Texas Pastor Protection Bill

[Cow Poke]

Inasmuch as it's based on a non-existent threat and creates a protection that already exists in the Constitution, yes.

These are assertions on your part, Sam, not fact. The militant gays/lesbians at the hearing were pretty convincing that the threat exists, and even their own attorneys didn't attempt to say that the bill was unnecessary, but that it was not narrowly enough defined.

It's a position piece that invariably will appear to be "circling the wagons" and exclusionary. It's definitely not in the spirit of "going the extra mile."

Jesus never endorsed sin, Sam. He loved and forgave, and called people OUT of sin in the process. Nowhere does the Biblical principle of "going the extra mile" support the endorsement of sin.

[Sam]

No, Sam, YOU contrived this "us vs them" "strategy" as a cockeyed mischarcterization of the overall intent of HB 3567. YOU did that. And, in the process, you alleged that this would cause smaller congregations.



Sam, winning people to Jesus is the MAIN mission of the Church. That's what I want to do. I do NOT want to be spending time or money on litigation that detracts me from my primary purpose as a Pastor/Church.



So, you step out of bounds by making the goofy assertion that this will result in smaller congregations, then you want to run from THAT discussion like a scalded dog.

No, I maintain that will be the long-term effect of this protectionist strategy. I'm simply not going to play a game that starts out with "What's YOUR strategy? Have you ever actually won anyone to Christ?" ... and gets meaner from there.

You haven't spent any time or money on litigation over this issue and it remains incredibly unlikely that you will. Like I said, show me one example of this happening anywhere, anytime in US judicial history and I'll cede the legitimacy. Otherwise, it's punching at ghosts.

[Zymologist]

Inasmuch as it's based on a non-existent threat and creates a protection that already exists in the Constitution, yes. It's a position piece that invariably will appear to be "circling the wagons" and exclusionary. It's definitely not in the spirit of "going the extra mile."

Ok, I'm a little confused. It seems strange to me, first of all, to call it a non-existent threat, but if it's already protected in the Constitution, then where's the harm in clarifying it?

I'm mostly confused about your comment on being exclusionary and going the extra mile. Are you saying that the protections that are already in the Constitution should not be there? To be clear, do you think that churches should be required to perform same-sex marriages?

[Sam]

Since you say alternative strategy here, would you say that you're opposed to the bill in the OP?

Inasmuch as it's based on a non-existent threat and creates a protection that already exists in the Constitution, yes. It's a position piece that invariably will appear to be "circling the wagons" and exclusionary. It's definitely not in the spirit of "going the extra mile."

[Cow Poke]

My comments were restricted to the "Us vs. Them" strategy that Cow Poke articulated.

No, Sam, YOU contrived this "us vs them" "strategy" as a cockeyed mischarcterization of the overall intent of HB 3567. YOU did that. And, in the process, you alleged that this would cause smaller congregations.

They were specific to the bill being debated and were not directed outside of that scope. Cow Poke's reaction was confrontational and demeaning. It wasn't justified and I won't exacerbate this sort of thing by pretending it's acceptable.

Sam, winning people to Jesus is the MAIN mission of the Church. That's what I want to do. I do NOT want to be spending time or money on litigation that detracts me from my primary purpose as a Pastor/Church.

If Cow Poke wants to discuss how I'd develop an alternative strategy for dealing with the (nonexistant) threat of same-sex couples beating down church doors to get married by unwilling pastors, I'll happily discuss that.

So, you step out of bounds by making the goofy assertion that this will result in smaller congregations, then you want to run from THAT discussion like a scalded dog.

[Zymologist]

My comments were restricted to the "Us vs. Them" strategy that Cow Poke articulated. They were specific to the bill being debated and were not directed outside of that scope. Cow Poke's reaction was confrontational and demeaning. It wasn't justified and I won't exacerbate this sort of thing by pretending it's acceptable.

If Cow Poke wants to discuss how I'd develop an alternative strategy for dealing with the (nonexistant) threat of same-sex couples beating down church doors to get married by unwilling pastors, I'll happily discuss that.

Since you say alternative strategy here, would you say that you're opposed to the bill in the OP?

[Sam]

Sam you were the first to bring it up the winning of souls so don't act so innocent here you were the one that brought up that those trying to make sure the bullies would not be able to use GREENMAIL against their opponents were using the wrong strategy to win souls.

My comments were restricted to the "Us vs. Them" strategy that Cow Poke articulated. They were specific to the bill being debated and were not directed outside of that scope. Cow Poke's reaction was confrontational and demeaning. It wasn't justified and I won't exacerbate this sort of thing by pretending it's acceptable.

If Cow Poke wants to discuss how I'd develop an alternative strategy for dealing with the (nonexistant) threat of same-sex couples beating down church doors to get married by unwilling pastors, I'll happily discuss that.

