Robert #fundie christiannews.net
We need to change the constitution so its more friendly to christian belief's than heathen beliefs. (All of the Non Christian beliefs are heathen) So let's either change the constitution or ignore it.
We need to change the constitution so its more friendly to christian belief's than heathen beliefs. (All of the Non Christian beliefs are heathen) So let's either change the constitution or ignore it.
"Are you saying all science that is "devoid of God" is invalid?"
ummmmmmm ....... YUP ................ an a-theist might STUMBLE into the truth ...... might ...... but any independent conclusions are invalid ..........
Colin Rafferty:
So, like Lively, you think that people should be jailed for the sin of having gay sex. Or am I misunderstanding you?
yabruf:
You mean sodomy? No jail time just the death penalty
No need to torture someone in prison.
There is valid reason to have more concern over a homosexual worker. Less than 3% of American men say they are homosexual, but nearly 1/3 of child sexual molesters are homosexual. Furthermore, you can see support for these acts from major homosexual leaders, and publications. This open support has reduced a lot in recent years, and NAMBLA is no longer permitted to march in the Gay parades. But, there remains an undercurrent that is OK with, or at least down-plays these crimes.
I guess in your case, ignorance is truly bliss. May I suggest you read that Qur'an, for what I have mentioned is very, very true. There is not one Muslim you can trust, NOT ONE. Their holy book spells it out. I am NOT paranoid, but you are indeed, ignorant and turning a blind eye to reality. What?? All these Muslims killing people ALL OVER THE WORLD, hasn't opened your eyes??? Really??? I strongly suggest you get a grip on what the Muslim population fully intends to do in this and every other country they have invaded. It's called the caliphate. Look it up!!!
Oboehner:
Again with the single case court opinions as if they are relevant to others beside the ones in that case, hmmm...
Ambulance Chaser:
That's because they are, and your obstinate refusal to accept that reality does nothing to change it.
Citing case law is LITERALLY Day 1 material in law school. Citing cases is just about as natural to a lawyer as breathing. Any lawyer who doesn't cite cases regularly and abundantly is simply not practicing law.
The position you take is not just wrong, it's fractally wrong. It demonstrates not just an ignorance of the law in this case, but an ignorance of even the most fundamental basics of how law operates.
To attempt to put this into some kind of perspective, your position is the equivalent of playing Tetris and announcing that you're the winner because you got to the top of the screen faster than anyone else. Or thinking you won a round of golf because you got the highest score.
TheLastHonestLawyer:
And to build on what Ambulance Chaser said, I was taught to look for the cases that contained numerous case citations themselves. You look for the most recent, most supported decision to bolster your case.
Oboehner:
Let's see, reality...
Article I: Legislative
Section 1 -
"ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the
United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives."
"Citing case law is LITERALLY Day 1 material in law school." Can you say the inmates are running the asylum?
Do explain how non-law is binding though, I'm all a-twitter with anticipation!
TheLastHonestLawyer:
OK, I'll use small words.
Courts do not make law.
Courts examine the law.
They use the Constitution to examine laws.
The Constitution is the highest law in our nation.
This includes the Amendments.
Laws cannot violate the Constitution.
If the judge(s) find the law violates the Constitution, they issue a ruling.
That ruling says the law cannot be enforced.
It does not remove the law from the state laws.
It just neuters it.
States can appeal this decision.
But once SCOTUS has made a decision (or refused to hear the case) it is over. The last appellate ruling stands.
So, what can the state do?
They can try to rewrite the law to address what the courts found unconstitutional.
They can push for a Constitutional Amendment.
Or they can accept that they lost and move on.
This, by the way, is the reason Roy Moore lost his seat on the Alabama Supreme Court. SCOTUS ruled that laws banning same-sex marriage were in violation of the 14th Amendment. Moore tried to order county clerks to ignore the order. His own state's review board kicked him out of office for that.
Oboehner:
OK, I'll use small words too.
Only laws are binding, court cases are not either.
Courts gave themselves the power to examine laws.
The courts examining laws is not in the Constitution.
The Constitution is the highest law in our nation.
This includes the Amendments (the Tenth as well).
Laws cannot violate the Constitution.
If the judge(s) find the law violates the Constitution, they issue a ruling, which is as pretty as Billy's kindergarten drawing on the fridge.
That ruling says the law cannot be enforced, but they have no constitutional power to say that.
The ruling is the only thing neutered.
States don't have to appeal this decision as it is unconstitutional.
But once SCOTUS has made a decision (or refused to hear the case) it is over. The last appellate ruling stands ONLY over the single case that came from a lower court.
TheKingOfRhye:
"The last appellate ruling stands ONLY over the single case that came from a lower court."
That line of thinking makes no sense to me. When the Supreme Court rules, in an appeal that is brought before them, that a law is unconstitutional, how can it only apply in a single case then? The 14th Amendment gives equal protection of the law (the existing laws, not the laws you say they supposedly create) to all citizens.
Oboehner:
And?
TheKingOfRhye
And when the court rules the law applies in a certain way in one case, because of the 14th, it applies that way to everyone else.
Oh, and judicial review is in the Constitution.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
In other words, unconstitutional laws don't apply. And if you're going to tell me next that it isn't the court's job to interpret laws...well, I'm no legal expert, but I don't understand how a court system could exist without doing that. If nothing else, they have to deal with old laws, and interpret how they would apply to situations that the people who made them would have never imagined.
Oboehner:
"And when the court rules the law applies in a certain way in one case" is ONLY relevant to that case as anything else would be a usurpation of power and unconstitutional - rendering the rest of your argument null and void. In other words, unconstitutional laws or actions don't apply.
Ambulance Chaser:
I don't think you get this. Although I believe there are constitutional grounds for judicial review, and we've been over it already, that's not the point.
I'm not interested in debating whether or not there SHOULD be judicial review. That's above my pay grade.
