Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by philpot123

  1. Get rid of all legal definitions and benefits of marriage. Let churches marry whoever they will according to their theological beliefs. Let those who do not want a religious ceremony have some other sort of union according to their traditions or ideals. Let churches refuse to marry whoever they want. Married couples shouldn't get benefits just for being married no matter what their genders. There's your controversial opinion for the day
  2. I'll readily admit I'm no medical professional, and I haven't looked into the articles relating to the tragedy extensively myself. I just found that article and thought it would be good to offer a different perspective. Of course it's coming from a news outlet with apparently anti-abortion sympathies, so there is a bias. But the other articles offer the alternative bias, so it's always nice to get both sides
  3. Ignorance is the problem, not racism. I highly doubt they are being targeted FOR their race.
  4. Tragedy no excuse for witch hunt, via the Irish Times
  5. Just popping in to say lurking throughout this whole discussion has been very enlightening and edifying. I've started noticing more and more of what you all are talking about, things that I wouldn't have payed any attention to before. So. Good stuff ^.^ *proceeds with lurking*
  6. Nobody takes the GOP seriously anymore. Maybe the Libertarian party will take its place as the 2nd major party? ;D but seriously. I don't like the Libertarian party very much in general, but I agree with them more than I agree with the current Republicans...
  7. I think we're pretty much in agreement, perhaps I wasn't very clear. They have certain policies that can be considered "socialistic," but they themselves are not true socialist nations.
  8. I'll answer, even though it isn't aimed at me. They're countries with a thorough implementation of certain socialistic policies. They aren't very close to absolute socialism.
  9. Ron Paul is giving part 1 of his farewell speech on CSPAN right now. ‎"Why does a change in party not create a change in policy? Could it be that the views of both parties are essentially the same?" -Ron Paul
  10. They're getting a decent amount of support though. The thing is, if you asked each and every person who is signing those petitions (including myself) if they actually want to secede, the answer would be no. Everyone in Tennessee knows we aren't self sufficient, and we can't be an island unto ourselves in the middle of the USA. The point is to make our voices heard so the government will know that we don't like what they're doing. This isn't just a "conservative" thing. It's a liberty issue. Side note, little "Obamacare is of the devil" anecdote from my city. Local business owner emplo
  11. A belated congratulations to President Obama and the Democratic party on the win. I hope he has a productive second term and the country emerges the better for it. That said, I hated both candidates, and I'm losing optimism daily. Offering my opinion as a not-quite-adequately informed libertarian... our only two solutions to the current fiscal issues are drastic measures to end federal programs in a Ron Paulish manner, which won't ever happen with the current political atmosphere, or we hike taxes on the rich. Right now the GOP just looks stupid, and will continue to look foolish if th
  12. Well, it's not picky-choosy if you make this distinction between the moral bits and the ceremonial. The things that have been morally wrong are still morally wrong, the ceremonial regulations is no longer binding. Again, I'll have to get some outside opinions on the relationship between the New/Old Covenant stuff in light of the "eternal" language. I still haven't had a chance to talk to anyone about it. I'm certainly no tome of theological insight, and I would love to have a satisfying answer to this just as much as you would. I understand the difficulty you have with my beliefs from you
  13. No It goes back to the covenant theology thing we've discussed in the past, our belief that, according to the doctrines of the NT, our bondage to the ceremonial law was fulfilled in Christ.
  14. The denomination I am most closely affiliated with (PCA) does not officially celebrate Christmas or Easter as holy days, and abstains from preaching "Easter messages" or having a "Christmas service" because they are extra-biblical holidays.
  15. Very true. There's a reason Luther posted his 95 Theses on that day. It was a fairly important day in Christian tradition, and yes, clearly a borrowed one. I prefer to celebrate the modern "Reformation Day" instead of Halloween, because sound doctrine is always preferable to candy I'm as Reformed as they come, and I'm certainly no fan of the doctrines of the Catholic church, but it's quite unfair to say "Roman Catholics are crazy." You could legitimately criticize their doctrines, their church leadership, or the failings within the church, but making a blanket, critical, and h
  16. I wouldn't mind, considering I don't believe Satan can hear prayers I get your point though. Would it bother you if someone was to pray for you without declaring it?
  17. Saying "I'll be praying for you" in the context of some moral disagreement like that is effectively a slap in the face, you're a disgusting person and I'm going to say it in a somewhat more acceptable way. It would be far better to just not say it, and if you feel like prayer is necessary then do it privately. As far as speaking in tongues and whatnot, the Reformed position I hold to states that the gift of tongues and prophecy ceased with the canonization of scripture. They were necessary before the word of God was completed, but now that we have the entire work of God that He
  18. Oh okay, gotcha. Well, even then... Perhaps it's not a legitimate foundation for policy making, but I don't believe they should be prevented from speaking their opinion just because they are a politician. Even if their opinion is weird, stupid, idiotic, whatever. I doubt you would support that either, but still. We can get all up in arms about the retarded things politicians say, but in the end they have a right to say them, and it's our responsibility to address the stupid ones with a firm "get out" at the ballot box. Not that my/your vote matters anyways, but that's a different issue.
  19. Are laws against murder bringing religion into politics? If the pro-life position is correct, laws against abortion are on par with laws against murder.
  20. I don't think it's going to matter no matter who wins the election. The changes Obama will seek if he gets reelected... those scare me a little. And the things Romney wants to do... shew. I don't even know where to start. As an advocate for general freedom, Obama's voting record as far as gun rights sincerely worries me. He can't run on a platform of gun control, because he knows that would end up hurting him with how close this election is, but there was a comment in the second debate about reinstating the assault weapons ban. That was one of the least productive pieces of legislation ev
  21. Oh gosh. I can't even. Donald Trump. At least he's good for the laughs. I mean, his face is creepy, his clothing line is overpriced, and he's the most ignorant person as far as social issues go... the epitome of the stereotypical Republican.
  22. Honestly? I wouldn't be surprised if there was more corruption in the Republican party than in the Democrat. You may be right, these things may not be reported on as much because the MSM is predominately liberal, but considering how terrible Republicans are... I mean, it almost reminds me of the scandals in the Catholic church. Here's an institution that claims to be upright and respectable, conservative, "family values," and yet their actions are speaking louder than their words. You're right about the words of Jesus though. This entire year's presidential campaign has been built on "spe
  23. I agree. The national government can be strong in their specified roles, and non-existent outside of their sphere. Hence, small government, powerful states.
  24. The United States was not MADE to be "united." We were originally a union of many INDIVIDUAL states. The national government was intended to be a VERY small force. Post-reconstruction, that all changed. It is only very recently in our history that the idea of individual state loyalties was replaced with nationalism. The pledge is a new invention, written by an outspoken socialist, that does not reflect the ideals of the founding fathers or the text of the constitution. The states were intended to be self-governing. That's why we had to have a 10th Amendment to clarify it. The libertarian
  25. If such laws were passed against popular opinion, that popular opinion would be reflected in the elections in an ideal scenario. If the states are given back rights that the government has taken control of, the people would (hopefully) realize fairly quickly that it's up to THEM to shut down ridiculous legislation. As it stands, there's a lot of space between policy making and the people. My vote doesn't matter in the least, because Romney will win my state and get all of my state's electoral votes. So even if I was to vote for Obama, Johnson, or write in Paul or something silly like that, it