Hillary Clinton vs Ted Cruz vs Bernie Sanders vs Donald Trump

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

I'll do my best to help you find your way out of this godless cult.

Pretty funny. What a pathetic "effort" you gave to save me from what is as serious as a "godless cult".

Your half-hearted attempt to answer shows you don't even have the fainest idea of what the categories of the debate are!

I'm not going to do your homework for you. When you actually give a coherent answer in complete sentences I will reply.

I noticed that you left the gist of my post out of your reply.

If you can explain what Libertarian doctrine is and how it coincides with God's Word, I'd love to hear it.

 

[cellist]

I noticed that you left the gist of my post out of your reply.

Are you kidding me? There was no "gist" of your post. When I wrote,

When libertarians say "self ownership" they are not referring to one's rights as they pertain to God, but as they pertain to other people, especially governments.

you then gave me a quote from someone else and didn't specify the point of the quote. You then wrote an incomplete sentence that I couldn't figure out at all.

To this,

Self ownership is axiomatic because one cannot argue against it without presupposing it. In other words, if you argue against self ownership, you are asserting your right to your own thoughts, and presumably, asserting the right of your opponent to his or her own thoughts. Asserting the right to your own thoughts is asserting self ownership.

you wrote,

Don't confuse free choice (will) with the Libertarian self ownership principle. God gives us free choice (will), but never says to make the wrong choices.

which has absolutely nothing to do with what I said and shows you don't understand the categories of the debate. That is why I wrote I'm not going to do your homework for you.

If you can explain what Libertarian doctrine is and how it coincides with God's Word, I'd love to hear it.

I certainly can and will after you answer my two points I made in my first post.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I certainly can and will after you answer my two points I made in my first post.

You identify yourself as a Libertarian yet won't define what Libertarian doctrine is.

The Libertarian Party speaks for the Libertarian movement when they stated the following in their Party's Platform:

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others...

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."
http://www.lp.org/platform

The platform goes on to talk about issues such as abortion, homosexuality, prostitution and recreational drug use, saying that government should be left out of those things (i.e. legalizing or keeping them legal).

Agree with it or don't. If you don't agree with it tell me what Libertarian doctrine entails and specifically how it coincides with God's Word (you can't, but it'll be fun watching you attempt to).

Libertarianism is not about "thoughts", it's about actions. So don't even attempt to use your earlier stance that stated:

Self ownership is axiomatic because one cannot argue against it without presupposing it. In other words, if you argue against self ownership, you are asserting your right to your own thoughts, and presumably, asserting the right of your opponent to his or her own thoughts. Asserting the right to your own thoughts is asserting self ownership.

Donald Trump has a very strong Libertarian streak in him, hence the reason I'm pursuing this conversation.

 

[patrick jane]

Trump Takes The Night -

 

[cellist]

You identify yourself as a Libertarian yet won't define what Libertarian doctrine is.

I don't have a problem with the quote you gave from the libertarian party. What's the problem?

I am a pro-life libertarian, as are many others including Ron Paul.

I believe, as John Locke said eloquently in his Two Treatises on Government, that "Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself." It is the basis for a free society in which no person is permitted to own or consider another as their property, including the government, especially the government.

As I mentioned in my first post, self ownership is a right as it pertains to other people, not God. Only God has ownership over us. God does not exercise his ownership over us via the government (theocracy). Their is no Christian theocracy. The Scriptures make a very clear distinction between the Kingdom of man and the Kingdom of God.

My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight...(John 18:36)

God exercises his ownership over us within the context of his church through his word, not through civil magistrates (thanks to God for that!).

If self ownership is accepted, then drug use, prostitution, etc would not be illegal, though sinful.

Libertarianism is not about "thoughts", it's about actions. So don't even attempt to use your earlier stance that stated

Oh brother. Now I have a headache. I just don't understand why people bother to debate something when they haven't put in the time to do their own homework. Are you listening? Self ownership has everything to do with our thoughts. Having a right to believe what my conscience dictates is an application of self ownership. Got it?

Now, stop evading my point. You can't argue against self ownership without presupposing it because in arguing your point, you are affirming your right to hold to an opinion contrary to mine (i.e. you cannot be my property). So...let's hear a response to it.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
You identify yourself as a Libertarian yet won't define what Libertarian doctrine is.

I don't have a problem with the quote you gave from the libertarian party. What's the problem?

So we both agree that the Libertarian Party Platform defines what Libertarian doctrine entails?

"As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others...

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."
http://www.lp.org/platform

I am a pro-life libertarian, as are many others including Ron Paul.

Ah yes, Ron Paul's make believe world where he supports a culture of death (the legalization of homosexuality, recreational drugs, prostitution, etc.) yet thinks that people who support such legislation are going to want to protect unborn human life.

Newsflash: Things don't work that way in the real world.

I believe, as John Locke said eloquently in his Two Treatises on Government, that "Every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has a right to, but himself." It is the basis for a free society in which no person is permitted to own or consider another as their property, including the government, especially the government.

If you can show where Locke supported immoral behavior, please do. Otherwise I'll have to go with David Barton's article that praises John Locke for his Christian ethics.

John Locke – A Philosophical Founder of America
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=99156

As I mentioned in my first post, self ownership is a right as it pertains to other people, not God. Only God has ownership over us. God does not exercise his ownership over us via the government (theocracy). Their is no Christian theocracy. The Scriptures make a very clear distinction between the Kingdom of man and the Kingdom of God.

