DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Time to end political correctness

Yes, sin is about choices you make and the last time I looked
Black was not a choice to be made otherwise everyone would be
Black.

I agree with you completely. The government should not have the right to interfere with two consenting adults getting married. I mean if you really wish to take the government out of marriage.

Not in this country.

If such a thing was a choice, most would bail out before getting through 6th grade.

It would be an interesting experiment, tho-

You are talking from the view of being Black in a White world. If everyone chose to be Black, then you would be a minority white and your view may be different.

If you want to compare choices of skin color, I would suggest you spend a day walking in the summer sun with me and see who has the best color skin at the end of the day while I am on fire.

being gay isn't a choice either.

ask the few we have on this board.

Tell Jules that she chooses to be like that. be direct. tell her, straight up, that she chose to be gay.

I have no clue if you choose to be Gay or not, I have no clue if you choose to be a heterosexual, pedophile or an animal lover either.
Perhaps we are all born the way we are.
I was born loving corn dogs.
Those things are not sins.

You do however CHOOSE to have sex or not and with whom. Therein lies the Sin. Choices you make as an adult!

These are not my rules for I would love to sleep with a corn dog but I choose not to!

Both of your statements are at once right and wrong. Homosexuality as a word only existed a few hundred years ago, and the comments in Romans you and everyone else claim is plain as day really comes down to Paul saying "men with men working that which is unseemly." The churches I grew up in believed in the view that interracial marriage was an affront to God. Our evangelical preachers would often cite Acts 17:26, "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation."

The Bible is only against homosexuality because that's what some believe it says. YOU may think the Bible says nothing about interracial relations but there are verses such as the one above that are quoted all the time in defense of church groups preventing mixed race couples from joining their congregation.

Rev Bob Jones said this about Acts 17:26: "Now what does that say? That says that God Almighty fixed the bounds of their habitation. That is as clear as anything that was ever said." C.R. Dickey said of this verse: "An unholy mixing of races in defiance of God's stated command is the gravest danger now threatening Christian civilization. The patter about equality of all races, without regard to their inherent character and potentialities, is foolishness. It is not supported by the Bible nor by the facts of life." One of the largest groups against integration during the civil rights movement was the southern evangelical community. You may wish to pretend that didn't happen but history is what it is.

If you feel that religious people should discriminate against homosexuals because the Bible says so, then you must also allow for religious groups that discriminate against mixed race couples. You must also allow for religious groups to discriminate on *anything* they interpret to be wrong, even if it would break established laws. Perhaps if Swish went to get a marriage certificate for him and his wife, and he was denied on this interpretation of interracial marriage, you would celebrate that clerks freedom for denying Swish the license. But we don't allow that, so why should we allow people to discriminate because of some other part of the Bible? Either we allow all discrimination based on religion, or we allow none.

But they did.

Because you or others disagree doesn't mean it doesn't meet the constitution's requirements. You can't pick and choose the decisions you're required by law to obey and which ones you won't.

"Sorry, I can't sell you condoms because I'm catholic. Try register 4, but she's Muslim so you'll need to take that ham to a different register."

This is the rule of law you're demanding.

The Catholic can choose not to work where it is required to hand out condoms.
The Muslim can choose not to work where it is required to sell
hams.
The woman elected to sign marriage license was elected to give a license to men and women wanting to get married when an over zealous court changed the laws and required her to now give a license to Gay couples which is an affront to her religion so she refuses. This is not the job she was elected to do.

Why not hire the Muslim to sell socks and after they take the job, put him in the Ham department?

And the woman can also choose to resign since she can no longer perform her job.

and that is called TYRANNY.

So expecting an employee of the government to do their job and follow the law of the land is tyranny? And since when was someone resigning from their job tyranny?



And she can choose not to work somewhere she is required to sign marriage licenses. It seems you pick and choose what is and what isn't tyranny.

Were you Dr. Demento in another life?

Tyranny
noun, plural tyrannies.


1.

arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.

example:
Obama's Executive Orders or Foreign Policy

Christianity is definitely under attack these days.

