LittleNipper
Contributor
- Mar 9, 2005
- 9,011
- 174
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
An example why Gay agenda undermines religious freedom
- Thread starter CreedIsChrist
- Start date
- Status
LittleNipper
Contributor
- Mar 9, 2005
- 9,011
- 174
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
I have the depressing sensation that me providing a link to the actual text of the bill so it could be discussed accurately is considered to be part of the obfuscation.
Specifically, you pretending it had nothing to do with controlling the church when the bill explicitly attempts to cut the catholic leadership out of the portion of the organization having to do with spending money.
Yeah.
Upvote
0
Well then please point me towards the Christian pro-divorce and family destruction movement...?
The only people ever promoting divorce on demand were, again, Communists.
Upvote
0
well, when one's religious freedom imposes upon one's civil freedoms, its not good either.
lol religious freedom? What does that mean? Theres absolutely no such thing; one cannot be free to believe anything they wish without consequences; if you believe that you are an angelic warrior sent here to defeat/kill those of demonic lineage on earth, then you should be thrown in jail where your freedoms of religious practice are ultimately compromised.
There is no such thing as freedom. Freedom is a cultural construct imagined by people that doesnt really exst.
Also, I'm tired of our congressmen and statesmen using their religiou beliefs to influence their decision-making abilities and legislative powers.
lol religious freedom? What does that mean? Theres absolutely no such thing; one cannot be free to believe anything they wish without consequences; if you believe that you are an angelic warrior sent here to defeat/kill those of demonic lineage on earth, then you should be thrown in jail where your freedoms of religious practice are ultimately compromised.
There is no such thing as freedom. Freedom is a cultural construct imagined by people that doesnt really exst.
Also, I'm tired of our congressmen and statesmen using their religiou beliefs to influence their decision-making abilities and legislative powers.
Upvote
0
Please...
The separation of church and state was meant to help keep the state from usurping the church and attempting to create morality on its own. Democratic outlets in the government were meant to force the government to respond to the desires of the governed. Civil rights were meant to add extra protection against government abuse of individual citizens.
Everyone, everyone, makes value judgments based on their beliefs about spirituality, the nature of reality, and a host of other things. You can't BAN people thinking for themselves.
You've successfully pursued the concept of freedom of religion to the absurd. Congratulations. I really don't think anyone was confused though as to whether or not we would be required to allow people to sacrifice victims to a volcano if they formed a religion based on the concept.
Upvote
0
sidhe
Seemly Unseelie
- Sep 27, 2004
- 4,466
- 586
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Pagan
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
If it does so, it affects all religious entities equally, so acting as if it's an attack against the Catholic Church is dishonest.
...and before you say "But it says bishops!", that would also mean it would apply to the Episcopal Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, the United Methodist Church, the Rosicrucians, the Gnostic Catholic Church (all variants), the Antiochan Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Old Catholic Church, the Liberal Catholic Church, T.D. Jakes' church, AME churches...any religious body that operates via an episcopate would be equally covered. That's just a short list.
So, is the homosexual agenda now opposed to the UMC, ECUSA, LCC, EGC, and the Old Catholics, all of whom have large member bases that support gay rights?
Upvote
0
I had a rather sarcastic friend who once noted that it was dumb for gays to want to get married since all that would happen would they would leave themselves open to the useless divorce process we currently have.
The way she expressed it was a little too colorful to repeat here.
Upvote
0
Sep of church and state happened so the church wouldnt usurp the state, not the other way around.
I'm simply pointing out that freedom itself is subjective, and when something is subject to subjection, it therefore becomes meaningless and devoid of any true real value other than the value the individual allocates.
Upvote
0
Which is precisely why this verse and others to do with church discipline are so important:
I already touched on this issue of being specific to Catholics. Baptists for example do not have this organization.
I specifically said it might not be specific to Catholics. What your post did though was to pick a single line from the bill stating it was not to be construed to empower the board to make theological decisions and assert that it therefore had no bearing on churches and their ability to run their own affairs.
So it effects many many churches... This changes what? How? Don't you imagine it makes it worse? You strain out gnats for the change to make a personal attack accusing someone of mischaracterizing the law, when you're the one who attempted to do so.
I need to get moving... Good afternoon.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
- Status