And I mentioned that God gives us free will, i.e. the choice to do as we please, but nowhere does He say that we should make the wrong choices. Hence the reason for civil government: to correct wrong doers.

God exercises his ownership over us within the context of his church through his word, not through civil magistrates (thanks to God for that!).

Yet He defines the role of civil government as seen in Romans 13:4 and numerous other passages.

If self ownership is accepted, then drug use, prostitution, etc would not be illegal, though sinful.

Not sinful based on civil laws. The Church (thank goodness) has no authority to punish those who do evil, that's the role of civil government.

If you believe that civil government has a different role than to do good and punish evil, then I'd love to hear it.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Libertarianism is not about "thoughts", it's about actions. So don't even attempt to use your earlier stance that stated:

Self ownership is axiomatic because one cannot argue against it without presupposing it...

Oh brother. Now I have a headache. I just don't understand why people bother to debate something when they haven't put in the time to do their own homework. Are you listening? Self ownership has everything to do with our thoughts. Having a right to believe what my conscience dictates is an application of self ownership. Got it?

You can have all the immoral thoughts that you want (rape, murder, armed robbery), but government won't do anything until you act on them. The Libertarian movement is not a movement that "thinks" about the legalization of abortion, homosexuality, pornography, prostitution and recreational drugs, they have a political party and platform that wants those things legal so that people who engage in those immoral behaviors aren't punished for doing so (and in the long run helped).

 

[Town Heretic]

It's gonna be Trump-Clinton, the two parties are just gonna merge and then there'll only be one choice.

It'll be easier that way.

Will there be one of those catchy, celebrity nickname combos, like Trinton...no, that would make Christie too comfortable. Trumpton...Clump?

 

[cellist]

So we both agree that the Libertarian Party Platform defines what Libertarian doctrine entails?

I have no problem with that quote.

Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."
http://www.lp.org/platform

Yes, any activity that is peaceful and honest. Interesting you didn't underline that next clause. Did you think i wouldn't notice?

Ah yes, Ron Paul's make believe world where he supports a culture of death (the legalization of homosexuality, recreational drugs, prostitution, etc.) yet thinks that people who support such legislation are going to want to protect unborn human life.

Newsflash: Things don't work that way in the real world.

This just shows that you have absolutely no idea what libertarianism is.

If you can show where Locke supported immoral behavior, please do. Otherwise I'll have to go with David Barton's article that praises John Locke for his Christian ethics.

John Locke – A Philosophical Founder of America
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=99156

Where did this come from? I quoted John Locke regarding self ownership and you evade again.

And I mentioned that God gives us free will, i.e. the choice to do as we please, but nowhere does He say that we should make the wrong choices. Hence the reason for civil government: to correct wrong doers.

And where do you draw the line? You single out certain sins arbitrarily but God forbids a whole array of activities. Someone can just as easily say that God condemns the protestant church, so the government should "correct the wrong choices" of those poor misguided evangelicals and make it illegal to open an evangelical church. You set up a very dangerous precedent and what I describe IS something that happened in the real world in England. Every read about the separatists and puritans??

Yet He defines the role of civil government as seen in Romans 13:4 and numerous other passages.

If you believe that civil government has a different role than to do good and punish evil, then I'd love to hear it.

Paul in that passage does not specifically enumerate what he considers the "evil" that government must punish. Given that a theocracy is incompatible with the teachings of Jesus (and you conveniently ignored the quote of Jesus in John I provided), in which God's ownership of us is exercises through the government, "evil" can mean actions that violate the rights of others (i.e. murder, theft, fraud, rape, assault, for example).

You can have all the immoral thoughts that you want (rape, murder, armed robbery), but government won't do anything until you act on them. The Libertarian movement is not a movement that "thinks" about the legalization of abortion, homosexuality, pornography, prostitution and recreational drugs, they have a political party and platform that wants those things legal so that people who engage in those immoral behaviors aren't punished for doing so (and in the long run helped).

You really are not getting the argument I am making. I am saying that you and I have the right to our own thoughts or ideas. That is part of self ownership. In disagreeing with me you are actually presupposing self ownership over your own thoughts. If we can agree on self ownership, we can then discuss the proper application of that concept.

So here is the million dollar question: Do you agree with the concept of self-ownership or don't you?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So we both agree that the Libertarian Party Platform defines what Libertarian doctrine entails?

I have no problem with that quote.

Hence you would have no problem with the Libertarian Party Platform and legislation that it embraces?

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Consequently, we defend each person's right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power."
http://www.lp.org/platform

Yes, any activity that is peaceful and honest. Interesting you didn't underline that next clause. Did you think i wouldn't notice?

Tell me what is so "peaceful and honest" about homosexuality, prostitution, pornography and recreational drug use.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Ah yes, Ron Paul's make believe world where he supports a culture of death (the legalization of homosexuality, recreational drugs, prostitution, etc.) yet thinks that people who support such legislation are going to want to protect unborn human life.

Newsflash: Things don't work that way in the real world.

This just shows that you have absolutely no idea what libertarianism is.

"Self ownership", i.e. "It's MY body and I can do with it as I damn well please!"

Besides, if a country criminalizes abortion, that would make them (drum roll...)

"A Christian theocracy." (Oh how I love to mock Libertarians).


