[mr.fundamental]

So are you for #3?


Also are you saying that the United States goal should be a Christian state?


As far as judging my good friend I fail the standard daily, hence why I needed a savior!


I am just wanting to clarify your view points so I know where a person stands, one will use the Bible to make a point, I get that, my question always comes back to the whole standard of the Bible. Why I used the standard of the Jubilee (O.T.) then the early Church (Acts 2)

This is fun!

[The Urban Sombrero]

I doubt that sincerely.

But what other choice do you have when all you've really got to go on is feelings, right?

"Feelings, nothing more than feelings..." Yes, a song, but also a futile, full of straw dirge carped by Patti Partisan. Nice vocals, Patti.

Judge Gorsuch just answered Senator Klubacher thusly: "I don't make policies. I follow them." He calls that an "open mind" and a "lack of ego." When one looks historically, what that means, if followed to its conclusion, is that Jim Crow laws, set policy in southern states, might yet remain.

[The Urban Sombrero]

So are you for #3?


Also are you saying that the United States goal should be a Christian state?


As far as judging my good friend I fail the standard daily, hence why I needed a savior!


I am just wanting to clarify your view points so I know where a person stands, one will use the Bible to make a point, I get that, my question always comes back to the whole standard of the Bible. Why I used the standard of the Jubilee (O.T.) then the early Church (Acts 2)

This is fun!

In TRT's United States, God is the final authority on all issues where the Bible speaks clearly, or so he has argued, vehemently suggesting that Secular Man, via the left, seeks to usurp this authority and establish a Leftist Utopia in these states, over top the Framer's "clear" desire that the United States be a Christian nation. Of course, TRT, with a drawer full of pins himself by which he seeks to pinpoint any opponent and deprive them of nuance, will squall like a pinched infant if an opponent pins the tail on his donkey's backside.

[TheRealThing]

So are you for #3?


Also are you saying that the United States goal should be a Christian state?


As far as judging my good friend I fail the standard daily, hence why I needed a savior!


I am just wanting to clarify your view points so I know where a person stands, one will use the Bible to make a point, I get that, my question always comes back to the whole standard of the Bible. Why I used the standard of the Jubilee (O.T.) then the early Church (Acts 2)

This is fun!

I posted the Scripture that clarifies much of my view about your rambling interpretations with which I do not agree. Like I said, your assertion that we are to sell all that we have to give to the poor is not requisite to fulfill any given Scriptural qualifiers for the Christian. The early Church there in Jerusalem had just seen the miracles of Pentecost and had the Apostles living there among them. There has never been a man/preacher I know of since the day of the Apostles, that is worthy to stand in their shadow. That fact alone along with the sudden presence of The Holy Spirit indwelling the hearts of men caused 3,000 souls to be added to the Church there in one day.

But I mentioned the fact that Old Testament Ordinances do not apply to New Testament Christians and posted the following by way of proof: Colossians 2:13-14 (KJV)
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

At which point you raised objection and rejected the validity of my assessment. Of course you could not substantiate said objection, because there are no conflicting statements in God's Word. But if you'd like to give your interpretation to verse 14 please feel free.

The law (Old Testament) was given to discipline men who were not indwelled by the Holy Spirit and this is the stated arrangement prior to Christ's death on the cross to which they looked forward to. In other words these were men who though saved, struggled nonetheless with the old nature. Believers in our day look backward to Christ's finished work on the cross, but do so with the benefit of the indwelling of The Holy Spirit Who gives understanding, and a new nature. 1 Corinthians 2:14 (KJV)
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Old Testament/old nature. New Testament/new nature.
2 Corinthians 5:17 (KJV)
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

But you need to rightly divide the Word of truth tvtime. Jesus' parents came to the temple to sacrifice doves on Mary's purification following His birth. We don't do that. Abraham offered a ram instead of his son as sacrifice on the altar of God. We don't offer sacrifices at our Church, do you all do that there tvtime?

You say you always come back to the standard which is Jubilee, but as Colossians 2:14 plainly states, Christ's death on the cross blotted out such ordinances because it is now HE ONLY Who sets a man free. Not a blast on a ram horn. So now so sure are you about all of this?

