I ‘Liberated’ this from Young Americans for Liberty facebook page.
Category Archives: Christian Libertarianism
NZ Marriage Equality Debate (MP Louisa Wall v Colin Craig) Att: Dr Matt Flannagan.
Christian Philosopher and Blogger Matthew Flannagan.
I am not Homophobic yet I must say my skin crawled watching the Affirmitive ‘Liberals’ in action .
University is truly a heinous place… full of lefty-ness!
I shudder to think these people will one day be in Parliament as Labour/ Green MPs.
The Opposition clearly won the debate… but…
I do have a few issues with what Dr Matthew Flannagan said.
1. You played the paranoia card… raising the specter that the bill may be used to compel people/ ministers/ churches to perform or make their facilities available for Gay Weddings against their will, even though you know The NZ Human Rights Commission has issued a statement which refutes this possibility.
The Affirmative team clearly stated the bill could not be used in such a way.
I say that an amendment could easily be added to clarify this point.
If this was done it would nullify this portion of your argument.
2. Though it was a clever argument to show that the proposed bill was ‘anti-equality’ in itself, you rely upon ‘populist opinion’ which riles against incest, and Polygamy to carry your point.
That is a very flimsy arguement!
The reality is if we separate your personal religious beliefs, and those of your two team mates whom share the same religion as you… and definition of marriage, then the principle of equality still holds good as an argument not only in favor of the bill, but also in favour of legalizing Incestuous and Polygamous marriages… which incidentally both have historical and cultural histories.
That the bill only seeks to legalise Gay Marriage, and not the others is not a valid reason to reject it, *and you know this*… and I argue that this understanding is why you are so desperate to insist the Law upholds *your narrow religious definitions* of marriage (and what constitutes a Family), because if these are overturned by the Gays, then you realise this opens the door for further challenge to legalize polygamy, etc.
The reality is any reform bill which introduces more justice/equality before the Law is worth supporting even if it does not go the whole hog. (eg a bill to legalise Pot still ought to be supported even if it leaves Ecstasy Illegal)
In relation to this, I think your teams argument regarding Civil unions was clever too… only because civil unions do ‘seem’ to cover the same legal/ contractual aspects as marriage and appears to negate the claims by gays that they have less legal rights.
Yet again I see through this as nothing more than a ruse to protect your religious restrictions upon the definition of marriage.
If we are to accept the line of reasoning of the opposition then of course any future activism for legal recognition by the polygamists, etc could also be directed down the same path … Legal polygamous civil unions.
Is all this merely semantics?
Is that all that is at stake here?
Are the Gays being ‘gay’ about this?
Ought they to be satisfied with ‘Civil Unions?
Ought we to put much weight on international conventions and rulings… UN declarations etc????
I think not!
If this issue was merely semantic there would be no opposition to the bill!
This Opposition is a struggle by a particular religious sector of the community… conservative Christians… to maintain a religious law.
That some gays may oppose the bill may indeed logically remove the legitimacy of calling opposition to the bill ‘homophobic’, yet this does little more than that.
This ‘convenience’ in reality cannot negate the truth that Homophobia and religious bigotry does indeed have a lot to do with opposition to the Bill.
I say the Opposition won because they were more sophisticated debaters and managed to deflect the focus away from their personal religious definition of marriage and family…. Yet pure Religious bias it remains.
And it is upon this basis that I… though I am a Christian, cast my vote *for the Bill*, and am happy for the term ‘Marriage’ to be legally broadened.
Why?
Because how the State defines the legal contract of marriage to include homosexuals, does not in any way affect my personal religious belief about ‘marriage.’
Allowing Gay people to legally call themselves ‘married’ does not impinge upon my rights in any way, nor does it mean I must teach my kids that Gays are ‘really married’ in the eyes of God.
I see no valid reason why the Bill ought to be opposed.
Passing the Bill will improve equality before the Law *by removing a religious prejudice.*
This is about principles! And principles Matter! Even of the Opposition thinks it’s trivial.
I despise any Law which imposes the religious values of others upon me, and so to avoid hypocrisy I must defend the Liberty of others to live free of religious values they reject… even if those values are dear to me. By protecting the Liberty of others from State oppression and favouritism, I am protecting my own religious liberty, and defending my values from being devalued and corrupted via compusion.
