# What happened to separation of Church and State?



## azrancher (Dec 14, 2014)

_*A Texas Republican announced over the weekend that he plans to resign his post as a member of the Electoral College rather than cast a ballot for US President-elect Donald Trump, a man he deems "not biblically qualified for office."*_

https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-elector-quits-says-pledge-binding-trump-not-152847695.html

*Rancher*


----------



## Targetshooter (Dec 4, 2015)

Sorry to say , that went out some 20 years ago .


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Separation of church and state is a warped reading of a letter written by Jefferson. 
What is confusing is that delegate's thinking.


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

Keep them separate

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

OakOwl said:


> Keep them separate
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


In what manner?


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

I don't want any religion influencing government policies. 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

This country could not and would not be anything more than a British colony, . . . or a wilderness, . . . if it were not for the CHRISTIAN religion.

Your thought pattern, OakOwl, . . . is totally faulty, . . . wrong, . . . and cannot function in a society.

ALL societies that have ever endured over any length of time based their premise for being on some god(s) they believed in. 

The USA put it's trust in Jehovah God, . . . Jesus Christ, His Son, . . . and the Holy Spirit of God that assists men/women in their daily living. Without Them and the trust we Christians have put in Them, . . . we would not exist, . . . the Souix, Navaho, etc would still be chasing buffalo here.

You would be still on some other continent, . . . probably wearing a loin cloth or bear skin, . . . hunting and grubbing for food, . . . and trying your best not to become a menu item for those/whatever is around you.

But, . . . today you are receiving the benefit of Christianity just in your citizenship, . . . and for you to denounce it is blasphemous and insulting to God. BUT, . . . just stick around, . . . your reward for doing so is coming.

Only two nations have ever given their citizens total freedom to be what they want to be, . . . to soar to the greatest heights they can, . . . USA and Israel. Funny, . . . both just happen to be on the same religious page.

The one you are not on.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## rstanek (Nov 9, 2012)

If I'm not mistaken, our constitution was written with the guidance of judao Christian principles, pardon my spelling , Christianity is at the heart of the United States, separation of church and state is about the government not being able to dictate what religion you chose to follow, doesn't say anything about not being able to display a nativity on city property. Some liberal judge decided that. Ok, I'm ready to be taken to task now.....


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Christianity was never intended to be separate and unmentionable in government or politics. Taking 7 words out of the context of one letter after all framers of the Constitution were long dead does not make the current invented reasoning true. The actual meaning from Jefferson to a fearful congregation in Connecticut to reassure parishioners that the federal government would not dictate the content of sermons. The letter never remotely implied that religion would not dictate politics, law or public discourse or uninhibited expression of Christianity which in the 18th century was a direct translation of the word religion in common language.

I wonder it this elector would have any problems voting for milk toast Romney or McLame, the last two GOP republican presidential losers and accredited RINOs?


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

OakOwl said:


> I don't want any religion influencing government policies.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Too late.

The ignorant evil dumbasses in the obama administration have been allocating your and my tax dollars to invite thousands of islamists under the political guise of giving them "Refugee" status, then awarding them "permanent residence status" (green card) and providing education, housing and food to a vast majority of them. However, this administration believes incorrectly that islam is a religion and refuses to see the reality which is that followers of islam adhere to a geo-political ideology of world domination by killing, converting or enslaving the infidel.

Regardless, this administration is influenced greatly by this ideology that they argue emphatically is a religion.

A good example is the murdering muslime who attacked people at Ohio State University yesterday. His goal was to further his so called religion by killing the infidel.

Last question; Do you like apples?

Well, how do you like them apples? :vs_smile:


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

OakOwl said:


> I don't want any religion influencing government policies.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Not concerned with your "wants." There are many people who want me to be silent, want me disarmed, want an overreaching government control my property, etc. What concerns me is this nation's founding documents and and its job to protect our God Given rights.

The Establishment clause was not written to keep Christianity out of governance, but to keep the government out of religion.

John Jay, a founding father who was not only one of the authors of the Federalist Papers but was also the first chief justice to the U.S. supreme court, admonished the people to prefer Christian leaders to rule over this "Christian nation." Why is that? Because, as John Adams clearly stated, the constitution was written only for a moral and "religious" (understood to be Christian) people and is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

That is to say, it was built on the foundation and understanding that the laws of nature and nature's God, a Christian concept, and not on the whims, opinions and carnal desires of man. Christian ethics, morals and principles were to guide the crafting of laws and the judging of not only our countrymen but the laws, themselves.

