Nick M's awesome lack of vocabulary

[Nick M]

I don't believe I have ever stated that someone doesn't know the gospel?

So do they know it or not?

 

[Town Heretic]

It could always be your put-downs

I wasn't putting the young man down, just as you weren't (I hope) meaning in your rush to condemn me in ignorance (you don't know my theology or, apparently, my politics) supporting his notion that the average person is stupid and evil.

have nothing to do with religion or age at all, but are simply knee jerks from a Liberal against a Libertarian. Think?

I actually test out just left of dead center, which is hardly liberal and in those same sort of tests come out leaning libertarian, though I have serious qualms with a good bit of its application.

No, I meant exactly what I said, written to someone I care about (and you might want to ask him about our past interactions) but who I think has a few things dangerously wrong. And I mean dangerous in terms of its potential impact on his spiritual life. Contempt for those God loves and for whom Christ suffered is a wrong headed approach to life. I suspect and hope he'll outgrow it but I put a cautionary note in whenever he indulges in it.

 

[Nang]

I am not a sinner. I am Holy and without blame. Because of what the Lord Jesus Christ did on my behalf.

That would be more believable if you were able to show some of His love for others.

That is about government you idiot.

I would ban you. Just like thequackisnext.

But obviously there is no love of Jesus Christ in you . . .

 

[Christian Liberty]

It could always be your put-downs have nothing to do with religion or age at all, but are simply knee jerks from a Liberal against a Libertarian. Think?

That's possible, as Town definitely leans left. In fairness to Town, I tend to do the same thing to lefties when I'm in the mood

I understand. What I'm saying is that it's far too early to call trends.

But beyond that as a Christian you know God values you no more or less than he does many of those average people you're disparaging...so I'd say when you find yourself holding people in contempt while understanding the God who dwarfs you does not, but rather loves and cherishes them then you might want to revisit your valuation and judgment and recognize the possibility that your attitude and cynicism could be a sin to be warred with and not indulged or considered inescapable.

This is a good point that is worth considering at the least.

I don't begrudge people, or think less of them, because they are unintelligent in and of itself. Rather, I think less of them when they fail to realize that they are unintelligent, and treat people who are actually intelligent (such as, just being frank, myself) like we don't know what we're talking about.

As a Christian libertarian, I have a certain degree of contempt for anyone who would claim the name of my Savior and use that as an argument to try to control people in unbiblical and unjust manners. This is tripled when someone makes an argument that is based entirely on one passage of the Bible and it is being used to make a certain group of people exempt from most if not all of the morality that the rest of us are bound by.

I will freely admit that in some cases this comes in more subtle forms (economics, social conservatism, civil liberties violations) while in other cases it is very blatant and obvious (war, torture, killing people for "resisting" where there is no violent resistance if any at all). I'm a little more tolerant of it when its more subtle because I realize that not everyone knows everything, but I'm less tolerant once I've pointed it out to the person.

This topic is so broad in my mind that I could, and have, literally spent days discussing it. I'm still working on it, and I'll likely do so for at least the next decade if not my entire life. There are so many issues here that are hard to understand when not coming from a libertarian POV.

Even if you aren't though, its clear that the majority of this forum is intellectually below average. Neocons are the dumbest people on the planet, bar none. And very likely dumber than some non-human forms of life.

Human beings made in God's image? Absolutely. Hence why I spend time trying to convince them. I'd much rather just call them morons and move on. That would be more enjoyable for me, personally. But I try not to.

You'd better stop guessing, sonny boy. It isn't working out any better than your serious thinking. Nang is mad because we don't bow down and worship all that nonsense that comes out of her mouth. Is that too simple for a great mind like yours? Perhaps you should forget about school and try driving a truck or digging a ditch. Get in touch with reality....

You're beyond stupid. Nang would never want you to worship her.

 

[Christian Liberty]

"Vengenace is mine, says the Lord."

Christians realize that this means GOD will eventually set all things right and give all men justice. They may differ on how exactly that will work. They may even differ on when, if ever, executing justice here on earth qualifies as "vengenace." But ultimately, the focus is on God.

Statolater pseudo-Christians, on the other hand, use this verse to defend their godless governmental systems and claim that governments are allowed to use vengeance. These people have at least two gods, their hyper-arminian MAD god, and their State.

