Christianity is the most tolerant religion today. They practice, love the sinner, hate the sin. If you are openly practicing "any" sin and are not repentant, it is the church's responsibility to not allow you to be front and center in their ministries, because it's usually the unrepentant sinners way of saying to others "my sin" is okay according to scripture and God's word.

Some people can't accept this and want to turn Christians into people hatters.

Who's really the "people" hatters here?

The gay agenda against Christianity on display?

http://onenewsnow.com/education/2014/07/...-exemption

In a commentary about the mayor's action, OneNewsNow columnist Kevin McCullough suggested that Gordon College and other Christian schools are the newest target for pro-homosexual activists.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/legal-courts/2...ver-firing

"The paper expressed that the sole reason for his termination was his expression of his religious beliefs," explains Whitaker, "and they really felt like he had the right to believe what he believes, but he couldn't ... express that – and that's illegal."

(07-26-2014 06:23 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  Christianity is the most tolerant religion today. They practice, love the sinner, hate the sin. If you are openly practicing "any" sin and are not repentant, it is the church's responsibility to not allow you to be front and center in their ministries, because it's usually the unrepentant sinners way of saying to others "my sin" is okay according to scripture and God's word.

Some people can't accept this and want to turn Christians into people hatters.

Who's really the "people" hatters here?

Exactly who is defining "sin"?

(07-26-2014 06:45 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  The gay agenda against Christianity on display?

http://onenewsnow.com/education/2014/07/...-exemption

In a commentary about the mayor's action, OneNewsNow columnist Kevin McCullough suggested that Gordon College and other Christian schools are the newest target for pro-homosexual activists.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/legal-courts/2...ver-firing

"The paper expressed that the sole reason for his termination was his expression of his religious beliefs," explains Whitaker, "and they really felt like he had the right to believe what he believes, but he couldn't ... express that – and that's illegal."

The second one about the reporter does raise concerns on the surface. Do not know the other side.

The first on - if they are taking federal money then follow federal laws. If they want to live under religious law there are many places they can move to. Like the Republican paradise now in Iraq.

(07-26-2014 07:40 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 06:23 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  Christianity is the most tolerant religion today. They practice, love the sinner, hate the sin. If you are openly practicing "any" sin and are not repentant, it is the church's responsibility to not allow you to be front and center in their ministries, because it's usually the unrepentant sinners way of saying to others "my sin" is okay according to scripture and God's word.

Some people can't accept this and want to turn Christians into people hatters.

Who's really the "people" hatters here?

Exactly who is defining "sin"?

Dogma

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

(07-26-2014 07:40 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 06:23 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  Christianity is the most tolerant religion today. They practice, love the sinner, hate the sin. If you are openly practicing "any" sin and are not repentant, it is the church's responsibility to not allow you to be front and center in their ministries, because it's usually the unrepentant sinners way of saying to others "my sin" is okay according to scripture and God's word.

Some people can't accept this and want to turn Christians into people hatters.

Who's really the "people" hatters here?

Exactly who is defining "sin"?

Pretty sure the Bible and Ten Commandments define sin. Most Church have pretty clear doctrine defining sin too.

Don't believe in the Bible, Commandments or Church doctrine? So be it. That's your right. Go live your life as you see fit.

But it is not your right to force acceptance of your belief system on me or my Church.

(07-26-2014 07:57 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 07:40 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 06:23 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  Christianity is the most tolerant religion today. They practice, love the sinner, hate the sin. If you are openly practicing "any" sin and are not repentant, it is the church's responsibility to not allow you to be front and center in their ministries, because it's usually the unrepentant sinners way of saying to others "my sin" is okay according to scripture and God's word.

Some people can't accept this and want to turn Christians into people hatters.

Who's really the "people" hatters here?

Exactly who is defining "sin"?

Pretty sure the Bible and Ten Commandments define sin. Most Church have pretty clear doctrine defining sin too.

Don't believe in the Bible, Commandments or Church doctrine? So be it. That's your right. Go live your life as you see fit.

But it is not your right to force acceptance of your belief system on me or my Church.

Church doctrine varies. Is it a sin to drink alcohol? Caffeine? Dance? Eat meet on Friday? Not take Holy Communion within some window I forgot?

