Bringing Protest & Disruption To Church:

[Amanah]

We admit 1 million legal immigrants each year and are one of the most generous nations in the world.

We have a right to protect our borders, God himself established nations and borders.

When people, who are the enemies of Christianity come in as an invading force, we have the right to defend ourselves by insisting that people follow our laws and our legal processes.

Capitalism has made us the prosperous nation that we are and has enabled us to be one of the most generous nations on the earth.

I posted links showing the charities that FPC Palm Bay performs at great sacrifice which were disregarded because it doesn't fit your socialist agenda to coincide with your current brain washed state of mind, Aquila.

and yes we are to love all peoples and try to win them to Christ, but not at the sake of abandoning our borders, and causing the people who currently live in our nation to suffer.

The Church still must still make a stand against homosexuality and the sacrifice of the unborn on the altars of the godless.

I'm sorry that you have fallen so far as to side with the enemies of the truth Aquila, but it just shows you that it does matter who you allow to sit at your table and counsel you.

[Amanah]

Love and Hate Instructional video

[n david]

Originally Posted by Esaias

This.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

We admit 1 million legal immigrants each year and are one of the most generous nations in the world.

I agree.

We have a right to protect our borders, God himself established nations and borders.

I agree.

When people, who are the enemies of Christianity come in as an invading force, we have the right to defend ourselves by insisting that people follow our laws and our legal processes

.

Here's where it gets sticky. The process isn't working and it is rather antiquated. We need to reform the system.

Capitalism has made us the prosperous nation that we are and has enabled us to be one of the most generous nations on the earth.

I have no issues with "capitalism". In fact, I don't believe a nation can be prosperous with capitalism. However, I do not see capitalism as being a driving philosophy of government. To protect capitalism, there has to be various regulatory standards to ensure that the market is truly a free market. An unregulated market wherein a hand full of monopolistic corporations stack the deck in their favor isn't good for capitalism. The unregulated capitalism that is the hallmark of the Republican Party is crony capitalism. High profile businesses and corporations are increasingly moving to or shifting business to Denmark, United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Canada, and China. Why? Because the markets are better regulated. They can do business without being in open warfare with monolithic networks subsidiaries that work for a single massive monopoly. We liberals get capitalism. However, it must be governed, protected, regulated to insure that the business being done is actual business. Deregulating, flooding the market with junk bonds, bad mortgages, and predatory lending isn't good for capitalism.

I posted links showing the charities that FPC Palm Bay performs at great sacrifice which were disregarded because it doesn't fit your socialist agenda to coincide with your current brain washed state of mind, Aquila.

It isn't disregarded. Charities do wonders. If someone loses a job, if their house burns down, if they experience a death in the family, divorce, or some other catastrophic event, charities are the heroes who rush in and provide immediate help. They provide emergency food, clothing, shelter, and assistance. That's what they are designed for. And that's what they do well.

However, charities aren't able to insure millions of senior citizens and veterans. Charities cannot provide unemployment checks to workers who are laid off. Charities can't support a single mother with three kids who doesn't have the work experience or education to land a job that can help her raise the kids and pay her bills. Charities can't federally insure programs that provide insurance settlements for families whose house has burned down.

In our society, we need both charities and government programs that provide for the social welfare of society. If a family's house burns down, local charities can rush to the scene providing emergency lodging, clothing, and food. However, it takes the federal government to insure lenders and insurance companies so that an insurance settlement is provided so that the family can buy a new home. If a single mother of three is laid off, charities can rush to the scene and provide her groceries and perhaps even assistance with rent and utilities until she files for unemployment and starts receiving her checks. If she can't find work comparable to her last job and income, only government can provide her with a subsidized income to see to it that she and her children aren't out on the streets begging for bread. And only the government can offer low interest federal student loans that she can apply for to further her education so that she can get a better paying job and cease receiving assistance.

In reality, charities and government are an excellent partnership. Charities are like the first line of defense. But government can address the long term issues that are impossible for charities to address.

Sometimes I hear the rebuttal, well ABC charity helped fund 200 college grants last year. That's nice. But federal student loans helped over 7 MILLION college students. When ABC charity can offer low interest student loans to over 7 million students who don't have the money, I'm sure the government will be more than willing to end those programs and redirect the funding to something else.

and yes we are to love all peoples and try to win them to Christ, but not at the sake of abandoning our borders, and causing the people who currently live in our nation to suffer.

