# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Suggestion for those who post in the Peace Through Religion forum.

## phill4paul

Often, there are questions asked of this forum how a Christian should behave or feel towards a subject. If the question is formed towards Christians I sometimes don't feel like I am qualified to respond.
  So, just a request, perhaps phrase it in a way to invite other perspectives.

----------


## acptulsa

I've seen some self-described Christian perspectives in said forum which _have_ to lie well outside anything you could possibly say.  I'd suggest that if you want to jump in, you do so.

----------


## Dr.3D

> I've seen some self-described Christian perspectives in said forum which _have_ to lie well outside anything you could possibly say.  I'd suggest that if you want to jump in, you do so.


When I found my waders were insufficient, I stopped going in there.

----------


## phill4paul

> I've seen some self-described Christian perspectives in said forum which _have_ to lie well outside anything you could possibly say.  I'd suggest that if you want to jump in, you do so.


  Thanks. I'll take your advise. Been awhile since I've been on and mostly in non-Christian threads. I've just seen some "As a Christian do you think......" threads and it seems outside the OP guidelines.

----------


## Crashland

I usually just butt in with my atheist perspective. As long as I am up front about it, people generally seem to welcome my contributions.

----------


## phill4paul

> When I found my waders were insufficient, I stopped going in there.


  Meh, + rep. I remember why I was once banned. Probably best.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Often, there are questions asked of this forum how a Christian should behave or feel towards a subject. If the question is formed towards Christians I sometimes don't feel like I am qualified to respond.
>   So, just a request, perhaps phrase it in a way to invite other perspectives.


Phil4paul,

I for one invite every single perspective...atheist to Christian to whatever...in my threads.    I want to respect all people and engage people of all perspectives.

----------


## HVACTech

what I CANNOT figure out.
is that we have a plethora of Christians here who are clearly dedicated to Liberty..

how do I reconcile that. with the MAJORITY who do not?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Thanks. I'll take your advise. Been awhile since I've been on and mostly in non-Christian threads. I've just seen some "As a Christian do you think......" threads and it seems outside the OP guidelines.


I've wanted to mention this before myself. I just never did. 

I'll tell you, though, the Religion forum used to be a very enjoyable sub forum.  Maybe it still has its moments. I don't know. I haven't read much of it in a while.  I'm starting to get a bit fed up with politics and have basically made up my mind how Im going to vote so maybe I'll spend more time in that section.

----------


## georgiaboy

> what I CANNOT figure out.
> is that we have a plethora of Christians here who are clearly dedicated to Liberty..
> 
> how do I reconcile that. with the MAJORITY who do not?


Cue AF  -- pick your religion, the majority of Americans aren't dedicated to Liberty.

----------


## acptulsa

> When I found my waders were insufficient, I stopped going in there.


I've got one word for you:  SCUBA

Technically, though, I guess that's an acronym...

----------


## Dr.3D

> I've got one word for you:  SCUBA
> 
> Technically, though, I guess that's an acronym...


I never even thought of doing SCUBA in my septic tank.

----------


## phill4paul

> Phil4paul,
> 
> I for one invite every single perspective...atheist to Christian to whatever...in my threads.    I want to respect all people and engage people of all perspectives.


  Just because I don't post doesn't mean I don't read. And I, honestly, can't say that I see what you purport to be your method of engagement as correct. And, honestly, Dr.3D gave me the boot upside the head that I needed.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> I for one invite every single perspective...atheist to Christian to whatever...in my threads.


This has been true as far as I've seen. You tend to draw others from their comfort zones by inviting various perspectives, though, and so it do get jiggy then, don't it. Heh...

Biblicists are very, very diverse people. I've mentioned this before. The problem there is that the Bible isn't exactly comforming to that luxury. And so then we get what we get.

----------


## HVACTech

> Cue AF  -- pick your religion, the majority of Americans aren't dedicated to Liberty.


sir, you are suggesting OUR Christians are special.

OK, I can run with that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> what I CANNOT figure out.
> is that we have a plethora of Christians here who are clearly dedicated to Liberty..
> 
> how do I reconcile that. with the MAJORITY who do not?



I could go on a long rant about why this is....I'll spare everybody that.  Suffice it to say that real Biblical Christians have ALWAYS been anti-state, from the first century to today.   Erowe1 could expand on that better than I could.

----------


## euphemia

> Often, there are questions asked of this forum how a Christian should behave or feel towards a subject. If the question is formed towards Christians I sometimes don't feel like I am qualified to respond.
>   So, just a request, perhaps phrase it in a way to invite other perspectives.


I don't think anyone can say for sure how someone should *feel* about something, or how a *feeling* informs an objective opinion.  I'm often at conflict with how I feel and what I know to be the right thing to do.  I don't mind being challenged if there is a flaw in my thinking.  I generally can't do a lot about the emotion attached to that, and I would appreciate not being belittled for that.  Beyond that point, I wouldn't mind input from unbelievers.  I find it can be helpful.

----------


## HVACTech

> I don't think anyone can say for sure how someone should *feel* about something, or how a *feeling* informs an objective opinion.  I'm often at conflict with how I feel and what I know to be the right thing to do.  I don't mind being challenged if there is a flaw in my thinking.  I generally can't do a lot about the emotion attached to that, and I would appreciate not being belittled for that.  Beyond that point, I wouldn't mind input from unbelievers.  I find it can be helpful.


thanks Love.
that is what I was thinking!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't think anyone can say for sure how someone should *feel* about something, or how a *feeling* informs an objective opinion.  I'm often at conflict with how I feel and what I know to be the right thing to do.  *I don't mind being challenged if there is a flaw in my thinking.  I generally can't do a lot about the emotion attached to that, and I would appreciate not being belittled for that.*  Beyond that point, I wouldn't mind input from unbelievers.  I find it can be helpful.



That is a very fair request and it is something I myself will take very seriously moving forward.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Well, you can still be qualified to discuss the Peace part.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well, you can still be qualified to discuss the Peace part.


Actually one of the arguments many liberty Christians have against atheistic liberty people is that their worldview can't support a moral philosophy like liberty.

----------


## VIDEODROME

oh

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Actually one of the arguments many liberty Christians have against atheistic liberty people is that their worldview can't support a moral philosophy like liberty.


Hm. See, I would say that the opposite is true too. Perhaps even more so given the diversity of biblicists. The diversity exists in a way that is premised upon individual perception of _order_ which is itself a product of ones personal moral code. Moral code being the product of the individual's own personal perception of morality. And so we see that many try to "decipher" the Bible in a way that they can make it conform to their personal whims.

I'm more of an agnostic thinker, though. I won't claim to believe or not but contend that I simply have a few more questions.

----------


## phill4paul

> Well, you can still be qualified to discuss the Peace part.


OP officially /thread.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Actually one of the arguments many liberty Christians have against atheistic liberty people is that their worldview can't support a moral philosophy like liberty.


I'm kind of in a philosophical quagmire right now, and I'm not so sure that the Bible supports radical libertarianism of the sort that I've endorsed in the past.

But, its undeniable that a lack of faith prevents one from deriving any meaningful moral conclusions at all.

