Rights

[Willa]

On a personal basis Jesus calls on us to lay down our rights and our lives and go the extra mile for them instead.  

But on a civil basis we are given rights to protect ourselves from abusive authority of government.  For instance, we are assured that the government cannot establish a certain religion or denomination as the official church of the government.  In the same tone, the government cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.  

Some lawyers today are like the pharasees of yesterday who twisted interpretations of the law to circumvent the intent of the law.   So our lawyers and judges have given more rights to the atheists who are offended by the display of the 10 commandments, a cross, a nativity etc. on public property, and sometimes even on private property.  Restrictions are being put on sharing the Gospel.  Churches are being sued because a new business can hear the singing coming from within the churches. People are forced to condone ungodly marriages against their will by providing services for them.  And the beat goes on.  The beliefs of Bible believing Christians are being trampled upon.  [I was very troubled by the statements recently made by "progressives" that they must change Christian beliefs because they opposed abortions and gay agendas.]  Hopefully we will have a respite for a few years.

 

[Running Gator]

5 hours ago, Yowm said:

For the most part yes, by virtue of the fact that the majority put them in authority (either directly or indirectly), to represent them.

Just to clarify, are you saying that the elected officials should only represent those who voted for them, or as you put it "put them in authority"? 

[Running Gator]

5 minutes ago, Yowm said:

Those in office are there due to the ones who voted them into office. They were voted into office with the trust that they shared similar values as those who voted for them and thus will represent them. I had no expectancy that Hillary would represent my views as President and therefore I did not vote for her.  

So, you are saying that the president of the US is really only the president to those who voted for him/her and that they do not need to represent the needs and rights of those who did not?  is that correct?

[Ezra]

5 hours ago, Out of the Shadows said:

So, you are saying that the president of the US is really only the president to those who voted for him/her...

That is not how it is supposed to be.  However the Soros sponsored activists who are now -- after a legitimate election -- shouting that Trump does not represent them do not have a right to protest this election result (since we are on the subject of rights). What they are doing is clearly illegal, but Soros has an agenda, and a part of that agenda is to create chaos and civil unrest regardless of who is in office.

[Running Gator]

1 hour ago, Ezra said:

That is not how it is supposed to be.  However the Soros sponsored activists who are now -- after a legitimate election -- shouting that Trump does not represent them do not have a right to protest this election result (since we are on the subject of rights). What they are doing is clearly illegal, but Soros has an agenda, and a part of that agenda is to create chaos and civil unrest regardless of who is in office.

Why do they not have a right to the election results?   As long as they are not breaking the law by looting or burning things they can protest anything they like.  Are their views any different than Yowm's?  Prior to the election we had people on this board basically advocating for civil war if Hillary was elected, seems maybe even you were one of them. 

[Running Gator]

7 hours ago, Yowm said:

I just don't know how to explain it better than I just did.

You can twist my case if you wish, add meaning or make inferences that were not intended. It's your thread.

I did not twist your words, I tried to clarify what you were claiming about the responsibilities of the President of the US

[Remnantrob]

On 11/8/2016 at 9:55 AM, Out of the Shadows said:

This statement was made in a different thread on this forum.

"Often one man's right is an infringement on another."

I do not believe this to be accurate, but I would like to get the input of others on this.  

I would say that the statement has some truth to it because my right to live my life as a christian will probably infringe on someone's right to be drunk, be an atheist, support gay marriage etc.  Many try to marry the rights of the two in order to create tolerance but it becomes more of an apostasy than anything else.   

[Running Gator]

6 minutes ago, Remnantrob said:

I would say that the statement has some truth to it because my right to live my life as a christian will probably infringe on someone's right to be drunk, be an atheist, support gay marriage etc.  Many try to marry the rights of the two in order to create tolerance but it becomes more of an apostasy than anything else.   

Can you explain how your right to live your life as a Christian could infringe on someone's right to be an atheist, or the right to support gay marriage or even be a drunk?

[Remnantrob]

27 minutes ago, Out of the Shadows said:

Can you explain how your right to live your life as a Christian could infringe on someone's right to be an atheist, or the right to support gay marriage or even be a drunk?

Sure,

As a Christian, I believe that the great commission is part of my life's mission.  Matthew 28: 19, 20

Quote

 

¹⁹ Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

²⁰ Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

 

If part of my teaching/making disciples include instructing those who the bible would describe as lost and within that instruction we see statements like this in Romans 1:24-32

 

Quote

 

²⁴ Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

²⁵ Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

²⁶ For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

²⁷ And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

²⁸ And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

²⁹ Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,

³⁰ Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

³¹ Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:

³² Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

then by the point of view of the drunkard, atheist, gay person or gay rights supporter what my bible says is offensive and infringes upon their right to live however they want to live.  I can chose to be a quiet christian and not preach these kind of things but then I think about the statement Jesus makes in Matthew 10:32, 33

 

Quote

 

³² Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

³³ But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

 

[Running Gator]

1 minute ago, Remnantrob said:

Sure,

As a Christian, I believe that the great commission is part of my life's mission.  Matthew 28: 19, 20

If part of my teaching/making disciples include instructing those who the bible would describe as lost and within that instruction we see statements like this in Romans 1:24-32

 

then by the point of view of the drunkard, atheist, gay person or gay rights supporter what my bible says is offensive and infringes upon their right to live however they want to live.  I can chose to be a quiet christian and not preach these kind of things but then I think about the statement Jesus makes in Matthew 10:32, 33

 

No, it really does not infringe upon anything.  Being offended does not infringe upon their rights to live their life as they choose.  Me telling a obese person they should not be that way does not infringe upon their right to keep right on doing it.  There is no right to never be offended by someone else.

Now, if you use your "right" to follow them down the street badgering them and insulting them, then it is you who has gone beyond what is a right.

On a side note, why do Christians never seem to focus on the sins of gluttony and sloth but instead focus on the ones you mentioned?