Thousands of people were cheering. Lying was enough to get two presidents impeached. Christian or not, telling the truth less than one-quarter of the time while a candidate is the reddest of flags. Be concerned for their chastity, and do not show yourself too indulgent with them. He does not attempt to love his enemies, but instead cultivates antagonism.
However, Christians must consider how he made his fortune. Rather than invest in companies who provide goods and services which contribute to the prosperity of the Americans he seeks to lead, he has invested heavily in casino gambling. He gave his name to a sham university , defrauding students in the process. He has lobbied for and exploited imminent domain laws to muscle people off their property, most notably a New Jersey widow.
His business dealings do not suggest a willingness to place the fortunes of others ahead of his own, nor the integrity to accept responsibility. On the issues of poverty, hunger, and oppression, topics everyone from Jesus to Jeremiah cared a great deal about, Trump is deafeningly silent. This alone is unacceptable. Making them live in group homes makes sense. You cannot serve God and money.
He has made the pursuit of material wealth an idol and worshipped it his entire life. Trump has forgotten the source of all wealth, the Creator of all abundance, and instead deifies the gifts of God rather than God himself. No moral offense receives so many warnings in both the Old and New Testament as idolatry. On many campaign issues, he appears to have recently found religion — but apparently not this one. You can vote for whoever you want. But for the Christian, this freedom is always constrained. Followers of Christ have taken up a yoke.
And though it is light, it is not easy or common. This yoke ties all Christians, in all their perplexing diversity, to love, mercy, sacrifice, and justice. A bit like Rudd? I am really mostly indifferent to the question of gay marriage, but if it came to a point I would vote in favour just to get up the nose of Tony Abbott, and other religious bigots like the preacher on minister on QandA the other night. Here is this man, virtually standing alongside Abbott, and for that matter, Rudd openly confessing that they believe in a super being that does not even have the power to stop his adherents from raping and molesting children, whilst being taught about Christianity, and worse still allows cover ups.
I know all of this rubbish about man having his own will, but that is just a cop out. Employee's of Catholic Inc. The all-male culture of the Catholic church attracts many non-Christians with very nefarious motives. The real Christian Church has no property, has no physical location and cannot be seen or heard.
In fact, it has no physical existence at all that can be measured in any way. But you will know when you have found it. Hi Patarus, I see your conundrum but luckily I have the answer for you. They are human beings just like us hetrosexuals. It really is that simple. If it is any consolation I have met a fair number of homosexuals or gays and believe it or not I treat them just like anyone else.
Very comfortable and happy to be in their company and enjoy their company. I think at the end of the day it is important to have an opinion - as long as it does not overly rule your life. At the end the majority will rule and you move on. If it happens so be it.
The only objection I would raise is an opportunistic PM making the most of a photo shoot with a fairly ordinary mea culpa. Oh and by the way Kev 07 in his 07 victory speech described Julia as a "wonderful human being" ironic how she get up Kev's nose. Being subjected to bigotry and discrimination will affect you. Many gays define themselves by their sexuality simply because that's how homophobia pigeonholes them. Your view is clearly that there is one "normal condition" the one you are in and everyone else is a second citizen with fewer rights. As a hetero male I have experienced bigotry from people like you who can't believe I have been able to marry a woman who is not only taller than me but also quite beautiful.
It was annoying at first; now I realise they deserve my sympathy more than my anger. That is the same stance the Republicans hold over the Monarchy, but it doesn't mean it will happen anytime soon. Sorry, I have to agree what most of the polls say on Gay Marriage even if political polling irks me no end with its influence on the political debate. Plus this debate loses sight of the actual facts of the matter. For a start even if marriage equality was legally given to gay's it does not mean the church, or individual Pastor's of a particular christian faith have to marry a gay person.
Marriage has two facits to it. One you can be married in a church or other religion under the so called eyes of God. The other is that it is a legal act which can be and is often performed outside of a religious faith. Both forms are Marriage under the legle definition of the word.