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
If you can show where Locke supported immoral behavior, please do. Otherwise I'll have to go with David Barton's article that praises John Locke for his Christian ethics.

John Locke – A Philosophical Founder of America
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissue...s.asp?id=99156

Where did this come from? I quoted John Locke regarding self ownership and you evade again.

I simply refuted the Libertarian lie that John Locke was one of them. Why not try the Thomas Jefferson quote: "If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket..." I just love that one.



Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarriorn

And I mentioned that God gives us free will, i.e. the choice to do as we please, but nowhere does He say that we should make the wrong choices. Hence the reason for civil government: to correct wrong doers.

And where do you draw the line? You single out certain sins arbitrarily but God forbids a whole array of activities. Someone can just as easily say that God condemns the protestant church, so the government should "correct the wrong choices" of those poor misguided evangelicals and make it illegal to open an evangelical church. You set up a very dangerous precedent and what I describe IS something that happened in the real world in England. Every read about the separatists and puritans??

So if government outlaws harmful behaviors such as homosexuality, prostitution and recreational drug use, they have to outlaw religious liberty as well?


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarriorYet He defines the role of civil government as seen in Romans 13:4 and numerous other passages.

If you believe that civil government has a different role than to do good and punish evil, then I'd love to hear it.

Paul in that passage does not specifically enumerate what he considers the "evil" that government must punish. Given that a theocracy is incompatible with the teachings of Jesus (and you conveniently ignored the quote of Jesus in John I provided), in which God's ownership of us is exercises through the government, "evil" can mean actions that violate the rights of others (i.e. murder, theft, fraud, rape, assault, for example).

Obviously you seem to think that Jesus is an anarchist (that He didn't believe in the rule of law). You also seem to think that using righteous laws to punish (and thus help in the longrun) morally confused people (homosexuals, pornographers, recreational drug users, etc.) is somehow a "violation of their rights". Who gave these morally confused people the supposed "rights" to partake in immoral activity? Certainly God hasn't.



Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
You can have all the immoral thoughts that you want (rape, murder, armed robbery), but government won't do anything until you act on them. The Libertarian movement is not a movement that "thinks" about the legalization of abortion, homosexuality, pornography, prostitution and recreational drugs, they have a political party and platform that wants those things legal so that people who engage in those immoral behaviors aren't punished for doing so (and in the long run helped).

You really are not getting the argument I am making. I am saying that you and I have the right to our own thoughts or ideas. That is part of self ownership. In disagreeing with me you are actually presupposing self ownership over your own thoughts. If we can agree on self ownership, we can then discuss the proper application of that concept.

Again, thoughts can't be and shouldn't be suppressed by government, only actions can.

So here is the million dollar question: Do you agree with the concept of self-ownership or don't you?

As I've stated before: God gives us free will, i.e. the ability to choose right from wrong. Civil government was ordained by God to punish people who make the wrong decisions in certain matters.

BTW: Which political party candidate are you backing in the upcoming Presidential election and why?

 

[patrick jane]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Tell me what is so "peaceful and honest" about homosexuality, prostitution, pornography and recreational drug use.

Lay off the honest porn

 

[ok doser]

Tell me what is so "peaceful and honest" about ... recreational drug use.

:cheers:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Tell me what is so "peaceful and honest" about ... recreational drug use.

:cheers:

Because if it's legal to have a glass of wine with dinner, by golly it should be legal to shoot heroin for dessert.

 

[cellist]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So we both agree that the Libertarian Party Platform defines what Libertarian doctrine entails? Hence you would have no problem with the Libertarian Party Platform and legislation that it embraces?

That is correct. I do take issue with them on abortion, however. I am a pro-life libertarian as are many others.

To be honest, I am wondering how worth it is of my time to debate you. You will not address most of my points. You haven't addressed the issue of self ownership. Do you or don't you agree? You didn't answer my argument that self ownership is axiomatic. If you need to look up that word, please do so. I refuse to do your homework for you.

You didn't answer my question where you draw the line regarding which sins in God's Word the government should punish. There are a whole lot of sins enumerated in Scripture. Which one's should be illegal? I accused you of being arbitrary in singling out a narrow range of sins such as homosexuality and pornography. Using your logic, someone could just as easily say that Roman Catholicism is sinful because they worship the host (bread) and idolatry is a great affront to God and even violates the second commandment, so let's make Roman Catholicism illegal. Your logic is exactly what the Anglicans and the Roman Catholics used in England in their persecution of other Christian sects. So if you want real world examples, I just gave you one. So please give a coherent answer to that point.

But my point of using religious freedom as an extension of your logic is to show why allowing people to exercise ownership over themselves is so very important. Once you set up the precedent that government is there to punish sins that do not directly infringe on others freedoms, I don't see logically what can prevent a government from outlawing certain religions. Right now, in the United States, we have a situation where the self ownership of the individual is denied by our government in so many areas and look where were are headed; Christians risk being sent to jail because they refuse to provide services for homosexual weddings. Catholics had to take the Obama administration to the Supreme Court to block the mandate in Obamacare to provide insurance for abortions. Once the precedent is set, it only gets worse, and history bears this out. SO you may see my ideas as being godless, but I see your ideas as setting up a dangerous precedent in governmental powers. But sadly you, and many others on this forum, are too shortsighted to see where ideas lead. You just seem incapable of seeing past your arbitrary fixation on certain sins. I am looking into the logical extension of ideas and where they lead. Ideas have consequences, IN THE REAL WORLD.