The Establishment Clause was to insure the federal government not select any particular denomination over the others, thereby temporarily creating a theocracy; a theocracy that would be short-lived due to the ensuing civil war. That is to say, the general concept of Christian ethics, morals and principles were to guide the nation, and not specific, sectarian doctrines.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

rstanek said:


> If I'm not mistaken, our constitution was written with the guidance of judao Christian principles, pardon my spelling , Christianity is at the heart of the United States, separation of church and state is about the government not being able to dictate what religion you chose to follow, doesn't say anything about not being able to display a nativity on city property. Some liberal judge decided that. Ok, I'm ready to be taken to task now.....


Take you to task for telling the truth? Not by A Watchman.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

azrancher said:


> _*A Texas Republican announced over the weekend that he plans to resign his post as a member of the Electoral College rather than cast a ballot for US President-elect Donald Trump, a man he deems "not biblically qualified for office."*_
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-elector-quits-says-pledge-binding-trump-not-152847695.html
> 
> *Rancher*


Back to the original topic, Art Sisneros should not have accepted his position if he felt that way.
Would he have felt comfortable casting his ballot for Hillary?
While Trump is but a babe in his Christianity, he is exhibiting better sense than dear, Art.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Denton said:


> Back to the original topic, Art Sisneros should not have accepted his position if he felt that way.
> Would he have felt comfortable casting his ballot for Hillary?
> While Trump is but a babe in his Christianity, he is exhibiting better sense than dear, Art.


Some one or some group got Art Sisneros' la atención....


----------



## Maol9 (Mar 20, 2015)

OakOwl said:


> Keep them separate
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


My my my... bless your 'lil' heart

Didn't we just do this in another thread? Please keep up, thanks y'all.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

OakOwl said:


> I don't want any religion influencing government policies.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Good point @OakOwl. Let's take a look at the 10 Commandments. Ok, we'll start with these.

*Honor thy father and thy mother* Thankfully the govt is doing away with that in our schools. This has no place in modern society.

*Thou shall not kill * The actual translation is murder. Another Biblical thing that probably should thrown by the wayside.

*Thou shall not commit adultery * Are you married or have a significant other (gotta stay PC)? You'll probably be ok with them fooling around with others. After all, this IS from the Bible.

*Thou shall not steal * Another antiquated Biblical rule. If you want something, you should just be able to take it, right?

*Thou shall not bear false witness against your neighbor* Well, this one has mostly gone out the window so not much to debate here.

*Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife* Hey, you should be allowed to play around with your neighbors significant other (we need to stay PC). And if they decide to move in that's the other person's problem.

Yeah, your right. Nothing Biblical should be allowed at all. This can't be allowed in a political correct society. They could knock out quite a bit of law with today's mantra "if it feels good, do it" and "only my opinion matters so shut up"


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

The one that is annoying is people against gay marriage. 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

OakOwl said:


> The one that is annoying is people against gay marriage.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Yeah another one of those annoying things in the Bible is like when Jesus said in Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

I mean, just how annoying is THAT????


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

inceptor said:


> Yeah another one of those annoying things in the Bible is like when Jesus said in Matthew 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
> 
> I mean, just how annoying is THAT????


Yeah I though the same why don't they treat the gays with respect and let them get married it's weird.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

But it started even earlier in the Bible.

Leviticus 19:18 Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

Another annoying Bible thing. Who wants to live like that?


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

OakOwl said:


> Yeah I though the same why don't they treat the gays with respect and let them get married it's weird.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


I know, right? That's why the law should be replaced with "If it feels good, do it".


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

OakOwl said:


> The one that is annoying is people against gay marriage.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


What is annoying is people who don't know enough to know homosexuality is crazy me against the very basics of the laws of nature. 
Homosexuals have the same, unalienable rights as the rest of us. What you think is a right is not. Sorry. This was understood until the Godless liberals were allowed to take over.


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

Denton said:


> What is annoying is people who don't know enough to know homosexuality is crazy me against the very basics of the laws of nature.
> Homosexuals have the same, unalienable rights as the rest of us. What you think is a right is not. Sorry. This was understood until the Godless liberals were allowed to take over.