If You Voted For Trump And You're Not A Racist, You Have A Lot Of Work To Do
In the end it is up to Religious organisation and Minister or Paster or other of the faith to agree to marrying a gay couple. The law can not force them to marry a couple no matter whether they are a straight couple or a gay couple. So in the end all of debate and argument against gay marriage is a political farce. It is the government that has given the Rellgious organisasiond the authority to perform the marriage ceromony not the other way round. That is how it has been since we left the caves, the leaders be they cheifs or kings gave the permision for joining.
The churches are blow ins by comparison. Dear rapscallion what you are saying that it is wrong for gay marriage to happen on a national level, but it is alright on a state level in NSW because it is legislated by O'Farrell? Do yourself a favour, next time you see a poll on this, have a look at the questions in the poll, and who paid for the poll.
It was a series of push poll questions, and it was shaped by people who already had in mind their result. I note the results of that poll are no longer quoted since it was well established as fraudulent, as I suspect most political polls of that type are. I knew someone in the building industry who commissioned a environmental survey on some land a developer wanted looked into - I asked, what if you don't get the result you want, the response was "we're paying for it, we'll get the response we need" ain't that the truth. So it is with all polls commissioned by people whose interest the result is in.
You would have to be incredibly naive or divisive to state that polls commissioned by the people who have the most to gain, are objective. Hi Donna, What would your view be on the Vote Compass results - I know it's not a poll per se, but it's still a damn big survey: Twelve per cent selected 'neutral'. Marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Or would you consider this poll to be an objective one? Red Simons argued this point with Jon Faine this morning actually. I took the survey, some questions were very limited in how you could respond. Let's see, most people say the ABC is biased to the left on news and opinion not including contributors, the ABC employees is who we all understand are the people we say are biased , and the existence of all the other media in Australia shows that not everyone chooses the ABC as their exclusive source - as opposed to those die hards who claim the ABC is not biased, but then say they do not look at alternative news sources like Murdoch's press.
So the majority of respondents are those who probably are glued to the ABC, there are many out there int he community who do not listen to, visit or watch the ABC sites. They probably don't even know the Vote Compass exists and if they do, probably think it is going to tell them that regardless of what they say, it will tell them to vote Labor and they are really liberal thinkers. I did it for fun, and got the response I expected..
Gay marriage is about as important to me as how many disabled parking spots a supermarket has to have, yet the ABC thinks it is an important "community" issue, it is not. An objective survey, no You are a legend, gay marriage isn't an important issue for me so it isn't an im portant issue for the majority of the population.
Are we to thank God that you are a majority of the population? As for your views of the political leanings of the ABC, it has been shown to be a slightly right wing entity on all investigations done into it. Can you right wing peanuts please just inhabit the Tele so your world view can be reinforced happily and we don't have to suffer your tripe.
I have made this point before, but obviously people like you that are set in their thinking let it skate over their heads. You contend that the ABC is biased to the left. Let us assume this is correct. Why is this so. HowarD through his Minister Alston had an inquiry into this very issue, and came up empty. He stacked the ABC board with people like Janet Albrechtsen, who he was sure would turn things around, but honest reporting still prevailed.
My answer to this question is that once ABC personnel are freed of the shackles of having to report to the tune of their employer like Murdoch, they enjoy their freedom and regain their journalistic ethical principals. Donna, if you look at those labelled left and those labelled right you will come up with an intersting profile.
Those who label the ABC as left wing: Teachers, lecturers, intellectuals, health care workers and, god forbid, unionists also generally feature in left wing profile. The betterment of their fellow humans. Those on the right? Give back your rights, get back in the salt mines on christams day and i hope you have a million bucks if you get sick.
Donna, the flaw in your argument that the polls are inaccurate is that the various polls are consistent, and have been for many years - showing a growing trend in support for marriage equality. The two largest polls conducted on this matter - by the House of Representatives and Senate when they bothed convened committees to look into amending the marriage act to reflect equality - showed the self same results and those were of sample sizes in excess of , Bury your head in the sand if you must, but the majority of Australian citizens DO support marriage equality.
