Hey Guys

8,607 Views | 133 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by AGC
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Remember that time we were told that churches have nothing to worry about with gay "marriage?" That it was just love and churches would' be coerced into accepting gay "marriage?"

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/beto-orourke-basically-wants-to-bankrupt-churches-who-dont-believe-in-gay-marriage

Yeah. So much for that. Fall in line or pay up. That's first. Then they'll just simply force it under pain of persecution.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Well. . . I guess if a desperate political candidate said it in a debate, it's as good as done.
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
For a guy with a handle "Kurt Vonnegut" I am amazed at how you don't see a totalitarian dystopia when it's staring at you in the face.
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The same town hall taught us that evenly innocently mispronouncing a "trans-women's" name is "violence." And you know what happens to violent people? They get punished.

How's that for you Kurt?
ramblin_ag02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
From a religious perspective, God's church will survive just fine with or without tax exemption.

From a political perspective, I think Beto is trying to go on record against the entire Bill of Rights. He's also hit #1 and #2. I'm just waiting for him to propose quartering of troop next
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
1) I don't want churches to lose their tax-exemption, but I want all people and organizations to be exempt from taxes
2) This is one minor candidate stating something that will not become policy, but even if it does...
3) The church will absolutely survive without preferential tax treatment. Preferential tax treatment is unnecessary for the church to be the church
4) In fact, I believe that losing such preferential treatment would actually backfire on the state, as I believe it would result in a spreading of the church to more of a house church approach and harder to be wrapped by the tentacles of the state
5) The church in America has grown fat and comfortable. Even if you wanted to call this "persecution", I think the church in America could use some actual adversity as opposed to the mythical persecution many evangelicals have claimed in the past
6) When Beto said that, I immediately wondered how long before seamaster popped up again.
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I never said that that church "wouldn't survive."

But here's another facist to all the madness. We're racing to a future where any private held beliefs will not only threaten a church's mission, but also could very well send churches into hiding (once performing gay "marriages" is mandatory) and also private citizens will have their ability to earn a living be threatened.

You want to be a manager at XYZ company? Sign this policy statement.

Parents will have their ability to educate their children (and protect them from gay indoctrination) be threatened.

You might say, "Who cares about Beto? He's polling at 2%!"

Yes, well, no one can deny the incredible speed with which ideas move from "extreme" to "mainstream" in today's Democrat Party. We've watched it repeatedly in the last decade.

Are you paying attention?
Beer Baron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I disagree with him. I think it should be all or nothing - either tax all churches or don't tax any of them. I don't like the idea of basing it on their beliefs, no matter how bad they are. If President Beto can do this now, President McChurchypants can penalize churches he thinks are too accepting 20 years from now.

I do wish there were some kind of requirement that churches actually do some kind of charitable work to be exempt though. I'm not sure why having a meeting in a building a couple times a week without doing much else entitles any organization to a tax exemption. Discriminate against the gays all you want, if you feed the hungry or something I say enjoy your tax exemption.

I also think its ridiculous that Scamvangelists fly around in tax-exempt jets and the Church of Scientology gets to have billions in tax-free assets, but again I think that comes down to the all or nothing I mentioned earlier. Guess it just depends on whether you'd let a few mega-bad apples taint the whole thing for the well-intentioned churches, or if you'd rather tax the smaller ones to get at the scammers. Not sure which is better, but either way I think it's a bad idea to try to strike a balance in between based on what they believe on any given topic.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

I never said that that church "wouldn't survive."
No, you just present it as some doomsday scenario, whereas I see it as an opportunity to separate the wheat from the chaff. It makes me think of when the church faced actual persecution, and when Stephen was murdered, the church spread.
Quote:

But here's another facist to all the madness. We're racing to a future where any private held beliefs will not only threaten a church's mission, but also could very well send churches into hiding (once performing gay "marriages" is mandatory) and also private citizens will have their ability to earn a living be threatened.
Then let the state punish churches who refuse to comply. Why are we so afraid of "persecution"? Our comfort has led us to live in fear of losing said comfort. It's what has helped give rise to charlatans like Robert Jeffress.
Quote:

You want to be a manager at XYZ company? Sign this policy statement.
You mean like companies already do? If you want to be employed by a company, you adhere to their policies. I just sent out an email to all of our managers on pronoun usage, and we addressed transgender restroom access in the spring. I told every single one that if you don't like the policy, you're more than welcome to come to my office and submit your resignation. Companies set their policies on any number of things. You either comply or leave. You aren't entitled to a job there.
Quote:

Parents will have their ability to educate their children (and protect them from gay indoctrination) be threatened.
"Gay indoctrination"...oh brother.

