- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 119,717
- Reaction score
- 75,668
- Location
- Outside Seattle
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It doesn't have to be that way. Salvation is free. You only need to take it.
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God"
Eph 2:8
They can do that now if they choose.
What you are talking about is spite...and that's not a very Godly thing.
what kind of Christians would those be? Certainly not actual ones's following the teachings of Jesus, those of love, compassion, helping your fellow man, etc.
Lots of Protestant churches have been performing gay marriages for more than a decade. Do you think they'll stop now? Why?
(I cant speak for other faiths tho).
They have devalued marriage
5 robed buffoons unilaterally lording over 350 million is your idea of democracy?
What scripture is that? Seriously. And try to stick to the New Testament, which pretty much supersedes the Old.
2 John 7-11
7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch out that you do not lose what we[a] have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully. 9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not take them into your house or welcome them. 11 Anyone who welcomes them shares in their wicked work.
So then why has no one been refusing to serve divorced people, adulterers, fornicators? Seems like that 'religious belief' would be applied pretty selectively, eh? I mean, why can those sinners marry but gays (sinners) cant (couldnt)? So yeah, I call BS on 99% of people objecting to serving gays based on 'religion'. And that dishonesty is a sin
159 pages and still going, amazing. This thread right here is going to kill any chance at a future career in politics and most posting here, lol.
I am 100% certain that if those 5 robes sided to your favor you would be defending the process.
This too shall pass. God bless America. Let freedom ring.
Additionally.....I don't see any hardcore leftists crossing over to vote for the Republican candidate.....they might not be happy with Obama, but seriously......there is no shot that they would support even a moderate Republican candidate.
Also...I don't think that Obama got many votes simply because he was black.....especially from people who traditionally vote Republican. I don't know where you are coming up with that, but I find the scenario pretty implausible.
You would be wrong about that. I value democracy.
Sounds like what might have been said in the last days of Sodom and Gomorrah.
So were they buffoons when citizens united came before them?
Robed buffoons
They would be the Christians who don't want to participate in abortions.
Because they will want to keep their tax-exempt status.
The premise of your request isn't valid:
Mathew 5, 17
"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."
So, the Old Testament is still valid.
What can and can't be done in marriage is a long explanation. So I'll let this website do it. It is well done and has plenty of references:
What Does the Bible Say About Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage?
That should establish that marriage, per the bible, is only allowed between a man and a woman and that anything else is against God's law. The question then becomes, is helping someone to violate God's law a sin? Clearly the answer is yes.
Does a sin damn you for eternity? Well, yes and no. The goal of life is to avoid sin and apologize when you make a mistake. The less obvious answer is if you intentionally sin and then apologize. Many say you are still ok. Many say there is no repentance.
Either way, the government has no right to put a person's soul in jeopardy just because they participate in commerce. That is a pure violation of the first amendment.
Because they are lazy and would rather enforce what they want God's word to be than what is God's word.
By default, it's an uphill battle for Republicans. When you start off with NY and California in your pocket, almost automatically, you are in pretty good shape. That's why the Democrats are trying to flood Texas with illegals and don't want any voter ID at all. They don't really care much about the illegals in other States, they know if they can get enough votes to get Texas, it would be impossible for a Republican to win.
On the other hand, if the Republicans can win California or NY, ala Reagan, they have an easy win. But hey, why follow that strategy? They're going to throw up someone like Jeb Bush and lose again.
No, I know a couple of such churches and they welcome everyone, including gay couples. And marry them. Not just to keep from lawsuits or their tax status. So I'm sure there are plenty more. On another forum, there's a gay minister of a protestant parish...in Iowa.
There are many Christian churches in the US that accept gays.
Yes, you won in the immediate on the issue but lost like the rest of us, long term, on the method. It matters as much how you get there as where you get to.
Whoa, where did spite come from? It's merely an academic discussion on whether clergy acting as an agent of the state in a legal marriage contract could discriminate, not unlike the discussion on whether a city clerk could refuse to issue a marriage licence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?