It's like the mother lode of chain mail lists o' evil. You really aught to consider coming up for air. That crap will rot your mind.
It's like the mother lode of chain mail lists o' evil. You really aught to consider coming up for air. That crap will rot your mind.I wish that was all there was to it. www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=106938
this link is a Christian based organizations however it gives the links to where these claims can be found.
There's no point in arguing with them. Seriously the question was worded terrible. Im sure you could interview those same people and begin asking them if they think such and such should be taken literally, just like the sun and shield verse and they would say no. But they being of honest heart do believe that the Bible should be taken literally when possible. Thou shall not kill would be a great example.
1. If a man commits a murder, that man must be killed.
Don't put words in my mouth.Unless of course you are at war with another country, or the state is executing a man, or in defense of your home, etc....
That admonition is so vague as to be utterly and completely useless. You believe it has any meaning? Really? That it somehow separates Christianity from other religions? Christianity was the only religion to come up with the absolutely novel idea that killing other people wasn't a good thing?
The American legal system has vast amount of laws about what constitutes justifiable homicide. It varies from state to state. If legislators consulted the Bible when crafting the laws pertaining to this complex topic, you sincerely believe that "thou shalt not kill" would be in the least bit helpful?
PRO-TIP - The Code of Ur-Nammu which was written more than 500 years before the oldest book in the Bible (Job) had this to say about murder:
Actually you should take a good long look at it. There are some similarities there with the Bible. These people did not follow the God of the Isrealis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu
Unfortunately, he's a hack.I don't see why your purposely trying to find fault where there isn't one.
It's like the mother lode of chain mail lists o' evil. You really aught to consider coming up for air. That crap will rot your mind.
Your claim was that Christian clergy will be forced to perform gay marriages. Your own link, biased trash that it is, explicitly states exactly the opposite:www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2015/04/30/not-news-obama-admin-admits-tax-exempt-status-non-complying-churches
You seriously dont see it!
I my original claim was that this happened but I later said I will need to recheck. So I admitted that I may be wrong.
But what I have linked to has the Obama administration saying that this will be an issue.
And all faith based institutions will be in jeopardy.
but a court hearing that was quoted would make a factA blog post does not a fact make.
Don't put words in my mouth.
I never said Christianity was the only faith to say murder is wrong.
Obviously the verse I stated from the Bible isn't talking about wars or death penalties.
I don't see why your purposely trying to find fault where there isn't one.
If we examine the oldest known Bible to date, the "Sinai Bible" housed in the British Museum (I believe that, during his many years of research, Tony had a private viewing of this priceless book), we find a staggering 14,800 differences from today's Bible and yet it still remains the word of God?
In Matthew and Mark :
My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?
In Luke:
Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do
Truly, I say to you today, you will be with me in paradise (in response to one of the two thieves crucified next to him)
Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (last words)
In John:
Woman, behold your son: behold your mother (directed at Mary, the mother of Jesus, either as a self-reference, or as a reference to the beloved disciple and an instruction to the disciple himself)
I thirst (just before a wetted sponge, mentioned by all the Canonical Gospels, is offered)
It is finished (last words)
but a court hearing that was quoted would make a fact
You are frightening yourself over imagined realities. Quit pissing your pants about shit that isn't real.Its an issue that could occur and president Obama attorney said so.
You have been convinced of these falsehoods by monied interests that depend on your weak-willed surrender to fears of unreal circumstances. Grow some fucking balls and stand up to those conniving hucksters.In other words the road is being paved. And its currently an issue churches are fighting.
