Progress

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: KeithE

Re: Progress

Postby KeithE » Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:37 pm

Haruo wrote:Sin may be sin, driving 7 mph above the posted speed limit is not murder.

What was that post about maybe three posts up where you seemed to be arguing with yourself about the defining of sins not listed by name in the Bible?

Ahh I think that was my fault - hitting “edit” instead of “quote”. I’m not as adroit when using my iphone than at the computer.

So I just use “X”, that is I deleted it. I’ll not attempt to repost - useless argument with Jon anyway.
Informed by Data.
Driven by the SPIRIT and JESUS’s Example.
Promoting the Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
http://www.weatherly.org/discoverycenter
User avatar
KeithE
Site Admin
 
Posts: 8357
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: Progress

Postby Sandy » Thu Nov 09, 2017 8:24 pm

We've debated and discussed the sinfulness of homosexuality and transgendered people here to death, without making much of a difference. I believe the Biblical record contains support for the belief that homosexual behavior is sinful, and that following through on some sort of transgendered transition is as well. I believe that taking the posture that these things are not sinful behavior denies those individuals a legitimate change to experience spiritual conviction and repentance, and receive the gospel of Jesus. But the self-righteous judgmentalism that most of these people have experienced at the hands of the church is also just as detrimental to their spiritual health and their chances at repentance.

But we don't live in a country that restricts people's rights based on their religious beliefs. We love the selfish interpretation of religious freedom when it suits us, and when we can use it to justify bad behavior in the name of religion, but the fact that people who hold no religious belief, or who adhere to another world religion or belief have the same rights as Christians, and are entitled to the same religious freedom irritates us, somehow. Lesbians, gays, transgendered are people, and they are American citizens. Their religious beliefs, or sexual orientation should not restrict their rights, and if they manage to get elected to office, well, people have the right to vote for them.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8130
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Progress

Postby Jon Estes » Mon Nov 13, 2017 3:15 am

Sandy wrote:But we don't live in a country that restricts people's rights based on their religious beliefs.


I think we could easily find a few bakers and florists who would disagree with you as the government found them guilty of holding, affirming and living by such beliefs is their private businesses.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: Progress

Postby Dave Roberts » Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:17 am

The fear tactic I find in this is the fear-mongering of "bathroom rights," fanned in VA by now defeated Delegate Bob Marshall. Frankly, I just don't buy those fears. I have read some (but certainly not all) of the medical literature on trans-gender identity. The most recent relates to how we are all reproduced with the original human zygote always beginning as female and only through cell division do some blend both X and Y chromosomes to become male. If this understanding is right, then transgender identities begin in the womb. Only later does there come a choosing of what sexual characteristics will be followed. To me, condemnation of these folks sends the wrong message and fights about bathroom rights yells, "God doesn't want you either." The process of change from birth gender is a surgically invasive process that few would undertake for the purpose of making a statement. While there is a lot here I don't understand, some of this demands that we as Christians take care not simply to pass condemnation because it's not clear in the Bible. I'm not trying to move the lines but rather trying to relate to the 0.04% of the population who are transgender in a way that will not keep them from Christ.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6928
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Progress

Postby Sandy » Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:32 am

Jon Estes wrote:
Sandy wrote:But we don't live in a country that restricts people's rights based on their religious beliefs.


I think we could easily find a few bakers and florists who would disagree with you as the government found them guilty of holding, affirming and living by such beliefs is their private businesses.


That's kind of like a church saying you can't come in because you don't have a crew cut.

Businesses serve in the public domain. Years ago, many businesses put up signs saying "We reserve the right to refuse service to anybody," in order to keep racial minorities out, or had separate bathroom facilities for the same reason. When you own a business, and you decide that someone's lifestyle choice isn't consistent with yours, that's one thing. When you refuse service to them in the public domain because of it, that's discrimination, not an exercise of religious freedom.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8130
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Progress

Postby Jon Estes » Mon Nov 13, 2017 1:56 pm

Sandy wrote:
Jon Estes wrote:
Sandy wrote:But we don't live in a country that restricts people's rights based on their religious beliefs.


