Santorum on Bruce Jenner: ‘If He Says He’s Woman, Then He’s a Woman’

Status
Not open for further replies.
So there is a random religious debate raging with spats of back-handed remarks about sexuality in between.

Jenner said he is transgender, which is very different from being gay. Welcome to the 21st Century folks, where people can finally begin to be accepted for who they are as individuals, and not by the label society would like to place on them. If Frothy is coming around to the idea of acceptance--even for political reasons--why belittle him?

This in particular annoys me, like when Paul jr or senior reached across the aisle to work with Democrats and is rebuffed by the common liberal for "faking it".

No it isn't. Furthermore, why do you care so much about what conversations happen in threads. If you don't like the conversations, don't read them. I'm sorry to inform you, but there are deeply religious people in the liberty movement, and they are very opinionated.
 
So there is a random religious debate raging with spats of back-handed remarks about sexuality in between.

Jenner said he is transgender, which is very different from being gay. Welcome to the 21st Century folks, where people can finally begin to be accepted for who they are as individuals, and not by the label society would like to place on them. If Frothy is coming around to the idea of acceptance--even for political reasons--why belittle him?

This in particular annoys me, like when Paul jr or senior reached across the aisle to work with Democrats and is rebuffed by the common liberal for "faking it".

Get a sense of humor and thanks for the neg rep...gotcha back and I don't generally neg rep. News flash...it's the internet..people are going to make jokes and have opinions. Apparently you allow it to color your world.
 
Last edited:
No it isn't. Furthermore, why do you care so much about what conversations happen in threads. If you don't like the conversations, don't read them. I'm sorry to inform you, but there are deeply religious people in the liberty movement, and they are very opinionated.

You are wasting your breath on that one. He negged me... Oh, the PAIN, how shall I ever survive... for my jab at Frothy to just come out and be done with it, attended by some semi-coherent line of nonsense. There is no reasoning with those not in possession of reason. I'd toss this one back; WAY too small.
 
beuhz5V.jpg

OK, please help me out here. Is this some sort of fancy poo-throne, or is this perhaps a king's or pope's rig for receiving covert rim-jobs while seated in office... erm... "discharging" his duties? The keyhole slot seems to suggest it doubles for teabag action. Am I mistaken?
 
So there is a random religious debate raging with spats of back-handed remarks about sexuality in between.

Jenner said he is transgender, which is very different from being gay. Welcome to the 21st Century folks, where people can finally begin to be accepted for who they are as individuals, and not by the label society would like to place on them. If Frothy is coming around to the idea of acceptance--even for political reasons--why belittle him?

Who gives a sh!t what century it is? This is like saying "Hello, welcome to today, which is Wednesday, and it's better than Tuesday because today is Wednesday." (paraphrase from G.K. Chesterton) Society exists because most people don't make eunuchs of themselves and mutilate their genitals. Furthermore, where does this concept of "accepting people for who they are as individuals" begin and end? Should I accept the average Neo-con's fetish for conquering the world? After all, they are being who they are, right? Or how about Jack The Ripper? I hear he was quite an outspoken individual. Furthermore, if you think Frothy is suddenly trustworthy in any sense because he's had a change of heart on one issue that you happen to care about, you have some serious gullibility issues.

P.S. - And spare me the genetic determinist argument. Studies have never definitively determined this to be the case, and some actually show "alternative" types taking the other alternative.
 
Last edited:
So there is a random religious debate raging with spats of back-handed remarks about sexuality in between.

Jenner said he is transgender, which is very different from being gay. Welcome to the 21st Century folks, where people can finally begin to be accepted for who they are as individuals, and not by the label society would like to place on them. If Frothy is coming around to the idea of acceptance--even for political reasons--why belittle him?

This in particular annoys me, like when Paul jr or senior reached across the aisle to work with Democrats and is rebuffed by the common liberal for "faking it".

Except you have absolutely no objective basis to say that the 21st century is better, or that homos or transgenders should be "accepted". Absolutely none.
 
Actually, in that video is a great quote from David Engelsma that I think will open up your eyes if you understand it.

