Friday, June 22, 2007

Secular Progressive Theology

Blah, blah, blah...I could go on and on and bore you to death with what I think about the events of June 14, 2007. The events in which I am referring to are those that led up to the complete usurpation of democracy by 11 "Benedict Arnolds" at the State House during the constitutional convention where the Marriage Protection Amendment was "voted" upon.

I have not written a piece about the convention, better know as the Con Con, because of my complete disgust of what occurred in the 15 minutes on the House floor of June 14th. I sat in the House Gallery waiting to see what the outcome of marriage itself would be for the rest of the world...yes, for the rest of the world. I say this because Massachusetts is the only plot of land on the PLANET that is trying to reverse same-sex "marriages". Everyone and their dog was watching to see how democracy could involve the people. But wait, why would anyone depend on Beacon Hill to represent the "in's and out's" of democracy? Sorry for the letdown!!
None-the-less, as I have been taking part in an active recovery phase in the campaign to protect traditional marriage, I have been reading some interesting news articles about the marriage amendment. I came across one today, June 22, 2007, in the Boston Herald titled "Backwash of hate proves rep was right". Click HERE to read full article before reading anymore of this post. Now, Rep. Brian Wallace, as pictured above, has been behind Vote On Marriage regarding his support of the marriage amendment. His support was so concrete and trustworthy that you could sell your first born on it. I mean this guy was not going to flip!! So much for trusting someone's word or the other 10 traitors.
O.K., so Rep. Wallace received an e-mail from a stout supporter of same-sex marriage who expressed her thanks for the representatives support in "sticking up for her 'rights'. I never knew marriage was a right. Can anyone show me a timeline of when this campaign started and ended with marriage being labeled as a right?
This statement really threw me for a loop:
"...It would have been the ugliest, most divisive election this state has ever seen" (if the marriage amendment had been involved in the 2008 elections).
What Nancy Pelosi bandwagon did you get a ride on Rep. Wallace? This election process would of divided the men from the boys and the girls from the women regarding morality and faith. Imagine, an election that was centered on faith and morals like our U.S. Constitution is centered on. Maybe, just maybe the good Word, the Bible that is, would actually be voted back into schools as a piece of important literature if morals were a part of the upcoming elections. I know, most of you are saying "separation of church and state." Let me just say this - the legal ramifications or the words 'separation of church and state' do NOT exist in our government....anywhere!!!! I will touch base on this during another post or in my comments to anyone who wishes to comment on said matter.
And by the way Rep. Wallace, I would like to see those "hate" e-mails and phone calls. Were they "hate" centered or did they just express a different opinion that you SPIN off as "hate"?
Then the South Boston e-mailer to Rep. Wallace goes on to say:
"...that their marriages (same-sex marriages) are a lie?"
No, you are to say that same-sex marriages are not legal in Massachusetts, because 4 un-elected officials MADE law without legislative approval.
And this comment just makes me role with laughter:
"Both Brian and I (Sen. Jack Hart) are married fathers and church-going Catholics."
That's right Sen. Hart, you and Rep. Wallace are just "45 minute" church-going Catholics. You two are good little Catholics for the amount of time it takes for the pastor to finish his sermon and then once you walk out of the church doors it's back to your tossed-salad version of what is righteous.
The last paragraph in this article inspired me to write this post:
"In time, I think the vitriol will fade. When people want to challenge me over this issue," Hart said, "I ask them what they think Jesus would do? Would Jesus shower the same kind of hate upon these people? Or would He love them anyway and treat them with compassion"?
Yes, Sen. Hart, Jesus would treat these people with compassion but you are missing the point of scripture and the Lord's word if you stop there. Jesus would show compassion like he did to the prostitute woman at the water well. Jesus THEN went on to say to the woman, do not sin no more and you will enter my kingdom. Show compassion but then teach repentance. Right Rep. Wallace and Sen. Hart? You do remember this during your 45-minute lessons don't you?

19 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Scia, your first link to the article in the Boston Herald is not working.

“I never knew marriage was a right.”