I think we could easily find a few bakers and florists who would disagree with you as the government found them guilty of holding, affirming and living by such beliefs is their private businesses.


When you refuse service to them in the public domain because of it, that's discrimination, not an exercise of religious freedom.


So now you want to define how their religion can or can’t be exercised in the public square.

Restriction clearly supported by you.

If their religion causes them to refuse service, let the business deal with the profit or loss. It’s none of the gov’s Business to close them down or fine them stupidly.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: Progress

Postby Sandy » Tue Nov 14, 2017 10:54 pm

Jon Estes wrote:
So now you want to define how their religion can or can’t be exercised in the public square.

Restriction clearly supported by you.

If their religion causes them to refuse service, let the business deal with the profit or loss. It’s none of the gov’s Business to close them down or fine them stupidly.


Did Jesus ever refuse service to anyone? Where does the Bible teach that a Christian businessperson can refuse service to someone, and call that free exercise of religion in the public domain? That kind of behavior is contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and inconsistent with Christian, Biblical principles. If their religion causes them to refuse service, it's discrimination, not "religion," and it is certainly not Christianity.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8130
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Progress

Postby Jon Estes » Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:25 am

Sandy wrote:
Jon Estes wrote:
So now you want to define how their religion can or can’t be exercised in the public square.

Restriction clearly supported by you.

If their religion causes them to refuse service, let the business deal with the profit or loss. It’s none of the gov’s Business to close them down or fine them stupidly.


Did Jesus ever refuse service to anyone?

The Bible doesn't say so directly but there are stories in scripture that indicate He did not always do what some may have wanted. EX 1 -
The lame mad beside the pool where many gathered and waited for the water to stir. We know He healed one, scripture is silent on the healing of others there that day. Ex 2 - In the graveyard - Lazarus was brought back to life, there is silence on if he emptied every tomb of every dead person.


Where does the Bible teach that a Christian businessperson can refuse service to someone, and call that free exercise of religion in the public domain?

The Bible calls on us to not sin and if a Christian believes that it is a sin for them to sponsor or sho support for something that is a sin by providing them a service, they ought to say no and be supported for it from the Christian community. NOw if you want to define religion by your terms alone, then you have point. But to use your tactic... Where does Jesus give you the right to be or the Bible say you are to be... the sole definer for what is free exercise of religious liberty? To bad for you - God doesn't even give the government that much authority.

That kind of behavior is contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and inconsistent with Christian, Biblical principles.

So Says Sandy. I say you are wrong. Gosh, I support the right of the Muslim business man in the US to refuse service to anyone who asks of them to do something against their religious beliefs.

If their religion causes them to refuse service, it's discrimination, not "religion," and it is certainly not Christianity.

In the US, if the government forces someone to act against their religious causes, that is religious discrimination. I don't think it is wise to discriminate against one just so you don't discriminate against another.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: Progress

Postby Haruo » Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:07 am

So Jon, I take it you are not one of those who hold that Islam is not a religion and that therefore Muslims have no religious beliefs that are protected by the US Constitution as amended?
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11624
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Progress

Postby Jon Estes » Wed Nov 15, 2017 11:16 am

Haruo wrote:So Jon, I take it you are not one of those who hold that Islam is not a religion and that therefore Muslims have no religious beliefs that are protected by the US Constitution as amended?


You make no sense. Your triple negative has me scratching my head.
Living in Dubai for that which I was purposed
User avatar
Jon Estes
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2014 4:14 am

Re: Progress

Postby Sandy » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:24 pm

Jon Estes wrote:The Bible calls on us to not sin and if a Christian believes that it is a sin for them to sponsor or sho support for something that is a sin by providing them a service, they ought to say no and be supported for it from the Christian community.


So, according to you, sin is whatever a Christian believes that it is for them. Sounds like relativism to me.

I don't think you can find a Biblical basis for the idea that providing a service to someone or selling someone a product, for which you will receive a return or a profit, is a sin, if the person happens to be a sinner. To be consistent, and true to the principle, you'd have to refuse service to those who were divorced, or who weren't virgins on their wedding day. If you owned a grocery store, or other retail outlet, to be consistent, you'd have to ask customers at the register whether they were gay or lesbian before agreeing to check them out, or wait on their table. The actions of Jesus that you pointed to are taken well out of context when applied the way you did. There's no indication that Jesus "refused" to heal anyone else, or any reason why, if he did.

Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. Matthew 5:42

If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even the pagans do that? Matthew 5:46-47

That pesky sermon on the mount.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8130
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Progress

Postby Haruo » Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:15 pm

Sandy wrote:
Jon Estes wrote:The Bible calls on us to not sin and if a Christian believes that it is a sin for them to sponsor or sho support for something that is a sin by providing them a service, they ought to say no and be supported for it from the Christian community.


So, according to you, sin is whatever a Christian believes that it is for them. Sounds like relativism to me.

I don't think you can find a Biblical basis for the idea that providing a service to someone or selling someone a product, for which you will receive a return or a profit, is a sin, if the person happens to be a sinner. To be consistent, and true to the principle, you'd have to refuse service to those who were divorced, or who weren't virgins on their wedding day. If you owned a grocery store, or other retail outlet, to be consistent, you'd have to ask customers at the register whether they were gay or lesbian before agreeing to check them out, or wait on their table. The actions of Jesus that you pointed to are taken well out of context when applied the way you did. There's no indication that Jesus "refused" to heal anyone else, or any reason why, if he did.

Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. Matthew 5:42

If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even the pagans do that? Matthew 5:46-47

That pesky sermon on the mount.
Since all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God, apparently people who hold to this theory should not be in business at all, since every transaction is an occasion of sin...
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11624
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Progress

Postby Jim » Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:38 pm

This mixing of a number of areas of “sin” regarding providing goods or services or not is a mistake. It's only when a mostly specific subject is at hand that decisions have to be made on the matter of biblical principles that are unmistakable. When a baker knows he is furnishing an element vital to a same-sex marriage ceremony/reception, he has a right not to comply if he feels the sacredness of that ceremony is being violated with his help. Sodomy and other homosexual oddities are violations of scripture and unmistakably so. However, if the baker is also a restaurant-owner, he may serve food to homosexuals because the Bible does not claim eating is a sin (except maybe for gluttony, not the restaurant's problem). Similarly, a Christian can sell gas to a known homosexual car-owner because driving is not a sin and the vendor has no responsibility for what happens in the car.
Jim
 
Posts: 3595
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Progress

Postby Haruo » Wed Nov 15, 2017 6:02 pm

Tell it to the Amish.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11624
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Progress

Postby Sandy » Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:40 pm

Jim wrote:This mixing of a number of areas of “sin” regarding providing goods or services or not is a mistake. It's only when a mostly specific subject is at hand that decisions have to be made on the matter of biblical principles that are unmistakable. When a baker knows he is furnishing an element vital to a same-sex marriage ceremony/reception, he has a right not to comply if he feels the sacredness of that ceremony is being violated with his help. Sodomy and other homosexual oddities are violations of scripture and unmistakably so. However, if the baker is also a restaurant-owner, he may serve food to homosexuals because the Bible does not claim eating is a sin (except maybe for gluttony, not the restaurant's problem). Similarly, a Christian can sell gas to a known homosexual car-owner because driving is not a sin and the vendor has no responsibility for what happens in the car.


I disagree with that. Flowers and cakes are inanimate objects that have nothing to do with the "sacredness" of a wedding ceremony. They are trappings, not "vital elements," mere products with no substance, and not essential to the ceremony or its vows. Perhaps there is more legitimacy to the claim of violation of personal religious freedom with a county clerk who refuses to allow her office to issue a marriage license in spite of a law requiring her to do so. While I agree that sodomy and homosexual behavior are defined as sinful acts in scripture, accountability for sin is always personal, and there's nothing that says a business contract makes someone else guilty of sin. In this culture, that kind of refusal is discrimination, and that kind of rejection isn't Biblical.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8130
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Progress

Postby Sandy » Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:29 am

Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8130
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Progress

