It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Christian right seeks cultural and political domination

page: 31
53
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

Sigh. Please READ my posts.

SCOTUS squarely put the onus of providing the stuff that Hobby Lobby won't provide on the government, ie. the tax payer. The government is responsible for making sure these women have equal protection under the law! Right now, these women don't have it!

See?



[ long deep inhale......fast loud exhale ]



With respect to an insured health plan, including a student health plan, the non-profit religious organization provides notice to its insurer that it objects to contraception coverage. The insurer then notifies enrollees in the health plan that it is providing them separate no-cost payments for contraceptive services for as long as they remain enrolled in the health plan.

Similarly, with respect to self-insured health plans, the non-profit religious organization provides notice to its third party administrator that objects to contraception coverage. The third party administrator then notifies enrollees in the health plans that it is providing or arranging separate no-cost payments for contraceptive services for them for as long as they remain enrolled in the health plan.

Administration issues final rules on contraception coverage and religious organizations



And maybe this ??
Hobby Lobby Decision Has Limited Impact in California



Here's the problem. SCOTUS, in their syllabus, suggested that the government could use the structure in place for established non-profits. That is an option that's available, sure. But HL still has to authorize their 3rd party to offer coverage to their employees. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of entities waiting to be heard, by SCOTUS, because they feel that authorizing that 3rd party to offer coverage to their employees violates their religious expression. SCOTUS just issued a blanket stay, allowing these corporations to deny coverage, even through a 3rd party, until their case is heard.

SCOTUS blocked that avenue almost immediately after it was suggested. That leaves us with Title X and the tax payer wallet, e.g. Planned Parenthood.

Interestingly, SCOTUS also removed the Planned Parenthood 35 foot safety buffer, protecting the privacy of women accessing Title X, e.g. Planned Parenthood, limiting the buffer zone to only 8, in your face, feet.

So, yeah. 14th Amendment for women who work for religious employers? Not so much.



edit on 9-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Very good.

Now, what about laws and language inserted in laws ?

And maybe any that have been challenged in court and struck down?

Delicate balance of the 1st Amendment indeed.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=18127106]NavyDoc















LIke I asked and you failed to answer, should the state make laws that make discrimination against gays (or whomever) illegal? What is your stance?


I honestly don't know. I would like to think that there would be no discrimination against anyone but we both know that is not the case. If laws don't stop discrimination, in the workplace, in the market place anywhere; what do we do?

Perhaps we should let those that feel abused and discriminated should seek righteous retribution. Not by laws but by action.
Not a pretty sight is it? But continued injustice could well bring that about.

Are we a nation of laws? Is it anarchy you seek? I actually see something like anarchy on the horizon. Thanks God I don't have kids!!




edit on 9-7-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: imwilliam




I thought their decision meant that any other religious exclusion would have to be decided on its own merits, whether it involved another religion or the same religion. My understanding was that they didn't want their decision interpreted too broadly . . . regardless of the specific religion.


Justice Ginsberg sees it differently.


Ginsburg wrote that her five male colleagues, "in a decision of startling breadth," would allow corporations to opt out of almost any law that they find "incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."

--------------------

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."


We'll see, but it looks to me like to precedent has been set.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Aaaawwwww did the widdle progressive get his widddle feewings hurt by a little truth? So sorry. By the way, I'm an atheist, so about 99.9999% of your silly rant missed the mark entirely.


I don't know, I've been too busy laughing at your posts to notice. I must have missed that truth you're talking about too cause all I keep reading is a bunch of BS. Doesn't matter if you're an Atheist or not either. That joke wasn't just about you, you ego maniac. It was satire. You know, a joke. Kinda like 99.9999% of what you say.




Believe it or not, there are many atheists who reject big government and nanny statists and think people should be left alone to believe as they please without being coerced to do the opposite by big brother and that foolish people who demand big government to "get those evil Christians" actually create power and precedent to hurt themselves but they can't see it due to the hatred they hold.


