[TheRealVille]

See there, some of this is rubbing off on you after all. Think whatever you want. For you, the whole world is subject to the movie that runs in your head anyway.

I'm making fun of your hypocritical ass, and you can't figure it out? :hilarious:

[TheRealVille]

^ You christians can do all kinds of wrong shit, but the "blood" always covers you? LOL

[TheRealThing]

"I've been married 2-4 times, and have screwed around on my spouse ? many times, but you better not mess with the sanctity of marriage". LOL

Typical lunch table filth. Romans 3:13 (KJV)
13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

[TheRealThing]

I'm making fun of your hypocritical ass, and you can't figure it out? :hilarious:

Or, you're to dumb to recognize satire.

[TheRealVille]

Or, you're to dumb to recognize satire.

I'll bet a hundred to one, I've been more sacred in my marriage than you have. I've done nothing in my marriage, and you said the "blood" has covered your sins. LOL

[TheRealThing]

I'll bet a hundred to one, I've been more sacred in my marriage than you have.

I'd dearly love to take you up on that. The real joke still eludes you I see.

[TheRealVille]

^ And you fight for the sanctity of marriage? LOL

[TheRealThing]

^ And you fight for the sanctity of marriage? LOL

You're going to have to open things up a little bit. That famous circular logic isn't worth the effort. It always and I mean always resorts back to the same old little boy insecurities for you doesn't it? It's all you got. Make fun and call names. Lie about the character of your debate opponent. Slander and school yard childishness, is your very best. The laugh icon is totally the nuclear option for you. Once that one comes out the real meat of your intellect is spent for the evening.

[TheRealVille]

^How many times you been married? How many times can straight people divorce before they ruin the sanctity of marriage? LOL

[TheRealVille]

You're going to have to open things up a little bit. That famous circular logic isn't worth the effort. It always and I mean always resorts back to the same old little boy insecurities for you doesn't it? It's all you got. Make fun and call names. Lie about the character of your debate opponent. Slander and school yard childishness, is your very best. The laugh icon is totally the nuclear option for you. Once that one comes out the real meat of your intellect is spent for the evening.

Alright be honest, and fess up. How many times you been married, and how many times have you cheated on your spouse, any of them?

[TheRealThing]

^How many times you been married? How many times can straight people divorce before they ruin the sanctity of marriage? LOL

As I have said. Your argument on all this is not with me, it is with God. If you could muster the courage to speak a single word before Him when you face Him, I might advise you to brush up somewhat on doctrine. But, having read what He has said regarding the Judgment, I know the only One to speak will be Him.

[TheRealVille]

As I have said. Your argument on all this is not with me, it is with God. If you could muster the courage to speak a single word before Him when you face Him, I might advise you to brush up somewhat on doctrine. But, having read what He has said regarding the Judgment, I know the only One to speak will be Him.

That's what I thought. You don't have the nerve to tell the truth. :Thumbs:

[TheRealVille]

Back to your alls "christian" discussion.

[TheRealThing]

That's what I thought. You don't have the nerve to tell the truth. :Thumbs:

From what I have seen on this forum. The truth and you would make strange bedfellows.

[Wildcatk23]

Im curious myself TRT, How many times have you been married if you dont mind?

[TheRealThing]

Im curious myself TRT, How many times have you been married if you dont mind?

Yeah, I bet you are. I know RV fed you those questions to ask.

[Wildcatk23]

Yeah, I bet you are. I know RV fed you those questions to ask.

No i was curious. You by all means do not have to answer and i wont hassle you about it like RV,

I was only curious because

Malachi 2:16 The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,”[a] says the Lord Almighty.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Matthew 5:17

But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. Matthew 12:36

So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress..." —Romans 7:3

Deut. 24:3-4 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

[TheRealThing]

No i was curious. You by all means do not have to answer and i wont hassle you about it like RV,

I was only curious because

Malachi 2:16 The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,”[a] says the Lord Almighty.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Matthew 5:17

But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. Matthew 12:36

So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress..." —Romans 7:3

Deut. 24:3-4 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

Wow, for a guy that just started going to church with his new wife. You have certainly picked up on some profoundly in-depth spiritual questions. And, I might add, show a remarkable exposure to an impressively wide range of scripture. Spend a lot of time pondering the OT teachings versus the NT there Wildcat?

Here is one for you to include in your deliberations with regard to marriage and adultery. James 2:10-13 (KJV)
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

[Wildcatk23]

Wow, for a guy that just started going to church with his new wife. You have certainly picked up on some profoundly in-depth spiritual questions. And, I might add, show a remarkable exposure to an impressively wide range of scripture. Spend a lot of time pondering the OT teachings versus the NT there Wildcat?

Here is one for you to include in your deliberations with regard to marriage and adultery. James 2:10-13 (KJV)
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.
11 For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.
12 So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty.
13 For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.

