Town Heretic hands down the law

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Nowhere did I say that acknowledging the wisdom of the 10 Commandments automatically gives someone a ticket to Heaven.

I didn't say you did. I referred to what you said some time back -- that you saw no need to share the Gospel with Mormons because, as conservatives who fear "God," they're already right with "Him."

I'll make you a deal: You share the gospel with your good friend GFR7/patrick jane, and the next time Mormons come to my door I'll share it with them. Of course the only gospel that exists is the gospel according to musterion, so I'll need your version before doing so.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
That being said: Many of our criminal statutes are based on the 10 Commandments:

Never argued it. But that in no way made this the "Christian nation" modern mythology makes it out to be.

Your ignorance of US history is duly noted.


Quote:
*Oh and by the way: Just because you don't murder someone doesn't mean that you'll go to Heaven.

I never said otherwise. It'd be nice if you could hold rational discussions without lying about what people said.

I can picture you now: index finger just waiting to hit that "Ban him!" button.

As always musterion, it's been an experience chatting with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
This coming from a guy who voted for
So this really isn't about the post but about your ongoing larger nonsense. I mostly figured that was the case. I voted for Obama the first time and against the second. I didn't vote on the issue that Roe settled and that won't be undone until we reach a critical mass that will allow for a Constitutional convention and amendment.

If I voted on the abortion stand that wouldn't be changed by either party I couldn't have voted for either party on any other issue, since both parties put forward candidates who believed in abortion but simply differed on who was allowed to have one.


Regarding women being 2nd class citizens: Staying home and doing the invaluable job of raising a family while their husband works is far from being "2nd class".
The second class citizenship I spoke to was in play when those founders who allowed slavery also failed to enfranchise women as voters, among other lesser status indicators. It had nothing to do with dishonoring an honorable pursuit as a homemaker. If a woman wants that it's a great thing. It shouldn't, however, be her only option. She should be able to vote and own property, to seek employment and to not marry at all if that's her desire. Our founders didn't allow that. It took a considerable effort and a great deal of time for women to win rough equality before the law and in right.


Funny how you didn't "morally object" to it when it was a hot topic of debate here on TOL.
I not only did, I did so almost every time I spoke to the subject and every time I was asked about it.

You failed to talk about your support of the communist (atheist) ACLU.
You're continuing to be untruthful or you have a horrible memory. What I've said, plainly, is that the ACLU does important work. I'm not a member. I don't contribute to them financially and I don't always agree with them, but they've defended Christians gathering in schools and veterans who wanted to fly a flag against a cooperative effort by some to deny it.

You remember that organization, they defended NAMBLA when the parents of Jeffrey Curley, a 10 year old boy who was brutally murdered by two homosexuals, sued the pedophile organization.
No, but I don't follow that movement. I'd object to it given the aim of that organization is predicated on advocating an illegal activity.

Are you literally going to trot out every one of your pet projects? I don't frequent your threads because I've answered you on your complaints and you just keep making the same ones. Ah, well.

We could also talk about how the ACLU is a huge supporter of Planned Parenthood as well as the removal of anything Christian related from the public if you wish.
You can talk about anything you like. Start a thread. This isn't that one.

You've had more than your conduct here warrants from me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
This coming from a guy who voted for Barack Hussein Obama...

So this really isn't about the post but about your ongoing larger nonsense. I mostly figured that was the case...

I was responding to your typical left wing rant about the Founding Fathers being racist. You are aware that they are responsible for many of the Christian monuments that you claim you defend?

Edit: In God We Trust: America’s Historic Sites Reveal Her Christian Foundations
http://providencefoundation.com/?page_id=1962


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Regarding women being 2nd class citizens: Staying home and doing the invaluable job of raising a family while their husband works is far from being "2nd class".

The second class citizenship I spoke to was in play when those founders who allowed slavery also failed to enfranchise women as voters, among other lesser status indicators...

As mentioned, they had more important things to do (raising a family). Regarding women voting in this day and age:

As I mentioned to Art Brain in another thread: You'd think that those women would use their vote to protect the unborn.


Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Funny how you didn't "morally object" to it [homosexual 'marriage'] when it was a hot topic of debate here on TOL.

I not only did, I did so almost every time I spoke to the subject and every time I was asked about it.

It just so happens that I have a copy of a debate that you had with a TOL'er that goes by the name of "Huckleberry" back on June 2 of 2013. The thread has been deleted, but I copied it word for word.