[TheRealThing]

"Feelings, nothing more than feelings..." Yes, a song, but also a futile, full of straw dirge carped by Patti Partisan. Nice vocals, Patti.
Judge Gorsuch just answered Senator Klubacher thusly: "I don't make policies. I follow them." He calls that an "open mind" and a "lack of ego." When one looks historically, what that means, if followed to its conclusion, is that Jim Crow laws, set policy in southern states, might yet remain.

Nonetheless applicable.

[TheRealThing]

In TRT's United States, God is the final authority on all issues where the Bible speaks clearly, or so he has argued, vehemently suggesting that Secular Man, via the left, seeks to usurp this authority and establish a Leftist Utopia in these states, over top the Framer's "clear" desire that the United States be a Christian nation. Of course, TRT, with a drawer full of pins himself by which he seeks to pinpoint any opponent and deprive them of nuance, will squall like a pinched infant if an opponent pins the tail on his donkey's backside.

That's your party.

[The Urban Sombrero]

That's your party.

But your relative. Alright, all joking aside, I did think Judge Gorsuch, in response to open invitations to knock it out of the park by Senator Cruz, did just that. He enunciated pretty well that labels, like "originalist," do not fathom the nuances of judicial philosophy and deciding actual cases before the Court. While Judge Garland was denied a hearing and a vote by the very folks who claim such strong bond with Framer's intent, I do think Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed. He is beyond qualified.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Nonetheless applicable.

Nag, nag, nag...

[TheRealThing]

But your relative. Alright, all joking aside, I did think Judge Gorsuch, in response to open invitations to knock it out of the park by Senator Cruz, did just that. He enunciated pretty well that labels, like "originalist," do not fathom the nuances of judicial philosophy and deciding actual cases before the Court. While Judge Garland was denied a hearing and a vote by the very folks who claim such strong bond with Framer's intent, I do think Judge Gorsuch will be confirmed. He is beyond qualified.

Funny, I didn't hear anything like that. I heard him say labels are a form of bigotry, and as such have stymied civil discourse of late. Such as when Democrats call Republicans racists, or that they are prejudiced, or white supremacists, scumbags, liars, misogynists, or against women, or that they are greedy white men, or intolerant, out of touch, or against immigration, or homophobes, zenophobes, jihadists, arsonists, terrorists, etc. etc..

And I didn't hear him use the word nuance even once. I did hear him say politics have absolutely no place among the court. Judge Garland was denied because he, like the highly politicized judges in Washington State, Hawaii and Maryland have clearly demonstrated, would likely tend to run over existing law using his position to become the ultimate activist.

I hope if Gorsuch is confirmed that he will stick by his guns and uphold the law as an originalist.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Funny, I didn't hear anything like that. I heard him say labels are a form of bigotry, and as such have stymied civil discourse of late. Such as when Democrats call Republicans racists, or that they are prejudiced, or white supremacists, scumbags, liars, misogynists, or against women, or that they are greedy white men, or intolerant, out of touch, or against immigration, or homophobes, zenophobes, jihadists, arsonists, terrorists, etc. etc..

And I didn't hear him use the word nuance even once. I did hear him say politics have absolutely no place among the court. Judge Garland was denied because he, like the highly politicized judges in Washington State, Hawaii and Maryland have clearly demonstrated, would likely tend to run over existing law using his position to become the ultimate activist.

I hope if Gorsuch is confirmed that he will stick by his guns and uphold the law as an originalist.

Judge Garland was denied a hearing and a vote, an unframer's gamer by those who just simply cherish Framer's intent. You know it. I know it. Get out of the spin zone.

[mr.fundamental]

I posted the Scripture that clarifies much of my view about your rambling interpretations with which I do not agree. Like I said, your assertion that we are to sell all that we have to give to the poor is not requisite to fulfill any given Scriptural qualifiers for the Christian. The early Church there in Jerusalem had just seen the miracles of Pentecost and had the Apostles living there among them. There has never been a man/preacher I know of since the day of the Apostles, that is worthy to stand in their shadow. That fact alone along with the sudden presence of The Holy Spirit indwelling the hearts of men caused 3,000 souls to be added to the Church there in one day.