The bible is open to human interpretation & at times laws sorta of create a situation where you have to live in sin. For example the paraphrased bible quote about a man shall only sleep with another man if he is stoned. That is only legal now in 2 states. DC has decriminalized it and voting to legalize it in November (except republican libertarians are attaching riders to the DC appropriations bill to prevent DC from spending any money to enforce it, or to allow it to be printed on the November ballot).

I believe in the Holy trinity & life everlasting. However I do not believe you have to be a dues paying m,ember of a church to get a reservation. I also believe that you can be an atheist or any religion and still go to heaven.

So the only ones forcing others to conform to their life & beliefs are primarily organized religion. If organized religion wants federal funds to perform a secular activity, then abide by secular rules.

I strongly believe that religious & charity groups can frequently be more efficient at helping people in need.

(07-26-2014 07:40 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 06:23 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  Christianity is the most tolerant religion today. They practice, love the sinner, hate the sin. If you are openly practicing "any" sin and are not repentant, it is the church's responsibility to not allow you to be front and center in their ministries, because it's usually the unrepentant sinners way of saying to others "my sin" is okay according to scripture and God's word.

Some people can't accept this and want to turn Christians into people hatters.

Who's really the "people" hatters here?

Exactly who is defining "sin"?

In this case the Catholic Church...

(07-26-2014 07:40 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 06:23 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  Christianity is the most tolerant religion today. They practice, love the sinner, hate the sin. If you are openly practicing "any" sin and are not repentant, it is the church's responsibility to not allow you to be front and center in their ministries, because it's usually the unrepentant sinners way of saying to others "my sin" is okay according to scripture and God's word.

Some people can't accept this and want to turn Christians into people hatters.

Who's really the "people" hatters here?

Exactly who is defining "sin"?

The NFL when they fined and suspend a guy who wasn't convicted of anything and who was also forgiven by his alleged victim. If they can impose their values on someone who didn't commit a crime then so can the church.

(07-26-2014 06:23 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  Christianity is the most tolerant religion today. They practice, love the sinner, hate the sin. If you are openly practicing "any" sin and are not repentant, it is the church's responsibility to not allow you to be front and center in their ministries, because it's usually the unrepentant sinners way of saying to others "my sin" is okay according to scripture and God's word.

Some people can't accept this and want to turn Christians into people hatters.

Who's really the "people" hatters here?

Then don't take taxpayer dollars. And operate a real 'ministry', not a taxpayer funded social services group.

(07-26-2014 09:22 AM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 07:40 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 06:23 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  Christianity is the most tolerant religion today. They practice, love the sinner, hate the sin. If you are openly practicing "any" sin and are not repentant, it is the church's responsibility to not allow you to be front and center in their ministries, because it's usually the unrepentant sinners way of saying to others "my sin" is okay according to scripture and God's word.

Some people can't accept this and want to turn Christians into people hatters.

Who's really the "people" hatters here?

Exactly who is defining "sin"?

The NFL when they fined and suspend a guy who wasn't convicted of anything and who was also forgiven by his alleged victim. If they can impose their values on someone who didn't commit a crime then so can the church.

Great cross marketing to other post. I did not comment but he admitted he did it, there is video evidence, it was an action that involved pain to another human (I do not know if they use safe words in their relationship), and I think the police thought it was a one time thing versus a behavioral pattern.

Regardless I support & applaud, the NFL because as public figures there is a slightly different standard of responsibility of behavior. His actions were unacceptable even if he was under the influence. That and one of my sisters was in an abusive relationship & overall women are the weaker sex (physically & financially). Although abuse can be in either direction.

That said I need to go do some sinning. I will be venturing into the bowels of Hades (we local liberals call it metro) to ride a party train to Liberal & sinful Arlington to meet a former co worker (who will not have her husband with her). Where we will have a sinful drink (probably beer or wine, will know when we pick the place for lunch), catch up on old times & gossip about mutual friends, and her children & she explains how to become an LLC with insurance since I now do consulting. Judge me as you will & I am ok if you pray for my soul! But this is America & I just want to be me.

(07-26-2014 06:45 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  The gay agenda against Christianity on display?

http://onenewsnow.com/education/2014/07/...-exemption

In a commentary about the mayor's action, OneNewsNow columnist Kevin McCullough suggested that Gordon College and other Christian schools are the newest target for pro-homosexual activists.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/legal-courts/2...ver-firing

"The paper expressed that the sole reason for his termination was his expression of his religious beliefs," explains Whitaker, "and they really felt like he had the right to believe what he believes, but he couldn't ... express that – and that's illegal."