Tell me what is so "peaceful and honest" about homosexuality, prostitution, pornography and recreational drug use.

This is not a statement on the morality or spirituality of these acts. Obviously, from a spiritual perspective, they result in death and so are not peaceful. Peaceful means that no one is coerced to perform them nor do they violate the rights of others. "Honest" simply means there is no fraud committed.

"Self ownership", i.e. "It's MY body and I can do with it as I damn well please!"

That's a straw man argument. Obviously I can't point a gun at someone and shoot for no reason, I can't force someone to be my slave, I can't misrepresent myself (fraud), I can't steal someone's car, etc, etc... Why? because in doing those things I violate others' property (in themselves and possessions).

Besides, if a country criminalizes abortion, that would make them (drum roll...)

"A Christian theocracy." (Oh how I love to mock Libertarians).

This is exhausting. Seriously?? You aren't mocking anything but logic. You can't see that killing a pre-born infant is treating another as your property, to be disposed of like trash? This is something that goes against every principle in libertarian thought. Really bad example! You'll have to do a lot better if you wish to save me from my godless cult.

I simply refuted the Libertarian lie that John Locke was one of them.

I never said that John Locke was a libertarian. I don't know if he would be a libertarian in every sense of the word. It doesn't matter to me. But he would be very close. My point in quoting him, if you look back, was because I thought he expressed self ownership very eloquently. I am still waiting to hear if you agree with John Locke or not, that "Every man has a property in his own person." Avoid, avoid, avoid...

Obviously you seem to think that Jesus is an anarchist (that He didn't believe in the rule of law). You also seem to think that using righteous laws to punish (and thus help in the longrun) morally confused people (homosexuals, pornographers, recreational drug users, etc.) is somehow a "violation of their rights". Who gave these morally confused people the supposed "rights" to partake in immoral activity? Certainly God hasn't.

This one is laughable. Right after I say that murder, stealing, fraud, etc. should be illegal you accuse me of saying that Jesus is anarchist! Pretty funny.

Regarding rights - You are a classic example of someone who confuses the Scriptural distinction of the Kingdoms; the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of man. We live, as Christians, in both kingdoms. We have rights in the Kingdom of man that we don't have in the Kingdom of God. I have the right in the Kingdom of man (or at least I should have) to reject Christ and even try to convince others to give up their faith. Do you agree I have that right? From what you said it sounded like you defend religious freedom. If so, you agree that we have different rights depending of what Kingdom we are talking about; God's and man's.

BTW: Which political party candidate are you backing in the upcoming Presidential election and why?

For me it is picking the lesser of evils. For the primaries I am supporting Cruz because he is preferable to Trump. If it comes between Trump and Clinton, I may have to sit it out. Between Cruz and Clinton - probably Cruz. Between Cruz, Trump, and Clinton, Trump and Clinton are among the worst offenders of the principles I have been defending to you. Trump is especially offensive. I can't vote for the libertarian candidate because he is pro-choice.

But I have to say I find your arguments to be based primarily on emotion, completely arbitrary, lacking in depth, and failing to take into account their logical conclusions. I would say you are utterly failing to rescue me!

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
So we both agree that the Libertarian Party Platform defines what Libertarian doctrine entails? Hence you would have no problem with the Libertarian Party Platform and legislation that it embraces?

That is correct. I do take issue with them on abortion, however. I am a pro-life libertarian as are many others.

Yet you support the Libertarian Party's culture of death. Do you have any idea how many people have died and lives have been destroyed since homosexuality was decriminalized? The same goes with other sexual sins and recreational drug use. How can you acknowledge Jesus's 2nd greatest commandment when you won't even stand for laws that embrace decency?

To be honest, I am wondering how worth it is of my time to debate you.

You are a very strange bird cellist. I've debated many on the doctrine of Libertarianism, but rarely someone who tries to use Christianity while defending secular humanism.

You will not address most of my points. You haven't addressed the issue of self ownership. Do you or don't you agree? You didn't answer my argument that self ownership is axiomatic. If you need to look up that word, please do so. I refuse to do your homework for you.

What part of "God gives man free will to choose but not to make the wrong decisions" do you not understand? Again: That is why a righteous civil government is so important: because man will make the wrong choices and needs to be lead down the path of righteousness when doing so.

You didn't answer my question where you draw the line regarding which sins in God's Word the government should punish. There are a whole lot of sins enumerated in Scripture. Which one's should be illegal?

Note how God doesn't punish those who are gluttons, but issued the death penalty for certain sexual sins. Do you think that it's a coincidence that civil government has punished sexual sinners (homosexuality, incest, bestiality, adultery, pornography) up until a few decades ago?

I accused you of being arbitrary in singling out a narrow range of sins such as homosexuality and pornography. Using your logic, someone could just as easily say that Roman Catholicism is sinful because they worship the host (bread) and idolatry is a great affront to God and even violates the second commandment, so let's make Roman Catholicism illegal. Your logic is exactly what the Anglicans and the Roman Catholics used in England in their persecution of other Christian sects. So if you want real world examples, I just gave you one. So please give a coherent answer to that point.

You're comparing filthy behaviors with spiritual doctrine. Once again, that is a terrible analogy.