Yeah I'm familiar with them. It's too bad those same people seem to love removing themselves from following the rules without allowing others the same choice. I can tell by your argument with me that you don't even know where I stand on this issue either. But go ahead and keep making accusations about me because I find them amusing. Plus it gives me more material.



Edited to add, I'm from Michigan, so no, the drawl misses too. You love to embrace stereotypes. I wonder if you find stereotypes that say Hispanics are lazy too?


You mean the stereotypes you embrace about "Leftists", "Progressives", "Liberals" and the like???

Hey man, those are your words about "Lazy Hispanics" not mine. You said it, you own it!!


But you see? You are not being honest because it was not "satire," it was thought out and an attempt to make a condescending point. I could be dishonest as you and say, "dude what I said was satire and can't you take a joke?" But I'm not dishonest like that. I say what I mean and I don't try to hide behind excuses of "satire."

Where we see what you stand is what you say. If you would directly say what you mean, instead of squirming around and trying to sidestep issues, then we could discuss what you actually mean. If you are a libertarian, then we are on the same page, but it is hard to see that when you are trying to hard to be clever.

As for the "lazy Hispanics" thing, it was a direct question to try to ascertain how far you accept stereotypes. Again, you are inable to answer a direct question directly.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: [post=18127106]NavyDoc















LIke I asked and you failed to answer, should the state make laws that make discrimination against gays (or whomever) illegal? What is your stance?


I honestly don't know. I would like to think that there would be no discrimination against anyone but we both know that is not the case. If laws don't stop discrimination, in the workplace, in the market place anywhere; what do we do?

Perhaps we should let those that feel abused and discriminated should seek righteous retribution. Not by laws but by action.
Not a pretty sight is it? But continued injustice could well bring that about.

Are we a nation of laws? Is it anarchy you seek? I actually see something like anarchy on the horizon. Thanks God I don't have kids!!





I don't seek anarchy, but free markets. If a shop owner discriminates and he goes out of business because he pissed off the customer base, so be it. It is his own fault. However, what I am against is the state coming in and forcing decisions on people with threat of prosecution by law. One solution is freedom, the other is statism.

ETA: if you are a libertarian, as am I, I think that we would agree more than disagree but in order to do so, we need to say what we really think in plain language without games or satire. You and I are the same in that we are both libertarian business owners. Lets have an honest dialogue and I would not be surprised if we ended up friends.
edit on 9-7-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


I still don't see how this is a ruling in favor of one religion or another. Of one religious exemption, sure, but not one religious group. In order for it to be in favor of one religious group, I would think that all other religious groups would be prevented from availing themselves of this specific exemption. If other religious groups can avail themselves of the exemption, then the ruling as far as I can see was on the exemption, not on the religious group requesting it, other than to acknowledge that they believe what they say they believe and do so for religious reasons.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: imwilliam
a reply to: windword


I still don't see how this is a ruling in favor of one religion or another. Of one religious exemption, sure, but not one religious group. In order for it to be in favor of one religious group, I would think that all other religious groups would be prevented from availing themselves of this specific exemption. If other religious groups can avail themselves of the exemption, then the ruling as far as I can see was on the exemption, not on the religious group requesting it, other than to acknowledge that they believe what they say they believe and do so for religious reasons.





That is a valid point. If a Cuthulu worshiper was against certain forms of birth control because he thought there would be less food for the elder gods, he should have the same consideration in what his benefits plan provides.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
If a Cuthulu worshiper was against certain forms of birth control because he thought there would be less food for the elder gods, he should have the same consideration in what his benefits plan provides.


The Black Goat with a Thousand Young approves.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NavyDoc
If a Cuthulu worshiper was against certain forms of birth control because he thought there would be less food for the elder gods, he should have the same consideration in what his benefits plan provides.


The Black Goat with a Thousand Young approves.