I'm a bit more iffy on the "free offer" as I don't quite understand all the issues involved. At the risk of being way too deconstructionist, I want to know exactly what "free" means, and what "offer" means.
 
Most Reconstructionists want to limit government to the laws that are in the Old Testament (minus, of course, the ceremonial.) Most are close to if not completely non-interventionist on foreign policy, totally laissez faire, against the government spynet, against the drug war, etc. Many recons (although I'm not as comfortable saying "most" here, and I'm not really sure I'd agree myself although it would be nice) believe that theonomy should be implemented only after most of a population is converted. I guess recons are "authoritarian" compared to anarcho-capitalists. Everybody is. But they aren't really authoritarian compared to modern conservatives or liberals.

Covenanters may be a different story.

As a student of the Covenanter/Steelite position, I accept the general position of theonomy, but I have some issues with how broadly the Reconstructionists tend to apply it. There are certain Judicial Laws in the OT that have Ceremonial functions, but are treated as purely natural/moral statutes by the Recon. camp. For instance, the death penalty is only required for those proven guilty of capitol murder, whereas much of the other offenses in question (excluding bold, open, unrepentant heresy, which constitutes a direct attack on the church, as was the case with Michael Servetus) are only capitol offenses in more extremely aggravated cases.

For example, adultery is not a capitol offense under the New Testament, but it does constitute a right to a lawful divorce and right to remarriage at the discretion of the offended party, and the dispossession of property of the guilty party. Similarly, being caught breaking the Sabbath under the NT dispensation (The Lord's Day) for reasons other than works of piety, mercy and necessity do not carry the same OT curse, though I would argue that it is a serious matter for a communicate member of the church worthy of censure.

One of the things that people tend to discount on the theonomy position is that judicial discretion is a major factor, as the spirit of the position seeks to temper justice with mercy, and also to keep the spirit of the law in line with the letter. Recons. are not as clear on these points as they should be, and I've heard some of them talk about wresting control of the governments of pagan nations (which the U.S. essentially is) and forcing OT law on them, mostly because of this lack of clarity. And for the record, I am closer to the Reconstructionist position than I am any other commonly held position in the U.S., but the differences are pronounced enough to warrant me not identifying as one.
 
Last edited:
As a student of the Covenanter/Steelite position, I accept the general position of theonomy, but I have some issues with how broadly the Reconstructionists tend to apply it. There are certain Judicial Laws in the OT that have Ceremonial functions, but are treated as purely natural/moral statutes by the Recon. camp. For instance, the death penalty is only required for those proven guilty of capitol murder, whereas much of the other offenses in question (excluding bold, open, unrepentant heresy, which constitutes a direct attack on the church, as was the case with Michael Servetus) are only capitol offenses in more extremely aggravated cases.

For example, adultery is not a capitol offense under the New Testament, but it does constitute a right to a lawful divorce and right to remarriage at the discretion of the offended party, and the dispossession of property of the guilty party. Similarly, being caught breaking the Sabbath under the NT dispensation (The Lord's Day) for reasons other than works of piety, mercy and necessity do not carry the same OT curse, though I would argue that it is a serious matter for a communicate member of the church worthy of censure.

One of the things that people tend to discount on the theonomy position is that judicial discretion is a major factor, as the spirit of the position seeks to temper justice with mercy, and also to keep the spirit of the law in line with the letter. Recons. are not as clear on these points as they should be, and I've heard some of them talk about wresting control of the governments of pagan nations (which the U.S. essentially is) and forcing OT law on them, mostly because of this lack of clarity. And for the record, I am closer to the Reconstructionist position than I am any other commonly held position in the U.S., but the differences are pronounced enough to warrant me not identifying as one.

Debunked by Tolstoy in "What I believe" chapter 6.

Jesus did not permit divorce because of adultery.

