Posted by Vitamin_C on 8/18/2018 8:37:00 PM (view original):
Quote post by tangplay on 8/18/2018 7:47:00 PM:

On the Israel argument, you are getting into a very us/them mindset with this argument. I note that none of the passages you cited come from the new testament, and this is because Jesus kinda contradicts what you are arguing here. Do I need to bring up the good Samaritan story? Do I need to bring up Matthew 5:23 and Luke 6:27? I know that you reference Iran here, but an argument that CCCP makes a lot relating to this is that we need war to settle the Israeli/Palestine dispute and you are either on one side or the other. Again this is very us/them. I come from a sect of the Church that is very pacifist and I could talk about this all day but I won't. Either way, I don't see how trying to stop the production of nuclear missiles is anti God.

I understand there is a difference of opinion from different denominations about Israel's role during this age of grace. I won't debate this portion, but disagree with your assessment of scripture you've quoted. I don't see anything contradictory about anything Jesus said in any of those scriptures. Israel is, in fact, trying to help the people of Iran. It is the REGIME in Iran that is the problem. As far as "needing war to settle... ". They are at constant war. They have constantly been under attack and consistently thwart the attacks, give concessions, show mercy, rinse and repeat for the last 70 years.

Israel is, in fact, trying to help the people of Iran. It is the REGIME in Iran that is the problem.

While I agree that the regime in Iran is not beneficial to the people I think as a Christian we should try to use every system possible except war or conflict. The discourse around Iran is slowly moving towards war and I don't like it. Additionally, I think a deal where Iran loses nuclear weapons and has a better economy is better for the people. If your argument that strangling Iran's economy until they have a revolution or collapse is the solution, how is that good for the Iranian people?

And while Palestine is more at fault than Israel, neither side really wants peace. And again, there is no situation where we should accept war and conquest as the answer.

Posted by tangplay on 8/18/2018 6:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 8/18/2018 5:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/18/2018 5:36:00 PM (view original):
So you are sacrificing moral and religious values for political ones?

Honestly it stumps me why ANY Christian would vote for Trump. He is so anti Christian value that it is insane. It's a major reason why Christian Evangelicals are becoming one of the most hated groups in the USA. For good reason. Good riddance.

Glad to hear that you hate me!

When did I say that I hate you?

"It's a major reason why Christian Evangelicals are becoming one of the most hated groups in the USA. For good reason. Good riddance."

I'M AN EVANGELICAL!!!!!!

Posted by Vitamin_C on 8/18/2018 8:59:00 PM (view original):
Quote post by tangplay on 8/18/2018 7:47:00 PM:

You also bring up the religious freedom argument, as if the poor Christians are being trampled and soon we will be banned from public showings of faith. This is straight up bullshit. Freedom of religion doesn't mean to force people to say a prayer in school. In fact, this was a common thing Jesus criticized the leaders of the church for. Outward showing of faith but no actual meaning behind it, and outright hypocrisy. Republicans are the same way. Being a Christian isn't hard. You aren't killed at the stake for being a Christian. BTW, it's funny to hear Catholics complaining about a lack of religious toleration considering their history. Want to read up on the beginning of the Mennonite Church? Ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition? The Crusades?

Not everyone who displays faith publically is a hypocrite. Jesus was pointing out the individual's hypocrisy.

You are arguing against points I never mentioned.
A student being told he may not mention his faith during his valedictorian speech is being denied his freedom of religion. Period.

I also never said anyone was killed for being a Christian. Again you're arguing something I never said.

The Crusades were a response to years of Muslim aggression. And your asking me to read up on history? Fact. Muslim aggression prior to the Crusades killed more folks. If it weren't for the Crusades all of Europe would currently be Muslim.

Not that any of that has anything whatsoever to do with the fact I made. That there was a very definite eroding away of religious fredom, unless you agree that "freedom of worship" is quite enough, and "freedom of religion" (as mentioned in the Constitution) is unnecessary.