My apologies Scia, I thought I already told you marriage was considered a right by the courts, which try to interpret the law as it is written (not always successfully.) Also please remember, the bill of rights was written in a vague manner for a reason. To apply more rights than less, and to more people than few.

“Imagine, an election that was centered on faith and morals like our U.S. Constitution is centered on.”

From what I’ve seen, Jimmy Carter was the most religiously righteous of any President in recent history. Now he’s regarded by many on the “right” side of the aisle as the worst. Although I have major issues with the word “faith” as I think you mean it. If you mean faith as in religious Christian faith I must adamantly disagree. Our nation and the constitution are based on freedom; nothing more, nothing less. One nation that is definitely based on Christianity is France (at least prior to the French Revolution.) King Charlemagne would kill any in his nation that would not accept Christ as their savior much to the favor of the Vatican.

“Maybe, just maybe the good Word, the Bible that is, would actually be voted back into schools as a piece of important literature if morals were a part of the upcoming elections.”

I don’t think that should be voted on either. The Bible should be in school as an important piece of history and literature. However I don’t want it taught as a way to live life. If that is what a parent wants for their child they have other options as to when and how to teach that child Christianity’s blessings.

“I know, most of you are saying "separation of church and state." Let me just say this - the legal ramifications or the words 'separation of church and state' do NOT exist in our government....anywhere!!!!”

That is quite correct Scia, but the man that is quoted as saying that phrase (Thomas Jefferson) would know better than any man alive what our constitution was trying to do. Also let’s not forget where the phrase is first written. It was written to a Baptist congregation that was fearful of the evangelicals gaining political power. So Thomas Jefferson was easing their fears with this quote from that 1802 letter: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith and worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should’… make no law… free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and state.” He goes on to write: “I 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.” Now those statements have no force of law behind them, but the courts try to follow not only the letter of the law, but the meaning of the law as well, and Jefferson being one of our founding fathers would and should be seen as someone who knew what was meant by the 1st amendment and the bill of rights. Rabbi David Saperstein wrote “The genius of America was for the first time in human history to create a political order in which your rights and opportunities as a citizen would not depend upon your religious identity, beliefs or practices. That was an extraordinary, revolutionary idea. To minority religions, particularly, who so often had been the victims of discrimination and persecution, it made all the difference. And this was a land in which Jews have known more freedoms, more rights, more opportunities, than we have known in 2000 years of Diaspora, Jewish life.” Reading these words make me proud to live in a nation with a separation of church and state. And will fight to the death any entity that attempts to change not just the letter of the law, but the meaning as well.

“That's right Sen. Hart, you and Rep. Wallace are just "45 minute" church-going Catholics. You two are good little Catholics for the amount of time it takes for the pastor to finish his sermon and then once you walk out of the church doors it's back to your tossed-salad version of what is righteous.”

Do they have an American duty to ensure the VOM views of religious morality are imposed on the populace, or is that a religious duty?

“Jesus would show compassion like he did to the prostitute woman at the water well. Jesus THEN went on to say to the woman, do not sin no more and you will enter my kingdom.”

What if that prostitute had no wish to enter his kingdom? Would he then have showered her with stones as the others wished to do, or would he have let her be to choose her own path?

Ken Weaver

7:30 PM, June 23, 2007  
Anonymous omd said...

I don't know how many times this needs to be said before people get it into their heads. The whole debate on Amendment 20 had nothing to do with homosexual marriage. That was just the smoke screen the secular progressives (new moniker for liberals) used so they could have a supposed victim to bring under their wing to deflect the real issue. That is, would the Legislature listen to the instructions of 63%+ (State House News Service) of the citizens stating they expected the Legislature to heed heir instructions and move the amendment to the 2008 ballot? Also, would the Legislature follow the rule of law, the state Constitution and the oaths of office? Had the amendment made it to the 2008 ballot, Then & Only Then would the debate have been about homosexual marriage! Until that point it was purely procedural.

