Recruiting forum off topic thread (no politics, covid, or hot button issues)

[UTMVol76]

It's not sit down and shut up. It's stay out of politics or let go of your tax exempt status.

Isn’t it interesting how government can tell Churches what to and what not to preach. Not much of a seperation is it?

And I think Churches need to drop tax exempt status for this reason...

 

[#1GatorHater]

You must have never read the writings of Paul.

Paul? Who is that? How could I possibly know who that is or have read anything about him? I'm obviously just not as smart or as Holy as you all. When I say my afternoon prayer, I'll ask the Lord to clear my eyes, ears, heart, and mind so that I can better understand where you all are coming from and who I can rightly cast judgement upon.

My expectations for fellow Christians is much greater than for people outside of the congregation. We are called to be stewards of the Word, the planet, and everything God created in his supremacy and all-knowing love.

 

[#1GatorHater]

Isn’t it interesting how government can tell Churches what to and what not to preach. Not much of a seperation is it?

And I think Churches need to drop tax exempt status for this reason...

I don't think he government should tell churches what to preach, businesses who they can and cannot serve, etc

 

[#1GatorHater]

“Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” just got firmly ignored this past year and a half as a side note....

And establishment of religion is not the same as separation of church and state in the way it’s interpreted today. Obviously establishment meant that the Dtate did not deem we are a Catholic state or Anglican state which they had of course just escaped from Europe. However, there is no denying looking at early Laws and Documents that Christianity was the Faith of the land and there was no separation of your beliefs when you walked into the public square. For instance, why would you take an Oath on the Bible before you testified? Why would a benediction and/or prayer be read before a Congress sat? These are small examples, but there are many more.

Today’s version of Seperation of Church and State as taught and administered is more akin to the Soviet/Bolshevik style which is a total exclusion of all religion for the secular State. We see how “tolerant” their States were...

What does any of that have to do with governance?

 

[Glitch]

It's not sit down and shut up. It's stay out of politics or let go of your tax exempt status.

A Christian cannot just set their religion to the side. It guides our lives and decision making. If we cannot bring our religion into our politics then you are violating our 1A rights to the free practice of our religion.

 

[Orangeburst]

It's not sit down and shut up. It's stay out of politics or let go of your tax exempt status.

If you dont think that our representatives make law based on his/her beliefs, whether religious or secular, I do not know what to say. You cannot separate.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." is not even relevant. The point was not to not have state sponsered religion such as the Papacy.

 

[Glitch]

Paul? Who is that? How could I possibly know who that is or have read anything about him? I'm obviously just not as smart or as Holy as you all. When I say my afternoon prayer, I'll ask the Lord to clear my eyes, ears, heart, and mind so that I can better understand where you all are coming from and who I can rightly cast judgement upon.

My expectations for fellow Christians is much greater than for people outside of the congregation. We are called to be stewards of the Word, the planet, and everything God created in his supremacy and all-knowing love.

You haven't even read the Bible but you presume to know all about Christianity and how Christians should behave. You tell others to read books, but maybe you should read the Bible and you might have a little more understanding about the Christian faith.

 

[#1GatorHater]

A Christian cannot just set their religion to the side. It guides our lives and decision making. If we cannot bring our religion into our politics then you are violating our 1A rights to the free practice of our religion.

You can bring your religion wherever you want. The government needs to be devoid of religious underpinnings when they make decisions that impact millions of non-Christian citizens. There is probably just as much disagreement within the Christian about the teachings as there is outside of it about religion in general.
You shouldn't make laws based upon your religious preferences. The government should not legislate morality. Especially with the low moral capacity and corruption of politics at all levels regardless of religious affiliation.

 

[#1GatorHater]

If you dont think that our representatives make law based on his/her beliefs, whether religious or secular, I do not know what to say. You cannot separate.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." is not even relevant. The point was not to not have state sponsered religion such as the Papacy.

This is what I am saying too. Thoug, when legislation is driven to implement religious principles, its crossing the line.

 

[#1GatorHater]

You haven't even read the Bible but you presume to know all about Christianity and how Christians should behave. You tell others to read books, but maybe you should read the Bible and you might have a little more understanding about the Christian faith.

Where did I say I haven't read the Bible?

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

I already said that I have a higher standard of conduct for fellow Christians.
Also, I haven't seen anywhere in the Bible that refers to being transgender as a sin. What about hermaphrodite?
This is all you stating your interpretation as fact. Thats fine. Just don't begrudge others who have their own interpretation.
I am not asking you to forgive anyone. I am just questioning your capacity to condemn.
I must have missed the part during my 40+ years of going to church where they said that God is easily understood by the brain and heart of mortal men and women. I was always taught that God is omnipotent, compassionate, and so powerful and mighty that we can't possibly comprehend the extent of God's power and will.
But that's just me.