Rob, if you truly believe this to be the case then you should agitate for a referendum on the issue of 'gay marriage'; since only so defining marriage, e. But you won't call for a referendum on the issue. Which means you don't believe your own figures. Then I suspect you may think differently which suggests that you only care about yourself.
Wining Pom, you misunderstand the mechanisms of democracy. You are not selfish if you express YOUR point of view. That is what it is all about. Do you expect everyone to be second guessing on every issue and vote for what they think everyone else might want. That is how democracy works. The abortion question only asked' less' not 'none'. So the question inferred no one was interested in having zero abortions.
It was a loaded question. There are plenty of other places to get your news, i. This will sell just a few more papers. He got an excuse to shut down the News of the World in London, as if every other journo is not using the same techniques. At least the sliced up fraction of an NBN the Liberals are 'promising' will be delivered sooner which suits me living in a backwater. It would not have mattered who won the election, promises are going to be broken, but Abbott is a self confessed liar so that is OK if the Libs break them right? As for gay marriage, the legal costs when a partner dies will probably be cheaper if we legalise gay marriage.
In these supposed tough economical times this makes good financial sense to legalise. Therefore i don't believe that your rights are important to the majority of the community. Good point, but Donna seems the kind of Liberal flack who will smash down anything and anyone that doesn't agree with their party line. We are seeing very aggressive attacks on anyone who dissents, which is worrying. It is fact they spent like drunken sailors, but it is to be hidden and the messenger shot. Where will it end? Not us I hope. I am uncomfortable about gay marriage but I accept that some people find a life partner who is of the same sex.
I would not deny them that life partnership and, from there to gay marriage , is a short hop step and jump. Ken, although I am not concerned if same sex marriage comes to be, I am concerned that the Churches are not forced as in Europe to perform the ceremonies. I have read that Priests have been arrested and imprisoned for following their beliefs as the gay community have cried equal opportunity and if a priest will marry a hetrosexual couple then they must be forced to marry a same sex couple.
I'd have to say that any poll on the ABC is going to be slightly skewed because of the readership, which is not likely to be an exact replica of the general population mix, either by age, by political inclination or indeed by religion. Unless you adjust for all these factors, your sample, no matter how large, is going to have a bias based on who is likely to respond to it.
It's not clear to me that the results are adjusted in the way the regular polls are to reflect the actual composition of the population. That said, I do think the results indicate that opposition to same-sex marriage is not as extensive as some keep insisting it is. I look forward to your in depth analysis of Murdoch's polling companies and all those poll results.
A considerable proportion of voters and it is growing do not have landlines and never get polled. These voters are mainly in the 18 to perhaps 35 year age group. So how can regular polls be adjusted to reflect the composition of the population? Stuffed Olive - we actually got a call from one of the polling companies not Newspoll a week or so ago. Almost their first question was whether there was anyone in the household in the 20 to 25 age range. There wasn't; they thanked us very much and hung up. I'm guessing they do make sure they have enough respondents in each demographic to make their poll is reasonably representative.
I had a similar call about 3 weeks ago. No one here under 25 actually no one under But the point is how are they going to poll those young people - most of whom should not be living at home and most of whom don't have landlines. To get the balance of age groups they just keep ringing. Eventually they get the numbers to do an accurate poll relatively - there is always a margin of error.
Donna has a very strong point here, Haderak. For the sake of simple curiosity I completed the VoteCompass questionnaire. One of the questions was whether I supported increased funding for Universities and tertiary education. I answered "yes" to that question. Based on that opinion, VoteCompass describes me as being sympathetic to the Greens.
That's a country mile from the truth. So, I agree with Donna - it's a bit of fun, but don't take any serious note of it. You clearly have no idea how the vote compass works Shame be upon you Many conservatives would not even know the poll existed as it is located on the left leaning ABC site. Many older don't use the internet, most would have conservative values. You are always here on the Drum bagging anything Labor.