----------


## pcosmar

> sir, you are suggesting OUR Christians are special.
> 
> OK, I can run with that.


I can not speak for all. I am a course and blunt man. Uneducated (formally).
That is much due to my path in life. And I do not type well,, so translating my thoughts to text takes some effort.

perhaps it loses something in translation.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Phil4paul,
> 
> I for one invite every single perspective...atheist to Christian to whatever...in my threads.    I want to respect all people and engage people of all perspectives.





I'm just kidding. I like Sola_Fide and I'm glad he's back. I don't agree with him about Religion BUT I admire his convictions. I can't remember the thread but I called him out on something and his answer was honest, I respect that.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> ..its undeniable that a lack of faith prevents one from deriving any meaningful moral conclusions at all.


That's a rather bold statement. What do you premise that upon? Also, I'm not sure what you mean by a meaningful moral conclusion. What is that exactly? A meaningful moral conclusion. Seems similar to what I'd just mentioned in my previous posting.

----------


## VIDEODROME

> I'm kind of in a philosophical quagmire right now, and I'm not so sure that the Bible supports radical libertarianism of the sort that I've endorsed in the past.
> 
> But, its undeniable that a lack of faith prevents one from deriving any meaningful moral conclusions at all.


But can even an immoral person appreciate peace and being left alone?  Especially by the government?

----------


## HVACTech

> Actually one of the arguments many liberty Christians have against atheistic liberty people is that their worldview can't support a moral philosophy like liberty.


sir, I am a Deist. and yes! I enjoy discussing the singularity.
personally I find peace in the fact that, while the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) is in fact law. (not a theory)
life (energy) persists!!

I do NOT need a book to tell me this true.

----------


## RJB

> If the question is formed towards Christians I sometimes don't feel like I am qualified to respond.
>   So, just a request, perhaps phrase it in a way to invite other perspectives.


Start a concomitant thread asking the same question to people of your belief and report to moderation anybody posting in it who does not believe as you do.  The moderation needs something to do.  They haven't been earning their pay lately

----------


## VIDEODROME

> Start a concomitant thread asking the same question to people of your belief and report to moderation anybody posting in it who does not believe as you do.  The moderation needs something to do.  They haven't been earning their pay lately


In the past, I've suggested Tagged threads or any method that this kind of intent could be declared and a Closed or Open discussion.  I think it's fine if sometimes like minded people want to have a discussion without outside dissenting views intruding.  Yet on the other hand, people might be in the mood for debate.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm kind of in a philosophical quagmire right now, and I'm not so sure that the Bible supports radical libertarianism of the sort that I've endorsed in the past.
> 
> But, its undeniable that a lack of faith prevents one from deriving any meaningful moral conclusions at all.


The Bible doesn't support any political perspective.   Don't get caught up in that.  I've done it too, and it's depressing.  The Bible is the story of how God saves His people, that's it.  God saves his people in times of freedom and in times of oppression (and the times of oppression are times Christians should be THANKFUL for because we know that God is exercising His wrath and judgment on the sin of man).

The apostles preached the Christ and Him crucified.   That's it.  They didn't preach radical political revolution (sometimes the opposite...SUBMIT to the slave masters for the gospels sake).  

Politics will never bring you peace.  The only thing that will bring you peace in your life is the efficacious atonement of Jesus and justification by faith.  When Paul says we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,  that is all a man needs for peace.  I would live as a slave all my days with that peace.  Nothing can shake a man who has peace with God.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> sir, I am a Deist. and yes! I enjoy discussing the singularity.
> personally I find peace in the fact that, while the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) is in fact law. (not a theory)
> life (energy) persists!!
> 
> I do NOT need a book to tell me this true.


The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that things are devolving into disorder.   Yet evolutionism says that things are coming into greater and more complex order.  How does the 2nd law of thermodynamics confirm your belief in evolutionism?

----------


## HVACTech

> The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that things are devolving into disorder.   Yet evolutionism says that things are coming into greater and more complex order.  How does the 2nd law of thermodynamics confirm your belief in evolutionism?


sorry, I forgot. I should have noted I was quoting the classical definition. 
(the one that existed BEFORE computers)
personally, I find the software based definition to be a absurd distraction.

peace.  .

wtf? the ONLY reason that I mentioned entropy, was to make it easier to understand.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that things are devolving into disorder.   Yet evolutionism says that things are coming into greater and more complex order.  How does the 2nd law of thermodynamics confirm your belief in evolutionism?


+rep  Thermodynamics is one of the big problems with evolutionary theory that is uncomfortable for evolutionists to deal with.

----------


## Bryan

> I never even thought of doing SCUBA in my septic tank.


Discussions here should not be akin to septic systems, if this is seen as the case then please flag the thread. As said, we need to earn our keep. 

Thank you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The Bible doesn't support any political perspective.


None?  So believing in liberty or belief in fascism doesn't matter?  Mind you, I'm not saying that's the gospel, but I do think the Bible is applicable to every part of life.





> Don't get caught up in that.  I've done it too, and it's depressing.


Why is it depressing?  Keep in mind that we're talking about the Bible here, not the present state of affairs.




> The Bible is the story of how God saves His people, that's it.  God saves his people in times of freedom and in times of oppression (and the times of oppression are times Christians should be THANKFUL for because we know that God is exercising His wrath and judgment on the sin of man).


I disagree with the "that's it."  I'd agree that that's ultimately the point, but again, I think the Bible is applicable to all of life.



> The apostles preached the Christ and Him crucified.   That's it.  They didn't preach radical political revolution (sometimes the opposite...SUBMIT to the slave masters for the gospels sake).


I'm guessing I'd agree at least at some level with Lex Rex (We went over a summary of it in a college history class, but I've never read the whole thing, hence the "guess") and I think sometimes its OK to overthrow an unjust government.  But before doing that I think other things would have to be taken into account, including losses of human life, chance of success, and potential harm to the gospel.



> Politics will never bring you peace.  The only thing that will bring you peace in your life is the efficacious atonement of Jesus and justification by faith.  When Paul says we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,  that is all a man needs for peace.  I would live as a slave all my days with that peace.  Nothing can shake a man who has peace with God.


I know this and I have this.  When I say "philosophical quagmire" I'm dealing with an important secondary issue as a side topic.  I wasn't referring to the gospel, which I have and always will have.

----------


## Bryan

> In the past, I've suggested Tagged threads or any method that this kind of intent could be declared and a Closed or Open discussion.  I think it's fine if sometimes like minded people want to have a discussion without outside dissenting views intruding.  Yet on the other hand, people might be in the mood for debate.


We are open to adding tags that are useful for any forum, please let us know. Thanks.

----------


## euphemia

Another thing I realized this evening, that I am happy to engage nonbelievers when we can support each other in our respective journies.  Freedom people have got to find common ground and a unified message if we are to have an impact on this country.

----------


## HVACTech

> +rep  Thermodynamics is one of the big problems with evolutionary theory that is uncomfortable for evolutionists to deal with.


me and my big mouth, and speaking of absurd distractions..

hi HB!

