Evidence for God from Science

So why doesn't the government just give up it's control of regulating it?

It's all about power and the ability to maintain and grow it through controlling its attached benefits. Follow the money and the power it buys!

One huge problem is that NO human language of legalese cannot be challenged based upon some obscure nuance or interpretation. This means, NOTHING, legally speaking, can ever be set in stone - as long as that legalese can be subjectively viewed in more than one certain way. That is how new legal ground is broken. It's how the Supremes came up with the unimaginable ruling that abortion is a "right." And that there is something LEGALLY different between a baby in the womb and one already in the cradle. And so any agenda-driven group with enough money and the right lawyers can challenge present laws, can influence openness of courts to new interpretations of present law. There's a reason why state legislatures and the houses of Congress are packed with so many lawyers. Contracts are riddled with legalese that a layperson might totally misunderstand. I can remember proposed statutes in the voting booth written so misleadingly that people might very well have voted for something that they really didn't like. This is why marriages of all sorts of unimaginable and perverse unions may well become legal - as how can ANYONE be denied what they perceive as a "right" that does not hurt anyone else.

neo-x wrote:@K,

who then should regulate it?

I'm with you here Neo.

After thinking about it a little more, doesn't govt. have to define something in order to regulate it? I think it is the govt's job to regulate marriage. There's definitely an argument to be made that traditional marriage is a positive institution, as far as society is concerned. Things like murder, rape, stealing, and children brought up in a household without both a mother and father, are harmful to a healthy society. So, I think it's the govt's duty to make laws that try to inhibit those, and other harmful things. Of course it goes without saying, that those brought up in a household without a healthy Mother/Father relationship, CAN overcome that. Just like victims of rape, and robbery CAN overcome that as well.

Sign of the times...

First you build an infrastructure of some sort, and in this, case law, and then go from there in slow steps.

The media mafia will most likely paint the clerk as a fruit cake in the most vile way. Govt will accept te Judges decision to build case law off of as the beginning of infrastructure to build a wide array of law to build other cases off of which could lead to jailing pastors, ministers, people of the faith for whatever reason they think necessary.

We recently had several militant atheist whom expressed their desire that is is okay to silence Christians for breaking certain kinds laws and then deny the low level infrastructural type of persecution is building in the USA. So it is coming, just a matter of time...

We still have a little time to thwart it, or delay it, but watch the legal building blocks of case law which will limit Christians in a simlar fashion of the resent ISIS contract for Iraqi Christians albeit with a little tweaking based on case laws... noted after the quote:

1. Christians may not build churches, monasteries, or hermitages in the city or in the surrounding areas.

2. They may not show the cross or any of their books in the Muslims’ streets or markets, and may not use amplifiers when worshiping or during prayer.

3. They may not make Muslims hear the reciting of their books or the sounds of church bells, which must be rung only inside their churches.

4. They may not carry out any act of aggression against ISIS, such as giving refuge to spies and wanted men. If they come to know of any plot against Muslims, they must report it.

5. They must not perform religious rituals in public.

6. They must respect Muslims and not criticize their religion.

7. Wealthy Christians must pay an annual jizya of four gold dinars; middle-class Christians must pay two gold dinars, and the poor must pay one. Christians must disclose their income, and may split the jizya into two payments.

8. They may not own guns.

9. They may not engage in commercial activity involving pigs or alcohol with Muslims or in Muslim markets, and may not drink alcohol in public.

10. They may maintain their own cemeteries.

11. They must abide by ISIS dress code and commerce guidelines.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/09 ... -in-syria/

Modified rules... Tweaked a bit might read like this...

1. Christians may not build churches, monasteries, or hermitages in the city or in the surrounding areas due to separation of Church and State unless they agree to the abide by ALL Govt fairness doctrines

2. They may not show the cross or any of their books in the public square or markets, and may not use amplifiers when worshiping or during prayer.

3. They may not make anyone hear the reciting of their books, sermons, witnessing, or hear sounds of church bells, organs, worship music, which must be practiced only inside their churches which are in violation of being on state ground unless have permission to preach PC messages and bide by rule One

4. They may not carry out any act of aggression against the Govt or privet citizens, such as setting up Nativity scenes, protesting heroic abortion clinics effort of women's rights, witnessing about Jesus Christ, participating in elections, giving refuge to non state licensed ministers and those of the underground church. If they come to know of any plot of such aggression, they must report it.