Those words were changed from the original texts. Think about it. Why would Christ when he was right in the middle of contradicting Moses' exception for divorce, then validate that same exception? It makes no logical sense (well to anyone except the "Church Fathers" who corrupted the text)

There's greek characters in this text, pardon the funny characters. Click link for actual page.
http://great-authors.albertarose.org/leo_tolstoy/whatibelieve/chapter6.htm

Every Greek scholar will construe the passage thus: Παρεχτος (besides) λογου (the matter) πορνειας (of lewdness) ποιει (causes) αυτην (her) μοιχασθαι (to commit adultery). Therefore, the text stands word for word thus: 'He who divorces his wife, besides the sin of lewdness, causes her to commit adultery.'

We find exactly the same in the nineteenth chapter. No sooner is the incorrect translation of the word πορνεια amended, as well as that of the preposition επι, which has been translated 'for'; no sooner is the word 'lewdness' placed instead of 'adultery,' and the preposition 'by' instead of 'for'; than it grows perfectly clear that the words ει μη επι πορνεια can have no reference to the wife. And as the words παρεχτος λογου πορνειας can have no other meaning that 'besides the sin of lewdness of the husband,' so the words ει μη επι πορνεια, which we find in the nineteenth chapter, can have no reference to anything except the lewdness of the husband. It is said, ει μη επι πορνεια, which, being translated literally, is, 'if not by lewdness,' 'if not out of lewdness.' And thus the meaning is clear that Christ in this passage refutes the notion of the Pharisees that a man who put away his wife, not out of lewdness, but in order to live matrimonially with another woman, did not commit adultery; Christ says that the repudiation of a wife, even if it is not done out of lewdness, but in order to be joined in bonds of matrimony to another woman, is adultery. And thus the sense is simple, clear, perfectly consistent with the whole doctrine, and both logically and grammatically correct.

It was with the greatest difficulty that I at last discovered this clear and simple meaning of the words themselves, and their harmony with the whole doctrine of Christ. And, in truth, read the words in the German or French versions, where it is said, 'pour cause d'infidélité,' or 'à moins que cela ne soit pour cause d'infidélité,' and you will hardly be able to guess that the text has quite another meaning. The word παρεχτος, which according to all dictionaries means 'excepté,' 'ausgenommen,' is translated in the French by a whole sentence, 'à moins que cela ne soit.' The word πορνεια is translated 'infidélité,' 'Ehebruch,' 'adultery.' And on this intentional perversion of the text is based an interpretation that destroys the moral, religious, grammatical, and logical sense of Christ's words.

And once more I received a confirmation of the truth that the meaning of Christ's doctrine is simple and clear. His commandments are definite, and of the highest practical importance; but the interpretations given to us, based on a desire to justify existing evils, have so obscured His doctrine that we can with difficulty fathom its meaning. I felt convinced that had the gospel been found half burnt or half obliterated, it would have been easier to discover its true meaning than it is now; that it has suffered from such unconscientious interpretations, which have purposely concealed or distorted its true sense. In this last instance the special object of justifying the divorce of some Ivan the Terrible,[8] which thus led to the misrepresentation of the Christian doctrine of matrimony, is more obvious than in the preceding cases to which reference has been made.

No sooner are all these interpretations thrown aside than vagueness and mistiness fade away, and the second commandment of Christ rises plainly before us: 'Take no pleasure in concupiscence; let each man, if he is not a eunuch, have a wife, and each woman a husband; let a man have but one wife, and a woman one husband, and let them never under any pretext whatever dissolve their union.'
 
I highly suggest watching this entire documentary.



Sports bodies such as the IOC and FIFA have an extremely difficult time telling men and women apart. It isn't political correctness, its biology, and largely what one might consider birth defects.

Women can have XY chromosomes in every cell in their body, Men can have XX.

Sometime genitalia simply fail to develop the same way as the rest of the body.

These are much more difficult issues than one might initially assume.


OK, so let's put on our lab coats for a moment and look at this scientifically.

It is complex. Much more than a simple binary male/female. More like multiple components which are scales. People focus on the sex chromosomes, which can be tested, but even that is not an absolute.

So what is popular these days as components?

1. Chromosome gender.
2. Genital gender.
3. Sexual orientation (preferred partner).
4. Mental gender (gender identity).
5. Physical appearance gender (gender presentation).