Nang, do you see how important this whole statism issue is? Some people don't think it through as much as these idolaters have, and I think some of those people are saved in spite of their statism. But really, once you accept the proposition that government has special rights that we don't (something John Robbins clearly and correctly rejected) you wind up making the State into a God.

I think everyone should watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5FNDRgPOLs I was absolutely amazed that this much Christian wisdom and dissection of mainstream American religious faith could come from the mouth of an atheist (warning, there's at least one, maybe two, comparatively mild profanities in this. I'm not condoning obscenity, but its worth watching anyway.)

 

[Christian Liberty]

Not true, but it is true that I mostly prefer to listen to and read people with a great deal more reflection and background on the subject. It may be a novel approach in forum life, but it's a habit I learned from my grandfather.


I haven't said anything about his theological understanding. I was speaking to how he valued people. And I'm qualified on that point as any.

I'll add you to her next so I can answer both at once.


It's a rational analysis of the value of time, if used well. It is demonstrably true that time has value, that the intelligent application of ourselves to it leads to a broader understanding of life.

It would be a tragedy for someone to hold the same understanding at forty that he did at fifteen or twenty. Even if he possesses the fundamental truth the experience of its application will mark and should change him.

Or, unless CL feels that he's as learned and encompassing now as he will be in those twenty or thirty years, he has to rationally concede my point, like it or not.


You can't say that on the one hand I don't hold forth and then on the other qualify what I do or don't possess on a thing. Well, you can't do it rationally...but as illuminating personal and emotional statements go it's helpful.

Town, may it never be that I presume that I'll stop learning. At the same time, I have been dismissed, by people who are far less informed on the issues in question than I am, because of age.

A lot of this discussion, not all of it but certainly some of it, is admission of my own character flaws. I'm not trying to suggest that Jesus Christ ould handle these issues the same way I'm handling them.

 

[Doom]

There is no scripture that says sinners have the right to judge other sinners.

Those in Christ are not sinners, and we (not you) are to judge false prophets, wolves, false apostles as such.

 

[Christian Liberty]

It depends on how we're defining "sinners."

Justification, the legal declaration that we are pardoned, happens at the moment of conversion. Sanctification, or actually becoming righteous in one's conduct, is a lifelong experience.

Say there was a kleptomanic who has been stealing compulsively for his whole life. He is brought before a judge. He owes millions of dollars which he is never able to pay. The judge's son, who is a billionaire, gives all his money to the judge and says "this should be more than enough to cover all his thefts, past and future." Legally, at that point, he is no longer a criminal. His debt has been paid in advance. However, in actuality, he is still going to struggle with engaging in theft, though he's no longer legally guilty. In order to become not a thief in terms of CONDUCT, he must stop stealing, which will likely be a gradual process that will take his entire life, though LEGALLY he has already been declared innocent of any thefts he commits during his life.

 

[Nang]

Nang quoted scripture:

"Vengeance is Mine, says the Lord."

That is about government you idiot.

With this attitude revealed, I must ask:

Is TOL really about Christianity, or is TOL about government?

Have members been duped into participating with an immoral, propaganda machine . . . in the name of God?

 

[Christian Liberty]

Is TOL really about Christianity, or is TOL about government?

Have members been duped into participating with an immoral, propaganda machine . . . in the name of God?

TOL has long held that government isn't bound by Christian standards of morality, that it can engage in vengenace when it wants to and that it can murder people and rob from them when they want to. This is nothing new. They just want to take that wicked, immoral system and run it themselves.

The actual reconstructionists do this to some extent to, but at least the reconstructionists want to make the system way smaller, and the best they know how make the system subservient to God's law. They see Romans 13 as endorsing some level of civil governmental action, and they believe Christians should enforce the laws of God in the Old Testament. I disagree respectfully with the reconstructionists on both of those points.

But TOL goes far beyond this. They don't even really want to make the system smaller, or subservient to God's law. Instead, they cherry pick what they like and they don't like. Kind of like most Republicans, except thought through a bit more.

There are only a few people here that actually take the gospel seriously, and that's even BEFORE we look at what gospel they're actually preaching. The state-control social gopsel aspect already exposes most people here as being on the side of darkness.

 

[Town Heretic]

That's possible, as Town definitely leans left. In fairness to Town, I tend to do the same thing to lefties when I'm in the mood

People mistake my political leanings mostly, I think, because so many voices here are far to the right of reasonable. In point of fact, if you break it down by issue I'm about as conservative as I am liberal. Pro gun, anti abortion, against property tax, but for public education and healthcare as a right. So it depends. I read Bastiat's The Law in law school on the advice of a friend and thought it had a number of interesting ideas, but overall I find Libertarian philosophy too often (at least at the extreme) at odds with my understanding of my Christian faith.

