Videospirit

Why are you even conceding it's a limit to free speech?

Why would Trump even care if he's mentioned in these documents at this point? The Supreme court has made him immune from all prosecution. He'd probably just brag about how alpha he is that he's able to sleep with minors and get away with it.

Would you please define what you feel is the definition of free speech. Because we've already explained this law does not infringe on free speech as the law understands it. The law this man violated did not criminalize praying silently. It criminalized damages, which has never been considered a violation of free speech.

God himself is an enabler. He enables the laws of God to be broken, because we cannot have faith without choice. Do you disparage god for allowing evil to exist? The bible itself is unclear on how serious a sin abortion is, but at the very least it's clear that men punishing Doctors or women or accomplices to the whole process is not something god approves of. So providing support to families, financial security, and just generally creating an environment where they feel no need to obtain an abortion, these are the ways god would approve of preventing abortions. Did you know that the bible glorifies suicide? The bible considers sacrifice to be a good deed, and it considers suicide with a good reason to be a noble sacrifice. Judas suicide after betraying Christ is exalted as Judas achieving Redemption. Assisted suicide is included as well. The bible speaks of a man dying from being hit by a stone, who orders his assistant to strike him dead to prevent his death from being blamed on a woman who threw a stone at him as another noble sacrifice. One whose health is so bad, their mere existence forces them to sloth, and who chooses to sacrifice themselves to not burden their friends and family and free themself from sloth is something the bible considers a noble sacrifice. So while our faith compels us to take action in the case of abortion, it's almost the opposite in the case of suicide. The bible certainly encourages us to help these people live lives without sin where possible, so we still have reason to scrutinize these laws closely, but it's a very Pro-Christian law. Humanity has realized that they are flawed and unable to carry out god's will of capital punishment on humanity's judgement alone. Many were the innocent, falsely convicted, who were put to death for crimes they did not commit. A terrible sin. Abolishing capital punishment has shielded them from this sin. God is not without mercy himself. Even intentional murder can be redeemed in God's eyes. God himself sentenced Cain to exile rather than capital punishment. Many of Jesus Christ own followers when he walked the earth were criminals. The bible says anyone, even criminals, can obtain redemption. The mortal suffering those who fail to redeem themselves inflict by further sin, is much less important than the souls that are saved of those who are able to redeem themselves. Hard on crime laws go against the teachings of christ. Those who seek redemption should be applauded and welcomed with open arms, rather than judged and scorned for their crimes.

Yeah, which is why we can't offer much of value in exchange for such a guarantee, since it's basically worthless.

When you actually commit crimes, prosecuting you for those crimes is not "weaponizing the doj" against you. Firing prosecutors who refuse to disbar themselves for you is what "weaponizing the doj" looks like.

Indeed, I too have sinned by judging you. Lord forgive me. Your sins are for god alone to judge. I became Christian through faith in Jesus Christ, just as all Christians do. Hebrews 13:16 KJV: "But to do good and to communicate forget not: for with such sacrifices God is well pleased." Thus, I focus on doing good and sacrificing, rather than judging others when choosing what political policy's are anti-christian. To help the poor. To help the vulnerable. To help the sinners. These things before all others. Presented with a choice between supporting a political party that's platform is built around judging sinners, and a party whose political platform is built around helping the poor, the vulnerable, helping sinners who seek redemption, the word of god makes the decision easy for me.

John 8:7 "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." It is not the place of man to judge sin. You have rejected Jesus and do not hold him in your heart.

The needs of the flesh are not the same as the needs of the spirit. Laws are made to address the needs of the flesh, religion exists to address the needs of the spirit. When the needs of the flesh and the needs of the spirit disagree there is no contradiction. It is not on the needs of the flesh to prohibit the temptations on the flesh, but on your spirit to resist the temptations of the flesh. You cannot put the desires of the flesh before your god. You have made the law of man more important than the word of god. You are astray. You can not bring salvation to others through the law of man.

Yeah, BC has the strongest public support for the Green party in all of Canada. Being anti-environment is not going to win you favour there.

Yes, anyone who actually gets an abortion(although I'd argue there are exceptions) or commits suicide is probably sinning. How is it being legal for them to do so anti-christian however? Cheating on your wife is also a sin. Does the conservative party's support for this being legal mean they're anti-christian as well?

Well at the very least, we can agree that claiming salvation has the same meaning every time the word is used in the bible is not a true statement. If that's what you mean by the word salvation, that definition can never be applied during life, for eternal life can only be received after judgement, and judgement always happens after death.

