TheRealThing Wrote:Not always. Does the president of the US place his hand on the bible when he swears to uphold the constitution? Why would he do this? BECAUSE IT'S THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY to swear by.
Its HIS ultimate authority. Do you honestly think that an atheist president, or perhaps a muslim, would swear in using the bible? No. Why wouldn't do that? Because its NOT HIS ultimate authority to swear by. Congress doesn't use a bible to swear in, nor does the military, nor do the courts. The president isn't required to use a bible either. He just so happens to choose to. Many presidents DIDN't use a bible. Franklin Peirce supposedly did so on a law book. Lyndon Johnson didn't. JFK didn't. Barrack didn't at his REAL ceremony (he had two). Teddy Roosevelt didn't.
How would you like a nation governed by the bible thumpers of Westboro Baptist church? Or better yet, churches that support gay marriage?
I find it interesting that most would want only their beliefs to be implemented at the government level... and not a church you disagree with.
ronald reagan Wrote:Wow. I was trying to say that if asked to explain myself, I will. Better?
Now. I've answered your question. Answer mine. How do you explain financing abortions, contraception, terrorism, and laziness? Because big brother made you? That'll work. :devilflam
Do you pay taxes yourself?
TheRealThing Wrote:The Jews asked Jesus the same question when He was on earth. His response?
Matthew 22:16-21 (KJV)
16 And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 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.
Going to jail for not obeying tax laws is hardly a good testimony now is it? No, actually the way one avoids judgement on the matter in this society is by voting for candidates who aren't godless infanticidists, intent on running over God's law.
According to the Catholic church, civil disobedience is acceptable at times. I have pamphlets detailing the process of doing it with God in mind. Ignoring laws that violate your faith, is sometimes permissable.
Anyways. I don't know where this is going anymore. Its a stalemate. I support government marriage of gays, i oppose it at the church level. You want the bible to be the rule of law.. but which version? which testament? who decides its meaning?
God loves me. I feel he guided me to the decision I've made. It came to me, after prayer to my saint, and mother mary. I have no fear.
God bless you all.
I have a deep belief in a passage from my favorite book,(paraphrased) "Whenever I am disturbed, it is me! Its because I can not accept a person, place, thing, or event.... and until I can accept it, as exactly what its supposed to be, I'll never find sirenity. There absolutely no mistakes, in God's world."
You and I come from different worlds. I don't condemn you for any of your beliefs. You have every right to condemn mine. But you're judgement matters none. I answer the man, who answered me. God.
Bob Seger Wrote:Do you pay taxes yourself?
Nope. I'm a 47% kinda guy. :thatsfunn
ronald reagan Wrote:Its HIS ultimate authority. Do you honestly think that an atheist president, or perhaps a muslim, would swear in using the bible? No. Why wouldn't do that? Because its NOT HIS ultimate authority to swear by. Congress doesn't use a bible to swear in, nor does the military, nor do the courts. The president isn't required to use a bible either. He just so happens to choose to. Many presidents DIDN't use a bible. Franklin Peirce supposedly did so on a law book. Lyndon Johnson didn't. JFK didn't. Barrack didn't at his REAL ceremony (he had two). Teddy Roosevelt didn't.
How would you like a nation governed by the bible thumpers of Westboro Baptist church? Or better yet, churches that support gay marriage?
I find it interesting that most would want only their beliefs to be implemented at the government level... and not a church you disagree with.
I find it interesting that somebody who claims such a comfortable intimacy with the Almighty, has such a problem giving God His due when it comes to the Holy Bible. Listing all the kooks adds no weight to your agrument, there will always be tares among the wheat---
Matthew 24:4-5 (KJV)
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
TheRealThing Wrote:I find it interesting that somebody who claims such a comfortable intimacy with the Almighty, has such a problem giving God His due when it comes to the Holy Bible.
Excuse me? I accept the authority of the bible. I don't accept government telling me how to worship, believe, feel.
Sheeps.......
ronald reagan Wrote:According to the Catholic church, civil disobedience is acceptable at times. I have pamphlets detailing the process of doing it with God in mind. Ignoring laws that violate your faith, is sometimes permissable.
Anyways. I don't know where this is going anymore. Its a stalemate. I support government marriage of gays, i oppose it at the church level. You want the bible to be the rule of law.. but which version? which testament? who decides its meaning?
God loves me. I feel he guided me to the decision I've made. It came to me, after prayer to my saint, and mother mary. I have no fear.
God bless you all.
I have a deep belief in a passage from my favorite book,(paraphrased) "Whenever I am disturbed, it is me! Its because I can not accept a person, place, thing, or event.... and until I can accept it, as exactly what its supposed to be, I'll never find sirenity. There absolutely no mistakes, in God's world."