Thankfully the law is in my side and not yours. This is why we have to keep religion from pushing their beliefs on us. Homosexuality is practice in many animals so you couldn't be further from the truth.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

inceptor said:


> But it started even earlier in the Bible.
> 
> Leviticus 19:18 Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.
> 
> Another annoying Bible thing. Who wants to live like that?


Thanks Denton could practice this one more.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

Christ is the Victor, Christ is the Ruler, Christ reigns. Christ is the King. 

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

OakOwl said:


> Thankfully the law is in my side and not yours. This is why we have to keep religion from pushing their beliefs on us. Homosexuality is practice in many animals so you couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


And when Islam is the predominate religion, things will be better. They like homosexuals and transgenders.


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

inceptor said:


> And when Islam is the predominate religion, things will be better. They like homosexuals and transgenders.


Yeah and I'm sure you won't want them pushing their beliefs on you. Just like I don't want their beliefs or anyone else pushed on me.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

I'm totally pro separation of church and state. Would you want to be governed by the Catholic church if your protestant? Would you want to be governed by Islamic Sharia Law if your a Christian? There have been many examples where MEN have imposed their will on others based on the interpretation of "gods will." Look at the Salem Witch trials, modern day Saudi Arabia, The Spanish Inquisition, the conquistadors, the list goes on and on. 

I believe there is a place for personal religious beliefs to determine a leaders values and ultimately decisions without allowing dogma to determine policy.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

The Federal Government has no Constitutional business being involved in marriage.

Arguably it is a State issue and if a State makes law against two rump 'ranglers getting married, they are free to move to another state.

Oh, @OakOwl, what is this bullcrap argument about homosexuality being practice in animals? Who cares? Animals sometimes eat their own shit and many predatorial animals kill their prey then eat the ass end first. Are you really that daft son?


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Slippy said:


> The Federal Government has no Constitutional business being involved in marriage.
> 
> Arguably it is a State issue and if a State makes law against two rump 'ranglers getting married, they are free to move to another state.
> 
> Oh, @OakOwl, what is this bullcrap argument about homosexuality being practice in animals? Who cares? Animals sometimes eat their own shit and many predatorial animals kill their prey then eat the ass end first. Are you really that daft son?


Slippy I agree with you 100% and I'll take it a step further. In addition I believe that if a church doesn't want a gay wedding happening on their facility thats their right, if a business doesn't want to cater to a gay wedding thats also their right. However if the gay couple gets mad and decides to make some nasty social media posts, do some nasty readers writes in the paper, and or legally picket the business or the church then that is their right as well.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> Slippy I agree with you 100% and I'll take it a step further. In addition I believe that if a church doesn't want a gay wedding happening on their facility thats their right, if a business doesn't want to cater to a gay wedding thats also their right. However if the gay couple gets mad and decides to make some nasty social media posts, do some nasty readers writes in the paper, and or legally picket the business or the church then that is their right as well.


Thanks my good friend!

But I was secretly hoping you'd get a kick out of my animals eating their own shit and the ass end of their prey as a counter to our good friend @OakOwl 's contention that "deviant sex is normal in people because some animals sniff other animals butts" argument...:vs_no_no_no:


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> Slippy I agree with you 100% and I'll take it a step further. In addition I believe that if a church doesn't want a gay wedding happening on their facility thats their right, if a business doesn't want to cater to a gay wedding thats also their right. However if the gay couple gets mad and decides to make some nasty social media posts, do some nasty readers writes in the paper, and or legally picket the business or the church then that is their right as well.


Perfect then if they don't want to sell stuff to women or make then cover-up before entering.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

OakOwl said:


> Perfect then if they don't want to sell stuff to women or make then cover-up before entering.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Expand on this please, it makes no sense??


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

I don't personally have a problem with gay's and I believe that they should be allowed legal marriage.
but if you think that being homosexual is natural then let me ask this *WHAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE OF SEX?* to make babies right? how do to people of the same sex reproduce naturally?
they can not. 
now does this make it morally wrong? no, it does not, not in my mind at least, but do not tell me it is natural. 
again I have no problem with homosexuals man or woman and a persons sexual preference is not my business as long as it does not include me.
as far as the separation of church and state it runs deeper than I think - You see our forefathers learned a thing or two back in the day like the dark ages religion ruled as much as the king and to go against the church well you might get burned at the stake and not for being a witch either. THE law must apply to everyone or it is not a LAW this goes for religious leaders as well as political.
in Islam the church rules the people and most of the leaders are priests or damn near close to one or they think they are the reincarnation of Mohamed or something. WE don't want that chit here capuche!!!!!