Real Christianity is not about forcing others to conform.
Liberty Conference. Auckland 2012.
Dakta Green recieved a standing ovation for his speech and activism for freedom and Justice in regards to ending cannabis Prohibition.
He spoke about his experiences as a political prisoner, and the fact that he faces yet another stint in Jail because of his refusal to be broken and ‘Living like it’s Legal’.
Last Saturday (6-10-12) I attended the Liberty Conference in Auckland, convened by the Libertarianz Party for the propose of considering the best possible ways of furthering the cause of Liberty in New Zealand, and in particular to formulate a new strategy for getting Freedom loving Advocates into Parliament.
The Libertarianz were facing up to the Sad reality that their Party had failed to attract anywhere near enough support to make it an effective political player.
My personal opinion is that the Libertarianz party did many things wrong… many mistakes hurt the parties chances of gaining a more popular base, yet The Party …morally speaking….also did many things right… which also had a detrimental effect upon it’s popularity.
Simply put it set about to slay too many sacred cows to be borne by the Superstitious sheeple.
Peter Cresswell.
Now Galloping to war with sabers bristling and slashing away was fun indeed, yet such a zealous onslaught spooked the cattle… Peter Cresswell said something to this effect in his speech… and he is right.
This zeal springing from a steadfast rejection of the idea that politics requires compromise… and the conviction that populist politics is the domain of unscrupulous power hungry scum… like Peter Dunne and John Key.
The Hard arse faction within the Libertarianz Party had spent 16 years fending off ‘the soft cocks’… and their desire to water down our message… and though they had prevailed in maintaining the principled integrity of the party (to the limited degree of perfection that it’s Objectivist handicap was capable)… none the less as PC described it… we were trying to eat an elephant in one gulp… The Malicious Press absolutely ostracized us from the public debate, and the fickle and brainwashed Sheeple whom had the misfortune of coming into contact with us… washed their hands of us as if we were an infectious disease. Not even our own families supported us!… yet as rugged individualists we soldiered on alone…being upheld only by the shear faith that we were right, and that we really were the Bearers of the Sacred flame of Liberty… of the Political Holy Grail from which all whom drink behold the secrets of Peace, Civilization, and prosperity!
We Libz still believe this!
We have not given up upon our dream!
Yet we need to rethink how we set about making our vision a reality.
Many suggestions were presented by the various speakers.
A common theme was that We freedom lovers need to stop backstabbing each other and work together as a ‘band of brothers’.
Another suggestion was that we modify how we go about our business… be positive, abandon personal jibes and malice… leave that for the socialist’s…. Lead by example, and master the lost art of persuasion.
The Mighty Lindsay Perigo
Now these suggestions sound great in theory, yet as the saying goes…you cant teach old dogs new tricks… and I seriously doubt you will be able to tame Rabid Hounds like Lindsay Perigo … whom relishes delivering such judgments as calling John Banks a “Leering Gargoyle!” … and “The Whore of Epsom”… to the Glee and hysteria of almost every Libertarian present (including myself!). Maybe some of the Non-libz found such comments to be in poor taste… Yet my point being that such disregard for pandering to the sensitivities of the wowzers is such a fundamental trait of many of us libz… we sincerely consider it a virtue!
And I wonder whether or not the whole idea of always being positive, and PC, and taking care not to offend… is anything more than weasely Used car salesmanship… and that such an approach is transparently slimy… untrustworthy, and in the end not a solution to the Libz woes at all!
Me thinks That Libertarians ought to be of good character, be tolerant, and well mannered, yet still be Dangerously capable and willing to deliver a well aimed bombardment of Invective when the moment calls for it. I believe this is good/ righteous/ honest politics!
Read Lindsey Perigo’s speech Here:
Peter Cresswell (PC) after diagnosing why the Libertarianz Party has failed, then went on to prescribe the remedies.
Firstly he suggested that instead of trying to eat the tyrannical socialist Elephant whole, that instead we set about consuming the beast… by slicing it up into portions… and devouring it one manageable bite at a time! (Genius!)
PC points out that such an approach does not involve any compromise at all, but in fact takes better cognizance of reality!
Eating the elephant is to be achieved via several different stratagems.