But my point of using religious freedom as an extension of your logic is to show why allowing people to exercise ownership over themselves is so very important. Once you set up the precedent that government is there to punish sins that do not directly infringe on others freedoms, I don't see logically what can prevent a government from outlawing certain religions. Right now, in the United States, we have a situation where the self ownership of the individual is denied by our government in so many areas and look where were are headed; Christians risk being sent to jail because they refuse to provide services for homosexual weddings. Catholics had to take the Obama administration to the Supreme Court to block the mandate in Obamacare to provide insurance for abortions. Once the precedent is set, it only gets worse, and history bears this out. SO you may see my ideas as being godless, but I see your ideas as setting up a dangerous precedent in governmental powers. But sadly you, and many others on this forum, are too shortsighted to see where ideas lead. You just seem incapable of seeing past your arbitrary fixation on certain sins. I am looking into the logical extension of ideas and where they lead. Ideas have consequences, IN THE REAL WORLD.

Wow, you are amazing. At first you defend immoral behaviors stating that they should be legalized, and now you're going the other direction and stating that government is misusing it's power (which it is). Which side of this issue are you on?


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Tell me what is so "peaceful and honest" about homosexuality, prostitution, pornography and recreational drug use.

This is not a statement on the morality or spirituality of these acts.

All civil laws reflect someone's worldview of morality.

Obviously, from a spiritual perspective, they result in death and so are not peaceful. Peaceful means that no one is coerced to perform them nor do they violate the rights of others. "Honest" simply means there is no fraud committed.

So all behaviors should be permitted (legal) as long as they are 'consensual' and no deception is involved?

This is where you get to defend consensual incestuous relationships, between an adult daughter and her father (did I mention that I just love putting Libertarians on the spot?).

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
"Self ownership", i.e. "It's MY body and I can do with it as I damn well please!"

That's a straw man argument. Obviously I can't point a gun at someone and shoot for no reason, I can't force someone to be my slave, I can't misrepresent myself (fraud), I can't steal someone's car, etc, etc... Why? because in doing those things I violate others' property (in themselves and possessions).

And again: Where do these supposed "rights" to commit immoral acts come from? If you're claiming that because God gave us free will (self ownership) you're wrong. No where in the Bible does it say that man has a right to sin. No where in the founding documents of the United States will you find that either.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Besides, if a country criminalizes abortion, that would make them (drum roll...)

"A Christian theocracy." (Oh how I love to mock Libertarians).

This is exhausting. Seriously?? You aren't mocking anything but logic. You can't see that killing a pre-born infant is treating another as your property, to be disposed of like trash? This is something that goes against every principle in libertarian thought. Really bad example! You'll have to do a lot better if you wish to save me from my godless cult.

So now you're saying that man has "self ownership" but with restrictions. Surely you're not implying that making the wrong choices in life are harmful to others are you cellist?

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Obviously you seem to think that Jesus is an anarchist (that He didn't believe in the rule of law). You also seem to think that using righteous laws to punish (and thus help in the long run) morally confused people (homosexuals, pornographers, recreational drug users, etc.) is somehow a "violation of their rights". Who gave these morally confused people the supposed "rights" to partake in immoral activity? Certainly God hasn't.

This one is laughable. Right after I say that murder, stealing, fraud, etc. should be illegal you accuse me of saying that Jesus is anarchist! Pretty funny.

Then show me where He embraced 'consensual' acts of immoral behavior like adultery, homosexuality and in many cases incest (I'd use the story of the prostitute, but He told her to "Go and sin no more").

Regarding rights - You are a classic example of someone who confuses the Scriptural distinction of the Kingdoms; the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of man. We live, as Christians, in both kingdoms. We have rights in the Kingdom of man that we don't have in the Kingdom of God. I have the right in the Kingdom of man (or at least I should have) to reject Christ and even try to convince others to give up their faith. Do you agree I have that right? From what you said it sounded like you defend religious freedom. If so, you agree that we have different rights depending of what Kingdom we are talking about; God's and man's.

Once again you're comparing ideologies with behaviors.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
BTW: Which political party candidate are you backing in the upcoming Presidential election and why?

For me it is picking the lesser of evils. For the primaries I am supporting Cruz because he is preferable to Trump. If it comes between Trump and Clinton, I may have to sit it out. Between Cruz and Clinton - probably Cruz. Between Cruz, Trump, and Clinton, Trump and Clinton are among the worst offenders of the principles I have been defending to you. Trump is especially offensive. I can't vote for the libertarian candidate because he is pro-choice.

Have I mentioned that you're a very strange bird cellist?

But I have to say I find your arguments to be based primarily on emotion, completely arbitrary, lacking in depth, and failing to take into account their logical conclusions. I would say you are utterly failing to rescue me!

After years of indoctrination from Libertarian cultists, it'll take more than a internet blogger to rescue you cellist.

 

[alwight]

Yet you support the Libertarian Party's culture of death.

Nothing like a bit of melodramatic crap right aCW?

Do you have any idea how many people have died and lives have been destroyed since homosexuality was decriminalized?

Do you have any idea how many gay people have committed suicide because they were made feel rejected and worthless even by their own family. These days gay people only have to worry about conservative fundie nutters who think they are God's representatives on Earth. lain:

The same goes with other sexual sins and recreational drug use. How can you acknowledge Jesus's 2nd greatest commandment when you won't even stand for laws that embrace decency?