People like to think of the first two as absolutes. In reality, as much as they seem binary as opposed to scales, there are some variations there too, albeit those would be biological abnormalities or defects.

Where people like Bruce Jenner go wrong is when they attempt to force their (5) physical appearance to match their (4) gender identity. Both of these components are on a sliding scale. A person's natural physical appearance gender (5) can be anywhere on a scale, regardless of (1) chromosome gender. For those near the middle of the scale (androgynous), there is latitude for them to choose which they prefer. And in cases where a person naturally has a (5) physical appearance gender which is opposite of their (1) chromosome gender, there is really no "transition" necessary. This would be your more common transgender person, i.e. someone who already naturally had the opposite appearance (i.e. a very masculine, yet chromosome gender female, or a very feminine, yet chromosome gender male). These people pass unnoticed in society. There is no public controversy about their appearance. No one knows.

But in cases like Jenner, he does not have that latitude. He is masculine in appearance, and nothing will change that. He is too far over on the scale to be anything else. No amount of surgery or hormones will make him appear female. If one is pragmatic about this, Jenner would be a case where a person has a gender identity that does not match their physical appearance, and there is nothing wrong with that. We have broken this up into components, and there are no set rules as to which components have to go together. If society is truly accepting and understanding of these variations and abnormalities, Jenner should be accepted as someone with a mental gender identity of female, and a physical appearance of male. By forcing his physical appearance, it's like he is still trying to conform to set societal norms, and maybe even shallow fashion sense.

Perhaps acceptance doesn't just apply to our modern, all-inclusive and understanding society. Perhaps it also applies to people like Jenner accepting things about themselves that can not be changed.
 
1. Debunked by Tolstoy in "What I believe" chapter 6.

2. Jesus did not permit divorce because of adultery.

3. Those words were changed from the original texts. Think about it. Why would Christ when he was right in the middle of contradicting Moses' exception for divorce, then validate that same exception? It makes no logical sense (well to anyone except the "Church Fathers" who corrupted the text)

4. There's greek characters in this text, pardon the funny characters. Click link for actual page.
http://great-authors.albertarose.org/leo_tolstoy/whatibelieve/chapter6.htm

1. I couldn't care less what Leo Tolstoy believes on any subject, let alone the important one of biblical law. He could be rightly viewed as a fore-runner to Russian anarchism, an ally of the Red Bolshevik Army. Not exactly what I'd call a reputable source.

2. Matthew 5:31-32 couldn't be any clearer on the subject. What is being talked about by Jesus is "no fault divorce", as it states "saving for the cause of fornication", ergo unfaithfulness. People are not free to just get an arbitrary writ of divorce, which was contrary to the spirit of the Mosaic Law on this matter, and this is further unpacked in Mark 10:2-12 where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for failing to mention the qualification for the standard of OT divorce, namely "adultery". The notion of men simply divorcing their wives because they feel like it is what is in view, which is what many of the Pharisees were doing (and was probably the inspiration for Mohammed's position) not a requirement to stay married to a serial fornicator, male or female, in contradiction to the spirit of the 7th commandment. Paul further gets into the spirit of what a faithful marriage actually entails in Ephesians 5:33, though I guess he doesn't count as usual, eh?

3. Because the Pharisees were breaking the law by following part of it while playing dumb about the rest of it. A good way of understanding Jesus' relationship to the OT law is to refer back to Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Jesus was not changing laws around just to incite the Pharisees, he was rebuking them for hypocrisy, hence his lengthy speech in Matthew 23 with the refrain of "Woe unto you, Pharisees and scribes, hypocrites".

4. I am well familiar with the original Greek text, though I am not fluent to the point of being able to read the entire Septuagint. Your argument here is essentially a non-argument that conflates a lawful marriage being kept in faithfulness to a dead one replete with adultery that is, in spirit, already dissolved on the account of one party. A wife or husband may choose to stay and suffer the hatred of a cheating spouse, but they are not bound by law to do so. The translation of Matthew 5:32 that you have offered is identical in meaning to the one in the King James Version, it just has a few synonymous words switched around.
 
