It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Christians FOR Gay Marriage... they are and always have been

page: 9
13
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede

You see, you are right back to square one because you will not open your mind and learn. Look at your last post. You can not get it through your head that Jesus did not preserve civil or dietary law. Jesus obeyed the dietary and civil laws of His day but His new covenant given to all people, by His death, does not include the old laws of diet and civil practice in His day.


This is not correct.Yahoshua did not "follow" the dietary laws of his day.There is nothing in the scripture that ever said he did.He clearly stated:

And Yahoshua called to all the crowds, and he said to them, "Hear me all of you and understand." "There is nothing outside of a man that enters into him that can defile him; but the thing that proceeds from him, that is what defiles the man." "Whoever has an ear to hear, let him hear."


The fact is it was written that he broke many of the customs and laws of the Jews because he was not a "practicing Jew"(or any religion especially Christianity) as you and your "church" believe.

The new covenant is not anything CLOSE to what you believe it is with all of your religious rules and ordinances which are just co opted from the corrupt religious Jews of before and after Yahoshuas time.The new covenant(which isn't new ) is the deliverance of all creation(including ALL of mankind) from the Hades (the realm of death and imperception) by Yahoshua (the creator God's deliverance/salvation).




posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Rex282


This is incorrect and the height of ignorance.The SCOTUS do not make "laws" to be followed and saying that "Blacks and Hispanics are more apt to vote" on these premises(eating lobster) is the worse type of racism.

Do your own homework and do a google on both Black and Hispanic votes as they are cast on legislation. I just showed you in the above post that SCOUTUS over ruled the laws of congress on the Nohide laws of the United States and in fact usurped the laws of the people. Now do your homework which, should not be too difficult and take note on which groups in the united States are democrats or republicans and what percentages vote their heritage. You are either blind or ignorant and it is not racist on my part to tell the truth.

The presidential elections alone will tell you how blacks and Hispanics vote overwhelming by race. Don't play the pity me race card with me because it is not true and I don't buy it. What do you call this SCOTUS gay marriage ruling that was just made into a law? Are you somehow brain dead? Public (Civil) law 102-14 stated that the Nohide laws of humanity are the laws of this United States by the 102 Congress of the United States. Civil law of Gongress 102-14 was overturned by the SCOTUS just some days ago. The Nohide law number 4 was overturned by the SCOTUS against any vote of the people. This was passed by five lawyers in black robes and not by any congress. You had best get your ears and eyes checked because you have been ordered to accept homosexuality and Lesbianism by the SCOTUS and not by a vote of the people. Height of ignorance? By you perhaps but not by me.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede




Congress and the President of the U. S., George Bush, indicated in Public Law 102-14, 102nd Congress, that the United States of America was founded upon the Seven Universal Laws of Noah, and that these Laws have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization.


LOL

The same Goerge Bush who said "If the American people knew what we were doing they'd hang us in the streets!"

LOL

The United States of America is founded of 7 Jewish laws of morality? HAHA!

No idols?! Doesn't that make Christianity illegal?
No murder? Laughing my ASS off! The USA wouldn't be here if it weren't for murder!
Don't steal? Like we stole land from the natives?
No sexual Promiscuity? HaHa...unless your a politician? Too bad Ben Franklin didn't know about this law! I guess it doesn't apply to your own slaves though.....

Oh wait, no animal cruelty?....slavery
Killing off the buffalo? Early Americans couldn't have been more barbaric when it came to animal cruelty!

Blasphemy? Hmmmm, "Separation of Church and State" comes to mind.

George Bush, take your pick Sr. or Jr., IS A LIAR!


edit on 3-7-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 10:11 AM
link   

edit on 3-7-2015 by arpgme because: double post



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: arpgme
a reply to: Seede

you have been ordered to accept homosexuality and Lesbianism by the SCOTUS


No. You are still free to condemn homosexuality.

You have been ordered to stop trying to stop gay marriage which is forcing your religious views on others and violating their Freedom of Religion. That is all.
edit on 3-7-2015 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Rex282


This is not correct.Yahoshua did not "follow" the dietary laws of his day.There is nothing in the scripture that ever said he did.He clearly stated: And Yahoshua called to all the crowds, and he said to them, "Hear me all of you and understand." "There is nothing outside of a man that enters into him that can defile him; but the thing that proceeds from him, that is what defiles the man." "Whoever has an ear to hear, let him hear." The fact is it was written that he broke many of the customs and laws of the Jews because he was not a "practicing Jew"(or any religion especially Christianity) as you and your "church" believe.