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

Slippy said:


> The Federal Government has no Constitutional business being involved in marriage.
> 
> Arguably it is a State issue and if a State makes law against two rump 'ranglers getting married, they are free to move to another state.
> 
> Oh, @OakOwl, what is this bullcrap argument about homosexuality being practice in animals? Who cares? Animals sometimes eat their own shit and many predatorial animals kill their prey then eat the ass end first. Are you really that daft son?


The Establishment Clause prevents the U.S. from creating a state or national religion, from favoring one religion over another, or entangling the government with religion. No state can pick it's religion. So marriage can't have anything to do with religion.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Were you responding to the post that you quoted? If so, your response makes no sense. No where did I say that the Feds or the States should pick a religion. What I said is that the Fed Govt should NOT be involved in marriage at all.

If the states decide to take it up, and make a law against gay marriage, so be it.



OakOwl said:


> The Establishment Clause prevents the U.S. from creating a state or national religion, from favoring one religion over another, or entangling the government with religion. No state can pick it's religion. So marriage can't have anything to do with religion.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

if marriage only had to do with religion then how can a justice of the peace, or a ships captain preform the binding ceremony?


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

Slippy said:


> Expand on this please, it makes no sense??


Because he wanted to be able to sell goods or services to gay people. Other religions don't want to serve or sell stuff to women.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

Slippy said:


> Were you responding to the post that you quoted? If so, your response makes no sense. No where did I say that the Feds or the States should pick a religion. What I said is that the Fed Govt should NOT be involved in marriage at all.
> 
> If the states decide to take it up, and make a law against gay marriage, so be it.


They don't have the right to on religious beliefs

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

Medic33 said:


> if marriage only had to do with religion then how can a justice of the peace, or a ships captain preform the binding ceremony?


I think it shouldn't be tied to religion but some religions want to control all aspects of it

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

OakOwl said:


> They don't have the right to on religious beliefs
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


I never said that. But a State has the right to make it law.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

OakOwl said:


> Yeah I though the same why don't they treat the gays with respect and let them get married it's weird.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Who makes the rules? Do we make the rules? Does God make the rules? Who decides and why?

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

OakOwl said:


> Thanks Denton could practice this one more.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk





OakOwl said:


> Thankfully the law is in my side and not yours. This is why we have to keep religion from pushing their beliefs on us. Homosexuality is practice in many animals so you couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk





Slippy said:


> The Federal Government has no Constitutional business being involved in marriage.
> 
> Arguably it is a State issue and if a State makes law against two rump 'ranglers getting married, they are free to move to another state.
> 
> ...


Well I vote either daft or gay ... perhaps both.


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

A Watchman said:


> Well I vote either daft or gay ... perhaps both.


I'm sorry you don't want to protect our country from religions pushing their beliefs on us. Both I guess you cannot have a discussion without personal attacks. Thankfully most people here can have a nice conversation with without the attacks. That is a tactic people use when they have a weak argument that they cannot support.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

OakOwl said:


> The Establishment Clause prevents the U.S. from creating a state or national religion, from favoring one religion over another, or entangling the government with religion. No state can pick it's religion. So marriage can't have anything to do with religion.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Sigh.

This is the one problem with the bullet style writing of the Bill of Rights. 
The founding fathers probably didn't think they would have to explain what, to them, was obvious.

As I stated earlier; the Establishment Clause was specific to the federal government for the reasons I explained.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

OakOwl said:


> Thankfully the law is in my side and not yours. This is why we have to keep religion from pushing their beliefs on us. Homosexuality is practice in many animals so you couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


For the moment, yes there are some laws on your side. Man made laws, . . . subject to recall at any time.

God said that man should not have sexual relations with another man, nor women with other women, . . . nor humans with animals. Uhh, . . . not subject to recall.