Quote:

Yes, well, no one can deny the incredible speed with which ideas move from "extreme" to "mainstream" in today's Democrat Party. We've watched it repeatedly in the last decade.
Heck, that applies to the GOP as well. I remember not too long ago that "character counts". Now, just a short time later, all that matters is winning.

Quote:

Are you paying attention?
Yep. I'm just choosing to not live in a state of hysterical fear.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Username checks out.

Good grief.

PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
XUSCR said:

Username checks out.

Good grief.


I'm confused. What do my views on violence have to do with my comments here?
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's one thing to suffer persecution for the church and for our Lord and his Truth, but it's another entirely to turn around, bend over and invite it, with a smile on your face. Your version of welcoming persecution seems perverse, repulsive, and frankly excessively passive.

And we haven't talked about the civil liberty lense through which this should be evaluated.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
XUSCR said:

It's one thing to suffer persecution for the church and for our Lord and his Truth, but it's another entirely to turn around, bend over and invite it, with a smile on your face. Your version of welcoming persecution seems perverse, repulsive, and frankly excessively passive.

And we haven't talked about the civil liberty lense through which this should be evaluated.

Well, that seems to be a gross mischaracterization of my position. I'm not fearful of persecution. I don't think avoiding it is worth sacrificing our witness. I don't think we should be running to Caesar for special protections to avoid it. I think it could produce good for the church, as we've seen throughout history. Or as Tertullian said, "the blood of the martyr is the seed of the church".

If the choice is comfort and a lukewarm church, or discomfort/persecution and a church on fire, I'll take persecution any day of the week. I'm certainly not saying we should be passive. That's just a common ignorance of what pacifism means. I'm saying we should use whatever the circumstances are to glorify God, and when we do that during times of persecution (which we aren't close to being in here in America), then it resonates so much louder to the world. That's far from passive.
Aggrad08
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Beto is getting blasted from the left on this. People see it for the pathetic attempt it is.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PacifistAg said:

XUSCR said:

It's one thing to suffer persecution for the church and for our Lord and his Truth, but it's another entirely to turn around, bend over and invite it, with a smile on your face. Your version of welcoming persecution seems perverse, repulsive, and frankly excessively passive.

And we haven't talked about the civil liberty lense through which this should be evaluated.

Well, that seems to be a gross mischaracterization of my position. I'm not fearful of persecution. I don't think avoiding it is worth sacrificing our witness. I don't think we should be running to Caesar for special protections to avoid it. I think it could produce good for the church, as we've seen throughout history. Or as Tertullian said, "the blood of the martyr is the seed of the church".

If the choice is comfort and a lukewarm church, or discomfort/persecution and a church on fire, I'll take persecution any day of the week. I'm certainly not saying we should be passive. That's just a common ignorance of what pacifism means. I'm saying we should use whatever the circumstances are to glorify God, and when we do that during times of persecution (which we aren't close to being in here in America), then it resonates so much louder to the world. That's far from passive.


Fair enough, but I read your response to be more flaccid than that. Do you think you are glorifying God by acquiescing in some of the things your employer is asking of you and your fellow employees?
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
XUSCR said:


Fair enough, but I read your response to be more flaccid than that. Do you think you are glorifying God by acquiescing in some of the things your employer is asking if you and your fellow employees?
I'm not acquiescing. I agree with the policies implemented. Heck, I crafted the restroom access policy. If someone is incapable of treating coworkers with respect, even ones with whom they have fundamental disagreements with, then this will not be the place for them.
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
NM
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'll remove since you did. Have a fantastic weekend, brother (or sister...no clue really as to your gender).
FTACo88-FDT24dad
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PacifistAg said:

I'll remove since you did. Have a fantastic weekend, brother (or sister...no clue really as to your gender).


Brother.

I don't think the conversation was going to be helpful.
Post removed:
by user
Beer Baron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I couldve sworn seamaster promised me he wouldn't do scare quotes around the word marriage in these threads anymore.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Beto has to be one of the worst presidential candidates I've ever seen. The moment he wasn't being propped up by the whole party desperate to get in Texas he was exposed.