But I mentioned the fact that Old Testament Ordinances do not apply to New Testament Christians and posted the following by way of proof: Colossians 2:13-14 (KJV)
13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;

At which point you raised objection and rejected the validity of my assessment. Of course you could not substantiate said objection, because there are no conflicting statements in God's Word. But if you'd like to give your interpretation to verse 14 please feel free.

The law (Old Testament) was given to discipline men who were not indwelled by the Holy Spirit and this is the stated arrangement prior to Christ's death on the cross to which they looked forward to. In other words these were men who though saved, struggled nonetheless with the old nature. Believers in our day look backward to Christ's finished work on the cross, but do so with the benefit of the indwelling of The Holy Spirit Who gives understanding, and a new nature. 1 Corinthians 2:14 (KJV)
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Old Testament/old nature. New Testament/new nature.
2 Corinthians 5:17 (KJV)
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

But you need to rightly divide the Word of truth tvtime. Jesus' parents came to the temple to sacrifice doves on Mary's purification following His birth. We don't do that. Abraham offered a ram instead of his son as sacrifice on the altar of God. We don't offer sacrifices at our Church, do you all do that there tvtime?

You say you always come back to the standard which is Jubilee, but as Colossians 2:14 plainly states, Christ's death on the cross blotted out such ordinances because it is now HE ONLY Who sets a man free. Not a blast on a ram horn. So now so sure are you about all of this?

What was the one thing Jesus spoke about more than any other subject?


So you would not be in favor of hanging the ten commandments because it no longer applies... ok

[TheRealThing]

Judge Garland was denied a hearing and a vote, an unframer's gamer by those who just simply cherish Framer's intent. You know it. I know it. Get out of the spin zone.

^^This sentiment is what scares me about you. I doubt sincerely the Framer's could have envisioned the situation we have in California for example. They defy the federal government's efforts to secure the border (illegally I might add) with Mexico on what they say are humanitarian grounds. State legislators and other elected officials out there are reportedly threatening the well being of any business which turns in a construction bid, or in any way aids in the construction of the border wall. In the minds of the Framers we were to be a republic, united by love of country, not some kind of half baked and ill conceived world wide brotherhood. Especially considering the true nature of the Arab Nations, N Korea, China, and Russia just to hit the high spots.

But one should ask himself why in the minds of so many, regarding the benefits of security and state sovereignty, such time honored lucidity suddenly went out the window? The only answer I can see has it's roots deep in the supernatural as revealed in prophecy and has to do with globalism. That last day crescendo of man's cooperative attempt to sort of wish utopian unity into existence. It would seem John Lennon's vision has come to pass;

"Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace, you

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one < That's for sure!
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one"

Such delusion of course, though seemingly laudable accomplishes two things, it sidesteps the validity of God's Word on the matter and makes man vulnerable to Anticrist's ascension. God has said that apart from His plan, (which is unalterable in any case) man will never know peace. But being that the great thinkers of our day have turned their backs on the truth of it, they have rejected same in favor of 'the lie.' Thus since men have rejected the truth, the father of lies (Satan) stands poised to send man the counterfeit savior: 2 Thessalonians 2:8-11 (KJV)
8 And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

In other words God has offered to grant man the desires of his heart, but as I said because most cannot accept peace on God's terms, they have rejected the truth and are pursuing the lie. I give you globalism, and man's desperation to legislate utopia by his own hand. Whether one chooses to call it secular humanism or wishful thinking, the notion stands in opposition to the way The Lord says it will all go down. And since few there be that find their way, by far and away the vast majority of voices will pooh-pooh the truth. Which is what we see playing out on the world stage. The US is going down the drain, the only question would be is she in the outer vortex or the inner? The truth of the matter if you ask me has a way of relegating the ongoing congressional food fight to a sort of ridiculousness. Man really will be taken unawares.

Luke 21:34 (KJV)
34 And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.

[TheRealThing]

What was the one thing Jesus spoke about more than any other subject?


So you would not be in favor of hanging the ten commandments because it no longer applies... ok

I didn't say that. I said the ten commandments were meant to discipline those who lived prior to Jesus's time on this earth. But the law is still applicable in this day for the lost, and hanging It in schools for example, is a sobering reminder of the coming judgment.

