Advice for Kim in Kentucky

serpentdove

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
Interplanner said:
"My intention in this post is that our effort should be spent on marriages where the whole fabric of God's truth is known, discussed, respected, instead of one bit piece by itself. With either type of homosexual, you are dealing with a shredded fabric, and that is what needs to be discussed, not the end-decision about marriage."
Click to expand...

The end-decision about marriage was instituted by God long ago (Gen. 2:18–24). God gave man a woman (Prov. 5:15–19, Eph. 5:21–33). A marriage was worthy of Jesus' presence (Jn 2:1–11). It should be honored by all (Heb. 13:4).

Two men don't make a marriage. :dizzy: The triune God is not: god, chicken, god. It is God, God, God (Is 6:3). One + One + One = One. Similarly, the two in marriage become one flesh (Matt. 19:6). One + One = One. Sodomites could care less about marriage. :hammer: In their rebellion, they seek to destroy Christian foundations (1 Jn 5:19). :sozo2: We have overcome the world (Eph. 6:16; 1 Jn 2:13). :straight: They hate us because they have not (Gen. 13:13, Mk 13:13). They (heterosexual [Lev. 20:10–12]/homosexual [Lev. 20:10,13]) know this (Is 57:21).
 
serpentdove

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
republicanchick said:
[Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. (Romans 13:1-2 NKJV)] i guess this scripture contradicts the other one

"We must obey God rather than man"



+
Click to expand...
The scriptures are true (Jas 1:18). No portion of scripture contradicts another (Ps 19:7, Jn 10:35, 2 Pet. 1:20, 21). You know them and distort them? Prov. 30:5, 6; Rev. 22:18–20--You die. :burnlib:

We are to obey authorities (Ro 13:1-2). If we disobey God-given authority we are disobeying God himself--because he put them there. He uses good leaders and bad for his own purposes. We are to pray for our leaders (1 Ti 2:1-4). :Nineveh:

If leaders or parents ask us to disobey God, of course, we do not comply (Ac 5:29).
 
serpentdove

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
chrysostom said:
her name is on the license
and
for religious reasons she does not want her name on the license for a same sex marriage
if
you don't understand that
it is because you are already okay with same sex marriage
and
should have the guts to admit it
Click to expand...

You expect courage from a Sodomite (heterosexual [Lev. 20:10–12]/homosexual [Lev. 20:10,13])? :dizzy: Courage is found in the overcomer (Gal. 2:11–15) :straight: not the reprobate (Ex. 32:22–24). :reals: Cowards go hell first (Re 21:8). :burnlib:
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
serpentdove said:
The scriptures are true (Jas 1:18). No portion of scripture contradicts another (Ps 19:7, Jn 10:35, 2 Pet. 1:20, 21). You know them and distort them? Prov. 30:5, 6; Rev. 22:18–20--You die. :burnlib:

We are to obey authorities (Ro 13:1-2). If we disobey God-given authority we are disobeying God himself--because he put them there. He uses good leaders and bad for his own purposes. We are to pray for our leaders (1 Ti 2:1-4). :Nineveh:

If leaders or parents ask us to disobey God, of course, we do not comply (Ac 5:29).
Click to expand...



So, by quoting Acts 5:29, you are showing that two things have to be reconciled. RepChk was not saying there was a contradiction but that two things had to be reconciled. It's complicated.

It will help to realize that the term for authority in Rom 13 is not the person. It is the office. Even in Roman times, the person could be called out for misconduct. Thus we find Paul (a Roman Jewish citizen by birth) in Acts 26 speaking to Roman admins about his case and asking them to live righteously and self-controlled (this is no small ask; most Roman households were iniquitous, incestuous; imagine Downtown Abbey but Lord G is having sex with several of the girls downstairs and maybe Edward...).