Well, the main reason we ignore that, is because your entire basis for calling those letters threatening, is that there is evidence of that someone was arrested for just "Silently praying". If that original basis is defeated, the letters weren't threatening. And the same argument applies to the own homes. Just head inside your house and don't stand near a window if you want to make a huge production of your prayer instead of praying like a normal person. A short prayer isn't going to bother anyone either. Any Christian who feels their religious freedom is impacted by this law certainly isn't devout by most denominations doctrine. Prayer is not something you do for the sake of being seen by others. If anything, from a religious perspective, this law helps protect people from sinning.

Salvation in the biblical sense primarily refers to original sin. The sin of not knowing god. So many of the verses of the bible that specifically talk about salvation, are explicitly talking about "Salvation from original sin." and just using the word Salvation. Effectively, these verses are only referring to how to know god, not some way to obtain a universal salvation from all sins you commit in the future and a guarantee that you will be allowed into heaven. The bible says your acts will be judged after you die. "Salvation"(The knowledge of god) alone does not mean you can get into heaven, it is by faith that you become worthy of heaven. God wills that you perform acts, and god knows if you had faith, and if you do not have faith you will not be found worthy of heaven.

If we look at the origin of the term, a synonym for woke would be enlightened. It is the opposite of ignorance. But people were kind of caught off guard when the right started throwing the word around and the messaging to communicate this could use some work.

My question is what about the specific laws you were talking about are anti-Christian? Assisted suicide and abortion in particular caught my eye as the first two you talked about. What about these being legal is anti-christian?

Salvation, and "how to get to heaven and have eternal life" are not the same thing. The knowledge of how to get to heaven and have eternal life is granted to you by Salvation, but the way to do that is not itself Salvation.

Not trying to offend you, but have you ever spoken to a doctor to be diagnosed for Autism? Because I know a few people with Autism in real life, and the flaws in your arguments would make perfect sense if you suffer from Autism. You're literate enough that your words are quite articulate, but you really struggle with reading comprehension. Like you can easily read 4 sentences in a row and judge each sentence one by one, but struggle to judge those 4 sentences as one paragraph. And to judge 3 paragraphs as a single message is even harder for you. I'd been suspecting there's something wrong with you for a long time now, but the way you reacted to being misquoted just now set off all my "I've touched one of my autistic friends reverse scales." alarms and finally made it click for me.

Heh, now you're misquoting me. Except I actually explained I did it in my post, but you neglected to do so. This is a dishonest message from you, congratulations on being a hypocrite. If a message is not false, and that message is clearly communicated it is honest. Was my message, as a whole, clear that the words are not entirely yours yes or no?

Is the message unclear? Can you not understand what I am communicating in my post? Are the explanations below that unable to explain that it is not your words in some way? Is there some aspect of this post that makes it impossible for the message of "The message in this quote can be considered true." to not be expressed? Your desire to suppress my free speech aside, can you not understand the post in its current form? Because the need to communicate is all that matters in terms of honesty. If the message is comprehensible and any potentially false aspects are clarified in the message itself. it doesn't matter if you don't like the way I said it, it's an honest message.

First off he isn't talking about salvation, he's talking about faith. Second, there is no such thing as "The way of salvation." You either have salvation or you do not. Salvation itself cannot be lost once acquired, and there is no thing you need to do to obtain it. But you don't understand what salvation is. Salvation is the grace of being saved from your ignorance of god. It is a very different matter from faith. You need faith to obtain salvation, but salvation is not faith it is knowledge. As for how I would correct his words. "To believe in Jesus means to believe in his commands otherwise "to believe in Jesus" makes no sense." Is probably the most clear way to express his intentions while keeping as much of his original message as possible.

You rejected Gaiten's claim that Which really could have been phrased better, but you rejected this outright.

Even your own post states that those who have received salvation can fall from grace. There can be no judgement according to works if salvation alone has given them security.

The post now clearly explains what my corrections were. There is no possible way anyone who reads the entire post can possibly mistake the bolded words for yours. Are you trying to claim you did not say the unbolded words? I'm a little confused here. This wasn't even that big of a deal in the first place, as the original post I quoted is right there on the same page, and anyone who wanted to compare the two could do so to see what is different between the original and my corrected version. If the source I was correcting was on another page or even topic the edits I just made to make clear what my corrections were specifically would have been essential, and they were definitely a good idea to include even if the post was on the same page. But what exactly is the problem with the post in its current form?

Hmm, I suppose I could have made it clearer which words were originally yours and which were originally mine, that's not an unreasonable request. Sorry if that lack of clarity hurt your feelings. I have now edited the post so that only my corrections are bolded, and your words are left as is. The post should be fine now.