• 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.
  • We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

US murder rate hits lowest level since 1900, report says

Boomboomchucka

Active Member
Jan 12, 2026
27
3
EG
Visit site
✟1,625.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If their intent was as narrow as you contend they would have to define it in great detail. That they did not narrowly define first amendment rights as only apply to Christians and excluding blasphemous speech I don't see the basis for you claim that it was their intent to do so.
That wasn't what I intended to convey. Religion, in the context of the 1st amendment was what I addressed. I said nothing about secularism other than what today secularism conveys. Nor did I mention for example, the freedom to express homosexuality but briefly included it under the Greek Porneia.
I will plainly express my view; homosexuality is condemnable to death. Can I go wrong by stating or making an allusion to what G-d commands? That is, in the context of the 1st amendment. Now, take that same statement and reverse it, the homosexual states Christians should be put to death. In the context of the 1st amendment are both protected in speech? And I do understand the 1st amendment today is not a right to act upon our faith or religion. For example, I cannot simply stone a homosexual, though never could under the law which required the civil magistrates and witnesses.
 
Upvote 0

Larniavc

"Larniavc sir, how are you so smart?"
Jul 14, 2015
16,200
9,869
53
✟422,112.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Did he borrow Obama's time machine?
I’d forgotten about the Time Machine. Wasn’t it Hurricane Katrina he should have used it to stop; somehow?
 
Upvote 0

Boomboomchucka

Active Member
Jan 12, 2026
27
3
EG
Visit site
✟1,625.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
With "friends" like this who needs enemies? Serpent among and in the midst. I expect the mishandling of Scripture whenever anybody secular quotes the Scripture. Liberalism is even more lethal in Christianity, because they are often found in our midst.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Desk trauma

[redacted]
Site Supporter
Dec 1, 2011
23,335
19,239
✟1,534,434.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
That wasn't what I intended to convey.

If you did not intend to convey that it's a misinterpretation of the first amendment to grant legal protections of non-christian religions or blasphemous, presumably against the Christian deity, speech why did you say that in post 13?

Religion, in the context of the 1st amendment was what I addressed. I said nothing about secularism other than what today secularism conveys. Nor did I mention for example, the freedom to express homosexuality but briefly included it under the Greek Porneia.

Dragging anything in now.

I will plainly express my view; homosexuality is condemnable to death. Can I go wrong by stating or making an allusion to what G-d commands? That is, in the context of the 1st amendment. Now, take that same statement and reverse it, the homosexual states Christians should be put to death. In the context of the 1st amendment are both protected in speech?

So long as it's not a direct call to kill them, yes.
 
Upvote 0

Boomboomchucka

Active Member
Jan 12, 2026
27
3
EG
Visit site
✟1,625.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
If you did not intend to convey that it's a misinterpretation of the first amendment to grant legal protections of non-christian religions or blasphemous, presumably against the Christian deity, speech why did you say that in post 13?



Dragging anything in now.



So long as it's not a direct call to kill them, yes.
Whatever
 
Upvote 0

Boomboomchucka

Active Member
Jan 12, 2026
27
3
EG
Visit site
✟1,625.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Quite the rebuttal.
What is to say? You stated as long as what I stated was not a call to kill "them". Read the Scriptures in context.
Man, always thinks he knows better than G-d and will prescribe what he thinks best.
Can't go wrong quoting Scripture, correct? That is, even for modern law or policies.
You ask why I mentioned blasphemy; you don't have to go outside Christianity to observe Blasphemy. Secularism hasn't coined the term, but I do expect it whenever a secularist quotes the scriptures.
There is a degree of "inference" I expect from people I engage w/ in discussion. In the event that that standard is not met I no longer engage in discussion. In other words, I don't like to be blamed for the lack of comprehension by others.

Screenshot 2026-01-23 191553.png
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Desk trauma

[redacted]
Site Supporter
Dec 1, 2011
23,335
19,239
✟1,534,434.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
What is to say? You stated as long as what I stated was not a call to kill "them". Read the Scriptures in context.

Ah yes, the magical context that somehow everyone misses when they have the temerity to not agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

Boomboomchucka

Active Member
Jan 12, 2026
27
3
EG
Visit site
✟1,625.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ah yes, the magical context that somehow everyone misses when they have the temerity to not agree.

You don't agree w/ the commandment by G-d? Can't go wrong quoting Scripture, eh?
Can't receive a direct answer.... what's next? Being subject to your interpretation?
 
Upvote 0

Desk trauma

[redacted]
Site Supporter
Dec 1, 2011
23,335
19,239
✟1,534,434.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

MarkSB

Member
May 5, 2006
1,021
828
✟100,337.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
By nature, Liberal interpreters twist whatever data whatever source text and turn the author into a puppet for their special interest (eisegesis). Undoubtedly, Liberals benefit the Democrat narrative.
US-Dem? Let me now use the "ignore" feature. Personally, I believe crime would plummet if the hypocrites on the Left would forfeit their own Constitutional "rights". No arguments here.