You've went to church for 40 years, what kind of church? Did that church teach the perspicuity of Scripture? If not, why not? God Himself is incomprehensible, His word is not. While the Bible does not have specific verses talking about men transitioning into women, it also doesn't have verses discussing a lot of modern day phenomenon. the Bible does however speak of men acting like men and women acting like women. the Bible knows nothing of other gender categories. There is no room in that for transgender. Not to mention Christ said in Matthew 19, "In the beginning God created them MALE and FEMALE." Any rejection of God's creation order, is in fact sin. Is it your argument that rejecting God's creative order is not sinful? If so, then how do you justify that in light of Genesis 2-3, 1st Cor. 11, Ephesians 5, 1st Peter 3 just to name a few places?

The interpretation argument is one that really needs to be given up. You are interpreting my words right now. If you can interpret my words, you can interpret the Bible. Are some portions harder to interpret than others, sure. But none of it is impossible to interpret and nothing that we are discussing in this thread is on any subject that is difficult to interpret. In reality, the only biblical passage that we have discussed in detail is Matthew 7, and the interpretation of Matthew 7 is clear as I and others showed earlier. The interpretation argument is one that we make when we don't want to face what Scripture teaches.

Who am I supposedly condemning? I haven't condemned anyone. I don't believe we've even discussed that subject this entire time. The Bible however condemns everyone who does not repent and believe in Christ. This is not a difficult verse to interpret: "Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but who does not believe in Him is condemned already, because He has not believed in the only Son of God (John 3:18). Nor is this one: "He who has the Son has life; He who does not have the Son of God does not have life" (1st John 5:12)

Let me ask you, is the Bible your final authority or is there another source? If another source, there's no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Orangeburst]

You haven't even read the Bible but you presume to know all about Christianity and how Christians should behave. You tell others to read books, but maybe you should read the Bible and you might have a little more understanding about the Christian faith.

I was in Houston years ago during the Hero Law controversy....Go to church one Sunday and the minister had to "bide his words". Tha lesbian Mayor of Houston threatened the city churches for denouncing her law, which was contrary to what many believe. Rather eye opening. You cannot separate moralistic or religious belief from politics.

 

[#1GatorHater]

This is what I am saying too. Thoug, when legislation is driven to implement religious principles, its crossing the line.

I read the Bible often. I also read your supporting texts, historical books focused on the early and growing church, other religious texts, and so on.

I was being sarcastic about Paul. I believe that anytime a man or woman thinks that they grasp or understand God, even the littlest bit, it's that person's ego that is being served and not God. I try to serve without questioning the motives or will of God.
I go to church, have accepted Jesus as my Lord and savior, and serve my local community through volunteer work and work for a breast cancer nonprofit. Does any of that please God? I don't know. But that and faithful devotion is all I can give.
I can't play the role of God and judge.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

It's not sit down and shut up. It's stay out of politics or let go of your tax exempt status.

If you think that was the founding father's ideas of separation of church and state, you are sadly mistaken. The tax exempt status is really not much of a threat. Do you think I care about that? But the state will not tell me what to believe or what to teach or to stay silent. They can try, but it will not work, just like it didn't work in the 1st century when they tried to silence the apostles and killed all of them except John.

 

[Orangeburst]

This is what I am saying too. Thoug, when legislation is driven to implement religious principles, its crossing the line.

Who decides this imaginary line?

 

[#1GatorHater]

You've went to church for 40 years, what kind of church? Did that church teach the perspicuity of Scripture? If not, why not? God Himself is incomprehensible, His word is not. While the Bible does not have specific verses talking about men transitioning into women, it also doesn't have verses discussing a lot of modern day phenomenon. the Bible does however speak of men acting like men and women acting like women. the Bible knows nothing of other gender categories. There is no room in that for transgender. Not to mention Christ said in Matthew 19, "In the beginning God created them MALE and FEMALE." Any rejection of God's creation order, is in fact sin. Is it your argument that rejecting God's creative order is not sinful? If so, then how do you justify that in light of Genesis 2-3, 1st Cor. 11, Ephesians 5, 1st Peter 3 just to name a few places?

The interpretation argument is one that really needs to be given up. You are interpreting my words right now. If you can interpret my words, you can interpret the Bible. Are some portions harder to interpret than others, sure. But none of it is impossible to interpret and nothing that we are discussing in this thread is on any subject that is difficult to interpret. In reality, the only biblical passage that we have discussed in detail is Matthew 7, and the interpretation of Matthew 7 is clear as I and others showed earlier. In reality, the interpretation argument is one that we make when we don't want to face what Scripture teaches.

Who am I supposedly condemning? I haven't condemned anyone. I don't believe we've even discussed that subject this entire time. The Bible however condemns everyone who does not repent and believe in Christ. This is not a difficult verse to interpret: "Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but who does not believe in Him is condemned already, because He has not believed in the only Son of God (John 3:18). Nor is this one: "He who has the Son has life; He who does not have the Son of God does not have life" (1st John 5:12)

Let me ask you, is the Bible your final authority or is there another source? If another source, there's no point in continuing this discussion.

