Born Again Christian; Biblical Fundamentalist, Received Text-KJV, Dispensational
Tuesday, February 4, 2025
Monday, February 3, 2025
Sunday, February 2, 2025
Saturday, February 1, 2025
Neo-Libertarianism as consistent right-minarchism
I wish to put forward that Neo-Libertarianism is consistent right-minarchsm by citing the following from the Neo-Libertarian blog called "Politics and Prosperity." The author uses the term libertarian-conservative now as opposed to neolibertariann, but, he means what I do by Neo-Libertarian.
- R-M reject the non-aggression principle with respect to national defense. They do so not because they favor aggression but because the principle, in its standard interpretation, is a non-action principle. It would not allow a preemptive attack on an antagonistic state that is armed, capable of striking us at any time, and known to be contemplating a strike. R-M, in other words, tend toward hawkishness when it comes to national defense.
- R-M also tend toward a hawkish stance on crime. For example, some R-M have no sympathy for journalists who protect anonymous sources where those sources obtain their information by breaking the law. Other R-M reject the idea that the press should be allowed to print whatever information it may obtain about America’s defense forces, plans, and operation. R-M understand that liberty and the prosperity it brings are unattainable in a lawless, defenseless society.
- R-M are unsympathetic to “political correctness,” arguing that government must not do anything to quell impolite speech or to compensate blacks, women, etc., for the past behavior of those who discriminated against them, because to do so penalizes persons now living who are innocent of discrimination. But more than that, R-M would give individuals and businesses broad latitude in their affairs, penalizing only acts traditionally understood as harmful (e.g., murder, rape, and theft).
- R-M see “rights” like abortion and homosexual “marriage” as government-imposed social innovations with potentially harmful consequences for civil society. If social custom, as embodied in legislative acts, rejects such things as abortion and homosexual “marriage,” it does so because those things undermine the fabric of society — the bonds of mutual respect, mutual trust, and mutual restraint that enable a people to live and work together in peace.
Trump is right on Immigration and Borders, but, wrong on Trade.
I decided to chime in on the two things most being discussed about the Trump Administration so far. Immigration and Trade. Here is my shorthand two cents he is right on defending the Border and Immigration. He is wrong about international freee enterprise between non hostile Nations.
I take the Closed Borders, pro Free Trade view of these issues. I believe that Borders being closed to illegals with strict restrictions on immigration is correct. Open Borders consists of a lack of Nationhood and a form of invasion of the property rights of those living within a Country.
I believe that free trade requires restricted immigration to work. I find the true libertarian view of Borders is closed to immigration with strict restrictions. Anything else is the total destruction of the Nation and an invasion. Forced integration without the consent of the property owners in said Nation is a violation of the liberty of the people living in that Nation.
Ron Paul ran a platform on Nationalism and True free trade long before Trump came along. He advocated for a wall before Trump did and ripping up NAFTA as well. He was as I am for free trade not managed trade and also for Closed Borders to immigration. I find the most consistent view with reality is the Closed Borders libertarian view.
He is dangerously wrong on actual free trade though. The truth is we do not have free trade we have managed trade and a form of mercantilism. We have corporatism and not Global Capitalism between Sovereign Nations. That does not mean just the existence of Big Business and Corporations as the leftists definition means. I mean actual corporatism as in trade managed and monopolized by certain corporations due to managed trade benefiting them.
True free trade is simply people trading between Severeign Nations and localities for the benefit of both parties involved. It is not managed to benefit unfairly big nor small business it just is voluntary exchange across a border. We need True free trade and not tarrifs. On this Trump is wrong and Ron Paul was right. Although on National Security and Foreign Policy Ron Paul is niave and dangerous.
In Defense of Neo-Libertarianism
There is a huge umbrella of views all of which fall under libertarian as a marker of one's views. Thus simply saying you are a Christian whom supports libertarianism could mean any number of things. Including things I do not support at all. As with any political idea, libertarianism is actually a spectrum of ideas rather than an explicit dogma. In modern Western politics, the most visible version of libertarianism is often called right-libertarianism.
Few, if any, right-libertarians advocate for a complete elimination of the state. This makes right-libertarianism a form of minarchy, or minimal government. In its purest form, a right-libertarian government would only perform two functions: defend the nation against foreign attack and prosecute criminals. All political philosophies have in-house debates on where to draw the line on government interference. Libertarianism typically prefers far less government involvement—and government power—than competing views.For example,
• Concerning abortion, one libertarian might say any restriction is an illegitimate interference by government. Another might argue that abortion is an act of violence against the unborn.
• Regarding drug use, some libertarians believe all substances should be legal to buy, sell, and consume. Others suggest unchecked drug use creates threats to safety and security.
• Concerning marriage, libertarians may prefer no benefits or restrictions beyond private religious recognition. Libertarians may also argue the contrary: that promoting the best, most natural child-rearing arrangement is necessary for the survival of society.
• Some libertarians support using tax dollars for infrastructure such as roads, utilities, and fire departments. Others prefer such things to be entirely privatized, paid for only by those who want to benefit from them.