You and I come from different worlds. I don't condemn you for any of your beliefs. You have every right to condemn mine. But you're judgement matters none. I answer the man, who answered me. God.
I'm not any better than you are, of that you may be assured. And therefore, I'm not condemning a thing, I just asked how you can balance such a sublime comfort for supporting the government when it overturns God's law and starts legislating a new morality? All I did was plug in the scripture in which God, the Author and Finisher, reveals His own perfect will with regard to homosexuality and those who derive "pleasure in them that do them."
ronald reagan Wrote:Nope. I'm a 47% kinda guy. :thatsfunn
Darn. I guess that, not only do I disagree with you, but, since I am well up among the 53% who pay income taxes, I also support you.
ronald reagan Wrote:Excuse me? I accept the authority of the bible. I don't accept government telling me how to worship, believe, feel.
Sheeps.......
Just going by what you posted---
"And no, the bible is NOT the ultimate authority."
:pondering:
ronald reagan Wrote:Nope. I'm a 47% kinda guy. :thatsfunn
And a full fledged smart ass to go with it.
TheRealThing Wrote:I find it interesting that somebody who claims such a comfortable intimacy with the Almighty, has such a problem giving God His due when it comes to the Holy Bible. Listing all the kooks adds no weight to your agrument, there will always be tares among the wheat---
Matthew 24:4-5 (KJV)
4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
Good luck TRT. It went over his head when I said that.
Bob Seger Wrote:And a full fledged smart ass to go with it.
Well, to be honest, Bob, that is something that you and me can both be at times also. :biggrin: J/J bud. Got to give him props there.
ronald reagan Wrote:Excuse me? I accept the authority of the bible. I don't accept government telling me how to worship, believe, feel.
Sheeps.......
Which with Obama in office that will be the next thing. They already want to tell us what we can and cannot eat.
TheRealVille Wrote:Well, to be honest, Bob, that is something that you and me can both be at times also. :biggrin: J/J bud. Got to give him props there.
Yeah, but this cat is a cheap imitation wanna bee.
TheRealThing Wrote:Just going by what you posted---
"And no, the bible is NOT the ultimate authority."
:pondering:
The Church is the ULTIMATE authority, specifically the bishop of Rome. (my belief).
The bible is an authority.
What I have said can be likened to; Legislation is an authority, while the judge is the ultimate authority. This is how a catholic believes scripture to be. We accept it as the authority, but its interpretation by the Holy See is our ultimate authority.
Why are you only on a campaign to ban gay marriage? Why do you not force the rest of your views on others? Baptism or pay a fine? Confession or face a tax? Attend church weekly or go to jail? If the government is to regulate morality, why do you stop where you do?
Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:Darn. I guess that, not only do I disagree with you, but, since I am well up among the 53% who pay income taxes, I also support you.
Thank you for your support.
nicker:
ronald reagan Wrote:The Church is the ULTIMATE authority, specifically the bishop of Rome. (my belief).
The bible is an authority.
What I have said can be likened to; Legislation is an authority, while the judge is the ultimate authority. This is how a catholic believes scripture to be. We accept it as the authority, but its interpretation by the Holy See is our ultimate authority.
Why are you only on a campaign to ban gay marriage? Why do you not force the rest of your views on others? Baptism or pay a fine? Confession or face a tax? Attend church weekly or go to jail? If the government is to regulate morality, why do you stop where you do?
And that is where we will never meet eye to eye. The bishop in Rome is a mear mortal man, just like you, me, or the guy flipping burgers at McDonalds subject to the same fallacies .
In other words , the Heavenly Father is the ONLY TRUE AUTHORITY. Period.....IMO
Bob Seger Wrote:And that is where we will never meet eye to eye. The bishop in Rome is a mear mortal man, just like you, me, or the guy flipping burgers at McDonalds.
In other words , the Heavenly Father is the ONLY TRUE AUTHORITY. Period.....IMO
Exactly. We have different beliefs. See how simple that is to acknowledge? Should I be forced to believe as you, by the government? Should you be forced to believe as I do? Absolutely not. Its not governments role to get us into heaven. Its a business, not a place of worship.
Your opinion is of value to me. I was a protestant most of my life. I converted on Easter of 2010 after intense study. I did it while in Iraq actually, near where some place the Garden of Eden. It was an amazing thing. But the thing is, I believe differently than you in regards to religion. The Holy Father is the Vicar of Christ IMO, and is infallible. This was confirmed in 1870 at the Vatican 1 council.
Anyways. I'm glad we can agree to disagree.
ronald reagan Wrote:Exactly. We have different beliefs. See how simple that is to acknowledge? Should I be forced to believe as you, by the government? Should you be forced to believe as I do? Absolutely not. Its not governments role to get us into heaven. Its a business, not a place of worship.