Not everyone who displays faith publically is a hypocrite. Jesus was pointing out the individual's hypocrisy.

Yes, that is correct. My point was that I see your argument as arguing for the idea that Christians need to show their Christianity wherever they go, and many don't actually practice what they say they do.

A student being told he may not mention his faith during his valedictorian speech is being denied his freedom of religion. Period.

I agree with this, however this isn't a red/blue thing. You can protest that if you want, and I will join you. The President shouldn't step in with something like this.

I also never said anyone was killed for being a Christian. Again you're arguing something I never said.

Again, my point was that Christians have it VERY good in this country, and we are lucky to have it this way. The whole situation is overblown. My other argument was kinda jokey, but Catholics complaining about a lack of religious toleration have tunnel vision.

The Crusades were a response to years of Muslim aggression. And your asking me to read up on history? Fact. Muslim aggression prior to the Crusades killed more folks. If it weren't for the Crusades all of Europe would currently be Muslim.

The Crusades are widely regarded as massive failures.
Also, Matthew 5:38-39: You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

Not that any of that has anything whatsoever to do with the fact I made. That there was a very definite eroding away of religious fredom, unless you agree that "freedom of worship" is quite enough, and "freedom of religion" (as mentioned in the Constitution) is unnecessary.

You have provided one valid example of an erosion of religious freedom. Give more.

Posted by Vitamin_C on 8/18/2018 9:11:00 PM (view original):
Quote post by tangplay on 8/18/2018 7:47:00 PM:

Next, LGBT. This should be fairly obvious, but Jesus tells us not to be a dick to people. Additionally, this is an important time to consider the failings of your own nominee. The blatant hypocrisy to criticize LGBT people for 'Not being of God's design' but NOMINATING someone who commits adultery, lies, values material possessions over God, and scams and steals from people for his own gain. I will leave you with Matthew 7:3-5 for my thoughts on that.

I didn't nominate Trump. I was given a choice between HRC and Trump. I am not judging LBGT, when I say "goes against God's design". I am specifically referring to the bathroom and changing room issue, so the speck vs log isn't applicable. Do you believe that scripture instructs us to not speak out against bad policy or is strictly referring to one person judging another?

I'll give you this, you are great at dismantling arguments that were never made and then declaring you've taken out the list.

I didn't nominate Trump. I was given a choice between HRC and Trump.

You didn't vote in the primaries? That's pretty foolish of you to not vote and complain about the choices given. Either way, you had 325 million 3rd party candidates that you could have voted for. Or you could have not voted.

I am not judging LBGT, when I say "goes against God's design". I am specifically referring to the bathroom and changing room issue, so the speck vs log isn't applicable. Do you believe that scripture instructs us to not speak out against bad policy or is strictly referring to one person judging another?

I agree that the bathroom and changing room issue goes against God's design. In a perfect world, people wouldn't be LGBT. However, things change. All of the problems and solutions you state aren't part of God's design. We don't live in God's design. We can work towards that, yes. If you want to try to convert LGBT, go ahead. I don't have a strong opinion on the changing room thing. Yes, speak out against bad policy. I don't think disagreeing with the changing room thing has much to do about faith specifically. Again, many valid reasons to vote Republican, but I disagree that you should vote based on faith.

I'll give you this, you are great at dismantling arguments that were never made and then declaring you've taken out the list.

I get that you aren't around much, but everyone here is great at that.

Posted by strikeout26 on 8/18/2018 9:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/18/2018 6:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 8/18/2018 5:51:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/18/2018 5:36:00 PM (view original):
So you are sacrificing moral and religious values for political ones?

Honestly it stumps me why ANY Christian would vote for Trump. He is so anti Christian value that it is insane. It's a major reason why Christian Evangelicals are becoming one of the most hated groups in the USA. For good reason. Good riddance.

Glad to hear that you hate me!

When did I say that I hate you?