All I know is that there is, it's an indisputable fact, and it's the basis of American law. I simply don't care to debate the esoteric nuances of early constitutional history. That's for professors and historians to duke it out. I practice law, I don't write or theorize about it.
Oboehner:
You can believe the moon is made of green cheese too if you want, doesn't make it any more factual.
Consider this, how can we have government by the people for the people if some judge can insert his/her opinion as law with no recourse? What would make the Supreme Court any different than the Communist Party in China? I see no difference other than the illusion of freedom with representation if courts can make binding (law) decisions.
Ambulance Chaser:
Again, you fail to listen. I'm not arguing what SHOULD BE. I'm telling you how it works.
I know you don't like it. You've made that abundantly clear. It doesn't matter. Your dislike for the system won't change it.
Oboehner:
Could have fooled me.
There are many things wrong with this country, that is just a fine example. What is even more disturbing is that the masses are completely ignorant, even defending the wrongs (even as far as flagging my posts for whatever reason).
Ambulance Chaser:
Yes, as we've gone over before: every lawyer, judge, law professor, elected official and civil servant in America is wrong about how judicial review works. Only you are correct.
Makes perfect sense.
Oboehner:
Resorting to that now? Sad. When you have the inmates running the asylum, what do you expect?
Ambulance Chaser:
Here's the long and the short of it. There are two questions here. One is whether the courts HAVE judicial review powers and the other is whether the SHOULD HAVE judicial review powers.
To the first question, yes, obviously they do. That's not disputable. It would be like denying that the sky is blue.
To the second question, I think they should but simply don't care enough about it to argue. It doesn't interest me, has no real-world implications, and I simply can't be bothered to argue it.
Oboehner:
The question is whether that "power" is legal or not, it is not and that is not disputable.
"has no real-world implications" Usurping power and violating the Constitution has no real-world implications? There's one.
"I simply can't be bothered to argue it." I suppose that's as good a cop out as any.
Ambulance Chaser:
"The question is whether that "power" is legal or not, it is not and that is not disputable"
Of course it is. I've told you that Article 3 Sec 2 gives the courts the power of judicial review. There, I disputed it. However, I'm not going to debate this any further because it's a pointless argument
"Usurping power and violating the Constitution has no real-world implications? There's one"
No, debating whether that happened or not had no real-world implications because we can't change anything even if it did (which I'm not conceding).
Oboehner:
(Posts the entirety of Art. 3, Sec. 2)
Not seeing the striking down of laws anywhere in there, guess you were wrong, and the courts are acting illegally. But we can't change that so we'll just have to bend over, right?
Ambulance Chaser:
We've already been over this, and I said I was done with this stupid argument, so I'm not going to do it again. We obviously have differing views on this.
The only difference is that mine is the view held consistently by the entire legal system for 200 years, but by all means, don't let that stand in your way.
Oboehner:
We obviously do have differing views, mine is constitutional, and yours is based on an out of control judiciary.
But by all means let popular opinion and tradition rule over what's right. Viva oligarchy!!
Colin Rafferty:
If you disagree, please tell me why. I'll start: supporting rounding up people by religion and executing them is different from supporting people making their own reproductive choices.
Oboehner:
You rounding up people by religion and executing them now too?
How is brutal murder a "reproductive choice"?
Colin Rafferty:
No, I'm not. I'm explaining how abortion and the holocaust are different.
Oboehner:
Oh I get it, the Holocaust was killing people based on ethnicity, but abortion is just killing people for convenience.
Colin Rafferty:
No, that's not what abortion is.
"Hey, you're taking too long ordering your Big Mac. I'm going to kill you to move forward. It's more convenient for me."
I mean, if you just want to see how much hyperbole you can use to describe something, that sounds like fun. But it's not an actual discussion.
Oboehner:
Don't see the difference between killing to "move forward" and killing to avoid responsibility.
Colin Rafferty:
So if someone saw me shoplift, and I killed him to silence him, that's "abortion". Because I'm killing to avoid responsibility.
If you want to frame "abortion" as something that it's not, and then argue against that, the term is "strawman argument".
Oboehner:
A living human with a beating heart is brutally murdered because mommie dearest wants to do something else, you're calling that a strawman? I believe creating strawmen is more your forte.
Sisyphus:
Evolution is based in science, intelligent design is an attempt to make superstition sound like science.
Jason Todd:
Evolution is a theory. And the idea of humans evolving from monkeys is part of it.
The problem with evolution is simple: Why, if we evolved from monkeys, do monkeys co-exist?
Sisyphus:
Firstly, you are using the term "theory" but mean "hypothesis", they are not the same thing. Humans have a common ancestor with modern apes, but, as I said previously, no credible scientist would contend humans evolved from monkeys.
Jason Todd:
No, I mean theory. Evolution is merely a guess, ruined by your own admission that we didn't evolve from monkeys. Intelligent design merely suggests a creator. This makes sense because the idea everything came from nothing is logically absurd.
Sisyphus:
How can you discuss anything related to science without even understanding the terms and concepts? Try learning the difference between theory versus a hypothesis. Hypothesis = a guess explaining observable phenomena & theory = a tested model to explain a proven set of factors. What you explain regarding evolution is a hypothesis, and evolution is a scientific model of facts.
Jason Todd:
Science always changes. God never does. Why can't you grasp that concept?
[A math teacher has made her classroom a safe space for LGBT students.]
The woman is teaching homosexuality to her students while disallowing so much as an expression of the "Christianity" she claims to embrace. That's what's going on here.
A "safe school" is one that allows teachers to carry firearms, bringing the chances of a school shooting down to zero. Not allowing the mentally ill to feel good about themselves.