In case you hadn't noticed not only is the ABC not biased to the left it is now tilted too far to the right. ABC has been regurgitating mindless News headlines and doing bugger all real journalism. Just because ABC doesn't say what you want to hear all the time, you label it Left leaning? But, if the ABC is slightly Left, as you purport, then that would correct a little of the major imbalance in the Australian media But of course the Libs will quickly sell it off or at best just cut funding to it.
More accurately the ABC is to the left of the corporate media which is placed somewhere around where Mussolini would have it. Unfortunately the corporate media is the majority media and that explains the lack of thoughtfulness and insight in such a large proportion of our population, or should i say consumers.
Oh what the hell let's call a spade a spade, lemmings. As for older people being more conservative. Id question that,given that they have lived longer and had experiences of Conservative and Democratic Governments. Generally they have benefited more from progressive, socially aware Democratic governments than the more regressive, Conservatives.
Haderak, vote compass is one great con. I took a shot at it and it said I was a green. I have nothing but contempt for the greens, a Godless pack of morally deficient people who will be obliterated at the coming election. Vote compass has no way of deciding the motives of the respondent and as a result will put certain answers in the greens camp when there is NO intention for that to happen. The answers align with the various parties' policies. Maybe you need to check out all policies first. Anyway, you can ignore your own personal results.
Simple the ABC attracts the left left and then more left! It is irrelevant that , responded. The Compass is not a poll in the sense of polls as we know it but it is a good representation of what 1 million or so Aussies think. Dismissing it is stupid. They only serve to underline the need to improve the education level in this country,thankfully something Labor has always strived to do, only to have it wound back by the next Conservative Govt. The Yank can't help itself, in every post I've glazed over recently, to blame someone else for something. At least today you can also blame Fairfax for finally, when they know their side is beat voicing a disdain for Rudd and, with guilt by association, the Labor party.
But, getting back to topic, the thing that grates me is the issue that affects all people, not just a minority. Craig, re why not debate voluntary euthanasia? These issues, including gay marriage, are all about the sovereignty of the individual. Organised religion and governments to a greater or lesser degree, depending on the country you live in, have always sought to curtail individual decision-making rights. The ultimate self-determining right is to decide when to end your own life.
A tabu even greater than same-sex marriage I suspect. To which I would answer "No". These are individual choices, and no one has the right to enforce their views onto others. Ilanfair - I'd have said that, since marriage is a civil, not a religious institution, and brings with it civil rights and obligations, the state does have a role in defining it. It's the church that doesn't. Frangipani - Fair points, however the two key aspects of marriage are essentially property rights and financial obligations towards spouse and offspring.
Having evolved from a fairly man-centred perspective keeping the inheritance for the oldest legitimate son , to me it all seems very chaotic. The label you put on the relationship and construct of the relationship seems to me to be immaterial to anyone but the parties involved. On euthanasia, I consider this as act under its formal definition - "an intentional termination of life by another at the explicit request of the person who wishes to die" including pre-requests via a living will.
Like you, I would not condone the idea of someone electing to "euthanize" someone, but as implied by the definition to do so is not euthanasia. I believe the role of Government is to define legislation that would underpin living wills to remove current confusion and potential liabilities on third parties.
It is not up Government to say you can, cannot or have to do it in these circumstances. As for abortion - it's the woman's choice - always - and for whatever reason. Government has no other role than to provide access to hospital facilities. So I agree that in each area the Government has a role to play, however in each instance this role is limited - and should be limited to non-moralistic issues. Because the unelected religious lobby has charge of our 'morality'. They hate the fact that we're even debating gay marriage - to their way of thinking the debate itself is heresy.
Why do the non religious want to redefine a religious covenant that was not created for them? Marriage pre-dates Christianity by about , years. The real question is why Christianity took a civil ceremony and added prohibitions to it. Because it's a philosophy of division and hate, that's why. You seem to forget that you god-botherers didn't invent marriage. Thats right it was all murdoch and nothing Labor did that contributed to the upcoming loss hopefully.