"It's a major reason why Christian Evangelicals are becoming one of the most hated groups in the USA. For good reason. Good riddance."

I'M AN EVANGELICAL!!!!!!

I understand that. I didn't say that I hate you. Yes, I dislike the path the evangelical movement has taken our country down. It frustrates me greatly. I don't hate anyone.

Hated probably was a bad term to use. I apologize.

Posted by tangplay on 8/18/2018 9:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Vitamin_C on 8/18/2018 8:37:00 PM (view original):
Quote post by tangplay on 8/18/2018 7:47:00 PM:

On the Israel argument, you are getting into a very us/them mindset with this argument. I note that none of the passages you cited come from the new testament, and this is because Jesus kinda contradicts what you are arguing here. Do I need to bring up the good Samaritan story? Do I need to bring up Matthew 5:23 and Luke 6:27? I know that you reference Iran here, but an argument that CCCP makes a lot relating to this is that we need war to settle the Israeli/Palestine dispute and you are either on one side or the other. Again this is very us/them. I come from a sect of the Church that is very pacifist and I could talk about this all day but I won't. Either way, I don't see how trying to stop the production of nuclear missiles is anti God.

I understand there is a difference of opinion from different denominations about Israel's role during this age of grace. I won't debate this portion, but disagree with your assessment of scripture you've quoted. I don't see anything contradictory about anything Jesus said in any of those scriptures. Israel is, in fact, trying to help the people of Iran. It is the REGIME in Iran that is the problem. As far as "needing war to settle... ". They are at constant war. They have constantly been under attack and consistently thwart the attacks, give concessions, show mercy, rinse and repeat for the last 70 years.

Israel is, in fact, trying to help the people of Iran. It is the REGIME in Iran that is the problem.

While I agree that the regime in Iran is not beneficial to the people I think as a Christian we should try to use every system possible except war or conflict. The discourse around Iran is slowly moving towards war and I don't like it. Additionally, I think a deal where Iran loses nuclear weapons and has a better economy is better for the people. If your argument that strangling Iran's economy until they have a revolution or collapse is the solution, how is that good for the Iranian people?

And while Palestine is more at fault than Israel, neither side really wants peace. And again, there is no situation where we should accept war and conquest as the answer.

IF we could trust the regime in Iran that would be an AWESOME plan.
But if you really believe that the leadership of Iran has their people's interest at heart, I cannot continue this discussion.

Posted by Vitamin_C on 8/18/2018 9:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/18/2018 9:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Vitamin_C on 8/18/2018 8:37:00 PM (view original):
Quote post by tangplay on 8/18/2018 7:47:00 PM:

On the Israel argument, you are getting into a very us/them mindset with this argument. I note that none of the passages you cited come from the new testament, and this is because Jesus kinda contradicts what you are arguing here. Do I need to bring up the good Samaritan story? Do I need to bring up Matthew 5:23 and Luke 6:27? I know that you reference Iran here, but an argument that CCCP makes a lot relating to this is that we need war to settle the Israeli/Palestine dispute and you are either on one side or the other. Again this is very us/them. I come from a sect of the Church that is very pacifist and I could talk about this all day but I won't. Either way, I don't see how trying to stop the production of nuclear missiles is anti God.

I understand there is a difference of opinion from different denominations about Israel's role during this age of grace. I won't debate this portion, but disagree with your assessment of scripture you've quoted. I don't see anything contradictory about anything Jesus said in any of those scriptures. Israel is, in fact, trying to help the people of Iran. It is the REGIME in Iran that is the problem. As far as "needing war to settle... ". They are at constant war. They have constantly been under attack and consistently thwart the attacks, give concessions, show mercy, rinse and repeat for the last 70 years.

Israel is, in fact, trying to help the people of Iran. It is the REGIME in Iran that is the problem.