We are all so lucky to have you around to fight for decency aCW.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Yet you support the Libertarian Party's culture of death.

Nothing like a bit of melodramatic crap right aCW?

Homosexuality: Yep, just another "victimless crime".

But wait, there's more!

http://obit.glbthistory.org/olo/index.jsp

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

Do you have any idea how many people have died and lives have been destroyed since homosexuality was decriminalized?

Do you have any idea how many gay people have committed suicide because they were made feel rejected and worthless even by their own family. These days gay people only have to worry about conservative fundie nutters who think they are God's representatives on Earth.

It's really sad that those who engage in homosexuality believe there is no way out of their 'deathstyle'. Instead of being given encouragement to show there is a way out, homosexual activists convince them (usually sexually confused youth who were sexually molested as children and later turn to homosexuality) that there isn't and because of hopelessness, turn to suicide.

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior

The same goes with other sexual sins and recreational drug use. How can you acknowledge Jesus's 2nd greatest commandment when you won't even stand for laws that embrace decency?

We are all so lucky to have you around to fight for decency aCW.

Like many in today's society, I haven't hopped on the "Christianity can be anything that you want it to be" bandwagon (and never will).

As I recall Al, you have term for those that do sell out God:

"Good Christians".

 

[cellist]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yet you support the Libertarian Party's culture of death. Do you have any idea how many people have died and lives have been destroyed since homosexuality was decriminalized? The same goes with other sexual sins and recreational drug use. How can you acknowledge Jesus's 2nd greatest commandment when you won't even stand for laws that embrace decency?

First you have the misguided idea that just because the government makes a law that people will follow it. Just look at Portugal, for example. 10 years ago they had the worse drug abuse problems in Europe. They decriminalized drug use - and I mean all drugs, mind you - and today they enjoy the lowest drug abuse problem in Europe. As the saying goes, "we always want that which is forbidden".

And as far as a culture of death goes - you are ignoring the violence the black market creates. The surge in drug related violence from Mexico is a direct result of crack downs on drugs in Mexico. The more governments crack down on drug dealers and drug use, the higher the street price is for the drugs, which drives up crime. Ironically, the higher the street price due to crack downs, the more of an allure it is for hardened criminals.

And you really think that police departments have the ability or desire to monitor what goes on in the privacy of peoples bedrooms?

You are a very strange bird cellist. I've debated many on the doctrine of Libertarianism, but rarely someone who tries to use Christianity while defending secular humanism.

It just goes to show you that you really don't understand libertarianism.

What part of "God gives man free will to choose but not to make the wrong decisions" do you not understand? Again: That is why a righteous civil government is so important: because man will make the wrong choices and needs to be lead down the path of righteousness when doing so.

You still haven't answered. Free will and self ownership are two different concepts. Self ownership means that the individual has sovereign control over their choices and behavior. Yes, there is a limit, of course. I cannot murder, steal, assault, or rape in the name of self ownership because in those acts I am denying another their right to self ownership. I am "initiating force", to use libertarian lingo. Or to put it yet another way, I am treating these victims as if they were my property, to do with as I please. No one, including "righteous governments" (if they even exist - I have yet to see one), has the right to treat another as if they were property. As much as you do not like someone doing drugs or some other sin, you are not their owner, nor are they the property of the government.

Note how God doesn't punish those who are gluttons, but issued the death penalty for certain sexual sins. Do you think that it's a coincidence that civil government has punished sexual sinners (homosexuality, incest, bestiality, adultery, pornography) up until a few decades ago?

There is no Christian Theocracy.

You're comparing filthy behaviors with spiritual doctrine. Once again, that is a terrible analogy.

Why is it terrible? Sin is sin. And in the Old Testament, to which you just referred, God also punished apostasy. Israel, as a nation, was a physical picture of the spiritual church. Your reference to punishing various sins cannot apply.

"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation..." (1 Peter 2:9)

You can't proof text the Old testament punishments.

Wow, you are amazing. At first you defend immoral behaviors stating that they should be legalized, and now you're going the other direction and stating that government is misusing it's power (which it is). Which side of this issue are you on?

You really need to get past the idea that just because I argue that a particular behavior should be legal, it means "I defend immoral behaviors." Remember, we live in two kingdoms: of God and man.

All civil laws reflect someone's worldview of morality.

Yes, I think civil laws should be consistent with self ownership.

BTW, you still haven't said if you agree with self ownership or not. Still waiting.

This is where you get to defend consensual incestuous relationships, between an adult daughter and her father (did I mention that I just love putting Libertarians on the spot?).

If it's consensual between adults, it should be legal. You just can't distinguish in your mind the idea that someone can defend the legality of something while still believing it is immoral. But you already do it. You believe that people can be members of religious organizations that you believe are in error. Should it be illegal to be a Jehovah's Witness? Do you believe it's a sin to not only reject the deity of Jesus but to preach it and to try to convert people away from Biblical Christianity? How is that any better than sexual immorality? I could argue it's even worse. But you would argue it should be legal, correct? I hope you would. But does that mean you defend it? No. It means you defend the legality of that activity, not the activity itself. A big difference.

And again: Where do these supposed "rights" to commit immoral acts come from? If you're claiming that because God gave us free will (self ownership) you're wrong. No where in the Bible does it say that man has a right to sin. No where in the founding documents of the United States will you find that either.