My final source is my love for God.
My Bible interpretation is flawed because I am flawed, just like you.
A broken glass can't possibly hold water without spilling it.
By taking your interpretation as the only one, you are seeing your Ego.
You interpret what you might think the Buble might mean in relation to modern issues. Do you not see where your own fallacy and sin corrupts your interpretation? Or are you beyond reproach?

 

[#1GatorHater]

I was in Houston years ago during the Hero Law controversy....Go to church one Sunday and the minister had to "bide his words". Tha lesbian Mayor of Houston threatened the city churches for denouncing her law, which was contrary to what many believe. Rather eye opening. You cannot separate moralistic or religious belief from politics.

People should be able to denounce whatever they want. The pastor shouldn't care if the mayor doesn't like what he/she preaches.

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

You can bring your religion wherever you want. The government needs to be devoid of religious underpinnings when they make decisions that impact millions of non-Christian citizens. There is probably just as much disagreement within the Christian about the teachings as there is outside of it about religion in general.
You shouldn't make laws based upon your religious preferences. The government should not legislate morality. Especially with the low moral capacity and corruption of politics at all levels regardless of religious affiliation.

The government should not legislate morality? What do you call laws? Murder? Stealing?

 

[#1GatorHater]

Who decides this imaginary line?

That's the challenge. Its all subjective, just like religious interpretation.
One reason I say that because of the linguistic issues of translating. I grew up reading the King James Bible. Imagine my suprise when I learned about how that translation was written!

 

[Jackcrevol]

I already said that I have a higher standard of conduct for fellow Christians.
Also, I haven't seen anywhere in the Bible that refers to being transgender as a sin. What about hermaphrodite?
This is all you stating your interpretation as fact. Thats fine. Just don't begrudge others who have their own interpretation.
I am not asking you to forgive anyone. I am just questioning your capacity to condemn.
I must have missed the part during my 40+ years of going to church where they said that God is easily understood by the brain and heart of mortal men and women. I was always taught that God is omnipotent, compassionate, and so powerful and mighty that we can't possibly comprehend the extent of God's power and will.
But that's just me.

Paraphrasing...

Man shall not lay with man...

If he lay with beast, surely he will be put to death...

man shall lay with his wife as one flesh.

I do not know for certain as I didnt research the specific books but this seems like Old Testament verbiage.

I believe in the Son of Man, who, loves everyone, everyone more than himself. So much so that He died for our sins. We are to love others as he loves us. That's pretty much it.

 

[#1GatorHater]

The government should not legislate morality? What do you call laws? Murder? Stealing?

Laws are ways to protect the rights of citizens. Morals are too subjective to legislate.
Look at marijuana and alcohol, or gambling and lotteries, etc.
Life is a mostly gray area. The only black and white areas, I believe, is where we put our faith. I think that is because faith doesn't require proof (Jesus, gravity, etc).

 

[Bassmaster_Vol]

I read the Bible often. I also read your supporting texts, historical books focused on the early and growing church, other religious texts, and so on.

I was being sarcastic about Paul. I believe that anytime a man or woman thinks that they grasp or understand God, even the littlest bit, it's that person's ego that is being served and not God. I try to serve without questioning the motives or will of God.
I go to church, have accepted Jesus as my Lord and savior, and serve my local community through volunteer work and work for a breast cancer nonprofit. Does any of that please God? I don't know. But that and faithful devotion is all I can give.
I can't play the role of God and judge.

So is it your position then that God gave us a Bible but we can't understand it?

 

[#1GatorHater]

Paraphrasing...

Man shall not lay with man...

If he lay with beast, surely he will be put to death...

man shall lay with his wife as one flesh.

I do not know for certain as I didnt research the specific books but this seems like Old Testament verbiage.

I believe in the Son of Man, who, loves everyone, everyone more than himself. So much so that He died for our sins. We are to love others as he loves us. That's pretty much it.

What if the person isn't either? Or identifies as a woman? Does it address that? Or are you filling in the blanks? If it is not specifically addressed, then it is an interpretation by man. And man is completely fallable.

 

[Glitch]

Where did I say I haven't read the Bible?

Well, for starters, you said you didn't know who Paul was. Considering he wrote a large portion of the New Testament, it seems like you might at least know one of the main co-authors of the book of faith of the people you are telling to be more compassionate too.

 

[#1GatorHater]

So is it your position then that God gave us a Bible but we can't understand it?

My position is that God gave gave and gives us instructions, signs, miracles, corrections, and a bunch more constantly.
My position is that even if God spoke directly to a man, that man is inherently sinful and fallable and could not possibly convey the information without corrupting ti through his own biases and sinful midn/heart.