You are incorrect, this Nation was founded as a Christian Nation, laws were enacted, Courts showed in countless cases this is what the First Amendment was about, which was that no one religion would rule America like in England at the time, or sort of ruled. The United States Suprement Court in 1963 in case of School District of Abington Township v. Schempp states Secularism is unconstitutional prefering those who do not believe over those who do believe...it is the duty of government to deter nonbelief religions....facilities of government cannot offend religious principles. Additionally, the constitutions of the first 13 states wrote you had to be Christian to be in office....this is all based upon the ideal that morality keeps a government prosperous and free.....
"You can "discuss things from a Christian and scriptural view," but that doesn't excuse you from having to accept facts, even if those facts disagree with scripture."
the FACTS are that scripture is inerrant ..... that the truth is measured by scripture and nothing else ..... and there is no higher authority than the truth and scripture ...... science is BELOW the truth and your FACTS are meaningless without an OBJECTIVE STANDARD to measure them by .......... and i am sorry to tell you ..... "PEER REVIEW" .......... IS NOT an objective standard .............
Tangent002:
The SCOTUS did not make law at all, they confirmed that laws cannot restrict the basic right of marriage guaranteed by the Constitution. The decision is that same-sex marriage has always been legal.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Wrong. The Law says otherwise.
Tangent002:
Which law?
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
1923 Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act
Bob Johnson:
No such law. The Uniform Law Commission provides states with draft legislation, which states then may modify before passing into law. States are not required to use the draft language and most states heavily modify the draft before adoption.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Wrong. The Committee on Marriage & Divorce of the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws first started the Draft in 1911. In 1913 Marriage was first defined as a "husband and wife". In 1923 the Act was Federally Enacted. While there were many things left up to the states and allowed some variations on some things there were also some things that were required and if violated could result in fines and/or imprisonment.
What's important to note is that it was uniformly accepted at BOTH the State AND Federal level that a Marriage was between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN.
Ambulance Chaser:
If it was "federally enacted," you should be able to direct me to the exact location in the United States Code that codifies it.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
I gave up a long time ago directing your toward anything but the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now, if you would like to surrender your life as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ and accept Him as your new Lord & Master to live for His glory and beg Him to save your sorry, sinful, behind to save you from eternal torment in the Lake of Fire and spend ALL Eternity with the desire to glorify Him...
I'd be more than happy to direct you in how to do so.
Ambulance Chaser:
So, you're saying you CAN'T back up your statement? It really shouldn't be that hard. The entire US Code is available online.
Royce E. Van Blaricome::
Still having a problem with English I see. Let's see if repeating myself helps. No, what I said was:
"I gave up a long time ago directing your toward anything but the Lord Jesus Christ.
Now, if you would like to surrender your life as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ and accept Him as your new Lord & Master to live for His glory and beg Him to save your sorry, sinful, behind to save you from eternal torment in the Lake of Fire and spend ALL Eternity with the desire to glorify Him...
I'd be more than happy to direct you in how to do so."
But hey, thanks again for showing everyone you're nothing but a God-hating troll trying to stir up stuff on a CHRISTIAN page.
Ambulance Chaser:
You can't keep running and hiding behind "this is a Christian page" every time you find yourself out of your depth. If you're going to make assertions about earthly topics, you're going to need to be able to provide the earthly explanations for them.
So I'll ask you one last time, where is this supposed law codified? Where can I find it?
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Not running and hiding from anything. It's called TRUTH. Now I realize that is a foreign concept for you but, even so, it does NOT takeaway from the obvious fact that you tried to divert the conversation.
I've given my answer to you. I understand that it really bugs you to no end when you can't control the conversation the way you want. That's typical TROLL behavior.
Too bad. I'm sticking with God's Word. Matt. 7:6 & 10:14.
Now, let's see if you are a man of your word because I am. If you are, I don't expect to hear from you again until you are ready to surrender to the Lord Jesus Christ.
On North Carolina attempting to pass a law barring same-sex marriage
Michael C:
These elected officials either have no understanding of our system of government or they're relying on the fact that their constituents don't.
They're either wasting North Carolinian's hard earned money because they don't know how to do their jobs or they're wasting North Carolinian's hard earned money because they think they the people of North Carolina are ignorant.
Is wasting tax payers hard earned money acceptable if all you're doing is stomping your feet and banging your fists against the ground?
Jason Todd:
What is the basis for your argument?
Michael C:
A state legislature is not granted the power to nullify the parts of the U.S. Constitution that they don't like.
Any attempt to do so is an obvious waste of time and taxpayers' hard earned money.
So, are they wasting time and money because they're ignorant of how our system of government works or are they wasting time and money because they think their constituents are ignorant of how our system of government works?
Jason Todd:
Marriage isn't in the Constitution, which you bloody well know. That makes it a state issue, as per the 10th Amendment.
You need to stop being intellectually dishonest. But then again, the facts aren't on your side, are they?
Michael C:
Marriage is not specifically outlined in the Constitution, correct. How is it, then, that state laws that prohibit interracial marriage are in violation of the Constitution?
Jason Todd:
What does skin color have to do with sexual behavior?
Michael C:
Nothing that I've intimated.
...does that mean you're not going to address the simple question?
How is it that state laws prohibiting interracial marriage are in violation of the Constitution even though the Constitution doesn't even mention marriage??
Jason Todd:
The answer is it's irrelevant. Homosexuals like to equate the two to make some kind of argument, but the fact is it's the same as comparing a potato chip to a fire hydrant. It's nonsensical and won't be entertained.
Michael C:
No. You're just refusing to answer the question.
You're claiming that because the U.S. Constitution doesn't explicitly mention marriage, it's solely a state issue. You're refusing to respond to my relevant questions because you're wrong and you know it.
Thank you for this thoroughly useless conversation.
Michael C:
It's not a matter of "believing" any one side over the other. Roy Moore ordered Alabama public servants to violate the U.S. Constitution.
He ordered them to violate the U.S. Constitution.
It's not even a question. He did this. He put it on paper and signed it.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Ah, but it is more than a question. It's a lie. Moore ordered Alabama public servants to obey the Constitution AND the AL State Constitution. Try actually reading the article and opening your ears to what he actually said too.
