GOP lawmakers in North Carolina introduce bill to restore ban on same-sex marriage

[Mesaclone]

Wow, Gnostic Gospel; I thought one can find some odd things stated in those Gospels as well. Specifically the Gospel of Thomas.

Then, I'd have to say we are now departing at least, Conventional Christianity.

Yes we are, and that's a very good thing. A very Jesus like thing.

Thomas is not just some "Gnostic Gospel", it has been dated to around the time of Mark making it very nearly the earliest written Gospel of them all. That makes it important, unlike the vast majority of other gnostic writings. Its simply a collection of Jesus sayings, not a "story" gospel and is thought to draw much of its material from the Q gospel...a text thought by many biblical scholars to be the source material for the 4 biblical gospels.

Few Christians realize that there WAS no bible in the early stages of the church...at least well into the 2nd (and possible the 3rd) century. Those books and letters included were hotly debated...and the ultimate criteria was overtly political and philosophical. Very little was "inspiring" about the process of selection.

[INVAR]

You are looking for God in the wrong place if you seek him in a book or in the church.

I'm not looking for the god you worship.

I have the One who is Revealed in His Word through His Spirit that you have discounted.

As I said, your intellect is your god.

[roamer_1]

FYI. Quite frankly, Mark 16:9-19 is a fake...a very late forgery added to Mark to correct what some early editors thought of as the "odd" absence of mentioning a risen Jesus. It was absolutely NOTpart of the original text of Mark. Its not found in any of the earliest known copies of Mark, though sadly it somehow found its way into many modern bibles. The fact that you cite it, shows you clearly don't know/understand the very source material of your own belief system.

Not this tired old crap again.
One has to abuse the patristic fathers to adopt such a screed. IF it is a late edition, you'll have to explain Irenaeus (c.200 AD, Against Heresies) and Justin Martyr, and Titatian (the Diatesseron), who all refer to the passages... Not to mention a virtual hoard of uncials and miniscules... not to mention codices and great codices in which the text is contained.

And furthermore, any student of textual criticism can easily defend against the erroneous position that 'the oldest are the most authoritative' - The Masoretic text being a prime example. 

[roamer_1]

You are looking for God in the wrong place if you seek him in a book or in the church. That is not where you will find the Kingdom of God:

"Split wood, I am there. Lift up a rock, you will find me there."   - Gospel of Thomas

LOL! The Nag Hamadi Codices... Why am I not surprised.

Further, God didn't write Genesis. A man did. Which explains why its such a mess.

LOL sommore! Hacking the Bible at every turn, and lifting up gnosticism... The problem you will find in your travels is the same as the Mormons... without Torah, there is no need for any of it. Omit Torah, and all the rest falls with it, to include the gnostics.

[Mesaclone]

I'm not looking for the god you worship.

I have the One who is Revealed in His Word through His Spirit that you have discounted.

As I said, your intellect is your god.

Unfortunate that you find God and intellect to be incompatible. It does, however, explain the great many shallow misperceptions you hold...clearly dogma has supplanted the intellect which god gifted to you. As for god....there is only one, and he is revealed far more deeply through one act of human kindness than he is in 10000 pages of biblical doctrine. Just as he is more clearly revealed by the spirit of biblical metaphor and myth than by some absurdly literal acceptance of ancient cultural traditions.

You are, and it breaks my heart for you, seeing only trees while missing the forest.

As for Mark, the earliest fragments we have do not contain the verses in question...likewise for contemporary commentators on this topic. Scholars are mostly united that the Verses in question are edits....and that the edit dated earlier then Irenaeus commentaries. Just because the compilers of the King James Version screwed up and included the "edited" verses does not mean we should ignore the early Greek and Latin texts they do NOT have these verses.

[Cripplecreek]

I guess since abortion doesn't directly affect me I should just keep my self righteous nose out of it.

[Jazzhead]

Unfortunate that you find God and intellect to be incompatible. It does, however, explain the great many shallow misperceptions you hold...clearly dogma has supplanted the intellect which god gifted to you. As for god....there is only one, and he is revealed far more deeply through one act of human kindness than he is in 10000 pages of biblical doctrine. Just as he is more clearly revealed by the spirit of biblical metaphor and myth than by some absurdly literal acceptance of ancient cultural traditions.