1. via transitional policies which spread the reforms over small steps, with the design of reducing the terror of the sheeple, minimizing the pain of transition, and hopefully gaining popular support as each step proves the reform works.
2. By reducing the Policy focus of the Party down to 5 policies that Polls already suggest have popular support.
This is a strategy which has worked for other minor parties, and the wisdom of it ought to be obvious!
I am very excited about this suggestion!
Personally I believe this to hold real potential for gaining at least 5% of the votes and getting Freedom lovers into parliament.
PC talked about separating the ‘Educational wing’ , from the ‘Party political wing’, by establishing an Independent ‘think tank’ to focus upon the cultural revolution.
Now I am happy about this if it translates into less encroachment of Objectivist dogma into the parties policies. I still have my reservations about what such a think tank would be like, yet I will leave criticism about this for another time.
Libz Legend Hooch Hellen, and her son Jay. Behind them is Muso Graham Clark, behind him Dakta Green, Behind Him ‘Eternal Vigilante’ Reed.
By the end of the conference several options for the future were on the table, and it was agreed to form a working group to busy themselves communicating with other parties and putting together a presentation of what options were possible, and the pro’s and con’s of each option, to be put to the vote when all interested parties convene again in the new year to make a resolution for the future.
The options were.
1. Dissolve the Libertarianz party and form a New Party with founding members from the dissolved libz, and Ex members of Act, and ex members of Aeotearoa decriminalize Cannabis party, and others. To do this would require the formulation of the ‘Five policies’ which would have an overlapping consensus between the various factions whom would unite as one.
2. Should the other parties prefer it… Maintain the Libertarianz party as a going concern, yet enter an agreement with the other parties (Like the ALPC) to form a coalition for a united challenge at elections. The terms and conditions, and the five policies would have to be agreed upon for this coalition to work, and the Libertarianz party may or may not re-brand itself, and modify its policies to the new strategy.
3. If no consensus of cooperation can be reached with Act, ALPC, True Liberals, etc then the Libertarianz party could continue to exist, yet implement the new strategy, and re-brand when a worthy Brand and logo can be agreed upon.
This requires the formulation of the five policies, and the creation of a Good brand and logo.
PC suggested for the five policies.
1. Tax reform…
2. Balance the budget
3. Legalize Cannabis
4. Legalize Euthanasia
5. End Waitangi Apartheid. One law for all. Get rid of the separate electoral rolls and racist seats, laws, and institutions.
He suggested these because they were both principled and already have popular support amongst the NZ people.
Now these are not written in stone, and vigorous debate and dialogue needs to take place… and options be prepared before the 2-2-13 conference.
Another benefit of picking the policies wisely is that there may be existing politicians and celebrities whom may wish to join us, and this would increase our chances of success.
There was heaps more than this said. The speeches were excellent.
Yet this will suffice for now.
Much discussion at the conference was in regard to Local body politics, including several fantastic speeches… one by NZ sporting Legend and Super city councilor Dick Quax.
Because I have much to report on this aspect of the conference, I will leave it for my next blog post! Say tuned folks!
Tim Wikiriwhi.
For More Pics go here:
PART 2 HERE:
Eternal Vigilance… In Da House.
Communion. Christian Libertarians / Eternal Vigilance bloggers Reed, Richard, and Twikiriwhi. Liberty Conference. Crowne Hotel. Auckland. 6-10-12.
It was great to meet you Reed, and to catch up again with you Richard.
HAHAHA! Check out our Halo’s!
“…And there appeared on their heads Cloven tounges… as of Fire…”
(Acts2vs3) 🙂
Flies in the Vasoline
“Evil Prevails when Good Men do nothing”
Gadfly Convention.
This Saturday.
BE THERE!
Come Listen to Cannabis Revolutionary Dakta Green!
White Rose. Hans and Sophie Scholl – The Final Days: True Story of Anti-Nazi Activist
In the history of courageous activism against Tyranny and Evil, the story of the White Rose Resistance to Nazism is truly Awesome!
Brave Young Souls whom were Murdered by The Nazi state for their Defiance of Hitler’s Infernal Rule.