While I agree that the regime in Iran is not beneficial to the people I think as a Christian we should try to use every system possible except war or conflict. The discourse around Iran is slowly moving towards war and I don't like it. Additionally, I think a deal where Iran loses nuclear weapons and has a better economy is better for the people. If your argument that strangling Iran's economy until they have a revolution or collapse is the solution, how is that good for the Iranian people?

And while Palestine is more at fault than Israel, neither side really wants peace. And again, there is no situation where we should accept war and conquest as the answer.

IF we could trust the regime in Iran that would be an AWESOME plan.
But if you really believe that the leadership of Iran has their people's interest at heart, I cannot continue this discussion.

Did you read the first 14 words of my piece? No, the leadership of Iran does not have the people's best interest at heart. BTW, we don't need to trust Iran under the Iran deal. It includes lots of surveillance and transparency regulations.

Yes, that is correct. My point was that I see your argument as arguing for the idea that Christians need to show their Christianity wherever they go, and many don't actually practice what they say they do.

That was not my argument. One SHOULD be ABLE to if they choose. THAT is my argument. Hypocrisy of some should not diminish the liberty of others.

I agree with this, however this isn't a red/blue thing. You can protest that if you want, and I will join you. The President shouldn't step in with something like this.

I didn't ask the President to step in. My argument was that Donald Trump is more likely to appoint SCOTUS Justices that will uphold laws that are more in line with the constitution. I will go on record as saying that the whole bathroom/changing room issue is RIDICULOUS. I am absolutely certain that it wasn't the majority of LBTG folks who pushed for all of this stuff. It was the fringe outliers. Prior to all of this, the transgender person went to the bathroom that best suited their needs without any problems or notice and I am sure they wish it would have stayed that way. The fringes pushed for legislation to solve a problem that didn't exist. It got blown out of proportion and then the counter measures were even more asinine. When it got to the point where men looking like men and who are not part of the LBGT community can decide they will enter women's dressing rooms we have created a problem rather than solve anything. The fact that corporate dollars decided to pander to such an asinine stance makes the fight against that much more necessary, because they are out of their minds. I can say with a fair amount of certainty that HRC would have continued down this dangerous road as well.

Again, my point was that Christians have it VERY good in this country, and we are lucky to have it this way. The whole situation is overblown. My other argument was kinda jokey, but Catholics complaining about a lack of religious toleration have tunnel vision.

It isn't overblown at all. Are we getting our heads chopped off? Of course not. But there can be restrictions and erosion of freedoms without beheadings.
It is not wise to dismiss this systematic strategy simply because we are not dying for our faith.

The Crusades are widely regarded as massive failures.
Also, Matthew 5:38-39: You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

Massive failure except for the fact that they successfully expelled the Muslim hordes from the European continent. Obviously, as with anything, there were those folks participating in the Crusades who were horrible people and who used the Crusades as an excuse to commit all sorts of atrocities. I'll stand by belief here, that without centuries of Muslim aggression the Crusades would have never happened. When you quote Matthew 5:38-39, do you believe that you are not to defend yourself? Are you one of those who believe that self defense is a sin, because you aren't turning the other cheek when you fight back against those that would cause you or your family harm?

You have provided one valid example of an erosion of religious freedom. Give more.

What about the Obamacare mandate forcing religious institutions to provide birth control and abortion?

Attacks on Ten Commandments Displays

A public school district denied Karen Jo Barrow an assistant principal position because she refused to remove her children from a private Christian school. The U.S. District Court in Dallas ruled against Ms. Barrow, arguing that the right of parents to choose private education was not a fundamental right.

Public school officials told Jonathan Morgan, a third-grader in Plano, Texas, that he could not include a religious message in the goodie bags that he was bringing to the “Winter Party” to share with his classmates. School officials prohibited other children at the school from distributing pencils that stated “Jesus is the Reason for the Season”

A government school official ordered another student to stop distributing tickets to a Christian drama and to discard the remaining tickets.

