Nice try clown... No ones talking about violence lol
Like clockwork:Doc Daneeka said:
Ok how about a hypothetical. If the next president of America is a super charismatic Christian and convinces congress to add an amendment naming Christianity as the State Religion... Would this be bad?
In four or five generations there would be true believers from millions of offspring of current generations. Obviously there would still be unbelievers. Would this be wrong?
Quote:
I'm still curious as to what laws, backed through the threat of violence, draw people closer to Christ. I would like to see a few examples of the kinds of laws he wants to enact, and explain how they'll lead others to Christ. Of course, I'd really love it if Doc would address the fact that Christ never once used coercion to get followers, but instead let those who rejected Him leave freely. Of course, I'm sure we'll just be met with more absurdly poor analogies and deflections instead of actually addressing posts/questions.
What on earth do you think backs up those laws you are wanting?Doc Daneeka said:
Nice try clown... No ones talking about violence lol
RetiredAg said:What on earth do you think backs up those laws you are wanting?Doc Daneeka said:
Nice try clown... No ones talking about violence lol
You have zero interest in a discussion though. This is your standard schtick and it is really nothing but intellectual cowardice. You ignore and deflect because your position is simply not consistent with the teachings and example of Christ.
Doc Daneeka said:
Nice try clown... No ones talking about violence lol
I'll refer you back to my previous post on how discussions work.Quote:
You are the coward. Answer my hypo. Is it wrong if Christianity was changed to the State Religion?
Mr. Timid said:Doc Daneeka said:
Nice try clown... No ones talking about violence lol
You're talking about using the state to enforce your desires on the people. It is violence. Its threat of force. If I don't comply they will take my money or property or liberty.
Exactly. And if violence, or the threat of violence, isn't used to enforce a law, then the law is rendered obsolete. The law only possesses power based on the lawmakers willingness to enforce said law with violence.Mr. Timid said:Doc Daneeka said:
Nice try clown... No ones talking about violence lol
You're talking about using the state to enforce your desires on the people. It is violence. Its threat of force. If I don't comply they will take my money or property or liberty.
Doc Daneeka said:Mr. Timid said:Doc Daneeka said:
Nice try clown... No ones talking about violence lol
You're talking about using the state to enforce your desires on the people. It is violence. Its threat of force. If I don't comply they will take my money or property or liberty.
So you're against civil rights laws?
Doc Daneeka said:
So are the civil rights laws wrong?
Doc Daneeka said:
Ok how about a hypothetical. If the next president of America is a super charismatic Christian and convinces congress to add an amendment naming Christianity as the State Religion... Would this be bad?
In four or five generations there would be true believers from millions of offspring of current generations. Obviously there would still be unbelievers. Would this be wrong?
lol and that's going to result in people becoming followers of Christ? Here I thought we had to get our hands dirty and go out in to the world and make disciples of people. It would have been so much clearer if Christ just said "go out and put My name on big granite monuments, because that's what will really draw them in".Doc Daneeka said:
The amendment would name Christianity as the state religion. Meaning all Christian references (statutes, pledges, monuments, etc) could not be changed and must be required at every government building.
Seriously man, do you honestly expect me to answer any more questions from you given the level of intellectual cowardice you display by refusing to answer a single question of mine? I have 9 questions that have been unanswered by you, going all the way back to the first page.Doc Daneeka said:
Retired answer me this and I'll answer you. If Christ did not do something... Is it forbidden?
Oh, I knew you weren't going to answer my questions. They run directly counter to what you're saying. It's why you've been ignoring them from the beginning.Doc Daneeka said:
I'm not answering your questions. You have the negative spirit
BTW, what do you mean by negative spirit? Is it the same one that led you to call someone a "clown"? Or to say I needed to "grow up"? Think what you will of me, but these are valid questions, and your refusal to answer them is telling of the strength, or lack thereof, in your position.Doc Daneeka said:
You have the negative spirit
The kind that thinks that the amendment as outlined would be at best, ineffective, and at worst entirely counter productive.Doc Daneeka said:
What Christian would be against such an amendment. Honestly
Doc Daneeka said:
The amendment would name Christianity as the state religion. Meaning all Christian references (statutes, pledges, monuments, etc) could not be changed and must be required at every government building.
Doc Daneeka said:
No one would want a Christian amendment? I'm thoroughly surprised
Doc Daneeka said:
Retired, i dont know why you insist on being a troll