You already believe we have a right to freedom of religion. But are not some religions sinful, in your estimation; Mormonism, Jehovah Witness, or any religion that denies that Jesus is the Christ? And answer this question directly. You like to evade questions. I sound like a broken record, but as Christians we live in two kingdoms. What is a right in the Kingdom of Man is not a right in the Kingdom of God. In the Kingdom of Man we have the right (i.e. the right to be free from the interference of others) to make bad choices, commit sins, go to unorthodox churches, and live life as a pagan, unless in our choices we deny someone else the right to do the same. As the saying goes, my rights end where yours begin.

So now you're saying that man has "self ownership" but with restrictions. Surely you're not implying that making the wrong choices in life are harmful to others are you cellist?

Yes, as I mentioned, I can exercise my self ownership unless it denies someone else the same right (i.e. I can't force you by coercion to do something against your will). Of course, our choices can be harmful to others. But that, in and of itself, doesn't necessitate that the activity should be illegal because it didn't necessarily deny someone the exercise of their own rights. Lots of things cause harm that shouldn't be illegal. My eating too many Twinkies can lead to heart disease that results in my early death by heart attack. That can cause harm to others but it was within my rights to make bad eating choices because it didn't deny anyone else the exercise of their freedom to make their own choices in life.

After years of indoctrination from Libertarian cultists, it'll take more than a internet blogger to rescue you cellist.

Well, I'm not sure I have much more I can say. It's going to take better argumentation is what it is going to take. You still have important questions to answer;

Do you or don't you agree with self ownership (not to be confused with free will)? You didn't answer my argument that self ownership is axiomatic (I think a really important point). You didn't answer my question where you draw the line regarding which sins in God's Word the government should punish. There are a whole lot of sins enumerated in Scripture. Which one's should be illegal? You've isolated a few to pick on. I still maintain that your list is arbitrary and based on emotion.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yet you support the Libertarian Party's culture of death. Do you have any idea how many people have died and lives have been destroyed since homosexuality was decriminalized? The same goes with other sexual sins and recreational drug use. How can you acknowledge Jesus's 2nd greatest commandment when you won't even stand for laws that embrace decency?

First you have the misguided idea that just because the government makes a law that people will follow it.

That's irrelevant to the role of government. If people want kiddy porn to be legal (which Sweden did a few decades ago, thanks to LGBTQ activists) should it be legal?

Just look at Portugal, for example. 10 years ago they had the worse drug abuse problems in Europe. They decriminalized drug use - and I mean all drugs, mind you - and today they enjoy the lowest drug abuse problem in Europe. As the saying goes, "we always want that which is forbidden".

And now for the truth about drug decriminalization in Portugal:

http://www.wfad.se/latest-news/1-articles/123-decriminalization-of-drugs-in-portugal--the-real-facts

And as far as a culture of death goes - you are ignoring the violence the black market creates. The surge in drug related violence from Mexico is a direct result of crack downs on drugs in Mexico. The more governments crack down on drug dealers and drug use, the higher the street price is for the drugs, which drives up crime. Ironically, the higher the street price due to crack downs, the more of an allure it is for hardened criminals.

Again: What is the proper role of government: to do good as seen through the eyes of God or give the criminal element what they want?

And you really think that police departments have the ability or desire to monitor what goes on in the privacy of peoples bedrooms?

Get with the times, perverts have taken their sick behaviors out of the bedroom and gone public. Seen pictures of a 'gay' pride parade lately?

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

You are a very strange bird cellist. I've debated many on the doctrine of Libertarianism, but rarely someone who tries to use Christianity while defending secular humanism.

It just goes to show you that you really don't understand libertarianism.

I've spent years study (and hence exposing) your sick cult.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

What part of "God gives man free will to choose but not to make the wrong decisions" do you not understand? Again: That is why a righteous civil government is so important: because man will make the wrong choices and needs to be lead down the path of righteousness when doing so.

You still haven't answered. Free will and self ownership are two different concepts. Self ownership means that the individual has sovereign control over their choices and behavior. Yes, there is a limit, of course. I cannot murder, steal, assault, or rape in the name of self ownership because in those acts I am denying another their right to self ownership.

But you can sodomize and do every sick and immoral act known to mankind as long as it's "consensual".

I am "initiating force", to use libertarian lingo. Or to put it yet another way, I am treating these victims as if they were my property, to do with as I please. No one, including "righteous governments" (if they even exist - I have yet to see one), has the right to treat another as if they were property. As much as you do not like someone doing drugs or some other sin, you are not their owner, nor are they the property of the government.

Again: No one has a supposed "right" to immoral behavior. It is the role of government to punish (and thus help) those that engage in such.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

Note how God doesn't punish those who are gluttons, but issued the death penalty for certain sexual sins. Do you think that it's a coincidence that civil government has punished sexual sinners (homosexuality, incest, bestiality, adultery, pornography) up until a few decades ago?

There is no Christian Theocracy.

Legislating righteous laws is a far cry from a theocracy, i.e. designating a state religion.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

You're comparing filthy behaviors with spiritual doctrine. Once again, that is a terrible analogy.

. Why is it terrible? Sin is sin. And in the Old Testament, to which you just referred, God also punished apostasy. Israel, as a nation, was a physical picture of the spiritual church. Your reference to punishing various sins cannot apply.

"But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation..." (1 Peter 2:9)

You can't proof text the Old testament punishments.

