Cruz, Huckabee, Jindal Attend Insane Anti-Gay Rally

[jmdrake]

This is worth repeating. There is overwhelming new testament scriptural evidence against theonomy.

Jesus advocated religious freedom.

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Matthew 10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

Luke 9:49-46
49 And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.

50 And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

51 And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem,

52 And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him.

53 And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem.

54 And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

56 For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village.



Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43

24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:

25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.

26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.

27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?

28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?

29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.

30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
.
.
.
36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

You believe, without any evidence, that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday, yet you refuse to accept, in the face of overwhelming evidence that the idea of an earthly religious kingdom with the death penalty for moral laws is no longer in effect. You can't even bring yourself to honestly interpret the parable of the wheat and the tares. Jesus made it clear that the field is the world and not the church. The wicked are to live in the world with the righteous and God does the separation at the final judgement. It is not up to you or any other human living on earth to punish sin. It's up to God. The death penalty for the moral law as given by Moses was done in concert with the command to conquer Canaan and kill off all the inhabitants living there. Do you want to do that to? Are you ready to invade Israel and kill off all the Muslims and Jews? Cause if you aren't you are being inconsistent.

 

[jmdrake]

The religious clause in the 1st Amendment is a license for state control of the church. Doubt me on this? Take a look at how it is being employed.

In the countries that didn't have such a clause states controlled religion outright. Modern abuse of the 1st amendment didn't happen until well into the 20th century. And look at how much more secular Europe is than America even though Europe had state religion when America did not. That should tell you something. Forcing religion down people's throats tends to cause them to rejected it the first chance they get.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Not voting for your guy has the same effect as voting for the other guy.

So what? So does not voting at all. And vice versa in both cases. It all amounts to the same thing ...

Barring the case of an election decided by a single vote, all the following statements are true of any and every "winner take all" election:
1: Voting for the winner will have the same effect on the outcome as voting for the winner. (Obviously.)
2: Voting for a loser will have the same effect on the outcome as voting for the winner.
3: Not voting at all will have the same effect on the outcome as voting for the winner.

Thus, regarding the determination of the winner and the losers of a "winner take all" election, the chance of the effect of "voting for your guy" being any different from "voting for the other guy" (or not voting at all) is exactly equal to the chance of that election being decided by a single vote - and for American federal- or state-level elections, that chance is so vanishingly small as to be non-existent ...

 

[XTreat]

Religious people arguing about who's interpretation of doctrine is right.

Who is the REAL Christian/Muslim/Jew?

Once you get it figured out let me know so I can go to heaven too.

 

[hells_unicorn]

Religious people arguing about who's interpretation of doctrine is right.

Who is the REAL Christian/Muslim/Jew?

Once you get it figured out let me know so I can go to heaven too.

They have these nice, rectangular shaped things with paper in them, I think they are called books. Don't worry, they may hurt a little at first, but once you get into them, they'll shed some light on you dilemma.

 

[Sola_Fide]

The religious clause in the 1st Amendment is a license for state control of the church. Doubt me on this? Take a look at how it is being employed.



The function of the state has NOTHING to do with the hearts of men. It has to do with bearing the sword against evildoers, which includes people who would attempt to destroy the church with their blasphemies. Read Romans 13 again, the only way a magistrate can usurp God's authority is by breaking God's laws, and God does not prohibit the magistrate from recognizing the true religion (several OT magistrates in Egypt and Persia did this) and defending it from its enemies.



The only magic entity I'm seeing here is the one you are calling upon to conjure up arguments that no one in this conversation is making. Nothing you have argued has any relevance to anything that I have stated, nor CL for that matter.

You seem to be drawing your interpretation from Romans 13, but have you ever considered that Paul was saying that God was using the Roman armies to judge the Jews, much like He did with the Assyria armies? You're drawing prescriptions from that passage that you think applies to all governments. What if it isn't prescriptive?

 

[Christian Liberty]

You seem to be drawing your interpretation from Romans 13, but have you ever considered that Paul was saying that God was using the Roman armies to judge the Jews, much like He did with the Assyria armies? You're drawing prescriptions from that passage that you think applies to all governments. What if it isn't prescriptive?

I've considered it, but it doesn't fit. Romans 13:3-4 clearly gives the text a prescriptive character.

 

[scottditzen]

Unless there's some reason to think that participating in the conference implies agreeing with him on that, I still don't see what the issue is.

It doesn't matter what you think. You realize it's bad politics, right?

 

[erowe1]

It doesn't matter what you think. You realize it's bad politics, right?

No. I still don't see that. My guess is that it helps those who attended more than it hurts them.

 

[erowe1]

I've considered it, but it doesn't fit. Romans 13:3-4 clearly gives the text a prescriptive character.

The text is prescriptive to those who are the victims of the powers that be. But it doesn't prescribe anything at all to the powers that be themselves. It merely makes factual claims about them, and insists that there are zero exceptions to those factual claims.

 

[Christian Liberty]

The text is prescriptive to those who are the victims of the powers that be. But it doesn't prescribe anything at all to the powers that be themselves. It merely makes factual claims about them, and insists that there are zero exceptions to those factual claims.

Paul is being clever and appearing at first glance to be talking about all authority, but Romans 13:3-4 makes clear that this is not the case.

 

[erowe1]

Paul is being clever and appearing at first glance to be talking about all authority, but Romans 13:3-4 makes clear that this is not the case.

No it doesn't. He says explicitly that he's talking about all of the powers that be. Romans 13:3-4 attributes something to that "all powers that be." He was giving those Roman Christians practical advice that was relevant to them then and there, with the wicked rulers that they then had. He wasn't speaking to some hypothetical far off in the future group of Christians.