Maybe Christians should be more prepared for The Antichrist to come from The Right?

http://midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/2014/08/chris-whites-jewish-messiah-claimant.html

Is it inherently immoral to use something for something other then it's purpose?

Let's just say hypothetically I was willing to concede the "Conservative" argument that our Biology proves God clearly designed us for inter-sex relations exclusively and there for that's the only intent.

Is there any other thing where we consider it a Sin, or an abuse, or even disrespectful to use something for something or anything other then it's created purpose?

We proponents of Intelligent Design keep using the analogy of a Human Designer designing artificial inventions.  I can list endless examples of people commonly using an invention or a created object for something other then it's original created purpose.  We use newspapers to discipline dogs, tins cans for target practice, anything with a significant density as a paper weight.

But people aren't like God, so let's look at how humans use what God gave us.

Our hands are what were deigned to hold things, but if their full we'll also use out chins or mouths.

That analogy might seem silly to you.  But to people who aren't conditioned to be grossed out by it calling Homosexual affection unnatural is silly.

God clearly did not originally create Animals to be food for Humans, in fact it was a Sin for us to eat them Pre-Flood.  But that was changed after The Flood.

And was the created purpose of Trees to be cut down for humans to make various artificial objects out of them?

So that makes it clear to me God is capable of accepting flexibility in how we use what he created.  As long as we're not breaking The Golden Rule, or worshiping a false god.

I’m growing more and more unsure I qualify as a Libertarian

[Update: I'm definitely not a Libertarian anymore.]

The Problem with our Taxation debates

[Update: I'm not a Libertarian anymore.]

The Politics of Family Values

Family is important in The Bible, very important. But, it's also been important to Pagans as well.  Some modern Christians seem to think only Judeo-Christians have ever valued the importance of Family, but that's not the case. There have of course been certain differences in how different cultures have viewed the Family.

My point today is, the Idea of "Family Values" Politics is a product of Pagan Rome, one of many aspects of Roman Pagan religion that became Christianized chiefly during the 4th Century A.D. (From Constantine to Theodosius) when the Church married The World. It's popular to talk about that as a time when Rome became Christian, but those of us who truly follow Biblical principles know it was really for the most part Rome changing the Church, not the Church changing Rome.

Specifically this aspect of Pagan Roman culture was masterminded by Gaius Julius Octavius Caesar Augustus. The man who effectively ended the Republic and ushered in the Principate, and who in my mind was a forerunner of The Antichrist.

A few decades into his reign, Augusts began pushing "Family Values" legislation, on the (claimed) belief that the deterioration of the Family was hurting the Roman state. But just like all our modern politicians who make themselves champions of "Family Values" he couldn't even enforce them within his own family. So in 2 B.C. he was forced to exile his own Daughter, Julia The Elder, for cheating on the Husband he forced her to marry (also forcing said Husband, future Emperor Tiberius, to divorce the woman he was already married to and was very much in love with). Another scandal occurred again latter with her daughter Julia The Younger.

This continued to be important to upper class of Rome.  I know people have this image in their head of how "Decadent and Horny" Rome was, Chuck Missler who I respect still naively refers to how "Documented' said decadence was.   But the truth is the documentation all comes from Historians of the Senatorial class, and all for the purpose of vilifying certain Emperors hostile to their aristocratic interests, so such activity while likely true to an extent was beyond any doubt exaggerated.

In my view, what actually weakens the Biblical family is the Government getting involved in Family affairs at all, whether with a Liberal or a Conservative agenda. God ordained the Family BEFORE the State.

I view the definition of marriage Biblically as being between a man and a woman.  But it doesn't in my mind effect that at all if homosexuals live together, call it marriage and such marriages are recognized by the state. To me in an ideal world the State shouldn't be "recognizing" any Marriages, it's not their damn business.

The way Christians should lead is by example, by following our family values ourselves, and showing that living that way is healthier and more fulfilling then just screwing everything in sight. Using force never achieves anything.