I agree that we are to love all people, but not to the point of abandoning our borders. I'm more concerned with illegals who are currently here, who are being exploited, who have families, those who actually do good work, those who are otherwise law abiding and peaceful people. I'm not a fan of a "wall", but I'm also not absolutely against it either. I picture something like partial fencing on various expanses of the boarder with significantly increased policing on others. Again, I think those who have been here for give years or more should be granted amnesty. I also think they should have to pay a $500 fine. I think there should be a window in which they can register for this amnesty (with certain conditions for extension for those who might need it) and once the window is closed...those unregistered should be eligible for deportation.

I don't agree with a task force that can sweep door to door looking for illegals. That's too draconian for my tastes. I'd rather allow an illegal to drift for a while in our society than empower a Gestapo-like task force to go door to door rounding up people. If they are caught for a violation of the law and it is discovered that they are illegal, take them into custody and deport.

TO BE CONTINUED....

[Aquila]

The Church still must still make a stand against homosexuality and the sacrifice of the unborn on the altars of the godless.

I'm pretty liberal. I have no hatred or animosity against homosexuals. I have gay friends and gay family. Interestingly enough, my cousin is a lesbian and a devout Episcopal. She's "married" to her female partner and they both have a rather good life together. I even attended their wedding and wished them the best. They know I'm Apostolic and that I believe homosexuality is a sin. Now, would I officiate over a gay wedding? NO. Nor would I officiate over a wedding wherein one or both partners have had multiple divorces. If a gay couple or a couple with multiple divorces asked me to marry them, I'd simply point them to the courthouse or some "affirming" church down the road. I wouldn't even perform a wedding between two people of different religions.

Those are MY religious convictions.

However, I also believe in equal representation under the law without discrimination. So, while I might not perform a given wedding personally, I believe that individuals should have the right to marry whomever they wish. I'd even be tolerant of polygamy. It's their business, even if I wouldn't perform the wedding itself or approve.

Some liberals believe in what is called, "The Gold Standard of Marriage". This means that they believe that if you are sharing a bed, being intimate, and living your lives together... you should be legally committed also. For these liberals, it's a matter of responsibility. In short, they believe that if you're going to have sex.... you should be married. No exceptions.

Now, I'm not into "The Gold Standard of Marriage". Personally, I'm not sure why we need the government involved with establishing a marriage at all. You might be shocked, but I believe that marriage should be privatized. Every marriage should be a binding legal contract drawn up by individuals and filed with the government. If the contract is broken, and the parties wish to go to court over damages or loss.... let them. If they wish to simply dissolve the contract and move on without any to-do, let them.

In the Bible, a marriage was a private contract between individuals and/or families. It wasn't a civil contract. Also, we don't see a single instance in which the church or an elder performs a wedding and establishes a marriage. Rome established "civil marriages" and allows for "contractual marriages". Rome also deemed that only "citizens" could be married. This means that for the first 300 to 400 years, many Christians throughout the Roman Empire didn't have legal marriages, because they were slaves or conquered people who were not Roman citizens. For this reason, it appears that churches simply blessed couples in the eyes of God, especially if they weren't Roman citizens. This largely left the legalities of marriage separate from the church's blessing.

Also, the early church didn't bless every marriage, even if it were "legal". It wasn't until the Roman Catholic Church became the official religious body of Rome that marriage became more and more state oriented. The Catholic Church originally blessed and confirmed marriages after the fact, all a couple had to do was declare their desire to marry between themselves behind a barn, and the church would bless them as married next Sunday. However, as pressure mounted from nobility to not bless all couples, especially if the marriage was between nobility and commoner, thereby endangering wealth and inheritance, the church began to require approval before a wedding. Soon the Catholic Church even embraced Marriage as a "sacrament".

After the Protestant Reformation churches began to rebel against the Catholic notions of marriage. Churches began to embrace marriage under common law. But as the divide between churches and magistrates widened, soon churches began giving the authority over marriage back to the state.

In America, marriage under common law prevailed in most states. A couple on the frontier could meet, declare their love, move in together, consummate, and await the blessing of a circuit riding preacher. As time passed, various states began asking that common law couples publically declare their unions in news papers, periodicals, or some other written form of dated media for a common law marriage to be established. These marriages were "legal". They were real. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without state marriage licenses etc. All they needed was their names signed as husband and wife in their family Bibles. That is why traditionally a family Bible contains a marriage certificate. That was the ORIGINAL document to be shown if one needed to prove they were married to a church or a court of law.

Laws governing common law marriage began to change and with the Civil War and Emancipation the issue of mixed marriages burst onto the scene. Some states felt like it was their duty to regulate marriage to ensure that blacks and whites didn't marry one another. So they began requiring a "license" to marry. When a mixed couple filed for a license, the states would deny them the right to the license. If a mixed couple married under common law and then seek to part ways, and felt the need to take it to court, the courts would annul the marriage declaring it wasn't legal.