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> what I CANNOT figure out.
> is that we have a plethora of Christians here who are clearly dedicated to Liberty..
> 
> how do I reconcile that. with the MAJORITY who do not?


Most Christians worship the government as though it were god.

----------


## pcosmar

> Politics will never bring you peace.  .


I have never had that hope.
one of my reasons for supporting Dr Paul was that he would have disengaged this county from the Mideast.
There is no stopping what is to come. (delaying perhaps, but not stopping)

This land has no place in what is to come,, i was hoping we could disengage voluntarily.
We will be removed from the picture one way or another. The US will cease to be an active player.

The hope that we could exit voluntarily is past. We will be removed.

----------


## VIDEODROME



----------


## acptulsa

> me and my big mouth, and speaking of absurd distractions..
> 
> hi HB!


Seriously.

Can't say I've ever seen anyone avow that biology is subject to the laws of thermodynamics under any circumstances this side of spontaneous combustion.

Seems to me the law of gravity has more of a bearing on biology than thermodynamics.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Does Thermodynamics have a bearing on Peace?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> +rep  Thermodynamics is one of the big problems with evolutionary theory that is uncomfortable for evolutionists to deal with.


Well. I don't want to venture too far outside of the purpose of the thread but since you brought this up I'd contend that what you're saying isn't exactly true in so far as you go with it. It could certainly be said that creationists make the argument that you're making in a way that is premised upon their interpretation of the relationship between probability and entropy. 

I can almost swear that we have a thread on this around here some place. Should maybe dig it up.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Does Thermodynamics have a bearing on Peace?


Are peace and order mutually exclusive? Now that's an honest question. Order seems subjective these days.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> None?  So believing in liberty or belief in fascism doesn't matter?  Mind you, I'm not saying that's the gospel, but I do think the Bible is applicable to every part of life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it depressing?  Keep in mind that we're talking about the Bible here, not the present state of affairs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Believe me, I've been where you are.  I went to a Christian college and I was ardent to find the key to unlocking the code of freedom contained in the pages of the Bible.  Back then I was an ardent Reconstructionist...and I could argue anyone into the ground.  When I was a sophomore I met Andrew Sandlin and Steve Schlissel and they were so impressed by me they gave me a huge stack of Rushdoony books for free so that I could carry on the political message. Boy how times have changed.

My only advice is: learn from me.  Because of my political idolatry I pushed myself away from the gospel, my peace.  Politics and governments and theories and everything else is going to, in the end, roll up like a scroll, and the only thing that will be left is myself standing before God giving an account of my life.  _ Thank God_  for my Jesus, my perfect Substitute,  who imputes His perfect righteousness to my account and takes my sin on Himself so that I can stand before a holy God on that day.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Well. I don't want to venture too far outside of the purpose of the thread but since you brought this up I'd contend that what you're saying isn't exactly true in so far as you go with it. It could certainly be said that creationists make the argument that you're making in a way that is premised upon their interpretation of the relationship between probability entropy. 
> *
> I can almost swear that we have a thread on this around here some place. Should maybe dig it up*.


Pretty sure we do.  Feel free to bump it.  It's an interesting topic.  ~hugs~

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Pretty sure we do.  Feel free to bump it.  It's an interesting topic.  ~hugs~


I don't remember where it was. I recall discussing macro evolution but don't remember why. It had to have been in the religion section. It's kind of funny that the best discussion on science comes from the religion section if you think about it. Heh...

----------


## HVACTech

> Seriously.
> 
> Can't say I've ever seen anyone avow that biology is subject to the laws of thermodynamics under any circumstances this side of spontaneous combustion.
> 
> Seems to me the law of gravity has more of a bearing on biology than thermodynamics.


the 2nd law. simply states that hot flows to cold. this is how we move heat as defined by the first (classical law)
"energy", kinetic or otherwise, ALWAYS flows from higher to lower. 
getting water to flow uphill will not happen. when you pour water on a table.. how does it "know" to flow to the lowest point?  

Newton defined Gravity on this Earth only. 
Hubble proved this fact to Einstein.
Einstein said ..  $#@!, went back to the drawing board... 
and came up with lambda. (the cosmological constant) 
and every since that time. 
we have been searching for dark matter.   

peace.

----------


## VIDEODROME



----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Seriously.
> 
> Can't say I've ever seen anyone avow that biology is subject to the laws of thermodynamics under any circumstances this side of spontaneous combustion.
> 
> Seems to me the law of gravity has more of a bearing on biology than thermodynamics.


Srsly?  Google it.  Physics is interesting.  (Did you know biologists utilize chemistry and geology in their research too?  I thought this was basic to intermediate science...) Hell, I'll get ya started: https://www.google.com/search?newwin....0.td8yZKUHv44  you and your bud Hvac can learn something.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> me and my big mouth, and speaking of absurd distractions..
> 
> hi HB!


Hullo, troll! ~hugs~

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Believe me, I've been where you are.  I went to a Christian college and I was ardent to find the key to unlocking the code of freedom contained in the pages of the Bible.  Back then I was an ardent Reconstructionist...and I could argue anyone into the ground.  When I was a sophomore I met Andrew Sandlin and Steve Schlissel and they were so impressed by me they gave me a huge stack of Rushdoony books for free so that I could carry on the political message. Boy how times have changed.
> 
> My only advice is: learn from me.  Because of my political idolatry I pushed myself away from the gospel, my peace.  Politics and governments and theories and everything else is going to, in the end, roll up like a scroll, and the only thing that will be left is myself standing before God giving an account of my life.  _ Thank God_  for my Jesus, my perfect Substitute,  who imputes His perfect righteousness to my account and takes my sin on Himself so that I can stand before a holy God on that day.


This is actually part of why I'm moving away from strict anarcho-capitalism.  In an odd sort of way, it either requires almost total political apathy or total political immersion, neither of which do I think are good things.  What does Christian justice look like?  You can take a pacifist position and say there's no such thing.  You can take a minimal government position and say that the State's only job is to uphold justice.  But to take an ancap position basically requires that ANYONE can execute justice: essentially, it logically leads to Chris Cantwell type conclusions, which is why I'm starting to reject it.

Beyond that, though, I'm not entirely sure I get your point.  Are you setting up a dichotomy between not caring about politics at all and idolizing them?  Are you setting up a dichotomy between belief that the Bible actually has something to say about politics and idolizing politics?

Why do politics and the gospel have to be mutually exclusive?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This is actually part of why I'm moving away from strict anarcho-capitalism.  In an odd sort of way, it either requires almost total political apathy or total political immersion, neither of which do I think are good things.  What does Christian justice look like?  You can take a pacifist position and say there's no such thing.  You can take a minimal government position and say that the State's only job is to uphold justice.  But to take an ancap position basically requires that ANYONE can execute justice: essentially, it logically leads to Chris Cantwell type conclusions, which is why I'm starting to reject it.
> 
> Beyond that, though, I'm not entirely sure I get your point.  Are you setting up a dichotomy between not caring about politics at all and idolizing them?  Are you setting up a dichotomy between belief that the Bible actually has something to say about politics and idolizing politics?
> *
> Why do politics and the gospel have to be mutually exclusive*?