You are, and it breaks my heart for you, seeing only trees while missing the forest.

So much real wisdom and appreciation for true spirituality here.   Thanks, Mesaclone. 

[txradioguy]

I guess since abortion doesn't directly affect me I should just keep my self righteous nose out of it.

That's what Liberals like jazz would prefer you to do.

[Cripplecreek]

That's what Liberals like jazz would prefer you to do.

Its how progressivism works.

Its pretty convenient to silence half the opposition because they're males and have no rights to talk about Abortion. Its the same with gay marriage. If you aren't gay or in agreement, you have no right to speak on it.

Just yesterday some idiot told me that I have no right to speak about the problems in Flint Mi because I don't live there and I'm not black. They wanted to push the theory that rich white people intentionally poisoned the black folks of Flint. (They didn't want anyone to notice that those rich white folks had lived there themselves with those pipes for a century)

[txradioguy]

Its how progressivism works.

Its pretty convenient to silence half the opposition because they're males and have no rights to talk about Abortion. Its the same with gay marriage. If you aren't gay or in agreement, you have no right to speak on it.

Just yesterday some idiot told me that I have no right to speak about the problems in Flint Mi because I don't live there and I'm not black. They wanted to push the theory that rich white people intentionally poisoned the black folks of Flint. (They didn't want anyone to notice that those rich white folks had lived there themselves with those pipes for a century)

Had a friend of mine try to tell me once that I shouldn't talk about things like what was happening at the time in Missouri and Baltimore because I wasn't black.

Pointed out to her the racist attitude of that statement and how prejudiced that mind set was by saying that I'd be called a sheet wearing Klansman and a bigot if I told someone of color they had no right to comment on an issue because he or she wasn't white.

Never ceases to amaze me how Liberals cherry pick from a narrative to support their backwards way of thinking.

[Cripplecreek]

Had a friend of mine try to tell me once that I shouldn't talk about things like what was happening at the time in Missouri and Baltimore because I wasn't black.

Pointed out to her the racist attitude of that statement and how prejudiced that mind set was by saying that I'd be called a sheet wearing Klansman and a bigot if I told someone of color they had no right to comment on an issue because he or she wasn't white.

Never ceases to amaze me how Liberals cherry pick from a narrative to support their backwards way of thinking.

Your friend apparently would not be a fan of Booker T Washington. After my mother passed I found Washington's autobiography in her kindle. Washington specifically stated that no former slave had a greater or more valid opinion on slavery than a former slave owner in the south or an abolitionist from the north. He understood that its what America was about.

[Jazzhead]

That's what Liberals like jazz would prefer you to do.

Ah yes, putting words in my mouth. 

So this is an abortion thread now?   Shall I repeat (once again) my opposition to abortion?   Shall I repeat (once again) my view that persuasion is simply more effective (and Constitutional) than government-enforced coercion?   

You can't ignore the reality that a woman's right to choose abortion (or not) has been the law of the land for 40 years.  That bird has flown the coop.   The energy spent on re-criminalizing abortion,  and denying women their Constitutional rights, is a waste.  Spend that energy on promoting abstinence, or adoption,  or birth control,  or supporting financially women facing a pregnancy crisis with no partner support.   Those things work.  Railing on the internet that women are sluts and their liberty is garbage doesn't.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Folks just cannot mind their own damn business.  No gay marriage ever affected a straight couple's marriage in the slightest.   

The more important issue here is the Supreme Court creating brand new constitutional rights out of thin air.  I really don't care one way or the other about gay rights.  I care very much about a Supreme Court bounded only by it's own views of a perfect society.  And unfortunately, the only way to get the Court to reconsider a case like this is for a legislature to pass a law again.

[Jazzhead]

The more important issue here is the Supreme Court creating brand new constitutional rights out of thin air.  I really don't care one way or the other about gay rights.  I care very much about a Supreme Court bounded only by it's own views of a perfect society.  And unfortunately, the only way to get the Court to reconsider a case like this is for a legislature to pass a law again.

