Persecution of Christianity is becoming overt instead of covert.

#128
#128
GVF said:
All laws get passed based on someone's beliefs.
Click to expand...

There is a difference in laws that take freedom from a group and those that give freedom to a group. That is what I mean by imposing one's beliefs on another.

For instance, if your religion demands you condemn homosexuality, laws that give equal rights to gays is not an imposition upon you. You can still be free to condemn all the homos you want, but they are free to marry etc.
 
#129
#129
PEPPERJAX said:
Damn! She was fine back in the day.

Susan-B-Anthony.jpg
Click to expand...
Man, you're kinky.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PEPPERJAX
#130
#130
ClearwaterVol said:
There is a difference in laws that take freedom from a group and those that give freedom to a group. That is what I mean by imposing one's beliefs on another.

For instance, if your religion demands you condemn homosexuality, laws that give equal rights to gays is not an imposition upon you. You can still be free to condemn all the homos you want, but they are free to marry etc.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that viewpoint as you presented it, and we have had similar duscussions before that you may or may not recall. Problem is you have big gov oversight into states rights. That causes problems. And some states will pass it and some won't and that's fine if that's the voting majority of that state. THe black hole is that someone with some sort of belief will always be making laws. Some, you will disagree with and think it's religious oversight. Some I may disagree with and think it's imposing will as well. My preference is that the feds get out of alot of these laws and let the states tend to their own citizenship, and on social issues the laws need to be established from referendum votes, in which case a lawmaker of faith can have a clear mind, and a non-religious lawmaker doesn't feel railroaded. And if a particular states laws do not suit an individual, they can relocate. We have 50 states and several colonies we can move freely amidst. And you can be a non-believer and I can keep my faith and we don't actually have to even hate each other.

I know the world is a different place now than in biblical times, but if a person was to truly live as a new testament christian by the letter, they would not engage in the secular world of politics and such at all.

Render unto Caesar what is his and unto God what is His.
Be in the world, not of the world.
If a person chooses not to believe, move on to the next house.

If the subject is broached, and a person tells me not to discuss that with them, I will respect that. I might ask if it's ok to ask why. Just out of curiosity. But, if that's where they are at that point in life it is what it is. If I only made myself available, I did 100% of what was asked of me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tnslim1 and Orangeslice13
#131
#131
ClearwaterVol said:
There is a difference in laws that take freedom from a group and those that give freedom to a group. That is what I mean by imposing one's beliefs on another.

For instance, if your religion demands you condemn homosexuality, laws that give equal rights to gays is not an imposition upon you. You can still be free to condemn all the homos you want, but they are free to marry etc.
Click to expand...

Fortunately my "religion" doesn't dictate what I have to believe. But, based on what I know is said in certain scriptures, I can draw my own conclusion to beleive. But, I don't condemn. We all still have freedom of choice regardless. I see a very distinct line between disagreeing and condemning. Condemning is a slippery slope, and any christian cognisent of true teachings should understand that.
 
#132
#132
GVF said:
I don't disagree with that viewpoint as you presented it, and we have had similar duscussions before that you may or may not recall. Problem is you have big gov oversight into states rights. That causes problems. And some states will pass it and some won't and that's fine if that's the voting majority of that state. THe black hole is that someone with some sort of belief will always be making laws. Some, you will disagree with and think it's religious oversight. Some I may disagree with and think it's imposing will as well. My preference is that the feds get out of alot of these laws and let the states tend to their own citizenship, and on social issues the laws need to be established from referendum votes, in which case a lawmaker of faith can have a clear mind, and a non-religious lawmaker doesn't feel railroaded. And if a particular states laws do not suit an individual, they can relocate. We have 50 states and several colonies we can move freely amidst. And you can be a non-believer and I can keep my faith and we don't actually have to even hate each other.

I know the world is a different place now than in biblical times, but if a person was to truly live as a new testament christian by the letter, they would not engage in the secular world of politics and such at all.

Render unto Caesar what is his and unto God what is His.
Be in the world, not of the world.
If a person chooses not to believe, move on to the next house.

If the subject is broached, and a person tells me not to discuss that with them, I will respect that. I might ask if it's ok to ask why. Just out of curiosity. But, if that's where they are at that point in life it is what it is. If I only made myself available, I did 100% of what was asked of me.
Click to expand...

Solid points. I don't hate people of faith, btw.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GVF
#134
#134
GVF said:
Fortunately my "religion" doesn't dictate what I have to believe. But, based on what I know is said in certain scriptures, I can draw my own conclusion to beleive. But, I don't condemn. We all still have freedom of choice regardless. I see a very distinct line between disagreeing and condemning. Condemning is a slippery slope, and any christian cognisent of true teachings should understand that.
Click to expand...

I wasn't making the statement at anyone specifically, but more as a means of showing the vast area in which people can hold religious beliefs while not trying to impose those religious beliefs upon others.
 