I know you're not asking me, but I'll jump in-it's because the State is a satanic institution.  (Romans 13 is so qualified a statement that no State can live up to it.)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I know you're not asking me, but I'll jump in


I welcome anybody's imput.  I'm specifically curious about Sola's position because he claims he did the same thing that he thinks I'm doing, but that doesn't mean I don't want other opinions as well.




> -it's because the State is a satanic institution.  (Romans 13 is so qualified a statement that no State can live up to it.)


I just don't see enough Biblical evidence of this.  The radical egalitarianism that anarcho-capitalism requires (not of wealth but of office) is foreign to the Bible.  There were several Old Testament Kings that were good.  Proverbs 29:2 says that there is peace when the righteous rule (by contrast, anarcho-capitalism says it is evil if ANY man should rule.)  I completely agree that power corrupts, really easily.  I don't even disagree that ancap would be, practically speaking, substantial improvement to what we have (although I think any route that would get us there would either lead to limited government first, or would be a means that is far worse than the end is good).  But I just don't see any evidence in the Bible that all government leaders are evil, in fact, I see far more evidence that there are good ones than not (note: I am not saying that there are more good government leaders than bad ones.  I am saying that there is more Biblical evidence that not all government leaders are evil than the inverse, and that ancap requires the inverse.)

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> I welcome anybody's imput.  I'm specifically curious about Sola's position because he claims he did the same thing that he thinks I'm doing, but that doesn't mean I don't want other opinions as well.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't see enough Biblical evidence of this.  The radical egalitarianism that anarcho-capitalism requires (not of wealth but of office) is foreign to the Bible.  There were several Old Testament Kings that were good.  Proverbs 29:2 says that there is peace when the righteous rule (by contrast, anarcho-capitalism says it is evil if ANY man should rule.)  I completely agree that power corrupts, really easily.  I don't even disagree that ancap would be, practically speaking, substantial improvement to what we have (although I think any route that would get us there would either lead to limited government first, or would be a means that is far worse than the end is good).  But I just don't see any evidence in the Bible that all government leaders are evil, in fact, I see far more evidence that there are good ones than not (note: I am not saying that there are more good government leaders than bad ones.  I am saying that there is more Biblical evidence that not all government leaders are evil than the inverse, and that ancap requires the inverse.)


Sure there were a small handful of good OT Kings.  Rather than pointing out the extreme flaws in the good ones, I'll posit a more logical approach and say 1Kings8 takes precedence.  The existence of any good Kings are predicated on a sinful desire for a worldly King in the first place.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I welcome anybody's imput.  I'm specifically curious about Sola's position because he claims he did the same thing that he thinks I'm doing, but that doesn't mean I don't want other opinions as well.
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't see enough Biblical evidence of this.  The radical egalitarianism that anarcho-capitalism requires (not of wealth but of office) is foreign to the Bible.  There were several Old Testament Kings that were good.  Proverbs 29:2 says that there is peace when the righteous rule (by contrast, anarcho-capitalism says it is evil if ANY man should rule.)  I completely agree that power corrupts, really easily.  I don't even disagree that ancap would be, practically speaking, substantial improvement to what we have (although I think any route that would get us there would either lead to limited government first, or would be a means that is far worse than the end is good).  But I just don't see any evidence in the Bible that all government leaders are evil, in fact, I see far more evidence that there are good ones than not (note: I am not saying that there are more good government leaders than bad ones.  I am saying that there is more Biblical evidence that not all government leaders are evil than the inverse, and that ancap requires the inverse.)


The few leaders we can call "good" in the bible had direct contact with God the father.  And as ancaps have explained it to me, they are not opposed to "leadership" per se as involuntary/coercive systems, like the State.  Even the Molyneuxs and Walter Blocks of the world agree that there is a place for authorities in matters of criminal justice and contract enforcement.

As far as evidence for earthly governments being evil, I need to get back to you on that,  I gtg to sleep.

----------


## HVACTech

> Srsly?  Google it.  Physics is interesting.  (Did you know biologists utilize chemistry and geology in their research too?  I thought this was basic to intermediate science...) Hell, I'll get ya started: https://www.google.com/search?newwin....0.td8yZKUHv44  you and your bud Hvac can learn something.


classic HB. 

I NEVER, in any way shape or form suggested that thermodynamics has anything to do with evolution. 
I equated life to energy.
and your "problem" with that analogy is... what?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Sure there were a small handful of good OT Kings.


To be clear, I'm not arguing that this is a good track record for monarchy.  But my point is that ancap would consider monarchy, and indeed, any other form of state, as not just undesirable, but evil (I'm talking about the principled ancap position here, not so much the utilitarian ancap position which would have other issues but not this one.)  In ancap, there are no "rulers" at all, and even having any is evil.  There are rules but no rulers.  



> Rather than pointing out the extreme flaws in the good ones, I'll posit a more logical approach and say 1Kings8 takes precedence.  The existence of any good Kings are predicated on a sinful desire for a worldly King in the first place.


I assume you mean 1 Samuel since that makes more sense.  I agree that monarchy isn't a particularly good idea.  But that's not the point.  The point is that ancap requires a TOTAL REJECTION of the idea of a "good king."  Its not just "unlikely" for an ancap.  That's the minarchist position*.  An ancap position says that "Good king" is literally an oxymoron.

I would add to this in two ways:

1. Even when God was leading, he was leading through a family based model of government.  There were town elders who one had to go to if a crime was committed.  I'm not sure if the law saying you had to go to the elders (as opposed to anyone you wanted) was enforced, but it was a law nonetheless.  Meaning, at most, you're getting some type of very voluntary minarchy, but not anarcho-capitalism.

2. God ruling is very different than private, market-based, most likely secular companies ruling, which is what ancap sort of is (if you even count the market PDAs as "rulers" which is really debatable, and if you do count them as rulers than the "anarcho" prefix is false advertising.)  

I'm not saying that good rulers are "likely" only that they are possible, which at the very least rules out ideological anarcho-capitalism.  And really, I'm not sure pragmatic anarcho-capitalism can be worked either.  If that was the right route to go, why isn't it found in the Mosaic Law?  Why isn't it found when good kings ruled?  (ie. why didn't they just resign rather than "rule righteously.")  A verse like Proverbs 29:2 doesn't even make sense in an ancap paradigm.  Nor do the reigns of David, Joash, and others.  

Which is why I'm moving away from it.  Not because I want to, but because it doesn't really make sense.

*I'm not saying every minarchist would take that position, only that it makes sense in a minarchist paradigm.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The few leaders we can call "good" in the bible had direct contact with God the father.  And as ancaps have explained it to me, they are not opposed to "leadership" per se as involuntary/coercive systems, like the State.  Even the Molyneuxs and Walter Blocks of the world agree that there is a place for authorities in matters of criminal justice and contract enforcement.
> 
> As far as evidence for earthly governments being evil, I need to get back to you on that,  I gtg to sleep.


