User Profile: pantokrator

pantokrator

Member Since: February 20, 2012

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

123 To page: Go
  • March 9, 2014 at 10:35am

    I believe when it was written that you should not commit sexual immorality, or adultery, it was written for one: it is giving into human nature (which is infected, flawed and imperfect), and two: because it can cause psychological damage to people.

    In my experience, I’ve found that people who do not engage in pre-marital sex are often far more content people; they don’t feel a desire to be accepted by the masses, thus no desire to go to clubs every weekend to get drunk. They have a strong sense of security about themselves (I know this from personal experience, as I am one of them). On the other hand, I’ve noticed people who have engaged in the act are in a constant struggle to find acceptance. They always feel they need a partner, and can’t seem to function without thinking of one. They are very insecure about themselves. All people want to be accepted, and sex is only a temporary fix, while love lasts a lifetime.

    Sex is an addiction, like nicotine or alcohol (even pornography). Once that pandora’s box is open, there is no going back. Like any other drug, it conflicts with your psychology, and causes you to create excuses (such as ‘religious suppression’) in an attempt to subjectively rationalize the act as justifiable. It is exactly what you are doing, and exactly what this woman is doing.

    So is sexual drive human nature? Yes, and humans want to exercise that nature. You are correct about that. Then again, the exercise of power and selfish desire is also hum

  • February 26, 2014 at 7:16pm

    Oh my gosh, I thought hearing it from Obama was bad, Sharpton is even worse. He sounds like a ****** child trying to be like Obama. It’s like he’s trying to emphasis on literally every single word.

  • February 20, 2014 at 9:11pm

    I don’t think I am, Susie. Praising the woman does not prove me wrong. She is here advocating for RINO elections. If anything, she is going against the Tea Party here. The only honest thing about her is she is a conservative statist. She would rather have a Republican-progressive majority than true, principled representatives in Washington. She blatantly admits it here when she says to just vote Republican. Who cares what Republican, just vote Republican.

    It amazes me that Coulter will admit there are wimps in the GOP and it’s because of them we are in this mess. Then she turns around and says we need to vote for Republicans, even wimpy Republicans if we are going to win. It is the fact that people continue to vote for bad Republicans that we are in this mess. She’s in a vicious cycle and she apparently does not realize it, and neither do you.

  • February 20, 2014 at 1:43am

    Coulter’s ‘strategy’ is that in order to beat Democrats, we need to elect Democrat-lites! Yeah, that’s how we do it!

    Coulter is fuming because the GOP is falling a part, and it’s undoing can only be blamed on itself. The zombies of the Democrats may have no brains, but the lot of people who lean Republican are not. They know when their leaders are no longer reliable. You cannot fool these people, and the GOP has made the dooming mistake of thinking they could and the party is crumbling as a result.

    This is fine by me. The Republican party, in their attempt to gain minority votes, abandoned their principle and creed, gaining no minorities, and losing their base. In the end, all the GOP has to blame is itself.

  • February 20, 2014 at 1:37am

    Is it strange I’m not surprised by this? I never liked Coulter, even as a conservative. She is a foghorn for Republican statism, nothing more. All people like her care about is win, win, win. To do that, they’d morph into a completely different person if they have to. Beyond this, Coulter is a despicable woman, and I say this genuinely. She is as vicious and mean-spirited as modern liberals.

    It is people like Coulter who keep the people of our nation in constant divide.

    Responses (6) +
  • February 15, 2014 at 11:59pm

    This may be, but how does this fact harm you on a personal level?

  • February 15, 2014 at 11:56pm

    This guy definitely got what he deserved. Hopefully we can see justice for the man in the movie theater next. There is no excuse for what he did and his remorse better be geared less towards the fact that he’ll never be a free man again, and more towards the stupid mistake he made when he shot this kid–not once, but TEN times. Unreal. Good riddance.

  • February 15, 2014 at 11:43pm

    I’m sorry you feel that way, but I’m still waiting for an elaboration on your point.

    If you want my opinion, the simple fact is there is no constitutional law–that I am aware of, that prohibits gay marriage. It’s as simple as that. If you do not like gay marriage, just don’t participate in it. That’s what I plan to do.