Yog Sothoth. IEEE, ieahyee, Cuthulu nag prataun! (Or some such)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

But you see? You are not being honest because it was not "satire," it was thought out and an attempt to make a condescending point.

satire
[sat-ahyuhr]
noun
1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

I'd say that what I wrote would qualify for that definition.



I could be dishonest as you and say, "dude what I said was satire and can't you take a joke?" But I'm not dishonest like that. I say what I mean and I don't try to hide behind excuses of "satire."


This all started with me making a parody comment using the Eloy and Murlocks from "The Time Machine" which you twisted into some kind of Anti-Liberal message. All I did was turn it back around.


Where we see what you stand is what you say. If you would directly say what you mean, instead of squirming around and trying to sidestep issues, then we could discuss what you actually mean. If you are a libertarian, then we are on the same page, but it is hard to see that when you are trying to hard to be clever.


I don't know how or even why I would classify myself into such descriptive labels as they wouldn't accurately represent me. Basically, without going into all the details, I'm conservative on some things and Liberal on others. I also like a lot of Libertarian ideas but think sometimes they can be somewhat unrealistic. In today's world I can't identify with any of them all the way. Conservatives have become either too Theocratic or too Pro Corporate. Liberals are sometimes too Big Brother and/or Globalist and intrusive. Libertarians usually aren't too bad but some can be somewhat unrealistic in their thinking. But even then those statements aren't always true for any of those groups. You have Moderate and Radical for those groups which don't align with each other either so I don't subscribe to any one of them personally. I'm just me, with my opinions, that's all.

So you think I'm clever???


As for the "lazy Hispanics" thing, it was a direct question to try to ascertain how far you accept stereotypes. Again, you are inable to answer a direct question directly.


I don't remember you asking me a direct question actually. I just remember you implying that I was some kind of liberal anti business, pro government "leftist". That tends to irritate me because it automatically puts me into some predetermined box where everything I say gets interpreted as something else. Plus I don't fit in that box. So in return I go on the offensive and use similar tactics back. It's annoying and frustrating I know. That's the point. I did it only because you were kind of asking for it.

I know what you meant by the "Hispanic" comment also, but since it seemed to me that it was your attempt to try and imply that I'm Racist or Bias or whatever, once again I pushed it right back to you.

We can discuss whatever you want if you really want to. But before that happens we'll have to agree to do it without all the labeling and preconceived ideas about each other. That goes for both of us. All the conversations when starting from a This side or That side perspective never go anywhere. I'd rather just talk something through without anyone having to represent some collective and just let it be our individual opinions.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: NavyDoc

But you see? You are not being honest because it was not "satire," it was thought out and an attempt to make a condescending point.

satire
[sat-ahyuhr]
noun
1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

I'd say that what I wrote would qualify for that definition.



I could be dishonest as you and say, "dude what I said was satire and can't you take a joke?" But I'm not dishonest like that. I say what I mean and I don't try to hide behind excuses of "satire."


This all started with me making a parody comment using the Eloy and Murlocks from "The Time Machine" which you twisted into some kind of Anti-Liberal message. All I did was turn it back around.


Where we see what you stand is what you say. If you would directly say what you mean, instead of squirming around and trying to sidestep issues, then we could discuss what you actually mean. If you are a libertarian, then we are on the same page, but it is hard to see that when you are trying to hard to be clever.


I don't know how or even why I would classify myself into such descriptive labels as they wouldn't accurately represent me. Basically, without going into all the details, I'm conservative on some things and Liberal on others. I also like a lot of Libertarian ideas but think sometimes they can be somewhat unrealistic. In today's world I can't identify with any of them all the way. Conservatives have become either too Theocratic or too Pro Corporate. Liberals are sometimes too Big Brother and/or Globalist and intrusive. Libertarians usually aren't too bad but some can be somewhat unrealistic in their thinking. But even then those statements aren't always true for any of those groups. You have Moderate and Radical for those groups which don't align with each other either so I don't subscribe to any one of them personally. I'm just me, with my opinions, that's all.

