The Russo-Ukrainian War Thread (FKA Political Thread)

[CakeWalker]

If he chooses to be a coward - and hide behind 'books and pieces of paper' despite being the person to bring up the topic - then a coward is going to do what a coward is going to do. Shouldn't have brought the topic up - if he was intended to run away like a scolded dog - who "didnt want to be dragged into it"

despite bring it up.

 

[Alexa]

Nothing could be greater than the Roman Empire, but that's just a Romanophile's opinion

I have no opinion on that, but figured you would get a enjoyment out of that statement

 

[Kross Rhodes]

I kinda want to legitimately write a letter to Justice Thomas about this. If he believes that Obergefell vs. Hodges should be overturned on a basis of not being a violation of right to privacy, then shouldn't he then be in favor of overturning Loving vs. Virginia (Interracial Marriage), because that would also be a basis of right to privacy, or is he in favor of changing the designation to an Equal Protections Clause?

I think it would be a good idea if people wanted to write him because I honestly think it’s something that might get through to him if he hasn’t already considered it. I also think changing both to equal protections is the smart play because once that’s set, there isn’t gonna be a future bench that overturns equal protections as the decision.

 

[CakeWalker]

I told you why I brought it up. Because the Supreme Court should have never made the decision they made. Just like Roe v. Wade.

You don't want to accept that because I guess you feel personally attacked.

However, whether the word 'homosexual' was in the Bible prior to 1946 means nothing. It is referred to in several more direct ways in other parts of the bible. Like Lev. 18:22. *in b4 that is Old Testament hurr durr!*

You won't find anything in true scripture Christianity or Jewish that actually condemns homosexuality.
Only in altered texts by false prophets and those that have bended Gods words.

 

[Dakstang]

You won't find anything in true scripture Christianity or Jewish that actually condemns homosexuality.
Only in altered texts by false prophets and those that have bended Gods words.

And that is your opinion.

And I have my opinion.

Precisely why I did not want to go through the rigmarole you insisted on to arrive at this point.

Been there, done that, would not reccommend.

 

[Bobby Barrows]

I think it would be a good idea if people wanted to write him because I honestly think it’s something that might get through to him if he hasn’t already considered it. I also think changing both to equal protections is the smart play because once that’s set, there isn’t gonna be a future bench that overturns equal protections as the decision.

Just reading up on this, it's here:

In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court invoked Loving, among other cases, as precedent for its holding that states are required to allow same-sex marriages under both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.[3] The court's decision in Obergefell cited Loving nearly a dozen times, and was based on the same principles – equality and an unenumerated right to marriage. During oral argument, the eventual author of the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy, noted that the ruling holding racial segregation unconstitutional and the ruling holding bans on interracial marriage unconstitutional (Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 and Loving v. Virginia in 1967, respectively) were made about 13 years apart, much like the ruling holding bans on same-sex sexual activity unconstitutional and the eventual ruling holding bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional (Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 and Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, respectively).[65]

So if Justice Clarence Thomas is considering his the Supreme Court must overturn Obergefell vs. Hodges, than he must also be in favor of overturning Loving vs. Virginia under the exact same circumstances. Neither then are equally protected and if racial segregation is unconstitutional, why is gay marriage and homosexual discrimination suddenly no longer needed to be protected under the Equal Protection Clause? It is the hypocrisy of the highest order to consider Obergefell vs. Hodges not of equal standing to Loving vs. Virginia.

Also, Dak, gay marriage is absolutely in the Constitution, and it is under the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Marriage is a legal right and privilege enumerated by the Constitution of the United States, it is why the State and Federal governments require a marriage certificate for recognition of said union; it is a legal binding held together through the courts of the United States of America, and therefore, a protected clause of said government.

 

[CakeWalker]

And that is your opinion.

And I have my opinion.

Precisely why I did not want to go through the rigmarole you insisted on to arrive at this point.

Been there, done that, would not reccommend.

Its not an opinion though - its fact. If you are worshipping God based on false texts and false representations - then you must repent.

There is only ONE WORD OF GOD - especially among Christians and Jews. The Christians just added the new testament as well - smh wishful thinking believe in that guy - but this isn't open to interpretation.

If however - you want to start identifying as member of a radical wing of Islam - where certain Imams very openly teach people their own version and interpretations of the Qur'an then I won't say anything else. However - if you are still claiming to hold Christian values - I am going to openly laugh at you for claiming to be fighting for something, that has no actual basis in scripture other than via perverted interpretation of bigots and false worshipper of God himself.

