The New Christian Thread 4

[CalmWind]

The enemy has abandoned their attempts to get me into a fight/violence/rage. They tried it for a while, and I only recognized it was the enemy (instead of random happenstances), because of the large amount of Spiritual Warfare material that I was led to consume. Their attempts were pretty strong for a bit, especially with 1 crazy but true story (last year) that happened to me at work, in which the enemy used a stranger to walk up to me from outta nowhere, and tried to destroy my testimony to someone 5 minutes after I gave it...... but the attempts to provoke me into violence have completely died off now for months. I guess they got the hint - God has done his work in me and changed me They are still coming at me in other areas, and I'm struggling but I have faith God's work will be completed there too.


Just sharing with fellow christians. Keep your Shields up and keep praying - as long as we are resolute in our desire of the Father, the work in you will be completed and the enemy will fail.

[CalmWind]

Lol GreatOldOne, I know you are watching cause you sent me that msg

I wonder what you think of Christians who say things like I just said up there? Do you think we suffer from hallucinations or something ;p Or we attribute things that aren't there to everyday situations...... etc.....

[Athanasius90]

Lol GreatOldOne, I know you are watching cause you sent me that msg

I wonder what you think of Christians who say things like I just said up there? Do you think we suffer from hallucinations or something ;p Or we attribute things that aren't there to everyday situations...... etc.....

I wonder this as well. Are we all completely delusional, hallucinating on the regular? Doesn't seem to bode well for humanity.

[sawoobley]

Supreme Court Decision Will Not Alter Doctrine on Marriage

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acknowledges that following today's ruling by the Supreme Court, same-sex marriages are now legal in the United States. The Court's decision does not alter the Lord's doctrine that marriage is a union between a man and a woman ordained by God. While showing respect for those who think differently, the Church will continue to teach and promote marriage between a man and a woman as a central part of our doctrine and practice."

The Church has outlined its doctrine and position on marriage in the document The Divine Institution of Marriage.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/articl...on-of-marriage


mntbikedude pls respond

[CalmWind]

GJ Mormons. My personal objections to some of the teachings of Joseph Smith aside........ I think Mormons are dope.

Most of them are genuinely good people, good Christians. They do a lot of mission work, etc....

[Athanasius90]

What about mormon theology and creation narrative? Chit is wack.

[sawoobley]

What about mormon theology and creation narrative? Chit is wack.

What do you mean? I can't imagine what you could object to unless it is the backstory relating to the doctrine of our pre-mortal existence.

[CalmWind]

What about mormon theology and creation narrative? Chit is wack.

I haven't looked into all of the things they believe. I only saw enough to say "No thx jeff"

Aside from that though, a lot of them behave like good Christians.

EDIT - you know what? there's a big mormon church in my city somewhere, I saw it before. I'm gonna go this weekend and worship with the Mormon bros.

[Athanasius90]

What do you mean?

No creatio ex nihilo

[sawoobley]

No creatio ex nihilo

lol, I thought you found something truly strange. Well, it solves the problem of evil, so there's that. I guess it differs quite a bit from mainstream Christianity having matter/energy/intelligence being eternal.

[CalmWind]

sawoobley's news post up there made me realize something.

what happens when Churches refuse to perform gay marriages, now that the government will provide marriage licenses to gay couples?


How long until Churches lose their right to refuse?

[sawoobley]

sawoobley's news post up there made me realize something.

what happens when Churches refuse to perform gay marriages, now that the government will provide marriage licenses to gay couples?

How long until Churches lose their right to refuse?

I think they will go after their tax exempt status. If things continue as they are they use whatever means they can to coerce and intimidate people into accepting homosexual marriage. I think many people will pay lip service to avoid any repercussions but a lot of people won't really accept it in their hearts.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...iberty/396986/

[Bullroarer]

"Capitalism today commands the towering heights, and has displaced politics and politicians as the new high priests, and reigning oligarchs of our system. So capitalism and its principle protagonists and players, corporate CEOs, have been accorded unusual power and access. This is not to deny the signifiance of government and politicians but these are the new high priests."
-Ira Jackson

You can get rid of a sacramental clergy, but you will always have some form of priesthood.

Who has more influence over the beliefs and behavior of American Catholics: Tim Cook or the Pope? How many thousands of pastors would it take to equal the influence that Doug McMillon has on American Protestant beliefs and behavior? It's not a rhetorical question.

Conservatives and libertarians spent the last couple decades griping about liberal attempts at social engineering via government. But liberals knew something cons were pointedly oblivious to: the Market itself is social engineering. And now that they've taken over the Market, expect them to engineer society far more radically and rapidly than they were able to do through the State.

[homicidal_misc]

"Capitalism today commands the towering heights, and has displaced politics and politicians as the new high priests, and reigning oligarchs of our system. So capitalism and its principle protagonists and players, corporate CEOs, have been accorded unusual power and access. This is not to deny the signifiance of government and politicians but these are the new high priests."
-Ira Jackson

You can get rid of a sacramental clergy, but you will always have some form of priesthood.