TheLastHonestLawyer:
No, SCOTUS found that laws forbidding same-sex marriages violates the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment, following a pattern set in a dozen other SCOUTUS cases on marriage rights.
That's the final word. No new laws were made, rather the Supreme Court found that existing state laws could not be enforced as they were unconstitutional.
Chief Justice Moore told Alabama workers to ignore that ruling. That is wrong. He paid the price for it, and will now go down in history as the only Supreme Court justice ever to be removed from the bench *twice* for misconduct.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Thank you for showing that SCOTUS did not follow the Constitution but rather exercised judicial activism (at least 5 of the judges did) instead of performing their duty.
You're also wrong on that being the final word. Might wanna try reading the Constitution. The USA is NOT an oligarchy.
As to your last comment, so what? As if "history" will have any significance toward him at all. "History" reflects that a group of people shouted to Caesar about the Son of God, "Crucify Him and let His blood be on us and our children." "History" reflects that a group of people brutally scourged the Son of God almost to death and that a group of people actually murdered the Son of God by crucifixion. So?
Do you honestly think the Son of God sits in any lesser of a position than what He does because of that??? LOL
Judge Moore will likely sit in an even higher position than what He did prior because of his faithfulness. Oh yeah, it's such a terribly bad thing to stand with Christ. LOL
Get your mind off the temporal and focus on Eternity.
Michael C:
Are you being serious right now?
If a part of the Alabama state constitution violates the U.S. Constitution, it's impossible to obey both of them at the same time.
You get that, right?
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
"We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of government for the State of Alabama"
The Constitution of the USA actually supports and upholds that.
You get that right?
Never mind. No need to answer that. We have all gotten it by now that you simply don't get it. Nor any other truth for that matter.
DTrevor:
Your assertion that the Supreme Court of the United States cannot "make Law" is demonstrably incorrect. In fact, all rulings of appellate courts, which includes the Supreme Court of the United States, are a form of law known as "case law". The concept of "case law" is well established and understood and in fact it is addressed even in basic civics courses. As such, you have demonstrated an ignorance even of very basic United States civics which strongly suggests that your efforts to dismiss the validity of the ruling of Obergefell v. Hodges is without any credibility.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Thanks for showing your ignorance of the Constitution and the powers of each Branch.
Sisyphys:
How was judge [Roy] Moore upholding the Constitution, by attempting to inject his pet ideology into law?
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
By doing exactly what he said. I can't say it anymore succinctly and clearly than he did. Your characterization is just a blatant admission to your blindness and bias. Has nothing to do with "pet ideology".
Sisyphys:
The laws of Alabama he is trying to uphold, have been determined to be unconstitutional.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
By your ilk, maybe.
Ambulance Chaser:
No, by the Supreme Court, whose job it is to make final determinations of law.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Wrong again. The People make the final determination.
That said, you might wanna checkout the 1923 Uniform Marriage and Marriage Licensing Act and the 1971 Uniform Marriage & Divorce Act. Both state, "Marriage is a personal relationship between a man and a woman arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of the parties is essential.".
In the Obergefell Decision NEITHER of those is mentioned in the Decision at all. So SCOTUS did not find them Unconstitutional and therefore they are still on the books. So legally, that means that any marriage license issued to a couple that is not of opposite sexes is invalid.
Since SCOTUS can NOT "make" Law and they didn't address the current Law on the books, it'll be interesting to see if what would happen if a challenge is brought by Moore, AL, NC or another State. At best, they could rule that the entire Marriage Licensing Act/Uniform Marriage & Divorce Act is/are void, which would mean an immediate cessation of marriage licenses.
Then a state could pass a law stating that marriage can only be used for unions of man and woman. It would no doubt be challenged and possibly overturned by some liberal activist judge or District Court.
This might open the door for another case on SSM to be considered by SCOTUS and if something were to happen to Ginsberg or Kennedy or one of the other Liberal Activists on the Court, I'd say there's a good probability that the original dissenters and Constitutionalists like Gorsuch would revisit the issue.
It's not like it's not happened before. If Obergefell were to be overturned, it certainly would NOT be the first time.
Ambulance Chaser:
Wrong again. The People make the final determination.
No, the Constitution is the final word on all laws. And when it's ambiguous, the Courts clarify it.
That said, you might wanna checkout the 1923 Uniform Marriage and Marriage Licensing Act and the 1971 Uniform Marriage & Divorce Act. Both state, "Marriage is a personal relationship between a man and a woman arising out of a civil contract to which the consent of the parties is essential.
As with many laws that start with "uniform," the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act isn't a law at all. It was a model that states could choose to adopt or not adopt as they saw fit. Only 8 states did: Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana and Washington. None of those states ever relied on it to limit the genders of people who were allowed to marry. The "man and woman" language was just there as a common convention of what the definition of marriage was.
I have no idea what the Uniform Marriage and Marriage Licensing Act is. The only reference I found to it was an unlinked comment on a bodybuilding forum.
In the Obergefell Decision NEITHER of those is mentioned in the Decision at all. So SCOTUS did not find them Unconstitutional and therefore they are still on the books. So legally, that means that any marriage license issued to a couple that is not of opposite sexes is invalid.
So what? Obergefell states,
"The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold and it now does hold that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character."
They're not required to go through every law in every state that they're striking down. Their intention is made perfectly clear.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
What a load of gobbledeygook.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Nothing like technology and Facebook to bring out Total Depravity onto center stage. Ironic isn't it that Facebook bans Christians for quoting Scripture on a Christian page but they let the God-haters post all manner of vile and vulgar stuff and this guy broadcast a murder.
Ambulance Chaser:
Facebook has never banned Christians for quoting Scripture on a Christian page.
Guest Verified:
Yes they have.
Ambulance Chaser:
Who? When?
