Ted Cruz Is Not A Constitutionalist

patriot66 said:
Can you explain to me why as a Christian I should celebrate a union between same sex couples,
Click to expand...

Who's forcing you to "celebrate" a union between same sex couples?:dunno:

can you explain to me why telling them their sin not unlike any sin, will keep them form eternity in Heaven.
Click to expand...

Because you might consider minding your own business and worry about your own sins instead of everybody else's:cof1:.

Unrepentant sinners will not be allowed into Heaven.
Click to expand...

Then you better start repenting for your busybody-ism. "let him who is without sin cast the first stone.":ouch:
 
SmarterthanYou said:
yes, we are...and yes, it happens. not often, but it does. and not because food is scarce. it's usually extreme discipline.
Click to expand...

They'll also kill their own male offspring when they get near breeding age because they begin seeing them as competition for the females. Usually they just run them off from the pride, but some actually take the challenge and fight to the death.

USF is learning all kinds of brilliant knowledge about lions, huh?
 
Robo said:
They'll also kill their own male offspring when they get near breeding age because they begin seeing them as competition for the females. Usually they just run them off from the pride, but some actually take the challenge and fight to the death.

USF is learning all kinds of brilliant knowledge about lions, huh?
Click to expand...

hopefully, though i'm certainly not an 'expert' in lions...cheetahs are my favorites.
 
Robo said:
Who's forcing you to "celebrate" a union between same sex couples?:dunno:



Because you might consider minding your own business and worry about your own sins instead of everybody else's:cof1:.



Then you better start repenting for your busybody-ism. "let him who is without sin cast the first stone.":ouch:
Click to expand...

Because legally we are forced to recognize it!
 
patriot66 said:
I have Read the entire Book of Genesis and have never heard of Lilith, so perhaps we have different beliefs.
Click to expand...

Wow. You actually have read it. Very good. Lilith didn't appear in Genesis. I was just laying a little trap to see if you'd fall into it. She appears in texts that pre-date the bible. Lilith was the first woman Adam had (who was not created from his rib (hence "bone" humor). She refused to be subservient to Adam, so she was denied the Garden and God had to find someone else for Adam to bone.

patriot66 said:
As for allegories 2 Timothy 3:16 disagrees with you.
Click to expand...

I disagree with Timothy. If he were right, and the events of Genesis were real, then there would be no human race. See, there's this thing called "viable population," and it dictates how many people and how much differing genetic material you need in order to have a population of a species that would be viable for 100 years or longer.

In general, you'd need 30 men and 30 women. Each woman must have one child with three different men. Each of the female children born must have three children with three of the male children born (when biologically appropriate) who are not blood-related to the parents of the female in question. Then they can kind of start commingling a little until there's enough genetic difference that you don't have to worry about inbreeding so bad that you get a baby that's really just a cyst with teeth and hair.

This is where most people get it exactly wrong. They think it was Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel. But the alleged Adam and Eve had more alleged children than just the famous two. Like any background actor in any play, they didn't get named. But that still means that if you believe the Garden story that incest birthed humanity. Square that circle, if you will.

patriot66 said:
Well just got to your Religious Bigot comment, and since you seem to Practice a religion I am not aware of we should just leave it there, my name calling days are over. Marriage or at least the concept was instituted in the Bible in Genesis later confirmed by Jesus in the New Testament.
Click to expand...

No, marriage was not instituted in the Bible. Marriage existed prior to the bible. Marriage is an ancient custom that pre-dates recorded history. Its concept is not rooted in love or religion but in strategic alliances that would strengthen bonds between tribes or families that would otherwise be killing each other.

And that's not all. Polygamy was the name of the game. Men (including Jacob and Kings David and Solomon) often had multiple wives. In fact, the only reason to only have ONE wife was because you simply couldn't afford more - which is why so few had harems (this, by the way, shoots that whole "one man/one woman" thing in the foot). Most people weren't wealthy kings.

The concept of monogamy grew out of this fact that poor men could only afford one wife, but it didn't take its church-imposed form of "one man/one woman" until somewhere between the 6th to 9th centuries CE.

There's a brief, quick-and-dirty history of the start of marriage. The bottom line is that it did not start in the bible and in fact existed for thousands of years before the bible. The oldest written reference to the institution of marriage comes from Hammurabi's Code of Ancient Mesopotamia.

And the Code of Hammurabi existed for about 1,000 years BEFORE Moses.

patriot66 said:
Can you explain to me why as a Christian I should celebrate a union between same sex couples
Click to expand...