What Murdoch said Labor did is not necessarily what Labor did. Murdoch's reporting is ideologically biased. Murdoch is proud of the fact.
Connection timed out
Abbott tells us Oz is on the edge of a fiscal cliff and that Labor is incompetent, which are two claims refuted by the economic facts and by reports from the Economist and Forbes. Abbott has reneged on almost everything he has promised. Even when he says he will scrap the Carbon Tax, he fails to say how his own price on carbon will affect taxpayers.
He has put a cap on spending on his Direct Action plan, and if it does not work, so be it. Such is his commitment to Climate Change. Such is his lust for power. Twisting and ducking and diving, a populist windsock in the breeze. Or a hand puppet under the control of Murdoch. So politics trumps science, truth and everything.
- The First Wave (Billy Boyle World War II Mystery).
- Seeing Tomorrow: Rewriting the Rules of Risk!
- A River and Its City: The Nature of Landscape in New Orleans.
- Joels First Day of School (I am a STAR Personalized Book Series 1)?
- If You Don't Vote Democrat This November, Then Fuck You | HuffPost;
It's just that Murdoch papers have a conservative bent. I suspect that's what annoys you. They're on the wrong side! Maybe you have forgotten the point of journalism You can only lie for so long until the truth comes knocking If that is how you measure journalism, hoe do you measure politics? It's ok to spin slime and smear? It's ok to lie to parliament? Wake up to the real world. However, what about what ALP politicians said? Should we not listen to what they said? Then again Tiresias do you think Orgill would have got the auditing gig if he wasn't biased in Labor's direction? Labor were so pleased with the former Greens candidate they gave him a job on the board of the NBN.
Rudd will lose because he spent three years plotting to overthrow the first Australian female PM, thus proving that he has no plans or vision for the country except to put himself back in power. Let me say this again, he spent the best of three years actively undermining his own boss, his own party. He will also lose because half of his own side hate him and refuse to serve under him due to his micromanaging, and egotistic narcissist personality.
Besides, Fairfax has now come out and said he is unfit for the Prime Ministrship. For better or worse, she TOOK it from the leader of the party that won an election with him at the helm. History will remember that she was also one of the "gang of four" who MADE some of the decisions Rudd was publicly lambasted for. In essence the coup plan was hatched whilst repeatedly protesting that she was not interested the Bulldogs full forward quote springs to mind.
The Slater and Gordon affair may now see a little more light as heads have rolled while seeking the truth of it. The former PM sowed the seeds of her own demise, and Rudd merely plotted and executed his own revenge. As for same sex marriage, I'm not interested in forcing my preferences on others. This should also be the goal of ALL religions. Christianity has for the most part learned that in the last years. Religions, including Christianity, only change when they face existential crises.
That's reaction, not education. When they can, they do their own educating, because, despite their professed faith, revelation through epiphany is pretty hit-and-miss, and not always on-message. What evidence do you have that Gillard plotted and destabilised the first Rudd leadership for 2 years? You are asserting that in June less than a year after winning their way back into power, Gillard was plotting to overthrow Kevin Rudd and take the prime ministership. Unless you worked for Gillard or Rudd Mick how do you know?
There are some excellent articles and a couple of books on the Rudd destabilisation. Are there similar for this to date unknown 2 year campaign by Gillard. Oddly enough just because you assert something doesnt mean its true and this is just fantasy. This is going off the main topic, but can you deny that Gillard a overthrew Rudd who was the democratically elected PM through a back room coup and b made deals with the likes of Craig Thompson and Peter Slipper to stay in power? I am no fan of Rudd but there is truth in the saying "what goes around comes around".
The fact that she was Australia's first female PM does no make her a better person; she was as devious as the rest of them. Gillard was reluctantly pushed into the job by Shorten et al. I'm a die hard Lib - and even I know that. If it is true that "All the polls I have seen on this matter people are in favour of gay marriage" then what do you call those who are not in favour of same sex marriage notice I use a different terminology for legitimate reasons? Are they not people as well? Somehow the kind of statement you make seems to ring true for many who are advocating for same sex marriage Can you explain yourself?