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Ever heard of someone called Elizabeth Johnson that goes by The Activist Mommy? She made national news because of it.
Just more evidence that you enjoy heaping up Plato Awards.
A wise man once said it is better to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance than open it and remove all doubt. You should work on your wisdom a bit.
"Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something" – Plato
Said it before, I'll say it again, always appreciated when you and your ilk reveal yourselves for what you are and completely discredit yourself with your own comments.
Ambulance Chaser:
No, I have not heard of a woman named Elizabeth Johnson who was banned from Facebook for "quoting scripture." I have, however, heard of a woman named Elizabeth JohnsTon, who quoted hateful passages from the Bible decrying gays, and who thereafter complained about Christian persecution long and loud to anyone who would listen.
As it turned out, Facebook's automatic algorithms temporarily shut her page down when she received a sufficient number of reports for her posts, without any human intervention whatsoever. When a living, breathing person at Facebook investigated, her account was restored.
And you would know all of this if you would spend more time listening and less time congratulating yourself. Seriously, your arrogance is as astounding as it is infuriating.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
LOL. Thank you for proving your lie and your characterization of the Truth and according to you the definition of "hateful" is "a statement that Ambulance Chaser disagrees with."
"When a living, breathing person at Facebook investigated, her account was restored." Another lie. It was only restored AFTER she, as you claim "complained about Christian persecution long and loud enough to anyone who would listen. And in that "anyone" was Facebook.
And you would know all this if you would spend more time listening and less time whining and doing your best to fulfill the definition of a Troll. Would you like me to post that again along with Psychology Today's diagnosis?
Seriously, your arrogance, hate, and bigotry is astounding. Though, no doubt, you try your best, as all trolls do, to be infuriating it's not working. :-)
Ambulance Chaser:
Facebook has never banned Christians for quoting Scripture on a Christian page.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Thank you for once again showing yourself to be a Liar and minion of Satan.
Ambulance Chaser:
Thank you for once again showing that you don't understand basic English. Specifically, the definition of a "lie" is not "a statement that Royce E. Van Blaricome disagrees with."
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Thank you for once again showing that you don't understand basic English. Specifically, the definition of a "lie" is:
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
Synonyms: prevarication, falsification.
Antonyms: truth.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture:
His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.
A wise man once said it is better to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance than open it and remove all doubt. You should work on your wisdom a bit.
"Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something" – Plato
Evidently, it is readily apparent you aren't taking working on your wisdom seriously.
Booyah!
[Royce is defending the Bible's prohibition on eating things that have four legs and "creep"]
Arthur Belling:
All ants have six legs.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Well, you're in good company! You're the fourth one on here thus far who enjoys publicly showing their ignorance. See comments above about the simplicity of Google and the inexcusable behavior and laziness for not making the effort to so a simple search.
Arthur Belling:
I did use Google. The difference is, I paid attention to what it said and you didn't.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Wrong. Another lie from the Liar.
Arthur Belling:
Ants have six legs, Royce E. Van Blaricome. You lose this one.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Nope. Another lie from the Liar. As I've repeatedly said on here - "Not all of them" and a simple Google search for "four-legged ants" proves it.
You LOSE!! But thank you for showing everyone again your stubborn rebellion to the Truth and preference for Denial over Truth. Not to mention willful determination to continue to spread a LIE. That's what Evolutionists do though. So I understand.
Ambulance Chaser:
"A simple Google search for '4-legged ants'" turns up an article about ants with mutations that they have to overcome, not some species of any that has 4 legs.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Another lie. The search takes you directly to the Myrmecos site (that's about ANTS) and there is NO mention of it being a mutation.
And btw, for anyone else reading this. Here's the typical tactic of the God-haters. They take a Biblical text and try to destroy it with false claims.
Then, when that fails, they try to Distract and Divert the conversation with more false claims like "ants with mutations not a species". Does the Biblical text say anything about "species"? NO. That's their insertion.
Furthermore, they focus in on the ants thinking that if they can prove that wrong, all their other claims are true as well, when the same Google search shows - as does my earlier statements - that there ARE OTHER four-legged insects too.
And lastly, they make the moronic ASSUMPTION that what we have today must be what was present at the time the Bible text was written!!! Oh, and absolutely laughably, all the while holding to the Bible isn't true but Evolution is!!
So they believe things involve but don't give any room for the possibility that ants and other insects evolved from four legs to six.
Hopefully that helps bring into a sharper focus just how moronic and willfully blinded these folks are.
And btw, THAT doesn't even take into consideration a proper reading and understanding of the Biblical text. THAT is just pure inability and/or unwillingness to exercise simple reasoning.
[What flying, crawling things have four legs?]
ANTS! That one should have been obvious. Thank you for showing that your hard-hearted condition has blinded you so badly.
There are others that ain't so obvious but why bother list them. You've already just proven that you have NO desire for the Truth. Had you even done a simple Google search you would've found the answer.
Or you could've just looked at the list of those mentioned in the Bible. You know, that book you think has no credibility. LOL
A wise man once said it is better to keep your mouth shut and not show your ignorance than open it and remove all doubt. You should work on your wisdom a bit.
"Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something" – Plato
"It simply recognizes that both the federal and state Constitutions acknowledge God as being the Creator of life and the bestower of liberty."
Nothing "theocratic" about that.
"“The rights guaranteed by Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of this State, that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law nor denied the equal protection of the laws, vest at fertilization for each born and preborn human being,”"
Nothing "theocratic" about that.
“From an embryology textbook written for medical students: ‘A zygote, fertilized egg, is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization,’”
Nothing "theocratic" about that. Scientific, yes. Theocratic, no.
The Institute for Creation Research States on its web page: "Our research is conducted within a biblical worldview, since ICR is committed to the absolute authority of the inerrant Word of God."
[So they openly admit that they start with a conclusion? I don't know how much clearer you can be that your work is pseudoscience.]