No, I can't. I certainly never told you to celebrate it. You shouldn't have to celebrate it if you don't want to, but you don't have the right to force someone else to bend to your will because you don't like it.

patriot66 said:
can you explain to me why telling them their sin not unlike any sin, will keep them form eternity in Heaven.
Click to expand...

Who asked you to? I've said this before (although it probably got lost in the server crash): Of all the people I have ever known, in all the places I've been and all the things I've done it has always and ONLY been Christians who have berated me for believing something other than them. It has ONLY been Christians who have told me that my wife and I are going to hell because we're Jewish. It has ONLY been Christians who have done so on the Sabbath as we left temple. It has ONLY been Christians who have shown the kind of religious bigotry that wages war against anyone who is NOT Christian, while claiming there is a war on Christianity.

So if you're telling people anything about whether or not they're "sinful" without them first soliciting your religious opinion, who are you to open your mouth to them?

Doing so shows a level of arrogance that is unconscionable. It's also something that God is really down on. References to arrogance appear more than 200 times in the bible, and the bible tells us that the arrogant are an abomination unto God. So there's that.

patriot66 said:
I did provide an answer you just disagree with it so we disagree that is all
Click to expand...

But you didn't provide an answer to the question. You provided your opinion, but you haven't given any facts about how gays marrying each other harms anything at all in any way.

I've asked you specifically: Since gays can now marry, do my wife and I have to get divorced? You haven't answered even that (although the answer is obvious).

But let's carry on with those questions: Since gays can now marry like everyone else, does that mean:

1) My wife and I must divorce
2) My wife and I must stop having sex
3) My wife and I must separate and live apart from each other
4) I love my wife less
5) My wife loves me less
6) My marriage is somehow less legal in the eyes of the law
7) My marriage is somehow less valid in the eyes of God

Start with those simple "Yes or No" questions, if you like. If your answer to them is "No," then it means that gays being treated equally when it comes to civil marriage has not harmed the concept of "traditional" marriage at all. If your answer is "Yes," then please explain in detail.
 
Stelakh said:
Wow. You actually have read it. Very good. Lilith didn't appear in Genesis. I was just laying a little trap to see if you'd fall into it. She appears in texts that pre-date the bible. Lilith was the first woman Adam had (who was not created from his rib (hence "bone" humor). She refused to be subservient to Adam, so she was denied the Garden and God had to find someone else for Adam to bone.



I disagree with Timothy. If he were right, and the events of Genesis were real, then there would be no human race. See, there's this thing called "viable population," and it dictates how many people and how much differing genetic material you need in order to have a population of a species that would be viable for 100 years or longer.

In general, you'd need 30 men and 30 women. Each woman must have one child with three different men. Each of the female children born must have three children with three of the male children born (when biologically appropriate) who are not blood-related to the parents of the female in question. Then they can kind of start commingling a little until there's enough genetic difference that you don't have to worry about inbreeding so bad that you get a baby that's really just a cyst with teeth and hair.

This is where most people get it exactly wrong. They think it was Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel. But the alleged Adam and Eve had more alleged children than just the famous two. Like any background actor in any play, they didn't get named. But that still means that if you believe the Garden story that incest birthed humanity. Square that circle, if you will.



No, marriage was not instituted in the Bible. Marriage existed prior to the bible. Marriage is an ancient custom that pre-dates recorded history. Its concept is not rooted in love or religion but in strategic alliances that would strengthen bonds between tribes or families that would otherwise be killing each other.

And that's not all. Polygamy was the name of the game. Men (including Jacob and Kings David and Solomon) often had multiple wives. In fact, the only reason to only have ONE wife was because you simply couldn't afford more - which is why so few had harems (this, by the way, shoots that whole "one man/one woman" thing in the foot). Most people weren't wealthy kings.

The concept of monogamy grew out of this fact that poor men could only afford one wife, but it didn't take its church-imposed form of "one man/one woman" until somewhere between the 6th to 9th centuries CE.

There's a brief, quick-and-dirty history of the start of marriage. The bottom line is that it did not start in the bible and in fact existed for thousands of years before the bible. The oldest written reference to the institution of marriage comes from Hammurabi's Code of Ancient Mesopotamia.

And the Code of Hammurabi existed for about 1,000 years BEFORE Moses.



No, I can't. I certainly never told you to celebrate it. You shouldn't have to celebrate it if you don't want to, but you don't have the right to force someone else to bend to your will because you don't like it.



Who asked you to? I've said this before (although it probably got lost in the server crash): Of all the people I have ever known, in all the places I've been and all the things I've done it has always and ONLY been Christians who have berated me for believing something other than them. It has ONLY been Christians who have told me that my wife and I are going to hell because we're Jewish. It has ONLY been Christians who have done so on the Sabbath as we left temple. It has ONLY been Christians who have shown the kind of religious bigotry that wages war against anyone who is NOT Christian, while claiming there is a war on Christianity.