Lol, I have been going to church since i was about 5. Stopped and started going again with the wife.

I have read the Bible twice now. Still a mystery.


As for the bold. That is the all sins are equal quote is it not?

John 19:11, "You would have no authority over me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered me up to you has the greater sin."

Which contradicts it?

[TheRealThing]

Lol, I have been going to church since i was about 5. Stopped and started going again with the wife.

I have read the Bible twice now. Still a mystery.


As for the bold. That is the all sins are equal quote is it not?

John 19:11, "You would have no authority over me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered me up to you has the greater sin."

Which contradicts it?

Even the committal of one sin makes one guilty of breaking the whole law. The reason for that is the same in that one having robbing a bank only once, is still a bank robber.

All sins are not equal. Shooting a bird with a BB gun isn't quite on par with shooting a 19 month old riding in a stroller pushed by his Mom in the face.

No scripture ever contradicts another, and no scripture ever contradicts true science. I just put this verse up for you but, the gist of it obviously got by you, not that I believe you were actually seeking truth. However, I'll play along a little longer Mark 12:24 (KJV)
24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?

Belief in the one true God is a matter of faith. Apart from that it is impossible to understand scripture. Therefore Jesus told the Sadducees that even though they had some knowledge of the scriptures, they were in error because they didn't really understand those scriptures, or the power of God.

In John 19:11 Jesus is speaking to Pilate who is incredulous that Jesus was not shaking in His boots for fear of what Pilate (a Roman Governor) could do to Him. Jesus, using even this as a teachable moment, tells Pilate he would have no power at all over Him unless the Father had allowed it. And goes on to say that Judas had the greater sin because of his familiarity with Jesus, having seen first hand all the miracles and heard His ministry to man. Judas He said, had the greater sin between the two, because it was he who betrayed Jesus into Pilate's hand. Pilate shot the bird, and Judas the babe.

[Wildcatk23]

Even the committal of one sin makes one guilty of breaking the whole law. The reason for that is the same in that one having robbing a bank only once, is still a bank robber.

All sins are not equal. Shooting a bird with a BB gun isn't quite on par with shooting a 19 month old riding in a stroller pushed by his Mom in the face.

No scripture ever contradicts another, and no scripture ever contradicts true science. I just put this verse up for you but, the gist of it obviously got by you, not that I believe you were actually seeking truth. However, I'll play along a little longer Mark 12:24 (KJV)
24 And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?

Belief in the one true God is a matter of faith. Apart from that it is impossible to understand scripture. Therefore Jesus told the Sadducees that even though they had some knowledge of the scriptures, they were in error because they didn't really understand those scriptures, or the power of God.

In John 19:11 Jesus is speaking to Pilate who is incredulous that Jesus was not shaking in His boots for fear of what Pilate (a Roman Governor) could do to Him. Jesus, using even this as a teachable moment, tells Pilate he would have no power at all over Him unless the Father had allowed it. And goes on to say that Judas had the greater sin because of his familiarity with Jesus, having seen first hand all the miracles and heard His ministry to man. Judas He said, had the greater sin between the two, because it was he who betrayed Jesus into Pilate's hand. Pilate shot the bird, and Judas the babe.

Thank you. Never understood that and heard many different preachers give their own take on it.

[TheRealThing]

Thank you. Never understood that and heard many different preachers give their own take on it.

It is my pleasure. And I apologize for doubting your sincerity. I will be in church tomorrow morning as I hope you will be, celebrating our risen Lord, His life and His gift to all who will receive it.

[Beetle01]

Can any of the libs on the board answer a few questions for me, some of which seem to never be addressed because gay marriage is fed to us by libs as some type of right that is being denied to these people.

What exactly would allowing gay marriages to be recognized by the govt give these gays that they do not already have?

To me, marriage is an agreement between a man and a woman to state their eternal love for each other before God, and asking God to bless their marriage. Trying to keep religion out of this as much as possible, but to most Americans, marriage is a religious ceremony, but perhaps non believers just wish to state their eternal love for each other to themselves, friends, and family. Which is fine, to each their own, if they can find a church to marry them, and there are those out there that will, or not even a church maybe just someone to lead the ceremony of their choosing.

So in my eyes, gays already have the right to be married in this country, it may not be seen by the govt as a marriage, but if they truly love each other what does that really matter to them?

The govt recognizing your marriage is not a right, if the govt stopped recognizing marriages tomorrow, would Christians stop getting married and having ceremonies for those marriages? Obviously not.

So what is it that the gays want? Tax breaks? Tax breaks for marriage is also not a right, and the govt offers many benefits to different people in this country based on certain prerequisites, in this case the prereq is that the couple be a man and a woman, because those two are capable of bearing off spring (and children are expensive).

So when I hear people use the term "gay rights", I am always confused because I do not know which rights are being denied.

