yes their could or would have been the same tax but the tax was to support the new goverment, the british just wanted to get extra rich from these fools on the new world
Gay Marriage
- Thread starter Big J
- Start date
the colonies were self supporting at the time of revolution before that point they needed help. then again they were almost always self supporting.
Grand Master
New Member
Interesting that no one has an answer to my question. I guess "god" didn't think of that one.
er... what was that question again??
I do not agree with gay marriage/civil union, I believe that those are reserved for a man and a woman. I also believe that practicing homosexuality is a sin, a sin no bigger in God's eyes than maliciously calling someone "stupid," but a sin nonetheless.
Living in America I will not agree with everything one says or does but i will defend to my death their right to say and in this case do it. I am not condoning homosexuality but I am saying that it is their choice, just as it is your choice to sin against God.
bottom line, I think it is sinful, and gross.
Living in America I will not agree with everything one says or does but i will defend to my death their right to say and in this case do it. I am not condoning homosexuality but I am saying that it is their choice, just as it is your choice to sin against God.
bottom line, I think it is sinful, and gross.
Atown, if you require something for your wellbeing and you aren't paying for it (directly or indirectly) then you aren't self supporting. I quite understand the fact that American History tends to the revisionist over the Revolution, but let's try not to let the basic facts escape us here.
well either today or tomorow im headed to library so maybe then i can find some basic facts
Kidan
Moderator
Do you think it's possible us Yanks, could still be speaking with a British accent, if the Queen (or was it a King at that time? ) had said "Ok, elect and send us some representatives for the House of Commons." Took the fire right out from underneath the 'No Taxation Without Representation' fuss
Grand Master
New Member
Atown, the question I asked was about intersexuals and who they should have the right to marry.
should they have the right. good question. dont really have an answer. i believe the approach that could be used is that is it really morally right? and with that question we can try and determine whether or not they should have the right to marry or not. now thats my approach and thats really the best thing i can come up with. now eon im at the library now and have takin a few exerpts from the book "Christianity and the Constitution. The Faith of our Founding Fathers" and its talks about each and every single dude who helped create the constitution and such. since i dont have much time here on the computer (wasnt able to bring my laptop >_<
. intro: In 1620 the May flower compact said: To the Glory of God and advancemente of ye Christian Faith. (Atown) so even at this early point in american history Christianity was a big deal, enough to add it to the May Flower Compact. (Book) In october 4, 1982 congress passed public law 97-280 declaring 1983 the "year of the Bible". The President signed the bill into law. opening statement of that law: Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil goverment that are contained in the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution of the United States; where as this nation now faces great challenges that will test this nation as it has never been tested before; and whereas that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people.
(Atown) so it was reconized by the goverment that Biblical teachings were in the Declaration of Indenpendance and the Constitution. i'll add some more points later when i have more time to read the book.
. intro: In 1620 the May flower compact said: To the Glory of God and advancemente of ye Christian Faith. (Atown) so even at this early point in american history Christianity was a big deal, enough to add it to the May Flower Compact. (Book) In october 4, 1982 congress passed public law 97-280 declaring 1983 the "year of the Bible". The President signed the bill into law. opening statement of that law: Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil goverment that are contained in the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution of the United States; where as this nation now faces great challenges that will test this nation as it has never been tested before; and whereas that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people.(Atown) so it was reconized by the goverment that Biblical teachings were in the Declaration of Indenpendance and the Constitution. i'll add some more points later when i have more time to read the book.
Marriage is Male and Female.
God created Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Adam, nor Eve and Eve.
I do not think civil unions should be allowed either. They may not be exactly the same thing, but if we begin to compromise then it is we who are sinning as well.
I do not apologize if this offends anyone, for I myself am offended by such a blatant rebellion against the teachings of God. And I do believe it is time for Christians to wake up and rise to the attack of our morals.
Let us not forget that God himself called Homosexuality a destestable sin, and an abomination.
And let us not forget the punishiment He rained down...
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm
My friends, may our land be saved before we become them.
God created Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Adam, nor Eve and Eve.
I do not think civil unions should be allowed either. They may not be exactly the same thing, but if we begin to compromise then it is we who are sinning as well.
I do not apologize if this offends anyone, for I myself am offended by such a blatant rebellion against the teachings of God. And I do believe it is time for Christians to wake up and rise to the attack of our morals.
Let us not forget that God himself called Homosexuality a destestable sin, and an abomination.
And let us not forget the punishiment He rained down...
http://www.arkdiscovery.com/sodom_&_gomorrah.htm
My friends, may our land be saved before we become them.
James, come and have a go if you think you're hard enough...
You cannot justify attacking others through the policy of pre-emptive self defence. When you speak about rising up to defend against an attack against your morals, you're speaking about attacking and annihiliating the beliefs of others. The Christian church hasn't been capable of doing that for about 100 years, so I suggest you lower the pitch of your rhetoric slightly and start thinking before inciting religious hatred.
To expand upon my point, and show you where the line ought to be drawn, I say that I believe 100% that Christians should have the right to exclude homosexuals from their churches and societies. I believe that they should have the right NOT to marry gay couples in their churches. The bible is 100% clear on homosexuality being an abomination in the eyes of Yahweh.