So if you're telling people anything about whether or not they're "sinful" without them first soliciting your religious opinion, who are you to open your mouth to them?

Doing so shows a level of arrogance that is unconscionable. It's also something that God is really down on. References to arrogance appear more than 200 times in the bible, and the bible tells us that the arrogant are an abomination unto God. So there's that.



But you didn't provide an answer to the question. You provided your opinion, but you haven't given any facts about how gays marrying each other harms anything at all in any way.

I've asked you specifically: Since gays can now marry, do my wife and I have to get divorced? You haven't answered even that (although the answer is obvious).

But let's carry on with those questions: Since gays can now marry like everyone else, does that mean:

1) My wife and I must divorce
2) My wife and I must stop having sex
3) My wife and I must separate and live apart from each other
4) I love my wife less
5) My wife loves me less
6) My marriage is somehow less legal in the eyes of the law
7) My marriage is somehow less valid in the eyes of God

Start with those simple "Yes or No" questions, if you like. If your answer to them is "No," then it means that gays being treated equally when it comes to civil marriage has not harmed the concept of "traditional" marriage at all. If your answer is "Yes," then please explain in detail.
Click to expand...

lets just start with this!
Here is Ryrie’s comment on this issue from his book Basic Theology (1986 ed) which I would highly recommend.

Though by many inerrantists the question of where Cain got his wife would not be considered a problem at all, this question is often used by those who try to demonstrate that the Bible is unreliable in what it claims. How could it claim that Adam and Eve were the first human beings who had two sons, one of whom murdered the other, and yet who produced a large race of people? Clearly, the Bible does teach that Adam and Eve were the first created human beings. The Lord affirmed this in Matthew 19:3-9. The genealogy of Christ is traced back to Adam (Luke 3:38). Jude 14 identifies Enoch as the seventh from Adam. This could hardly mean the seventh from “mankind,” an interpretation that would be necessary if Adam were not an individual as some claim. Clearly, Cain murdered Abel and yet many people were born. Where did Cain get his wife?

We know that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters in addition to Abel, Cain, and Seth (Gen. 5:4), and if there was only one original family, then the first marriages had to be between brothers and sisters. Such marriages in the beginning were not harmful. Incest is dangerous because inherited mutant genes that produce deformed, sickly, or moronic children are more likely to find expression in children if those genes are carried by both parents. Certainly, Adam and Eve, coming from the creative hand of God, had no such mutant genes. Therefore, marriages between brothers and sisters, or nieces and nephews in the first and second generations following Adam and Eve would not have been dangerous.

Many, many generations later, by the time of Moses, incest was then prohibited in the Mosaic laws undoubtedly for two reasons: first, such mutations that caused deformity had accumulated to the point where such unions were genetically dangerous, and second, it was forbidden because of the licentious practices of the Egyptians and Canaanites and as a general protection against such in society. It should also be noted that in addition to the Bible most other legal codes refuse to sanction marriages of close relatives.

But here is another issue to consider. If one accepts the evolutionary hypothesis as to the origin of the human race, has that really relieved the issue of incest? Not unless you also propound the idea of the evolution of many pairs of beings, pre-human or whatever, at the same time. No matter what theory of the origin of the human race one may take, are we not driven to the conclusion that in the early history of the race, there was the need for intermarriage of the children of the same pair?

For the last time, Marriage started With Adam and Eve, nothing predates it, it's where the concept came from, they were the First humans.
 
patriot66 said:
What if you own a business that want sto refuse to bake a cake because it WOULD be part of the celebration!
Click to expand...

This is a difficult one for me... Ultimatly it comes down to this, you must offer your services to the general public.

You can have a policy against making a cake that has two grooms kissing on it, because you don't offer that cake, but if a gay guy wants to buy a cake with roses on it, and you offer that cake to the general public, you cant refuse it because you don't like what he is going to do with that product.
 
Rana said:
I know many adulterers allowed to call themselves Christisns and though Jesus never addressed homosexuality, he did address adultery.
Click to expand...

This is the person cons are voting for:

In The Art of the Deal, Trump boasted about bedding other men’s wives.

“If I told the real stories of my experiences with women, often seemingly very happily married and important women, this book would be a guaranteed best-seller,” he wrote.
 
patriot66 said:
What if you own a business that want sto refuse to bake a cake because it WOULD be part of the celebration!
Click to expand...