And as for the garbage about animals being homosexual, . . . that is indeed the biggest liberal lie ever told other than Hillary or Bill being honest. Anyone who believes that is just plain stupid, . . . bonkers, . . . and off their rocker, . . . been smoking too much peyote, . . . or downing too many wild turkeys.

Oh, . . . you have proof??? Put up the video where two horses are giving each other oral sex, . . . or two cows doing the same. After all, you are the one that said it is perfectly normal, . . . practiced all over.

You need to go find another forum, . . . you are nothing but a liberal, knot headed troll, . . . hell bent on causing trouble, . . . and I'm just one who does not care to call you out on your shenanigans.

And, . . . uhh, . . . back to the laws for a moment. I know you don't like to hear this, . . . but we'll post it any way. Those Godly laws you don't like, . . . just remember to protest when you stand in front of Jesus Christ. Tell Him he made bad law, . . .

You and mohammed will have a long time together.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

OakOwl said:


> I'm sorry you don't want to protect our country from religions pushing their beliefs on us. Both I guess you cannot have a discussion without personal attacks. Thankfully most people here can have a nice conversation with without the attacks. That is a tactic people use when they have a weak argument that they cannot support.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Must have hit a nerve here huh? An understanding of the origins of the constitution, its original intent, and its application today is clear for someone willing to invest the time to study it... Or you can divert to the daft politics of the progressive movement, otherwise known as The Destruction Of America.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

well annie I would say GOD makes the rules.
BUT he gave us free choice.
I do not understand your argument oakowl -slippy is kind of agreeing with you but governments do make laws -like I bet it is against the law if slippy shoves a pike up your azz and that has nothing to do with religion now does it.
your only beef is with the **** thing and you and that is neither a religion or a law, But the right to pursuit of happiness is in the constitution and it that life style makes you happy ok great.
but if going out and committing mass genocide makes you happy I am damn glad there is a law against it, aren't you? I mean there are some that would like to preform that act of happiness on homosexuals.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

OakOwl said:


> I'm sorry you don't want to protect our country from religions pushing their beliefs on us. Both I guess you cannot have a discussion without personal attacks. Thankfully most people here can have a nice conversation with without the attacks. That is a tactic people use when they have a weak argument that they cannot support.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


It would be easy for me to pompously throw insults, but I'll tell you why I prefer not to do so. 
You are laboring under the belief that you have all the knowledge needed. After all, you went to school. You paid attention. You got good grades. 
What you don't realize is you didn't even receive a sliver of what you need to know, and a large portion was completely false. 
I here you can be faulted is not pursuing the truth.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

A Watchman said:


> Must have hit a nerve here huh? An understanding of the origins of the constitution, its original intent, and its a*pplication today is clear for someone willing to invest the time to study it... *Or you can divert to the daft politics of the progressive movement, otherwise known as The Destruction Of America.


That's way too much trouble. You can find everything you need to know on fb.


----------



## TG (Jul 28, 2014)

Your elections are so very confusing. So Trump won, will it stick?


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

TG said:


> Your elections are so very confusing. So Trump won, will it stick?


Well, that's kinda up in the air right now. The left doesn't like it so they're doing everything they can to get their way.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

I here you can be faulted is not pursuing the truth?
ah yah my mind just melted. maybe I don't get it but isn't that up there with " I am not as think you drunk I am"?


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

Medic33 said:


> well annie I would say GOD makes the rules.
> BUT he gave us free choice.


We're only really free to choose to do what's right. We're really not free to do what's wrong. We might chose to do what's wrong, but we're not free to do it. There's a price for doing what's wrong.

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

TG said:


> Your elections are so very confusing. So Trump won, will it stick?


yup. sure thang.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

Annie said:


> We're only really free to choose to do what's right. We're really not free to do what's wrong. We might chose to do what's wrong, but we're not free to do it. There's a price for doing what's wrong.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk


and that's is our undoing -and yes we are free to do what is wrong -have you ever speeded as in went over the speed limit? that is wrong and you chose to do it GOD also said to obey the laws of man.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Medic33 said:


> I here you can be faulted is not pursuing the truth?
> ah yah my mind just melted. maybe I don't get it but isn't that up there with " I am not as think you drunk I am"?


I am trying to type on an iPhone 5C that has a horribly cracked screen. No telling what I am typing.