What do you think Passover entails? Before passover the house must be swept clean of leaven and unleavened bread must be eaten with Passover. Jesus fulfilled the law but did not follow all of the customs and ordinances of the rabbinic laws.

Luke_22:11 And ye shall say unto the goodman of the house, The Master saith unto thee, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?

The passover was a law of God and not a rabbinical law and yes it required more than just unleavened bread. Jesus ate the passover as is stated. He also obeyed all feast days and did teach the laws of Adam which are the Noahide laws.

Now you inferred the very opposite of what the Parable was taught. The parable was a teaching of the evil that men do and not of certain foods that a man eats. It is a comparative parabolic lesson to keep the mind and body as pure as you can. It was not dietary commands as you interpret. You have to read thought in context and not pick certain words to form your own doctrine.

Mar 7:17-23
(17) And when he was entered into the house from the people, his disciples asked him concerning the parable.
(18) And he saith unto them, Are ye so without understanding also? Do ye not perceive, that whatsoever thing from without entereth into the man, it cannot defile him;
(19) Because it entereth not into his heart, but into the belly, and goeth out into the draught, purging all meats?
(20) And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man.
(21) For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,
(22) Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
(23) All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.

As Jesus was alive the word Christian did not exist and neither did Jewish churches exist.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: arpgme


No. You are still free to condemn homosexuality. You have been ordered to stop trying to stop gay marriage which is forcing your religious views on others and violating their Freedom of Religion. That is all.

Tell that to the couple that just got fined.

"Just hours after Oregon officials announced that Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweetcakes by Melissa, would be fined $135,000 for their refusal to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, Aaron Klein had a message for government officials: He has no plans of backing down." Blaze News --

Read it and weep cause this is going to bite you one day. You cheer now for these sick puppies but this iis only the start. Your turn will come real soon.



posted on Jul, 3 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede




Tell that to the couple that just got fined.


They didn't get fired for holding a religious belief against homosexuality. They got fired for not following the anti-discrimination laws (which means to not deny services based on age, gender, race, religious belief, or sexuality).



"Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order,"

In Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Supreme Court found that while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices (e.g., human sacrifices, and the Hindu practice of suttee). The Court stated that to rule otherwise, "would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances."


The Free Exercise Clause says:



"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."


You have the right to Freedom of Religion, to believe others are inferior to yourself and preach discrimination, but you do not have the right to ignore anti-discrimination laws to practice it.

edit on 3-7-2015 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
Hey OP,

This came up on my Facebook feed and I thought you might like it. An interesting read for sure. (Title is misleading, you'll understand after the first point)



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede




Aaron Klein had a message for government officials: He has no plans of backing down." Blaze News --

I have a message for Aaron Klein. You are fighting a battle that you absolutely no chance of winning.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede



And here we thought the U.S. was founded on the top Ten. Oops, guess we were wrong, huh? Sadly, this is not just for the state of Yisra’el (Israel) or even the U. S., but for the whole world:

Bush was an idiot who knew nothing about the founding of this nation. There many quotes by the founders themselves that says America was founded in no way on Christianity or any other religion. Also if you pay attention to Israel they aren't following the laws of their faith either.



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Seede

Forgive me -- I've been trying to write back for a couple days and circumstances keep conspiring against me! First it was unexpected visitors for the weekend... Then last night I was working on a response when we lost power and I lost my response... and just now a kitten walked on my keyboard and lost the response I was working on again! Grrrrr.....

(Actually, the kitten is absolutely adorable so I can't be too mad... especially because he's part of a litter of feral kittens that we rescued a couple weeks ago from the miserable scorching heat and I've been working hard to socialize them... so I have to be happy that he's now friendly enough to crawl on my keyboard!).

I promise I will reply as soon as I can!!!



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
There many quotes by the founders themselves that says America was founded in no way on Christianity or any other religion. Also if you pay attention to Israel they aren't following the laws of their faith either.

Yet it is, though not perhaps in the sense most people think. The Fathers understood government differently than we do today and possessed varying beliefs at the time of their discussions assuming the founding of our country is defined as the signing of the Constitution. Though they were divided religiously, they all seem to agree that biblical morality takes precedence over governmental institution. To quote Washington: “Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports.” To quote Franklin: “If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?”