[Wildcatk23]

Can any of the libs on the board answer a few questions for me, some of which seem to never be addressed because gay marriage is fed to us by libs as some type of right that is being denied to these people.

What exactly would allowing gay marriages to be recognized by the govt give these gays that they do not already have?

To me, marriage is an agreement between a man and a woman to state their eternal love for each other before God, and asking God to bless their marriage. Trying to keep religion out of this as much as possible, but to most Americans, marriage is a religious ceremony, but perhaps non believers just wish to state their eternal love for each other to themselves, friends, and family. Which is fine, to each their own, if they can find a church to marry them, and there are those out there that will, or not even a church maybe just someone to lead the ceremony of their choosing.

So in my eyes, gays already have the right to be married in this country, it may not be seen by the govt as a marriage, but if they truly love each other what does that really matter to them?

The govt recognizing your marriage is not a right, if the govt stopped recognizing marriages tomorrow, would Christians stop getting married and having ceremonies for those marriages? Obviously not.

So what is it that the gays want? Tax breaks? Tax breaks for marriage is also not a right, and the govt offers many benefits to different people in this country based on certain prerequisites, in this case the prereq is that the couple be a man and a woman, because those two are capable of bearing off spring (and children are expensive).

So when I hear people use the term "gay rights", I am always confused because I do not know which rights are being denied.

They want the same rights as everyone else. To be legally married under government.

[Beetle01]

They want the same rights as everyone else. To be legally married under government.

It is not a right that the govt recognizes marriages

[Hoot Gibson]

It is not a right that the govt recognizes marriages

That's right. Gay marriage has never been a constitutional right, which is why Scalia asked the lawyer for the plaintiffs to pinpoint the time that gay marriage became a constitutional right. The only way that gay marriage will be ruled a constitutional right is that five Supreme Court justices decide that the U.S. Constitution should be subject to the whims of public opinion. That would be a very dangerous precedent to set.

If gay rights advocates want people to recognize gay marriage as a right, then they need to do the heavy lifting that it takes to get a constitutional amendment passed. Supreme Court rulings not based on the written words of the Constitution just do not command the same respect as those that do.

[Pulp Fiction]

They want the same rights as everyone else. To be legally married under government.

It is not a right that the govt recognizes marriages

That's right. Gay marriage has never been a constitutional right, which is why Scalia asked the lawyer for the plaintiffs to pinpoint the time that gay marriage became a constitutional right. The only way that gay marriage will be ruled a constitutional right is that five Supreme Court justices decide that the U.S. Constitution should be subject to the whims of public opinion. That would be a very dangerous precedent to set.

If gay rights advocates want people to recognize gay marriage as a right, then they need to do the heavy lifting that it takes to get a constitutional amendment passed. Supreme Court rulings not based on the written words of the Constitution just do not command the same respect as those that do.

[TheRealVille]

That's right. Gay marriage has never been a constitutional right, which is why Scalia asked the lawyer for the plaintiffs to pinpoint the time that gay marriage became a constitutional right. The only way that gay marriage will be ruled a constitutional right is that five Supreme Court justices decide that the U.S. Constitution should be subject to the whims of public opinion. That would be a very dangerous precedent to set.

If gay rights advocates want people to recognize gay marriage as a right, then they need to do the heavy lifting that it takes to get a constitutional amendment passed. Supreme Court rulings not based on the written words of the Constitution just do not command the same respect as those that do.

So you would advocate doing away with DOMA, since marriage is not a right? Would you give up your extra tax perks that you get with being married?

[Hoot Gibson]

So you would advocate doing away with DOMA, since marriage is not a right? Would you give up your extra tax perks that you get with being married?

I have already stated that I expected the Supreme Court to strike down DOMA and yes, I would gladly give up any tax breaks that I enjoy as a married man if it means not having to watch liberals continue shredding the U.S. Constitution.

However, there is nothing unconstitutional about granting certain groups tax incentives as a reward for good behavior. I personally do not think that the government should attempt to control behavior through the tax system, but there is no question that the practice is constitutional.

[TheRealVille]

I have already stated that I expected the Supreme Court to strike down DOMA and yes, I would gladly give up any tax breaks that I enjoy as a married man if it means not having to watch liberals continue shredding the U.S. Constitution.

However, there is nothing unconstitutional about granting certain groups tax incentives as a reward for good behavior. I personally do not think that the government should attempt to control behavior through the tax system, but there is no question that the practice is constitutional.

If government doesn't have the right to define marriages, how can they define that married people get tax breaks? Are they leaving out a class of people that by your words have decided that they aren't showing good behavior? They state of New York defined marriage, and gay marriage was legal, But DOMA didn't recognize it. Therefore, if gays married in states that made it legal, it was still illegal as far as tax breaks were concerned. Who is defining "good behavior"?