Postby Haruo » Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:23 pm

Since Alabama voters have been voting since October 18, before the scandal even broke let alone the reactions to it, it's highly likely that a 55% Jones vote at this point wouldn't be enough to result in 50%+1 on Election Night. So it's likely Moore will "win" even if he "drops out"; the closer we get to the election the less likely a Sessions Write-in movement could do more than swing the vote to Jones, so they're unlikely to try it. But then it will be up to the Senate to decide whether to unseat an elected Senator for the first time since the Civil War era. If the Republican Senators who have been calling on Moore to step out don't kick him out, they will lose a huge number of votes next November, mostly what's left of the women's vote in their states. So my guess is they will kick him out, and then maybe the governor will appoint Sessions pending a special election. And then we will see who else is available and willing to be kicked around by Trump as the US AG. Steve Bannon maybe?
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11624
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Progress

Postby Sandy » Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:38 pm

Haruo wrote:Since Alabama voters have been voting since October 18, before the scandal even broke let alone the reactions to it, it's highly likely that a 55% Jones vote at this point wouldn't be enough to result in 50%+1 on Election Night. So it's likely Moore will "win" even if he "drops out"; the closer we get to the election the less likely a Sessions Write-in movement could do more than swing the vote to Jones, so they're unlikely to try it. But then it will be up to the Senate to decide whether to unseat an elected Senator for the first time since the Civil War era. If the Republican Senators who have been calling on Moore to step out don't kick him out, they will lose a huge number of votes next November, mostly what's left of the women's vote in their states. So my guess is they will kick him out, and then maybe the governor will appoint Sessions pending a special election. And then we will see who else is available and willing to be kicked around by Trump as the US AG. Steve Bannon maybe?


The only early votes Alabama permits is absentee, and there won't be enough of those to make a difference unless it's a razor thin margin in the election. Current polling, even conservative leaning polls, show Moore has lost between 25 and 28% of the support he had before this story broke. It's a tough issue for Republicans because of the senate seat at stake. A write-in candidacy by Strange would only split the vote further, since Moore's name will remain on the ballot, even if he steps aside. This sort of thing does more to suppress the vote within the party than it does to add a lot of votes to an opponents total. Compare this to Virginia and Oklahoma, where the Democrats have swept up a lot of unexpected victories, and I think Jones will be elected as Session's replacement straight up.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8130
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Progress

Postby Haruo » Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:34 pm

Sandy wrote:
Haruo wrote:Since Alabama voters have been voting since October 18, before the scandal even broke let alone the reactions to it, it's highly likely that a 55% Jones vote at this point wouldn't be enough to result in 50%+1 on Election Night. So it's likely Moore will "win" even if he "drops out"; the closer we get to the election the less likely a Sessions Write-in movement could do more than swing the vote to Jones, so they're unlikely to try it. But then it will be up to the Senate to decide whether to unseat an elected Senator for the first time since the Civil War era. If the Republican Senators who have been calling on Moore to step out don't kick him out, they will lose a huge number of votes next November, mostly what's left of the women's vote in their states. So my guess is they will kick him out, and then maybe the governor will appoint Sessions pending a special election. And then we will see who else is available and willing to be kicked around by Trump as the US AG. Steve Bannon maybe?


The only early votes Alabama permits is absentee, and there won't be enough of those to make a difference unless it's a razor thin margin in the election. Current polling, even conservative leaning polls, show Moore has lost between 25 and 28% of the support he had before this story broke. It's a tough issue for Republicans because of the senate seat at stake. A write-in candidacy by Strange would only split the vote further, since Moore's name will remain on the ballot, even if he steps aside. This sort of thing does more to suppress the vote within the party than it does to add a lot of votes to an opponents total. Compare this to Virginia and Oklahoma, where the Democrats have swept up a lot of unexpected victories, and I think Jones will be elected as Session's replacement straight up.
Maybe I assume there will be more absentees than there will. Not sure how AL is on that. A lot of places it's getting to be the norm.
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11624
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Progress