What took place on June 14, 2007 is the death of the democratic process in Massachusetts. The government is now totalitarian in nature. Our only hope is the replacment of the 151 legislators that voted against the amendment with candidates that revere our state Constitution, the rule of law, their oaths of office and the rights of the entire people not just a small special interest group intent of tearing the sacred fabric of our society apart.

Oh, by-the-way, it was NEVER a GUARANTEE that this amendment would have passed at the polls. The way the Legisalture acted showed their assumption...

What the Legislature did by default was not only keep Massachusetts as the ONLY state in the union that has made homosexual marriage legal. They have also done what the homosexual community has been waiting for, for so many years... the government stamp of approval for their chosen sexual behavior.

Homosexual marriage is really still illegal because a law was made by the Judiciary where there was no law and the Legislature did not perform their Constitutional checks & balances. (another reason to throw them out)

So let's move on and elected candidates that will truly REPRESENT the Whole people not just those that offer bribes.

7:48 PM, June 23, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Homosexual marriage is really still illegal because a law was made by the Judiciary where there was no law…”

Okay, I’ll bite. Where can I find this law that denies marriage equality in Massachusetts? How long has it been on the books? What is the actual wording of this law that denies marriage rights to people who wish to marry a person of the same gender?

4:28 AM, June 24, 2007  
Blogger John Hosty said...

First it was the "activist" judges.
Then it was the Legislators have a responsibility to vote.
Now that they voted, and your amendment got 23% support, suddenly the voters are held hostage by their representatives.

If you take a look at the last election (which you can find posted on my site) you can see that the reps. that suppported gay marriage won big, and those who didn't almost surely lost. When is the opposition to gay marriage going to stop the lies and admit they do not have the majority of citizens behind them? 23% support?! I haven't seen numbers that bad since I last checked Bush's approval rating.

The fears against gay marriage seem unfounded, because in the three years it has existed no one has proven social harm of any form. I have invited anyone to tell me their personal stories of how gay marriage ruins their life, but I've not had one single taker. I gotten lots of hate mail, but not one single person has been able to articulate a need to ban gay marriage. My challenge is still open.

I've seen people cite David Parker and his case, but I will remind everyone of two things:

1. What is taught in schools has nothing to do with marriage, they are two distinctly seperate arguments.

2. The courts found so little merit in Parker's case that it was thrown out.

I believe the best medicine to resolve this issue is to bite the bullet, and get to know thy neighbor. Only when you see someone else as a human being will it be possible for you to understand that equality os for everyone.

God bless you in your suffering while you try to find truth in this tangled web of vitriol. I am here to show you that although I am disappointed with how you conduct yourself, I am not your enemy. Maybe now that you know you can't control me, we can finally have a meaningful dialog.

Break the hold stereotypes have on you. I am not an agenda, I'm just a man, and every bit as deserving of my right to be judged by my own actions, and not as a collective.

7:46 AM, June 24, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

I tried the link to the Boston Herald article and it IS working.

It could be your computer?? Sorry about that Ken. Try the link again from a different computer and let me know if you can use the link.

You said:

"I thought I already told you marriage was considered a right by the courts,..."

Ken, the courts do not APPLY law, they INTERPRET it. There was no law to interpret regarding marriage. This does not mean (this has been your response in the past)that the courts then therefor have an obligation to interpret nothing into something.

The legislator did NOT vote on same-sex marriage, SSM, and so therefor it is NOT legal in MA.

You said:

"Although I have major issues with the word “faith” as I think you mean it. If you mean faith as in religious Christian faith I must adamantly disagree. Our nation and the constitution are based on freedom; nothing more, nothing less."

America was founded on Judaeo-Christian principles whose founders fled from England to escape religious persecution with the intent of securing religious liberty.

The signing of the Mayflower Compact on Nov 11, 1620 marked the first time in recorded history that a free community of equal men created a new civil government by means of a social contract whose principles of equal treatment under the law and governmental authority being derived from the consent of the people were later incorporated into the Constitution.