The Constitution's right of equal protection is hardly new.   All the SCOTUS did is extend this venerable and important right to the factual situation of the law's valuable benefits afforded with respect to civil marriage.   

[TomSea]

It was a split decision; the dissenting judges wrote their response in a reasonable way.

Anyone standing up for the decision should not forget some rather extremist liberal types on the Supreme Court such as Kagan, etc.

No way is it a settled issue because Elena says this.  And to be fair, it works both ways, some liberals may not like the Conservative bench.

[TomSea]

The Constitution's right of equal protection is hardly new.   All the SCOTUS did is extend this venerable and important right to the factual situation of the law's valuable benefits afforded with respect to civil marriage.

In a mixed decision with some questionable judges on the SCOTUS. This is not the open and close shut case you seem to make it. The dissenting opinions were very reasonable.

[TomSea]

Gorsuch likely will not reverse this but somewhere in the future, maybe 15 or 20 years, it might be considered again and who knows? Laws do change.

[TomSea]

And the same Supreme Court (same governmental body that is) that came up with the Dredd Scott decision. Yet, we are suppose to take this governmental body's word as sacrosanct because one member seems to use it to steamroll others that he is right.

[INVAR]

Unfortunate that you find God and intellect to be incompatible.

A perfect Straw Man you have erected if there ever was one.  Do you feel intellectually superior that you have knocked it down?

It does, however, explain the great many shallow misperceptions you hold...clearly dogma has supplanted the intellect which god gifted to you.

You have no idea what beliefs or doctrines I hold to and believe in outside of my stated reverence for the bible as God's Word and the positions against Sin it lists that I have opined on.

As for god....there is only one, and he is revealed far more deeply through one act of human kindness than he is in 10000 pages of biblical doctrine. Just as he is more clearly revealed by the spirit of biblical metaphor and myth than by some absurdly literal acceptance of ancient cultural traditions.

Like I said, and you just confirmed - you worship the god of your imagination.  You lean on your own understanding which scripture warns against.  God is whatever and whomever you see and deem it to be.  In short, revelation comes to you from the god of this world, the prince of the power of the air.  It is how homosexuality can be declared to be virtuous and things like abortion to be 'choices' readily offered on the altar of 'freedom'. 

You are, and it breaks my heart for you, seeing only trees while missing the forest.

Concern yourself not with my heart, but your own.   For a Day will come when you will weep or gnash teeth over the folly of what you have accepted as truth from your own imagination when your eyes are actually opened to See.  And that Day is coming for all, whether you believe it or not.

As for Mark, the earliest fragments we have do not contain the verses in question...likewise for contemporary commentators on this topic. Scholars are mostly united that the Verses in question are edits....and that the edit dated earlier then Irenaeus commentaries. Just because the compilers of the King James Version screwed up and included the "edited" verses does not mean we should ignore the early Greek and Latin texts they do NOT have these verses.

Then clearly the Jesus you claim to worship, is a fraud and your faith is in vain based on your assertion that the testimony of scriptures and the letters that confirm whom He was is bogus.  Eventually your intellect and reasoning will take you there and beyond.  I've seen it many times before.

You will have your temporal reward, and that is all you will receive.

[Smokin Joe]

Its how progressivism works.

Its pretty convenient to silence half the opposition because they're males and have no rights to talk about Abortion. Its the same with gay marriage. If you aren't gay or in agreement, you have no right to speak on it.

Yet at the same time they will assert we (read as "the community") have an "obligation" to embrace (IOW pick up the tab for, the reason behind "universal health care) the already trillion dollars in medical care (and growing) that will be needed by HIV/AIDS patients in the US, the whole time they want to normalize the prime vector for the infection.
Yes, the actions of others DO affect us, whether they merely shift the focus of research and money available from pediatric cancer, or allow people to entice youngsters to try something they might not because they are accused of being "a hater" or because they have been repeatedly told "there's nothing wrong with that" and get infected with a life-changing disease for which there is no cure, to taking doctors away from researching any of the other myriad diseases out there which kill daily. The shift in resources is phenomenal. So yes, although at first blush it may seem as if there is no effect, the effect is profound.