  • February 15, 2014 at 8:33pm

    Vision, if you are essentially saying that my love for freedom and liberty is what causes global chaos, then I wear that badge with honor. As Thomas Jefferson once said,

    “I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those to those attaining too small degree of it.”

  • February 15, 2014 at 8:30pm

    “I don’t agree with this but at least they are trying to think of something!”

    This is like saying, “I don’t agree with racism, but at least racists are trying to do something about it!”, if I understand what you are saying exactly.

    For me, I don’t like what these people are doing, and I don’t care that they are doing something. If what they are thinking of is not a good thing, I’d rather them not think at all.

    “What the hell is your brilliant idea besides getting the government out of marriage (which I agree with but they never will)?”

    I’m not sure I understand what you are trying to say. You seem to be getting upset with my resolution, and question what I plan on doing about it, then suddenly affirm the fact that I have a solution to the problem (which is to get government out of marriage completely), and then agreeing with it. I’m afraid I don’t understand the point you are trying to make; I can’t tell if you are for or against this ruling.

  • February 15, 2014 at 4:39pm

    This is why conservatives anger me more than modern liberals. At least most modern liberals admit they don’t like the constitution and it should be changed. Conservative statists actually position themselves as constitutional scholars. That, to me, is worse than a liberal who just doesn’t like the constitution. And I’m saying this as a former conservative thinker. But any honest person should step back and understand there is no way you can call soda bans nonsense on the basis of personal liberty and then turn right around and call homosexuality an abomination on society and have it banned.

  • February 15, 2014 at 4:32pm

    Like Soy said, everyone thinks you have to take either the red pill or the blue pill. How about neither?

    And whatever happened to the admiration of the story of the Alamo? All you establishment types call libertarians losers because they can’t pick winning candidates–Maybe it’s not so much about winning so much as it is about standing on principle. At the Battle of the Alamo, a small group of Texans were gravely outnumbered, but they fought anyway. All of them died, but they stood for something. You would think establishment types would look at those men and think they were idiots, but we don’t. We admire that, and respect such boldness. Then when SHTF, all you statists cower behind the best candidate the establishment has to offer, then laugh at everyone else who stood their ground and got mauled because of it. It’s incredible.

  • February 15, 2014 at 3:58pm

    This is one of those areas where conservatives really annoy me; I find myself feeling full-fledged liberal in this regard. There is no reason for government in marriage business. Period. These same people want to throw stuff at Bloomberg for his soda bans. The hypocrisy of right-wing statists and left-wing statists is the most frustrating thing.

    Responses (3) +
  • February 14, 2014 at 11:31pm

    The laws Cruz and Lee are introducing are, just as jzh says, meant to protect state rights. Ultimately, I do not think these kinds of laws ought to exist. Period. Social issues are none of the government’s business. Unfortunately, since the federal government is doing what it’s doing, it leaves little room for choice. It’s a tough call, either way.

  • February 14, 2014 at 10:23pm

    Can a federal judge do this? I’m not against the Gay Marriage law that, but is it not the state’s business to make certain things like homosexual “marriage” legal? Unless there is some kind of technicality I am not aware of, the federal government has no business deciding one way or another.

    All of this is ridiculous. I don’t think the founders ever intended the state, nor the federal government to be in this business anyway.

  • February 12, 2014 at 10:00pm

    One final note: I think you might be interested to see a video I found once of Dr. Ravi Zacharias who talks about God, evil, suffering and purpose, and why evil is only justified if God exists. It helped me a lot. I invite you to watch it, read my comments and really think on the matter. I pray you find peace. :)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it7mhQ8fEq0

  • February 12, 2014 at 9:58pm

    In regards to homosexuality, I don’t think the Bible warned of what harm it does to others, but what harm it can bring to ones self. For example, if two men have sex via the anus, what is the main function of the anus? To dispose of human waste. Human waste is just that: waste; toxic, unhealthy, full of germs and bacteria. If two men have this kind of intercourse, it might be very likely the one doing the intercourse may catch some kind of infection from this. Affecting his genital area (his reproductive area), it could have consequences on his offspring–should he decide he wants any. The infection may also affect his partner, and other partners on contact, or someone he didn’t even intend to give it to.