Are you able to actually distinguish between those who essentially couldn't care less one way or the other and those who advocate for same sex marriage and on which side of the 'argument' for or against does their position get counted when claims are being made by either side? Why do you use the phrase "gay marriage"? Are you saying that two individuals must be gay in order to enter into a same sex marriage? Are you saying that for two individuals of the same sex to truly love each other and want to proclaim that love to each other through marriage that they must also be gay?
Ok, I know I said these were simple questions but, as you can see, it all becomes increasing complex and when the issue lightly passed off by those both for and against same sex marriage as simple, nobody is doing anybody good. I would imagine that with respect to those that couldn't care less about the issue, they naturally lend weight in favour of the pro gay marriage argument.
The rule of law sets out that everything is legal until it's proscribed. In lieu of compelling reasons to proscribe something, it is legal. Nice try but it gets you nowhere. Anyone would think that allowing gay couple marriage was compulsory. It is all too ridiculous without even bringing religious beliefs into it. What is relevant is whether it's right or wrong.
Whether it's right or wrong for the state to treat any group of people as second-class citizens. Yank when are you going to realise that the ALP are bringing upon themselves what will happen on Saturday without any help from Murdoch. The perceived perception amongst all I talk to in my dept is utter chaos and sheer inability to be able to explain what they want, and that is within a government dept with a captive audience so to speak.
Horrocks, while the rest of the world looked on enviously at the Australian economy, the coalition and its supporters in the right wing media, mostly Murdoch's mob and the shock jocks earning their millions from commercial station owners, set about destabilising the Government to the point of affecting the economy and discombobulating the Government. If you can't see this then you need to widen your horizons.
Gay marriage lobbyists don't want a national referendum. Why would they lose? Because the majority of Australians are NOT in favour of gay marriage. Then I say let's bring on the plebiscite and determine this once and for all Until that happens, this will continue to be an argument and nothing significant will happen. Oh, and just saying it's the right thing to do and so consideration of a plebiscite isn't appropriate is flawed logic Miriam, closing statements like yours; 'simple' aren't fact. You don't know what the majority of Australians think, and every poll i've seen suggests that the majority are supportive or at worst ambivalent towards gay marriage, so better you finish with; in my humble opinion.
Rudd will lose in spite of Murdoch. Please give the electorate some credit for their intelligence when it comes to choosing the government. There is such a thing as online media of which there are many sources, not owned by Murdoch. Last but not least, Rudd's own colleagues, they've done more than Murdoch could ever do to ensure a landslide on Saturday. Rudd has just failed the Christian test. No self-professed Christian would ever ridicule the Bible.
The interpretation of the Bible and how to lives ones' life is indeed a personal journey. There are outright elements that are near impossible to follow in todays world. Although still there is an essence of meaning still to be gleaned. Notice the tone, the language and the care in the choice of words in the above paragraph. However when Rudd proudly, arrogantly publicly professed his own interpretation and 'superior knowledge,' refuting the Bible however wrongly for his own 'proof' to benefit his position - He Crossed Over A Line! He has blunderingly triggered the trip wire. Beware of leaders that talk in such a prideful manner.
This is further proof that Rudds ego and self promotion will trample on anything that gets in his way. Now the Bible is on that list. What he said and how he said it is altogether different and removed from the subject he was speaking of. His 'cleverness' has set back the case by fathoms. I now not of any successful long-term leader that has ever used the Bible as he has just done. Julia Gillard had the good sense to not go there. She is far better than a Rudd 'wolf in sheeps clothing. Reason starts at home. He ridiculed one particular exegetical approach to it.
And as a Christian with a degree n Theology, I say that Rudd was spot on! The Bible should not be simply read, then applied as if every word was written directly to a modern reader. Each book was written in its own time to address specific circumstances; an intelligent reader will read it in that context, discern the underlying principles, and then translate those principles to our different circumstances. Perhaps more pastors should brush up on this most basic skill in their job description. If you read the passage quoted by the pastor, you will note that it centres on whether or not a married man remains subject to the authority of his parents - a big issue in patriarchal societies; it has nothing to do with 'gay marriage'.