If you're going for the whole "rule by God" model, I think a market-based justice system is an awful idea for that.  You might get efficient results, but nothing close to "rule by God."  I used to use the whole "no human rulers in Israel" thing to defend ancap, but I now kind of see that as silly.  If anything, you'd be better off using that to justify *church* rule than market.  I have theological problems there, but at least it would be more consistent in that sort of "no law but God" paradigm (and I do believe that when Christians are in an ungodly society they should create their own courts to deal with each other rather than using the government courts, per 1 Corinthians 6.) 

I'm not really sure how "ancap" and "kings" or "rulers" go together.  "anarcho" means "no rulers."  Note, I'm not saying "no rules", I'm saying "no rulers", which is exactly how I would have described it when I was an ancap.  All law and justice is a market and anyone can compete, anyone can try to be a ruler.

----------


## acptulsa

> Srsly?  Google it.  Physics is interesting.  (Did you know biologists utilize chemistry and geology in their research too?  I thought this was basic to intermediate science...) Hell, I'll get ya started: https://www.google.com/search?newwin....0.td8yZKUHv44  you and your bud Hvac can learn something.





> Hullo, troll! ~hugs~


I could have sworn I taught you long ago not to patronize me.

I'd suggest you point that finger at yourself.  You're the king worshipper who comes here to butt in on adult conversations in search of a reaction that will give you lulz.

Of course chemistry is an extremely serious field of study for biologists.  Not only have our bodies been gleaning energy from matter since long, long before Einstein figured out that E=mc squared, but since long before we learned how to cause wood to oxidize without waiting for lightning to strike.

That isn't exactly the same thing as anti-evolutionists trying to gain ground with idiots by comparing apples and oranges.

----------


## acptulsa

> Why do politics and the gospel have to be mutually exclusive?


Because God is King and Crusades are insanely hypocritical.  Is God not wise to refuse to put His stamp of approval on any of them?  Would not some bastard have used that later to justify his Machiavellian garbage?




> To be clear, I'm not arguing that this is a good track record for monarchy.  But my point is that ancap would consider monarchy, and indeed, any other form of state, as not just undesirable, but evil (I'm talking about the principled ancap position here, not so much the utilitarian ancap position which would have other issues but not this one.)


Do they?  Or do they feel that giving someone such power is opening the door for evil to walk in--creating a structure that evil can take over and use?

I don't think anyone denies that a benign dictator is possible.  There are, after all, examples all around us, in a small town mayor here and a committee chairman there.  But none of them are immortal.  And when they retire, how many psychos are waiting in the wings, licking their chops?

----------


## pcosmar

> Why do politics and the gospel have to be mutually exclusive?


To gain Political Power you have to make a deal with the Devil. (Luke 4:5-7)

and you can not serve two masters.

----------


## otherone

> what I CANNOT figure out.
> is that we have a plethora of Christians here who are clearly dedicated to Liberty..
> 
> how do I reconcile that. with the MAJORITY who do not?


Because people of all creeds worship the LAW.  Athiests, Christians, Muslims.  They are lost without it.  Whether it's secular, Mosaic, Sharia, Animal farm, or the Island of Dr. Moreau.
I believe the foundation of Liberty is Natural Law, which requires no anthropomorphic intercession.

----------


## otherone

> Actually one of the arguments many liberty Christians have against atheistic liberty people is that their worldview can't support a moral philosophy like liberty.


I have concerns about any worldview that says the individual is not sovereign.

----------


## acptulsa

> I have concerns about any worldview that says the individual is not sovereign.


Absolutely.  Unless and until God chooses to abolish human governments and enforce that, there just isn't that much practical difference between the No King but God camp and the No King at All camp.  At the very least, the one side may consider the other idiots, but if they were to really think about it half a second, they would surely see that the others are _useful_ idiots.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> sir, you are suggesting OUR Christians are special.
> 
> OK, I can run with that.


 And they even have their own Special Olympics.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that things are devolving into disorder. Yet evolutionism says that things are coming into greater and more complex order. How does the 2nd law of thermodynamics confirm your belief in evolutionism?



FWIW, I SWAG that life is the antientropic force of the universe.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Because God is King and Crusades are insanely hypocritical. Is God not wise to refuse to put His stamp of approval on any of them? Would not some bastard have used that later to justify his Machiavellian garbage?


Wow... I'm convinced that you guys are speaking a different language than me (and I'm pretty sure I have a rough ballpark idea of what Sola was getting at, and that its nothing like what you guys are trying to get at.)  Ron Paul was involved in politics.  Did he start any crusades?  Nobody said anything about crusades

----------


## acptulsa

> Wow... I'm convinced that you guys are speaking a different language than me (and I'm pretty sure I have a rough ballpark idea of what Sola was getting at, and that its nothing like what you guys are trying to get at.)  Ron Paul was involved in politics.  Did he start any crusades?  Nobody said anything about crusades


Ron Paul is not God.  Therefore, Ron Paul could sit in the House of Representatives without the slightest chance of putting God's Stamp of Approval on what the House of Representatives does.

Come on now.

The only human _institution_ He mucked with at all was the temple full of hypocrites.  And by pretending to be a House of God, though it was full of moneychangers and peddlers of salvation, that institution attempted to counterfeit God's Stamp of Approval.  So, God had every right--and obviously He felt a _duty_ while in human form and face to face with the corruption--to call that counterfeit into question.

What tongue are we speaking in now?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Ron Paul is not God.  Therefore, Ron Paul could sit in the House of Representatives without the slightest chance of putting God's Stamp of Approval on what the House of Representatives does.
> 
> Come on now.
> 
> The only human _institution_ He mucked with at all was the temple full of hypocrites.  And by pretending to be a House of God, though it was full of moneychangers and peddlers of salvation, that institution attempted to counterfeit God's Stamp of Approval.  So, God had every right--and obviously He felt a _duty_ while in human form and face to face with the corruption--to call that counterfeit into question.
> 
> What tongue are we speaking in now?


OK, I no longer have a clue what you are talking about.  I think you just try to argue with everything I say no matter what.  So, I'm going to drop it now and let SF pick it up when he has time, because I'm guessing he was trying to go a different route with this than you are.

----------


## acptulsa

What was the original question?




> Why do politics and the gospel have to be mutually exclusive?


So, here's God, who has been pretty hands-on in the Old Testament, and who seems to want to come to earth in Person to give us some Higher Education, then go laissez faire (seems like a fair guess to make given the evidence of the last two millennia).  And He discovers that His House of Prayer is corrupt (or rather He comes to confront the corruptors of it, for He knew all along).




> 13 But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
> 
> 14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
> 
> 15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
> 
> 16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!
> 
> 17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?
> ...


Now, if He's having this much trouble keeping us from corrupting what is His, and what is done in His Holy Name, why would he give the class of psychos who would later blather arrogantly and hypocritically about the alleged 'Divine Right of Kings' more ammunition to use in making their spurious claims stick over the centuries?

Would that have been a nice thing for Him to do to us?  How much better, given the assumption that it is His Will to let us learn from our own mistakes until He comes again, to say, 'Give unto Caesar what is of Caesar and unto God what is of God,' thus alerting those with ears to hear that He doesn't care to build our roads and aquaducts for us, and He's washing His hands of the whole thing?

I know this doesn't fit your model of God as Micromanager, which is probably why it seems to you that I'm speaking in tongues.  But it seems to fit what Jesus said...