[RumTumTugger]

You started a thread for discussion about this strategy. Now you're being confrontational and looking for a pissing contest. I find that gross.



I involve myself in ministry and discipleship. If I want to talk about it on this forum, I'll do it in a non-confrontational manner. If I want to open a given strategy up for debate, I won't take it personally when someone says it's a bad strategy.

That's as far as I'll let you drag me in this direction, CP. I think making this a personal competition or offense is in bad taste.

Sam you were the first to bring it up the winning of souls so don't act so innocent here you were the one that brought up that those trying to make sure the bullies would not be able to use GREENMAIL against their opponents were using the wrong strategy to win souls.

[Cow Poke]

You started a thread for discussion about this strategy.

Actually, I was discussing house bill 3567, and you seemed to want to turn it into a strategy for reducing the size of churches.

Now you're being confrontational and looking for a pissing contest. I find that gross.

I'm asking some honest questions, Sam. You think my "strategy" is bad, I'm asking what your strategy is.

I involve myself in ministry and discipleship. If I want to talk about it on this forum, I'll do it in a non-confrontational manner.

As I'm doing. You only think it's confrontational because it's uncomfortable.

If I want to open a given strategy up for debate, I won't take it personally when someone says it's a bad strategy.

Well, gee, when we knock an Obama "strategy", for example, don't you insist that we provide a better solution? Foreign policy, Obama care, etc?

That's as far as I'll let you drag me in this direction, CP. I think making this a personal competition or offense is in bad taste.

Sam, Jesus called us to be fishers of men. So far, I don't think you have indicated that this does not apply to you. What fisherman does not like to talk about how he likes to catch fish?

Why is it "in bad taste" to discuss this?

FOR EXAMPLE, some of the Pastors at the Wednesday meeting were talking about their house visits in Cuba over the past 6 months. They have won THOUSANDS of people to Jesus. I didn't pitch a hissy because I have only won ONE person to Jesus in the same six months - I REJOICED with them in their harvest!

It's a JOY, Sam, to talk about sharing Jesus with people, and the REASON that "congregations are shrinking" is NOT because of our "strategy" with regards to militant gays and lesbians, but because not enough fishermen are actually doing much fishing!

[Sam]

I asked a question, Sam - Jesus called us to be fishers of men. Are you claiming that doesn't apply to you?



And you attacked my strategy, I'm just asking about your own.



OH? The Holy Spirit sure seemed to think it was possible - "Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day."



Seems you won't follow Jesus into the fishin waters, either.

Do you follow Jesus' call to be a fisher of men? And, if so, do you have a strategy to do that?

You started a thread for discussion about this strategy. Now you're being confrontational and looking for a pissing contest. I find that gross.

I involve myself in ministry and discipleship. If I want to talk about it on this forum, I'll do it in a non-confrontational manner. If I want to open a given strategy up for debate, I won't take it personally when someone says it's a bad strategy.

That's as far as I'll let you drag me in this direction, CP. I think making this a personal competition or offense is in bad taste.

[Leonhard]

And that's all we want!

Not much I can do but . I hope you guys get it. Its not unreasonable to ask for, even of heathens.

[Cow Poke]

I think devolving into personal attacks is unseemly.

I asked a question, Sam - Jesus called us to be fishers of men. Are you claiming that doesn't apply to you?

You wanted debate on the bill and the surrounding strategy.

And you attacked my strategy, I'm just asking about your own.

Given that, you want to one-up folk who disagree by "counting souls," as though such a thing were even possible. That's unseemly and, no,

OH? The Holy Spirit sure seemed to think it was possible - "Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day."

I won't follow you into the dirt.

Seems you won't follow Jesus into the fishin waters, either.

Do you follow Jesus' call to be a fisher of men? And, if so, do you have a strategy to do that?

[Cow Poke]

Thankfully Danish pastors are ensured a moral exemption from performing this ritual, if they don't want it.

And that's all we want!

[RumTumTugger]

The whole purpose of the bill is to be preemptive, Sam. Not WAIT until somebody ends up in court. It's a whole new ballgame.

yes this is to stop the bullying that is going on in the name of FALSE RIGHTS.

[Sam]

I'm expecting the typical accusation of ... heck, I can't remember what he called it ... it's on the tip of my tongue.... some 'ism'. "Credentialism"?

That's a way of saying "I ain't doing squat, but it's unChristian and judgmental of you to call me out on it".

I think devolving into personal attacks is unseemly. You wanted debate on the bill and the surrounding strategy. Given that, you want to one-up folk who disagree by "counting souls," as though such a thing were even possible. That's unseemly and, no, I won't follow you into the dirt.