So, the licensing of marriage was designed to keep mixed couples from marrying. The SCOTUS case of Lovings vs. Virginia ruled for equal representation and soon it was illegal to deny mixed couples a marriage license. Most states offered licensing for marriage and common law marriage. Common law marriage differed from civil marriage as follows:

1.There is no marriage license issued by a government and no marriage certificate filed with a government
2.There is no formal ceremony to solemnize the marriage before witnesses
3.The parties must hold themselves out to the world as husband and wife (this is not a requirement of civil marriage)
4.Most jurisdictions require the parties to be cohabiting at the time the common law marriage is formed. Some require cohabitation to last a certain length of time (e.g. three years) for the marriage to be valid. But cohabitation alone does not create a marriage. The parties must intend their relationship to be, and to be regarded as, a legally valid marriage.

As family law, probate, spousal benefits, and divorce law began to expand in complexity it soon became more and more important to seek a "civil marriage". Soon states began to abolish common law marriage statutes. Today, a couple can seek a common law marriage in the following states: Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, and Utah. Most states only recognize civil marriage today. The Quakers are a Christian group that refused to participate in the government licensing of marriages when marriage licensing began. Even to this day many Quaker couples are "married in care of the meeting" and refuse to register their marriages with the government. Many Baptists churches have also taken this position. They do not believe that state recognition is necessary for a couple to be married in the eyes of God.

I fellowship in a house church network. Our fellowship is not incorporated, nor are our elders registered with the state. When it comes to marriage, our statement of faith reads:

Section 4; Article F:
F. Elders serving in Christian ministry within the this fellowship are to disengage civil marriage from Christian marriage in the performance of pastoral duties. Elders are to refuse to serve as agents of the state in marriage. Elders are to decline from signing government provided marriage licenses and/or certificates. Elders are to ask that couples seek civil marriage separately from any church-related vows, promises, commitments, and/or blessings.

Our elders will only bless couples requesting a blessing on their marriage. Sometimes our elders will officiate over a ceremony wherein promises, commitments, or religious vows are made. But these ceremonies are separate from the civil marriage procedure... seeing that they only recognize a spiritual covenant and are not legally binding.

My point in all of that....while I'm a liberal and support the right of all people to marry whomever they choose, it doesn't mean that my faith accepts every marriage the government approves.

Abortion is a very tragic thing. The subject is also rather complex. I would never advocate that a woman seek an abortion under any circumstances. I'm understanding if a woman seeks an abortion to save her life/health, in the case of rape, or in the case of incest. I think that abortion as a form of birth control is a tragedy. However, also respect the sovereignty of a woman's body and her authority over the fruit of her own womb. I believe that abortion on demand should only be allowed during the first trimester. The second trimester should only be permitted in cases involving to save a woman's life/health, rape, or incest. I believe that third trimester abortions should be prohibited. I believe the middle ground on the issue is viability. Once a fetus is viable, it's life should be protected. Until it is viable, the fetus should be under the full authority of the mother.

I'm sorry that you have fallen so far as to side with the enemies of the truth Aquila, but it just shows you that it does matter who you allow to sit at your table and counsel you.

Again, your conservative right-wing brainwashing assumes that one who is politically liberal is an enemy of the truth. Sometimes I wonder if people realize that one can be a devout Christian, and still not be a conservative Republican.

[Light]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The Church still must still make a stand against homosexuality and the sacrifice of the unborn on the altars of the godless.

.

What kind of stand? Political or Spiritual?

Mat 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
That's politics!!
Now Spiritual!!

Luk 17:26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so too it will be in the days of the Son of Man.
Luk 17:27 They were eating and drinking, and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed all of them.
Luk 17:28 Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building,
Luk 17:29 but on the day that Lot left Sodom, it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed all of them
Luk 17:30 —it will be like that on the day that the Son of Man is revealed

The very thing that will bring Jesus back, the church is fighting tooth and nail politically.

Spiritually the church should teach it's members and new converts what is right and what is wrong and stay out of politics, if they really want Jesus to return.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Light

What kind of stand? Political or Spiritual?

Both. Just because we're fighting it spiritually, doesn't mean we should shut up when it comes to the political arena.

Originally Posted by Light

Mat 22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
That's politics!!
Now Spiritual!!

Luk 17:26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so too it will be in the days of the Son of Man.
Luk 17:27 They were eating and drinking, and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed all of them.
Luk 17:28 Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot: they were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building,
Luk 17:29 but on the day that Lot left Sodom, it rained fire and sulfur from heaven and destroyed all of them
Luk 17:30 —it will be like that on the day that the Son of Man is revealed

The very thing that will bring Jesus back, the church is fighting tooth and nail politically.