Thank you for publicly displaying your admission that all "science" which comes from the God-hating spiritually-dead who have a preconceived bias and hatred for God is actually pseudoscience.
Much appreciated!!
Tangent002:
Cases of people claiming to have been "cured" of homosexuality are anecdotal only. There has never been a single medically documented case of a fully-homosexual person being "turned" fully-heterosexual.
The vast majority of anecdotes I have read are folks given strategies to ignore their same-sex attraction and live lives of celibacy.
Amos Moses:
"There has never been a single medically documented case of a fully-homosexual person ......... "
if you had stopped there it would have been the truth ...............
Ambulance Chaser:
False. "A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men," Science, 1991.
Amos Moses:
"LeVay's finding was widely reported in the media. LeVay openly related his research to his own homosexuality and to his mourning over his lover's death from AIDS."
again .... more pseudo-science and bias ..... looked at a Rorschach and saw what he wanted to see to justify himself and his sin ...... more baloney ..........
Ambulance Chaser:
You said it wasn't reported in medical journals. It was.
(Also, is be remiss if I didn't point out that nothing you wrote discredits the findings.)
Amos Moses:
"You said it wasn't reported in medical journals. "
WHERE .............. FYI ..... Science magazine .... IS NOT a medical journal .....
FYI .... BIASED findings are ALREADY discredited ............. ON THEIR FACE ....... Prima facie evidence of falsity is BIAS ......... that makes any assertion of science FALSE ...... "i have my conclusion .... now let me see if i can manufacture evidence to prove it" ..... NOT SCIENCE ...
Ambulance Chaser:
Right, except LeVay didn't do that and you have no evidence that he did. All you know is that he's gay and his partner died. That's ALL.
Jane Goodall likes chimps. She has an affinity for them. Does that mean that all her research is therefore null and void?
Amos Moses:
J Scott Armstrong: Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method
todays story ........... sorry charlie ..... all you have is PSEUDO-SCIENCE ..................
Ambulance Chaser:
A) That's not what Armstrong's paper concluded. It's actually a lot more complicated than that.
B) Armstrong says nothing about this study. How do you know it's not one of the 1%?
C) Why should I believe Armstrong at all? You don't trust things published in scientific journals.
"his open PUBLIC admission is enough to discredit his findings ...
i.e. ....."LeVay openly related his research to his own homosexuality and to his mourning over his lover's death from AIDS."
No, it isn't, because nothing about being gay has anything to do with whether your findings are correct. YOU'RE biased. Can I summarily dismiss everything you say? If a research oncologist has cancer, do his findings automatically become wrong? If a Christian theologian writes a treatise about the Bible, is everything he says immediately wrong?
Amos Moses:
"Armstrong says nothing about this study. How do you know it's not one of the 1%?"
but there are NUMEROUS other studies of science journals ...... and i did not say it included this study ..... but this study is flawed from inception for the reasons i have cited ...... believe what you want to believe ..... you do anyway ......
Ambulance Chaser:
Yes, is it flawed? How? Be specific. Cite page numbers.
Don't tell me "because the author is gay." Do the work.
Shouting "bias" is an irrelevant ad hominem. I've explained why but you chose to ignore me.
Amos Moses:
"Be specific. Cite page numbers."
starts at the beginning and goes until the end ..... the ENTIRE study is BIASED and FLAWED by the authors PUBLIC ADMISSION of WHY he did the study and the BASIS of his bias ............. how hard is that to understand ..........
i do not expect a study on slavery to be against slavery by a slave owner ..... it is a pointless exercise ....... why do you think the standard changes for homosexuals trying to prove the benefits or whatever of being a homosexual with science ...... it is equally pointless ..... they will see what they WANT to see and any other outcome was not even considered .....
Ambulance Chaser:
So let me get this straight: I can submit a rebuttal to ANY scientific article, on any topic, to any peer-reviewed journal in America, and all I have to write in that rebuttal is a one-sentence comment about the first author's "bias?" And that sentence will be sufficient to rebut the totality of the first article?
How do you account for the fact that approximately ZERO articles published every year follow this format?
Amos Moses:
strawman argument ...... he stated his bias PUBLICLY ........... that is sufficient to disregard his findings .....
his open PUBLIC admission is enough to discredit his findings ...
i.e. ....."LeVay openly related his research to his own homosexuality and to his mourning over his lover's death from AIDS."
Ambulance Chaser:
So you're only biased if you state it publicly?
Amos Moses:
nope ..... but he did ..........
What kid wouldn't tease a boy wearing a dress ? I think lots of parents and grand parents would to. I would .. Id tell his parents deal with it.
Shane Egan:
So, those very Christian people, including many founding fathers, who owned slaves - as endorsed in the Bible - were doing good? Owning people as property forever, is good, being OK to beat them as long as they don't die in a few days, is good?
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Why don't you tell us why it is not good and what authority you use to justify that belief?
God bless this City Hall for not caving in to the idiocy and bullying attempts of the FFRF. There's a new sheriff in town and that stuff is gonna come to a screeching halt once they realize their throwing money into the wind.
This was evidenced by the ACLU losing their attempt to get Ms. Davis to pay their legal fees. Oops! Didn't work out for them and they lost $230,000. Trump is hopefully gonna appoint over 100 judges that will put a stop to all the Unconstitutional rulings whereby godless judges have legislated from the bench by reading into the Constitution what is not there.
The fact is that even if there was a city in this country that wanted to be 100% Christian there is NOTHING in the Constitution that would prevent them from doing so. Meaning they could actually have a Christian Government with Christian officials governing.
That's never gonna happen and I certainly wouldn't advocate for it. Not sure I'd even wanna live there. Just saying the Constitution doesn't prohibit it.
Royce continues to insist that Jesus is named in the Constitution, and has expended several days defending this position by insulting people, telling them to look it up, or calling them lies, but has not simply shown us where it is.
MarkSebree:
[Posts the full text of the entire United States Constitution, in its entirety, except the signatures.]