5. They must not perform religious rituals in public as this offensive, unless the performed for the right of same sex/transgender marriage

6. They must respect non-christian beliefs, not criticize others beliefs, not read their bibles out loud unless the from the Govt edited edition, not talk about sin, or hell, must send their kids only to public schools, they cannot criticize climate change, and cannot discuss religion with outsiders.

7. Wealthy Christians must pay an annual redemption tax of 80 percent; middle-class Christians must pay 60 percent, and the poor must pay 50 percent of gross income in retribution Taxes due to the the crimes it committed in history. Christians must disclose their income, and may split the taxes into two payments.

8. They may not own guns.

9. They may not engage in commercial activity or employment active that denies wedding cakes, ceremonies to transgender, same sex, and human to animal marriages. Hiring of non-Christians for ministers and employees of state sanctioned Churches and businesses will be strictly enforced,

10. They may maintain their own cemeteries if the pay another 10 percent retribution tax

11. They must abide by state, local, federal dress code which stipulates that they wear the Yellow C when in public and follow all commerce guidelines.

-
-
-

Interesting video:

The video makes me think that she might well have had some pressure or strong encouragement from her church to make this stand. REALISTICALLY, her actions were not well thought out. Let's take the nature of this issue, plug in a Muslim in a similar position that refuses some aspect of adhering to the law - I think many would not be consistent in how they viewed the similarity ("Of COURSE, he must obey the law). Of course, when she gained her position, same-sex "marriage" was not yet an issue. I'd love to ask her why she was apparently okay with a variety of other unBiblical marriage license applications - adulterers, non-Christians, etc., but chose to make a stand over gay marriage. Is it the sexuality aspect of it that has given her a powerful emotional response that these other scenarios did not? Her church? What???!!!

Huckabee is doing Christians no favor by trying to gain a few votes by wading into this situation. And he's likely torpedoing any chances of becoming part of the Republican ticket, as many will view him as picking and choosing who he thinks should adhere to the law. Thing is, we aren't like ancient Israel, in that, we don't live in a Theocracy, where everyone must rigidly (and appropriately/obediently) adhere to God's moral laws. We live in a (quasi-democracy), meaning we must share and live with those who often believe differently with our views on a variety of issues. But with this jailed lady, truly, what are her options? She is going to realize very quickly that her appeal has little legal merit. I am surprised she can't be bailed out of jail, pending more/or final legal maneuvering.

Oops, she's out of jail! http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09 ... tcmp=hpbt1

Philip wrote:Oops, she's out of jail! http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09 ... tcmp=hpbt1

With the conditions being that she doesn't interfere with others in the office who are going to issue licenses. We'll see if she backs down, and starts being reasonable.

Philip wrote:
Huckabee is doing Christians no favor by trying to gain a few votes by wading into this situation. And he's likely torpedoing any chances of becoming part of the Republican ticket, as many will view him as picking and choosing who he thinks should adhere to the law. Thing is, we aren't like ancient Israel, in that, we don't live in a Theocracy, where everyone must rigidly (and appropriately/obediently) adhere to God's moral laws. We live in a (quasi-democracy), meaning we must share and live with those who often believe differently with our views on a variety of issues. But with this jailed lady, truly, what are her options? She is going to realize very quickly that her appeal has little legal merit. I am surprised she can't be bailed out of jail, pending more/or final legal maneuvering.

Huckabee just lost any chance he had of gaining the Republican nomination. He's a freak. I've watched his tv show, and I liked him a lot. he's gone too far now. He's advocating for disobeying the law if one doesn't agree with it. AND HE WANTS TO BE PRESIDENT!!!!!
IF I COULD YELL ANY LOUDER, I WOULD...HE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT TO BE PRESIDENT IF HE IS ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO BREAK THE LAW IF THEY DISAGREE WITH IT!!!!!!

neo-x wrote:@K,

who then should regulate it?

The government wants to regulate so it can police it's legislation better.
Maybe I'm being idealistic, but it really shouldn't be governments that dictate whether one is married or not. Indeed, if they claim to have such authority, it is superficial and meaningless really for anything but their legislation and law. Kind of like if they dictate the Sun rising and setting for their society so we can work during the day and sleep at night, but the reality is that governments just acknowledge such and govern (setup) society around that which is already there.

And if they need to keep track of who is together (married, de facto) and who isn't, well then its up to them to figure out how to do so.

Rather, if a man and woman come together, make a commitment to each other and all things working marriage is consummated, then that evidences the fulfillment of the design of marriage. Indeed, for us, consummation evidences God's design (cf. Gen 2:24; 1 Cor 6:16).

