Lighthouse
Reaction score
14,298

Profile posts Latest activity Postings About

  • With regards to the first question, I'd say yes, but to a lesser degree. To play devil's advocate though, couldn't that apply to a prostitute as well? If she was raised in such a way as to believe sexual promiscuity was OK, and she wasn't a Christian, and she's never read the Bible:p

    Unfortunately, most cops are legal positivists to.

    Frankly, if your theonomy replaced the mindless legal positivism of the religious right the country would be a better place. I kind of see myself as being on the same team as you in some sense, we both want the government dramatically smaller and don't like the big government republicans. I think its a shame that Enyart decided to bash Ron Paul the way he did, because frankly, ANY small government person no matter what exact form their small government ideology takes would have benefited from him in office.
    Yeah, I understand that they've been indoctrinated. And I've often acknowledged that there are cops with good intentions. But ultimately, are they not responsible for what they choose to do? Are they not responsible for choosing such a career in what has effectively become a police state that controls nearly every aspect of your life? America has the highest prison population in the world.

    I'm sick of all the authoritarian elements of the "Christian Right" these days. And I'm not talking about the Old Testament stuff that we disagree on, I'm talking about the things that no sane person could possibly pull out of the Bible and yet most Christians just blindly go along with anyway because "Its the law."
    How do you define victimization?

    Even by theonomist standards it seems to me that there are tons of laws on the books that cops enforce every day that would qualify as the cop victimizing the civilian simply by enforcing them.
    OK, so there is arguably one victim when someone decides to be an adulterer.

    How many victims do you think there are when someone decides to be a cop?
    I still haven't a clue what it is, lol. I guess that makes sense, though. You always have a TV show in your avatar:)

    Right now I do too. Do you know which one?
    I'm not sure I get the point. I mean, I get that you could be a "Reagan era" conservative even if Reagan isn't a real conservative. But then, why name it after Reagan?
    Not as being Nick's wife. I was seriously, seriously considering posting the PM conversation in a thread. That said, she honestly seems confused at the moment, so I'm leaning against it. That said, she shifts very rapidly from seeming malicious to seeming confused, so I'm not sure what's up with her.

    I really wish you didn't block PMs. I'd much rather have PMed this.
    If she is his wife then most already know it, as Tambora [iirc] pointed out in response to Eeset that Nick's wife posts on TOL.
    She went off at me in PMs because I called Nick M evil, claiming that he was her husband, and defending him and attacking me despite the fact that I pointed out that he attacked me first (Contrary to her claims, I'm not saying that automatically makes my reaction ACCEPTABLE, but it does put things into perspective, it shows that I don't go around looking for people to call evil) and she started attacking me. We actually used to get along but she talks to me a lot like aCW does now.

    Yeah, I'm curious if she actually is. I'd actually be shocked because based on some of her opinions that she's shared with me, Nick should be calling her "Evil" as well.
    I may disappoint you with some of my answers in this thread, but I think it exposes Nick as a God-Hating, murderous reprobate:

    http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3577855&posted=1#post3577855

    I'm surprised you choose to associate your views with his at all. Take a look at that thread, and my link to his post where he couldn't even figure out that its wrong to murder an 8 year old child.

    aCW may be stupid, but Nick wins the "Evil God Hater" award, IMO...
    I don't know why I waste my time with aCW. I honestly don't know why.

    I'm not even saying there was no relation between his transgenderism and his wikileaks. What I'm saying is, it shouldn't make a difference. Its obvious that Manning is being charged for "treason", and not for homosexuality/transgenderism. Heck, drbrumley, though he isn't vocal about it, does support enforcing Leviticus 20:13 and yet he righteously defends Manning.

    It doesn't matter why he did it, what matters is that he exposed the crimes of the US government.

    Also, while I know he did have mental issues beforehand, I do believe CIA torture likely made them worse. And I have no doubt that they may have forced him to mention his transgenderism NOW in order to discredit him in the eyes of Evangelicals.

    I maintain my opposition to homosexuality and transgenderism. Bradley Manning is still a hero.

    What's funny is that aCW is pretending like I'm some kind of transgender supporter, yet he's the one calling him "Chelsea." I have always refused to do so.
    You epitomize the caricature of every Christian fundamentalist wing-nut I have seen. Are you really what you claim, or are you a secret atheist pretending to be a total moron to discredit religious types?
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
  • Loading…
Top