Paul is the one who said owing to the presence of the Holy Spirit, where the ten commandments (or the law) failed to deliver man as he attempted to live up to the impossibly high standard set by the law, Christ through His perfect life will not fail to deliver man. And I said that is the difference between the way the Old Testament applies and the New Testament applies.
Romans 8:2-4 (KJV)
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Can you understand this tvtime?

[TheRealThing]

Judge Garland was denied a hearing and a vote, an unframer's gamer by those who just simply cherish Framer's intent. You know it. I know it. Get out of the spin zone.

I should have posted this part of the response first, but you'll still get the point. During the hearings for Gorsuch I heard Senator Dianne Feinstein in rather chillingly overt fashion, proclaim her adherence to the 'living document' method of interpreting the US Constitution. Which means of course it could conceivably mean anything from one day to the next.

This is the fight between those who trust in original intent and those who want to change original intent in favor of light and transient cause. I don't quite think the cognitive prowess of Dianne Feinstein quite rises to the level of Jefferson. Call me biased.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I should have posted this part of the response first, but you'll still get the point. During the hearings for Gorsuch I heard Senator Dianne Feinstein in rather chillingly overt fashion, proclaim her adherence to the 'living document' method of interpreting the US Constitution. Which means of course it could conceivably mean anything from one day to the next.

This is the fight between those who trust in original intent and those who want to change original intent in favor of light and transient cause. I don't quite think the cognitive prowess of Dianne Feinstein quite rises to the level of Jefferson. Call me biased.

Either you cherish Framer's intent ("Advise and consent") or you do when it favors your tribe and don't when it doesn't, the very tableau of partisanship we now see and have seen, both parties, all the time.

"Original intent," hopefully, in ideal, meant justice for all. If it did not (as a casual observer would think at a glance circa the 1780's), then thank goodness for those who saw in the principles their highest calling. I do not worship our Framers, TRT, nor do I villify them. They were men, and as such, subject to frailty and foible. Now, speaking frankly, you may hanker for a time whiter and more male-dominated and more at least "mouth professingly" Christian, but in my view that brand of "original intent" needs to be gone. Now, before you squall, I am not calling you a racist or a misogynist, but simply pointing out that if "original intent" is judged by the conditions of that time under the Constitution, and folk long for "original intent," well, Houston, we've got a problem.

[TheRealThing]

Either you cherish Framer's intent ("Advise and consent") or you do when it favors your tribe and don't when it doesn't, the very tableau of partisanship we now see and have seen, both parties, all the time.

"Original intent," hopefully, in ideal, meant justice for all. If it did not (as a casual observer would think at a glance circa the 1780's), then thank goodness for those who saw in the principles their highest calling. I do not worship our Framers, TRT, nor do I villify them. They were men, and as such, subject to frailty and foible. Now, speaking frankly, you may hanker for a time whiter and more male-dominated and more at least "mouth professingly" Christian, but in my view that brand of "original intent" needs to be gone. Now, before you squall, I am not calling you a racist or a misogynist, but simply pointing out that if "original intent" is judged by the conditions of that time under the Constitution, and folk long for "original intent," well, Houston, we've got a problem.

You're wrong. Both parties are not the same. Republican efforts to forestall the Obama agenda paled in comparison to the Harry Reid led insurrection after the voter gave control of the House to Republicans in 2010. Democrats from that moment tabled legislation from the house, and in an effort to drive what Dems wrongly assumed would be the last nail in the Republican coffin, citing funding shortfalls which they laid at the feet of Republicans, proceeded to shut down the government, national monuments, white house tours, Easter egg rolls, and stonewalled investigative process to the point even of blaming Benghazi on Republican led funding shortages. And yet there seemingly was no such shortage of funds where generous foreign aid was extended to Arab entities like Hamas, or the government-of-sorts of Iran. Nor was the well being of ObamaCare in any way ever in peril, funding wise. We've got only more of same to look forward to as standing presently in Reid's footprints is Chuck Schumer, who seems ready to enforce gridlock for the next eight years if necessary for the sake of ideology and Party.

Like I said, that's what is scary about you. Not that you have more than one vote or have any particular power of persuasion. Rather you are a reflection of the times in that like so many others who have the right to vote, you imagine your own insight surpasses that of great men gone on, incredibly to include even the great Antonin Scalia. This argument that man has evolved, or that because technological strides have been made that the character or men has made strides as well, is asinine. Putting a cell phone in the hands of George Washington would no more intensify his greatness than it makes you better or smarter.