> 19 And Jesus said unto them, Can the children of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? as long as they have the bridegroom with them, they cannot fast.
> 
> 20 But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, and then shall they fast in those days.


...and it seems to fit the verifiable facts of the last two millennia.

And if self-governance has proved to be too adult a puzzle for His children, well, at least now He doesn't have to spend eternity listening to us whine, 'But Father we can _too_ do it if You only give us a chance!'

----------


## pcosmar

> Ron Paul is not God.  Therefore, Ron Paul could sit in the House of Representatives without the slightest chance of putting God's Stamp of Approval on what the House of Representatives does.
> 
> Come on now.


And as I remember,, He voted against it mostly. Often as the only vote against,, not really much power.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> To be clear, I'm not arguing that this is a good track record for monarchy.  But my point is that ancap would consider monarchy, and indeed, any other form of state, as not just undesirable, but evil (I'm talking about the principled ancap position here, not so much the utilitarian ancap position which would have other issues but not this one.)  In ancap, there are no "rulers" at all, and even having any is evil.  There are rules but no rulers.  
> 
> 
> I assume you mean 1 Samuel since that makes more sense.  I agree that monarchy isn't a particularly good idea.  But that's not the point.  The point is that ancap requires a TOTAL REJECTION of the idea of a "good king."  Its not just "unlikely" for an ancap.  That's the minarchist position*.  An ancap position says that "Good king" is literally an oxymoron.


Yeah, 1Sam8.  It was oh dark thirty when I posted that lol




> I would add to this in two ways:
> 
> 1. Even when God was leading, he was leading through a family based model of government.  There were town elders who one had to go to if a crime was committed.  I'm not sure if the law saying you had to go to the elders (as opposed to anyone you wanted) was enforced, but it was a law nonetheless.  Meaning, at most, you're getting some type of very voluntary minarchy, but not anarcho-capitalism.


Well, considering my political leaning is more of a voluntary minarchy than anything else, this makes sense.  I wasn't supporting ancap with my post, just pointing out that even though there were some good kings, it wasn't worldly kings that God wanted, which you appear to agree with.




> 2. God ruling is very different than private, market-based, most likely secular companies ruling, which is what ancap sort of is (if you even count the market PDAs as "rulers" which is really debatable, and if you do count them as rulers than the "anarcho" prefix is false advertising.)  
> 
> I'm not saying that good rulers are "likely" only that they are possible, which at the very least rules out ideological anarcho-capitalism.  And really, I'm not sure pragmatic anarcho-capitalism can be worked either.  If that was the right route to go, why isn't it found in the Mosaic Law?  Why isn't it found when good kings ruled?  (ie. why didn't they just resign rather than "rule righteously.")  A verse like Proverbs 29:2 doesn't even make sense in an ancap paradigm.  Nor do the reigns of David, Joash, and others.


Aye, I'm forever pointing to the time of the Judges as God's true will for man's government....or at least the government of HIS people.  The Judges were not really ancap, or an- anything.  At best, they were _special use_ archons, called up whenever God, the elders, or the people had a problem that needed to be addressed by flesh and blood.  This is one reason why I am not, nor will I ever be an anarchist of any flavor.  

Philosophically, I am probably closer to the ancaps than most any minarchists or otherwise Constitutionalist I've ever met, because I recognize the time of the Judges as ideal, and the time of the judges (which you describe, I believe appropriately, as 'voluntary minarchism')  is one an iota or two from what an ancap would consider ideal.




> Which is why I'm moving away from it.  Not because I want to, but because it doesn't really make sense.
> 
> *I'm not saying every minarchist would take that position, only that it makes sense in a minarchist paradigm.


I also believe that mankind has become almost hopelessly corrupted, and that one of the purposes of the Millennial Reign is going to be to restore the Nations (over the course of 1000 years) back to a governance similar to the Time of the Judges, with the difference being that God is physically reigning in Jerusalem rather than somewhere off in Heaven and speaking through prophets and judges.  I figure it'll take 500-700 years to achieve that, then 200-300 years of the most profound peace and prosperity in the history of the world, and then the last gasp of Satan just to demonstrate the people's rejection of it/him, and then the end of this creation and the Judgement.

That doesn't mean that we do not, even in the corrupted here and now, work to achieve the ideal.  I work my butt off trying to achieve that ideal knowing full well that it may be as long as ~750 years before it's achieved.  Even if I know to the tune of 99.9999% that "X" will not be achieved, I still have to work towards "X" for righteousness sake if nothing else.  How does one get judged for making the evil choice, if the righteous choice was never even an option?  The judgement for choosing evil MUST happen in order to (at the end) purge the evil and retain the good, but a judgement for choosing evil cannot be righteous if there was never a choice available for good.  Therefore, for righteousness sake, I pour my life, heart, sweat, blood, and tears into offering the righteous choice, for righteousness sake.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> And as I remember,, He voted against it mostly. Often as the only vote against,, not really much power.


I think there is more power in a lone dissent that you realize.  A righteous sole dissent is like 'there is a remnant' vs no dissent 'there is not a remnant.'  Ask Elijah, for example, how important it is that a remnant exists.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I could have sworn I taught you long ago not to patronize me.
> 
> I'd suggest you point that finger at yourself. * You're the king worshipper who comes here to butt in on adult conversations in search of a reaction that will give you lulz.
> *
> Of course chemistry is an extremely serious field of study for biologists.  Not only have our bodies been gleaning energy from matter since long, long before Einstein figured out that E=mc squared, but since long before we learned how to cause wood to oxidize without waiting for lightning to strike.
> 
> That isn't exactly the same thing as anti-evolutionists trying to gain ground with idiots by comparing apples and oranges.


Flagrant lie and you know it.  It will _never, ever_ be true no matter how many times you repeat it.  My argument has ALWAYS been thus: liberty>King>democracy/republic.  I've explained this quite thoroughly every time the subject comes up.  And I only patronize you when I feel you've earned it.  Generally speaking, I've had good experiences with you and I suspect you are at heart a good, intelligent person.  Whether intentionally or not, you occasionally come off as very hostile and rude, and thus I return it to you.  I know I ought to turn the other cheek, but at this point in my spiritual journey that's sometimes difficult.
ETA:

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Flagrant lie and you know it.  It will _never, ever_ be true no matter how many times you repeat it.  My argument has ALWAYS been thus: liberty>King>democracy/republic.  I've explained this quite thoroughly every time the subject comes up.  And I only patronize you when I feel you've earned it.  Generally speaking, I've had good experiences with you and I suspect you are at heart a good, intelligent person.  Whether intentionally or not, you occasionally come off as very hostile and rude, and thus I return it to you.  I know I ought to turn the other cheek, but at this point in my spiritual journey that's sometimes difficult.


He's right though, you are very patronizing.  You probably wouldn't get 1/4 the hostility or rudeness if not for that.  It's actually difficult to suppress the kneejerk sometimes with how you treat people.   Treat others how you would want to be treated yourself.  A lot of what you get is people giving it back as good as you give it, whether you are able to see it or not.  Just look at how you posted to HVAC a few posts above.  I've done ok at biting my tongue, sometimes it gets a bit much even for me and I fail to bite it hard enough.  Not trying to be mean, I promise.