This is a good point that is worth considering at the least.

Then I'm satisfied. I hope by now you think of me as someone legitimately concerned with your well being, our differences notwithstanding.

I don't begrudge people, or think less of them, because they are unintelligent in and of itself.

It's hard for me to reconcile that with your statement that most average people are stupid and evil. But if you're reconsidering that uniformity I'm relieved.

Rather, I think less of them when they fail to realize that they are unintelligent, and treat people who are actually intelligent (such as, just being frank, myself) like we don't know what we're talking about.

Consider that intelligence may not be quite the key you believe it to be. Some of the most brilliant minds man has advanced have then created and advanced some of the most loathsome and tragic notions. The most profound human truth, after all, is simplicity itself:

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. That whosoever shall believe in him shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life."

As a Christian libertarian, I have a certain degree of contempt for anyone who would claim the name of my Savior and use that as an argument to try to control people in unbiblical and unjust manners.

As a Christian I am inherently suspicious of any philosophy that at its core promotes liberty as the fundamental virtue of public life.

This is tripled when someone makes an argument that is based entirely on one passage of the Bible and it is being used to make a certain group of people exempt from most if not all of the morality that the rest of us are bound by.

So you don't subscribe to the elect? Or are you advancing the notion that to believe one's salvation is assured by grace is to license sin? It's hard to know how you're applying that.

I will freely admit that in some cases this comes in more subtle forms (economics, social conservatism, civil liberties violations) while in other cases it is very blatant and obvious (war, torture, killing people for "resisting" where there is no violent resistance if any at all). I'm a little more tolerant of it when its more subtle because I realize that not everyone knows everything, but I'm less tolerant once I've pointed it out to the person.

I think we should be obligated by conscience to speak the truth as we see it and recognize that the next fellow, in opposition, may be similarly situated.

This topic is so broad in my mind that I could, and have, literally spent days discussing it. I'm still working on it, and I'll likely do so for at least the next decade if not my entire life. There are so many issues here that are hard to understand when not coming from a libertarian POV.

I like the first part of that, the sentiment of it. The last is another matter.

Even if you aren't though, its clear that the majority of this forum is intellectually below average.

By what metric? I'd tend to think people who frequent forums actively are fundamentally writers and thinkers, however poorly trained or equipped. That sort of regular application would be unusual in the general population. I suspect you're likely mistaken on the point.

I suppose you could pull a great sampling of writing from here and FOG index it then compare it to the general reading/writing level within a given population.

Human beings made in God's image? Absolutely. Hence why I spend time trying to convince them.

So says every man with conviction. Even those who differ.

I'd much rather just call them morons and move on. That would be more enjoyable for me, personally. But I try not to.

Then you have to understand I was right to move you to consider it a vanity, a sin. Contempt for those you are commanded to love is no virtue and is contrary to our example. I'm not saying you have to love every word or idea you meet, but you really do have to separate the person from the error you believe you see in them and they, likely, in you.

 

[Christian Liberty]

People mistake my political leanings mostly, I think, because so many voices here are far to the right of reasonable. In point of fact, if you break it down by issue I'm about as conservative as I am liberal. Pro gun, anti abortion, against property tax, but for public education and healthcare as a right. So it depends. I read Bastiat's The Law in law school on the advice of a friend and thought it had a number of interesting ideas, but overall I find Libertarian philosophy too often (at least at the extreme) at odds with my understanding of my Christian faith.

The Law was excellent. If everyone would at least read and consider that book this world would be a better place. I think this is in many ways the key to what I'm getting at. Wanting to use force against other people to get them to do things you want is monstrosly immoral. I'd put it on a similar plane as homosexuality or prostitution, if not worse.

Then I'm satisfied. I hope by now you think of me as someone legitimately concerned with your well being, our differences notwithstanding.

I do. Hence why I defended you to Nang. I've been on friendly terms with both of you for awhile despite agreeing with her more often than I agree with you.

It's hard for me to reconcile that with your statement that most average people are stupid and evil. But if you're reconsidering that uniformity I'm relieved.

Its a little more complicated than the English language is going to allow me to describe. This is the sort of thing that's really tricky to put my finger on linguistically.