That being said, I do wonder how far down the road we are from churches being "punished" for not being woke enough by the social justice mob.



Post removed:
by user
Post removed:
by user
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"He clarified that he was only referring to churches that took discriminatory action."

Ok. Good. We're safe then. Let's just wait for the government to tell us what constitutes "discriminatory action" in their ever changing norms and rules around sex and gender.

Beer Baron. They're not "scare quotes." I put the word marriage in quotes when discussing gay "marriage" because I don't believe that the definition of marriage can mean anything other than a sacramental union between one man and one woman.

The woke progressive set has been very good at taking language and claiming it and weaponizing it to advance their agenda. A "woman" is now a man. "Choice" now means killing. "Women's Health" now means abortion.

Some of us have woken up to this and are reclaiming our language.

And - I don't believe I ever promised to stop putting marriage in quotes when saying gay "marriage."
Seamaster
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Average Guy.

The answer is that the line was crossed long ago. And if you're close to my age (late 30s) the chances are very good that one day you'll have to chose between truth and beauty and giving assent to some future madness or else risk your livelihood.

Or worse, you'll see your home threatened if you don't allow your kids to start taking hormone blockers at age 3 or 4 because your daughter likes to play outside and wants to try baseball.

kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Seamaster said:

The same town hall taught us that evenly innocently mispronouncing a "trans-women's" name is "violence." And you know what happens to violent people? They get punished.

How's that for you Kurt?


I don't pay attention to the debates so I don't know what that's about. What about me makes you think I'd support treating mispronounciation as violence? Is it because some ultra left wing nut job said it? And therefor anyone left of center must agree?

I don't agree with What Beto said. He's desperate to hold onto that 3% support so he can stay relevant for as long as possible. Same reason he said he wanted to make people give up assault weapons.

In his campaign, Trump said we needed to be going after and killing the families of terrorists. You good with that? Huh? Huh? Why do you and by extension all conservatives want to kill babies? Huh?

And don't forget that dystopian authoritiarianism swings both ways. The extreme left isn't the only thing to worry about.
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Seamaster said:

Average Guy.

The answer is that the line was crossed long ago. And if you're close to my age (late 30s) the chances are very good that one day you'll have to chose between truth and beauty and giving assent to some future madness or else risk your livelihood.

Or worse, you'll see your home threatened if you don't allow your kids to start taking hormone blockers at age 3 or 4 because your daughter likes to play outside and wants to try baseball.




Has the religious right ever crossed the line?
Post removed:
by user
Post removed:
by user
kurt vonnegut
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Average Guy said:

kurt vonnegut said:

And don't forget that dystopian authoritiarianism swings both ways. The extreme left isn't the only thing to worry about.
Of course, hhich is why it is unwise for progressives to be so hungry for authoritarian government.


There is a disturbing presidential trend whereby the power of the executive branch grows with every president, at least in recent memory. If Beto were to be permitted to issue executive orders to ban assault rifles and stop tax exempt statuses, conservatives will cry 'overreach'. The next conservative president will then undo those orders and then push the boundary even further in their direction. And Liberals will cry 'overreach'.

We're all so short sighted when 'our guy' is in power. What do conservatives think is going to happen the next time they want a conservative congress to exercise oversight on a liberal president? They'll get a big FU and the irony will he lost on them just as it's lost on liberals now.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think it may be disturbing that we are more concerned by the morality of these executive orders than the fact that it is now commonplace for the president to start wars without congressional approval, sign and dismiss treaties as they see fit, decide when they want to cooperate with oversight, and otherwise **** on the Constitution.
Beer Baron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Some of us have woken up to this and are reclaiming our language.

Ha. Have fun with that. People will think you're very "cool." Am I doing that right?


Quote:

And - I don't believe I ever promised to stop putting marriage in quotes when saying gay "marriage."
I'll take your word for it. I recall someone doing that awhile back and then almost immediately going right back to it anyway.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Beer Baron said:


Quote:

Some of us have woken up to this and are reclaiming our language.

Ha. Have fun with that. People will think you're very "cool." Am I doing that right?

No. Just so you don't get confused as endorsing something, I think the proper seamaster method would be:

Quote:

"Ha". "Have" "fun" "with" "that". "People" "will" "think" "you're" "very" "cool." "Am" "I" "doing" "that" "right"?
Last Page
Page 1 of 4
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.