----------


## acptulsa

Thank you, Gunny.  That means a lot to me, and not just because sometimes self-defense is not the best defense.

34, the things we should have learned in intermediate science include the fact that you cannot use the axioms and theorems which make it possible to apply mathematics to one system in proofs of another, especially a more complex, system.  The Laws of Thermodynamics govern the movement of heat.  To say that it's a serious scientific endeavor to apply them to complex biological systems--especially when you have not proven that those complex biological systems are affected in any kind of meaningful way by heat--is as ridiculous as to apply the traffic code of the city of Phoenix to the same end.  Evolution is not governed by the Phoenix Motor Vehicle Code, and if you want me to believe it's governed by the laws formulated to explain the observed movement of heat, you're going to have to get up a lot earlier in the morning than you did.  The Laws of Thermodynamics, or Newton's Three Laws governing Bodies in Motion, or even a city's traffic code, could be used as an analogy to explain a model concerning evolution, or they could be used to start an amusing conversation about evolution.  But applying them to a serious scientific proof concerning evolutionary theory is to get yourself laughed out of the room.

Oh, and by the way, if you want to paint Constitutional minarchists like HVACTech and myself as trolls on a site named for a very Constitutional minarchist, you might consider not mixing apples like monarchy, democracy and representative democracy with oranges like liberty--whether or not you're admitting that the very representative democracy that Ron Paul spent half his life trying to protect is way, way down your list.  Liberty is a many-splendored thing, but it is not a system of government.  If you mean anarcho-capitalism, you might just consider saying so.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Liberty is a many-splendored thing, but it is not a system of government.  If you mean anarcho-capitalism, you might just consider saying so.


Well, I didn't say liberty is a system of governance.  It is literally impossible to figure out what system of governance will be preferred to meet the subjective goal of "liberty" for any given person or group.  To me, liberty means being able to voluntarily choose how one governs his life and affairs.  You might call it "Voluntaryism", but that and "anarcho-capitalism" are loaded words which are sometimes associated with things I don't care for.  

The most rational thing any sort of minarchist has put to paper is this: "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."  

Here, Jefferson foreshadowed what would become the heart of Voluntaryism and most strains of anarchism that I've read of.  Rothbard would make a similar case in (IIRC) "Ethics Of Liberty", showing that cities have the right to secede from states, neighborhoods from cities, and all the way down to individuals from nations.

I do not consider you to be a troll because of your political views.  I consider you a troll nowadays simply because of your behavior.  And HVAC is even worse.  I personally like a lot of people I disagree strongly with-they have the capacity to disagree with me without being disagreeable.

----------


## acptulsa

> I do not consider you to be a troll because of your political views.  I consider you a troll nowadays simply because of your behavior.  And HVAC is even worse.  I personally like a lot of people I disagree strongly with-they have the capacity to disagree with me without being disagreeable.


Gunny has learned to expect me to give as good as I get.  Or, in cases where I am accused of having flunked intermediate science for an extraordinarily spurious and laughable reason like I refuse to apply the laws of thermodynamics to any proofs concerning evolution, give _better_ than I get.

Did I ask to be called an intermediate school science flunk-out?  After studying physics under Nobel Laureates, should I suffer this gladly?

So, you might consider minding _your own_ disagreeableness while in my presence.  Not that I care either way; you may learn from Gunny's wisdom or not, just as you please.  The appropriate consequences will follow.

And as for the other topic...




> deliberately arguing with complete fallacies on forums, comment threads, or message boards to get leets and other users pissed off by the troll's "ignorance"





> 2)A person who starts arguments in forums or starts a hateful forum topic.
> 
> 3)A person who turns a comments section into a heated discussion that has nothing to do with the topic.





> The act of being bothersome or annoying to a group of like-minded people, usually with casual opposition, rather than sincere opposition, to those people's ideals.
> 
> Also, usually done over the internet.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling

----------


## HVACTech

> The 2nd law of thermodynamics says that things are devolving into disorder.   Yet evolutionism says that things are coming into greater and more complex order.  How does the 2nd law of thermodynamics confirm your belief in evolutionism?


I stand corrected. there is no "software" based definition of Entropy. do you know where you got that from?
a movie. specifically, i robot.  
it was not a good idea to try and explain the 2nd law to me friend.




> How does the 2nd law of thermodynamics confirm your belief in evolutionism?


that is QUITE a leap of logic. but I will entertain it.
"creation" clearly happened. or I would not exist.  there is quite a difference between a 1948 F-150, and a 2015 F-150. 
so, we can agree evolution is also true.

what does this have to do with the meaning of Life?  gosh Barney, I do not know.
you over estimate what we humans know. or, you summarily dismiss what advances we have made. 
the former is common, the latter REALLY pisses me off.  

what problem do you have with Deists?
methinks. you should spend more time understanding that there is a difference between the "old" and the "new" covenants.  
mixing the two is like mixing AC and DC power supplies. NOT a good idea.

peace.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> you should spend more time understanding that there is a difference between the "old" and the "new" covenants.  
> mixing the two is like mixing AC and DC power supplies. NOT a good idea.
> 
> peace.


The OT is like the neurons firing in the brain, the NT is like the actions those firing neurons produce.  If you _don't_ "mix" them, then you've got real problems.  neither is complete without the other.  One of the reasons modern Christendom is 'off' is because either 1) they discount the OT as irrelevant, or 2) they treat the OT as though it were the 5th Gospel, not realizing it's a different aspect altogether, but describing the same thing.

----------


## HVACTech

> And HVAC is even worse.


aww, heck. that gave me the warm fuzzies! 
I am even worser than acptulsa!

it is best for you to stay out of the deep end of the pool. 
howevar, every court needs a jester.
please don't go away mad...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Gunny has learned to expect me to give as good as I get.  Or, in cases where I am accused of having flunked intermediate science for an extraordinarily spurious and laughable reason like I refuse to apply the laws of thermodynamics to any proofs concerning evolution, give _better_ than I get.
> 
> Did I ask to be called an intermediate school science flunk-out?  After studying physics under Nobel Laureates, should I suffer this gladly?
> 
> So, you might consider minding _your own_ disagreeableness while in my presence.  Not that I care either way; you may learn from Gunny's wisdom or not, just as you please.  The appropriate consequences will follow.
> 
> And as for the other topic...
> 
> 
> ...


Well, I never accused you of "having flunked intermediate science for an extraordinarily spurious and laughable reason".  But, whatever.  Pursuing this further is going to be a fruitless and extremely boring endeavor. (not to mention likely stirring up hostility and hard feelings for no good reason)  Let's just forget it and move on to other things, shall we?  Unless something interesting worth commenting comes up, I'll just excuse myself from this thread.

Also, your Urban dictionary definition is incomplete.  Individuals are sometimes trolled.  It happens on these forums on occasion.  Also on the urban dictionary: 


> http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling
> Top Definition 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> trolling 
> 
>   Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one  or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because  it's the internet and, hey, you can. 
> ...