#136
#136
ClearwaterVol said:
There is a difference in laws that take freedom from a group and those that give freedom to a group. That is what I mean by imposing one's beliefs on another.

For instance, if your religion demands you condemn homosexuality, laws that give equal rights to gays is not an imposition upon you. You can still be free to condemn all the homos you want, but they are free to marry etc.
Click to expand...

How is that different than gun restrictions?
 
#138
#138
ClearwaterVol said:
I wasn't making the statement at anyone specifically, but more as a means of showing the vast area in which people can hold religious beliefs while not trying to impose those religious beliefs upon others.
Click to expand...

Not a prob. IMO, a vast amount of people that might have believedor did at one time, do not because of the overreach of "organized" religion. Or, because someone that was supposed to be a christian and a person of trust did something to them. Or, like my impression of TV preachers, many folks don't practice what they preach. Meaning they try to project perfection on an imperfect surface, while not allowing for the audience to be imperfect. Or hypocritical in other words. The only way I could ever answer someone in those regards is a person is accountable for themselves and their decisions, and not what someone made them do or not do. They have to answer for negative effect/influence in their own right.

I don't believe church #1 of said religion on the west side has any say so over what church #2 of same reigion name on the east side does. Organized centrally governed religions doesn't prescribe to that, and the brunt of what most people don't like about religion is against that type per se.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pennheel
#139
#139
turbovol said:
Christians have been obsessed with pushing their nonsense on people all over the world for centuries--and it is nonsense. The only
people "persecuted" are those who face this endless "god" BS. Look at a couple of conservative states are now trying to do--get taxpayers
to fund religious schools. It's outrageous.
Click to expand...


What nonsense are we pushing??
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol and jp1
#140
#140
ClearwaterVol said:
I am only for doing what we can to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people.

But gun restrictions are ostensibly in the name of public safety.
Click to expand...

I don't mind background checks. Especially for concealable weapons. I don't see any issues saying for public safety you can keep your 2nd Ammendment, but we gonna vet you first. If you prefer to purchase more expediently, get your CC or OC, or both. THe buying process is more fluid then. However, my experience w/o permits still has been just a short wait at the store while the background goes thru. If there are no issues the purchase is usually completed in less than an hour. No biggie. I have no issue with a ntional vetted buyer database, just not the tracking of their purchases. Or the ability to hack it and go deep state on someone.

If you want to pre vet people, then require permits for purchase, so a person has a thorough background check on file. You're still not prohibiting 2A. Regardless of how it's done:

1. Someone will alwys slip thru the system.
2. Can't account for someone that goes nuts after the vetting proocess.
3. Still doesn't curb illegal gunowners that will never, ever go by the law in the first place, and make up the majoity of firearm crime stats.
 
#143
#143
Mildly impressed we made it 86 posts before scripture got quoted thinking it was going to make a point or change anybody’s mind.
 
#144
#144
DinkinFlicka said:
{pr-fanity -mitted from orig post}
Click to expand...

Wow, that's some kind of response (prob drew a few chuckles).

One can wonder, if some folks today have lost the decency to respect others (team players, fellow fans, etc)

3. Personal Attacks add nothing to the board. Healthy debate is expected and encouraged, but take the childish insults elsewhere. My philosophy has always been to attack the post and not the poster. Posts such as "your (sic) an idiot" don't add to the discussion. With varying opinions and viewpoints, most everyone will view some posts as idiotic. We have a great feature to make your experience here more enjoyable 'Ignore user'. USE IT.


4. Respect the players Fans often get upset with players for their performance on the field or other issues that may affect their contributions. It's certainly allowable to criticize players for their play, but personal attacks, name calling, etc. of Tennessee players is frowned upon.


Reminds us of an actual event, where respect was lacking --

Gen 19: 1Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he stood up to meet them and [a]bowed down with his face to the ground. 2And he said, “Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant’s house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.” They said, “No, but we shall spend the night in the public square.” 3Yet he strongly urged them, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them and baked unleavened bread, and they ate.

4Before they lay down, the men of the city—the men of Sodom—surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people https://biblehub.com/nasb_/genesis/19.htm#fnfrom every quarter;

5and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight?

Bring them out to us that we may [c]have relations with them.”

6But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, 7and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly.
 
#147
#147
GVF said:
Fortunately my "religion" doesn't dictate what I have to believe. But, based on what I know is said in certain scriptures, I can draw my own conclusion to beleive. But, I don't condemn. We all still have freedom of choice regardless. I see a very distinct line between disagreeing and condemning. Condemning is a slippery slope, and any christian cognisent of true teachings should understand that.
Click to expand...
Decided for yourself what you believe and allow others to do that for themselves.

or at least that’s what I do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#149
#149
hog88 said:
Ehh, I wouldn't go that far. I understand that (or at least think) your "we" is in reference to established and recognized religions but several political/social movements are practically religions now and oh boy those practitioners absolutely care what others believe.
Click to expand...
MAGA!
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top