----------



## TG (Jul 28, 2014)

Ok good, it's not just my English, everyone is intoxicated in this thread


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

Medic33 said:


> and that's is our undoing -and yes we are free to do what is wrong -have you ever speeded as in went over the speed limit? that is wrong and you chose to do it GOD also said to obey the laws of man.


Not when it comes to morality. There are consequences that go along with our choices.

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Denton said:


> I am trying to type on an iPhone 5C that has a horribly cracked screen. No telling what I am typing.


Try Siri. She does the typing for you. :vs_bananasplit:

ETA: I made a mistake and said she. I forgot that's not PC even though Siri has a feminine voice.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

nope you engrish it's jurst fine.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

Denton said:


> I am trying to type on an iPhone 5C that has a horribly cracked screen. No telling what I am typing.


got-cha alrighty then. but that's kind of funny don't you think?


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

Annie said:


> Not when it comes to morality. There are consequences that go along with our choices.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk


again people choose those consequences even if they don't realize it- I mean not to many people wake up and say" you know what? I think i'll goto hell today for all eternity!"


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Being an old dinosaur, I'm not up on the gender neutrality stuff. What is the correct term now?


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

and if they do run-run away very fast.


----------



## Medic33 (Mar 29, 2015)

inceptor said:


> Being an old dinosaur, I'm not up on the gender neutrality stuff. What is the correct term now?


sounds good to me
but gender neutral what they are neither man or woman or is it the other way around?


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

TG said:


> Ok good, it's not just my English, everyone is intoxicated in this thread


Stolichnaya (Столичная)


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

Medic33 said:


> again people choose those consequences even if they don't realize it- I mean not to many people wake up and say" you know what? I think i'll goto hell today for all eternity!"


We're free to do what's right. No one in hell is free.

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk


----------



## TG (Jul 28, 2014)

Camel, that was hot! :vs_love:



Camel923 said:


> Stolichnaya (Столичная)


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Annie said:


> We're free to do what's right. No one in hell is free.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk


But you are also free to choose hell, and one can do so by even denying it's existence. Their reasoning is if there is no hell then they are free to do as they please. They also deny God's existence and choose the same thing.

On a side note, I don't understand why people get so upset over Jesus. It seems to me what he taught in the New Testament was common sense. But on the other hand things like common sense, common courtesy and common decency aren't so common anymore. These same people who believe in free speech are the first one's that try to shut you up by any means necessary when you disagree with them.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Medic33 said:


> got-cha alrighty then. but that's kind of funny don't you think?


Funny? I have bloody fingers from a broken up screen and you think it is funny?
So do I!

I am now home and on my crappy laptop. Any typos are now on me.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Medic33 said:


> if marriage only had to do with religion then how can a justice of the peace, or a ships captain preform the binding ceremony?


Money.

There was a time when marriages were performed by the pastor and were logged into the family Bible. The government had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

OakOwl said:


> The Establishment Clause prevents the U.S. from creating a state or national religion, from favoring one religion over another, or entangling the government with religion. No state can pick it's religion. So marriage can't have anything to do with religion.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


You are really lacking in some serious knowledge!

The notion was that the federal government could not pick one CHRISTIAN denomination over the others.
Entangling? Excuse me, but I stick with the founders' intent and not the twisted, perverted teaching of the last few decades.

To be honest with you, I am done spoon feeding you. You honestly do not bring anything to the table as far as knowledge. I spent years doing my own study. When I say study, I don't mean reading other people's interpretation. I mean I had to go to the point of understanding the language of the time just so I could properly understand the writings of the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. Often times, a word that looks familiar to you had the opposite meaning in the days of the founding fathers. Talk about a headache.
To make matters worse, my personality causes me to speak and write in the style I surround myself. Fortunately, that same quirk brings me back into contemporary writing and speaking pretty quickly.

Point I am trying to make is you are an elementary school child trying to argue with a college math professor is wrong when he says 2 plus 2 equals four. You might _feel_ it equals five, and someone else might tell you it does, but you are still arguing from a position that is not on par with the professor.

As far as your earlier comment that the law is on your side, you are wrong, once again. Not only are all statutes not laws, there are many judges, up to even the supreme court level, that uphold unconstitutional statutes because they are disconnected from the very foundation of this nation. That doesn't mean you or they are correct; that means our nation has been conquered.