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Thank you for showing and proving that it is YOU that is dishonest and most likely a Liar because I doubt VERY much that you accidentally just happened to leave out the one section of the Constitution that PROVES you wrong!!
See folks, go read this section for yourself and then you will see how dishonest and deceiving these Deceivers are.
MarkSebree:
Yes, you are dishonest and a deceiver. I have shown that I am honest. I have left out nothing of the text of the US Constitution. I stated at the top that I did not include the signatories, and that is because they are not relevant.
The only person that is dishonest here is you. You have not been able to show anywhere in the text of the US Constitution where the words "God", "Christ", or "Jesus" are mentioned.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
LOL. Actually you've proved and continue to prove by that very statement that it is YOU who is dishonest and a deceiver. YOU are the one who posted the INCOMPLETE Constitution with the obvious intent to deceive by leaving out the VERY part of the Constitution that PROVES you wrong.
"I stated at the top that I did not include the signatories, and that is because they are not relevant."
More deception and distraction!! You and I both know that the signatures are NOT the only thing you left out. Again, anyone can go look for themselves now and you will be revealed for exactly who you are.
"The only person that is dishonest here is you. You have not been able to show anywhere in the text of the US Constitution where the words "God", "Christ", or "Jesus" are mentioned."
More deception and distraction. Unfortunately for you, you quoted my exactly words previous stated and when one goes and reads the Constitution you slide-of-hand will be revealed.
MarkSebree:
[Again reposts the entire text of the Constitution.]
WhiteGhetto:
"God, Christ, Jesus is clearly stated in the Constitution." WHERE? If it does not use those words it's not there!
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Oh sheesh, another ignorant, lazy, cretin with an anti-Jesus avatar that proves their either uneducated and don't understand how to read and understand simple English or to much of a God-hater and too fearful to actually go look for the Truth for fear of what they'll find.
Thank you. I appreciate you showing that to everyone!
Jenny Ondioline:
I just went looking. He is right. No mention of Jesus or Christ in the Constitution. That's a lot of names you just called somebody for stating the truth. I wonder how many names you will call me now for pointing this out.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Well, ya better go look again because it's right there in black & white. Well, let's see, since you just told a lie what name do you think fits? Whattaya call someone who tells lies openly in public? I'm guessing you're not blind since you seem to have no problem in choosing to come here and repeatedly and regularly repeat your lies and other nonsense.
All you pointed out is that you either are knowingly and intentionally lying in order to deceive or simply ignorant and have no grasp at all on the English language.
It's right there in the Constitution and every single Signer of the Constitution publicly and permanently acknowledged that Jesus Christ IS Lord.
Thanks for proving the Word of God true by saying the exact same thing that many have said here before on this very sight (and others) and been proven wrong. It only goes to prove Eph. 2:1-3 true and that y'all are being led around by Satan like a dog on a leash. Just regurgitating the same old lines over and over and over again. All the while making fools of yourselves.
Royce continues to insist that Jesus is named in the U.S. Constitution, but refuses to show where.
MarkSebree:
"Ever watch Bill O'Reilly when he gives the "Word of the Day"? If so, you'll be familiar with "Go look it up. If someone gives you the answers you don't learn anything and you don't remember it.""
No, I do not watch Bill O'Reilly, or any similar show. And I have looked it up. I have read through the US Constitution and its Amendments numerous times. Your claim is unsupported.
"Thank you for posting the website address for all to go to. I appreciate that. I actually went there and I appreciate you proving yourself wrong."
Actually, that site proves that you are the one that is wrong.
"It's right there on that very site you gave in black & white, MUCH APPRECIATED!!"
Then state the Article or Amendment, Section, and paragraph. You made the positive assertion, so you need to support it. Or do I need to post the entire text of the US Constitution to show that you are wrong? Nobody else sees what you claim is there.
You are the only one that is showing himself to be blind. Or more likely, dishonest.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
"No, I do not watch Bill O'Reilly, or any similar show. And I have looked it up. I have read through the US Constitution and its Amendments numerous times. Your claim is unsupported."
Well, maybe you should. Might learn something. And thanks for showing that you're just as blind as the other yahoo's on here who deny what's right there in black & white.
"Actually, that site proves that you are the one that is wrong."
Nope. Just proves your either outright lying, too ignorant to read, or so steeped in your own delusion and denial that you can't see what's right before your very eyes. But hey, take comfort. There have been many others who were in the same boat and ALL have been proven wrong as well. So you're not alone.
"Then state the Article or Amendment, Section, and paragraph. You made the positive assertion, so you need to support it. Or do I need to post the entire text of the US Constitution to show that you are wrong? Nobody else sees what you claim is there."
I don't need prove squat to you. As I've repeated said here, you people can't read black & white right before your eyes so cutting and pasting it here isn't gonna help you!
You wanna post the "entire Constitution" to show me I'm wrong - have at buddy. I look forward to seeing you prove yourself a Liar and deceptive in public. Just as you did with your false statement that nobody else sees it. Others most certainly have.
"You are the only one that is showing himself to be blind. Or more likely, dishonest."
Take a chainsaw to that Giant Sequoia Tree sticking outta your eye socket and maybe you'll see better and not be so blind.
MarkSebree:
Sorry, but I am not the one that is blind. Unlike you, I do not need talk show hosts to learn things. I can research the subject on my own. And despite your claims, I am extremely literate, honest, grounded in reality, not in denial, and I can easily see what is in front of me.
You have not proven me wrong. You have been committing logical fallacies right an left. You have been trying to shift the burden of proof, probably because you cannot support your claims. You have been engaging in ad hominems for the same reason. You have also engaged in a few more logical fallacies.
Unlike you, I am not delusional. I cannot see what is not there.
