Actual Talking Thermos said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

---

Uh, many Christians, including a number on this very forum, definitely advocate that people should be prohibited by law from doing various relevant values of X.

---

many Christians believe that you should be prohibited by law from murdering infants

aggiebrad94 said:

---

Actual Talking Thermos said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

---

Uh, many Christians, including a number on this very forum, definitely advocate that people should be prohibited by law from doing various relevant values of X.

---

I've been a member of a conservative Baptist church for over 40 years and I have never once heard another Christian say what you just did.

---

On this very forum I have heard people (Christians or presumably Christians) say we should outlaw: abortion, gay marriage, gay sex, marijuana, contraception, porn, transgender medical treatment (as an adult), and women voting. More and more are coming out of the woodwork to say as much because the overton window has shifted right and it's now more acceptable to advocate for these things.

IndividualFreedom said:

---

Quote:

---

The Catholic Church is well known for never having persecuted anyone for beliefs or activities they deemed heretical

---

I am the last person to defend Catholics and their hypocrisy, but was this sarcasm of a statement pointing at recent events or are you referring to actions from eons ago?

---

Certainly there were centuries of it when the church was at the height of their power. Decades ago there were the church-run residential schools where native children stolen from their families were abused and killed with impunity in an attempt to eradicate their cultures from the earth. But here's the thing, the church didn't just knock off their centuries of torture, murder, theft, repression etc out of the goodness of their hearts. The church's domination of society declined to the point where they were no longer in a position to commit atrocities against anyone who got on their bad side. It wasn't that they just happened to adopt a more live and let live attitude.

larry culpepper said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

---

More like:

Secular person: I want to do X.
Christian: No.
Secular: Why not?
Christian: Because it's wrong according to my faith.
Secular: But your faith isn't the law.
Christian: Well it should be. And the people I vote for will make it so.

---

Maybe 20 years ago. I'm sure if you try hard enough you can find some folks that feel that way today but most do not. There is no question that the Left is DEMANDING acceptance over tolerance though.

You also seem to be conflating the difference between shifting from SC Justices making law out of thin air vs elected officials voting. There is also a difference between state and local areas wanting to have different laws than national laws.

Tell you what though, keep forcing parents to send their kids to see Drag Queens at school and you are going to create some hardcore social conservative backlash. It's how you get Pinochet if the choice is him vs Chavez or Castro.

Albatross Necklace said:

---

Actual Talking Thermos said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

---

Uh, many Christians, including a number on this very forum, definitely advocate that people should be prohibited by law from doing various relevant values of X. murdering children

---

FIFY

---

He has a point, so don't derail. But barring abortion or injuring others, ideally we as Christians should not prohibit what others do. And we can, in a charitable way, explain why it's wrong and why God doesn't want them to sin. But to his point, many on here would like to do things forcibly out of shear hate for the left. Not all, but many

agracer said:

---

Actual Talking Thermos said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

---

Uh, many Christians, including a number on this very forum, definitely advocate that people should be prohibited by law from doing various relevant values of X.

---

Other than killing babies and grooming children? Examples of others "X" values?

---

There are those on here that have advocated for laws against blasphemy, adultery, and divorce.

B-1 83 said:

---

agracer said:

---

Actual Talking Thermos said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

---

Uh, many Christians, including a number on this very forum, definitely advocate that people should be prohibited by law from doing various relevant values of X.

---

Other than killing babies and grooming children? Examples of others "X" values?

---

There are those on here that have advocated for laws against blasphemy, adultery, and divorce.

---

Bull***** Prove it with links please. I've never read anyone on F16 advocating any of those.

You liberals crack me up, have to resort to extreme circumstances to try and prove you somehow mortally superior but you're just showing your ignorance.

Actual Talking Thermos said:

---

The Catholic Church is well known for never having persecuted anyone for beliefs or activities they deemed heretical

---

I have several beliefs that are contrary to the Catholic Church. In fact, I've been very critical of it at times, but I've never once been contacted by it for a response and I certainly have never been persecuted. In fact, I've even done work for a few Catholic entities.

Now do government. The democrat party. Current politicians in power.

aggie93 said:

---

---

free to do X until it it hurts others.

Looking at you groomers.

agracer said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

agracer said:

---

Actual Talking Thermos said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

---

Uh, many Christians, including a number on this very forum, definitely advocate that people should be prohibited by law from doing various relevant values of X.

---

Other than killing babies and grooming children? Examples of others "X" values?

---

There are those on here that have advocated for laws against blasphemy, adultery, and divorce.

---

Bull***** Prove it with links please. I've never read anyone on F16 advocating any of those.

You liberals crack me up, have to resort to extreme circumstances to try and prove you somehow mortally superior but you're just showing your ignorance.

---

There it is, folks! Once again, Ol' B-1 83 has been outed as a liberal.

By the way, here's your proof…..
https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3262139/replies/61148638

Well I stand corrected, but I think we all agree that FL is recent troll and almost no one on this board agrees with his/her posts on this subject.

And my "liberals' comment was honestly more directed at the other posters I've quoted, mostly ATT.

agracer said:

---

Well I stand corrected, but I think we all agree that FL is recent troll and almost no one on this board agrees with his/her posts on this subject.

