I look at all of this very seriously, and weigh everything out as honestly as I can, always putting God first, to try and get to the bottom of things, the best I can, anyway. When something isn't crystal clear, to me anyway, I have to use biblical common sense, to try and come to any conclusion.

I understand the influence of tradition, but I've always been able to catch myself, and seperate from it, mentally, in order to look at something clearly, and I never have any problem staying separated from it if scripture takes me in a different direction.

I also understand your point about God's sovereignty, and I'm assuming that you're viewing any action on our parts to change an outcome, as a lack of faith(?) For example, this discussion, and attempting to save ones life, or the life of another.

Someone is standing in front of us, ready to shoot and kill us. Do we:

1) Stand there and agree to being murdered, because if the bullet hits and kills us, it was God's will.

2) Pull out the weapon we happen to have tucked away; a gun, a knife, or a club...whatever, and attack first in an attempt to spare our life.

3) Run for cover, as the thug sprays bullets at us.

I view running to take cover no different than pulling out, and using a weapon, because both are an attempt to spare one's life.

Would anyone here not run to take cover to try and spare your life, and if you would, then what's the difference between that, and using a weapon to try and spare your life?

I was just thinking how neat it is that I can type out words on a screen, that anyone can read and understand, and just the mere fact that I(we) know which ones to type, and how to organize them, on the fly, in order to communicate, is kind of amazing.

I'm probably sounding like a borderline lunatic right now 😊 Ok, over and out...

Actually, I'll just say one thing about Mark 8:35: I'd like to see it get discussed, and expounded upon, because there's a whole lot of context that gets packed into that one sentence, and it's not a stand-alone verse that I feel can be used to refute common sense, self-protection.

What a joke. The presiding judge scorned the Gloucester school for harming a child? These people infuriate me, because they have allowed, and enforce the confusion of an entire generation. They are fully responsible for all of the suicides as well, whether they resulted from bullying, utter confusion, or reassignment remorse. Their agendas confuse and kill, yet, they tout themselves as advocates and supreme protectors? What a joke.

"Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals
based its ruling in favor of Grimm on a 2015 Obama administration guidance
encouraging all public schools to allow transgender students to use facilities consistent with their gender identity."

The recent Chicago mayoral race reminded me of the current 2020 candidates, where I wouldn't have been able to vote for a one of them. Lightfoot ran on the LGBTQ card, and it worked for her. How many Chicagoans voted for her because she's a homosexual, and for no other reason. Even for 2020, it seems the issues are secondary, while se*ual orientation, color, who/what you sympathize with, and how extreme your (false) promises are, is first and foremost for the vote.

I've been having a little trouble getting his drift as well, but it seems that Simple might be operating off of once saved, always saved, which is fine when we're talking about those who are truly His. Seems to me though that he's placing Harris and Sampson into the category of the elect, that they've simply fallen away for a season, and that they are deserving of sympathy, and prayers for restoration.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Simple, but if that's the gist of your comments, I, for one, will not pray for the restoration of anyone, who being filled with the knowledge of scripture, and has tasted of the good things, crucifies Christ afresh by publicly calling Him a liar, a hoax, and tells the world that they're walking away from the joke that is, Christianity; saying, "We're outta here, and how wonderful is the newfound freedom that we have, without some false God ordering us around, and not allowing us to do whatever we feel like doing in life. Who does He think He is, anyway...no thanks".

"Drag Queen Story Time is based in San Francisco, and it describes its purpose as capturing the “imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood�, and giving children “unabashedly queer role models�.

Dylan Pontiff, a drag artist who works for the program, admits the events are about ***“the grooming of the next generation�."***

Yes, the librarys hold these grooming hours, but I place full blame on the parents who put their kids in the car, and take them to see, and soak in this nonsense. Teaching kids to twerk, confusing them, and indoctrinating them into the LGBTQ ideology...disgusting, and shame on the irresponsible parents, who call it harmless fun, and a wonderful thing. Mama G wanted the kids personal emails, until he was questioned on it, then said, oops, I meant the parents emails. Just another creep.

I still have trouble believing what I see all around me. Men dressing as women, taking estrogen, growing breasts, raising the pitch of their voices, having gender reassignment surgeries, wearing heels, carrying themselves as women, and demanding to be treated and addressed as the opposite gender.

"like, what bothers me now is nothing... I am so happy now, so at peace with the world...it's crazy..."

I'm sure he does feel a lot lighter and free, if God had been weighing him down. Afterall, he's now been released from the burdon of sin, because he no longer has the responsibility to care, one way or another. What a breath of fresh air it must be for him to no longer be under judgement, anyone's watchful eye, and to now have the freedom to do as he pleases, without any guilt, or fear of eternal repercussions, he apparently now believes.

I just think his expectations were unreasonable as an employee, and that the department had no responsibility to cator to him while refusing direct orders, based upon a matter of personal conscience that wouldn't have, directly, caused him to be in disobediance; putting man above God.

While I salute him, on a personal level, he was expected to do the job he applied for, was hired for, was being paid to do, and a job where he knew how things worked. He wasn't asked to do anything unusual, out of the ordinary, or wicked. Again, how far does an employer's responsibility go on such subjective matters where what's wrong for one, is right for another, and both are perfectly right?

In my initial comment, I hesitated to even use the phrase, "matter of conscience", but technically, that's exactly what it is, and Frank was nice enough to post the related scripture up.

While we are to obey God above any man, or manmade law, I consider matters of conscience to be very subjective; unique from person to person, and not clear, scriptural violations; sin. Matters of conscience are things that we, personally, don't feel comfortable with or about, or that we're just not quite certain about, so yes, we should err on the side of caution, doing what we feel is right, as we see it. However, one man's conscience is not anothers, and in both cases, strangely, most often than not, both are right, and neither is wrong, because they're subjective situations.