Writes historian Paul Johnson: "What was remarkable about this particular contract was that it was not between a servant and a master, or a people and a king, but between a group of like-minded individuals and each other, with God as a witness and symbolic co-signatory."

The concept of biblically based governments modeled on church covenants was established by the Puritans that served as the foundation for our constitutional form of government.

The vast majority of the signers of the Declaration and Constitution were strong practicing Christians not secular humanists.

*52 of 56 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Trinitarian Christians.

*Of 55 signers of the Constitution 50 to 52 were orthodox Christians.

*Ben Franklin was the only Deist who signed the Constitution and he was a devout Christian who called for public prayer and tithed to all denominations.

A review of an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 by Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman identified 3,154 references to other sources.

*34% of all citations came from the Bible, which represented the most often quoted source.

*60% of all the quotes came from the men who used the Bible to form their conclusions.

*94% of all the quotes used by the founding fathers came from the Bible.

For example, Isaiah 33:22 says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, and the Lord is our king…" This passage was the basis for the three major branches of our government: judicial, legislative, and executive. These "checks and balances" which constitutes a vital element of our system originated from the Bible. The Founders knew that since man was by nature corrupt that the government must be set up to avoid the tyranny that could result from consolidating power in a single authority (such as a King in a monarchy).

You said:

"I don’t think that should be voted on either. The Bible should be in school as an important piece of history and literature. However I don’t want it taught as a way to live life."

I could not agree more. If the Bible was taught as a way to live life then it would be in breach of our constitutional right to freedom of religion.

I also agree that there should be a separation of religion and government, but that does not mean that we can do away with the fact that our government is based on Judaeo-Christian beliefs.

As President Jefferson said: "No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has ever been given to man and I as chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example."

You said:

"Do they have an American duty to ensure the VOM views of religious morality are imposed on the populace, or is that a religious duty?"

No, but they do have a duty to make sure that the people and those that represent them have a chance to vote on a potential referendum. This was not done with SSM three years ago, Ken, as I have explained above. This in turn is in breach of our very own constitution.

You said:

"..or would he (Jesus) have let her (prostitute) be to choose her own path?"

Jesus did let the prostitute choose her own path, and that path was with the way and the life of Christ. So what if Jesus said that the prostitute would not enter the kingdom of Heaven if she continued to sin. She decided that her rightousness in the eyes of God was important enough for her to decide to stop sinning.

3:38 PM, June 28, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Scia I tried the link again and it did work this time, thank you.

“Ken, the courts do not APPLY law, they INTERPRET it.”

I agree, but the view of marriage as a right is just as sublime as the right of privacy. Nowhere in the constitution does it explicitly say we have a right to privacy, yet we have that right along with many others that are not mentioned; including marriage.

“The legislator did NOT vote on same-sex marriage, SSM, and so therefor it is NOT legal in MA.”

If it’s not legal, what’s all the hubbub about?

“America was founded on Judaeo-Christian principles whose founders fled from England to escape religious persecution with the intent of securing religious liberty.”

America as a part of the British Empire yes; but as a sovereign nation, nope.

“The signing of the Mayflower Compact on Nov 11, 1620 marked the first time in recorded history that a free community of equal men created a new civil government by means of a social contract whose principles of equal treatment under the law and governmental authority being derived from the consent of the people were later incorporated into the Constitution.”

They were free to worship as they please, but they were still under English rule.

“The concept of biblically based governments modeled on church covenants was established by the Puritans that served as the foundation for our constitutional form of government.”

I’ll concede to this, but does it really reflect us as a Christian nation? Is it not likely that with the public being mainly Christian, that our founders followed the “blueprint” that was already before them? Wouldn’t doing that just make life simpler in a time of war?

“*52 of 56 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Trinitarian Christians.

*Of 55 signers of the Constitution 50 to 52 were orthodox Christians.”

Where did you get that information?

“*Ben Franklin was the only Deist who signed the Constitution and he was a devout Christian who called for public prayer and tithed to all denominations.”

Now that’s funny. He was a Deist and Christian at the same time? How does that work? I can also say he was a Satanist as he was a member of the Hellfire club in France. Satanist, Christian, Deist, what’s next Muslim?