As an individual you have certain rights - including that to not associate with those you do not wish to.

What I personally believe is that: If you own a business, that business does not have the same Constitutional rights as you do because it is NOT a person. It cannot exist without operation of the law, it cannot think or reason. It does not have a mind or soul. It is not living. As such, it is a thing, and things don't have rights.

So in my interpretation, if someone goes to a business and the owner is at religious odds with the customer, they should simply have a member of their staff who is NOT at odds with the customer serve them. Because the owner has the right not to serve them based on religious grounds but the business doesn't.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court issued a ruling granting "personhood" on corporations in the Citizens United case and people have used this to base corporate bigotry in law, and there have been moderate successes on this front.

But the truth of the ruling of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission is that it still upholds that corporations actually don't have all the rights a natural citizen does when it comes to the First Amendment.

Such final questions are for the courts to answer, and the only thing I can provide on this particular question is my opinion, which I have just done, except to add this:

If you base your religious and moral values in who you bake a cake for, then you really ought to spend some time evaluating whether or not a cake is a religious statement, because it's not.
 
J Craft said:
The Christian God is very clear. There are not valid differing opinions on homosexuality, only people who want to make scripture say what they want it to.
Click to expand...

And that is the crux of the problem.

You see, there are some people who don't believe the bible at all.

Taoism doesn't have a particular stance on homosexuality at all. Nor does Shintoism (hell, Samurai masters who took boys on to train them were in fact permitted, if their acolytes also consented, to take them as lovers), and so on.

There is more than one religion in the world, and in the US. Christianity may be the big dog, but it isn't the only one. As such, and under our Constitution, it doesn't rule and not everyone is subject to the Christian God.
 
patriot66 said:
lets just start with this!
Here is Ryrie’s comment on this issue from his book Basic Theology (1986 ed) which I would highly recommend.

Though by many inerrantists the question of where Cain got his wife would not be considered a problem at all, this question is often used by those who try to demonstrate that the Bible is unreliable in what it claims. How could it claim that Adam and Eve were the first human beings who had two sons, one of whom murdered the other, and yet who produced a large race of people? Clearly, the Bible does teach that Adam and Eve were the first created human beings. The Lord affirmed this in Matthew 19:3-9. The genealogy of Christ is traced back to Adam (Luke 3:38). Jude 14 identifies Enoch as the seventh from Adam. This could hardly mean the seventh from “mankind,” an interpretation that would be necessary if Adam were not an individual as some claim. Clearly, Cain murdered Abel and yet many people were born. Where did Cain get his wife?

We know that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters in addition to Abel, Cain, and Seth (Gen. 5:4), and if there was only one original family, then the first marriages had to be between brothers and sisters. Such marriages in the beginning were not harmful. Incest is dangerous because inherited mutant genes that produce deformed, sickly, or moronic children are more likely to find expression in children if those genes are carried by both parents. Certainly, Adam and Eve, coming from the creative hand of God, had no such mutant genes. Therefore, marriages between brothers and sisters, or nieces and nephews in the first and second generations following Adam and Eve would not have been dangerous.

Many, many generations later, by the time of Moses, incest was then prohibited in the Mosaic laws undoubtedly for two reasons: first, such mutations that caused deformity had accumulated to the point where such unions were genetically dangerous, and second, it was forbidden because of the licentious practices of the Egyptians and Canaanites and as a general protection against such in society. It should also be noted that in addition to the Bible most other legal codes refuse to sanction marriages of close relatives.

But here is another issue to consider. If one accepts the evolutionary hypothesis as to the origin of the human race, has that really relieved the issue of incest? Not unless you also propound the idea of the evolution of many pairs of beings, pre-human or whatever, at the same time. No matter what theory of the origin of the human race one may take, are we not driven to the conclusion that in the early history of the race, there was the need for intermarriage of the children of the same pair?

For the last time, Marriage started With Adam and Eve, nothing predates it, it's where the concept came from, they were the First humans.
Click to expand...

Marriage did not start with Adam and Eve (again, they were never actually married). The Code of Hammurabi, as I've already mentioned, pre-dates the bible's teachings, specifically references marriage, and doesn't mention the God of Abraham (God of Christians, Jews and Muslims) anywhere. In fact, the Sumerians/Babylonians worshiped several gods (who were headed by the God Marduk), and they did it before the Book of Genesis.

As I had said in my previous comment, there were in fact "other offspring" of Adam & Eve, and it is through this that most people say that the world was populated (they're still wrong about that, but it's kind of a sideline issue in this discussion).

But more to the point, let's get some more science in. There was absolutely no "first human." Our evolution doesn't work like that.