The homosexuals in Rowan Co KY persisted in humiliating Kim for not signing, even though assistant clerks could have. The media hid that fact like they hid truth at Ferguson until secondary damage was underway. That's the ugly spirit of this whole event, besides the stupidity of the judge who should have told an admin to fire Kim for not doing her job rather than making a prisoner of conscience. Since that was done, we have absolute proof of the lack of historical knowledge of sworn officers of the US about political imprisonment.

Our president should have been on TV, declaring such an act to be totally Iranian, but he is too much in luv with Iran, and too busy making stupid statements about the ice in Alaska. Poor guy was probably doing so at gunpoint--the Chinese navy might have fired on him if he did not confess global warming.
 
serpentdove

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
PureX said:
Human beings tend to pair-bond regardless of their religious beliefs. So the idea that marriage should only be a religious practice is unreasonably narrow and basically unworkable...
Click to expand...

Tell God all about how unreasonable he was (Ro 5:8) when you approach his Great White Throne (Re 7:9). :popcorn: Maybe he'll allow you to keep your blasphemous lips on (Ps 12:3). :burnlib:
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
serpentdove said:
Tell God all about how unreasonable he was (Ro 5:8) when you approach his Great White Throne (Re 7:9). :popcorn: Maybe he'll allow you to keep your blasphemous lips on (Ps 12:3). :burnlib:
Click to expand...



There has been secular cohab for years not needing validation by a court. The homosexual effort about marriage is to try to upstage Christian truth. It must declare that homosexuality is 100% compatible with the Bible; there is nothing left for it to conquer. It's "church" is public court. It can't figure out (yet) how to control the thoughts of evangelical MF marriage pastors, but it is busy rereading 1984 etc. to do so. It will try as soon as it can.

It intends to conquer thoughts. It is not pluralist, although the SCOTUS decision of Jun 30 has pluralist paragraphs (no one seems to realize this).

I'm referring to the movement, of course, not individual exceptions which I know are out there.

The force of imposing itself is seen in that they stayed in Kim's face until she did something even though assistants could have signed. That's because they are totalitarian, as was the judge's handling.

We are at a stage where being totalitarian doesn't mean anything to anyone. Guess what happens next? One proof of T'ian not meaning anything is Kerry's deal with Iran. Iran has killed 7000 homosexuals in the past few years. It doesn't matter what form T'ianism takes; I'm referring to the mentality or method.
 
R

RBBI

New member
She should have resigned. They probably set her up, looking for a test case. She had every right to disagree with the law and her involvement in it, but no right to not do her job even if that's what it entailed.

The time of civil disobedience is behind us, UNLESS EVERYONE awakes from their apathetic nap and demonstrates as one, and by demonstrate I mean prayer and fasting made public, the only thing that will give honor to God AND make a statement to the ungodly.

If we don't, God is going to turn us over to another power till we cry out for righteousness from our bondage. How long can He be expected to withhold His hand of judgment from a nation championing sexual perversion and slaughtering it's babies and then using the fetal cells from the aborted babies, as "flavor enhancers" in our food chain? Roman empire fell for the same reasons. Google it for yourself.....
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Interplanner said:
There has been secular cohab for years not needing validation by a court. The homosexual effort about marriage is to try to upstage Christian truth. It must declare that homosexuality is 100% compatible with the Bible; there is nothing left for it to conquer. It's "church" is public court. It can't figure out (yet) how to control the thoughts of evangelical MF marriage pastors, but it is busy rereading 1984 etc. to do so. It will try as soon as it can.

It intends to conquer thoughts. It is not pluralist, although the SCOTUS decision of Jun 30 has pluralist paragraphs (no one seems to realize this).

I'm referring to the movement, of course, not individual exceptions which I know are out there.

The force of imposing itself is seen in that they stayed in Kim's face until she did something even though assistants could have signed. That's because they are totalitarian, as was the judge's handling.
Click to expand...


What's disappointing is that the judge (Bunning) ruled as he did despite knowing it was wrong
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
ok doser said:
What's disappointing is that the judge (Bunning) ruled as he did despite knowing it was wrong
Click to expand...