It can be very subtle at times ..... where pressure is put on Christians "not to judge others", when pointing out a violation of God's Word is not judging, any more than telling a friend that they are about to enter a monitored speed zone, and are going to get a ticket if they don't slow down. Further, all talk of religion is to be removed from public discourse, according to some. Discuss your religion in private, and go to church on Sunday, but then forget about it the rest of the week. You cannot tell me that such pressures do not exist. Then there is the very subtle change in presentation of rights, where people say that religious people have "freedom of belief" .... when what the Constitution actually says is "freedom of religious expression". I cannot tell you the number of times I have heard "You have the right to go to church on Sunday, but that's where that kind of stuff should stay." I have even seen it on this board a number of times.

As far as your final sentence .... all people try to push laws that advance their own beliefs. Somehow many Christians have been convinced that their beliefs are worth less than someone else's, just because they might have a religious background or basis. What a load of garbage. Everyone has some "moral" basis for laws they propose, whether to advance morality, or to force morality into retreat. It makes no difference if that morality comes from God and the Bible, from "mother nature", from "Gronksky the wonder pig", or from some supposed secular humanism, that pretends to be the only acceptable way of arriving at laws and enforcement of those laws.

I completely agree... Now below is a list of cities in the United States which have identified themselves as sanctuary cities, which means they have publicly declared that they do not intend to follow the federal immigration laws... please point out the ones where anybody (mayor, police chief, councilman, etc.) has been arrested or fired.... See why people think she is being targeted for her Christian views and not this trumped up "civic duty, law of the land" bullcrap? It has nothing to do with civic duty to liberals, she just picked the wrong laws to stand up to...

State/County/City

Note: Cities that have rescind their sanctuary ordinances or resolutions will be in green text. Cities disputing listings will have a notation in red text.

Alaska

Anchorage, AK (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service) (7-29-10 The Municipality of Anchorage disputes the listing. See notes at bottom of page for details.)

* (The city of Fairbanks has been removed from the Sanctuary Cities list due to the city council's passage of a resolution supporting a formal recognition of its cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. The city of Fairbanks had previously been listed due its designation as a sanctuary city by the Congressional Research Service. OJJPAC thanks the City of Fairbanks for taking positive steps to clarify its compliance with federal law. Fairbanks enforcement statistics will be monitored for compliance.
Arizona

Chandler, AZ (Added 5/30/07, Congressional Research Service Report, 2006. The city disputes its listing. )

Mesa, AZ (Added 10-18-09, Sources: Judicial Watch; East Valley Tribune article,1-4-2008)*

Phoenix, AZ
Tucson, A Z (Added 11-12-07, Source: 11-11-07 story by Brady McCombs, Arizona Daily Star. See note below.)
California

Bell Gardens, CA
City of Industry, CA
City of Commerce, CA
Coachella, CA (Added 7-23-12, Source: La Voz de Aztlan. Passed in 2006 and existence supported by quotes in city's 9-12-07 council meeting minutes.)
Cypress, CA
Davis CA
Downey, CA
Fresno, CA (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service. City disputes its listing claiming CRS could not provide source of its research. )
Greenfield, CA (Added 7-23-12, Source: Battle at the ballot box in Greenfield, Monterey County, The Herald, 6-1-12)
Los Angeles, CA (Congressional Research Service)
Long Beach, CA
Lynwood, CA
Maywood, CA
Montebello, CA
National City, CA
Norwalk, CA
Oakland, CA (Added 8-27-07. Source: 4/25/07 story by KCBS 740 AM. Link here.)
Paramount, CA
Pico Rivera, CA
Richmond, CA (Added 11-5-09. Sources: Mayor Gayle McLaughlin's campaign website from 2004, 2006)
So. Gate, CA
San Bernardino, Ca. (Added 6/7/07, reader submitted / 9/5/08 Listing disputed by the city administration* See addl.notes)
San Diego, CA Sources: Congressional Research Service; SDPD chief endorses constoversial immigration bill, Fox-TV 5, 9-2-13
Santa Clara County, CA (Added 11-29-10, source: Forced into Immigration Enforcement, A County Considers Plan B, 10-21-10, Huffington Post.)
Santa Cruz, CA (Added 5/30/07, documented by KSBW news)
San Francisco, CA (Congressional Research Service)
San Jose, CA (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)
Santa Maria, CA (11-18-08 Submitted research from local activist/ Listing disputed by the city administration)
Sonoma County, CA (Congressional Research Service)
Vernon, CA
Watsonville, CA (Added 5/30/07, documented by KSBW news)
Wilmington, CA
Colorado
Aurora, CO
Commerce City, CO
Denver, CO (Source: Congressional Research Service)
Durango, CO (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)
Federal Heights, CO
Fort Collins, CO
Lafayette, CO (Added 6/3/07, documented by reader)
Thornton, CO (City disputes its listing. However, the city did not forward a copy of its policy regarding illegal aliens)
Westminster, CO
Connecticut

