Jump to content

Kubel

Member Since 14 Jun 2005
Offline Last Active Apr 02 2011 12:25 PM
-----

#263377 Pope rails against rise of un-Christian names

Posted by Kubel on 16 January 2011 - 10:02 PM

Why would anyone name their children Cain or Jezebel.

That said, what matters is what the parents teach their children, and if they truly teach them of the Lord's way they will give their children a good name and it does not have to be a name from the Bible.

As for the lost, they know no better, yet some of the names that are being used today should not be given to a dog.


If I ever got two dogs, I would seriously consider naming them Hophni and Phinehas.


#253285 Angry Ron Paul Defends Ground Zero Mosque

Posted by Kubel on 06 September 2010 - 09:18 PM

Libertarianism is close to the view which prevailed during the time of the Judges; everyone doing what is right in their own eyes. The Bible declares this is wickedness.


Libertarian minarchy is not the Judaeo-anarchy we find following the death of Joshua. You'll still have government protecting people from rape, murder, theft, and to enforce contracts. Any sin committed against fellow man would not be lawful in a libertarian minarchist society.

I'm also not sure how we can compare the US to Israel. Israel (and Israel alone) was a God-established theocracy- and the Jews (and the Jews alone) were called to follow a very strict Law (the purpose of which was to ultimately point to Christ). We as Christians don't pretend to follow that Law. The US was never established to follow the Law (and I hope it will never be required to follow the law of any religion, particularly I fear Sharia). It was established (in part) to allow everyone to worship God freely. To accomplish this, it was required of the government to be secular. You can't enforce personal morality without seeking religious interference. And we know what happens when government gets involved in religion. If the US were to become a church state, the Biblical interpretation set forth as law will not be in line with our own. Why? Because whatever government does, it does badly.

Our government isn't the solution to sin. It makes a very poor substitute for Christ. Our government is established to set rules to restrict itself and to protect us against domestic or foreign interference so that we can live in liberty and have the freedom to worship God. The more government, the less freedom.
  • CPR likes this


#253216 Angry Ron Paul Defends Ground Zero Mosque

Posted by Kubel on 05 September 2010 - 11:20 PM

For one person to have free rights that means someone will have to sacrifice some rights. Even in a free country there has to be laws and restrictions that limits rights.


How is it against someone elses rights for a private property owner to build a mosque on property that their own? This Ground Zero Mosque argument needs to be stripped of all emotionalism and drama, because only then will people look at the law. The law quite clearly gives the private property owner the right to build a mosque there. My personal feelings, your feelings, the nations emotions- none of this matters when it comes to freedom.

As a libertarian, I have found that freedom is a difficult concept for even conservative Americans to grasp.
  • CPR likes this


#250545 Judge gives the green light for same-sex marriage in California

Posted by Kubel on 14 August 2010 - 03:04 PM

I'm afraid you're right, John and Jerry - this is unbelievable to think one homosexual judge can undermine seven million people. I think SCOTUS is going to reverse this ruling before all's said and done, but it should've never occured in the first place. This country could really use some prayers right now, many of them.


I would hate to step in here and disagree (since it implies that I'm supportive of gay marriage, which I am not), but this is a Republic with 3 branches of government for a reason. If this were a democracy, where the majority rules, the minority would have its rights trod upon. Having a judge that can step in and essentially nullify the will of the majority in favor of protecting the constitutional rights of the minority (regardless of whether we agree religiously with the subject matter or not) is a fundamental safeguard that is actually a good thing.

Here's my view on gay marriage: First, get the government out of "marriage". Marriage is "religious" (for example, we believe God unites man and woman in marriage), and any attempt to define it or regulate it by our government is unconstitutional. Second, get the government into enforcing contracts, including the contract of voluntary civil unions. We need a 100% secular, non-religious, contract-enforced "partnership" for tax and legal purposes.
  • CPR likes this


#243277 Israeli commandos storm aid flotilla; 10 killed

Posted by Kubel on 31 May 2010 - 03:14 PM

I'll just say this: Israeli commandos boarded, shot, and killed civilians in international waters.
  • CPR likes this


#239872 Confederacy proclamation

Posted by Kubel on 10 April 2010 - 02:42 AM

I couldn't agree more, which is why I'm having difficulty in understanding why someone would make a state wide proclamation concerning something they know has bad memories for a large portion of their citizens. Like you said, "Why rub salt into old wounds?"


I think that history should be remembered, even if it means bad memories. We lost states rights and the right of secession when the American people lost the civil war. It's something we all deserve to be reminded of. States mean nothing now.

It's funny, but growing up in public school here in a Northern state, I was never taught the true significance of the Civil War. I always thought the good guys won and we freed the slaves from the redneck southerners. I was never taught what we lost as a result, nor how significant that loss was to the People and their states.


The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500