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

There's much more to being male/female that a collection of behavioral characteristics that themselves are too complex even to be quantified.
Furthermore, I'll plainly call the characterization of gender itself as irrelevant and interchangeable nothing short of evil.

Then all that reduces to is that you believe in a Biblical model and that this model should be the model used for a secular compact. And the next guy, with a different religious view might feel that you shouldn't be allowed to marry across races and that this view should control.



Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry
Can two parents of the same gender raise a child adequately?

I've seen studies going both ways. But seriously, I have. And that presumes that children are a necessary part of what they clearly aren't. It's another issue. The elderly, the infertile and even those who just don't want kids can file by the magistrate and get hitched.



Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

But if you're arguing for gay marriage by asserting gender is meaningless and irrelevant, and all that to establish there are no arguments against gay marriage that are not religious.


Relevant but immaterial to the contract. That is, it's relevance is established by the current debate, but it isn't or shouldn't be an impediment to contracting for marriage because outside of the purely religious the only thing you end up saying is, "But he isn't a she" or vice versa, which isn't an argument, though it is a neat enough circle.



Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

As for the question of non-religious arguments against gay marriage...there are a million non-religious arguments against gay marriage. Five minutes on Google will turn up twenty of them. Why are we pretending otherwise?

There are probably as many against race mixing. Doesn't make them good or compelling enough to overwhelm equality in right before the law.

Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

1. It Is Not Marriage

Sounds circular already. It isn't a contract until it is.



Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

2. It Violates Natural Law

So does penicillin. Next.

Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

3. It Always Denies a Child Either a Father or a Mother

Marriage isn't about children. Having children is about having children and you don't have to be married to do that any more than you have to have them if you are. Next.

Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

4. It Validates and Promotes the Homosexual Lifestyle

Sounds like a moral presumption resting upon a moral presumption. You could say not denying people of varying races to marry encourages it, but mostly it just doesn't deny them a right without sufficient reason to.

Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

5. It Turns a Moral Wrong into a Civil Right

A purely religious turn in a compact that doesn't cede that authority. Next.

Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

6. It Does Not Create a Family but a Naturally Sterile Union

As noted above and prior, we don't have any trouble with sterile, elderly or indifferent people entering into a union which won't or can't produce children. And so they don't reap the additional benefits that actually do have to do with procreation. Next.

Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

7. It Defeats the State’s Purpose of Benefiting Marriage


Nope. The state has more than one interest, which is why we allow those marriages I only just noted. And gay people could produce children, through artificial insemination for women or by adoption for men or women.



Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

8. It Imposes Its Acceptance on All Society


What's the imposition again? Being outraged? Because I'm fairly sure that outrage is also felt by people being denied a right without sufficient reason. So racists will have to be uncomfortable with mixed race marriages. Those who see marriage as a purely religious function will have to live with knowing atheists and agnostics are forgoing churches for the aforereferenced magistrate, etc. Just as the Amish have to suck it up and deal with weapons being made from their taxes.



Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

9. It Is the Cutting Edge of the Sexual Revolution


That's not even an argument, but assuming a domino doesn't always pan out. For instance, the sexual revolution and subsequent moral laxity and removal of purely religiously motivated law from the books hasn't helped the pedophile, who finds greater, not lesser protection in law for children.

Quote: Originally posted by Huckleberry

10. It Offends God

Secular compact, not ruled by Islamic principle. Or did you mean Christian? Same answer.

On that note: Lon threw you a nice party and all of your friends came to wish you well. Any further conversation on my part and I might be seen as a party pooper (and no one likes a party pooper do they Town Heretic?).

Have a nice day ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber
Ask him about his support fro the communist (atheist) founded ACLU sometime. While you're at it, ask him how he feels about the Obergefell v Hodges SCOTUS ruling.

On the 1st I understand Townie's position to be if you want to have freedom to believe and worship according to your own faith then you MUST allow others the same freedom

If the 2nd is the evolution court ruling from the 50s I also agree with him.

It was the church's fault for taking it to court, THAT was a monumental mistake for which the church has been paying the price ever since.

The church could have won their battles by spiritual warfare. God has given the church all means necessary...but the church is in too backslidden a condition.
 

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Ask him about his support fro the communist (atheist) founded ACLU sometime. While you're at it, ask him how he feels about the Obergefell v Hodges SCOTUS ruling.