----------


## HVACTech

> The OT is like the neurons firing in the brain, the NT is like the actions those firing neurons produce.  If you _don't_ "mix" them, then you've got real problems.  neither is complete without the other.  One of the reasons modern Christendom is 'off' is because either 1) they discount the OT as irrelevant, or 2) they treat the OT as though it were the 5th Gospel, not realizing it's a different aspect altogether, but describing the same thing.


interesting preposition. 
when observed in contrast, they are almost schizophrenic.
(simple comparative analysis) 

 I am aware of my limitations of understanding...  

peace.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah, 1Sam8.  It was oh dark thirty when I posted that lol
> 
> 
> 
> Well, considering my political leaning is more of a voluntary minarchy than anything else, this makes sense.  I wasn't supporting ancap with my post, just pointing out that even though there were some good kings, it wasn't worldly kings that God wanted, which you appear to agree with.
> 
> 
> 
> Aye, I'm forever pointing to the time of the Judges as God's true will for man's government....or at least the government of HIS people.  The Judges were not really ancap, or an- anything.  At best, they were _special use_ archons, called up whenever God, the elders, or the people had a problem that needed to be addressed by flesh and blood.  This is one reason why I am not, nor will I ever be an anarchist of any flavor.  
> ...


Yeah, I think we're pretty close to the same on this.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> interesting preposition. 
> when observed in contrast, they are almost schizophrenic.
> (simple comparative analysis)


Sure, but do a brain scan of your brain while you are gently hugging your wife.  Brain activity looks violent as all get out, while the activity of your arms and hands are loving-gentle.  Yet, without that specific brain activity, such a hug would be impossible.  This is an overly simplistic metaphor, of course, and so it will miss some things when taken ad ridiculum, but if you read the Tanakh (Old Testament) and consider YHVH as "the Brain" and then read the B'rit Chadasha (New Testament) and consider Yeshua as "the Hands," then the relationship becomes a lot easier to understand.  When you are able to overlook the element of 'time' to see that the activity of "the Brain" is actually _coincident_ with the activity of "the Hands," then the image resolves even further.  This framework eliminates any perceived contradictions between the theology of YHVH in the Tanakh and Yeshua in the B'rit Chadasha.




> I am aware of my limitations of understanding...  
> 
> peace.

----------


## HVACTech

> Sure, but do a brain scan of your brain while you are gently hugging your wife.  Brain activity looks violent as all get out, while the activity of your arms and hands are loving-gentle.  Yet, without that specific brain activity, such a hug would be impossible.  This is an overly simplistic metaphor, of course, and so it will miss some things when taken ad ridiculum, but if you read the Tanakh (Old Testament) and consider YHVH as "the Brain" and then read the B'rit Chadasha (New Testament) and consider Yeshua as "the Hands," then the relationship becomes a lot easier to understand.  When you are able to overlook the element of 'time' to see that the activity of "the Brain" is actually _coincident_ with the activity of "the Hands," then the image resolves even further.  This framework eliminates any perceived contradictions between the theology of YHVH in the Tanakh and Yeshua in the B'rit Chadasha.


damm, and I thought we were friends...

can you not show mercy on your single brethren?

----------


## pcosmar

> interesting preposition. 
> when observed in contrast, they are almost schizophrenic.
> (simple comparative analysis) 
> 
> * I am aware of my limitations of understanding...* 
> 
> peace.


" A man has got to know his limitations."

*The New is in the Old Concealed, the Old is in the New Revealed*

This is why I often repeat that the book balances itself,, and every thing should be balanced by it.

but there are a thousand things that can get out of balance.

and though not studied in Thermodynamics I see entropy in several things in nature. from the Decay of an orbit to the breakdown of matter.

I have long considered Entropy to be a constant,, regardless of discipline.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> damm, and I thought we were friends...
> 
> can you not show mercy on your single brethren?


Brother, I am single and I hate it.  Haven't even had a date in 11 years.  As a kid, the only propaganda I ever bought, was the feminazi propaganda how even unsolicited eye contact with a woman was a kind of rape.  I know better now, but I've been in that groove so long I don't know how to shake it.  I've wanted a family and kids since I was 19.  I'm now 41.  I'm guessing you aren't nearly as bad off as I am.

_On a completely separate note,_ I've been talking off and on in several threads about how the Johnson Amendment 501(c)3 leads to statolatry in the American Church.  In a FB thread I mentioned how the vast majority of American Christians worship the government in place of God, how the Johnson Amendment creates this kind of _blind spot_ where statolatry is concerned such that they cannot even perceive it, and lo and behold someone _completely_ unaware (thinking they were supporting my OP) of what my comment meant came along and posted this:




> A Christian Declaration of Independence and A Christian Constitution that puts the law of the land at all Christians backs, flanks and fronts...and Christians shouting what will be "will be "let it be ...and God is on His Throne! Never been a nation like us in the liberties of Christ Jesus since the garden of Eden. Look out..because Judgement starts at the house of God `U.S.A. FIRST...and its been here...a whore-monger as President...then 9-11..and now an illegal President and his followers that exalted him and themselves before the world as the godless party...Our Lord is truly merciful...Return to God America/ Repent in Jesus Name "We the People" Christians First !!! ...amen


Truly astounding.  

Just two comments above that, in reply to someone who had thought I was an Atheist because I do not act all holier than thou trying to enforce the Bible at gunpoint, and was surprised by my OP to learn I was a Christian (I dunno why, it's not like I am all that quiet about it) he said "Really? I'm kinda surprised you're not an atheist.", I had responded with this:




> Very really, Xxx. Indeed, I might even be described as a super Christian. I can, however, understand your reaction. Most American Christians nowadays worship in the state in place of God, and they don't even know it. This makes for a pretty bad testimony. It's gotten to the point where if someone is a Christian, you just assume that the support all the wars and gunpoint compliance and such. I suspect that Jesus Himself will have a bit of a beef with those folks.


Enter the statolater quoted above to prove my point...

----------


## GunnyFreedom

Notice the statolaters quote implies that the U.S.A. is "the house of God."

Seriously.  I would give my eye-teeth to repeal the Johnson Amendment.

----------


## acptulsa

> Srsly?  Google it.  Physics is interesting.  (Did you know biologists utilize chemistry and geology in their research too?  I thought this was basic to intermediate science...) Hell, I'll get ya started:


You know, I do realize you're glib and excitable and your brain is prone to outrun your good sense.  And I don't mind.  I'm even glad.  It would be a boring world if we were all the same.

But who the $#@! are you talking to?  Could it be the same guy who you _asked_ to write for you as a command performance the difference between horsepower and torque--which I did, and received not a word of acknowledgement, much less a +rep?  Could it?

And when you turn around and tell me physics is interesting like I'm too dumb to have ever considered the notion before, could I really have no reason to feel disrespected and insulted?

If you are too busy being glib to stop and ask yourself who you're talking to, well, all right.  But if you can't be bothered to take that step, you really should learn to take what you ask for with a modicum of grace...

So, I tell you what.  You work on remembering to give me a modicum of credit, and I'll work on not expecting too much of you.  Deal?

----------