For an excellent Personal account of the Lives of Hans and Sophie Scholl, and their Enlightened and Freedom loving Parents… Read Anton Gill’s account Here:
The following are Excerpts From Wikipedia…
Origin:…In 1941 Hans Scholl read a copy of a sermon by an outspoken critic of the Nazi regime, Bishop August von Galen, decrying the euthanasia policies (extended that same year to the concentration camps)[2] which the Nazis maintained would protect the German gene pool.[3] Horrified by the Nazi policies, Sophie obtained permission to reprint the sermon and distribute it at the University of Munich as the group’s first leaflet prior to their formal organization…
Hans and Sophie Scholl.
“ Isn’t it true that every honest German is ashamed of his government these days? Who among us has any conception of the dimensions of shame that will befall us and our children when one day the veil has fallen from our eyes and the most horrible of crimes—crimes that infinitely outdistance every human measure—reach the light of day? ”
— From the first leaflet of the White Rose
“ Since the conquest of Poland three hundred thousand Jews have been murdered in this country in the most bestial way … The German people slumber on in their dull, stupid sleep and encourage these fascist criminals … Each man wants to be exonerated of a guilt of this kind, each one continues on his way with the most placid, the calmest conscience. But he cannot be exonerated; he is guilty, guilty, guilty! ”
— From the second leaflet of the White Rose
On 18 February 1943, coincidentally the same day that Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels called on the German people to embrace total war in his Sportpalast speech, the Scholls brought a suitcase full of leaflets to the university. They hurriedly dropped stacks of copies in the empty corridors for students to find when they flooded out of lecture rooms. Leaving before the class break, the Scholls noticed that some copies remained in the suitcase and decided it would be a pity not to distribute them. They returned to the atrium and climbed the staircase to the top floor, and Sophie flung the last remaining leaflets into the air. This spontaneous action was observed by the custodian Jakob Schmid. The police were called and Hans and Sophie Scholl were taken into Gestapo custody. Sophie and Hans were interrogated by Gestapo interrogator Robert Mohr, who initially thought Sophie was innocent. However, after Hans confessed, Sophie assumed full responsibility in an attempt to protect other members of the White Rose. Despite this, the other active members were soon arrested, and the group and everyone associated with them were brought in for interrogation.
The Scholls and Probst were the first to stand trial before the Volksgerichtshof—the People’s Court that tried political offenses against the Nazi German state—on 22 February 1943. They were found guilty of treason and Roland Freisler, head judge of the court, sentenced them to death. The three were executed the same day by guillotine at Stadelheim Prison. All three were noted for the courage with which they faced their deaths, particularly Sophie, who remained firm despite intense interrogation (however, reports that she arrived at the trial with a broken leg from torture are false). She said to Freisler during the trial, “You know as well as we do that the war is lost. Why are you so cowardly that you won’t admit it?”
When Hans was executed, he said “Let freedom live” as the blade fell.
Dumbfounded Dipshits vote Left/Right.(updated)
“…On reasoning and emotions: Libertarians have the most “masculine” style, liberals the most “feminine.” We used Simon Baron-Cohen’s measures of “empathizing” (on which women tend to score higher) and “systemizing”, which refers to “the drive to analyze the variables in a system, and to derive the underlying rules that govern the behavior of the system.” Men tend to score higher on this variable. Libertarians score the lowest of the three groups on empathizing, and highest of the three groups on systemizing. (Note that we did this and all other analyses for males and females separately.) On this and other measures, libertarians consistently come out as the most cerebral, most rational, and least emotional. On a very crude problem solving measure related to IQ, they score the highest. Libertarians, more than liberals or conservatives, have the capacity to reason their way to their ideology…”
Haha I don’t put too much weight on these sorts of ‘Findings’.
I certainly don’t believe Woman empathise more than Men, or that Libertarians Empathise less than socialists. I think this conclusion shows a failure to appreciate the Christian Libertarian belief that Liberty and self reliance tends to greater prosperity for everyone, and thus less poverty, and a greater voluntary spirit of community, and benevolence…. all things which socialism destroys. Thus Liberty fosters a more Christian spirit. Yet of course the Objectivists have done their best to destroy this understanding of Freedom and empathy, and instead promoted Selfishness… thus again they have done their best to undermine the Libertarian cause…
As for the IQ Part… well I don’t put much weight on thoses things either as there have been plenty of high IQ Morons!
Apparently plenty of Hi IQ folk believe the theory of Evolution!