“I also agree that there should be a separation of religion and government, but that does not mean that we can do away with the fact that our government is based on Judaeo-Christian beliefs.”

If we can agree that our government has no business in the religious practices of the individuals and religion has no business in enforcing religious morality through the government or even deciding who is employed by the government, than we have nothing really to argue about on the separation of church and state.

“As President Jefferson said: "No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has ever been given to man and I as chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example."”

Thomas Jefferson said that? I find that difficult to believe. Where can I find backup to this quote?

You said: “That's right Sen. Hart, you and Rep. Wallace are just "45 minute" church-going Catholics. You two are good little Catholics for the amount of time it takes for the pastor to finish his sermon and then once you walk out of the church doors it's back to your tossed-salad version of what is righteous.”

I said: Do they have an American duty to ensure the VOM views of religious morality are imposed on the populace, or is that a religious duty?

You said: “No, but they do have a duty to make sure that the people and those that represent them have a chance to vote on a potential referendum. This was not done with SSM three years ago, Ken, as I have explained above. This in turn is in breach of our very own constitution.”

What does that have to do with their religion? If they are going to church and their preacher tells them that they must do any one thing to remain a member in good standing; that religion is attempting to subvert the law through extortion.

“Jesus did let the prostitute choose her own path, and that path was with the way and the life of Christ. So what if Jesus said that the prostitute would not enter the kingdom of Heaven if she continued to sin. She decided that her rightousness in the eyes of God was important enough for her to decide to stop sinning.”

That doesn’t really answer my question. If she chose to continue to sin and Christ some time later saw her about to be stoned would he save her again? If he would save her again that is true compassion, if he wouldn’t he likely only saved her for conversion. Nonetheless Christ’s wisdom supersedes my own, and yours as well. So by what right do you claim to know that other people’s interpretation of homosexuality as a sin in the bible is incorrect?

Ken Weaver

8:27 PM, June 28, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"Nowhere in the constitution does it explicitly say we have a right to privacy, yet we have that right along with many others that are not mentioned; including marriage."

I also have a right to breath and comb my hair into any style I like. Of course we have a right to privacy. This 'right' to privacy is a part of our being Americans in a free country.

Where is it said that marriage is this magic "right" that everyone knows about such as to say "it goes without saying" such as is our right to privacy?

If marriage was a right Ken then Section 2 of Article XLVIII would prohibit Vote On Marriage from including a definition of marriage to be a part of the constitution. Marriage, therefor, is NOT a right, it is a DIVINE right granted by God (Genesis 2:24).

Your missing one right that IS mentioned in the Massachusetts Constitution and that is the right of the people to assemble in order to consult their state officials on matters as if to INSTRUCT their representatives and petition the legislator. (Article XIX). In this sense Ken, the legislator MAKES law NOT the judicial system.

You said:

"I’ll concede to this, but does it really reflect us as a Christian nation?"

America is mainly comprised of self-described Christians-NOT secular atheists. (Gallop Polling Organization 2004).

I stated:

“*52 of 56 of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Trinitarian Christians.

*Of 55 signers of the Constitution 50 to 52 were orthodox Christians.”

You asked:

"Where did you get that information"

Sorry, I did not have my source in front of me when I typed that. Here it is:

David Limbaugh, Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 25 September 2003), p. 308.

You asked:

"Now that’s funny. He was a Deist and Christian at the same time? How does that work?"

Deists are those who believe in God, but don't define Him with sacred texts or organized religion. You can be a Deists and a Christian at the same time.

“As President Jefferson said: "No nation has ever existed or been governed without religion. Nor can be. The Christian religion is the best religion that has ever been given to man and I as chief Magistrate of this nation am bound to give it the sanction of my example."

(David Limbaugh, AS MENTIOND ABOVE, p. 311).

You said:

"If they are going to church and their preacher tells them that they must do any one thing to remain a member in good standing; that religion is attempting to subvert the law through extortion."