Liberal/Dems don't want to be "American" they want to redefine "America". Their interpretation of the Constitution bears no resemblance to the original intent of the authors. For example, the 1st amendment has been reinterpreted to include pornography (porneia) and to umbrella religion, under which is the right to practice witchcraft, sorcery, satanism, etc., the way I see it if they had no constitutional rights to abuse, they'd be less likely to deceive themselves and others in the crimes committed or infringe upon the actual rights conveyed by our forefathers. In a way I'm grateful our system has checks and balances, while not infallible the system does "slow" the process of depravity. Our forefathers knew well that man is depraved (2/3rds of the soldiers that died on the battlefield of the Revolutionary War were Calvinist in theology) and implemented checks and balances under the conviction that man himself and anything he touches becomes corruptible.
While this is my conviction, I understand G-d raises up wicked leaders so the wicked will be damned in their unrighteousness. Saw a Somali sentenced today on X and he asked to be deported rather than sentenced to prison, his request was denied and he was sentenced to 30yrs in state prison and then to be deported after time served. Who were they following in the crimes committed? Of course, they haven't yet faced any accountability or responsibility except potential votes in the next election.
To the Liberal the 1st Amendment includes the right to blaspheme, bear false witness, to lie, to gossip, etc., and that's because they "interpret" the 1st amendment as "Freedom" of the depraved nature of man to express himself. I'll stop my rant here because this leads me to why I don't believe in the "10 commandments" in the secular court system. The notion that capital punishment could occur w/out the same consequence for anyone that bears false witness for capital crimes is too risky. In other words, somebody makes the allegation that person A committed treason and lied. If found innocent than that person that lied should face the death penalty.

A lot of the issues today would have been avoided. Our forefathers had laws that 1) required property ownership to vote and 2) only citizens could own property. Let's just say that the founding fathers understood who and who doesn't have an invested interest in this country. Before I die I'd like to see these laws returned the requirement as well to have served in the military to be "Commander and Chief". Trump call himself a "moderate" and says this country hasn't seen anybody from the "far right" yet. I agree w/ Trump.

Abortion rates should be included in the murder statistics. I'm not "prolife" I'm sanctity of life, I believe anybody that committed murder or conspired to murder including law makers or representatives, physicians, etc., should all receive the death penalty for murder.
Lefties at one time and some throughout this time suggest the World population is out of control and use that for the basis for abortion. I'm using crime and murder to offer a remedy to that said claim. Rather than murdering the innocent how about killing the guilty? Like all those that voted for those abortion policies.

Yes, they could have defined religion, but could they have defined it in such a future way as now? Consider the historical context, beliefs, and convictions of "the people" as well their representatives. Did the representatives at the time disregard the belief of the peoples?
One thing is clear, man has the faculties or "potential" to be an image bearer of G-d, but the natural man uses his faculties to become more cunning than any beast of the field. Is there anything worse than somebody that twists what is plainly stated to justify animalistic behavior? My point is, how clearly could G-d have been? Do not eat of.....

And yes, that would have made Trump ineligible. I'm for mandatory service like Israel and S. Korea, two years, I'd vote for it (no exemptions).

Thank you for the welcome @Pommer, and here's 1 reference: Voting Rights and Restrictions in Pre-Emancipation America | Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
Other references require "inference" from laws passed by states which essentially had taken away voting rights from anybody that didn't own property, at times the historical narrative about said laws seemingly were aimed at minority groups to either eliminate the possibility of their naturalization or keep them from voting. Of course, today a simple ID requirement could be the compromise to help ensure voter integrity. In the meanwhile, the right should push for the restoration of said old laws. Every time the Right compromises... it is like the vice in between two extremes. On one hand unbelief, and on the other belief in G-d. Is it a virtue to compromise and take a step back or turn away from G-d? Of course, the context means everything.
Today, at least as far as I am aware slaves of the state (prisoners) cannot vote. Merely, suggesting that not everybody is "entitled to vote, and in the case of slaves of the state that law pertains to anybody of any race, color, etc. And another point is that the right to vote can be revoked. Same applies for the 1st and 2nd amendments etc.

Enjoy

That wasn't what I intended to convey. Religion, in the context of the 1st amendment was what I addressed. I said nothing about secularism other than what today secularism conveys. Nor did I mention for example, the freedom to express homosexuality but briefly included it under the Greek Porneia.
I will plainly express my view; homosexuality is condemnable to death. Can I go wrong by stating or making an allusion to what G-d commands? That is, in the context of the 1st amendment. Now, take that same statement and reverse it, the homosexual states Christians should be put to death. In the context of the 1st amendment are both protected in speech? And I do understand the 1st amendment today is not a right to act upon our faith or religion. For example, I cannot simply stone a homosexual, though never could under the law which required the civil magistrates and witnesses.


1769227142223.png
 
Upvote 0