So that proves IQ is no Guarantee of intelligence/ wisdom!
Yet I do Believe Socialists are stupid!
That is an empirical Fact!
Ha!
(I guess I stand convicted of Lack of Tact! Yet I dont believe Being PC shows empathy either… really it’s cloaked Malice)
God is the Font of Morality. Why Objectivists Hate Ron Paul. (updated)
Some surfers may wonder at the title of this blogpost.
Does it reflect malice on the part of the Author?
I would say it does! Some malice can be justified, and there are so many reasons to dislike the irrationality of the bulk of Objectivists… those whom emulate their Icon to the greatest degree.
I must take care not to collectivize all Objectivists into one lump, as this type of oversimplification is a great error to be avoided … way too mechanistic… and thankfully humans are not machines…and thus there are always exceptions which must be given the credit they deserve… Such Mechanistic irrationalism is endemic to Objectivism… most believing such Ideas that “All Muslims are Evil”… “All Christians hate Gays”… Etc, yet there is a moderate minority who avoid this error, and I give these Libertarians their due.
I am angry about the amount of effort the Objectivists put into undermining the Campaign of Ron Paul, whom was by Far the best hope for saving America from Economic ruin and for implementing Libertarian reforms across the board.
The source of this Irrational hatred has been hidden to a large degree and has left many people wondering why Objectivists hate Ron Paul..
Read what ‘Cornell’ has written on this subject on the Lindsay Perigo Objectivist Blog Solo….
Quote:
“It’s odd to me that so many Objectivists dislike Ron Paul. Of all the mainstream presidential candidates out there, his platform is by far the most consistent with Objectivist principles. The only points of major disagreement that I can think of between his politics and Rand’s and Peikoff’s politics are:
1. Abortion — he doesn’t see abortion as a right to be protected by the Federal government; although he does not stand for banning it outright (he takes the “leave it up to the states” stance), and
2. Foreign Policy — Rand and Peikoff take a much more hawkish stance.
However, (1) most states are not going to ban abortions, so I don’t see his stance on abortion changing much of anything, except that he will take away federal subsidies for abortion, which Objectivists would be for anyway, and (2) the truth is that we need to take a less agressive stance towards foreign policy, if for no other reason than that we simply can’t afford to be fighting all these wars accross the globe — we just don’t have the revenue to support it anymore; and I think that Rand would agree with Paul on his strategy, if not on his premises, with the possible exception of Iran.
So am I missing something, or does the Objectivists’ objection to Paul really just boil down to Iran?
If so, then I’m not that worried about Iran. If America leaves Iran alone, you can believe the Israelis will pick up the slack. And you can’t tell me that the American private security firms won’t help out the Israelis with weapons and man-power should all hell break loose; there’s too much to gain by Israel winning another war in the Middle East unhinged from American intrusion. “ End Quote.
Let me tell you Cornell what is Ron Paul’s anathema in the eyes of the Bulk of Objectivists…
He Breaks the First Commandment of Objectivism… “Thou shalt not love the Lord God in any way shape or form..”
This is the unpardonable sin in the eyes of Objectivism.
Objectivism is a Religion.
Atheism is it’s First principle.
And Objectivists willingly sacrifice the principles of Freedom for the sake of halting any Theistic champion of Liberty or justice taking the limelight… thus in spite of all their claims to reason.. they prove them selves to be irrational religious zealots/fanatics.
In their minds It is unthinkable for them to accept the Idea that a theist could be the champion of Liberty and justice.
To accept this they would have to abandon Objectivism because Objectivism is based upon Anti-theism… and it is this which attracted most of them to the faith.
Peter Creswell clearly indicates this *Here* when he says Ron Paul cant be a Libertarian because he’s a Creationist… who will not draw a line between his religion and the State.
Comming from a Randoid this is shear hypocracy… and not true, ie Ron Paul maintains a separation between his Religion and the state, and the fact that He is a Creationist whom rejects the theory of evolution does not render him irrational at all!
PC speaks from his own Bigoted Anti-reason superstition.
Thus The Title of my Blogpost and the Meme explains everything… why Objectivists helped the Powers of Evil in undermining the Greatest champion of Liberty in America today.