What if some guy tells the representative and senators of the State House to do any one thing to remain a member in good standing as well, does that mean the guys religion is attempting to subvert the law through extortion if the legislators follow the guys lead?

If I tell a legislative official to be good and he does then he is extorting all because he followed my belief structure, whatever that may be? Come on Ken lets get rid of this "Christianity is extorting all" business.

You asked:

"If she chose to continue to sin and Christ some time later saw her about to be stoned would he save her again?"

I am not going to speak for Christ. I only know what He did, not hypothetically what He could of or could not of done.

You ask in closing:

"So by what right do you claim to know that other people’s interpretation of homosexuality as a sin in the bible is incorrect?"

I only go with what Christ SAYS:

1 Corinthians 6:9.

In reference to you saying "people's interpretation of homosexuality" read Palms 118:8

10:04 PM, June 30, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

John,

I have answered your challenge of why gay "marriage" is bad for society and how it has affected me personally. You will not accept my answer because you want to hear an answer that only justifies my agreeing with your lifestyle and I will not give you that justification.

You said:

"1. What is taught in schools has nothing to do with marriage, they are two distinctly seperate arguments.

2. The courts found so little merit in Parker's case that it was thrown out."

What is taught in schools is JUSTIFIED by the falacious argument that since same-sex "marriages" are "legal" in MA, it is lawful to teach homosexuality.

David Parker is now in a FEDERAL lawsuit. It may have been thrown out in Gomorachusetts, but that does not mean it is over.

Can you explain to me your translation of 1 Corinthians 6:9.

God Bless you John. I only want to bring your heart to Him so we CAN be together in Heaven.

10:13 PM, June 30, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Marriage, therefor, is NOT a right, it is a DIVINE right granted by God (Genesis 2:24).”

If it is a divine right granted by god, shouldn’t god be the one to determine which marriages are legitimate? Doesn’t the bible also tell us “Judge not lest ye be judged”? Doesn’t the bible say that vengeance is god’s duty? From what I know of the bible, it tells us to live righteously and spread the good word, not force righteousness on others which is what the vote was all about. To force your will on others that don’t share your view. And if marriage is not a right, what is it; a privilege?

“America is mainly comprised of self-described Christians-NOT secular atheists.”

From that way of thinking white supremacists have a good argument when they say we are a white nation.

“David Limbaugh, Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 25 September 2003), p. 308.”

“(David Limbaugh, AS MENTIOND ABOVE, p. 311).”

If your figures are so spot on do you think they would be more available on the web so I don’t have to buy a book? I still have a difficult time believing Thomas Jefferson said what you quoted when he said things like this: “I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.” Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Woods (undated), referring to "our particular superstition," Christianity, from John E Remsburg, Six Historic Americans: Thomas Jefferson, quoted from Franklin Steiner, Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents (1936), "Thomas Jefferson, Freethinker"

And this: “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823, quoted from James A Haught, "Breaking the Last Taboo" (1996)

And this: “We find in the writings of his biographers ... a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications.” Thomas Jefferson, to William Short, August 4, 1822, referring to Jesus's biographers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

“You can be a Deists and a Christian at the same time.”

Not from what I know. A Deist believes a creator made the earth and then went on his way, leaving the earth and inhabitants to their own. Impossible then, would he have given a son to those inhabitants.

“What if some guy tells the representative and senators of the State House to do any one thing to remain a member in good standing as well, does that mean the guys religion is attempting to subvert the law through extortion if the legislators follow the guys lead?”

Yes.

“If I tell a legislative official to be good and he does then he is extorting all because he followed my belief structure, whatever that may be? Come on Ken lets get rid of this "Christianity is extorting all" business.”

If you tell a representative that if he doesn’t do a,b,c or d or you won’t vote for him in the next election that is part of his job. If there are repercussions other than his election be it money or to remain a member of his club or religion it is extortion. And I’ll stop saying “Christianity is extorting my representatives” when they stop doing it.