Hartford, CT (Added 5/4/10. Source: [Ordinance passed in 2008], NEWS 21 Blog, by Amy Crawford, Hartford, CT)
New Haven, CT (Added 6/4/07. Source: TV News 8: City council votes 25-1 to issue ID cards to illegal aliens)
Florida

DeLeon Springs, FL

Deltona, FL

Jupiter, FL (Added 4-13-09. Previously on watch list.)

Lake Worth, FL (Added 4-13-09.)

Miami, FL
Georgia
Dalton, GA (Added 5/30/07. 6/18/07 Listing disputed by the City of Dalton, GA. City's written policy requested, not received as of 1-28-12. )
Illinois

Chicago, IL (Congressional Research Service)
Cicero, IL (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)
Evanston, IL (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)
Iowa

(See city watch list below)
Kansas

Wichita (Source: Police department policy exposed after the death of Lola Jayne, KSN TV-3, 12-19-08)
Louisiana

New Orleans, LA (Source: Police department announced policy of "don't ask, don't tell" by Police superintendent Warren Riley, WWL-TV; 9-9-09)
Massachusetts

Cambridge, MA (Source: Boston Globe. First passed resolution in 1985)
Chelsea, MA (Added: 8-14-07 Source: Chelsea government website with text of sanctuary policy.)
Northampton, MA (Added 6-20-12 Source: City of Northampton Resolution dated 8-18-2011. Resolution limits cooperation with ICE but does not use the term "sanctuary." )
Orleans, MA (Added 6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)
Sommerville, MA (Added 7-23-12 Original resolution passed in 1987, later repealed and replaced with Safe City Resolution. Source: Sommerville News Blog, 10-15-2007)
Springfield, MA (Disputed)
Maine

Portland (Added 5/31/07 Note: Maine resident reported that Portland city council passed sanctuary legislation)
State of Maine (Added 5/31/07 Note: Governor of Maine initiated de facto protections for illegals by Executive Order in 2004)*
Maryland

Baltimore, MD (Congressional Research Service)
Gaithersburg, MD (Disputed by city 7-10-15. As of 9-8-15, the city has not forwarded a copy of its policy regarding illegal alien in Gaithersburg.)
Mt. Rainier, MD (Added 1-20-08, Source: The Washington D.C. Examiner, 1-19-08)
Montgomery County, MD (Added 11-3-09, Source: Frederick County sheriff worried about MontCo gangs, The Washington D.C. Examiner, 11-2-09)
Takoma Park, MD (Reported that City ordinance passed some 20 years ago; Congressional Research Service)
Michigan

Ann Arbor, MI (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)

Detroit, MI (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)

Minnesota

Austin, MN (Added 11-1-11 Source: Protecting illegal immigrants to catch criminals, Star Tribune, 10-27-11)*
Minneapolis, MN (Congressional Research Service)
St. Paul, MN
Worthington, MN (Added 5-30-07 Note: This is where a Swift plant was raided by ICE in December, 2006. Worthington disputes its listing.)
Nevada

Reno (Added 5-31-07; 2-18-08 Disputed by city; OJJPAC has requested a copy of city policies. Copy of policies never received as of 1-28-12)
New Jersey

Camden, NJ (Added in 2007; latest source: Camden, Immigrant Haven?, By Lauren Feeney, City Paper, 7-16-08)
* *(The Borough of Fort Lee removed pending review of its compliance with IIRIRA). The city disputes its listing as a sanctuary.)
Hightstown, NJ (Added 5-30-07 The city disputes its listing as a sanctuary.)
Jersey City, NJ
Newark, NJ (Added 6-3-07)
North Bergen, NJ
Trenton, NJ
Union City, NJ
West New York, NJ
New Mexico

Albuquerque, NM* 6/13/07 Congressional Research Service; 8-14-07 KOB-TV 4 Eyewitness News report. *[5-14-10 Mayor claims city no longer a sanctuary.]

