Steve_S

Servant
  • Content count

    2,879
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,301 Excellent

About Steve_S

  • Rank
    Royal Member
  • Birthday 10/29/1980

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    stevespeig26j

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    AL
  • Interests
    Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Recent Profile Visitors

9,376 profile views
  1. Salty has been banned from the thread and issued a warning point for the above statement.
  2. Who did he accuse? This is borderline against the ToS.
  3. If the bowling tournament were celebrating gayness, then yes. If it were simply a bowling tournament that had only gay people, I wouldn't think so. But that's not really the issue. The point is that opposing an act is not opposing a person, nor condemning them.
  4. Would you think it reasonable for a Christian to cater a KKK rally, a meeting of islamic radicals, or a pagan religious ceremony? This is not necessarily the case. Is it impossible for one to simply not want to be a party to a gay marriage ceremony in any way, while not condemning the participants themselves? I have not seen this argument made. I've generally seen people making the case that they believe it is not wrong to refuse to specifically contribute to a gay marriage ceremony. I'm not sure how that is condemning anybody? I don't think that anyone here is arguing that they wouldn't make a cake for the same gay person if it was a celebration of the conclusion of a bowling tournament or something along those lines.
  5. Missmuffet will be banned from the thread and will be issued a warning point for the above statement.
  6. It strikes me that all of the democrats that were literally crying in the streets may want to look at stuff like this when they are confounded as to why trump was elected.
  7. Well, if they do repeal obamacare early this year, that's 110 billion out of the budget. If they replace it with something that costs half it'd be 55 billion, but i doubt the replacement plan will cost that much.
  8. Exactly who are you making accusations against here and specifically what are those accusations?
  9. The first part is probably accurate. The second part it depends on the country. In a lot of countries when polled respondents decline to answer that particular question, according to pew. But, back to the first part. Assuming 5 percent are participating in extremism (your words) that would mean there are around 160-170 thousand islamic extremists in the united states and 80 million or so world wide. This is no small number, to be sure. It would be less concerning if they were all gathered in one country and had a mind towards conventional warfare. 80 million potential terrorists (160 thousand of them being within our borders), though, is a different ballgame entirely. The numbers of muslims who are theologically extreme but not directly supportive of or participatory in terrorism could be anywhere from 10 to 40 percent, worldwide, supposedly. Those are harder to figure out, though, evidently.
  10. Just to attempt understand your earlier comment, are you claiming 95 percent of muslims do not participate in extremism or 95 percent of muslims are theologically against extremism?
  11. How can someone be responsible for not prosecuting muslims?
  12. To address this, you were banned from that particular thread for this comment: We don't allow personal attacks of any sort. We don't always see them, though, if they are not reported. However, when they are reported, we act on them. If you were attacked, you have the same report button. If you choose not to use it, that is your prerogative. We can't read every single post in every single thread, not even close, so we simply don't see it when it happens a good bit of the time, again, if it's not reported. To reiterate, you were banned from the thread for the above statement, not because of your theology. To address your theology, though, we do allow in depth discussion on topics such as the deity of Christ, but when that crosses the line towards proselytizing that view or when it becomes apparent that a person has an agenda to convince others of that view, we do act on things like that. Our statement of faith is pretty clear on what we, as a ministry, accept as essential doctrines. We do allow discussions outside of that, pretty obviously, but there is a limit to how far that will be allowed to go pretty generally.
  13. What are you insinuating with this post?
  14. The interconnectivity on trade can be undone short of a catastrophic event, certainly. Communications and so forth would not really be possible, though. General financial interconnectivity would also be difficult to unravel, but that was also a reality then as well.
  15. That interconnectivity is still just a progression of the interconnectivity from then. Humans are still humans and all of the things that have more interconnected humanity since then have been a result of a simple progression of decisions. Those decisions can just as easily be undone. Just because the current paradigm is the current paradigm doesn't mean it always will be, just like there was no assurance than it was then. The idea of protecting factory jobs from foreign competition is not something that is any different now than it was then anyway. It's not like interconnectivity really has a strong bearing on that sort of thing. It's a situation where you either choose to do it or you choose not to.