Spiritually the church should teach it's members and new converts what is right and what is wrong and stay out of politics, if they really want Jesus to return.

That doesn't prove we should stay out of politics, it just means that people will be living their lives right up until the very end, just as it was back then. That doesn't in any way prohibit us from acting in the political arena. Having said that, our main battle is obviously in the spiritual, not the material.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Politically progressive and moderate Christians are starting to consider bringing protest, publicity, and disruption to right-wing churches.

Take the Politics of Disruption to Church
https://sojo.net/articles/take-polit...ruption-church

Excerpts:

By now, most of us have learned that 81 percent of white evangelicals who cast their vote did so for Trump. And the same is true of 60 percent of the white Catholics who voted. And, lest mainliners feel off the hook, 58 percent of Protestants, in general, voted for Trump. It is easy to see the ways in which current social injustices reflect the commitments of conservative white Christianity.

However, this isn’t another effort in the continuing criticism of conservative Christianity; we need to challenge progressive Christianity.

And...

If we want to confound and disrupt the narratives of oppression, we need to raise our angry voices in the pews as well as the streets.

I literally mean we should disrupt our churches. Just as Black Lives Matter has employed a politics of disruption to raise the national alarm about racist policing. Just as the water protectors at Standing Rock have created a human barrier against pipeline construction. So too, should we disrupt and confound any and every congregation that fuels militarism, economic exploitation, sexism, racism, Islamophobia, or transphobia.

While such an approach is uncomfortable and risky, it is hardly novel. We worship a man who marched into the Temple during its most busy week, disrupted its market place, and proceeded to occupy it for a week while telling stories that overtly undermined the authority of the priests and scribes and exposes their complicity with Rome.

Jesus was so offensive that “the chief priests, the scribes, and the leaders of the people kept looking for a way to kill him.” Jesus, like all the prophets before him, disrupted the injustices of their day by going to the center of myth making. They went to the Temple, the palaces, and the places of sacred meaning. And with bold words and deeds, they disrupted.

And it was, I believe, effective. Conventional wisdom tells us that interstate shut downs or Temple disruptions only “hurt the message.” But Paul Engler, director for the Center for Working Poor in Los Angeles, suggests that divisive tactics like those employed by Black Lives Matter and other groups force people to form an opinion about issues even if they disapproved of the tactics being used. He and his brother Mark write, in their book This Is an Uprising: How Nonviolent Revolt Is Shaping the Twenty-First Century:

"Time and again, patterns of polarization appear in democratic movements in the United States and abroad. Looking back from the safe removal of history, it can be easy to imagine that landmark social and political causes of the past--whether they involved ending slavery, securing the franchise for women, or establishing standards of workplace safety--were popular and widely celebrated. But the truth is that, in their time, these issues generated tremendous controversy. In promoting them, activists had to make the difficult decision to invite division and acrimony before they achieved their most impressive results." [Source: This is an Uprising, page 208]

We need to do likewise — even if it offends our sensibilities and challenges our desires for unity. It isn't enough to simply offer an alternative Christianity; we must disrupt the way a distorted gospel fuels imperialism.

It is time that we don the prophetic mantle within our churches and engage tactics of disruption so that Christians no longer feel comfortable going about business as usual. So that the vast and moderate middle is forced to contend with the issues and no longer remain complicit with the ways that Christianity has been used to justify oppression.

The strong delusion that has caused so many to align themselves with Donald Trump (in spite of his glaring fascism and hypocrisy) is fueling a movement that is preparing to confront right-wing Christianity.

Has the radical "conservatism" in our churches gone too far to the right?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I'm pretty liberal. I have no hatred or animosity against homosexuals. I have gay friends and gay family.

So having black friends just mean that you have friends who are black. Who knows how far that relationship goes? We don't know, we don't know how one interacts with their "black" friends. What I'm getting at here is that you just saying you have male friends who have sex with other males is totally different.

Also having friends who base their identity on buggery isn't the same as having black, Jewish, Chinese, or Muslim friends.

If you tell someone you have friends who are black, Chinese, or Jewish, you might get a nod, but telling someone that you have male friends who have sex with other males, might get you a big raised eyebrow.

Also, you have a gay family?

Please explain

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Also, you have a gay family?

Please explain

He said it in the next sentence.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Interestingly enough, my cousin is a lesbian and a devout Episcopal. She's "married" to her female partner and they both have a rather good life together. I even attended their wedding and wished them the best.