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

azrancher said:


> _*A Texas Republican announced over the weekend that he plans to resign his post as a member of the Electoral College rather than cast a ballot for US President-elect Donald Trump, a man he deems "not biblically qualified for office."*_
> 
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-elector-quits-says-pledge-binding-trump-not-152847695.html
> 
> *Rancher*


Heard him blabbering on NPR this morning. Hes a Catholic and pissed off at himself for being a Mexican. They dont think rational.


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

inceptor said:


> But you are also free to choose hell, and one can do so by even denying it's existence. Their reasoning is if there is no hell then they are free to do as they please. They also deny God's existence and choose the same thing.


Right.


> On a side note, I don't understand why people get so upset over Jesus.


 You either love Him or hate Him, or else you twist His words to your own liking and pretend to love Him, I guess....Remember He was crucified because people don't like the truth and Christ was all about the truth.



> It seems to me what he taught in the New Testament was common sense. But on the other hand things like common sense, common courtesy and common decency aren't so common anymore. These same people who believe in free speech are the first one's that try to shut you up by any means necessary when you disagree with them.


 Liberals are supposed to be the open minded ones, but ironically they're only open minded about their own opinions. With the gay agenda, there are many who aren't satisfied with live and let live, no. They want our approval and they won't be happy until they get it. That's why you find the worst of them going after bakers who won't make their wedding cakes and photographers who don't want to do gay marriages. This "tolerance" stuff is taught in our schools. We pay for it with our tax money. Our churches are gonna be next, I'm afraid.


----------



## OakOwl (Nov 7, 2016)

Denton said:


> You are really lacking in some serious knowledge!
> 
> The notion was that the federal government could not pick one CHRISTIAN denomination over the others.
> Entangling? Excuse me, but I stick with the founders' intent and not the twisted, perverted teaching of the last few decades.
> ...


The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." --John Adams

The united States was the first national founded without a national religion

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

OakOwl said:


> The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." --John Adams
> 
> The united States was the first national founded without a national religion
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


Didn't we do this once already? I guess it's ok to ignore reality.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

OakOwl said:


> Keep them separate
> 
> Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk


LOL... do I spend 20 minutes giving a history lesson or just let this slip by

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, *or prohibiting the free exercise thereof*; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

this exercise might include refusing to vote for a person, not issuing marriage licenses, not making a wedding cake, not serving in the military...

IF religion was to be removed then only atheists could run for office, run florist shops, bake cakes for sale, own rental property... it is impossible for a person that REALLY believes in God to not have that as center in ALL their thinking


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"

please read the Constitution dating In the YEAR OF OUR LORD








and

The Paris Peace Treaty was the document which formally ended the Revolution and granted the United States independence from Great Britain. In a real sense, the United States formally became a nation on September 3, 1783.

When the United States became a nation, it was done in the "name of the most holy and undivided Trinity." The preamble to this Treat states it is based upon the "Holy and undivided Trinity." The concept of the holy Trinity is unique to Christianity. This statement means the United States was founded on the Christian faith. The complete Preamble follows:

"In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity"

The Treaty then ends just like the Constitution with a statement it is being signed in the "Year of our Lord." The witnesses representing the United States were John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and D. Hartley. The section in part follows:
"In witness whereof we the undersigned, their ministers plenipotentiary, have in their name and in virtue of our full powers, signed with our hands the present definitive treaty and caused the seals of our arms to be affixed thereto.Done at Paris, this third day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three"

D. HARTLEY
JOHN ADAMS
B. FRANKLIN
JOHN JAY


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

It amazes me that so many people in the USA want to fight so hard against Christianity and Christians and yet many of them welcome islamists who want to kill them. 

People are stupid and the world done gone crazy...


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

*What happened to separation of Church and State?*



azrancher said:


> _*A Texas Republican announced over the weekend that he plans to resign his post as a member of the Electoral College rather than cast a ballot for US President-elect Donald Trump, a man he deems "not biblically qualified for office."*_
> https://www.yahoo.com/news/texas-elector-quits-says-pledge-binding-trump-not-152847695.html
> *Rancher*


*That elector has become foolish, and he is mixing apples and oranges, and he should resign.
But any separation is pretty thin, and mentioned in 1 letter. And it protects the Church from the State, just as much as the other way around. 
Here is that letters text.*
*
Letter to the Danbury Baptists*


*January 1, 1802

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.*​
*Gentlemen*
*The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
*
*Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,**" thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. **

Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
*
*I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.*
*Th. Jefferson

**http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/primary-sources/jefferson-s-letter-to-the-danbury-baptists
*​
*PS: Jefferson muddied the waters with this letter, and sowed confusion. Religion is a public matter as much as it is a private one.
But, you will notice the friendly tone of it, he is not the chuches' enemy, he is a friend.*:vs_closedeyes:


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Denton said:


> Money.
> 
> There was a time when marriages were performed by the pastor and were logged into the family Bible. The government had nothing to do with it.