What about the folks who were getting sued over their refusal of service to LBGT weddings? The poor old lady in Oregon lost, not only her business, but the State also went after her personal property including her home. That is unprecedented and a direct reflection of the growing mindset of when two legitimate "rights" collide, we will side with LBGT over the Christian, AND we will bring the hammer down in an unprecedented manner.

Cases involving challenges to legislative assemblies’ opening with prayer.

There isn't enough room to list them all, and it goes to the "climate" of where we were heading.

You didn't vote in the primaries? That's pretty foolish of you to not vote and complain about the choices given. Either way, you had 325 million 3rd party candidates that you could have voted for. Or you could have not voted.

I did vote in the primaries. When all was said and done I was given the choice of Trump or HRC.

I could NOT have opted to sit this one out. I, as an American citizen, have a RESPONSIBILITY to cast my vote. I feel my #1 priority at that point was to do whatever I could to ensure that HRC did not get elected. Voting 3rd party is tantamount to not voting at all.

No I had but one choice, and that was to vote Trump. As I mentioned earlier that vote has proven to be the wisest choice already, since he appointed Gorsuch and will appoint another constitutionalist soon. Even if he accomplishes nothing else at all, I must still view the SCOTUS appointments as a win for the country going forward.

Posted by tangplay on 8/18/2018 10:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Vitamin_C on 8/18/2018 9:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 8/18/2018 9:32:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Vitamin_C on 8/18/2018 8:37:00 PM (view original):
Quote post by tangplay on 8/18/2018 7:47:00 PM:

On the Israel argument, you are getting into a very us/them mindset with this argument. I note that none of the passages you cited come from the new testament, and this is because Jesus kinda contradicts what you are arguing here. Do I need to bring up the good Samaritan story? Do I need to bring up Matthew 5:23 and Luke 6:27? I know that you reference Iran here, but an argument that CCCP makes a lot relating to this is that we need war to settle the Israeli/Palestine dispute and you are either on one side or the other. Again this is very us/them. I come from a sect of the Church that is very pacifist and I could talk about this all day but I won't. Either way, I don't see how trying to stop the production of nuclear missiles is anti God.

I understand there is a difference of opinion from different denominations about Israel's role during this age of grace. I won't debate this portion, but disagree with your assessment of scripture you've quoted. I don't see anything contradictory about anything Jesus said in any of those scriptures. Israel is, in fact, trying to help the people of Iran. It is the REGIME in Iran that is the problem. As far as "needing war to settle... ". They are at constant war. They have constantly been under attack and consistently thwart the attacks, give concessions, show mercy, rinse and repeat for the last 70 years.

Israel is, in fact, trying to help the people of Iran. It is the REGIME in Iran that is the problem.

While I agree that the regime in Iran is not beneficial to the people I think as a Christian we should try to use every system possible except war or conflict. The discourse around Iran is slowly moving towards war and I don't like it. Additionally, I think a deal where Iran loses nuclear weapons and has a better economy is better for the people. If your argument that strangling Iran's economy until they have a revolution or collapse is the solution, how is that good for the Iranian people?

And while Palestine is more at fault than Israel, neither side really wants peace. And again, there is no situation where we should accept war and conquest as the answer.

IF we could trust the regime in Iran that would be an AWESOME plan.
But if you really believe that the leadership of Iran has their people's interest at heart, I cannot continue this discussion.

Did you read the first 14 words of my piece? No, the leadership of Iran does not have the people's best interest at heart. BTW, we don't need to trust Iran under the Iran deal. It includes lots of surveillance and transparency regulations.

The Iranian populace still suffer. What did we give Iran? Like 1.5 BILLION or something?
Yet their people still protest economic policies and woes. The population of Iran is only 80 million. They should be doing fine.

I cannot condone giving that kind of money to that regime. Not even for "promises" of transparency. The UN is notorious for being weak on doing what they should.