Postby Sandy » Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:25 pm

According to one source that popped up, (al.com) about 5% of the ballots cast in Alabama in 2016 were absentee, and that was a presidential election year. It sounds like you have to be able to verify your reason for voting early. There will be four weeks of absentee ballots to counter the week that happened before this came out. But even prior to these revelations, Moore wasn't that far ahead, in fact, about half the polls on RCP had this race at a dead heat, or within a 5 point margin of error, before all of this broke. It was interesting that none of the MSNBC hosts really pushed the recent polling data all that hard, taking much more of a cautious approach, even though the two most historically accurate and reliable polls have Jones up by double digits. They spent more time on the state house races in deep red Oklahoma that the Democrats picked off this week in some of the reddest territory in the country.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8130
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Progress

Postby Jim » Thu Nov 16, 2017 3:37 pm

Sandy wrote:
Jon Estes wrote:
So now you want to define how their religion can or can’t be exercised in the public square.

Restriction clearly supported by you.

If their religion causes them to refuse service, let the business deal with the profit or loss. It’s none of the gov’s Business to close them down or fine them stupidly.


Did Jesus ever refuse service to anyone? Where does the Bible teach that a Christian businessperson can refuse service to someone, and call that free exercise of religion in the public domain? That kind of behavior is contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and inconsistent with Christian, Biblical principles. If their religion causes them to refuse service, it's discrimination, not "religion," and it is certainly not Christianity.


For Paul, try II Cor. 6:17. For Christ, try Matt. 11:20-24 or Matt. 10:14,15.
Jim
 
Posts: 3595
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Progress

Postby Sandy » Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:07 am

Jim wrote:
Sandy wrote:
Jon Estes wrote:
So now you want to define how their religion can or can’t be exercised in the public square.

Restriction clearly supported by you.

If their religion causes them to refuse service, let the business deal with the profit or loss. It’s none of the gov’s Business to close them down or fine them stupidly.


Did Jesus ever refuse service to anyone? Where does the Bible teach that a Christian businessperson can refuse service to someone, and call that free exercise of religion in the public domain? That kind of behavior is contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and inconsistent with Christian, Biblical principles. If their religion causes them to refuse service, it's discrimination, not "religion," and it is certainly not Christianity.


For Paul, try II Cor. 6:17. For Christ, try Matt. 11:20-24 or Matt. 10:14,15.


Nothing applicable there. If you apply the II Corinthians (or two Corinthians, whichever you prefer) verse literally, to this situation, then no Christian ought to be engaged in a business that serves the public. The passages in Matthew are directed toward the disciples, and are about their evangelism ministry, conducted among the Jews.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8130
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Progress

Postby Haruo » Fri Nov 17, 2017 11:50 am

Who were the two Corinthians? Did anybody get their names?
Haruo (呂須•春男) = ᎭᎷᎣ = Leland Bryant Ross
Repeal the language taxLearn and use Esperanto
Fremont Baptist ChurchMy hymnblog
User avatar
Haruo
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11624
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:21 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Progress

Postby Jim » Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:29 pm

S: That kind of behavior is contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ, and inconsistent with Christian, Biblical principles. If their religion causes them to refuse service, it's discrimination, not "religion," and it is certainly not Christianity.[/quote]

J: For Paul, try II Cor. 6:17. For Christ, try Matt. 11:20-24 or Matt. 10:14,15.[/quote]

S: Nothing applicable there. If you apply the II Corinthians (or two Corinthians, whichever you prefer) verse literally, to this situation, then no Christian ought to be engaged in a business that serves the public. The passages in Matthew are directed toward the disciples, and are about their evangelism ministry, conducted among the Jews.[/quote]

J: You completely miss the point, of course. The passages express a firm form(s) of discrimination by both Christ and Paul for those who have earned the right to be avoided and exempted from being served.
Jim
 
Posts: 3595
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 3:44 pm
Location: Lexington, Ky.

Re: Progress

Postby Sandy » Fri Nov 17, 2017 4:34 pm

Jim wrote: You completely miss the point, of course. The passages express a firm form(s) of discrimination by both Christ and Paul for those who have earned the right to be avoided and exempted from being served.


:lol:

No, they don't, not even close. And certainly not in any way that involves being paid to provide the service. You miss the point, and you're interpretation of these verses, aside from ignoring the context in which they are written, is even a stretch for mere prooftexting.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8130
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

PreviousNext

Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 72 guests