Many Libertarian minded Kiwi will be gathering next Saturday to discuss the formation of a New Libertarian orintated Party to gather together the remnants of the Act Party, The Libertarianz, and others like the legalize cannabis party into an Electoral fighting force. It will not be an easy thing to achieve, esp if Objectivists hope to contaminate the constitution with their personal religion, and to put out Anti-theistic blogs and press releases in the name of the New organization. The only hope this New Paty has is that it establishes a true separation between personal beliefs and the constitution, and operates via a libertarian spirit of toleration… for mutual benefit.
I have my own view about how such a party ought to be constituted and I hope to produce a blogpost in this subject before Next Saturday.
The Philosophy of Liberty
Hell is for the Self Righteous, Heaven is for Sinners.
This guy is making a Fatal mistake!
Real Christians do not claim to be good.
The Bible tells us There is none that are Good… no not one.
All fall short of the Glory of God.
Christ came to redeem *sinners*.
What we are seeing in this Photo is an arrogant refusal to admit moral guilt, and because a person must freely choose to receive the Gift of Salvation it is essential that a person first realises they are *not Good*, and that they are Guilty before God.
The self righteous don’t believe they need Salvation…
this guy obviously thinks he’s Good… That’s vanity! That’s self delusion…
That’s his biggest mistake!
It may be true to say that in practical terms he is comparitivly Good/ no worse morally speaking…than the ‘average Christian’. Indeed He may even surpass the moral integrity of the average Christian… never Stealing, he may not tell horrendous lies, He may not be violent, He may be a faithful husband, and care for the oppressed and infirm, etc…yet it is a mistake to think that a Christian is getting into Heaven on his own merits, and that all that is necessary is to be more virtuous than the average Christian… and God will have to let you into heaven.
It does not work like that.
The Moral standard of goodness and acceptiblity unto God is not set by the behavior of the average Christian. It is set by the Holy character of God Almighty… and that is 100% sinlessness.
And No Son of Fallen Adam has ever lived a perfectly holy life.
We are all guilty before God and will be judged for our sins, unless we accept God’s means of Salvation for sinners… Christ’s death on the Cross… as a substitutional sacrifice… payment in full for our Sins.
Now many people will Recoil from this.
Some vain, Egotistical, and self-righteous folk will not believe their sinfulness is serious enough to warrant such an extreme punishment… such an excruciating death as their means of salvation… they will not believe their ‘insignificant indiscretions’ made it necessary for Christ to be crucified on their account.
Others will look at the grotesqueness of the cross and say that
It is offensive to contemplate such a barbaric thing could be the means a good God would utilize for his purposes.
Both these views fail to apprehend that it is God’s sovereign right to set the terms and conditions for salvation, and that one of the reasons he chose this means was not only to demonstrate how seriously he condems all sin, but also so that no one could boast.
To receive Christ is a humbling thing to do.
There is no place for vanity, or Ego… We must accept Salvation on God’s terms and conditions… not ours…and for this reason alone Christ is despised by many.
Yet In the great day of Judgment for sin, Perhapse the greatest sorrow of the Damned of our age will be the realizations that God loved them… that he did everything short of negating their volition to redeem them… and that he made the truth available to the utmost parts of the earth that salvation was Free… yet they were blinded by their own Pride and lusts. They will know utterly that they rejected Christ, and as a consequence have actually Damned themselves!
God is not willing that any should perrish.
So Dear Reader, I hope you have contemplated your own moral condition, and used the correct yardstick in your measurements… 100% holiness… not as this poor Sod has done. I hope you realize your own Moral culpability, and from this realize why Christ died on the cross… Because Hell is for Self-righteous fools… and Contrary to Human Rationalism… Heaven is for sinners whom have humbled themselves enough to call upon the name of the Lord.
Christianity is the only religion where the prerequisite for admission is the unworthiness of the applicant.
Ye Sinners…Heed The Gospel of St Paul!…
“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:” Rom3vs10
“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” Rom3vs23
“But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Rom5vs8
“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Rom6vs23
“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.” Rom10vs13
“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.” 1Cor1vs18
St Paul. The Apostle of the Gospel of Grace and the Teacher of us Gentiles.
“This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.” 1Tim1vs15,16
Tim Wikiriwhi.
Sinner, Libertarian Christian, 1611 King James Bible Believer, Dispensationalist.