So you think I'm clever???


As for the "lazy Hispanics" thing, it was a direct question to try to ascertain how far you accept stereotypes. Again, you are inable to answer a direct question directly.


I don't remember you asking me a direct question actually. I just remember you implying that I was some kind of liberal anti business, pro government "leftist". That tends to irritate me because it automatically puts me into some predetermined box where everything I say gets interpreted as something else. Plus I don't fit in that box. So in return I go on the offensive and use similar tactics back. It's annoying and frustrating I know. That's the point. I did it only because you were kind of asking for it.

I know what you meant by the "Hispanic" comment also, but since it seemed to me that it was your attempt to try and imply that I'm Racist or Bias or whatever, once again I pushed it right back to you.

We can discuss whatever you want if you really want to. But before that happens we'll have to agree to do it without all the labeling and preconceived ideas about each other. That goes for both of us. All the conversations when starting from a This side or That side perspective never go anywhere. I'd rather just talk something through without anyone having to represent some collective and just let it be our individual opinions.


Well, fair enough, and perhaps we started on the wrong foot. My apologies. My Hispanic comment was not intended to call you a racist but rather to see how far you accepted stereotypes.

To get back on track with an honest dialogue, how far do you see the role of the federal government in dictating activities of private business? Say in discrimination for example?



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: imwilliam




I thought their decision meant that any other religious exclusion would have to be decided on its own merits, whether it involved another religion or the same religion. My understanding was that they didn't want their decision interpreted too broadly . . . regardless of the specific religion.


Justice Ginsberg sees it differently.


Ginsburg wrote that her five male colleagues, "in a decision of startling breadth," would allow corporations to opt out of almost any law that they find "incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."

--------------------

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."


We'll see, but it looks to me like to precedent has been set.


Where Gindburg fails, as expected because she is an activist and not a Constitutionalist, is that she ignores the fact that the federal government should not be involved in these matters in the first place. She does have an agenda and her pointing out that those who she disagreed with as "five males" indicates she is a sexist as well. What was the logical readin for that?



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   
This all started when they began to call having an abortion a women health issue rather than a politicized end of pregnancy issue. But I suppose women that chose abortions want as much consideration as a woman that choses to have the baby. Doesn't planned parenthood do free abortions? Do they even help women that want to keep their baby?



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Gingrich is a dyed-in-the-wool globalist.

Check out his forward to Toffler's book.

Interesting.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: imwilliam




I still don't see how this is a ruling in favor of one religion or another.


The ruling itself contained an admonition to Jehovah's Witnesses, right off the bat.

We'll see, but like I said, the precedent, that corporations can have religious rights, has been set. Now it'll be up to each and every individual lower court to make the decision of whether some corporation owner's sincere belief can be burdened when it comes to the tolerance of their employees rights, in any situation, not just the ACA.

Can of worms, indeed.




edit on 9-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 09:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
To get back on track with an honest dialogue, how far do you see the role of the federal government in dictating activities of private business? Say in discrimination for example?


I think if left unrestricted the Fed Gov. would go as far as possible in dictating the activities of not only private business but everything and everyone else too. The only purpose of Government is to impose restrictions or limits. This can work both ways though. One way is to restrict whatever might be holding people back and not allowing them their right to freedom. I believe this is the reasoning for creating it originally. When the American Government was first established it wasn't something that was spoken of as wonderful, cuddly thing. It was thought of as a necessary evil who's power required constant watch, but who's purpose was to serve people and protect their right to Freedom.

The other way it works, which we have now is that Government want to restrict or limit everything and everyone which goes so far as to actually remove people's right to Freedom. This is why I don't see it as a black and white issue because it really is somewhat of a gray area. Restricting someone's right to Freely pursue what they want is a bad thing, unless of course their pursuit is to enslave someone else.