Aztec, NM Added 5-8-10, Identified by CRS in 2006 report to Congress. (The city disputes its listing. However it has not forwarded a copy of its policy.)

Rio Ariba County, NM 6/13/07 Congressional Research Service

Santa Fe, NM 6/13/07 Congressional Research Service; 1-26-12 AP story, Santa Fe Mayor David Coss opposes taking drivers licenses away from illegal aliens.

New York

Albany, NY (Added 7-22-09 Source: Council adopts don't ask policy, Times Union report by Jordan Carleo-Evangelist)

Bay Shore, NY
Brentwood, NY
Central Islip, NY
Farmingville, NY
New York City, NY
Riverhead, NY
Shirly/Mastic, NY
Spring Valley Village, NY (Added 7-25-07)
Uniondale, NY
Westbury, NY
North Carolina

Carrboro, NC (Added 11-12-07 Source: Towns differ on illegal aliens by Patrick Winn, The News & Observer)

Chapel Hill, NC (Added 11-12-07 Source: Towns differ on illegal aliens by Patrick Winn, The News & Observer)

Charlotte, NC
Chatham County, NC (Added 1-14-09 Source: Chatham rejects immigration program, The News & Observer; Chatham County Commissioners Board Minutes, 1-5--09)
Durham, NC (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)
Raleigh
Winston-Salem
Ohio

Columbus, OH (7/5/07 Source: 5/10/07 Columbus Dispatch article stating illegal aliens in misdemeanor cases are not reported to ICE) See more below.

Dayton, OH (Added 1-11-10 Source: Dayton Daily News story by Lucas Sullivan. Police chief prohibits officers from asking about immigration status.)

Lake County, OH (Added 7-23-15 Source: Lake County accepts fraudulent Mexican Matricular Counsular ID cards used by illegal aliens.)

Lima, OH (Added 10-28-08 Source: City administration opposes County Sheriff's efforts to remove illegal aliens.)

Lorain, OH (Added 4-21-14 Source: Lorain Police Chief Celestino Rivera has ordered (by written policy) his officers not to cooperate with ICE) See addl. notes below.

Lucas County, OH (Added 7-23-15 Source: Lucas County accepts fraudulent Mexican Matricular Counsular ID cards used by illegal aliens)

Oberlin, OH (Added 1-25-09. Source: City Resolution adopted January 20, 2009)

Painesville, OH (7-19-07 Source: In 2006, the city of Painesville in an official letter called illegal aliens (they used the word "undocumented" a valuable asset to the city and opposed immigration law enforcement legislation. I have a copy of that letter in my file. Although the city of Painesville passed a Resolution in support of immigration law enforcement as a result of public pressure, the city remains in opposition to aggressive immigration law enforcement and the deportation of the illegal alien population in the community. We will be looking into the past actions of the Painesville Municipal Court too regarding its role in preventing the deportation of deportable aliens.)



Oklahoma

Oklahoma City (de facto)

Tulsa (6-3-07 Note: Tulsa city council is discussing changing its sanctuary policy. 8-15-10 Update: See note below.)
Oregon

Ashland, OR (8-9-07 Congressional Research Service)
Gaston, OR (8-9-07 Congressional Research Service)
Marion County, OR (8-9-07 Congressional Research Service)
Multnomah County, OR (Added 11-9-13 Source: Sheriff's office says 'no' to ICE, By Kirsten Lock, Fox TV-12, 4-25-13)
Portland, OR
State of Oregon * (8-9-07 Congressional Research Service) *(See note below)
Pennsylvania

Allentown, PA (Rescinded) 7-23-12 Note: Allentown city council passed a sanctuary resolution in 1986 but voted 4-3 to rescind it in 1991.

Philadelphia, PA* (7-15-10 Source: Mayor Nutter's, November, 2009 Executive order: Policy Concerning Access of Immigrants to City Services .)

Pittsburgh, PA (Added 5-29-14 Source: Pittsburg Post Gazette: Pittsburg launches effort to woo more immigrants, 5-29-14)

Rhode Island

Providence (Added 5-17-11 Source: Providence wants to opt out of 'Secure Communities' database, by Gregory Smith, Providence Journal, 2-23-11).