 

[Dakstang]

Its not an opinion though - its fact. If you are worshipping God based on false texts and false representations - then you must repent.

There is only ONE WORD OF GOD - especially among Christians and Jews. The Christians just added the new testament as well - smh wishful thinking believe in that guy - but this isn't open to interpretation.

If however - you want to start identifying as member of a radical wing of Islam - where certain Imams very openly teach people their own version and interpretations of the Qur'an then I won't say anything else. However - if you are still claiming to hold Christian values - I am going to openly laugh at you for claiming to be fighting for something, that has no actual basis in scripture other than via perverted interpretation of bigots and false worshipper of God himself.

What is the one and only acceptable text in your mind then? Where is it at?

We must accept the the Bible as the infallible word of God or trust none of it. You cannot pick and choose the parts you do not like and claim it is not true.

 

[Kross Rhodes]

Just reading up on this, it's here:



So if Justice Clarence Thomas is considering his the Supreme Court must overturn Obergefell vs. Hodges, than he must also be in favor of overturning Loving vs. Virginia under the exact same circumstances. Neither then are equally protected and if racial segregation is unconstitutional, why is gay marriage and homosexual discrimination suddenly no longer needed to be protected under the Equal Protection Clause? It is the hypocrisy of the highest order to consider Obergefell vs. Hodges not of equal standing to Loving vs. Virginia.

Also, Dak, gay marriage is absolutely in the Constitution, and it is under the 14th Amendment:



Marriage is a legal right and privilege enumerated by the Constitution of the United States, it is why the State and Federal governments require a marriage certificate for recognition of said union; it is a legal binding held together through the courts of the United States of America, and therefore, a protected clause of said government.

If they already cited equal protections and not privacy solely than I was right for the beginning. I think it’s political pandering. They couldn’t and wouldn’t try to overturn something that’s ironclad in Constitutional protection dating back to the 14th.

 

[CakeWalker]

What is the one and only acceptable text in your mind then? Where is it at?

We must accept the the Bible as the infallible word of God or trust none of it. You cannot pick and choose the parts you do not like and claim it is not true.

You wont find any real example of what you claim - that haven't been perverted via false interpretation.
Also - I will pray to God to forgive you for your sins.

 

[Canadian Dragon]

You won't find anything in true scripture Christianity or Jewish that actually condemns homosexuality.
Only in altered texts by false prophets and those that have bended Gods words.

I love you

 

[Dakstang]

You wont find any real example of what you claim - that haven't been perverted via false interpretation.
Also - I will pray to God to forgive you for your sins.

I will do the same for you.

Is the Bible reliable?

Is the Bible reliable? Yes it is very reliably transmitted from the original writings to the present. Also, see a video by Matt Slick of Carm.org on this.

carm.org

 

[Bobby Barrows]

What is the one and only acceptable text in your mind then? Where is it at?

We must accept the the Bible as the infallible word of God or trust none of it. You cannot pick and choose the parts you do not like and claim it is not true.

Actually, yes you can. It's called Biblical canon and many denominations of Christianity (and Judaism) completely disagree with what is totally canonical to the Bible, for example:

Prayer of Manassah
The Books of Esdras
The Book of Judith
The Books of Maccabees
Psalms 152-155
3rd Corinthians
and the Books of Clement

 

[CakeWalker]

Just one example :

When did Christians start to interpret the story as being about same-sex behavior?​

• No Jewish literature until the writings of Philo in the first century connected the sin of Sodom to same-sex behavior specifically. Even then, the same-sex reading of the story did not become the mainstream interpretation among Christians until the time of Augustine in the early fifth century.
• The term "sodomy" was not coined until the 11th century, and even then, it was widely used to refer to all non-procreative sexual acts (including heterosexual acts), not same-sex relations specifically.
• The earliest Christians read the Sodom story as a parable about inhospitality, arrogance, and violence, not same-sex behavior.

 

[Dakstang]

Actually, yes you can. It's called Biblical canon and many denominations of Christianity (and Judaism) completely disagree with what is totally canonical to the Bible, for example:

Prayer of Manassah
The Books of Esdras
The Book of Judith
The Books of Maccabees
Psalms 152-155
3rd Corinthians
and the Books of Clement

In my opinion and beliefs you cannot pick and choose and be a Christian.

Good day.