He's silent. Guess we're on our own.
Because you can't see or hear doesn't mean He is silent.
Deuteronomy 29:4 Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
Until then you are on your own.
Because you can't see or hear doesn't mean He is silent.
Deuteronomy 29:4 Yet the Lord hath not given you an heart to perceive, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day.
Until then you are on your own.
I thought you just said to listen to God, not men? Now all you're doing is quoting a book...
Quoting the Book is the best thing I can do for you TLK.
Unless you get called perhaps.Well, if I'm not supposed to listen to people, I'm certainly not going to listen to books written by people, or people who insist that said book was written by God.
So I guess we really are on our own on this one.
Unless you get called perhaps.
You're on your own in regard to reading. I offered....followed by an excessively long quote from the same book.
You're on your own in regard to reading. I offered.
Because some people will use any excuse, no matter how flimsy, to run around like Chicken Little.Absolutely nothing of course. Since the 60s, interracial marriage has been legal throughout the US. Yet, the government has not tried to force a church to perform a interracial wedding ceremony. Divorce has been legal in the US for a very long time, and no government has tried to force churches such as the Catholic church to perform a wedding ceremony between a couple where at least one has been divorced and not had their previous marriage annulled.
Why people think that make same sex marriages legal will suddenly mean governments in the US will force individual churches to perform same sex weddings is beyond me.
Which is restricted when it comes to places of public accommodation.The law here guarantees the free exercise of religion
Nowhere did I portray myself as taking the high road. I stated very clearly that I was responding to you in kind.Lol. No, you were portraying yourself as taking the "high road" but in fact chose not to take the "high road" while simultaneously recommending me to take the "high ride."
Very true, but it doesn't have to be the ministers in question does it? Yes or no?A reasonable person is going to understand it takes a "person" to comply with public accommodation law.
Very true, but it doesn't have to be the ministers in question does it? Yes or no?In other words, a reasonable person isn't going to read and understand a public accommodation law will require a lifeless, brick and mortar building to not discriminate but rather a person, a flesh and blood human being, with human DNA, is going to comply with the public accommodation law.
I'm glad that it's relevant to you. My point was that it wasn't relevant to the Hitching Post or the city of Coeur d'Alene.I award you no points for making an irrelevant and unnecessary remark about Volokh, especially since you have labored tirelessly you couldn't care less of his position, although his legal exposition is in fact relevant for me but not for you. Nice!
I've read the entirety of Romans 1 which is why I asked you to be more specific. If you can't do that, so be it.God was specific enough...have ye not read?
Nothing to confess. Did Jesus mean that only unbelievers and hypocrites were to follow the laws of the government?Ah, the chapter where Jesus is speaking to the wicked hypocrites. LOL The hypocrites trying, as some do here, to turn things upside down...good for bad and bad for good. Trying to place government over God. That is what you are "partial" to as are many liberals. I'm surprised you so easily confess this.
Secular law and government.Matthew 22:18-22 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye Me, ye hypocrites? Shew Me the tribute money. And they brought unto Him a penny. And He saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto Him, Caesar's. Then saith He unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left Him, and went their way.What is Caesar's? What holds his image?
Since the government is not of God (and is specifically designed to be that way) I don't see you point.Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.As man cannot "serve God and mammon," what then is the moral of the above story?
Those serving mammon "left Him and went their way" because their way is not His way. When Caesar/government requires money/taxes, etc. then it must be paid. When God speaks then we render unto Him the things that are His. He is The Master we serve. His Word, not Caesar's changing ways and rules, are the things that are God's.
On this present topic...God has spoken and the government cannot change truth no matter how much it wants to be a flaming rainbow of color.
No, I do not believe it is the government's job to get involved in the private lives of consenting adults.I think homosexual practices and approval of such practices should be overturned...don't you?
and here you state that even though you and God disapprove, they should go ahead and get married.No. It is their choice. It is also the choice of the man marrying those in his chapel to marry homosexuals or not.
Christians don't force others to marry or not marry. Everyone buys their own ticket to heaven or hell.
But then above you say thatThey shouldn't. As I said, we all purchase our tickets to heaven or hell...including the "pastors." (sorry, I have to laugh as I see them actually use that title). If they want to marry them then have at it. The idea of them standing at an altar in a church of God while doing so is a huge part of the abomination. And, "God will not be mocked."
How do you resolve that dichotomy? Or do you not see it as a dichotomy?"I think homosexual practices and approval of such practices should be overturned"
Coretta Scott King, Mildred Loving, and Julian Bond are liberal jokes?[snip]
HAHAHAHA. Jesse Jackson...what a joke! No more than a liberal has-been trying to gain more votes. That pretty much sums up the rest of your quotes...jokes, liberal jokes.
The quotes about what? The Bible condoning slavery? Sure;Please provide the quotes and we can discuss them.
Cite the portion of the Constitution that states unequivocally that "free exercise of religion extends to your business operations".The point is that your right to the free exercise of religion extends to your business operations, per the Constitution
If a person holds the religious belief that homosexuals should be allowed to marry and wishes to conduct the ceremony, should the government prevent him from doing so and refuse to recognize the marriage as legal?It really depends on the circumstance, but in this case the answer is yes.
We have a 1st Amendment for a reason, you see the pilgrims left England due to persecution based on religion. The 1st Amendment is there to prevent government from persecuting people based on their religious beliefs.
Actually, as originally written, the ordinance in question (read it here) contained a specific exception to the ordinance for religious corporations. When the Hitching Post restructured on 12 October 2014 to become a religious organization, they automatically fell under the existing exception to the law.It seems that the lawyers and the local politicians in this instance disagree ... seeing as how they reached agreement that the ordinance and penalties don't apply ... at least not as originally written.
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?