Your opinion is of value to me. I was a protestant most of my life. I converted on Easter of 2010 after intense study. I did it while in Iraq actually, near where some place the Garden of Eden. It was an amazing thing. But the thing is, I believe differently than you in regards to religion. The Holy Father is the Vicar of Christ IMO, and is infallible. This was confirmed in 1870 at the Vatican 1 council.
Anyways. I'm glad we can agree to disagree.
Just so you know where I'm coming from. I am referring to the Father in Heaven, not one in Rome. I dont know if that is what you are saying or not.
Bob Seger Wrote:Just so you know where I'm coming from. I am referring to the Father in Heaven, not one in Rome. I dont know if that is what you are saying or not.
I understand exactly what you're saying. I'm showing how we worship the same god, both call ourselves christians, and yet have different views on the governments role in our lives, and the lives of others. How would like my beliefs to be the one the government chooses if it ever decided to go into the business of religion? You wouldn't like it very much. So why is it acceptable to force your religious views, on me or anyone else? I'm trying to be rational, but its pretty difficult to grasp for some.
What I see and hear from everyone is this: "I'm right with my religious beliefs, the government should adopt the same, and you should be compelled to believe as I do." And if thats not what is going on here, then what is?
Do you really want a government that can't even balance its checkbook, to dictate whats moral and 'good'? Ronald Reagan once said, "I often wander what the 10 commandments would have looked like, if they would have went through Congress first." I can only imagine the government you must invision in your mind. It scares me to even think about the possibilities.
ronald reagan Wrote:Exactly. We have different beliefs. See how simple that is to acknowledge? Should I be forced to believe as you, by the government? Should you be forced to believe as I do? Absolutely not. Its not governments role to get us into heaven. Its a business, not a place of worship.
Your opinion is of value to me. I was a protestant most of my life. I converted on Easter of 2010 after intense study. I did it while in Iraq actually, near where some place the Garden of Eden. It was an amazing thing. But the thing is, I believe differently than you in regards to religion. The Holy Father is the Vicar of Christ IMO, and is infallible. This was confirmed in 1870 at the Vatican 1 council.
Anyways. I'm glad we can agree to disagree.
Let me come at this from different angle. You're trying to inject two things into the discussion that nobody is talking about (except you) First, is doctrine; I certainly wouldn't debate with you on here about the short falls of the Catholic view. So, that's a smoke screen to hide behind with regard to the scripture passage from the book of Romans I posted in which, God deals specifically with the sin of homosexuality, the ramifications of that lifestyle and the ultimate penalty He will exact on those who live in that way. Second, is the argument you keep making in which you voice your concerns that government will force you to believe, or feel, a certain way. When the gay community took America's poplulace to court to overturn God's law at man's hand, that's when folks began to be forced how to believe. People living in a number of social stigmas in today's world find themselves at odds with what is considered right. Therefore, in an attempt to force folks to honor them, they have gone to court and sued for relief. Time and time again, they have tried to breach the 'legal fence' in state after state until at some point they began to find certain activist judges to rule in their favor. What God has said is wrong, man now says is right. You operate on logic, you really buying that one?
And I answered you already when it comes to defying written law. I fight it the best I can at the ballot box, and I speak out against wrong when I can. You want to keep putting democrats in positions of leadership knowing many of them are self defined opponents of the tradition views which have defined America for over 250 years? You just told us that the Pope is infallable, yet you say you are comfortable defying him by supporting gay marriage. Where I come from that's talking out of both sides of your mouth.
TheRealThing Wrote:And I answered you already when it comes to defying written law. I fight it the best I can at the ballot box, and I speak out against wrong when I can. You want to keep putting democrats in positions of leadership knowing many of them are self defined opponents of the tradition views which have defined America for over 250 years? You just told us that the Pope is infallable, yet you say you are comfortable defying him by supporting gay marriage. Where I come from that's talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Let me make it clear to you and others. I do not put democrats in positions of leadership, power, office, or whatever else. I vote conservative. This issue is not a make or break for me. I support the issue overhaul but readily vote for those whom oppose it. I have two issues that guide me more than any others, Fiscal policy and abortion. So please, don't make up stuff about me, or pretend you know anything you obviously don't.
The pope is infallible when he speaks on matters of morals and faith, from the chair of peter, for the church, and defining a doctrine. This has only been done a handful of times. He is not impeccable. And he only infallibly declares or clarifies doctrine once in a great while. The issue of government support for this issue has not came up. The last time an infallible statement was made was 1950 (the assumption of mary). If the Pope infallibly declares that government support for Gay marriage is wrong, I will fall to my knees and humbly obey.
As of now, I will continue to fight for equal rights for all. And proudly. (you do realize the church allows homosexual preists? yes. now you do.)