“1 Corinthians 6:9.” “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,”

Don’t trouble yourself with anyone else’s inheritance but your own and maybe your family’s. I‘ll take care of my own and am sure others are capable of taking care of themselves.

“In reference to you saying "people's interpretation of homosexuality" read Palms 118:8” “it is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.”

If god exists as the bible teaches, he is a tyrant who not only punishes those who have done wrong but their children and their children’s children and on and on.

You said to John: “I have answered your challenge of why gay "marriage" is bad for society and how it has affected me personally.”

I must have missed it, although I did see one of your posts of why it was bad for society but like I said before; I don’t buy it.

Ken Weaver

5:55 AM, July 01, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You asked:

"If it is a divine right granted by god, shouldn’t god be the one to determine which marriages are legitimate?"

He will when we have to face his judgement of our actions.

You said:

"...not force righteousness on others which is what the vote was all about."

The vote was forcing rightousness?? If that was the case then the marriage amendment must fall under the catagory of religion and therefor can not be part of a petition to the constitution. This is not the case and you are completly incorrect with your theory.

You said:

"From that way of thinking white supremacists have a good argument when they say we are a white nation."

So, you are suggesting that the majority of the Christian faith holders that makes up our nation are comparable to the workings of Hitler? There you go again with your favorite dish of apples and oranges.

Deists are those who believe in God, but don't define Him with sacred texts or organized religion. Who said anything about God giving a son and Deists not being Christian as well. MANY Jews are deemed Christians but their faith does not beleive in the son of God.

You said:

"Don’t trouble yourself with anyone else’s inheritance but your own and maybe your family’s. I‘ll take care of my own and am sure others are capable of taking care of themselves."

It is my duty as a Christian to make sure you too Ken will enter the kingdom of God.

You said:

"If god exists as the bible teaches, he is a tyrant who not only punishes those who have done wrong but their children and their children’s children and on and on."

As any father loves his children and his children's children, he must discipline them. This is an indication that you are a child of Christs.

You said in closing:

"...although I did see one of your posts of why it was bad for society but like I said before; I don’t buy it."

Sorry to hear that you don't agree with the facts.

8:30 PM, July 07, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

In regards to your unbelief in my citations: All you need to do is Google the authors and see what you come up with. You don't have to buy the books, just look them up in the library.

8:34 PM, July 07, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“He will when we have to face his judgement of our actions.”

Well as long as you don’t participate in a marriage that includes members of the same sex you have nothing to worry about; at least on that issue. So what’s the beef with marriage equality if god will judge the actions of those marriages? He’ll take care of it right?

“If that was the case then the marriage amendment must fall under the catagory of religion and therefor can not be part of a petition to the constitution. This is not the case and you are completly incorrect with your theory.”

So tell me Scia, what’s it about if not religion?

“So, you are suggesting that the majority of the Christian faith holders that makes up our nation are comparable to the workings of Hitler?”

No Scia you misunderstand. If we are a Christian nation because the majority of our populous believes that Christ was the messiah sent from god then the white supremacists also have a good argument using that same analogy. I was not comparing the actions of Christians to Hitler or the KKK or any group; only telling you that if you are correct that we are a Christian nation because the majority professes a belief in Christ, then those white supremacists can say we are a white nation because the majority of U.S. citizens are white.

“Deists are those who believe in God, but don't define Him with sacred texts or organized religion. Who said anything about God giving a son and Deists not being Christian as well.”

From Encarta dictionary: de•ism [de’e ‘izzam ] rational belief in God a belief in God based on reason rather than revelation, and involving the view that God has set the universe in motion but does not interfere with how it runs

If god sent his son he is definitely interfering in how our universe evolves. Therefore a Deist cannot be a Christian. They are opposing viewpoints.

“MANY Jews are deemed Christians but their faith does not beleive in the son of God.”

Okay Scia I have to ask what your definition of a Christian is; here is mine. A Christian is one who believes that Christ was the messiah (savior), believes that Christ died on the cross for our sins and believes that Christ was the only true son of God.

“It is my duty as a Christian to make sure you too Ken will enter the kingdom of God.”