But again you point out so eloquently the need for Mitch McConnell to wake up and smell the coffee and take the nuclear option. What we're seeing is open opposition to this Administration's effort to govern it would seem. And that opposition still finds it's origins in the same places as that of the campaign, when the establishment first openly demonstrated it's willingness to run over the will of the people should they not agree. We the people voted, but they the establishment stand in opposition. Said opposition includes Republican 'Lite' Rand Paul BTW, along with Gardner, Capito, Portman and Murkykowski.

[The Urban Sombrero]

You're wrong. Both parties are not the same. Republican efforts to forestall the Obama agenda paled in comparison to the Harry Reid led insurrection after the voter gave control of the House to Republicans in 2010. Democrats from that moment tabled legislation from the house, and in an effort to drive what Dems wrongly assumed would be the last nail in the Republican coffin, citing funding shortfalls which they laid at the feet of Republicans, proceeded to shut down the government, national monuments, white house tours, Easter egg rolls, and stonewalled investigative process to the point even of blaming Benghazi on Republican led funding shortages. And yet there seemingly was no such shortage of funds where generous foreign aid was extended to Arab entities like Hamas, or the government-of-sorts of Iran. Nor was the well being of ObamaCare in any way ever in peril, funding wise. We've got only more of same to look forward to as standing presently in Reid's footprints is Chuck Schumer, who seems ready to enforce gridlock for the next eight years if necessary for the sake of ideology and Party.

Like I said, that's what is scary about you. Not that you have more than one vote or have any particular power of persuasion. Rather you are a reflection of the times in that like so many others who have the right to vote, you imagine your own insight surpasses that of great men gone on, incredibly to include even the great Antonin Scalia. This argument that man has evolved, or that because technological strides have been made that the character or men has made strides as well, is asinine. Putting a cell phone in the hands of George Washington would no more intensify his greatness than it makes you better or smarter.

But again you point out so eloquently the need for Mitch McConnell to wake up and smell the coffee and take the nuclear option. What we're seeing is open opposition to this Administration's effort to govern it would seem. And that opposition still finds it's origins in the same places as that of the campaign, when the establishment first openly demonstrated it's willingness to run over the will of the people should they not agree. We the people voted, but they the establishment stand in opposition. Said opposition includes Republican 'Lite' Rand Paul BTW, along with Gardner, Capito, Portman and Murkykowski.

No, what we are seeing, and plainly I might add, is just what a Patti Partisan you truly are. To view the great principles espoused in the Preamble expansively is not dangerous to this nation. Liberty, Justice FOR ALL, common defense, general welfare, domestic tranquility, these aren't just for the monied, the powerful, the majority. You think a person who believes homosexuals should be equal under the law is a threat. You think a person who sees little difference in the tactics of a Reid or a McConnell to be a threat. You think a person who views Jefferson and Washington as great men, but men all the same with all the corresponding faults and frailties, to be a threat. Frankly, sir, you sound way more like a sheep than those you accuse. Nowhere have I heaped praise on Barack Obama, yet you blather on and on about how he's "my man." Straw. Pure straw. I don't know, TRT, at some point you drank the Koolaid, went all hook, line, and sinker. You blasted Obama for executive orders, and now are silent. You've lost credibility through mind-numbing fanaticism. It's a shame.

[TheRealThing]

No, what we are seeing, and plainly I might add, is just what a Patti Partisan you truly are. To view the great principles espoused in the Preamble expansively is not dangerous to this nation. Liberty, Justice FOR ALL, common defense, general welfare, domestic tranquility, these aren't just for the monied, the powerful, the majority. You think a person who believes homosexuals should be equal under the law is a threat. You think a person who sees little difference in the tactics of a Reid or a McConnell to be a threat. You think a person who views Jefferson and Washington as great men, but men all the same with all the corresponding faults and frailties, to be a threat. Frankly, sir, you sound way more like a sheep than those you accuse. Nowhere have I heaped praise on Barack Obama, yet you blather on and on about how he's "my man." Straw. Pure straw. I don't know, TRT, at some point you drank the Koolaid, went all hook, line, and sinker. You blasted Obama for executive orders, and now are silent. You've lost credibility through mind-numbing fanaticism. It's a shame.

