What's the difference?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Really? Based on what?




Multibillion dollar industry? Elite doesn't want to make money?






Again, this is all based on what?



You ever grow weed? I don't mean one of two plants. I mean enough to be able to smoke. Chris, where do you get such information?

You are clearly not paying attention. Big Pharma, the private prison industry, and law enforce are the three biggest lobbyists lobbying to keep marijuana (including medical marijuana) illegal.

I could Google it in the news etc. and bore you with hundreds of links. But Big Pharma isn't pushing for cannabis. They can't patent it's growth or control its production. And, it would be a better alternative to some rather pricy prescription meds they want us to buy from them. The private prison industry makes money on how many people they have locked up. A significant number are incarcerated merely for being in possession of cannabis. If it were to be legalized, they'd lose a significant number of prisoners from that day forward. Keeping cannabis illegal protects a revenue stream. Law enforcement gets grants from the Federal government to assist them in the war on drugs. This frees up resources for raises for those higher up, to hire more officers, and to purchase additional equipment. All parties have a vested financial interest in keeping cannabis illegal. Trust me, they aren't being altruistic.

The one thing I did find interesting in studying this out was that the average law enforcement officer supports legalization. They don't like having to police people over a weed that is essentially nor more dangerous than whisky. However, on the management and director level opinions are different because, as I stated, they get money from the Fed to help them in the war on drugs. If cannabis was legalized, they could lose a great deal of that revenue that they play with.

Marijuana has bad side effects. Why on earth do you think we call it DOPE.

The side effects are no worse, and in fact they are often far less of a concern than those side effects produced by perfectly legal prescription drugs. You know this, I know this, almost everyone knows this now.

Which is wrong, which is unfair because they are not here to defend themselves. Also the stories are mostly fabricated and one sided.

I can sympathize with that. In fact, when I do roast a pastor, more times than not, I'm addressing pastors who do a thing in general. I'm not addressing a specific pastor or pastors. Also, when I am addressing a specific pastor, I try not to mention them by name. Those that I haven mentioned by name are strictly those that I've known personally. My posts are more of a "if the shoe fits, wear it" kinda thing. If it doesn't, then it clearly isn't directed at those pastors.

You don't have the right to roast em. You can roast me, because I'm here and ready to take on all players. But some brother who isn't available to defend himself is kinda cowardice on the part of the roaster. Don't you agree?

Yes and no. Anyone has the right to say whatever they wish and share their understanding and experience whether a pastor is present to defend himself or not. Now, is it always the right or ethical thing to name and roast a pastor who isn't present to defend themselves? Not always. It can depend on the topic.

I'm kinda confused here. Roast'em if they are not in the Word as you have interpreted it. Combined with he is within his bounds as he so desires? Which is which?

Both.

If a pastor isn't in the Word, he isn't in the Word. If someone roasts him over it, so be it. He should have stayed within the Word. Now, does a pastor have the right to choose to teach out of the Word? Of course! And those who don't have a high regard for the Word can feel free to follow him to their dying day if that is their choice.

Yet, he is still in his bounds to make you shave? Whatever.

But that's the thing. He doesn't "make" anyone shave. Nor does he "require" it. He has simply expressed his opinion. There aren't any negative repercussions for those who don't agree. He prefers that the platform team be clean shaven. But should one grow a beard, the pastor wouldn't yank the guy off the platform. The pastor might mention his preference for men being clean shaven in a leadership meeting and leave it at that.

Bro, no minister is threatening anyone in their congregation. That is the mantra of at www.LoisHatesYou.com.

Now, you know very well that some pastors have threatened Hell over beards. Sure, today we have many pastors who have a more moderate position on it, but that is because more and more believers want to see Scriptural support for such notions. That's a good thing. Hopefully, the believer's desire for Scriptural support for these silly standards will help eliminate them altogether one day.