Not so, it is your duty to make sure I have been given the opportunity to choose to follow god’s path. It is not your duty to make sure I choose that path.

“As any father loves his children and his children's children, he must discipline them.”

I agree, however I will not punish my grandchildren for the acts of my children. To do so would not only be ignorant, but also barbaric.

“Sorry to hear that you don't agree with the facts.”

They are opinions based on supposition that I don’t share.

“You don't have to buy the books, just look them up in the library.”

Thanks, I’ll do that.

Ken Weaver

9:24 PM, July 07, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You said:

"...He’ll take care of it right?"

Yes, He will, but we as his children must preserve His word in order to grant rightousness on all in order for them to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

You ask regarding the Marriage Amendment:

"So tell me Scia, what’s it about if not religion?"

Now...it is about the USURPTION of democracy from the people of the Commonwealth. Democracy is what this issue is about. Not sexual orientations, or religion, but democracy.

You said:

"If god sent his son he is definitely interfering in how our universe evolves."

Interesting. Explain yourself Ken.

In a NUT SHELL, your definition of a Christian will do. What is your follow-up point?

3:02 PM, July 08, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Now...it is about the USURPTION of democracy from the people of the Commonwealth.”

Is there anything you would not approve a vote on by the general public?

I said… If god sent his son he is definitely interfering in how our universe evolves.

You replied: Interesting. Explain yourself Ken.

I heard an analogy of Deism saying that god was like a clock maker. He set the universe up like a clock, winded it up and then left it to itself. If god sent his son or if he himself came down to Earth to save us from ourselves he is taking an active roll in humanity. Deists couldn’t believe that god was so active but saw him as creating life and then leaving it be, to do as it wills without interference.

“What is your follow-up point?”

You had said that a Deist could be a Christian and some Jews were referred to as Christians. I just find that incredible that people could be Christian without the beliefs that I stated in my definition of a Christian.

Ken Weaver

6:09 PM, July 08, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You asked:

"Is there anything you would not approve a vote on by the general public?"

The legal basis to do away with the label "homosexuality" and everything that this community stands for. (not kidding around to just have you listen to what I want you to listen to.)

You said:

"I heard an analogy of Deism saying that god was like a clock maker."

Does Deism have any relevance in our government or way of life (FOR THE MOST PART?) Yeah for Deism...come on!!

8:52 PM, July 09, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“The legal basis to do away with the label "homosexuality" and everything that this community stands for. (not kidding around to just have you listen to what I want you to listen to.)”

What does this statement mean?

“Does Deism have any relevance in our government or way of life (FOR THE MOST PART?) Yeah for Deism...come on!!”

Not any more than Christianity does. It might be based on the Freemason’s though. The Freemasons elected their leaders not unlike our countries leaders. I don’t think there is any ballot casting in the bible. Nor was there much of a choice when it came to the Europeans choosing their leaders. Their leaders were chosen by bloodlines like the people in the bible did.

Ken Weaver

10:26 PM, July 26, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You asked with confusion that I even share WITH you:

"What does this statement mean?"

You asked previously:

"Is there anything you would not approve a vote on by the general public?"

I replied:

"The legal basis to do away with the label "homosexuality" and everything that this community stands for."

So, another words, I would not want to vote at the ballot box to rid society of the homosexual community because this community is an indication of the type of sin to stay away from if one is to enter the Kingdom of God. We all need to know what sin is, so it must exsist in this world in order for us to observe it and stay away from it.

8:51 PM, July 27, 2007  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“We all need to know what sin is, so it must exsist in this world in order for us to observe it and stay away from it.”

Oh so it’s like we need bad days so we know when we have a good day? I don’t like that ideology. My favorite dish is lasagna. I don’t need to eat dog excrement to remember I like lasagna do I?

Ken Weaver

9:54 AM, July 29, 2007  
Blogger SCIA said...

Ken,

You make me piss my pants sometimes:

"dog excrement"....LOL, LOL!!!

8:05 PM, August 01, 2007  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com Get your Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com