Erick's point makes significant sense to me. Being a political bully always comes with a heavy dose of karma / escalation.
While the state/business relationship on this legislation ultimately makes sense from a separation of benefit/responsibility perspective, FL is making this a punishment, particularly given the timing (and messaging). Erick is correct that using political clout in this manner remains contrary to our Constitution, specifically the ability to have a contrary take on an issue. As a Believer, I also see the danger trying mix "render to God" what is Caesar's domain.
The USA presents an unusual tension between secular and moral responsibilities that can come into conflict. We are not a "Christian Kingdom" as in the ancient Christendom driven by The Church. That's actually good news (just finished a series of lectures on History of the Church - Christendom and corruption in the leadership went hand-in-hand :-( ) yet it does leave us exposed to the loss of any moral compass/anchor we've experienced since the 60's (some would argue earlier).
Our influence as voters with a moral compass is critical to USA surviving, IMO. Using our gov't as a hammer does not bode well for Believers. Keep in mind those without an anchor have nothing actually preventing them from following the path of Caligula, Domitian, Nero, etc. Political escalation often has no-win as the outcome whether conservative or liberal.
We abide by the world's law insofar as it does not conflict with God's Law. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's.
As I say, we have a precarious situation with the USA. We, as Believers, can influence our government in ways that the Apostles never could. We cannot go to Scripture and dictate how God wants things in gov't to play out. The Church tried doing that with Christendom (as in gov't ruled by the Church), and that didn't turn out so well, either.
Paul, Peter, Jesus Himself did not seek to overthrow the Romans - that's what confused the religious leaders of the time. Building God's Kingdom (which is not of this earth) was the entire focus beginning with Jesus' death and resurrection, followed by the spreading of the Gospel to the world.
We're in a situation not directly addressed by Scripture. Romans 15 was written with horrendous dictators in charge. We're in a much less dire situation, yet with influence opportunity. IMO, that opportunity does not include punishing even those spouting evil with a governmental hammer lest we undo the protection we can call on from the First Amendment.
So do we, as Christians, continue to let disney operate teaching young children about changing sex etc. or do we do something about it and change the law that changes the way they operate. Is Florida part of the US? Is Florida a state of the USA that was formed by mostly Christians? I am for the Florida Senate and Reps, changing what disney was given by the state years ago and keeping Florida a State that KNOWS about Christian values and wants to keep it that way.
No one has to go to Disney World. No one has to buy Disney paraphenalia. No one has to subscribe to DIsney+. We can stand against their business efforts from the market perspective. Will that work to change Disney's horrible policies? Dunno.
"Mostly Christians" was the hue and cry of Christendom (eg. Geneva under John Calvin, papal authority exerted in many countries in the Middle and Late Middle Ages). Even well-intended moral government control found itself impotent to the task of building the Kingdom of God (the invisible Church), only capable of enforcing external compliance. It could be argued that external moral compliance is better than external hedonism from a societal standpoint. I do not argue that. However, the danger becomes one of Pharisaic adherence incorrectly masking the heart condition by continuing to "work your way" rather than repent and believe.
At some level, we must trust that the Holy Spirit works His miracles without my help ;-).
This circumspect thinking is what I appreciate about Erick and his take on things…he thinks outside of his bubble. The inability or refusal to think outside one’s echo chamber weakens their attempts at persuading others. I feel that despite the left’s strangle-hold on media and tech companies, common sense and logic eventually win.
Exceptions ought to have time limits built into them and require reauthorization. Similarly, all policies created by unelected bureaucrats should automatically expire after six-months or so and then go to Congress for either a law or reauthorization.
When Disney got that legislature past for them in 1967, why haven't other entertainment companies gotten them? It was wrong for FL legislation in the first place, so NOW is the time to have it taken away to match all the other companies in FL rules.
Erick's point makes significant sense to me. Being a political bully always comes with a heavy dose of karma / escalation.
While the state/business relationship on this legislation ultimately makes sense from a separation of benefit/responsibility perspective, FL is making this a punishment, particularly given the timing (and messaging). Erick is correct that using political clout in this manner remains contrary to our Constitution, specifically the ability to have a contrary take on an issue. As a Believer, I also see the danger trying mix "render to God" what is Caesar's domain.
The USA presents an unusual tension between secular and moral responsibilities that can come into conflict. We are not a "Christian Kingdom" as in the ancient Christendom driven by The Church. That's actually good news (just finished a series of lectures on History of the Church - Christendom and corruption in the leadership went hand-in-hand :-( ) yet it does leave us exposed to the loss of any moral compass/anchor we've experienced since the 60's (some would argue earlier).
Our influence as voters with a moral compass is critical to USA surviving, IMO. Using our gov't as a hammer does not bode well for Believers. Keep in mind those without an anchor have nothing actually preventing them from following the path of Caligula, Domitian, Nero, etc. Political escalation often has no-win as the outcome whether conservative or liberal.
Or another way of putting it is "Do we abide by God's law or the worlds law??? Tell me please.
We abide by the world's law insofar as it does not conflict with God's Law. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's.
As I say, we have a precarious situation with the USA. We, as Believers, can influence our government in ways that the Apostles never could. We cannot go to Scripture and dictate how God wants things in gov't to play out. The Church tried doing that with Christendom (as in gov't ruled by the Church), and that didn't turn out so well, either.
Paul, Peter, Jesus Himself did not seek to overthrow the Romans - that's what confused the religious leaders of the time. Building God's Kingdom (which is not of this earth) was the entire focus beginning with Jesus' death and resurrection, followed by the spreading of the Gospel to the world.
We're in a situation not directly addressed by Scripture. Romans 15 was written with horrendous dictators in charge. We're in a much less dire situation, yet with influence opportunity. IMO, that opportunity does not include punishing even those spouting evil with a governmental hammer lest we undo the protection we can call on from the First Amendment.
So do we, as Christians, continue to let disney operate teaching young children about changing sex etc. or do we do something about it and change the law that changes the way they operate. Is Florida part of the US? Is Florida a state of the USA that was formed by mostly Christians? I am for the Florida Senate and Reps, changing what disney was given by the state years ago and keeping Florida a State that KNOWS about Christian values and wants to keep it that way.
No one has to go to Disney World. No one has to buy Disney paraphenalia. No one has to subscribe to DIsney+. We can stand against their business efforts from the market perspective. Will that work to change Disney's horrible policies? Dunno.
"Mostly Christians" was the hue and cry of Christendom (eg. Geneva under John Calvin, papal authority exerted in many countries in the Middle and Late Middle Ages). Even well-intended moral government control found itself impotent to the task of building the Kingdom of God (the invisible Church), only capable of enforcing external compliance. It could be argued that external moral compliance is better than external hedonism from a societal standpoint. I do not argue that. However, the danger becomes one of Pharisaic adherence incorrectly masking the heart condition by continuing to "work your way" rather than repent and believe.
At some level, we must trust that the Holy Spirit works His miracles without my help ;-).
This circumspect thinking is what I appreciate about Erick and his take on things…he thinks outside of his bubble. The inability or refusal to think outside one’s echo chamber weakens their attempts at persuading others. I feel that despite the left’s strangle-hold on media and tech companies, common sense and logic eventually win.
Exceptions ought to have time limits built into them and require reauthorization. Similarly, all policies created by unelected bureaucrats should automatically expire after six-months or so and then go to Congress for either a law or reauthorization.
When Disney got that legislature past for them in 1967, why haven't other entertainment companies gotten them? It was wrong for FL legislation in the first place, so NOW is the time to have it taken away to match all the other companies in FL rules.