Quote:
If you consider yourself a disciple of christianity you are commanded to go forth and preach the word to everyone
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- TN hates on the gays some more.
TN hates on the gays some more.Follow
Preach yes, condemn no.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
varusword75 wrote:
I'm curious; are you a christian? If so how do you rationalize accepting the homosexual lifestyle?
Here is my answer:
Matthew 22:36-40
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?â€
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.â€
There you go, the second most important thing Jesus wants us to do is love everyone.
1 John 3:15 wrote:
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
Edited, Apr 28th 2011 3:36pm by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
varusword75 wrote:
Nilat,
So now you've moved onto Christians want to execute all homosexuals.
Quote:
I don't see you rushing to make those things illegal punishable by death, which is what your bible demands.
So now you've moved onto Christians want to execute all homosexuals.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
varusword75 wrote:
Atard,
Love yes; but that doesn't mean we just sit by with our mouths shut while our neighbor lives in sin. We're commanded to tell them they're living in sin and we are all going to be judged once we die. The unchristian thing to do would be to ignore the situation pretending that nothings wrong.
Quote:
There you go, the second most important thing Jesus wants us to do is love everyone.
Love yes; but that doesn't mean we just sit by with our mouths shut while our neighbor lives in sin. We're commanded to tell them they're living in sin and we are all going to be judged once we die. The unchristian thing to do would be to ignore the situation pretending that nothings wrong.
Ok, you've told them, now shut up.
Quote:
Love yes; but that doesn't mean we just sit by with our mouths shut while our neighbor lives in sin. We're commanded to tell them they're living in sin and we are all going to be judged once we die. The unchristian thing to do would be to ignore the situation pretending that nothings wrong.
You're commanded to tell them that they're living in sin, but not to stop them from living in sin. Once you've told them, you've done your Christian duty to attempt to save them. You're saying we need to force them to live as second class citizens because they don't want to be saved.
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust
The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning
Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
I couldn't read your post varus, it was covered in hellfire.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
varusword75 wrote:
Drift,
So you're saying single people are already second class citizens?
Quote:
You're saying we need to force them to live as second class citizens
So you're saying single people are already second class citizens?
Nope, single people can get married if they are straight.
varusword75 wrote:
Atard,
So can homosexuals....just not to members of the same sex.
So can homosexuals....just not to members of the same sex.
You bring up an interesting point:
If straight men like straight women, why don't gay men like gay women?
varusword75 wrote:
locked,
This is what we constitutionalists do argue.
Quote:
. You could argue the Founding Fathers did not believe in that concept but rather just that no official religion should be sponsored by the state
This is what we constitutionalists do argue.
Cough cough
Quote:
Of course, what the Founding Fathers wanted doesn't much matter. What does matter is that the legal interpretation means there's a separation of church and state. If one doesn't believe it, one doesn't believe in the Constitution or the legal system of our country.
If judicial review did not exist, the Constitution could never be interpreted... by anyone. For example, that part about "natural born citizen" as a requirement for president? Means nothing. There's no definition of natural born citizen in the Constitution, so the only way to interpret it is "Shoot, we don't know, gotta ignore it." The Constitution is interpreted through the Supreme Court for legal matters - if you don't believe in the judiciary, as said, you don't believe in almost the last 200 years of the country.
What you mean to say is "I think the Constitution should mean what I think, not what the law or the judiciary interpret it to mean." You're trying to a apply the same view you have of the Bible to the Constitution, without realizing that the second document does have a governing board for interpretation. The first one can never be "proven" one way or the other because the final arbiter is "God;" the Constitution luckily does not have this flaw.
varusword75 wrote:
That doesn't mean I'm not going to tell you what the bible says.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Quote:
So you're saying single people are already second class citizens?
No. Single people aren't married because they haven't met the person they want to marry yet. I'm saying that you're denying people who have found that person the opportunity to marry the person they want to marry because of what a book some guys wrote over a thousand years ago says.
10k before the site's inevitable death or bust
The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning
Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
So you're saying single people are already second class citizens?
No. Single people aren't married because they haven't met the person they want to marry yet. I'm saying that you're denying people who have found that person the opportunity to marry the person they want to marry because of what a book some guys wrote over a thousand years ago says.
In before Alma says: "No, homosexuals have it equal because they have the same opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex that heterosexuals have."
I love that one.
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
Just to be accurate, the meaning of the Constitution has been interpreted to be a separation of church and state. That exact wording does not appear in the document - the SCotUS has interpreted it to mean as such, however. You could argue the Founding Fathers did not believe in that concept but rather just that no official religion should be sponsored by the state. I doubt many of them would have minded teachers leading prayers and whatnot.
Of course, what the Founding Fathers wanted doesn't much matter. What does matter is that the legal interpretation means there's a separation of church and state. If one doesn't believe it, one doesn't believe in the Constitution or the legal system of our country.
The more you know!
Of course, what the Founding Fathers wanted doesn't much matter. What does matter is that the legal interpretation means there's a separation of church and state. If one doesn't believe it, one doesn't believe in the Constitution or the legal system of our country.
The more you know!
I wasn't aware of that. I'm not very well read on the US Constitution, and I was making an assumption based on what i have read and heard. Good to know that so that I can be more accurate in the future.
The Federalist Papers are a good place to start if you want to learn more about the US Constitution or just can't sleep at night.
As an aside, being a "Constitutionalist" like Varus is saying is a practice in insanity for several reasons.
1. First, it goes against the last couple hundred of years of legal matters. By saying the Constitution cannot change, it overrides every major SCotUS decision, because the SCotUS's duty is to interpret the Constitution - but judicial review like that is not mentioned in the document itself.