Libertarianism and The Bible

[Update: I'm not a Libertarian anymore.]

I'm both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice

I define Life as beginning at Conception, but defining when life begins is not the only issue with regards to Abortion. I've become less radically "Pro-Life" over time.

Life is an important thing to protect, and so is Freedom of Choice, a good Libertarian and a good Christian believes in both of those things. Abortion represents an area where the two conflict, it's perfectly natural that different people will have different views on where to draw the line. But it's unfortunately standard on both sides to engage in demonizing the other.

I've shown, in another article of mine, that Life Begins at Conception Biblically, and that Abortion fits the Biblical definition of Murder.  But not all acts of Murder are equal, I do not view a woman who has an abortion, especially a teenage girl, the same as I do an Ax murderer. However I'll never agree with the most radical "Pro-Choice" people who want abortion to be treated like any ordinary medical procedure like having your tonsils removed.

I should also add that I oppose the Death Penalty

I'm going to give some advice to both sides. But I kind of have more for Pro-Life precisely because that's where I firmly was once and still identify with them more culturally as a Fundamentalist Christian.

To Pro-Lifers.
1. Don't engage in Slut shamming, I know only a loud Minority do that, but it's still important advice. And be careful because something can sound that way whether you intended it to or not.
2. Stop naively confusing the "Morning after Pill" with Abortion, it's not, the "Morning After Pill" will not terminate a pregnancy. it's merely a last resort to prevent conception. I go into more detail on that near the end of the defining when life begins dissertation.
3. When asked about the Rape exception, no matter what your view on that is don't answer with "Punish the Rapist not the Baby" a desire to punish is not why a women in that situation desires an Abortion.
4. Understand that Abortion is not a vice, the majority of ordinary people who are Politically "Pro-Choice" do want to lower the number of Abortions.
5. To many Pro-Chociers proving the child is alive won't be enough. They cite the issue of Autonomy, that no person has to right to use another person's body without their consent. No matter how innocent or dependent on that for their own life they are. This argument is why I feel we need to at least concede the Rape Exception.

And stop supporting Republicans, they're not Pro-Life their just using you. Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act would have ended legal Abortion, but when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress NO ONE made any effort to support his bill.

To Pro-Choicers.
1. No matter how much of a Woman's rights issue it is to you, that does not mean Pro-Lifers are automatically misogynists. There are and have been plenty of Pro-Life Feminists, including early Feminists before it became popular.
http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/index
2. And quit that silly "If a Fetus is alive so is a Sperm" and "If Abortion is murder so is Masturbation". It's a silly argument, it's not that difficult to understand the view that it's the uniting of the Sperm and Egg and their merging together that is the beginning of Life. Agree with it or not, it's not difficult to understand.

Basically both sides need to quit insisting the other is lying about what they say motivates them. That is inherently naive and hateful.

There is a claim that Numbers 5:11-31 is an Abortion ritual, though I see no reference to a pregnancy in it.  There are a lot of ways that passage is used against The Bible by modern critics.  Thing is, it's the opposite of the kinds of "Ordeals" used to expose "witches" in medieval times.  In this case it is something supernatural happening that was harmful to the woman. To my knowledge drinking bitter water would not actually scientifically cause that effect (Nahmandies also pointed this out).  It is actually my theory that this story is here for the purpose of allowing a husband an excuse to let his wife get away with adultery, I don't believe anyone was ever in fact condemned by this ritual.

Abortion is not a defining issue in how I vote either way. My general philosophy is that the more the Mainstream Media makes a big deal of something, the more it's likely a distraction from what the people in power don't want us knowing they're doing. I never vote for Republicans or Democrats (except Ron Paul), when choosing a 3rd Party candidate to support, I've supported both Pro-Life (Chuck Baldwin) and Pro-Choice (Gary Johnson) ones.