Who has more influence over the beliefs and behavior of American Catholics: Tim Cook or the Pope? How many thousands of pastors would it take to equal the influence that Doug McMillon has on American Protestant beliefs and behavior? It's not a rhetorical question.

Conservatives and libertarians spent the last couple decades griping about liberal attempts at social engineering via government. But liberals knew something cons were pointedly oblivious to: the Market itself is social engineering. And now that they've taken over the Market, expect them to engineer society far more radically and rapidly than they were able to do through the State.

Dawg, just cut the BS and come back. The heathen life is not for you.

[GreatOldOne]

How long until Churches lose their right to refuse?

Churches aren't required to marry anybody. Some still refuse interracial marriages.

501(c)(3) status will continue to be automatically granted but religious organizations will continue to be limited in how much lobbying/legislative activities they conduct.

At some point federal funding going to religious institutions (schools) providing religious training will probably be challenged based on establishment clause. A gay issue could set it off. But it could be nearly anything as it relates to establishment of religious belief/religion in general and not any specific doctrine.

For now some are getting exemptions for their discriminatory behavior based on bone fide secular need/purpose (lemon test) but that may not last forever as there is room to push recognition of violations based on lemon test (as need diminishes), coercion, endorsement, and neutrality in regards to federal funding of religious institutions.

[ONtop888]

Churches aren't required to marry anybody. Some still refuse interracial marriages.

501(c)(3) status will continue to be automatically granted but religious organizations will continue to be limited in how much lobbying/legislative activities they conduct.

At some point federal funding going to religious institutions (schools) providing religious training will probably be challenged based on establishment clause. A gay issue could set it off. But it could be nearly anything as it relates to establishment of religious belief/religion in general and not any specific doctrine.

For now some are getting exemptions for their discriminatory behavior based on bone fide secular need/purpose (lemon test) but that may not last forever as there is room to push recognition of violations based on lemon test (as need diminishes), coercion, endorsement, and neutrality in regards to federal funding of religious institutions.

The argument against religious funding to achieve charitable ends via the establishment clause only has teeth insofar as the majority of the funding goes to one religion, Christianity. In this case, some liberals will argue, that it is a de facto breach of the EC. However, when the constitutional markers of neutrality (does not favor) and fairness (same opportunity open to all religions/groups) are met, these sort of "de facto" objections implode.

Endorsement is also not a legitimate objection in that no single religion or secular service group is being discriminated against. You can't even make the case that it's the endorsement of "religion qua religion," as opposed to a particular religion, because the opportunities are open equally to secular groups.

In fact, to the contrary, it becomes a case of religious discrimination if religions are solely singled out as "non-qualifiers" while social justice leagues, racial/ethnic/gay oriented groups, and every other private interest is given funding.

The most effective service ought to win the funding, and for many issues religion gets to the existential depth of an issue like, say, drug addiction that secular counterparts cannot match.

[GreatOldOne]

The argument against religious funding to achieve charitable ends via the establishment clause only has teeth insofar as the majority of the funding goes to one religion, Christianity.

It's not based simply on the majority of funding going to one specific religion.

As I mentioned it's based on bone fide secular need/purpose (lemon test), coercion, endorsement, and neutrality.

Charitable ends is also not what will get you excited it's schools...

[ONtop888]

Supreme Court Decision Will Not Alter Doctrine on Marriage



The Church has outlined its doctrine and position on marriage in the document The Divine Institution of Marriage.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/articl...on-of-marriage


mntbikedude pls respond

But what happens after the FLDS brings polygamous marriage to the SCOTIS and it's accepted? Inquiring minds want to know (in for 3 wives crew....semi-srs).

[ONtop888]

It's not based simply on the majority of funding going to one specific religion (neutrality).

As I mentioned it's based on bone fide secular need/purpose (lemon test), coercion, endorsement, and neutrality.

Endorsement refers to a single religion, as I said, not religion broadly, but also, as I mentioned, even if it were more general it still passes neutrality because it's open to any and all groups who can achieve the goal. Not really sure what you are arguing with in my post.

[ONtop888]

Charitable ends is also not what will get you excited it's schools...

I know. Vouchers are next up, and the libs don't have a case. The efficacy of private schools is already largely proven; thus the ability to fill the need/purpose is fulfilled. The question then turns to the EC.

[GreatOldOne]

But what happens after the FLDS brings polygamous marriage to the SCOTIS and it's accepted? Inquiring minds want to know (in for 3 wives crew....semi-srs).

What is FLDS? I guess if we have gay marriage and polygamy we can all get married and be one big happy family.

Endorsement refers to a single religion, as I said, not religion broadly, but also, as I mentioned, even if it were more general it still passes neutrality because it's open to any and all groups who can achieve the goal. Not really sure what you are arguing with in my post.