And my "liberals' comment was honestly more directed at the other posters I've quoted, mostly ATT.

---

Uploaded image unavailable.

larry culpepper said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

---

More like:

Secular person: I want to do X.
Christian: No.
Secular: Why not?
Christian: Because it's wrong according to my faith.
Secular: But your faith isn't the law.
Christian: Well it should be. And the people I vote for will make it so.

---

Just to be clear...you're talking about murdering babies here.

rgag12 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

---

This is a pretty easy one for a Lib to counter. All they have to do is point out that there are anti-abortion laws being triggered in red states. So there is some degree of control trying to be put in place, they aren't entirely free to do whatever they want.

---

Okay. I think slavery is really just benevolent stewardship of sub-human species….. let me do what I want. Yes, some human behavior is so heinous that a civil society must ensure that behavior does not occur.

Might and/or majority does not make right. This is a big part of the reason our experiment in government is so fragile……most folks back then thought a simple agreement among states on how to be governed with a foundation of enumerated liberties for all (including the powerless and those in the minority) would fail. There are some items/issues not enumerated in the federal document which if they are to be protected at the federal level much be enumerated. And, the document provides for a way to enumerate new items/issues….but there much be an unquestioned majority of states that desire to enumerate these new items. Otherwise, those issues are governed at the state level.

agracer said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

agracer said:

---

Actual Talking Thermos said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

---

Uh, many Christians, including a number on this very forum, definitely advocate that people should be prohibited by law from doing various relevant values of X.

---

Other than killing babies and grooming children? Examples of others "X" values?

---

There are those on here that have advocated for laws against blasphemy, adultery, and divorce.

---

Bull***** Prove it with links please. I've never read anyone on F16 advocating any of those.

You liberals crack me up, have to resort to extreme circumstances to try and prove you somehow mortally superior but you're just showing your ignorance.

---

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3262139/1

Quote:

---

I hope we can do the same here, and this is just a beachhead to ban all porn forever

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

. . .

---

Great, porn is banned. What's your plan for actually getting rid of it?

---

Criminalize it. I don't have a plan for getting rid of all of murder but still think it should be criminalized because less is better than more

---

Lets go down this rabbit hole.

So porn is illegal, what else is on your list?

---

How much time do you have?

Strip clubs
Usury
Same sex marriage
Same sex adoption
No fault divorce
Adultery
Blasphemy

---

---

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3262139/3

Quote:

---

Blasphemy is about the worst possible thing anyone can do, so Yes, but it was in a list of things I would change, and someone singled it out

---

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3262139/5

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Don't forget laws against adultery, divorce, and blasphemy! Think of the children!

---

I don't understand this take. These are all things that we used to have until very recently. Did the founders get it wrong and we just now figured it out in the last 50 or so years?

---

---

Quote:

---

No-fault divorce has been a major contributing factor to the ruination of this country.

---

Quote:

---

More like public blasphemy vs private conversation.


And since Christianity is the dominant religion of the nation, obviously such policy and law would be from that perspective.

---

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3262139/7

Quote:

---

You do realize that no fault divorce didn't exist in the US until 1969, right? Was everyone before that nuts?

---

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/3262139/8

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

. . .

---

. . .

---

. . .

---

. . .

---

. . .

---

. . .

---

. . .

---

. . .

---

. . .

---

. . .

---

. . .

---

. . .

---

Apparently in your mind it should, because you've repeatedly said the government should enforce your Christian definition of "blasphemy" by law and punishment.

---

Christ is King of the World, and blasphemy is a sin that exceeds all other sins and crimes. Crimes against humans are forgivable, crimes against God are not

---

agracer said:

---

Uploaded image unavailable.

---

Staff hates Darth Vader and "apology accepted" memes.

Can I blasphemy Mohammed or draw his picture in your theocracy, or does "blasphemy" only apply to your religion? Will a Constitutional Convention be required to do away with the First Amendment, or will you do it by issuing a Fatwa sort of ruling?

I appreciate the hustle, but is finding a couple folks on the Internet with fringe takes (or reasonable takes taken out of context - Christians should see blasphemy is horrendous but recognize it as outside of criminal law jurisdiction) isn't going to make us rethink you advocating for baby murder.

Most of what the modern conservative wants state protections against align with the non-aggression principle. Don't kill innocent kids. Don't sexualize childhood. Don't groom kids for perversion. Protect the environment that minors develop within by keeping traditional marriage as the state subsidized / recognized standard. Etc.

If you want a Methodist priest to perform a marriage ceremony for you and a juvenile goat - go for it. If you want to use contraception, sex toys, or dance in a closed-door club - whatever. But if you want to do something that'll harm others - ESPECIALLY minors - you aren't operating in a self-impacting vacuum anymore.

Clearly you've never tried to buy liquor on a Sunday

Who was advocating for baby murder? Certainly not me! I'm very much pro-life, and pro-Constitution (even when it allows things I might not agree with).

B-1 83 said:

---

Who was advocating for baby murder? Certainly not me! I'm very much pro-life, and pro-Constitution (even when it allows things I might not agree with).

---

My bad - that was for Faustus