Biblically, libertarianism finds both support and boundaries. People are ultimately accountable to God, not government (Hebrews 4:13). Regardless of the laws of the land, each person has an obligation to do what is right in God’s eyes (Acts 4:29; 1 Corinthians 10:13). Scripture is full of cautionary tales about human government, including God’s own warning about the intrinsic dangers of being subject to earthly kings (1 Samuel 8:10–17). A Christian may lean libertarian due to libertarianism’s emphasis on personal rights.
Many Christian libertarians argue that even a “good” government empowered to enforce Christian ideals can just as easily prosecute those ideals later on. Such believers seek the freedom to live a life honoring God without government coercion or interference (1 Timothy 2:1–2). At the same time, Scripture says that human government is established by God in order to curb human sin (Romans 13:1–4). This means that if a Christian is to consider themselves a libertarian one needs to make sure they are not supporting the anarchistic faction.
There is nothing in the Bible forbidding a Christian from being a libertarian. Nor does Scripture demand believers adhere to libertarianism. Deciding where to draw boundaries around the government’s role is part of our Christian liberty. It’s an issue each believer needs to prayerfully and carefully consider.
I belong politically to a post 9/11 and more modern/moderate form of libertarianism known as Neo-Libertarianism. Advocating a society where individual freedom is maximized, government intervention is minimized, and free market capitalism is promoted, while also supporting some level of social safety net and foreign intervention for the protection of human rights.
The first neo-libertarians used the term in response to the Iraq War. Neo-libertarians proudly set out their reasons for supporting the War on Terror and an effort to secure the freedom of the Iraqi people. Neo-Libertarianism (also spelled Neolibertarianism) is an economically right-wing, moderate libertarian, and culturally right-leaning ideology.
Friday, January 31, 2025
Thursday, January 30, 2025
Wednesday, January 29, 2025
Tuesday, January 28, 2025
Monday, January 27, 2025
Sunday, January 26, 2025
Saturday, January 25, 2025
Friday, January 24, 2025
Thursday, January 23, 2025
Wednesday, January 22, 2025
Exposing the Jehovah's Witness Cult
Animals that Expose Evolution
Defending the Apostle Paul
Proof for God Hidden in Mathematics
Theistic Evolution DEBUNKED
Pandora's Box Office (Original Classic)
Ex-Satanist Exposes All | Part 2
Ex-Satanist Exposes All Part 1
Tuesday, January 21, 2025
Islam Debunked
The UFO Conspiracy (Original Classic)
Jordan Maxwell EXPOSED
Sunday, January 19, 2025
Saturday, January 18, 2025
Friday, January 17, 2025
Thursday, January 16, 2025
Wednesday, January 15, 2025
Tuesday, January 14, 2025
Monday, January 13, 2025
Sunday, January 12, 2025
What genuinely is a Christian fundamentalist? You should be one.
I am a Christian Fundamentalist as I am totally opposed to Modernism and False Gospels of liberal theology. I refuse to compromise on the fundamentals of true Christianity. Fundamentalism as I am using the term is a 20th-century anti-modern/liberal orthodox Christian movement. This definition is drawn from the history of the movement, from its inception in the early part of the 20th-century until the present.
“‘Fundamentalism’ is the only consistently thought-out version of the faith, and the ‘Fundamentalist’ is the only Christian who uses his mind in a fully Christian way.” —J. I. Packer
“The deepest cleavages in Christendom are doctrinal; and the deepest doctrinal cleavages are those which result from disagreement about authority.”
“Sham unity is not worth working for, and real unity, that fellowship of love in the truth which Christ prayed that His disciples might enjoy, will come only as those sections of the wall which rest on unsound foundations are dismantled and rebuilt.” —J. I. Packer
People use the term “fundamentalist” in a disparaging sense because of a handful of bad apples who abuse the title At its core, fundamentalism is about nothing more than getting back to fundamental tenets and beliefs of Christianity, following what the Bible says.
Fully Embracing Being KJV-only. However, rejecting separatism and judgment.
First thing I want to distinguish between being KJV Only and being a KJV only-ist. One is you and or your groups or Churches standing on the KJV as God's Perfectly Providentially Preserved Word Accurately Translated for the English speaking people. That it has everything needed from the Word of God for His Children.
The other can be the idea that the translation itself is somehow secondarily inspired. Not just accurately translated from the Received Text. It can also mean that you think non KJV users are heretical and damned. As well as, pushing for separation from Churches that do not use the KJV.
I am absolutely in camp A, but, definitely not B. I find after much prayer and research that the KJV is God's Perfectly Providentially Preserved Word Accurately Translated for the English speaking people. That it has everything needed from the Word of God for His Children. That no others have been made which surpass it nor do updates add things. If anything modern translations are missing passages due to Modernism and The Modern Critical Theory of textual translation.
I do not agree with people whom would or do push for me to biblical separation from others over the King James issue or position. Nor, do I think it is appropriate to judge fellow Christians faith/Born Again status based on their lack of KJV use. Thus I am solidly KJV Only, but, I am not that type of King James Only. Or a Kings James Only-ist; in that I am not joined in someway to a movement or the more radical members of that group. Nor do I agree with the nuttier defenders of the KJVO position. For their number is many and their views are not charitable at all.