And yet at every point conceivable, have you lavished a spirited defense on his behalf. I have written extensively on the President's Executive Orders. And though I admit freely that I choose not to address the rest of your endless parade of rehash on grounds of refusal to lend credibility to the patently absurd, I do sometimes seize on the opportunity to stand up for what is right.

For example, homosexuals were already equal under the law prior to the ascension of your hero, Obama. What he did and what you advocate, is for those of us who reserve the right to judge what is moral or immoral according to the dictates of God of ourselves, (note; see Establishment Clause) to be run over or otherwise legislated into submission under the laws of men. Because as the record clearly reveals, referendum after referendum on the matter of gay marriage went down to resounding defeat on each occasion. Your ilk, (the living document light and transient causes crowd) therefore proceeded to go around the will of the people, using seeded and openly biased activist judges to circumvent said referendums in an epic display of jurisimprudence. Not to mention the fact that such actions are an example of blazing opposition to the authority of Almighty God. We the 'reasonable' people therefore, in an effort to limit the insanity, pray that Judge Neil Gorsuch will somehow be confirmed to the USSC, in order that we may be spared any additional such affronts on ours and the Lord's behalf in the immediate future.

But whereas there is vast difference between the tactics of McConnell and Reid, there is almost no difference between my writing style, as I use inflection and vocabulary, and your use of my writing style in same. With one major exception that is, your expressed opinion is given to you courtesy of sourcing such as the DNC, where mine is my own.

[The Urban Sombrero]

And yet at every point conceivable, have you lavished a spirited defense on his behalf. I have written extensively on the President's Executive Orders. And though I admit freely that I choose not to address the rest of your endless parade of rehash on grounds of refusal to lend credibility to the patently absurd, I do sometimes seize on the opportunity to stand up for what is right.

For example, homosexuals were already equal under the law prior to the ascension of your hero, Obama. What he did and what you advocate, is for those of us who reserve the right to judge what is moral or immoral according to the dictates of God of ourselves, (note; see Establishment Clause) to be run over or otherwise legislated into submission under the laws of men. Because as the record clearly reveals, referendum after referendum on the matter of gay marriage went down to resounding defeat on each occasion. Your ilk, (the living document light and transient causes crowd) therefore proceeded to go around the will of the people, using seeded and openly biased activist judges to circumvent said referendums in an epic display of jurisimprudence. Not to mention the fact that such actions are an example of blazing opposition to the authority of Almighty God. We the 'reasonable' people therefore, in an effort to limit the insanity, pray that Judge Neil Gorsuch will somehow be confirmed to the USSC, in order that we may be spared any additional such affronts on ours and the Lord's behalf in the immediate future.

But whereas there is vast difference between the tactics of McConnell and Reid, there is almost no difference between my writing style, as I use inflection and vocabulary, and your use of my writing style in same. With one major exception that is, your expressed opinion is given to you courtesy of sourcing such as the DNC, where mine is my own.

You're a regular legend in your own mind, and, troublingly, showing signs of paranoia. Note: McConnell and Reid are the same animal in different stripes: political animals.

You claim homosexuals were "equal under the law." By your reasoning, the "reasonable" people may maintain Jim Crow laws, and if "heeded into submission" it is somehow a travesty upon the Constitution. How convenient. You have plainly come a bit unhinged. The only absurdity existing in our debate is your inability to recognize, let alone grasp, nuance. It's ridiculous.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I do have a question for TRT: since the SCOTUS found gay marriage included in equal protection under the law, how have you personally been impacted? Have you been forced to attend a gay marriage ceremony? Has your church been forced to host one? Or, as a veteran, does it really just burn your biscuits that the flag you fought under, and for, now flies above a Capitol and a country that recognizes that (you know that little word) have the right to marry? The separation of church and state, the difference between secular and sacred: you struggle and stumble over these concepts and call it "righteous indignation." How convenient.