So if by regulate you want to know who says one is marriage... the design of things everyone can see say it. And that speaks to the One who designed it, or perhaps just evolutionary "random" processes and family bonds is how we humans have managed to survive as a species as it creates strong bonds. But, that is the design.

If by regulate, you mean who should monitor. Well who care? Again, it is up to government to work out if they want to monitor. Currently it seems governments want to monitor by taking control of the whole institution of marriage. That is just plainly overstepping its mark to me, but we're just conditioned to them doing it so it might seem right to many that governments control "marriage" within their societies, that governments therefore define what "marriage" is or isn't.

If by regulate, you mean more who operates and controls. No one does. That's like asking who operated and controls two people deciding to have sex and bring into the world new life. Well, to some degree, places like China with its one child policy try do, and they will enforce abortions upon women who go against the policy. It doesn't stop the two trying and actually bring life into the world which their government just destroys.

In Australia, they try to regulate whether a couple are de facto, since not all believe in marriage -- but de facto couples to me are married since they still fulfill the design of marriage. They've come together and decided to marry their lives together. God sees them as one just as much as someone who is "government certified".

Since many Christians (and even non-Christians) would go to a church to get married. Whether that is in a church building itself, or outside of a church in some nice and peaceful natural environment (like I did with my wife), if the government had an agreement with churches to notify them of who they marry then well, churches could report if they decided such was good to do. Instead, churches are used by government to reduce their own workloads. And churches must have people registered with government to officiate marriage. That needs to be turned on its head.

So, when we come to same sex couples think that marriage is just about two people loving each other and wanting to be together as a couple, well then if government wants to track that too let them. And it they see that as what "marriage" encompasses, then who's to stop them being together if the law allows such? But, I'm telling you, two people of the same sex can never fulfill the design of marriage that is seen in nature. They can never be really "married" in the full meaning of what such means because nature doesn't allow it. Which is why ways of getting around nature are invented in order to allow same sex couples to have children, even biologically. They can only ever be unnaturally yoked together, since the design of nature only caters to two people of the opposite sex being united together. I'm not being mean. That's just the way it is.

I'm not sure if i'm right, but in my country (which is considered to be more secular than USA) the priest is allowed to say no to marry a homosexual couple.

JurassicTerrorist wrote:I'm not sure if i'm right, but in my country (which is considered to be more secular than USA) the priest is allowed to say no to marry a homosexual couple.

Sure. But we're talking about a state issued marriage license. We're not talking about a priest or church being forced to marry a homosexual couple.

Rick: Sure. But we're talking about a state issued marriage license. We're not talking about a priest or church being forced to marry a homosexual couple.

Not YET, anyway.

Rick should appreciate this - the big storm over presidential candidate Ben Carson's comments over, as to why he wouldn't support a Muslim for president. All the liberals jumped all over it, but in detailing his thinking, he turns it back on them. SMART, smart guy!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09 ... tcmp=hpbt3

It also strikes to the issue of this post - can we elect people whose beliefs are incompatible with their faith? There's always going to be a tension with this, as the secularists are eager to insert laws and verbiage that would eliminate those of faith ever serving in high office.

Philip wrote:Rick should appreciate this - the big storm over presidential candidate Ben Carson's comments over, as to why he wouldn't support a Muslim for president. All the liberals jumped all over it, but in detailing his thinking, he turns it back on them. SMART, smart guy!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/09 ... tcmp=hpbt3

It also strikes to the issue of this post - can we elect people whose beliefs are incompatible with their faith? There's always going to be a tension with this, as the secularists are eager to insert laws and verbiage that would eliminate those of faith ever serving in high office.

I listened to that video this morning. I have the Fox News app on my iPhone.

Carson is correct, btw.

And, I'm voting for him...because he's black.

Rick: And, I'm voting for him...because he's black.

If someone with vision, wisdom, proper experience, and common sense steps forward - and they happen to be GREEN, I'll vote for them! Absolutely love how Carson put back in the indignant liberals faces - those so aghast that he actually was against a Muslim becoming president - uh, what about Sharia law, the treatment of women, the killing of homosexuals - so, you don't think such beliefs disqualify a Muslim from being president? It's almost as if Carson waited to let the press go crazy with his statement without qualification, then the attention he received would be massive. More likely, the press had their hoped for sound byte, one that would take out one more conservative. Wrong!

One thing: Carson differentiated between a Muslim in congress and one in the presidency - not sure what he meant there.

I'd vote for Carson because a movie was made about him starring Cuba Gooding.