Unequally Yoked? Correcting conflicts under different authorities of law

[emilynghiem]

This thread is to explore issues brought up in Gracie's Bible thread that I wanted to resolve with QW and DT since more ideas were coming out than could be contained or managed.

I will start and also revise this OP by listing key points
A
B
C
that came up with QW.

When replying to this post, please type at the top either A B or C (or multiple).

A
will be the overall issue: how do ppl under different authorities address each other or hold themselves or the other to follow consistent standards if they arent both committed to the same set of laws. Does the nontheist under natural laws hold the believer to scripture, or does this depend how it's done if it is taken sincerely or not? Do they both need to agree first to forgive the differences, or just use natural laws of science/logic/constitutional principles that are common to both where both ppl agree? What is your experience with this working or failing to bring resolution to issues that cross over between people concerning church-state policies and practices? I may add a poll for ppl to post which order they place church and state authority etc.

QW commits to defending Constitutional right to free speech even to say opposing things, while also objecting to abuse of free speech in certain ways deemed unacceptable; so what ARE the rules here and how to enforce them consistently? QW has this philosophy incorporated as "signature lines," so discussing this will all be under A.

I will accept the rules that you feel necessary to your freedom. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know, the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything -- you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him.

B
will be for the issue of what makes someone a "false guide" and causes conflict in how laws or leadership are enforced. Again QW brought up points on the previous thread, which I will add in here later. QW said the Shepherd protected the flock and we didn't need any other shepherds to try to guide, or it ends badly. I was arguing it wasn't that being a guide or claiming such leadership is wrong in itself, but the spirit of how this is done, and I wanted to be more specific. So here under B we can address related issues such as what makes a "cult", what is true spiritual healing vs. demonic spiritism outside God's will, what is truly in keeping with Jesus authority where no one is playing God or trying to be Jesus which I agree is problematic. Is it the spirit by which guidance is offered? if so what is the deciding quality? I believe forgiveness is key, whereas unforgiveness causes divisive projection of bias on others. QW said guidance is by the Holy Spirit, so how to tell the difference?

C
will be for the other quoted msg by QW regarding people who are fellow committed believers, people who are sincerely curious, and people who actively reject God.

I was saying that all people have a little of all these areas mixed together, so we should be careful not to judge a person all one way; where we contradict or betray even our own principles, we can come across wrong to others as unfaithful or rejecting truth with denial and not "believing" that correction is needed on our side.

I will say that some people may be more suited for "following laws externally" as citizens do out of respect for order, for enforcing these with authority as with police or military officers do or govt, or fully embodying and embracing laws where it becomes a religious conviction.

I do believe this distinction should be made and respected, and find a way to resolve issues where one person may be under various degrees of committed by either church or state laws. However I disagree with labeling and dividing people as if one group is the enemy of another: Another way I heard it said is not divide people or groups as "them vs us" because as soon as you do that, the divisive energy destroys the efforts regardless of intent.
So this is more my concern to prevent "false guidance" in B.

I think all three areas A B C were affecting whether the actual conflict between
DT and QW was getting addressed and resolved or just exacerbated into namecalling jabs.

D
what was the issues in the thread that didn't get resolved, where it came up again in Gracie's thread and didn't get resolved there either, and caused both QW and DT to make negative remarks detracting from content? We can address this under A B and C also.

I will go back and find the quotes for A B and C, if QW can fill in for D what the actual issues were underneath the personal attack messages.

Thanks, will this outline help? What about the Poll?
I see that God/Jesus as divine truth/justice fulfill all laws equally, and then people cite them in various order depending
where they are coming from; but wherever we mediate and reach agreement, it will satisfy all laws even if invoked in different order.