Texas

Austin, TX (Congressional Research Service)
Baytown, TX (6-13-07 Local reader observation)
Brownsville, TX
Channelview, TX (6-13-07 Local reader observation)
Denton, TX
Dallas, TX
El Cenizo, TX (6-13-07 Congressional Research Service)
Ft.Worth, TX
Houston, TX (Congressional Research Service)
Katy, TX (Congressional Research Service)
Laredo, TX (Entry added in 2007. Source added 7-25-15 Breitbart.com article by Brandon Darby, 7-6-15, regarding Laredo PD critical of officers calling Border Patrol. )
Mcallen, TX
Port Arthur, TX (6-13-07 Reader/resident observation)
Utah

State of Utah (Added 5-15-11 Source: Utah Approves Guest Worker Program for Illegal Immigrants, ABC New, 5-7-11)
Provo, UT* (* 8-27-2010 Provo Utah contacted OJJPAC and indicated that it has no desire to be a sanctuary city.
*5-16-11Update: Pending removal of Provo, UT upon verification of city's full participation/cooperation with ICE.)
Salt Lake City, UT
Virginia

Alexandria, VA* (Added 10-6-08, Source: City Resolution No. 2246 adopted 10-9-07)

Fairfax County, VA
Virginia Beach, VA (Added 6/3/07. Note: The city adopted an administrative directive on 8-1-08 allowing VBPD limited authority to inquire about immigration status. Based on this directive, the city disputes its sanctuary status. Despite the directive, the city has not provided statistical evidence of enforcement to date. )
Vermont

Burlington, VT (Added 5-14-09 Source: 5-13-09 Associated Press story by Wilson Ring)
Middlebury, VT (Added 5-14-09 Source: 5-13-09 Associated Press story by Wilson Ring)
State of Vermont* (Added 11-29-10 Source: 11-21-10 Vermont AG proposes bias-free policing policy, Burlington Free Press)
Washington

King Co. Council, WA (Added as a de facto sanctuary on 6-28-09 Source: The Seattle Times; and on 11-9-09 Ordinance passed)
Seattle, WA (Added 5/30/07; Congressional Research Service)
Spokane, WA (Added 6-22-15; City Council passed Ordinances C35164 and C-35167)
Wisconsin

Madison, WI (Congressional Research Service) Update: In June, 2010, the city council passed a resolution reaffirming its policy.

Millwaukee County, WI (Added 6-10-12 Source article: County Board Resolution on Immigration on target, Opinion, Journal Sentinel News., 6-9-12)

Wyoming

Jackson Hole, WY
Washington, D.C. (Update: The Washington D. C. city council has voted to prohibit its police department from participating in the Secure Communities program in July, 2010 according to an AP story by Ivan Moreno dated 7-26-10; 10-19-11 D.C. Examiner story which states that Mayor Vincent Gray signed an order prohibiting the city's police dept. from inquiring about a person's immigration status.

and that's terrible.

sanctuary cities...man there should be no such term in a country like the USA.

How does a sanctuary city's existence makes it a war on Christianity?

I assume that was for me so I'll answer. It doesn't, I thought I was clear.

I think you'll find in the Kentucky case, that there are more County Clerks that are refusing to sell gay marriage licenses in Kentucky as well and nothing is being done.

The reason the Kim Davis issue is being dealt with in the courts at all is because a law suit was brought forth that forced the courts hands into the issue. I would be willing to bet that if law suits were brought against these "sanctuary cities" (which I also disagree with), you would see similar issues.

First of all, I love the bolded, upper case 'you'. If you haven't noticed in this thread by now, I've been playing devil's advocate siding with the Christian clerk, because I think she has rights too. An upper case, bolded 'them' might have been a better choice.

There have been carve outs for religious people, both in government and private business, for just about every flavor of religion in the US. There will be another carve out on the homosexual marriage ruling too.

The bible quote you posted is meaningless when taken out of context. A single statement from the bible can say anything you want when taken out of context. I would also point out, since you missed it, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah with the usage of the word 'know' is also a main reason for their believe of homosexuality being a sin.

Ok, so now that her job description has changed, and she refuses to abide by it, she should be removed from office and new elections held right?