Not once have I endorsed the practice of homosexuality. Nor will I ever. The act is sinful, evil, and wrong. I smell the scent of homophobia all around... and its disgusting.
ronald reagan Wrote:Let me make it clear to you and others. I do not put democrats in positions of leadership, power, office, or whatever else. I vote conservative. This issue is not a make or break for me. I support the issue overhaul but readily vote for those whom oppose it. I have two issues that guide me more than any others, Fiscal policy and abortion. So please, don't make up stuff about me, or pretend you know anything you obviously don't.
The pope is infallible when he speaks on matters of morals and faith, from the chair of peter, for the church, and defining a doctrine. This has only been done a handful of times. He is not impeccable. And he only infallibly declares or clarifies doctrine once in a great while. The issue of government support for this issue has not came up. The last time an infallible statement was made was 1950 (the assumption of mary). If the Pope infallibly declares that government support for Gay marriage is wrong, I will fall to my knees and humbly obey.
As of now, I will continue to fight for equal rights for all. And proudly. (you do realize the church allows homosexual preists? yes. now you do.)
Not once have I endorsed the practice of homosexuality. Nor will I ever. The act is sinful, evil, and wrong. I smell the scent of homophobia all around... and its disgusting.
Which in essense means, that there is a "Human" out there somewhere that has made the decision that it is OK to be disobedient. The "church" had nothing to do with that.
Bob Seger Wrote:Which in essense means, that there is a "Human" out there somewhere that has made the decision that it is OK to be disobedient. The "church" had nothing to do with that.
A rarely understand your posts. This isn't an exception.
the church has spoken. only those with "deep seated" homosexuality, or practicers of can not be admitted to the priesthood. those before 2005 were grandfathered in. those who are homosexual may be admitted after 3 years of abstinence and prayer.
The church had everything to do with it.
ronald reagan Wrote:A rarely understand your posts. This isn't an exception.
the church has spoken. only those with "deep seated" homosexuality, or practicers of can not be admitted to the priesthood. those before 2005 were grandfathered in. those who are homosexual may be admitted after 3 years of abstinence and prayer.
The church had everything to do with it.
I doubt that there is not one other person on here that does not understand what I am saying and have been saying.
I think what you are referencing to is known as a "human earthly organization".
ronald reagan Wrote:Let me make it clear to you and others. I do not put democrats in positions of leadership, power, office, or whatever else. I vote conservative. This issue is not a make or break for me. I support the issue overhaul but readily vote for those whom oppose it. I have two issues that guide me more than any others, Fiscal policy and abortion. So please, don't make up stuff about me, or pretend you know anything you obviously don't.
The pope is infallible when he speaks on matters of morals and faith, from the chair of peter, for the church, and defining a doctrine. This has only been done a handful of times. He is not impeccable. And he only infallibly declares or clarifies doctrine once in a great while. The issue of government support for this issue has not came up. The last time an infallible statement was made was 1950 (the assumption of mary). If the Pope infallibly declares that government support for Gay marriage is wrong, I will fall to my knees and humbly obey.
As of now, I will continue to fight for equal rights for all. And proudly. (you do realize the church allows homosexual preists? yes. now you do.)
Not once have I endorsed the practice of homosexuality. Nor will I ever. The act is sinful, evil, and wrong. I smell the scent of homophobia all around... and its disgusting.
Make stuff up about you? I guess you must have missed the question mark?
Let's just skip the inartfull dodge of infallibility and speak of gay priests, now there's a contradiction in terms if I ever saw it. So, if I understand you correctly God uses gay priests whom He has, "turned over to a reprobate mind" to do what? Reach other gays?
You're the one who is proudly supportive of government sanctions overturning God's Word, as in the case of gay marriage. Like I said before, your argument is with the one and only true God, who had to but speak the universe into existence long ago, not me. Don't waste a perfectly good political catch-word, trying to tag me, I'm neither advocate or judge. You're going to talk all this over at the judgement remember?
ronald reagan Wrote:A rarely understand your posts. This isn't an exception.
the church has spoken. only those with "deep seated" homosexuality, or practicers of can not be admitted to the priesthood. those before 2005 were grandfathered in. those who are homosexual may be admitted after 3 years of abstinence and prayer.
The church had everything to do with it.
1 Timothy 3:1-2 (KJV)
1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
2 A bishop then must be
blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Bob Seger Wrote:I doubt that there is not one other person on here that does not understand what I am saying and have been saying.
I think what you are referencing to is known as a "human organization"?
The true church is known only of God (their names are written in the Lamb's Book of Life), and is made up entirely of those who have repented of their sin and have been washed in the blood.
Bob Seger Wrote:I doubt that there is not one other person on here that does not understand what I am saying and have been saying.
I think what you are referencing to is known as a "human earthly organization".
Once again. No.
The "church" is the spiritual kingdom that christ came to set up. It just so happens, the physical building its in, is called the church as well.
We don't agree. Big shock.