Not all sins are meant to be punished by the civil magistrate. Are you implying that someone who eats excessively should be treated the same as a homosexual who rapes a child?

Quote: Originally posted by aCutlureWarrior

Wow, you are amazing. At first you defend immoral behaviors stating that they should be legalized, and now you're going the other direction and stating that government is misusing it's power (which it is). Which side of this issue are you on?

You really need to get past the idea that just because I argue that a particular behavior should be legal, it means "I defend immoral behaviors." Remember, we live in two kingdoms: of God and man.

If you want someone to go about continuing to partake in their immoral behavior without the threat of punishment by the civil magistrate, what would you call it?

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

All civil laws reflect someone's worldview of morality.

Yes, I think civil laws should be consistent with self ownership.

Whose self ownership? People have different values, should we allow them to choose which ones or should we have a moral basis for our civil laws?

BTW, you still haven't said if you agree with self ownership or not. Still waiting.

Been there, done that. Free will, but make the right choices (God's).

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

This is where you get to defend consensual incestuous relationships, between an adult daughter and her father (did I mention that I just love putting Libertarians on the spot?).

If it's consensual between adults, it should be legal.

(And who says that Libertarians aren't perverts?). Having sex with someone of the same gender, with your own child, how about animals?

Anyway, I hope it's been educational for all following this supposed 'debate' showing how sick these people in the Libertarian movement really are.

I need to go shower numerous times to get the stench off of me.

 

[cellist]

Quote Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Yet you support the Libertarian Party's culture of death. Do you have any idea how many people have died and lives have been destroyed since homosexuality was decriminalized? The same goes with other sexual sins and recreational drug use. How can you acknowledge Jesus's 2nd greatest commandment when you won't even stand for laws that embrace decency?


That's irrelevant to the role of government. If people want kiddy porn to be legal (which Sweden did a few decades ago, thanks to LGBTQ activists) should it be legal?



And now for the truth about drug decriminalization in Portugal:

http://www.wfad.se/latest-news/1-articles/123-decriminalization-of-drugs-in-portugal--the-real-facts



Again: What is the proper role of government: to do good as seen through the eyes of God or give the criminal element what they want?



Get with the times, perverts have taken their sick behaviors out of the bedroom and gone public. Seen pictures of a 'gay' pride parade lately?

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

You are a very strange bird cellist. I've debated many on the doctrine of Libertarianism, but rarely someone who tries to use Christianity while defending secular humanism.



I've spent years study (and hence exposing) your sick cult.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

What part of "God gives man free will to choose but not to make the wrong decisions" do you not understand? Again: That is why a righteous civil government is so important: because man will make the wrong choices and needs to be lead down the path of righteousness when doing so.



But you can sodomize and do every sick and immoral act known to mankind as long as it's "consensual".



Again: No one has a supposed "right" to immoral behavior. It is the role of government to punish (and thus help) those that engage in such.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

Note how God doesn't punish those who are gluttons, but issued the death penalty for certain sexual sins. Do you think that it's a coincidence that civil government has punished sexual sinners (homosexuality, incest, bestiality, adultery, pornography) up until a few decades ago?



Legislating righteous laws is a far cry from a theocracy, i.e. designating a state religion.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

You're comparing filthy behaviors with spiritual doctrine. Once again, that is a terrible analogy.



Not all sins are meant to be punished by the civil magistrate. Are you implying that someone who eats excessively should be treated the same as a homosexual who rapes a child?

Quote: Originally posted by aCutlureWarrior

Wow, you are amazing. At first you defend immoral behaviors stating that they should be legalized, and now you're going the other direction and stating that government is misusing it's power (which it is). Which side of this issue are you on?



If you want someone to go about continuing to partake in their immoral behavior without the threat of punishment by the civil magistrate, what would you call it?

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

All civil laws reflect someone's worldview of morality.



Whose self ownership? People have different values, should we allow them to choose which ones or should we have a moral basis for our civil laws?



Been there, done that. Free will, but make the right choices (God's).

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

This is where you get to defend consensual incestuous relationships, between an adult daughter and her father (did I mention that I just love putting Libertarians on the spot?).



(And who says that Libertarians aren't perverts?). Having sex with someone of the same gender, with your own child, how about animals?

Anyway, I hope it's been educational for all following this supposed 'debate' showing how sick these people in the Libertarian movement really are.

I need to go shower numerous times to get the stench off of me.

And there you have it everyone, not a single coherent argument put forth against self ownership, nor a single coherent argument put forth against self ownership being axiomatic, nor a single coherent argument put forth why certain sins, arbitrarily enumerated, should be illegal and others not. Apparently the poster prefers emotion over logic and a deeply warped idea of Christianity that seeks to transform the culture through a position of power (the coercive power of government) rather than from a position of servanthood. He would rather throw the sinner into prison with handcuffs and guns than lead him to church where he can hear the message of Christ. He prefers to put his trust in the powers of a civil government than the power of the Gospel, which is Paul calls the Power of God unto salvation. He has the idea that if we just get the right people in office, vote the right way, we can have our "righteous government" that will "force" America to be righteous. Why didn't Jesus ever think of that? I'll leave him with 1 Corinthians chapter 1:

25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength...27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28 God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29 so that no one may boast before him. 30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Libertarian discussion moved to this thread.

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...rsion-of-Libertarianism&p=4643832#post4643832