The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Is the Following Legit?

https://christianaction.org/city-or...wQsFmHYicUZXqYIAaQsLMUT-y5p4ep9JYa_LISTk

Tom

I have no idea if this is actually true. However, it is certainly possible given the inroads that the homosexual agenda has made over the past few years. I read all the comments after the article and many were very sad indeed, but again not surprising. One particular view stuck out over others that were held among those who commented, "God loves the sinner, but hates the sin."... See Gerstner's antidote to this view here: Does God Love the Sinner and Hate Only His Sin?.

It is only a matter of time before this type of issue becomes widespread. One of the comments wisely wrote that many thought that once the homosexual agenda won the legal battle over homosexual marriage that would be the end of it, but in fact, it was only the beginning and it won't end until acceptance, not just tolerance, of this abominable sin is forced upon every person.

Yes it is sad and it would not surprise me if it is true. This would fit right in with the left's agenda, which is basically tolerant to all but those who disagree with them. Yet, I do not want to
I have been reading the U.S. Constitution lately and I think it is quite clear that the document is not a living document like it is being interpreted today. Come to think about it, this is similar to much of so called Christianity today. They reflect the world, when it comes to the interpretation of Scripture; rather than the author intent of Scripture.

I also read the comment section and noticed the comment "God loves the sinner, but hates the sin." almost right away. However I chose to ignore it, because it is very typical in Arminian theology.

Tom

1. The U.S. Constitution is NOT a "living document" which can be clearly seen from the actual text and affirmed by the various writers of the "Federalist Papers". During one of the debates for the 2016 presidential election, it was asked of both candidates; Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, what they thought of the U.S. Constitution. Clinton answered openly that she believed the Constitution was a living document and must be interpreted and applied according to contemporary social, economic, etc. views. Trump, however, said that the Constitution was not a flexible document but one that was meant to be read, understood and applied as it was originally intended by its authors. That view was the #1 basis for Trump's appointing candidates to the U.S. Supreme Court.

2. Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution reads:

a. the free exercise of religion is a guaranteed right which the Left and some of the Right desire to be and which already has been violated by the enactment of "Discrimination Laws". These new laws take precedence over both the freedom of religion clause but also the freedom of speech clause.
Although it would be prudent, IMO, for all legitimate churches to not apply for tax exempt status, which the courts have already ruled that states should provide this status to the church, because by being tax exempt, the church is thereby under government rules and regulations. However, even without being under such arbitrary government rules and regulations, this Leftist agenda to make these Discrimination Laws, or better Non-Discrimination Laws the supreme rule of the land under which all other laws are to be subject.

3. Lastly, in the past, the U.S. Supreme Court has overstepped its authority and legislated law rather than interpreting the existing law and applying it appropriately. Of course, one of the most well known instances of the SCOTUS doing this was "Roe vs. Wade" and more recently the issue of Homosexual Marriage. State courts are no less guilty of doing this as well. It is admitted by the Left, that their ultimate objective is to rid the U.S. of the Constitution and establish Socialism/Communism. This attempt will probably take many years, and may not ever succeed, although I believe it eventually will succeed. However, what they have effectively done is to reinterpret the Constitution or totally ignore it through liberal appointed judges and their rulings.

Pilgrim
This is exactly what I was referring to when I said the U.S. Constitution is not a living document. I appreciate you expanding on this however.

I was wondering if you would mind if I shared this with some people?

Tom

I don't mind.

While I have long held that true churches should not seek tax exemption, your statement provides opportunity for me to ask another question which I have been wondering about.

When I visit various church services via the Internet (eg. sermonaudio), it seems that very nearly every church in the U.S. displays the U.S. flag prominently, up front. But I'm not sure whether I have ever seen a national flag displayed in any church outside the U.S. Is this a requirement (either official, or perhaps unofficially) of having tax exempt status granted?

Thankyou, Pilgrim

Meta4
I can't really speak about the flag issue, seeing I have no knowledge of that subject.
However, I have no problem with having tax exempt status, provided it doesn't regulate what a Church can and can not teach. The moment, the government starts doing that, is the moment they should give up their tax exempt status.


Tom

Interesting question..... and one I cannot definitively answer. However, to my limited knowledge, there is no official nor unofficial regulation or policy that the American Flag be displayed. My guess, which is just that at best is that displaying the flag is a tradition that perhaps began after the country was founded and the flag became its symbol (of freedom). In the beginning, the government was far more amiable toward the states and territories that gave allegiance to the country and its flag. One can easily see this by reading the preamble+ to the Declaration of Independence:

And, as I have quoted above from the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, where the founders wrote in its Bill of Rights, that all men are to be guaranteed the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech. To guard and protect the freedoms of all citizens, and to the angst of half of the citizenry and those whom they elect to government; the Progressive Left, aka: Socialist, the founders immediately after in the Second Amendment wrote:

Thomas Jefferson is claimed to have written or spoken the reason for the Second Amendment: "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." In addition, this reason, in various forms is found in the Federalist Papers and other sources during the time of the nation's founding.

Tom,
When a government wishes to regulate religion, it won't be based solely upon taxes, though that indeed may be a part of it. But, even should there be no specific regulation, tax exemption implicitly ties the church and state together, and does influence the church and its membership. I know this is not a popular view; that most all in churches favor exemption status not only for, nor perhaps even primarily for, the sake of the church, but rather for their own tax deductions on what they give.

However, I don't wish to highjack this thread from its original subject.


Pilgrim, thanks for the response. I suppose the display of the flag has more behind it than tax status alone, though I suspect that could be a part of it.

Meta4

I know you said you did not wish to highjack this thread. However, I think this is too important not to say more.
You stated:
Can you give examples of how this has actually caused a negative effect on what a Church is able to teach?
As I said before, if it starts effecting along those lines; the Church needs give up their tax exempt status. However, until then tax exempt status provides more positives than negatives.
I do agree with you that if the government wishes to regulate religion it will not solely be based on taxes.

Tom

Pilgrim

I have been sharing what you wrote. Up until now, I haven't received any feedback until the following which I am not completely sure what it really means.

Do you?

Tom

It simply means that the SCOTUS too often legislates (creates laws) rather doing what it is supposed to do; apply the law AS IT WAS INTENDED. The Roe vs. Wade case on abortion which the Supreme Court ruled on the legitimacy of abortion was NOT Constitutional. The court made up their own law instead of applying the law. IF they had done that, then abortion would be illegal because it murders an innocent human life according to the whim(s) of a woman. Many other rulings by the SCOTUS could be given to show that the judges who sit on that bench have overstepped their authority and even ignored the Constitution which they swore to uphold.

Thank you