The DENIAL that such actions don't affect others is the same sort of nonsense that drug addicts spew. They whole time we are being trounced for not being "caring", we're getting a double dose of "don't give a damn" from the people who would saddle us with the costs of their self inflicted injuries and the heartbreak of dealing with the social wreckage created by their attempts to sate their perverted urges.

By their fruits shall ye know them.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The Constitution's right of equal protection is hardly new.  All the SCOTUS did is extend this venerable and important right to the factual situation of the law's valuable benefits afforded with respect to civil marriage.

I don't want to reargue that case, so I'll just disagree with you regarding same-sex marriage being a fundamental right -- which is what the Court actually found even though it claimed it didn't.  And I'll point out that based on the legal logic of that decision, the Court could just as easily create a constitutional right to incestuous marriages.  The only difference would be your view on that as a matter of policy preference.

My point is that I care less about the result than about the method for reaching it.  That's particularly true with respect to Anthony Kennedy, who had struck down the DOMA on the specific ground that marriage had always been something regulated solely by states, and that the federal government had no business dictating that to the states.  Then he completely reversed that reasoning in Obergefell to obtain the result he wanted.  He played the entire issue like a politician, not a judge.

[Hoodat]

The Constitution's right of equal protection is hardly new.

Equal protection was already in force.  Sexual preference has never been a factor in defining marriage laws.  But then you knew that already, yet still willfully choose to put forth a patently false portrayal of the case.  Some people refer to that as 'lying'.

All the SCOTUS did is extend this venerable and important right to the factual situation of the law's valuable benefits afforded with respect to civil marriage.

Another lie.  The Obergefell  court ruled that marriage laws could no longer be defined by State legislatures, statewide referendums, State Constitutions, or even by the Federal Legislature.  It is called 'tyranny'.  Pure and simple.  It violates the very Constitution you falsely claim to support.  And you embrace it.

[Jazzhead]

It is "tyranny" to arbitrarily deny the law's equal protection, not to extend it.  Hoodat - no gay couples' marriage has ever affected your marriage in the slightest.

I don't disagree that the SCOTUS decision affording equal protection to your neighbors frosts you because of your religious beliefs.   But this is a secular nation, son,  with the government and religion strictly separated.   You can practice your religion freely, but you can't force it onto others, or compel the state to deny a citizen his Constitutional rights because you think God would disapprove.   

[Hoodat]

It is "tyranny" to arbitrarily deny the law's equal protection, not to extend it.

For the umpteenth time, equal protection was already in place.  Stop pretending it was not.

Hoodat - no gay couples' marriage has ever affected your marriage in the slightest.

Again, this has nothing to do with preference or how it affects me.  It has to do with the Constitution of the United States - something you repeatedly ignore.

I don't disagree that the SCOTUS decision affording equal protection to your neighbors frosts you because of your religious beliefs.

See?  There you go again bringing up the moral argument.  This isn't a moral discussion, but a legal one.  And there is no legal basis for Obergefell.  None.  Zero.  Nada.  Which is why you keep doing everything possible to avoid the legal discussion, including trying to start a religious war on this board.

So enough talk of religion.  Let's talk about the Constitution instead.

You can practice your religion freely, but you can't force it onto others

Kind of like how five tyrants wearing black robes are forcing their 'religion' on an entire nation - the Constitution be damned.

. . .  or compel the state to deny a citizen his Constitutional rights because you think God would disapprove.

This ought to be good.  Exactly what Constitutional rights are you referring to here?  Please be specific.

[txradioguy]

But this is a secular nation, son,  with the government and religion strictly separated.

You couldn't be more wrong if you actually tried.

There is no wall of separation between church and state in the Constitution.

The part of the 1st Amendment that pertains to religion was put there to prevent another Church of England type scenario from forming in the U.S.  It was NOT put there to stop Nativity Scenes from being displayed on a City Hall lawn or a prayer from being said before a HS football game.

That's more of that judicial tyranny you supposedly hate coming into play when they decided Engel v. Vitale.