As much as I hate the sound of it, I'm a gov't official. So let me ask you this 40:

Let's say I'm as religious as this woman.

I get called to investigate an assault that took place between two gay men, who are in a relationship.

Are you telling me that I, as a gov't official charged with enforcing the law, and I can see there is evidence that an assault took place, that I can refuse to make an arrest because by doing so, enforcing domestic violence laws on a gay couple would mean that I am legitimizing their relationship?

Hell, can I refuse to even investigate due to religious objections?

You said there is no evidence of miscegenation being outlawed in the Bible. I was merely illustrating that not only is evidence there, but that it's fairly easy to find. Perhaps I was misinformed and you believe that interracial marriage is wrong. That is the only other way I could understand your offense at my bolding.



It's absolutely not taken out of context. Every time someone finds a portion of Scripture that makes them uneasy they go to the same tired verse about it being taken out of context.

Did Rev Bob Jones take it out of context? He has spent far more time reading the Scripture than you or I: http://www.drslewis.org/camille/2013/03/15/is-segregation-scriptural-by-bob-jones-sr-1960/

Read that and then tell me precisely how I'm taking the verses out of context.

Did CR Dickey take the Bible out of context?
http://thetencommandmentsministry.us/ministry/bible_and_segregation

So go ahead, tell us how these men are wrong. Maybe they just interpreted the Bible in such a way as to practice their bigotry against people of color. They believed miscegenation to be unnatural and against God's will. But clearly you know much better than that. According to you, the entire United States built an unholy law based on perversion of the Scripture to further their plan. Miscegenation laws lasted nearly 3 centuries and every law said they were banning it because it was contrary to God's will. Where else do you find God's will but in the Bible?

I can't believe the cognitive dissonance that would inspire someone to believe that the Bible says nothing about miscegenation and then say the Bible is clear on homosexuality. Christians hold dearly to a 2000 year old book yet some seem to be ignorant of their history. Or even the Bible...

As far as the Bob Jones supposition .... I would dispute his ideas thus:

Jesus told His apostles to go and make disciples of all men. He did not say to go only to the borders of Judea and teach, but stop there.

Of the apostles:

Andrew went to easter Europe, to the area that is today Georgia and Bulgaria. He was crucified in Greece.

Bartholomew preached in India, and into areas that are, today, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and others.

Levi (Matthew) was of African descent, IIRC, and traveled to Persia (modern Iran) to preach the Gospel.

Peter went to Italy, and into Asia.

Thomas went into Asia as well.

Paul, a Roman citizen, and a Jew, went to Rome and Spain, and also as far as modern Croatia.

If God intended people to stay within their own borders, then why would He (through the Holy Spirit) send His apostles and disciples throughout the world to preach the Gospel?

Further, using the NIV translation of the Bible, which is my personal favorite translation because it is translated form the earliest available sources, says this in Acts 17: 26-27: 26 From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands. 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.

I think that tells a different story than the one Bob Jones tried to tell.

The lady could have chosen not to run for an office requiring her to follow the law.

Excellent point DC.

She took the oath of office on 1/5/15, before that ruling took place.

There are Caesar's Laws and there are God's laws.

She, as an elected official, should be doing her job. And while God's laws may contradict what Caesar allows, it is not for her to judge. She should just uphold the laws of Caesar per her job description, while not breaking God's laws within her own life.

It is not difficult to separate the two. If she is unable to do that, she should seek other employment or a change in job description.

I read your articles. It seems to me they were very long winded interpretations of a line in the bible to justify a conclusion they already had. I'm going to play that game and see if I can do the same thing.

One of god's first commandments to mankind was, 'Go forth and multiply', or something near that. If I am the leader of my own church, I can use that phrase to convince my followers that god intended all of us to have sex whenever possible for the purpose of bringing forth progeny. Therefore, all the hot, young, sexy women of my congregation, between the ages of 18-29 1/2 of course and preferably redheads, should submit themselves to my commitment to honor god's original commandment.

Now to the passage in question: Acts 17:26, "And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation."

From what I read in the first half, god made us all as one people. The 'hath determined the times before appointed' doesn't mean anything to me, except maybe how long we live. 'The bounds of their habitation' is completely fungible also, as what are boundaries to god? Are the bounds of our habitation to be the Earth, a part of the Earth, this part of the galaxy, above water?

