Texas Pastor Protection Bill

[Cow Poke]

If Cow Poke wants to discuss how I'd develop an alternative strategy for dealing with the (nonexistant) threat of same-sex couples

I have already given the example of the aggressive tactics of the Mayor of Houston, her Democrat activist judge, the testimony before the Senate Committee from a homosexual man FOR the Bill, who could well be the same homosexual man who told his own pastor that his own community was discussing how to infiltrate their Church - we have seen the incredibly activist tactics of the gay/lesbian community chanting "hail Satan" on the State Capitol steps in support of Wendy Davis' failed run for Governor based on abortion.

Sam, while the vast majority of gays/lesbians may be be "nice people", those leading the militancy are not. They are filled with hate, and downright determined to fight against all the Church holds dear.

beating down church doors

That's quite disingenuous, Sam. In fact, I've indicated OTHERWISE - they are reportedly planning on infiltrating the Churches to work from within. No "beating down the doors" necessary. In fact, that implies that the Church's doors are locked to them - they're not. I have a couple of lesbians in my Church, and one gay guy. They know my stand on homosexuality, but they also appreciate that I preach the Bible without watering it down.

We don't hate gays and lesbians. Oddly enough, my Jewish atheist lesbian feminist executive admin actually asked ME to perform the wedding for her son and his girlfriend. I accepted - they declined. (because it was going to be a "Christian" wedding)

to get married by unwilling pastors, I'll happily discuss that.

I don't think you have any idea whatsoever the extent to which some of these militant self-appointed spokespeople of the gay/lesbian coalition are capable of, Sam.

[Cow Poke]

That's very clearly not what your posts conveyed, CP. Not by a long shot. They read as somewhat hostile and definitely prickly.

Sam, if you were a baseball player, would you be offended if I asked what your batting average was?
If you were a fisherman, would you be offended if I asked when was the last time you went fishing, and how many you caught?
If you were a golfer, would you be offended if I asked what your handicap was?
If you were a bowler, would you be offended if I asked what your bowling average was?

Why then, should you be offended as a fisher of men for me to ask about that?

[Sam]

Sharing notes on how to win souls is FAR from an "immoral exercise", Sam. I think that notion comes straight from Hell.

That's very clearly not what your posts conveyed, CP. Not by a long shot. They read as somewhat hostile and definitely prickly.

[Paprika]

Because even non-binding teaching can and should be in our minds as we form our responses.

So if the teachings are non-binding, we hardly 'run into' them, especially when they're not made with respect to these situations.

As I wrote to CP, I am not going to participate in what I find to be an immoral exercise.

I suggest learning the spirit of walking the extra mile.

[Cow Poke]

As I wrote to CP, I am not going to participate in what I find to be an immoral exercise.

Sharing notes on how to win souls is FAR from an "immoral exercise", Sam. I think that notion comes straight from Hell.

[Sam]

Indeed, they are dissimilar. Not only that, being sued and prophylactic action to prevent being sued are hardly similar.


Why would you bring it up if you didn't think it was binding?


There is no equivalence as the circumstances are sufficiently dissimilar, as above.

Meanwhile, I am also calling on you to walk the extra mile and give CP what he wants.

Because even non-binding teaching can and should be in our minds as we form our responses. In any event, I was clear in saying that I support legal defenses of conscience and my reference to the verse was in response to that, not the legislation at issue.

As I wrote to CP, I am not going to participate in what I find to be an immoral exercise. Just as I don't expect him to officiate a same sex wedding against his conscience.

[Paprika]

We'll, I never claimed they were equivalent.

Indeed, they are dissimilar. Not only that, being sued and prophylactic action to prevent being sued are hardly similar.

And I likewise never claimed that CP or anyone else was bound by Matthew 5:40.

Why would you bring it up if you didn't think it was binding?

That's where you're losing me; you're omitting the critical part about me supporting legal defense, and not just for this specific case, and merely pointing out the problem of a verse concerning - similar- (not equivalent) circumstance.

There is no equivalence as the circumstances are sufficiently dissimilar, as above.

Meanwhile, I am also calling on you to walk the extra mile and give CP what he wants.

[Sam]

Because the torts aren't equivalent.

Meanwhile, as you are trying to grasp this, try walking the 'extra mile' and give CP what he wants, and even more.

We'll, I never claimed they were equivalent. And I likewise never claimed that CP or anyone else was bound by Matthew 5:40. That's where you're losing me; you're omitting the critical part about me supporting legal defense, and not just for this specific case, and merely pointing out the problem of a verse concerning - similar- (not equivalent) circumstance.

[Paprika]

You'll have to explain it to me, I am afraid. I don't see how referencing a verse about a tort when talking about the threat of a tort is decontextualizing it.

Because the torts aren't equivalent.

Meanwhile, as you are trying to grasp this, try walking the 'extra mile' and give CP what he wants, and even more.

[Cow Poke]

Reminds me of a rhyme an Angel is said to have told St. Athanasius "Qui salvus esse fuge tage et quesce" ("If you want to save your soul, flee into the dessert, observe silence and recline in God's presence") which is what he did.

It might be a solution, in fact I think Christianity is likely going to become a minority with a much harder identity than what we're used to today.

MEANWHILE, some of these pastors - one of whom is one of my best friends - was talking about their "house visits" in Cuba where THOUSANDS are turning to Christ. My Pastor friend said that even his own Church members who had NEVER won anybody to Jesus were seeing 8 out of 10 people they talked to accepting Christ as Savior!

It's all about not being ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, combined with the hunger of the Cuban people to know about Jesus.

[RumTumTugger]

So, the gay guy who talked to his pastor about the militant intents of his "community" is a liar? And the gay guy (possibly the same one, but I don't know that) who testified FOR the bill is risking being labeled a traitor to his own community for... grins?

save your breath CP I bet Sam refused to see your post talking about that I bet because he'd rather purposely keep himself IGNOREnt of the TRUTH. and I bet it was because he does not want to admit being wrong here.

PRove me wrong Sam admit you are wrong here

[Sam]

You've decontextualised it just as you did with walking the "extra mile".

All I'm doing is calling upon you to be consistent.

You'll have to explain it to me, I am afraid. I don't see how referencing a verse about a tort when talking about the threat of a tort is decontextualizing it.

[Cow Poke]

Is it bad for the courts to officially agree to this interpretation of these freedoms, so that they won't be redefined later? I'll have you know that while pastors in Denmark do have the freedom to deny gays a marriage ceremony, they were only allow to do this after most of them denied when the government told them that they ought to allow it from now on.



Oh really, such as?



Punching whom? The courts? The Christians don't have the power in this relationship, Houston proved that much with Mayor Anise Parker.



I hope you're right.



I'll pray the courts will always see it like that. Unlike what happened with freedom of worship becoming freedom from religion.



An ounce of prevention...

Are you the guy who, until recently, wasn't even sure of his faith?

[Cow Poke]

Never claimed they were being oppressed. Since my entire thrust has been this is largely a redundant restatement of Constitutional rights, I can't even see how that interpretation makes sense.

It's interesting that the high dollar lawyers representing the gay/lesbian interests at the hearing never thought up or argued this "redundancy" defense.

[Paprika]

All I said in reference to that verse is that it is a problematic teaching when it comes to the legal process.

You've decontextualised it just as you did with walking the "extra mile".

All I'm doing is calling upon you to be consistent.