Look at Iraq back in the day. They violated numerous UN resolutions and there were NO consequences. Why should I feel any level of confidence that now, with Iran, things will be different?

tang must be taking Argument 101 lessons from b_l: in one post he says "Christian Evangelicals are becoming one of the most hated groups in the USA", then a few posts later says "Christians have it VERY good in this country". Are they hated, or do they have it VERY good? Maybe it's only the silent Christians that have it VERY good? Can somebody sort this out for me, so I can let everyone at church in the morning know in they are hated, or if they have it VERY good.

Tang has issues. One is immaturity.

That was not my argument. One SHOULD be ABLE to if they choose. THAT is my argument. Hypocrisy of some should not diminish the liberty of others.

Fair enough.

Prior to all of this, the transgender person went to the bathroom that best suited their needs without any problems or notice and I am sure they wish it would have stayed that way.

Transgender people have been using the bathroom they wanted to for years. I am perfectly fine with it staying that way.

When it got to the point where men looking like men and who are not part of the LBGT community can decide they will enter women's dressing rooms we have created a problem rather than solve anything.

That's obviously terrible but people can do that regardless. As in there aren't security guards guarding a bathroom. Anything illegal they do is illegal regardless. I don't see how a regulation affects a chance of any of this happening.

It isn't overblown at all. Are we getting our heads chopped off? Of course not. But there can be restrictions and erosion of freedoms without beheadings.

Just to be clear, you are also OK with other religions doing this as well, right?

Massive failure except for the fact that they successfully expelled the Muslim hordes from the European continent.

They must not have done a good job, because there were still Muslims in Turkey and Spain and most of the decrease was before the Crusades.

When you quote Matthew 5:38-39, do you believe that you are not to defend yourself?

I don't know. I have never been in a position where I would have to defend myself to protect others. My best guess would be maybe if you did as minimally as possible as to try to have the least people hurt, with yourself being the person to get hurt if anyone were to?

I'll stand by belief here, that without centuries of Muslim aggression the Crusades would have never happened

That's true. That also doesn't make the Crusades justifiable.

Let's say our definition of religious freedom is 'Ability to practice religion without law taken against you in a public space'. You can change the definition if you want.

I agree that examples 1 and 2 are wrong, but I wouldn't put them under the category of religious freedom. #3 and 5 could be in the category, but I would need more info that it was due to religion and not other factors. I don't know what the answer is to #6, as I think both have fairly valid arguments, but again I just wouldn't be an ******* to people. Your last example I flat out disagree with, that isn't religious freedom as I understand it. You are talking about a group prayer before a legislative assembly? Please elaborate. I completely agree that #4 is a violation of religious freedom. So what now. What would defending religious freedom look like and when will it start happening?

No I had but one choice, and that was to vote Trump.

So you have explained why you like Trump, but why do you hate Hillary so much?

IRAN:
Ok, so the options here are
A. Don't sanction Iran in return for a promise of no nuclear activity, has the benefits of surveillance and at least a chance of success, along with less chance of a deadly war or revolution.
B. Sanction Iran, allows them to build nukes whenever they want, no surveillance, making people suffer even more with a chance of a collapse that history has already shown would be catastrophic.

I like option A better.

Posted by cccp1014 on 8/18/2018 11:37:00 PM (view original):
Tang has issues. One is immaturity.

What do you expect, I am the youngest person here. My immaturity just makes you look wise and savvy in your old age. Appreciate it.

Posted by all3 on 8/18/2018 11:22:00 PM (view original):
tang must be taking Argument 101 lessons from b_l: in one post he says "Christian Evangelicals are becoming one of the most hated groups in the USA", then a few posts later says "Christians have it VERY good in this country". Are they hated, or do they have it VERY good? Maybe it's only the silent Christians that have it VERY good? Can somebody sort this out for me, so I can let everyone at church in the morning know in they are hated, or if they have it VERY good.

lol, I think it can be both. Christian Evangelicals are pretty divisive. I am over here on the front lines in Kansas.

Also not everyone in Church is an evangelical. Many Christians, even Catholics are not.