As I said, a phrase can mean anything you want when taken out of context.

I have given you my opinion on the Clerk lady after much thought.

Your situation breaks my head thinking about it so I can't
answer it.

But Bob didn't mean it as you claim. He spent time all over the world reaching out to people. In that sermon I linked to, he talked about going to China and working with them. Did you read his sermon? His point was not that you don't reach out to the world. His point was that mixed race people shouldn't breed together because it's against God's will. And thus is the problem sometimes with the Bible. You and I can read it and get one thing, and someone else gets another. You and I are saying Bob Jones is wrong and he's one of the founding fathers of modern fundamentalism. If he didn't perform his work we probably wouldn't have as many fundamentalists today in America. My baptist school growing up got all of their text books from Bob Jones University.

This is easily applied to todays uproar over gay marriage because this has already happened before. Read this essay on how religious institutions handle internal/external conflict: http://www.religioustolerance.org/past_mor2.htm With the proliferation of social media and world connection, what would take centuries may now only take years.

We had this discussion briefly before, but I think it's worth mentioning in light of the miscegenation issue. In a short period of time (20 years probably) the majority of Christians in America will be tolerant/supporting of same sex marriage because otherwise they will lose their power. Too many people will leave/not enter the church otherwise. The same thing happened with the tolerance of miscegenation. And I'm sure you and others would say those Christians are committing a sin by ignoring Gods will. But you know who said the same thing about you and countless others? The Southern Baptists of the last century. You are ignoring Gods will by "interpreting" the Bible as you want. You jump through hoops to "prove" that God is ok with the races mixing. There is 300 years of legislation and even more time spent by Fundamentalist Christians stating that mixing the races is against God's will. Modern Christianity may wish to throw it under the rug as no big deal, but they are merely repeating history by choosing to ignore their past.

I grew up with Quiverfull people, who do exactly as you describe except it's in a monogamous relationship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiverfull Countless Christian "Cults" have also interpreted the Bible as such to have multiple wives based on these passages. I'm not sure what your doing other than proving my point: that the Bible is easy to interpret in any way you want.



Yet you're positive without a shadow of a doubt that "man doing with man that which is unseeingly" couldn't mean absolutely anything but homosexual acts.



So 300 years of American Christian dogma was all taken out of context as it regards miscegenation? The majority of states and case laws and rulings about same sex marriage, ALL quoting the Bible or saying it's God's plan, meant everyone was taking the Bible incorrectly. Yet it's impossible to you that homosexuality isn't being taken out of context also? You are incredibly enlightened. I'm glad we have you as the guide of how to read Gods Word.

http://www.homosexualeunuchsandthebible.com/

According to you guys it's as if unless you are a Christian between 1980 and 2015, you're going to hell because clearly no one else has read the Bible "correctly." The mental gymnastics are quaint though

My entire point is that a person can interpret a bible passage to fit their already preconceived conclusions, as your buddy you keep talking about. Any words of god can be used for good or evil.

When I attended church in my youth, there were blacks and whites in the church. I never heard any mention of the philosophy you espouse. Your argument is pointless, though.

We are dealing with what people currently believe is the way of god. I, for one, and not surprised that people attempt to use that for wrong. I would prefer people use religion for the good I think it was intended.

Kim Davis' beliefs hurt no one. She is asking her name be taken off of all marriage licenses, so she will not be participating in a sin. That's all. How does this hurt anyone? She will get a carve out from the SC ruling, and marriage licenses will be issued by someone else. After that, the voters will get to decide next election.

A quick response (cause I'm not going to try to go in depth on my phone).

Moses wife was from Cush, an area south of Ethiopia known for people with dark skin.
Moses sister criticized him for his marriage to her.
God got up in his sisters business-not Moses, for criticizing his marriage.

BOOM-Interacial marriage approved of right there in the Bible.

And yes, both articles you posted (and no, I couldn't get through all of either of them, both because I'm on lunch and they are extremely lengthy and I can't stand rambling BS like that) did take scripture and try to make it say what they wanted-not what it actually says.

I knew it! Corndawgaphile!

Yeah that's the ticket... then you couldn't get your corn dog freak on.

Love the description.

Wow.
That's all you got from that post?

I never get very much from your posts, my apologies.

ok