And yes, David, some parts of the Bible are indeed hard to follow in today's world. That is probably because today's world is not the same as when that 'hard passage' was written.
- Top Stories.
- You Voted For Who? And You Call Yourself A Christian? - e-Book.
- MBA TERMS and GLOSSARY;
- Gargantua und Pantagruel (German Edition).
- Self-Concept and Work.
I urge you to look into historical and cultural context if you want a clearer understanding. Ask the questions that confronted the first readers, not the questions that confront you. Then work from there. Did you actually see the exchange? Rudd did as he always does, which is not answer the question. The question was why should we trust you and vote for you given your changing opinions and views. Then Rudd went to talk about same sex marriage and slavery? Hm I guess people hear what they want to hear.
Rudd IS that jerk. Rudd did answer the question. I am a pastor of a local church and work for a national christian radio network. Most of the listeners and callers we have had in our radio station have been saying that they won't be voting for you because they are disillusioned because you seem to keep chopping and changing your beliefs just to get a popular vote with regard to things like marriage.
Why should we vote for you? Listen up to Prater expanded on his question with amongst other things to Rudd, "Why don't you believe the words of Jesus in the Bible? And Rudd came back to the original question on "chopping and changing". Full circle - no aspects of Pastor Prater's question nor Tony Jones' interpolation and interpretation avoided nor left unanswered by Rudd. I know it is difficult for "bears of little brain" to follow complex multi-stage arguments and recommend that getting down on the knees and praying for guidance is a useful physical exercise.
It wouldn't surprise me if many of the pro liberal commentators are either LNP faithfuls or even paid trolls Wow, you certainly added to the intellectual debate by being insulting in a witty manner. This man does in fact 'chop and change' and that is the main thrust, try not to be so prejudiced regarding religious people. We must have been watching on a different night or something. The question I saw was - how can you call yourself a christian and support gay marriage. And he answered it more directly than I have ever seen Rudd answer a question before, by saying that a christian doesn't have to take everything in the bible literally, and anyone who thinks they can take everything in the bible literally is a pompous fool.
And radio preachers fit nicely. Jesus said a man shall leave his father and mother and be married.? He was thinking of what Jesus said in either Matthew Both are in the context of teaching on divorce, not whether the husband should remain subject to his parents. There, Jesus sets forth God? The application to refute gay marriage should therefore be obvious to all. Perhaps Jesus was saying that if a man gets married he should no longer live with his parents. However Jesus does not actually refute gay marriage. And if for the sake of argument we accept that "Jesus set forth God's intention for the institution of marriage", then this still does not prevent or preclude the STATE from setting different rules for civil marriage.
How long after Jesus made this statement did Matthew write it down. Could it be that this fellow Matthew just made it up to give a few guide lines to satisfy the people of the day. Are we really bound by what someone allegedly said over years ago. I don't have all that money. You didn't know anyone who got shot last night? That sort of thing would never happen to you? I'm scrolling through my Facebook wall seeing desperate plea after plea and prayer after prayer hoping that friends and loved ones are still alive.
But you can't vote democrat if it's not your candidate because of your "morals. Honestly I don't give a fuck how you feel about any candidate. It's absolutely irrelevant to me. Even if that means voting for a white female career politician who's played the game just as dirty as every man who's come before her, including our current president.
Don't y'all wish we could just vote him in another four years? Maybe you wouldn't if you took a look at his donor list. But would you risk letting Trump win if Obama was the Democratic nominee? Would his shadiness matter then like Hillary's does so deeply to you? This country absolutely needs a revolution. But at this moment in time, you're literally choosing between the somewhat unlikely possibility of progressive change or an orange reality tv star who won't renounce support from white supremacists.
And somehow you expect me to accept that your conscience or morals matter at all? Please don't hand our lives over to this white devil madman. You might survive this.