That's exactly my point. The whole government and marriage thing is how they file their income taxes. The government has no business telling people who can and can't get married just like they have no business telling a bakery they have to bake a gay wedding cake or get fined.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

Nailed it!

Eliminate the thousands of pages of tax code, go to a Fair or Flat Tax or a simple hybrid of both and it will go a long way to getting the Fed government out of the marriage business.



NotTooProudToHide said:


> That's exactly my point. The whole government and marriage thing is how they file their income taxes. The government has no business telling people who can and can't get married just like they have no business telling a bakery they have to bake a gay wedding cake or get fined.


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

Slippy said:


> Nailed it!
> 
> Eliminate the thousands of pages of tax code, go to a Fair or Flat Tax or a simple hybrid of both and it will go a long way to getting the Fed government out of the marriage business.


Personally I like Dwights idea of getting rid of income tax all together and replacing it with a national sales tax on everything except unprocessed food and medicine. Imagine how much would be collected on stationary products alone.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> That's exactly my point. The whole government and marriage thing is how they file their income taxes. The government has no business telling people who can and can't get married just like they have no business telling a bakery they have to bake a gay wedding cake or get fined.


See, I can't disagree with that.

When the govt was formed, it was a union of states and not designed to be the sovereign authority. I am for states rights as was originally designed.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

Slippy said:


> It amazes me that so many people in the USA want to fight so hard against Christianity and Christians and yet many of them welcome islamists who want to kill them.
> 
> People are stupid and the word done gone crazy...


two thumbs up


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

NotTooProudToHide said:


> Personally I like Dwights idea of getting rid of income tax all together and replacing it with a national sales tax on everything except unprocessed food and medicine. Imagine how much would be collected on stationary products alone.


good post.....I am for a National sales tax.. except unprocessed food, medicine, medical care, gas, diesel, natural gas, 1st homes/main residence


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Annie said:


> We're only really free to choose to do what's right. We're really not free to do what's wrong. We might chose to do what's wrong, but we're not free to do it. There's a price for doing what's wrong.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk


I got this in an email today and thought of this post. It fits. One is free to choose either way.

_"This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live." (Deuteronomy 30:19)_


----------



## Annie (Dec 5, 2015)

inceptor said:


> I got this in an email today and thought of this post. It fits. One is free to choose either way.
> 
> _"This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live." (Deuteronomy 30:19)_


Okay, let me see if I can explain a little better. But first off let's read it again:
"This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live." (Deuteronomy 30:19)

So the Lord is saying these ways (life and death, blessings and curses) are set before the Israelites, but He only tells them (and us) to choose life. Where in the bible does the Lord tell us we can choose death? If you can show me that, I'd like to see it.

Now here's some more quotes for you:

"You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." John 8:32 Freedom and truth and life aren't separate. They're one and the same thing, just as sin, slavery and death are all tied together and not separate.


----------



## A Watchman (Sep 14, 2015)

One more time for everyone ...

Life is full of choices.
Good choices have consequences.
Bad choices have consequences.
Not making a choice has a consequence.

Choose well and choose the light.


----------



## inceptor (Nov 19, 2012)

Annie said:


> Okay, let me see if I can explain a little better. But first off let's read it again:
> "This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live." (Deuteronomy 30:19)
> 
> So the Lord is saying these ways (life and death, blessings and curses) are set before the Israelites, but He only tells them (and us) to choose life. Where in the bible does the Lord tell us we can choose death? If you can show me that, I'd like to see it.
> ...





A Watchman said:


> One more time for everyone ...
> 
> Life is full of choices.
> Good choices have consequences.
> ...


Just in case is wasn't clear y'all. We are on the same page. I just thought it was funny this showed up in my inbox right after we discussed it.


----------