Bowfinger is a complete gullible buffoon when it helps his argument swallowing any statement as the gospel truth yet an inconvincible skeptic when it would go against his argument. Some call that hackery.Your claim was that Christian clergy will be forced to perform gay marriages. Your own link, biased trash that it is, explicitly states exactly the opposite:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/to...s-non-complying-churches#sthash.VgCFUKG7.dpufNo clergy is forced to marry any couple that they dont want to marry, Bonauto said. We have those protections"Sorry, but I'm getting really tired of otherwise intelligent people who make the choice of being disinformed by swilling propaganda from disreputable media. Get it through your heads that these sites exist solely to lie to you, to keep you ignorant, enraged, and safely shielded from reality. That is their business model.
again did I say the only religion or faith to talk about killing was Christianity?My parents were missionaries to Brazil. We interfaced with stone age tribes. Even these rudimentary cultures have proscriptions against murder. It is no great accomplishment that Christianity should have laws against it. Every culture and every religion does.
Where Christianity really falls down is it utter silence or active promulgation of pedophilia. You see, when the Bible was written, raping children was not considered a bad thing. The aversion to using children for sex only became a moral evil long after that.
Bowfinger is a complete gullible buffoon when it helps his argument swallowing any statement as the gospel truth yet an inconvincible skeptic when it would go against his argument. Some call that hackery.
The advocate for gay marriage doesn't decide these things so that quote is completely irrelevant and is probably a lie. Who cares what this lawyer says about it?
Your source thinks Islam is true, do you agree? They can be trusted to accurately describe the bible but not the Koran?
You'll be joining the list again shortly. What untruth have I told? Be specific.You're lying again. I realize engaging in honest discussion here is beyond you, but that was his link, and it said the exact opposite of what he presumed it said.
What do you mean by "not be forced"? Is the threat of losing tax exempt status something that qualifies?That was the point. If you don't like the person quoted, feel free to read any of the thousands of other articles that reach the same conclusion. Clergy will not be forced to perform gay marriages, it would be a clear violation of the First Amendment.
Toodles.
You'll be joining the list again shortly. What untruth have I told? Be specific.
What do you mean by "not be forced"? Is the threat of losing tax exempt status something that qualifies?
We have a concession from your friend that clergy will not be required to perform same*sex marriage...Would a religious school that has married housing be required to afford such housing to same*sex couples?
in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax*-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same*sex marriage?
Hallelujah! Maybe there is a god.You'll be joining the list again shortly.
Your statement to which I replied is a lie. (It is also a gratuitous insult, something you constantly whine about yet freely do to others. Hypocrite.) More generally, you seem incapable of engaging in honest discussion here. If you don't like being called out for your dishonest behavior, change it.What untruth have I told? Be specific.
Of course. Clergy will not be forced to perform gay marriages; it would be a clear violation of the First Amendment.What do you mean by "not be forced"? Is the threat of losing tax exempt status something that qualifies?
Exactly. :thumbsup:Maybe insinuating that clergy and churches will be forced to perform same-sex marriages if that is against their beliefs.
Because that is NEVER said in the article that elitejp quoted, which was an article from 6/15 that revolved around Roberts's dissenting opinion.
And in that opinion, nowhere was it ever said churches and clergy would lose anything refusing to perform same-sex marriages.
What it did reference was something specific, like this:
"Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage — when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples,” Roberts wrote.
In fact, if you bother to read the transcript of the oral arguments in the Obergfell case, you'd read this:
Chief Justice Roberts, Obergfell oral arguments transcript, Question 1, pg. 36
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-556q1_7l48.pdf
So the arguments were never about churches losing tax exempt status if they don't perform same-sex weddings, rather how religious organizations interact with the secular world.
As Justice Alito put it:
(Pg. 36 of same above linked .pdf)
Seems pretty clear that the justices established quickly that churches and clergy were completely exempt from any perceived "punishment" for not providing same-sex marriages and the question Roberts put forth in his dissenting opinion was in relation to what Alito put forth, as quoted above....that religious organizations may indeed have to follow secular law in secular situations, like a religious university discriminating against a married couple of the same sex in housing, as Alito alluded to in his questioning.
If you knew about Christian the a little bit more you would know that it's not a sky deity. But by our country telling you you can believe in your religion first that's kind of crazy being that our country was built on God.
You'll be joining the list again shortly.