OK, please help me out here. Is this some sort of fancy poo-throne, or is this perhaps a king's or pope's rig for receiving covert rim-jobs while seated in office... erm... "discharging" his duties? The keyhole slot seems to suggest it doubles for teabag action. Am I mistaken?

Yes, it was to make sure the new pope had 2 balls. Someone had to reach under there and count them.
 
Get a sense of humor and thanks for the neg rep...gotcha back and I don't generally neg rep. News flash...it's the internet..people are going to make jokes and have opinions. Apparently you allow it to color your world.

You and some other guys are missing the point. Look, we are on the same team here so don't treat me like a jerk for being honest. When you make disgusting or hate-filled remarks like that you make ALL OF US look terrible. That deserves a negative rep.

Don't whine about your actions having some push back. Remember, we are on the same team. I've come to terms with the fact that a lot of people in the liberty movement don't agree with me on everything, and most of the time I'm fine with dissenting opinions. Like you said, people are going to make jokes and have opinions. Whatever.

But this is a public forum I actively encourage people to frequent in order to get an idea of who liberty lovers are and to have rational discourse with. It's one thing to criticize Santorum for flip-flopping, but saying, "Oh why doesn't he just come out of the closet already and shove a big dick in his face while we are at it!" is both childish and I don't believe belongs in a place where we take each other seriously.

Furthermore:
Except you have absolutely no objective basis to say that the 21st century is better, or that homos or transgenders should be "accepted". Absolutely none.

What in the world are you talking about? I have every right to say that the 21st Century has been better for equality in the U.S. Than any other. In 37 states partners can now actually visit each other in the hospital when they are ill--they couldn't before because they were not family, i.e. Married. People can actually come out and be less afraid than in any other time in American history. One of my favorite game designers for years feigned a physical illness as a reason for her business shutting down, because she was too embarrassed to come out as transgendered out of fear. In this day and age, she can actually be the person she is and the gaming community is so much richer for it.

I understand there is some weird anti-gay thing in the religious community(my wife is an ex-evangelical), but in all honesty I see it more as an excuse to protect "the status quo" than anything religious, since there are ample examples of items evangelicals don't care about that are in scripture and only a couple references to sexual orientation. But again, we are all in this together in the fight for liberty. I don't want you to mistake criticism for me thinking you are a bad person.

But if you truly are a lover of liberty, of belief in the supremacy of the individual and of the Golden Rule, then I don't see how you could be for State Descrimination of gay, lesbian and transgendered couples.

And if you disagree, that's okay. Let's talk about it.

But this is the kind of discussion we should be having.
 
Last edited:
As a student of the Covenanter/Steelite position, I accept the general position of theonomy, but I have some issues with how broadly the Reconstructionists tend to apply it. There are certain Judicial Laws in the OT that have Ceremonial functions, but are treated as purely natural/moral statutes by the Recon. camp. For instance, the death penalty is only required for those proven guilty of capitol murder, whereas much of the other offenses in question (excluding bold, open, unrepentant heresy, which constitutes a direct attack on the church, as was the case with Michael Servetus) are only capitol offenses in more extremely aggravated cases.

I've heard some recons advocate the possibility of mitigating the death penalty for certain crimes. I lean against this view but I don't know enough Hebrew [namely: I don't know any Hebrew at all] to have a strong opinion on it.
For example, adultery is not a capitol offense under the New Testament, but it does constitute a right to a lawful divorce and right to remarriage at the discretion of the offended party, and the dispossession of property of the guilty party.

I disagree with this. I believe adultery should be a capital offense. Of course, there have to be two witnesses and both the man and woman have to be known. And of course, the mentality of our current government would need to change dramatically before this could even be a possibility. The current government has a mentality of trying to make sure that every crime is punished. Under Biblical jurisprudence a crime needs to be reported by witnesses before anything can be done about it. So, the government wouldn't be actively looking for adulterers, but if there were witnesses to an adultery, that can be a capital offense. (I know that some recons believe that the victim has the right to ask for a lesser penalty. Even if this is an option, the victim should still have the option to ask for capital punishment. I'm very new to theonomy so I don't know everything yet.)