On the 1st I understand Townie's position to be if you want to have freedom to believe and worship according to your own faith then you MUST allow others the same freedom

Wouldn't that be nice if the ACLU felt that way towards Christianity?

(The www isn't large enough to post all of the anti Christian lawsuits the ACLU has filed).

If the 2nd is the evolution court ruling from the 50s I also agree with him.

Obergefell v Hodges was the recent SCOTUS ruling that allows sexual deviants to mock God's institution of marriage.
 

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Ask him about his support fro the communist (atheist) founded ACLU sometime. While you're at it, ask him how he feels about the Obergefell v Hodges SCOTUS ruling.




Wouldn't that be nice if the ACLU felt that way towards Christianity?

(The www isn't large enough to post all of the anti Christian lawsuits the ACLU has filed).



Obergefell v Hodges was the recent SCOTUS ruling that allows sexual deviants to mock God's institution of marriage.

A GREAT mistake Americans make...they fight the devil by natural means. Using the law...and the law always sides against them.

These various movements thrive because the church is many in numbers, but pitifully weak in spiritual power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
So this really isn't about the post but about your ongoing larger nonsense.
You're continuing to be untruthful or you have a horrible memory.


No, but I don't follow that movement.

Are you literally going to trot out every one of your pet projects? I don't frequent your threads because I've answered you on your complaints and you just keep making the same ones. Ah, well.


You can talk about anything you like. Start a thread. This isn't that one.

You've had more than your conduct here warrants from me.

Some people really don't want the answers; they have their own agenda
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Ask him about his support fro the communist (atheist) founded ACLU sometime. While you're at it, ask him how he feels about the Obergefell v Hodges SCOTUS ruling.




Wouldn't that be nice if the ACLU felt that way towards Christianity?

(The www isn't large enough to post all of the anti Christian lawsuits the ACLU has filed).



Obergefell v Hodges was the recent SCOTUS ruling that allows sexual deviants to mock God's institution of marriage.


This is like the 3rd time you've posted the same nonsense. Are you unstable ?
 

aCultureWarrior

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
A GREAT mistake Americans make...they fight the devil by natural means. Using the law...and the law always sides against them.

These various movements thrive because the church is many in numbers, but pitifully weak in spiritual power.

I believe you were thinking of the famous "Scopes Monkey Trial".

The "Monkey Trial": An ACLU Effort for Godlessness
http://www.creationmoments.com/content/monkey-trial-aclu-effort-godlessness

Regarding "the law" (i.e. civil law). God created it along with the Church and Family for the governance of man. As seen in one of my favorite articles, because people of faith neglect to get involved in the political scene, we're at the state of moral decay that we're currently in.

Civil Government: The Neglected Ministry
http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/issue08/civil_government.htm
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
TH, i was saying ACW doesn't want your answers and keeps repeating them, while championing his own threads and agenda. I don't remember asking you questions. I thought it was funny what you said about him trotting out his stuff, so i enlarged it.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
I was responding to your typical left wing rant about the Founding Fathers being racist.
I think right wingers should be offended by your suggestion that the only people sufficiently versed in the nation's history to understand it once kept slaves and women were denied something as basic as the vote are liberals.

Shame on you.

As mentioned, they had more important things to do (raising a family).
Yes, you were wrong the first time. I think the work the men were doing was as important as what those women, denied the rights of men, were doing.

As I mentioned to Art Brain in another thread: You'd think that those women would use their vote to protect the unborn.
I think anyone with sufficient knowledge and conscience should and the numbers have been moving in that direction. God willing they'll continue to.

It just so happens that I have a copy of a debate that you had with a TOL'er that goes by the name of "Huckleberry" back on June 2 of 2013. The thread has been deleted, but I copied it word for word.
If you can't quote it I'm sorry, but I don't trust the source. But lets look at a post from the Gazette in Quixote's on the subject on the heels of the Court ruling. You may recognize the parties: Post #1897

Can't link because the thread was closed:

Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
While we're handing our congratulations, I can imagine you were overjoyed with the SCOTUS decision.
Well, if the source material you so often use is proof of anything it's that you appreciate imagination.

But no. It was inevitable and within the context of the law, the correct call, but I'm never encouraged when sin is accommodated. Should they have the right? Yes. Do you have the right to do any number of things I don't actually approve of? You do. Is some of that sinful? It is.

And ultimately we make our choices and answer to God.
 
Top