The rise of Homo Sapiens, you and me, was a long, gradual process that began millions of years ago. The Genus Homo, of which we are all a part, has existed for almost 3 million years.

In that time, starting with Homo Habilis, there have been multiple Homo species, some of which lived concurrently, and some of which inter-bred with other Homo species (this is why Neanderthal DNA still survives in Homo Sapiens today who have a non-African ancestry - if you derived from European ancestry, you might have about 20% of the old Neanderthal DNA knocking around in your human DNA (which is not to say that you are 20% Neanderthal)).

Humans today evolved through the process of natural selection and interbreeding that left us the last Homo species left. All of the other Homo species became extinct, leaving Homo Sapiens as the only extant representative of the genus.

What this means is that because the changes were gradual there is no one baby that was born and was "suddenly" human.

We have changed since Homo Sapiens emerged, and we will continue to change. There was never and could never be a "first" of any particular species because each one is subtly different from the one before, and they all derive from something else.
 
Jarod said:
This is a difficult one for me... Ultimatly it comes down to this, you must offer your services to the general public.

You can have a policy against making a cake that has two grooms kissing on it, because you don't offer that cake, but if a gay guy wants to buy a cake with roses on it, and you offer that cake to the general public, you cant refuse it because you don't like what he is going to do with that product.
Click to expand...

I will simply disagree!
 
Stelakh said:
Marriage did not start with Adam and Eve (again, they were never actually married). The Code of Hammurabi, as I've already mentioned, pre-dates the bible's teachings, specifically references marriage, and doesn't mention the God of Abraham (God of Christians, Jews and Muslims) anywhere. In fact, the Sumerians/Babylonians worshiped several gods (who were headed by the God Marduk), and they did it before the Book of Genesis.

As I had said in my previous comment, there were in fact "other offspring" of Adam & Eve, and it is through this that most people say that the world was populated (they're still wrong about that, but it's kind of a sideline issue in this discussion).

But more to the point, let's get some more science in. There was absolutely no "first human." Our evolution doesn't work like that.

The rise of Homo Sapiens, you and me, was a long, gradual process that began millions of years ago. The Genus Homo, of which we are all a part, has existed for almost 3 million years.

In that time, starting with Homo Habilis, there have been multiple Homo species, some of which lived concurrently, and some of which inter-bred with other Homo species (this is why Neanderthal DNA still survives in Homo Sapiens today who have a non-African ancestry - if you derived from European ancestry, you might have about 20% of the old Neanderthal DNA knocking around in your human DNA (which is not to say that you are 20% Neanderthal)).

Humans today evolved through the process of natural selection and interbreeding that left us the last Homo species left. All of the other Homo species became extinct, leaving Homo Sapiens as the only extant representative of the genus.

What this means is that because the changes were gradual there is no one baby that was born and was "suddenly" human.

We have changed since Homo Sapiens emerged, and we will continue to change. There was never and could never be a "first" of any particular species because each one is subtly different from the one before, and they all derive from something else.
Click to expand...

Where did homo habilis originate again? seriously where did it all begin, everything?
 
christiefan915 said:
This is the person cons are voting for:

In The Art of the Deal, Trump boasted about bedding other men’s wives.

“If I told the real stories of my experiences with women, often seemingly very happily married and important women, this book would be a guaranteed best-seller,” he wrote.
Click to expand...

Not this Conservative, and what is it the democrats are offering, two old white people who have lived off the system for a long time, by promising freebies with the money taken from hard working people.
 
Stelakh said:
As an individual you have certain rights - including that to not associate with those you do not wish to.

What I personally believe is that: If you own a business, that business does not have the same Constitutional rights as you do because it is NOT a person. It cannot exist without operation of the law, it cannot think or reason. It does not have a mind or soul. It is not living. As such, it is a thing, and things don't have rights.

So in my interpretation, if someone goes to a business and the owner is at religious odds with the customer, they should simply have a member of their staff who is NOT at odds with the customer serve them. Because the owner has the right not to serve them based on religious grounds but the business doesn't.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court issued a ruling granting "personhood" on corporations in the Citizens United case and people have used this to base corporate bigotry in law, and there have been moderate successes on this front.

But the truth of the ruling of Citizens United v Federal Election Commission is that it still upholds that corporations actually don't have all the rights a natural citizen does when it comes to the First Amendment.

Such final questions are for the courts to answer, and the only thing I can provide on this particular question is my opinion, which I have just done, except to add this:

If you base your religious and moral values in who you bake a cake for, then you really ought to spend some time evaluating whether or not a cake is a religious statement, because it's not.
Click to expand...

It's the principle!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top