2. Constitutionalists fall into two camps. Ones who want the literal text, and ones who want the intent of the founders. Both are impossible.
A. Literal text: Times change, and the words don't. According to the second amendment, we can now possess WMDs, because those are "arms." We also have a freedom of speech that cannot be infringed. FIRE! FIRE IN THE THEATER! Totally allowed. Also, sometimes the literal text isn't clear, but there is no way to interpret it because interpretation is not being a Constitutionalist. Natural born citizen, for example, has no definition and thus is meaningless. It is literally impossible to follow the Constitution on that point. We need a president who is a natural born citizen, but we have no idea what that is. The best situation is to ignore it entirely, but, lolirony, then we aren't following the Constitution.
B. Intent: There is no way to prove or disprove the intent of the founders. There is no way for laws to be decided in this manner. We can "guess" intent... but let me know how well guessing goes for keeping a country together. One could believe the intent of "general welfare" encompasses social security, but another might disagree - and there's no way to decide it short of amendments. The SCotUS can't do it because judicial review wasn't directly placed in the Constitution. The document in effect becomes a Bible. There's no way to prove any of it, no interpretation can be proven "correct," so you just end up dividing people.
So in the end, there is no way to make a functional government work by being a strict Constitutionalist. Instead we have the Supreme Court to decide if something is true to the Constitution, and we use their decisions as the correct interpretation.
Again, the more you know
1. First, it goes against the last couple hundred of years of legal matters. By saying the Constitution cannot change, it overrides every major SCotUS decision, because the SCotUS's duty is to interpret the Constitution - but judicial review like that is not mentioned in the document itself.
2. Constitutionalists fall into two camps. Ones who want the literal text, and ones who want the intent of the founders. Both are impossible.
A. Literal text: Times change, and the words don't. According to the second amendment, we can now possess WMDs, because those are "arms." We also have a freedom of speech that cannot be infringed. FIRE! FIRE IN THE THEATER! Totally allowed. Also, sometimes the literal text isn't clear, but there is no way to interpret it because interpretation is not being a Constitutionalist. Natural born citizen, for example, has no definition and thus is meaningless. It is literally impossible to follow the Constitution on that point. We need a president who is a natural born citizen, but we have no idea what that is. The best situation is to ignore it entirely, but, lolirony, then we aren't following the Constitution.
B. Intent: There is no way to prove or disprove the intent of the founders. There is no way for laws to be decided in this manner. We can "guess" intent... but let me know how well guessing goes for keeping a country together. One could believe the intent of "general welfare" encompasses social security, but another might disagree - and there's no way to decide it short of amendments. The SCotUS can't do it because judicial review wasn't directly placed in the Constitution. The document in effect becomes a Bible. There's no way to prove any of it, no interpretation can be proven "correct," so you just end up dividing people.
So in the end, there is no way to make a functional government work by being a strict Constitutionalist. Instead we have the Supreme Court to decide if something is true to the Constitution, and we use their decisions as the correct interpretation.
Again, the more you know
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,
No I think the constitution means what it says. It's really that simple.
Judicial review, especially since Roosevelt packed the scotus, has been nothing more than politicians legislating from the bench. Is that how it was supposed to work?
Quote:
"I think the Constitution should mean what I think, not what the law or the judiciary interpret it to mean."
No I think the constitution means what it says. It's really that simple.
Judicial review, especially since Roosevelt packed the scotus, has been nothing more than politicians legislating from the bench. Is that how it was supposed to work?
Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: See my last post
varusword75 wrote:
Judicial review, especially since Roosevelt packed the scotus, has been nothing more than politicians legislating from the bench. Is that how it was supposed to work?
Another note: judicial review was around for more than 100 years before FDR. If the judiciary did not possess judicial review, then actual politicians would decide the Constitution's meaning - or the president would. One branch would, for sure, because if no one would, then the Constitution would be unusable.
varusword75 wrote:
dsd,
Jesus went into the synagogues to tell them they were doing it wrong and he sent his disciples to do the same. If you consider yourself a disciple of christianity you are commanded to go forth and preach the word to everyone; especially to those committing the sins.
Quote:
But if you believe that God will judge us all at the end, why do some christians feel that they have the authority to act as God in the here and now?
Quote:
“And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.†Matthew 9:35
Jesus went into the synagogues to tell them they were doing it wrong and he sent his disciples to do the same. If you consider yourself a disciple of christianity you are commanded to go forth and preach the word to everyone; especially to those committing the sins.
Not that your quote has any relavence to mine above but the least time I checked, teachers taught and Jesus was a teacher and he taught his beliefs where people went to learn about them. In a synagogue.
And I'm pretty sure the major issue Jesus had with religious leaders was that they were hypocrites. Ironic, huh?
mathew 23:1-4
Quote:
1Then Jesus(A) said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2(B) "The scribes and the Pharisees(C) sit on Moses’ seat, 3so practice and observe whatever they tell you—(D) but not what they do.(E) For they preach, but do not practice. 4(F) They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear,[a] and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.
Quote:
last time I checked I havent met anyone with a direct line to God to get his final judgement on the matter.
Quote:
You need to ask yourself who is forcing their views on whom.
I dont need to ask myself when I see a small but vocal community of hypocritical religious people trying to make it government law that a portion of our community are not allowed to have equal rights that any human being deserves, based on ignorant and hypocritical views.
So are you going to continue this farce of a discussion with me and claim you are not the hypocrite that jesus loathed? Cause Im pretty sure you've got no leg to stand on ;)
Recent Visitors: 374
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (374)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- TN hates on the gays some more.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC