not to the the holier-than-thou attitude and demean people with contrary opinions.  If people are ready to learn about your topic, they will throw a lifeline, which I certainly jump on.


So in your opinion,  Ron Paul shouldn't have spoken up to much about liberty, right?  Don't want to offend people, right?

He shouldnt have opened up his Foreign Policy Institute right?  Too preachy?  What about all those speeches?

----------


## eduardo89

> Mind you, my style isn't quite as heavy-handed as Sola_Fide's, but nonetheless...


The problem is Sola doesn't preach out of charity and love, he preaches from a place of pride and contempt.

----------


## jurgs01

> So in your opinion,  Ron Paul shouldn't have spoken up to much about liberty, right?  Don't want to offend people, right?
> 
> He shouldnt have opened up his Foreign Policy Institute right?  Too preachy?  What about all those speeches?


He speaks to people who want to listen.  He is probably the least pushy person you could ever find.  People found him because they were hungry for access to knowledge and reason that they weren't getting.  He never pushed anything on anyone.  He understands that winning ideas will win out in the end.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Colossians is 'debated', only because of its similarities to the Seven. I personally accept only Romans, 1-2 Cor and Galatians to be Pauline (whoever the author was, he authored all four of them).


It doesn't matter what you accept, it matters what the Christians from the earliest time have accepted.  That is why we have the books of the Bible that we have today.

----------


## Cleaner44

I thought Congressmen are supposed to represent us, not rule over us.

----------


## erowe1

> I thought Congressmen are supposed to represent us, not rule over us.


That's a very good point. Presumably, the organization mentioned in the OP thinks otherwise.

----------


## erowe1

> Colossians is 'debated'


Colossians is easily accepted by the majority of scholars.

Scholarly acceptance of Ephesians is divided about 50-50.

The pastorals are probably slightly more disputed than Ephesians. But they're definitely debated. It is nothing like a consensus, comparable to believing in the moon landing. And as I said, you can verify this by perusing any scholarly commentary on the pastoral epistles. Luke Timothy Johnson and William Mounce's commentaries are both very recent ones belonging to two very highly reputed scholarly commentary series, and both accept the genuineness of the pastorals.

On the other hand, your view that not one of the pauline epistles at all was written by the historical Paul, is so far out there, that disbelief in the moon landing would easily command many times more serious consideration, even among the most sober-minded experts, than it. I doubt that you can find a single scholarly commentary, New Testament introduction, or even article in a top tier journal, from the past 75 years, that even mentions that view among the available options.

----------


## Smart3

> It doesn't matter what you accept, it matters what the Christians from the earliest time have accepted.  That is why we have the books of the Bible that we have today.


If that's your standard, you should burn the book of James.




> Colossians is easily accepted by the majority of scholars.
> 
> Scholarly acceptance of Ephesians is divided about 50-50.
> 
> The pastorals are probably slightly more disputed than Ephesians. But they're definitely debated. It is nothing like a consensus, comparable to believing in the moon landing. And as I said, you can verify this by perusing any scholarly commentary on the pastoral epistles. Luke Timothy Johnson and William Mounce's commentaries are both very recent ones belonging to two very highly reputed scholarly commentary series, and both accept the genuineness of the pastorals.
> 
> On the other hand, your view that not one of the pauline epistles at all was written by the historical Paul, is so far out there, that disbelief in the moon landing would easily command many times more serious consideration, even among the most sober-minded experts, than it. I doubt that you can find a single scholarly commentary, New Testament introduction, or even article in a top tier journal, from the past 75 years, that even mentions that view among the available options.


We must take into consideration the makeup of scholars today vs 200 years ago.

Today, virtually all new scholars and most of the old are Christian - of a moderate or conservative type. This is very different from F.C. Baur and the various European critics from not long ago.

I do not believe Christians, who have a religious obligation to accept the new testament in its entirety, can approach the evidence without their bias. To me, it is very clear that only Romans, 1-2 Corinthians and Galatians are by the same hand. Whether or not that was "Paul" is irrelevant, all that matters is that later on, both the heretical groups and the Catholic groups forged letters in Paul's name. We have concrete evidence of this because 2 Thessalonians emphatically states that people are writing letters in Paul's name. (hint - that's proof that 2 Thess itself is forged)

While I appreciate scholarly consensus, especially when it comes to the late second-century origin of 2 Peter and the Pastorals, I believe that modern textual criticism has been hijacked.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If that's your standard, you should burn the book of James.


Some in the early Western church contested James because he was not an apostle, but he was an early leader in the church and the half-brother of Jesus.  Once they realized this, the controversy ended.  Of course Martin Luther had questions about it, but his questions about it were because he was interpreting it wrong.  He thought it contradicted Paul's presentation of grace alone and faith alone, but it doesn't.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> Unpopular opinion around here, but I agree with them. 
> 
> I support Lee Bright in this race.


Jesus actual Christ, Batman.

----------


## Smart3

> Some in the early Western church contested James because he was not an apostle, but he was an early leader in the church and the half-brother of Jesus.  Once they realized this, the controversy ended.  Of course Martin Luther had questions about it, but his questions about it were because he was interpreting it wrong.  He thought it contradicted Paul's presentation of grace alone and faith alone, but it doesn't.


No one mentions or quotes from James until 200CE. It is possible that the book was in the possession of Polycarp or Irenaeus but that is largely speculative. Some have argued that like the Epistles of "John", the name James was tacked on with the assumption people would understand that said James was one of the famous James (either the son of Joseph or James the Lesser as Calvin thought). While the author of the book might indeed have been a man named James, it was not written by a Jew as it exhibits an extensive knowledge of the Septuagint, and unlike the Gospel of Matthew shows no knowledge of Hebrew/Aramaic. 

I propose that James, like 2-3 John, are Elder writings not meant to be Apostolic. In other words, they are not forgeries like 2 Peter or 2 Thessalonians.

----------


## erowe1

> If that's your standard, you should burn the book of James.
> 
> 
> We must take into consideration the makeup of scholars today vs 200 years ago.
> 
> Today, virtually all new scholars and most of the old are Christian - of a moderate or conservative type. This is very different from F.C. Baur and the various European critics from not long ago.
> 
> I do not believe Christians, who have a religious obligation to accept the new testament in its entirety, can approach the evidence without their bias. To me, it is very clear that only Romans, 1-2 Corinthians and Galatians are by the same hand. Whether or not that was "Paul" is irrelevant, all that matters is that later on, both the heretical groups and the Catholic groups forged letters in Paul's name. We have concrete evidence of this because 2 Thessalonians emphatically states that people are writing letters in Paul's name. (hint - that's proof that 2 Thess itself is forged)
> 
> While I appreciate scholarly consensus, especially when it comes to the late second-century origin of 2 Peter and the Pastorals, I believe that modern textual criticism has been hijacked.


You're the one who brought up the argument of scholarly consensus in the first place.

Personally, I don't stake much in it. But, since you appealed to it, I thought it was worth pointing out that the claim you made about it was wrong, and that, in fact, your own view is the one that is completely repudiated by the scholarly consensus.

Incidentally, F. C. Baur was as much of a Christian as most biblical scholars today are. If you don't count him as one, then neither are most today. If you insist that most today are, then so must he have been.

Furthermore, what I said about scholarly consensus was even more true in the past than it is today. You will find even more support for all of the disputed Pauline epistles among the greatest scholars of a century ago than you will today. Check the works addressing this by J. B. Lightfoot, Harnack, Zahn, and Westcott.

Finally, as far as what is clear to you, please present your proof. I'll make a prediction here that, like every time you make these bold claims you have nothing at all. You act like you have an understanding of these issues. But when the rubber meets the road, you can't do better than to point to some hack scholar and say that he proved what you claim.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You're the one who brought up the argument of scholarly consensus in the first place.
> 
> Personally, I don't stake much in it. But, since you appealed to it, I thought it was worth pointing out that the claim you made about it was wrong, and that, in fact, your own view is the one that is completely repudiated by the scholarly consensus.
> 
> Incidentally, F. C. Baur was as much of a Christian as most biblical scholars today are. If you don't count him as one, then neither are most today. If you insist that most today are, then so must he have been.
> 
> Furthermore, what I said about scholarly consensus was even more true in the past than it is today. You will find even more support for all of the disputed Pauline epistles among the greatest scholars of a century ago than you will today. Check the works addressing this by J. B. Lightfoot, Harnack, Zahn, and Westcott.
> 
> *Finally, as far as what is clear to you, please present your proof. I'll make a prediction here that, like every time you make these bold claims you have nothing at all. You act like you have an understanding of these issues. But when the rubber meets the road, you can't do better than to point to some hack scholar and say that he proved what you claim*.


Ouch.  (I love the fact that there is an actual educated Christian here and the standard hack liberal scholarship of today doesnt get a free pass).

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I do not believe Christians, who have a religious obligation to accept the new testament in its entirety, can approach the evidence without their bias.


I do not believe that atheists, who have a religious obligation to reject the new testament in its entirety, can approach the evidence without their bias.

----------