Perhaps in a few days we may learn why that happened. there may well have been totalitarian pressure on him as well.

The bright spot in yesterday's news did not come from KY but from SF. A judge there said the illegal murderer will stand trial for the death of Steinle. I was getting nervous after a month not hearing this. There should have been no question, but here it is finally after a month. I was really worried because another event could have happened in the meantime and 'sanctuary city precedent' could have been established. Now, I don't see how it can. Law has prevailed.
 
serpentdove

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
Interplanner said:
...besides the stupidity of the judge who should have told an admin to fire Kim for not doing her job rather than making a prisoner of conscience.
Click to expand...

She did her job as she had always done. When she was hired the President of the United States pretended to be in agreement with her position. :Nineveh: At some point in her career man's law changed but God's did not. When Democrat senators tell her that she must implement the law of the land :sozo2:--she's doing that. What portion of the earth does not belong to God Almighty? Ps 24:1

Did Daniel stop praying to his God when he was ordered to stop? No. Dan 6:10 No. God says pray--even for those who are telling you not to (Mt 5:44).
 
serpentdove

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
Interplanner said:
Perhaps in a few days we may learn why that happened. there may well have been totalitarian pressure on him as well.
Click to expand...

He was pressured. He's a legal positivist.

I know a judge here locally who in divorce court shed a tear because a 14-year old boy from a family she was in charge of had just blown his brains out (Mt 19:6). The lawyers were all impressed that she seemed to care. The next day she was back in court continuing to destroy families.

People know God's law (Ro 2:15). They don't give a damn (Ga 6:7). :blabla: All will give an account (Ro 14:12).
 
I

Interplanner

Well-known member
serpentdove said:
She did her job as she had always done. When she was hired the President of the United States pretended to be in agreement with her position. :Nineveh: At some point in her career man's law changed but God's did not. When Democrat senators tell her that she must implement the law of the land :sozo2:--she's doing that. What portion of the earth does not belong to God Almighty? Ps 24:1

Did Daniel stop praying to his God when he was ordered to stop? No. Dan 6:10 No. God says pray--even for those who are telling you not to (Mt 5:44).
Click to expand...


Daniel was in a dictatorship. Once SCOTUS Jun 30 happened, our effort, since we are in a free republic, should go to petitioning that the state have NO authority in marriage matters. (That would be part of the smaller government movement). And to carrying on with weddings and marriages on a private need-to-know basis.

Evangelical preachers 200 years ago warned that this would happen when they first heard of state agencies handling "licenses" for marriages. It was always by churches. Church records of marriages pre-date "state" records by centuries, because no one ever thought a marriage could exist outside of known, agreed, conscious contact with the God of the Bible.

So the English novelists (Evans [Elliot], Wilde, etc.) who experimented with other sexual unions did so because they did not see any point to marriage as such as agnostics or atheists. They were in a sense, right, but even Evans grieved the threesome she was in after years of it, and wrote of rearranging marriages as murder of everyone one involved with brutal honesty in MIDDLEMARCH that still makes you cringe to read it today. Wilde persisted in experimentation; 'one should always be in love; therefore one should never marry.'

Expecting to have Biblical MF marriage understood in a homo-erotic age is very naive. The issue of God's judgement came up in one news clip. You can't get anywhere in that setting. Christians should continue to work where the total system is understood to exist. Not bits and pieces. Don't refer to bits and pieces until the person understands there is a total system of thought.
 
serpentdove

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
Interplanner said:
...Expecting to have Biblical MF marriage understood in a homo-erotic age is very naive.
Click to expand...

Mt 18:3 TMI :granite:

Homosexuality is: forbidden (Lev. 18:22), considered an abomination (1 Kin. 14:24), punishment for (Lev. 20:13), unclean (Rom. 1:24, 26, 27). :vomit:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top