genuineoriginal
New member
Did Jesus die so sinners could keep on sinning?
I remember Jesus saying something about "go and sin no more"
Kentucky clerk who refused gay couples taken into federal custody; ordered jailed
- Thread starter GFR7
- Start date
Did Jesus die so sinners could keep on sinning?
I remember Jesus saying something about "go and sin no more"
genuineoriginal
New member
The Law was given to the children of Israel 430 years later (Galatians 3:17).
This shows that God considered homosexuality a sin worthy of death even before giving the Law.
genuineoriginal
New member
This kind of statement proves there is a war against Christianity and the God hating sexual perverts want to make sure Christians are unable to be elected for government offices.
genuineoriginal
New member
What is the difference between toads and frogs?
All toads are frogs, but not all frogs are toads. Toads are generally more land-dwelling. They have rougher skin with warty surfaces and they are usually in the family called Bufonidae.
genuineoriginal
New member
He deserves a speedy trial and a swift execution for treason, preferably by a military tribunal.
genuineoriginal
New member
The person that "broke the law" was voted into that office.
Her being a person with Christian morals that was voted into office is exactly the way you claim we are to fight the law.
Her going to jail is the only way she sees in making a change of minds within the political realm.
We need to support people like her and throw out all the bums that want to compromise our Christian beliefs for their selfish political gains.
lifeisgood
New member
What body in government has the power to pass laws?
I thought it was Congress, or am I mistaken?
Supreme Court interprets the law to make sure that the law is constitutional, is it not?
I have not seen Congress pass a law about man/man marriage; woman/woman marriage. I could have missed it though.
So, how come the Supreme Court opining on a nonlaw this nonlaw becomes the law of the land?
Can someone point me to the law Congress passed regarding gay marriage?
I might have missed it somehow.
This reminds me of "First they came for the communists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist; then they came for the Jews and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; then they came for the trade unionists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up (Pastor Martin Miemöller (1892 – 1984)"
It is UNJUST for this lady to be in jail and we should wake up if anyone think that what is being done to her is just.
I thought it was Congress, or am I mistaken?
Supreme Court interprets the law to make sure that the law is constitutional, is it not?
I have not seen Congress pass a law about man/man marriage; woman/woman marriage. I could have missed it though.
So, how come the Supreme Court opining on a nonlaw this nonlaw becomes the law of the land?
Can someone point me to the law Congress passed regarding gay marriage?
I might have missed it somehow.
This reminds me of "First they came for the communists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist; then they came for the Jews and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew; then they came for the trade unionists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist; then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up (Pastor Martin Miemöller (1892 – 1984)"
It is UNJUST for this lady to be in jail and we should wake up if anyone think that what is being done to her is just.
genuineoriginal
New member
Daniel was a government official.
There were some wicked men that wanted to get rid of Daniel, and the only way they could find was to change the law so that Daniel would have to violate his religious beliefs or be found guilty of breaking the law.
They got the law changed, but Daniel refused to compromise his beliefs and was thrown to the lions.
This is recorded in Daniel 6.
Selaphiel
Well-known member
Try following my argument, instead of quote mining me and taking what I said out of its rhetorical context. The point of my statement was to provoke the very answer you give here. Republickchick made the claim that homosexuality was wrong because it is unnatural. She fell for it in exactly the same manner. Natural does not equal moral, it follows that unnatural does not equal immoral. So her claim that homosexuality is bad because it is unnatural (an argument that a lot of people here make) is complete nonsense. Morality is about what ought to be the case, nature is about what is the case.
Of course, then you need to present an argument for why homosexuality is immoral. Citing the Bible is not an argument. There are plenty of laws in the Bible that those very same people wouldnt even dream of following today, in fact the very same people criticize groups like IS for doing things similar to the things those laws allow (such as enslaving the population of a sacked city). So you need to present an actual rational argument using reason and empirical facts to argue why homosexuality is immoral. So far, I've not seen anyone here being able to do that. And then I mean homosexuality in and of itself.
Some here (serpentdove) claim that these other OT laws are ceremonial rather than moral. The law that allows the enslavement of the citizens of a sacked city is not even remotely close to being a ceremonial law, it is however a reprehensible law.
Chrysostom said:
You calling out people for not answering questions and the fullness of a post is pretty much the objective definition of absolute irony.
I have answered it as well. I said I was OK with it.
okay with what?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Selaphiel
Well-known member
One would think that was obvious from the quote that the statement was a comment to...But let us try again: I, SELAPHIEL, AM FINE WITH AND SUPPORT THE LAW CONCERNING SAME SEX MARRIAGES THAT ALLOW TWO CONSENTING PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX TO MARRY EACH OTHER.
resodko said:
From what I remember, I did not find those arguments very convincing. They were natural law arguments, which in many cases rely on selective and ambigious interpretation of nature and the deduction of an ought from an is, and even a "projected is" as well in the sense of projecting an interpretation of what the final cause of a particular natural act must be, certainly a restrictive interpretation of it.
But feel free to reiterate them or another argument if you so wish.
And who appointed the judge that threw her in jail??? A Republican President.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
no, that's ethereal territory beyond my comfort level
I stick with the basics
Homos molest children and should be executed
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
the disturbing thing is that he (Bunning) ruled against his own conscience and morality, his own belief system, the reason Bush chose him
he knew he was ruling unjustly
iow, he chose man's law over God's
Quetzal
New member
His personal conscience and sense of morality holds no weight when it comes to enforcing the law.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Quetzal
New member
Okay, fine. They "conduct the trial impartially and in an open court. The judge hears all the witnesses and any other evidence presented by the parties of the case, assesses the credibility and arguments of the parties, and then issues a ruling on the matter at hand"