[TheRealThing]

I do have a question for TRT: since the SCOTUS found gay marriage included in equal protection under the law, how have you personally been impacted? Have you been forced to attend a gay marriage ceremony? Has your church been forced to host one? Or, as a veteran, does it really just burn your biscuits that the flag you fought under, and for, now flies above a Capitol and a country that recognizes that (you know that little word) have the right to marry? The separation of church and state, the difference between secular and sacred: you struggle and stumble over these concepts and call it "righteous indignation." How convenient.

Though your little motorboat is relegated to only one turbid puddle, you nonetheless consider yourself the metaphorical personification of Lt Fletcher Christian. Hence your endless orbital defense of sexual depravity. But better to rule in hell, right?

[The Urban Sombrero]

Though your little motorboat is relegated to only one turbid puddle, you nonetheless consider yourself the metaphorical personification of Lt Fletcher Christian. Hence your endless orbital defense of sexual depravity. But better to rule in hell, right?

Here is just where you struggle with nuance: defending equal protection under the law services all citizens, protects those with whom we agree and disagree, approve of and disapprove of. Folks of your ILK want to make the true espouser of human freedom somehow outside the fold of grace. I picture you as one seeking to correct Christ, lecturing him AT LENGTH on the need for conservatism and fundamentalism.

[TheRealThing]

Here is just where you struggle with nuance: defending equal protection under the law services all citizens, protects those with whom we agree and disagree, approve of and disapprove of. Folks of your ILK want to make the true espouser of human freedom somehow outside the fold of grace. I picture you as one seeking to correct Christ, lecturing him AT LENGTH on the need for conservatism and fundamentalism.

And yet it is I who continually defends His Word, while you continually deny same.

Like I said already, you brought up a defense of sexual depravity within the first ten posts you made on here as Sombrero. You can remount that defense from any angle and with whatever late breaking rationalization imaginable, but it will never make what is wrong right. In any case, nobody's rights were being denied back in 2008 when the object of your affection rose to power.

ABTW, nuance means a subtle difference. Hardly grounds to turn the Constitution on it's head, but all the revisionist liberal has on which to pin his hopes.

[The Urban Sombrero]

And yet it is I who continually defends His Word, while you continually deny same.

Like I said already, you brought up a defense of sexual depravity within the first ten posts you made on here as Sombrero. You can remount that defense from any angle and with whatever late breaking rationalization imaginable, but it will never make what is wrong right. In any case, nobody's rights were being denied back in 2008 when the object of your affection rose to power.

ABTW, nuance means a subtle difference. Hardly grounds to turn the Constitution on it's head, but all the revisionist liberal has on which to pin his hopes.

Correction: nowhere have I argued that homosexuality is consistent with a godly lifestyle. Nor is adultery. Nor is cheating on income taxes. Nor is viewing pornography. However, the adulterer, the cheat, the pornography addict, ALL are covered by equal protection under the law. How about the gossip? the liar? the backbiter? the sower of dissension? All are covered by equal protection under the law. Now, under a "separation of church and state" government, TRT argues that homosexuals are a special class. The gossip may marry. The tax cheat may marry. The backbiter may marry. But, the homosexual may not. The issue is not whether or not the gossip or cheat or adulterer is living a godly lifestyle in the "eyes" of Constitutional principle, and, if you had any objectivity at all, you could see that blindness to religious conviction and preference protects ALL of us from the horrendous atrocities of history done in the name of this or that religion, atrocities, unfortunately, which continue to the present moment, as in London today.

[TheRealThing]

Correction: nowhere have I argued that homosexuality is consistent with a godly lifestyle. Nor is adultery. Nor is cheating on income taxes. Nor is viewing pornography. However, the adulterer, the cheat, the pornography addict, ALL are covered by equal protection under the law. How about the gossip? the liar? the backbiter? the sower of dissension? All are covered by equal protection under the law. Now, under a "separation of church and state" government, TRT argues that homosexuals are a special class. The gossip may marry. The tax cheat may marry. The backbiter may marry. But, the homosexual may not. The issue is not whether or not the gossip or cheat or adulterer is living a godly lifestyle in the "eyes" of Constitutional principle, and, if you had any objectivity at all, you could see that blindness to religious conviction and preference protects ALL of us from the horrendous atrocities of history done in the name of this or that religion, atrocities, unfortunately, which continue to the present moment, as in London today.