Similarly, being caught breaking the Sabbath under the NT dispensation (The Lord's Day) for reasons other than works of piety, mercy and necessity do not carry the same OT curse, though I would argue that it is a serious matter for a communicate member of the church worthy of censure.

Most theonomists are sabbatarian, but I'm actually not per Romans 14:5 and Colossians 2:16.
One of the things that people tend to discount on the theonomy position is that judicial discretion is a major factor, as the spirit of the position seeks to temper justice with mercy, and also to keep the spirit of the law in line with the letter.

I've seen these issues starting to be discussed in recon facebook groups.

Recons. are not as clear on these points as they should be, and I've heard some of them talk about wresting control of the governments of pagan nations (which the U.S. essentially is) and forcing OT law on them, mostly because of this lack of clarity.

I don't really see a problem with this. God's laws are more just than any others that can exist, so they should be implemented across the board. What I would disagree with is theonomists in one country (or locality in a federalist system) trying to force people of another country/locality to implement theonomic law, even though they should.

And for the record, I am closer to the Reconstructionist position than I am any other commonly held position in the U.S., but the differences are pronounced enough to warrant me not identifying as one.

Fair enough :)
 
What in the world are you talking about? I have every right to say that the 21st Century has been better for equality in the U.S. Than any other. In 37 states partners can now actually visit each other in the hospital when they are ill--they couldn't before because they were not family, i.e. Married. People can actually come out and be less afraid than in any other time in American history. One of my favorite game designers for years feigned a physical illness as a reason for her business shutting down, because she was too embarrassed to come out as transgendered out of fear. In this day and age, she can actually be the person she is and the gaming community is so much richer for it.

Why is it a good thing for people to be able to do things like this?

I understand there is some weird anti-gay thing in the religious community(my wife is an ex-evangelical), but in all honesty I see it more as an excuse to protect "the status quo" than anything religious, since there are ample examples of items evangelicals don't care about that are in scripture and only a couple references to sexual orientation. But again, we are all in this together in the fight for liberty. I don't want you to mistake criticism for me thinking you are a bad person.


But if you truly are a lover of liberty, of belief in the supremacy of the individual and of the Golden Rule, then I don't see how you could be for State Descrimination of gay, lesbian and transgendered couples.


And if you disagree, that's okay. Let's talk about it.


But this is the kind of discussion we should be having

I believe in Biblical Law, which is compatible with libertarianism on many points, but not on this one. I also don't really see "progress" as such a good thing.
 
1. I couldn't care less what Leo Tolstoy believes on any subject, let alone the important one of biblical law. He could be rightly viewed as a fore-runner to Russian anarchism, an ally of the Red Bolshevik Army. Not exactly what I'd call a reputable source.

2. Matthew 5:31-32 couldn't be any clearer on the subject. What is being talked about by Jesus is "no fault divorce", as it states "saving for the cause of fornication", ergo unfaithfulness. People are not free to just get an arbitrary writ of divorce, which was contrary to the spirit of the Mosaic Law on this matter, and this is further unpacked in Mark 10:2-12 where Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for failing to mention the qualification for the standard of OT divorce, namely "adultery". The notion of men simply divorcing their wives because they feel like it is what is in view, which is what many of the Pharisees were doing (and was probably the inspiration for Mohammed's position) not a requirement to stay married to a serial fornicator, male or female, in contradiction to the spirit of the 7th commandment. Paul further gets into the spirit of what a faithful marriage actually entails in Ephesians 5:33, though I guess he doesn't count as usual, eh?

3. Because the Pharisees were breaking the law by following part of it while playing dumb about the rest of it. A good way of understanding Jesus' relationship to the OT law is to refer back to Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Jesus was not changing laws around just to incite the Pharisees, he was rebuking them for hypocrisy, hence his lengthy speech in Matthew 23 with the refrain of "Woe unto you, Pharisees and scribes, hypocrites".