So in your example of Discrimination for example. I believe the Government has no business in telling People they cannot discriminate, however, I don't have a problem in restricting a Business or Corporation from doing the same. Mainly because as individuals only so much damage can be done, but once a collective group gets together and forms a Fictional Entity and uses that Entity as a weapon against another person or group it can be too destructive.

Another example in terms of this topic. I support people's right to Believe and worship what they want. To be protected from others beliefs infringing on them as well. Even to establish Churches on their own land as well. However, if that church is a kind of business and we tax businesses I think theirs should apply as well. Once again, if they are protected in their beliefs then others and even those with no religious beliefs should be protected. Meaning you're protected in having whatever your beliefs may be, unless of course your belief is that you should be actively repressing someone else or some other group. That's where the line is drawn. It's a Limit imposed against the side which is trying to restrict the freedom of another. Again this is more about restricting collectives or corporate entities than it is restricting individuals. Mainly because the effects of a collective and the power of a collective is far more damaging than those of individuals. The best example in this case would be that of the Collective Power of Government itself. Which is why it was created and why it is effective, but is also why it needs to be restrained as well. If allowed too much Freedom, any collective power steps all over the individuals not included within it.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: NavyDoc
To get back on track with an honest dialogue, how far do you see the role of the federal government in dictating activities of private business? Say in discrimination for example?


I think if left unrestricted the Fed Gov. would go as far as possible in dictating the activities of not only private business but everything and everyone else too. The only purpose of Government is to impose restrictions or limits. This can work both ways though. One way is to restrict whatever might be holding people back and not allowing them their right to freedom. I believe this is the reasoning for creating it originally. When the American Government was first established it wasn't something that was spoken of as wonderful, cuddly thing. It was thought of as a necessary evil who's power required constant watch, but who's purpose was to serve people and protect their right to Freedom.

The other way it works, which we have now is that Government want to restrict or limit everything and everyone which goes so far as to actually remove people's right to Freedom. This is why I don't see it as a black and white issue because it really is somewhat of a gray area. Restricting someone's right to Freely pursue what they want is a bad thing, unless of course their pursuit is to enslave someone else.

So in your example of Discrimination for example. I believe the Government has no business in telling People they cannot discriminate, however, I don't have a problem in restricting a Business or Corporation from doing the same. Mainly because as individuals only so much damage can be done, but once a collective group gets together and forms a Fictional Entity and uses that Entity as a weapon against another person or group it can be too destructive.

Another example in terms of this topic. I support people's right to Believe and worship what they want. To be protected from others beliefs infringing on them as well. Even to establish Churches on their own land as well. However, if that church is a kind of business and we tax businesses I think theirs should apply as well. Once again, if they are protected in their beliefs then others and even those with no religious beliefs should be protected. Meaning you're protected in having whatever your beliefs may be, unless of course your belief is that you should be actively repressing someone else or some other group. That's where the line is drawn. It's a Limit imposed against the side which is trying to restrict the freedom of another. Again this is more about restricting collectives or corporate entities than it is restricting individuals. Mainly because the effects of a collective and the power of a collective is far more damaging than those of individuals. The best example in this case would be that of the Collective Power of Government itself. Which is why it was created and why it is effective, but is also why it needs to be restrained as well. If allowed too much Freedom, any collective power steps all over the individuals not included within it.


Well, see, we have established some common ground. I agree with most of your post but would posit that the danger of the greater power, the federal government, outweighs the danger of the lesser power, the business.


I'd rather accept some bigoted practices by some business owners as the price of the larger freedom than an all compassing nanny state which I see as the greater threat just as I would accept some pretty awful things said as the price of having an overall freedom of speech.

We have to accept some things we find unpleasant in order to have a free society.

For example--I liken the freedom of speech as a pit bull that defends freedom. I tolerate some dog turds in the yard because the value of the protection of the dog outweighs the unpleasant inconvenience of his turds. Westboro Baptist is an example of the turds we must tolerate, for example, to protect the pit bull that is the freedom of speech.