Schools that discriminate in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status should not receive a dime of taxpayer funding.

(07-26-2014 09:47 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 06:45 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  The gay agenda against Christianity on display?

http://onenewsnow.com/education/2014/07/...-exemption

In a commentary about the mayor's action, OneNewsNow columnist Kevin McCullough suggested that Gordon College and other Christian schools are the newest target for pro-homosexual activists.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/legal-courts/2...ver-firing

"The paper expressed that the sole reason for his termination was his expression of his religious beliefs," explains Whitaker, "and they really felt like he had the right to believe what he believes, but he couldn't ... express that – and that's illegal."

Schools that discriminate in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status should not receive a dime of taxpayer funding.

Individuals who attend churches and schools that hold true to Christian teachings pay taxes as well? You are advocating against freedom of religion and in your case it's understandable.

(07-26-2014 10:18 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 09:47 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 06:45 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  The gay agenda against Christianity on display?

http://onenewsnow.com/education/2014/07/...-exemption

In a commentary about the mayor's action, OneNewsNow columnist Kevin McCullough suggested that Gordon College and other Christian schools are the newest target for pro-homosexual activists.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/legal-courts/2...ver-firing

"The paper expressed that the sole reason for his termination was his expression of his religious beliefs," explains Whitaker, "and they really felt like he had the right to believe what he believes, but he couldn't ... express that – and that's illegal."

Schools that discriminate in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status should not receive a dime of taxpayer funding.

Individuals who attend churches and schools that hold true to Christian teachings pay taxes as well? You are advocating against freedom of religion and in your case it's understandable.

Name one taxpayer funded school where Christians are barred from being employees......

There are hundreds, if not thousands of taxpayer funded schools where LGBT persons are barred from being employees.

Name one school where you cannot work that is supported by the taxpayers by virtue of your status as an evangelical. You can't.

Want to be private? Be completely private. And don't ask accreditation agencies to vet schools that don't take the talents of everyone.

Its not discrimination to demand that recipients of taxpayer benefits not discriminate with those funds.

(07-26-2014 10:46 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 10:18 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 09:47 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 06:45 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  The gay agenda against Christianity on display?

http://onenewsnow.com/education/2014/07/...-exemption

In a commentary about the mayor's action, OneNewsNow columnist Kevin McCullough suggested that Gordon College and other Christian schools are the newest target for pro-homosexual activists.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/legal-courts/2...ver-firing

"The paper expressed that the sole reason for his termination was his expression of his religious beliefs," explains Whitaker, "and they really felt like he had the right to believe what he believes, but he couldn't ... express that – and that's illegal."

Schools that discriminate in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status should not receive a dime of taxpayer funding.

Individuals who attend churches and schools that hold true to Christian teachings pay taxes as well? You are advocating against freedom of religion and in your case it's understandable.

Name one taxpayer funded school where Christians are barred from being employees......

There are hundreds, if not thousands of taxpayer funded schools where LGBT persons are barred from being employees.

Name one school where you cannot work that is supported by the taxpayers by virtue of your status as an evangelical. You can't.

Want to be private? Be completely private. And don't ask accreditation agencies to vet schools that don't take the talents of everyone.

Its not discrimination to demand that recipients of taxpayer benefits not discriminate with those funds.

I understand the agenda, the progressive movement is out to destroy religion in general and is particularly hostile to evangelical Christianity and traditional Catholicism. It is for high taxation and government control and regulation of almost everything. It is against our Constitutional Bill of Rights, in particular the First and Second Amendments.

(07-26-2014 11:13 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 10:46 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 10:18 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 09:47 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 06:45 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  The gay agenda against Christianity on display?

http://onenewsnow.com/education/2014/07/...-exemption

In a commentary about the mayor's action, OneNewsNow columnist Kevin McCullough suggested that Gordon College and other Christian schools are the newest target for pro-homosexual activists.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/legal-courts/2...ver-firing

"The paper expressed that the sole reason for his termination was his expression of his religious beliefs," explains Whitaker, "and they really felt like he had the right to believe what he believes, but he couldn't ... express that – and that's illegal."

Schools that discriminate in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status should not receive a dime of taxpayer funding.

Individuals who attend churches and schools that hold true to Christian teachings pay taxes as well? You are advocating against freedom of religion and in your case it's understandable.

Name one taxpayer funded school where Christians are barred from being employees......

There are hundreds, if not thousands of taxpayer funded schools where LGBT persons are barred from being employees.

Name one school where you cannot work that is supported by the taxpayers by virtue of your status as an evangelical. You can't.

Want to be private? Be completely private. And don't ask accreditation agencies to vet schools that don't take the talents of everyone.

Its not discrimination to demand that recipients of taxpayer benefits not discriminate with those funds.

I understand the agenda, the progressive movement is out to destroy religion in general and is particularly hostile to evangelical Christianity and traditional Catholicism. It is for high taxation and government control and regulation of almost everything. It is against our Constitutional Bill of Rights, in particular the First and Second Amendments.

Believe whatever you want. Form whatever church or private club you want. But don't ask me to fund it.

-----

There is no Constitutional mandate requiring that the taxpayers fund discriminatory institutions. None.

Nor is there any requirement that anyone recognize the credentials of anyone that went to a college that bars Gays, Jews, Muslims, or others from being employees.

Nor is there any Constitutional requirement that discriminatory institutions be eligible for tax free donation treatment by the IRS.

-------

Evangelicals are employees at probably every single University and College in the USA, including Yeshiva.

(07-26-2014 07:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 11:13 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 10:46 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 10:18 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 09:47 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Schools that discriminate in hiring on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status should not receive a dime of taxpayer funding.

Individuals who attend churches and schools that hold true to Christian teachings pay taxes as well? You are advocating against freedom of religion and in your case it's understandable.

Name one taxpayer funded school where Christians are barred from being employees......

There are hundreds, if not thousands of taxpayer funded schools where LGBT persons are barred from being employees.

Name one school where you cannot work that is supported by the taxpayers by virtue of your status as an evangelical. You can't.

Want to be private? Be completely private. And don't ask accreditation agencies to vet schools that don't take the talents of everyone.

Its not discrimination to demand that recipients of taxpayer benefits not discriminate with those funds.

I understand the agenda, the progressive movement is out to destroy religion in general and is particularly hostile to evangelical Christianity and traditional Catholicism. It is for high taxation and government control and regulation of almost everything. It is against our Constitutional Bill of Rights, in particular the First and Second Amendments.

Believe whatever you want. Form whatever church or private club you want. But don't ask me to fund it.

-----

There is no Constitutional mandate requiring that the taxpayers fund discriminatory institutions. None.

Nor is there any requirement that anyone recognize the credentials of anyone that went to a college that bars Gays, Jews, Muslims, or others from being employees.

Nor is there any Constitutional requirement that discriminatory institutions be eligible for tax free donation treatment by the IRS.

-------

Evangelicals are employees at probably every single University and College in the USA, including Yeshiva.

You seem to know a lot about the Constitution despite the fact that, YOU'RE NOT A FREAKING LAWYER!!!!!!!!!!

(07-26-2014 07:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Believe whatever you want. Form whatever church or private club you want. But don't ask me to fund it.

-----

There is no Constitutional mandate requiring that the taxpayers fund discriminatory institutions. None.

Nor is there any requirement that anyone recognize the credentials of anyone that went to a college that bars Gays, Jews, Muslims, or others from being employees.

Nor is there any Constitutional requirement that discriminatory institutions be eligible for tax free donation treatment by the IRS.

-------

Evangelicals are employees at probably every single University and College in the USA, including Yeshiva.

Tom, are you against using tax payer money to fund colleges and businesses that use some form of Affirmative Action?

(07-26-2014 07:37 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(07-26-2014 07:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Believe whatever you want. Form whatever church or private club you want. But don't ask me to fund it.

-----

There is no Constitutional mandate requiring that the taxpayers fund discriminatory institutions. None.

Nor is there any requirement that anyone recognize the credentials of anyone that went to a college that bars Gays, Jews, Muslims, or others from being employees.

Nor is there any Constitutional requirement that discriminatory institutions be eligible for tax free donation treatment by the IRS.

-------

Evangelicals are employees at probably every single University and College in the USA, including Yeshiva.

Tom, are you against using tax payer money to fund colleges and businesses that use some form of Affirmative Action?

I have no problem with affirmative action, so long as everyone can be employed at all positions. If a school tried to use affirmative action to create a defacto ban on white people being employees, then that would be wrong. But that's not what is happening here.

(07-26-2014 07:05 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  There is no Constitutional mandate requiring that the taxpayers fund discriminatory institutions. None.

Nor is there a constitutional ban on taxpayer money going to institutions that discriminate...