Do you have an example where legislation is not based on empirical evidence of facts?
Every attempt to ban abortion.
Anti-LGBT laws.
Need more?
Once again, Iāll thank you for not speaking for me about my faith.
to be blunt, it has nothing to do with the strength of my faith, but rather itās about you and how youāve treated religion since youāve been participating n Hannity forums. Iāve challenged you on that before (maybe on the old board.) In my opinion, itās pearls before swine.
No matter how I answer what you want reconciled, your particular bias is just going to disagree with it. I see no point in engaging your question on it.
Now some other lib is going to come here and tell me that Iām afraid to do so. Thatās how it works around here.
Of course it is.
What is faith and do you have faith that The Lord spoke the Truth regarding Mary, the mother of Jesus still being a virgin?
Highlight a small part. Hit quote. Reply below that in the editor.
Then, with your cursor at the bottom of the current edit window, highlight another part of the post youāre replying to (or even a different post altogether!) and hit quote. A new quoted section is added where your cursor was in the edit window. (which uis why you should click your cursor at the bottom of the edit window first.) Reply below that. Wash. Rinse. repeat.
Thatās just your interpretation of the drive behind such legislation.
What is the fact based reasoning for laws that discriminate against LGBTā¦or the lack of laws allowing for discrimination towards LGBT?
Is anything I say going to be met with anything but contempt or argument?
Even your questions show a prejudice toward a particular viewpoint. I donāt see the point in engaging them.
Further, I doubt I would say anything you havenāt already seen (and dismissed) in countless other threads, so again, I donāt see the point in it.
I asked a pretty basic question.
If you are unable to answer, that is fine.
There is empirical evidence, and there is faith/religious based opinions.
There are times, these can be in agreement.
I prefer the former.
1 Like
The best way I have heard it explained is to start with the basics:
- God is love and loves us. However, He is not our personal Genii
- God designed the world, so everything that happens is part of His design.
- Humans are always getting things wrong (Original Sin)
Godās purpose is to steer us on the right path. Think of gravity. If we choose to step off a cliff, do we blame gravity and claim that gravity hates us and is evil? Or do we understand that if we choose to step off a cliff, there will be consequencesāno hate, not evil involved.
Likewise, if we decide we are above God, putting our projects first, thinking only of what self wants, not what God wants or our neighbor wants, isnāt it logical that we are not going to listen, and eventually, we are not even going to understand one another any more. Example: How well do we understand each other of immigration issues or what our President is trying to accomplish with his administration? Is it God who is confusing us today? Or are we doing it ourselves even though we can point to the parameters God placed us in?
To what are you referring?
Thanks. Will give that a try.
And I am not speaking āforā you.
Iām coming to a conclusion based on the evidence before me.
And it didnāt work. I just tried to highlight another part of your post and it just published what I was trying to say.
Oh, well.
Anyway, if I was speaking āforā you, Iād say something like, āGuvnah believes in a loving God because heās a Catholic.ā
I think I made it clear that I am unwilling. Not unable.
The post I quoted.
Thatās how it works.
I gave no evidence.
You are making unfounded assertions.
Thatās putting words into my mouth.
Well it does for me.
Not sure what else I can say here.
Iām even picking snippets from separate replies you made.
Even from different peopleās replies.
To Catholics it is not allegory - donāt know about other Christian religions.
1 Like