In summation, the people mold the government, not the other way around, and in doing so require a reliable set of moral values. Perhaps unsurprisingly, these values were obtained from the saturation of Christianity in the 13 colonies and were encouraged by the Continental Congress: In 1777, Continental Congress voted to spend $300,000 to purchase bibles which were to be distributed throughout the 13 colonies. In 1782, the United States Congress declared, “The Congress of the United States recommends and approves the Holy Bible for use in all schools."

Thus, it is not so black and white as stating America was founded either or, but rather on a very common sense principle of people needing morals before they need a government. The Fathers understood that without morality (and the subsequent encouragement of Christian religion) and unifying principles, our fledgling nation would perhaps collapse in on itself. E pluribus unum!

Admittedly, these principles were 'adjusted' at times to compensate for the difficulty of governing such a new nation. You see examples of this in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli. This can perhaps explain the circumstances in which quotes arise denying religious based foundation. It seems faith was taken up and abandoned whenever convenient at the time for our leaders. Governin' ain't easy.
edit on 6-7-2015 by Septimus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Septimus




Though they were divided religiously, they all seem to agree that biblical morality takes precedence over governmental institution.


What is "biblical morality"?

Could you give us an example of how "biblical morality" takes precedent over governmental law in the US?


edit on 6-7-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

The latter six commandments, the first four being estranged into the realm of organized religion which they had an understandable mistrust of at the time. Their goal wasn't so much to encourage Christian faith despite the previously mentioned promotion of the Bible, but to promote a general sense of morality for their fellow man. The Bible I believe was simply the easiest way to relate such morality given the state and faith of the colonies at the time.

As for taking precedence, I refer to the basic sense of morality they sought to promote in the people at the time. Whether that morality took place in the form of an organized religious establishment, or theism in general, the government has no place in detracting from it so long as it does NOT violate such base principles. It's difficult to relate the basic concepts the Fathers laid before us in modern times, as the laws and challenging circumstances (such as gay marriage) have become so convoluted it's difficult to even consider. They were dreamers, and dreamt of a nation built on simplicity; the growth of vibrant faiths and handing down of morality throughout the generations governed by a gentle, yet firm invisible hand.
edit on 6-7-2015 by Septimus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Septimus

The later six commandments represent biblical morality? What happened to the first 4? Are you saying then, that this supposed morality, that our government is based on, has nothing to do with the worship and fear of a god, but is based on just following random orders, blindly?

That sounds like our government!



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Septimus




As for taking precedence, I refer to the basic sense of morality they sought to promote in the people at the time.


The founding fathers had no desire to promote a "basic sense of morality", they were trying to form a moral government for a moral people..



Whether that morality took place in the form of an organized religious establishment, or theism in general, the government has no place in detracting from it so long as it does NOT violate such base principles.


In other words, "Separation of Church and State" and "Congress shall make no laws that respect religion".




edit on 6-7-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: windword



What is "biblical morality"?

Hideous and perverse! That's what it is!!

Oh wait....you wen't talking to me......





posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: MonkeyFishFrog

Hey, MonkeyFF - you should make a thread with that article - it's Awesome!! And SO TRUE!!



posted on Jul, 6 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

The later six commandments represent biblical morality? What happened to the first 4? Are you saying then, that this supposed morality, that our government is based on, has nothing to do with the worship and fear of a god, but is based on just following random orders, blindly?

That sounds like our government!

I already stated why they most likely did not include the first four in their consideration; most likely due to why the pilgrims even came to America in the first place if you remember your history. As for whether they intended to create a system for easy manipulation, I don't know if any one can decisively say. It certainly seems that way today, though that may not have been their intention either.



originally posted by: windword
The founding fathers had no desire to promote a "basic sense of morality", they were trying to form a moral government for a moral people..

That's what I meant.


originally posted by: windword
In other words, "Separation of Church and State" and "Congress shall make no laws that respect religion".

Essentially, though I must caution that 'no laws respecting religion' can also be read as 'no laws favoring a particular religion,' meaning one cannot be greater than another in the eyes of government. This also does not necessarily mean laws concerning religion cannot be made at all. The decision of the court was a rather tricky one. They had to assert whether marriage was a right or a privilege. It's actually not a surprise they ruled the way they did, since most people would consider marriage a basic human right. The trickiness is, though the state may recognize the marriage, that doesn't mean a religious institution has to and the government cannot force them to without abandoning our founding principles. It will be interesting to see if any such rulings appear in the future.




top topics



 
13
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join