Your post seemed to indicate that it wouldn't be a problem if federal funds are spread across multiple religions but that isn't accurate.

Endorsement test is different than neutrality test also...

[ONtop888]

What is FLDS? I guess if we have gay marriage and polygamy we can all get married and be one big happy family.

]http://media.giphy.com/media/EU1obAC38GuWI/giphy.gif[/img]

It's a fundamentalist sect of the LDS that still practices polygamy.

Your post seemed to indicate that it wouldn't be a problem if federal funds are spread across multiple religions but that isn't accurate.

It isn't a problem and that's exactly how it works right now, but it also includes numerous non-religious groups.

[ONtop888]

Thirsty betas....thirsty betas errywhere

C'mon Puritan, it's not a sin to smile on occasion.

[Harbinger]

What is FLDS? I guess if we have gay marriage and polygamy we can all get married and be one big happy family.

Mormons

[ONtop888]

That's also not accurate. It is a problem for title IX which is why religious schools receiving federal funding which have discriminatory behavior have to request and be granted exemptions from the law in order to receive those federal funds (not tax exemptions).

The issue with title IX is the discriminatory behavior rather than neutrality or endorsement (those are different).



Right...that's the bone fide secular need as I mentioned. But that might not apply to all schools in all areas (location, higher education, etc...).

That will continually be re-examined over time forever.

I am only familiar with Catholic schools and students of all faiths or no faith are allowed to enroll, so there is no discrimination that you are referring to.

Right, but the SCOTUS doesn't examine or decide what location is best suited for a voucher program. We are arguing constitutionality of allocating federal funds to religious schools, not executive or legislative or state decisions on voucher programs.

[GreatOldOne]

It isn't a problem and that's exactly how it works right now, but it also includes numerous non-religious groups.

That's also not accurate. It is a problem for title IX which is why religious schools receiving federal funding which have discriminatory behavior have to request and be granted exemptions from the law in order to receive those federal funds (not tax exemptions).

The issue with title IX is the discriminatory behavior rather than neutrality or endorsement (those are different).

I know. Vouchers are next up, and the libs don't have a case. The efficacy of private schools is already largely proven; thus the ability to fill the need/purpose is fulfilled. The question then turns to the EC.

Right...that's the bone fide secular need as I mentioned. But that might not apply to all schools in all areas (location, higher education, etc...).

That will continually be re-examined over time in combination with coercion, endorsement, and neutrality indefinitely.

It's unlikely the balance showing secular need for education as primary will go away anytime soon from my perspective...entirely. There will be cases where funding ends when the need is re-examined and found wanting compared with the other factors.

[ONtop888]

That's also not accurate. It is a problem for title IX which is why religious schools receiving federal funding which have discriminatory behavior have to request and be granted exemptions from the law in order to receive those federal funds (not tax exemptions).

The issue with title IX is the discriminatory behavior rather than neutrality or endorsement (those are different).





Right...that's the bone fide secular need as I mentioned. But that might not apply to all schools in all areas (location, higher education, etc...).

That will continually be re-examined over time in combination with coercion, endorsement, and neutrality indefinitely.

It's unlikely the balance showing secular need for education as primary will go away anytime soon from my perspective...entirely. There will be cases where funding ends when the need is re-examined and found wanting compared with the other factors.

Again, the funding isn't decided on a case by case basis by the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS will rule on the constitutionality of federal allocation of tax money to religious schools and then after that the Feds or states will proceed as they wish.

[GreatOldOne]

I am only familiar with Catholic schools and students of all faiths or no faith are allowed to enroll, so there is no discrimination that you are referring to.

Oh ok. They should be good then until sufficient non-religious schools are available to meet the secular need for education. But if they exercise coersion to religious standard to maintain enrollment they will probably be challenged (and defeated) eventually in regards to receiving federal funding.

Right, but the SCOTUS doesn't examine or decide what location is best suited for a voucher program.

They might if it were challenged as illegitimate based on secular need in response to coercive penalties for religious non-compliance of students.

We are arguing constitutionality of allocating federal funds to religious schools, not executive or legislative or state decisions on voucher programs.

Executive and legislative decisions are examined in the Supreme Court. It depends on the case.

[GreatOldOne]

Again, the funding isn't decided on a case by case basis by the SCOTUS.

The religious exemptions to title IX are made on a case by case basis so I don't believe what you're saying is necessarily accurate.

The SCOTUS will rule on the constitutionality of federal allocation of tax money to religious schools and then after that the Feds or states will proceed as they wish.

It could be more specific than you think or more broad than you think. You can't say.

[ONtop888]

It don't think it matters much if certain legislators consider religious schools to be an "illegitimate secular need," that much is expected when their hands are soiled with union money and agendas.

At the state level, IMO, the constitutionality of vouchers stands without a doubt. At the federal level, however, I can see certain legislators raising objections in certain instances, but I am still not convinced that their arguments would pass constitutional muster.