So you don't subscribe to the elect? Or are you advancing the notion that to believe one's salvation is assured by grace is to license sin? It's hard to know how you're applying that.

I was talking about government and government worship.

Then you have to understand I was right to move you to consider it a vanity, a sin. Contempt for those you are commanded to love is no virtue and is contrary to our example. I'm not saying you have to love every word or idea you meet, but you really do have to separate the person from the error you believe you see in them and they, likely, in you.

Be honest about where you're at. Do you really think Nick is at the same intellectual level you are? aCultureWarrior? Glorydaz? Tambora? Seriously?

 

[Town Heretic]

The Law was excellent.

I enjoyed it.

If everyone would at least read and consider that book this world would be a better place.

I think the more broadly we see the context of life the better. Agreement isn't a necessity, but even those ideas that defy our own contextual preferences (and perhaps more so those ideas) will help sharpen and shape our own.

I think this is in many ways the key to what I'm getting at. Wanting to use force against other people to get them to do things you want is monstrosly immoral. I'd put it on a similar plane as homosexuality or prostitution, if not worse.

I think you're too often too broad for me to find agreement on points like this...what constitutes force and what if what I and others want is a society where our right to property is protected? Is it monstrously immoral to compel others to respect that created right?

I do. Hence why I defended you to Nang. I've been on friendly terms with both of you for awhile despite agreeing with her more often than I agree with you.

Good on the first, no need to bother else. Nang will think what she likes and what I or you say about it will likely impact it not at all.

Its a little more complicated than the English language is going to allow me to describe. This is the sort of thing that's really tricky to put my finger on linguistically.

Okay. If it ever gels sufficiently for you let me have a look at it.

I was talking about government and government worship.

Too broad again. What constitutes the worship of government to you?

Be honest about where you're at. Do you really think Nick is at the same intellectual level you are? aCultureWarrior? Glorydaz? Tambora? Seriously?

I honestly stopped caring about that a long time ago. Mostly I find all of that distracting and a bit pointless to consider. Intelligence should serve, not enslave. So if it helps you help others, communicates a thing of importance in a way that's memorable, etc., I say go to. If it keeps you mindful of the difference between you and your neighbor in a way that invites contempt into your reflections then it would be better to do without it or without considering it further until it doesn't.

 

[Nang]

No thanks TH, for your neg rep and unnecessary lecture. It was not appreciated.

You are the one who should be ashamed . . .

 

[Town Heretic]

No thanks TH, for your neg rep and unnecessary lecture.

You should post it entire.

You are the one who should be ashamed . . .

No, I'm the one who voiced a concern for a friend and was met by you with insult and distortion.

As for the comment, again, post it in full. It's all right with me. There's nothing in it that I wouldn't post here. It seemed a fair assessment of what you were up to.

 

[Tambora]

I wonder how Nick would react if anyone ever called his wife a "hag?"

My husband reacted to my being called hateful names early, when I first joined TOL, when I was especially reviled by a very hateful TOL member (Clete), which provoked his natural response, and caused my husband to be permanently banned for his reaction. (Even though, in doing so, he did not resort to profanity; not even the curse, "BS"!)

(This info is for those of you who wonder why my husband does not speak up for me. My protecter and Godly spouse, is not allowed on TOL.)

But I have Christian brethren who do take my part, and they are all written in the Lord's Book of Remembrance for their brave, faithful, and loving words on my behalf. Malachi 3:16

God bless my genuine and brave brothers in the Lord!

So say,

Jim and Nang

Oh, stop!

You are no one to talk. Since you also have talked about another's spouse in a derogatory way, and even laughed about doing it.

No one is buying your "poor little me" act (except for some unlearned, uninformed newbie that thinks he knows it all).

 

[bybee]

So do they know it or not?

I believe that I know it and am open to learn more. That is sufficient for me.

 

[dreadknought]

So do they know it or not?

A good thing I can't dispense equal justice.... there would be woodshed material for the lot of you.

 

[bybee]

A good thing I can't dispense equal justice.... there would be woodshed material for the lot of you.

When I was a little girl my father used corporal punishment on me but never touched my sister.
Apparently I annoyed him and she did not.
Life is funny that way....

 

[dreadknought]

When I was a little girl my father used corporal punishment on me but never touched my sister.
Apparently I annoyed him and she did not.
Life is funny that way....

Only a professional would know your answer.