4. I am well familiar with the original Greek text, though I am not fluent to the point of being able to read the entire Septuagint. Your argument here is essentially a non-argument that conflates a lawful marriage being kept in faithfulness to a dead one replete with adultery that is, in spirit, already dissolved on the account of one party. A wife or husband may choose to stay and suffer the hatred of a cheating spouse, but they are not bound by law to do so. The translation of Matthew 5:32 that you have offered is identical in meaning to the one in the King James Version, it just has a few synonymous words switched around.

I'm well aware that you don't care about how the "Church Fathers" have corrupted Jesus' words. You support their efforts and brag about what "school of thought" you hail from.

My post was for people who are confused by Jesus seeming to contradict himself. I don't think he did. I think it is just as Tolstoy said in my post above.

I'm in the middle of a divorce. I think the marriage was dead. I think the circumstances would allow me to divorce based on your teachings and the teachings of the "blessed church fathers".

But unlike some people I don't try to mangle Christ's teachings to justify my own way of life. You know like how you said in the other thread that Jesus would be OK with political lying to win elections.
 
You and some other guys are missing the point. Look, we are on the same team here so don't treat me like a jerk for being honest. When you make disgusting or hate-filled remarks like that you make ALL OF US look terrible. That deserves a negative rep.

Don't whine about your actions having some push back. Remember, we are on the same team. I've come to terms with the fact that a lot of people in the liberty movement don't agree with me on everything, and most of the time I'm fine with dissenting opinions. Like you said, people are going to make jokes and have opinions. Whatever.

But this is a public forum I actively encourage people to frequent in order to get an idea of who liberty lovers are and to have rational discourse with. It's one thing to criticize Santorum for flip-flopping, but saying, "Oh why doesn't he just come out of the closet already and shove a big dick in his face while we are at it!" is both childish and I don't believe belongs in a place where we take each other seriously.

Furthermore:


What in the world are you talking about? I have every right to say that the 21st Century has been better for equality in the U.S. Than any other. In 37 states partners can now actually visit each other in the hospital when they are ill--they couldn't before because they were not family, i.e. Married. People can actually come out and be less afraid than in any other time in American history. One of my favorite game designers for years feigned a physical illness as a reason for her business shutting down, because she was too embarrassed to come out as transgendered out of fear. In this day and age, she can actually be the person she is and the gaming community is so much richer for it.

I understand there is some weird anti-gay thing in the religious community(my wife is an ex-evangelical), but in all honesty I see it more as an excuse to protect "the status quo" than anything religious, since there are ample examples of items evangelicals don't care about that are in scripture and only a couple references to sexual orientation. But again, we are all in this together in the fight for liberty. I don't want you to mistake criticism for me thinking you are a bad person.

But if you truly are a lover of liberty, of belief in the supremacy of the individual and of the Golden Rule, then I don't see how you could be for State Descrimination of gay, lesbian and transgendered couples.

And if you disagree, that's okay. Let's talk about it.

But this is the kind of discussion we should be having.



First of all, I am not a guy. Second of all I am not anti- gay, anti-trans gender et al. My comment about Graham was a freaking joke. If you don't like what I said, tough darts. I'm not here to tow the line.
 
Last edited:
Christianity is a relativist morality.

Without God, there is no objective morality, according to the Bible.

Good is defined as that which a single entity does. Whatever God does is good. That is the definition. It is never defined as God does what is good because "good is these things:"

Otherwise God could be judged on his actions. Christianity clearly refutes any ability to judge God on his actions.

These are all basic elements of relativist moralities.

People tie themselves into huge theological knots pretending things are otherwise.
 
Christianity is a relativist morality.

Without God, there is no objective morality, according to the Bible.

Good is defined as that which a single entity does. Whatever God does is good. That is the definition. It is never defined as God does what is good because "good is these things:"

Otherwise God could be judged on his actions. Christianity clearly refutes any ability to judge God on his actions.

These are all basic elements of relativist moralities.

People tie themselves into huge theological knots pretending things are otherwise.

God does what is good, because good is defined as what God pleases. It isn't circular unless you impose that language.

However, from a human's perspective, it can seem very relative. That is why the Bible constantly emphasizes wisdom and judgement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top