HOWEVER, the Christian church has NO right to deny homosexual couples a civil union. It has NO right to question the merit of Civil Unions per se and it has NO right to impose spiritual codes on secular law.
Go ahead and be as straight as you like - but don't imagine for a second that this gives you the right to set policy.
You cannot justify attacking others through the policy of pre-emptive self defence. When you speak about rising up to defend against an attack against your morals, you're speaking about attacking and annihiliating the beliefs of others. The Christian church hasn't been capable of doing that for about 100 years, so I suggest you lower the pitch of your rhetoric slightly and start thinking before inciting religious hatred.
To expand upon my point, and show you where the line ought to be drawn, I say that I believe 100% that Christians should have the right to exclude homosexuals from their churches and societies. I believe that they should have the right NOT to marry gay couples in their churches. The bible is 100% clear on homosexuality being an abomination in the eyes of Yahweh.
HOWEVER, the Christian church has NO right to deny homosexual couples a civil union. It has NO right to question the merit of Civil Unions per se and it has NO right to impose spiritual codes on secular law.
Go ahead and be as straight as you like - but don't imagine for a second that this gives you the right to set policy.
[b said:
I do not have to be "hard" because I know what I believe and I know what the Bible teaches... I just state the plain and simple facts.. always...
I know the church has no right to do those things anymore. I think it needs to get those rights back, instead of tolerating sin after sin and pretending everything is okay.
The church is so afraid of offending sinners by saying "hey, that's not right" that they just let it all go by. The Bible says if you see a brother sinning, rebuke him openly; no-one does that anymore because they are too afraid of offending.
I truly believe we are in Laodicea, which is the "Church of Human Rights". Where the rights of others take precedence over the teaching of the Lord.
Me, burned by the church? Nope - the church hasn't been able to officially do that for quite some time - call me an unindependent observer who would like to keep things that way.
James, you keep using the word fact, I don't think it means what you think it means. Even in these days of PR Spin Doctoring, it takes much more than calling something a FACT to actually make it one. If it seems like I'm giving you a hard time through these threads - it's probably because of this failing more than others.
The speed and ease of communication mean that simply being able to present your ideas is no longer enough. When you say something at your location, the internet grabs that and puts it in the public domain. Can you back up your ideas with anything fresher, newer and more intellectually rigorous than the writings of a 2 millenium old prophet?
Mahfrot, yes I'm fairly ticked off about the organised subjugation of the true and native beliefs of my continent. I'm kinda pissed about the church paying Charlemagne the Frank to threaten my ancestors with total destruction if they didn't kowtow to his God. I'm kinda upset about the rigorous attempt to keep Europe servile and stupid for 600 years. I'm not happy about the Crusades. Rather peeved about the inquisition. Not on board with the whole attempt to carry out a genocide of spirituality over the last 1,000 years.
I'm bitter, but with cause.
James, you keep using the word fact, I don't think it means what you think it means. Even in these days of PR Spin Doctoring, it takes much more than calling something a FACT to actually make it one. If it seems like I'm giving you a hard time through these threads - it's probably because of this failing more than others.
The speed and ease of communication mean that simply being able to present your ideas is no longer enough. When you say something at your location, the internet grabs that and puts it in the public domain. Can you back up your ideas with anything fresher, newer and more intellectually rigorous than the writings of a 2 millenium old prophet?
Mahfrot, yes I'm fairly ticked off about the organised subjugation of the true and native beliefs of my continent. I'm kinda pissed about the church paying Charlemagne the Frank to threaten my ancestors with total destruction if they didn't kowtow to his God. I'm kinda upset about the rigorous attempt to keep Europe servile and stupid for 600 years. I'm not happy about the Crusades. Rather peeved about the inquisition. Not on board with the whole attempt to carry out a genocide of spirituality over the last 1,000 years.
I'm bitter, but with cause.
If the words of the Lord God and the signs left of His power are not enough for you then there is nothing that will satisfy you.[b said:
I accept the Bible based on faith and faith alone. The Lord has personally worked miracles in my life, and He makes Himself known to me in many different ways.
I teach others to also accept based on faith, because it is a very important part of a relationship with Christ. As Jesus said: You believe because you have seen, but blessed are those who have not seen and still believe.
And you are not giving me a hard time, since every one of my replies have been guided by the Holy Spirit, they pretty much write themselves. And I prefer it that way. Just another example of how the Lord makes Himself known. I am proud of my relationship with the Lord.
TastyWheat
New Member
Ok, the question now is: what's the best way to react? To spurn the Church? Maybe. To spurn Christ? I doubt it.[b said:
That's why a few people in history have actually gotten pissed enough to step up...Luther...Calvin...Huss....Zwingli...heck you can probably even throw in Wesley and Barth.
James, certainly nothing you bring to the table, it appears. At least you have the decency to admit that for you at least, the truth is not in the argument but in something you've seen and I haven't. Or perhaps it would be safer to say that I've seen something you haven't, as I've looked beneath the peeling gold leaf.
Tasty, if the bible really IS the word of God then he is responsible for the acts I mentioned. If not then what do you believe in?
Tasty, if the bible really IS the word of God then he is responsible for the acts I mentioned. If not then what do you believe in?