    That being said, I am a libertarian, and I am not one of the conservatives who demands that homosexuality be illegal. I believe government should not be in marriage: period. It is not my place to tell homosexuals they cannot be. I will tell them they ought not to be, but I will not force them not to be. So do I support gay marriage? No. But I certainly won’t stand in their way of getting it. This does not mean, however, I will not rebuke homosexuality on a personal and spiritual level. I disprove of it, just as I disprove of people taking hallucinogenic drugs, but it’s not my place to make them not to.

  • February 12, 2014 at 9:45pm

    Also, it is a contradiction to say that what you personally think harm is is harm and insist it is a legitimate rule. If you are implying moral rules are what we personally define, and no one has the right to hold their own morals over another, are you not demanding this conclusion–that we make our own morals, and no one has the right to rule over another is itself a rule over others? For example, if you say, “No man has the right to rule other men”, is this not claiming that we should obey this rule?

    In the pluralistic world-view, all views are acceptable, and all truths are acceptable. But if this is true, then what if someone’s truth was that pluralism was wrong? Is that belief right, or wrong? If pluralism says it is wrong, then pluralism violates it’s core principle. If pluralism fulfills it’s core principle and acknowledges the claim as correct, then pluralism is still wrong, because the claim said pluralism is wrong.

    In the same sense, if everyone’s belief in harm was subjective (personal and not absolute), then no person could ever justifiably hold their view over others, because they would be violating the subjective principle. They could never do anything about any evil at all. So you can say, “My belief in harm is this…” but the moment you demand people recognize that, you violate the relative law, which is that no person’s definition of good and evil is better than another.

  • February 12, 2014 at 9:34pm

    “Why – WHY do YOU believe some higher authority is required to determine good/bad – right/wrong?”

    Because it provides a purpose to being good. We talk about good, and we ought to be good, but why should we be good? If good and evil exist for no good reason, there is no good reason to be good or evil. If nothing gives you the sense of good, then nothing is what rewards you for being good. You might say the good reason for good is because it helps people, but then you are stuck with the problem of people making morals. If people–who are all equal in imperfection, make the rules, then other people of the same amount of influence can alter that rule to suit there own desires. People making morals means one person’s definition of ‘peace’ would clash with another and we would be living in a world of total anarchy and nihilism. Therefore, it’s only logical that there is ONE true rule that transcends humanity. I know I sound like I am repeating myself, but I am just trying to say it in a way that is easy to understand. Dr. Craig said it to a Hinduist once when the Hindu acknowledged that we ‘ought’ to be good. Using the word ‘ought’ implies it was intended to be followed. If it is intended to be followed, it was intentionally and intelligently put there. It can therefore only have been put there by a being that was itself above humanity that has the authority to create the one rule that is above man-made, imperfect rules.

  • February 12, 2014 at 9:24pm

    You are not an ignorant person, nor a fool, zapparules. You are possibly the most honest skeptic I’ve come across. Most atheists and agnostics I come across just badger my faith just to bash it. But I can tell you are someone who is really looking for a good reason to believe, and I respect that. Good thinkers always have questions (in fact, most of today’s Christian apologists will tell you they were once atheists).

    I think you make a good point, but I strongly disagree with man creating what is good. Because if that is the process in which good is made, then a man could make good something that you define as harm and it is thus good since he defined that good in the same process that you defined yours. The pluralistic idea of good and evil just doesn’t fit. Because it once again insists that evil acts are dependent upon what you see, not what is actually happening. People could just make ethics whatever they wanted it to be, even if it hurt other people, but if no one’s personal law is above another, there is no justifiable reason to stop the one hurting others. You would be violating HIS right to have his own moral code.

    It can only be that there is a single moral code, which can be summed up to not hurting people, that is true and above all others. It must therefore have been established by something higher than humanity and all of nature.

    Responses (1) +
123 To page: Go