To get back in topic. I, as a non-believer, find Holly Lobby's reasoning rather stupid, but, IMHO, the value of limiting government encroachment is more important than their stupid decisions.

I do hope you can see the train of my reasoning.

edit on 9-7-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
Well, see, we have established some common ground. I agree with most of your post but would posit that the danger of the greater power, the federal government, outweighs the danger of the lesser power, the business.


Sure. The greater power will always be the greater threat, that's the basis of power. However, for any Government to be effective it must have that power otherwise it loses it's ability to do what it's purposed for. If Corporation-X, for example, had more power than the Government, then it couldn't apply any restrictions to Corporation-X if needed. Essentially making Corporation-X the Governing Power at that point. That's where each individual having a voice and vote as to how the Government is operated takes place. Government, just like Corporation-X, is a collective too. But it's a collective which includes everyone with equal say. Corporation-X doesn't operate in the same fashion. It serves only itself and it's board members.



I'd rather accept some bigoted practices by some business owners as the price of the larger freedom than an all compassing nanny state which I see as the greater threat just as I would accept some pretty awful things said as the price of having an overall freedom of speech.

We have to accept some things we find unpleasant in order to have a free society.

For example--I liken the freedom of speech as a pit bull that defends freedom. I tolerate some dog turds in the yard because the value of the protection of the dog outweighs the unpleasant inconvenience of his turds. Westboro Baptist is an example of the turds we must tolerate, for example, to protect the pit bull that is the freedom of speech.


I think we're pretty much on the same page there. Westboro makes a good example too. I don't think there is any justified reason for the Government to stop what they are doing and saying. As far as I'm aware of anyway, I'm not aware of all their activities so I could be wrong. But as far as I know they are just going around talking sh*t, but haven't restricted anyone else from anything either. Anyone who disagrees is allowed to talk sh*t right back to them if the choose. So while I may be against what they say, I am not being stopped from either ignoring it or saying something opposed to it, so it's a wash.


To get back in topic. I, as a non-believer, find Holly Lobby's reasoning rather stupid, but, IMHO, the value of limiting government encroachment is more important than their stupid decisions.

I do hope you can see the train of my reasoning.


I sorta feel the same way but perhaps for different reasons. I personally don't agree with Obamacare either as it's basically a forced payment from everyone for a government program. That's pretty crazy. However, my issue isn't against the idea of Universal Health Care either. I think a society that invests in the health of that society is a great idea, but it's one that has to be done carefully. As for hobby lobby, my main issue is the fact that, like it or not ObamaCare is in place and it's a big poop sandwich we all have to take a bite of. So the fact that we've allowed a certain group to opt out of eating their share of it while not allowing others the same choice is BS. Add to that the fact that we've allowed this exemption for Fictional People and not Real People is even worse. It's just another way that Corporate Entities getting breaks while everyone else takes up the slack. Then there is the whole Religious Beliefs as the reasoning for it and there's even more issues than that, but I'm not going to get into that now.

You and I are actually very close in our thinking. In fact the differences I'd bet are probably very minor ones if we both laid them all out and examined them. We just don't don't know enough about each others complete view on things to realize it. I find that to be true with most people in fact. I do this with my wife all the time actually. We'll have the same target in mind but approach it from different directions and with different perspectives so at first we'll argue about it only to eventually realize that we both had the same goal in mind but our starting point and path to get there were different making it seem like there was a conflict when there really wasn't. We just didn't have all the information about the topic at first.



posted on Jul, 9 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

what you really mean, if you do some research on the occult, is that satanists pretending to be Christians are trying to use and abuse the message and purpose of Jesus Christ, a true historical figure who many people believe was the son of God sent to die and be resurrected for our chosen separation from God…

and the reason these people are doing this is because, in addition to wanting power and bling, they also do not like the truth of Jesus... they have sold their souls and/or they prefer their lives of drunkenness, getting high, whoring, using magic to get what they want even if it involves blood sacrificing, etc...



new topics

top topics



 
53
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join