Oh I grant you correction is needed alright, but then, one has to be willing to be corrected.

Maybe I missed it but I didn't catch the news where the SCOTUS made protected classes out of adulterers, tax cheats, porno addicts, gossips or liars. I did hear about them doing that for the homosexual however. The court granted protection for depravity, a moral sin. How was it you put it, separation of church and state, the difference between secular and sacred? The State crossed and that's okay with you because you have an emotional agreement with them.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Oh I grant you correction is needed alright, but then, one has to be willing to be corrected.

Maybe I missed it but I didn't catch the news where the SCOTUS made protected classes out of adulterers, tax cheats, porno addicts, gossips or liars. I did hear about them doing that for the homosexual however. The court granted protection for depravity, a moral sin. How was it you put it, separation of church and state, the difference between secular and sacred? The State crossed and that's okay with you because you have an emotional agreement with them.

Adulterers get married. Tax cheats do. Gossips do. It is you, sir, who creates special classes. Your entire position rests upon religious objection, an objection that mandates homosexuals, of all people who love each other and desire marriage, are a special class, a group of people not entitled to equal protection under the law.

[TheRealThing]

Adulterers get married. Tax cheats do. Gossips do. It is you, sir, who creates special classes. Your entire position rests upon religious objection, an objection that mandates homosexuals, of all people who love each other and desire marriage, are a special class, a group of people not entitled to equal protection under the law.

I'm not worried about it Sombrero, but while I believe good stewards are to fight against all things against God because they are ultimately destructive to any society. He will make the crooked straight, and the way I see it that will be very soon now. There is no protection for anybody against that.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I'm not worried about it Sombrero, but while I believe good stewards are to fight against all things against God because they are ultimately destructive to any society. He will make the crooked straight, and the way I see it that will be very soon now. There is no protection for anybody against that.

I understand that is your sincere conviction. However, the Church, based on Scripture, organizes and governs and speaks of what choices, behaviors, and attitudes are "crooked." Our Constitution is seeking, at highest interpretation, to ensure equal protection under the law for all. Not exactly the same organization or the same mission, and in my view that difference is ordained by God.

[The Urban Sombrero]

On a different subject, I thought Yarmuth (R Kentucky) spoke like a statesman more than a politician on delaying vote on healthcare and working a bit more on a healthcare plan that was best for citizens and workable within overall budget. With his approach, I imagine it won't be too long before a "repeal and replace" bill will be passed in the House.

[TheRealThing]

I understand that is your sincere conviction. However, the Church, based on Scripture, organizes and governs and speaks of what choices, behaviors, and attitudes are "crooked." Our Constitution is seeking, at highest interpretation, to ensure equal protection under the law for all. Not exactly the same organization or the same mission, and in my view that difference is ordained by God.

You know, correct interpretation of Scripture is not subject to nuance either. God says what He means exactly, and though understanding that meaning is achieved largely via the gift of The Holy Spirit, said meaning is still singular and applicable to all. There is only one interpretation so you can drop the pretense, just acting above it all doesn't quite deliver for anyone worth impressing professor Corey.

To the bolded. You can't demonstrate that position from anything in the Old Testament, because as we've gone over time and again on here, Israel was much of the time a Theocracy. God's plan. And even during the times she was ruled by Kings, deference was given to the Church and/or the Prophets by those Kings. God's attitude is the same timelessly;
Hebrews 13:8 (KJV)
8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

In the New Testament God has clearly revealed His plan to govern men here on this earth with exacting precision and inflexible control.
Revelation 19:14-15 (KJV)
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.

When the Lord rules on this earth during the Millennium, government will certainly not stand apart from His authority, nor will it be in any way empowered outside of His good graces. I doubt sincerely He would be okay with giving men full rein to do as they think right in His absence. Remember the standard set by the parable of the talents? In short you can keep coming at this thing from all 360 degrees or until you turn blue for your efforts. The concept of separation of Church and State cannot be substantiated anywhere in Scripture. And though I agree that at present it seems that man is getting by with doing things his way, he will nonetheless suffer judgment for his defiance. And let's face it, man's effort to govern himself apart from Godly principles certainly hasn't worked out so well to date now has it?