You have made the assertion that the USA Constitution contains multiple references to "God", "Jesus", and "Christ" in its text. That is a positive assertion, and you have been challenged to support your claims. You have not even been asked to post the exact text, just the location of it. You have refused to do so repeatedly. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that you are a liar. You cannot support your claims, and thus you have been defeated.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
You're sorry, alright. And you are blind - spiritually-blind.
If you're so doggone literate, honest, and grounded in reality, then STOP telling lies and do the honest thing - cite the WHOLE Constitution right here so everyone can see you're lying!!
And now you lie openly. I never made the assertion that the USA Constitution contains 'multiple references to "God", "Jesus", and "Christ" in its text. Anyone can go back and see exactly what I said. Nice attempt at the typical Liberal tactic of Distraction & Diversion.
" You have refused to do so repeatedly. Therefore, the only reasonable conclusion is that you are a liar. You cannot support your claims, and thus you have been defeated."
ROTFLMBO!!!! So you think that's a reasonable conclusion? LOL When what I've said and maintained all along is 1) Go read the Constitution yourself, and 2) It would do me NO good whatsoever to actually copy & paste it here because it would still be in Black & White which you EVIDENTLY can NOT read!! LOL
I have supported my claims and you have NOT. Because you CAN'T!! The B&W text proves you wrong EVERY time!!!!!!!!! LOL
Defeated? Ha ha ha LOLOLOLOLOL It's easy to see who's been defeated. YOU and all the others who can't read and understand plain English! LOL
MarkSebree:
"You're sorry, alright. And you are blind - spiritually-blind."
Actually, I see very clearly. I removed the blinders that you wear decades ago.
"If you're so doggone literate, honest, and grounded in reality, then STOP telling lies and do the honest thing - cite the WHOLE Constitution right here so everyone can see you're lying!!"
I have not been telling any lies. And I have cited the entire Constitution and shown everyone that you have been lying.
"And now you lie openly. I never made the assertion that the USA Constitution contains 'multiple references to "God", "Jesus", and "Christ" in its text. Anyone can go back and see exactly what I said. Nice attempt at the typical Liberal tactic of Distraction & Diversion."
Actually, I have been telling the truth all along. It is usually a Conservative tactic to Distract and Divert the conversation, since you have been the one that has been engaging in that tactic, not me.
As far as when you claimed that the US Constitution contained multiple references to "God", "Jesus", and "Christ" in the text, you should really review your own posting history before making such a challenge. Its child's play to show that you are lying again.
[Reposts the conversation so far.]
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
[Calls each post dishonest, or lies, but offers no refutation.]
Amos Moses:
"Maison recently decided to have her breasts removed and changed her name to Eric."
"“How society views me and my relationship—I don’t care, they don’t live in my house. Us and our children are the only ones who matter,”"
mmmmm .... still a woman ......... breasteses does not make you a woman nor does their removal change you what you were born as ..... rebellion to the truth and nothing else ...... the DNA is not altered by fat removal ........... even rebellion to science and common sense .... /SMH .......
Ambulance Chaser:
Okay, what is this person's DNA sequence?
Amos Moses:
more straw for your strawman, sir? ...................... maybe we could stuff it in like the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz .............
Ambulance Chaser:
So, you have no idea. Got it.
You're going to opine long and loud about how a certain person's "DNA" makes them a woman, but you don't know what his/her DNA sequence is.
Do you know what DNA is in general?
Amos Moses:
no ... you have a strawman argument that HAS NO STRAW .....
Ambulance Chaser:
Let me try this again, since you don't seem to be grasping it:
"the DNA is not altered by fat removal"
So I'm asking you: What is her DNA, since you seem to be the expert on it? And while you're at it, what is it about her DNA that makes her female?
I'm simply asking you to back up your own statements.
Amos Moses:
You serious?
[Posts video of sardonic laughter]
Ambulance Chaser:
Yes, I'm serious. Now answer the question.
Amos Moses:
no .... you are not serious ............ strawman ...... flame on torch ............ *crackle, crackle, crackle* ...............
[Posts video of burning a strawman]
you can borrow my crayon to connect the dots .............
Ambulance Chaser:
Do you know what a strawman is? You seem to be having trouble with that too.
Amos Moses:
"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"."
That be you .............
Royce has claimed that Jesus is mentioned by name in the Constitution.
MarkSebree:
Where? Article and paragraph please. If in the Amendments, then the Amendment, and in applicable, the section and paragraph.
By the way, the Declaration of Independence is not the US Constitution.
You making a claim that is so easy to show to be false does not change the facts either.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Ever watch Bill O'Reilly when he gives the "Word of the Day"? If so, you'll be familiar with "Go look it up. If someone gives you the answers you don't learn anything and you don't remember it."
I know full well that the DOI isn't the Constitution. That's why I was the guy who pointed out to someone below a few days ago that "Creator" is not in the Constitution but rather the DOI.
You making a claim that is so easy to show to be false does not change the facts either. The words are right there in Black & white and they've NEVER been erased.
So thank you for showing who really has NO credibility because you're absolutely right - it is SO easy to show your absolutely wrong and your claims are provably false.
MarkSebree:
If "God, Christ, Jesus is [sic] clearly stated in the Constitution", then you should be able to point to the exact places. You have not shown that I am wrong, or that my claims are false. In fact, all I did was ask you to substantiate your claim, and you are dodging and running away.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
I can. And btw, the correct word is "is". God, Jesus, Christ are one in the same.
I'm not dodging and running away of anything. And actually, it is YOU who made the claim with "You making a claim that is so easy to show to be false does not change the facts either."
So, since it's so easy, go and do it. As I've repeated said, it's right there in Black & White. I'm not spoonfeeding you squat because people don't learn anything from that. Just as I also said on here before.
MarkSebree:
"I can."
Then do so.
"And btw, the correct word is "is". God, Jesus, Christ are one in the same."
Then you should only be using one name, not three. As you have them written, they are three names, and thus the correct form of the verb is the plural.
"'m not dodging and running away of anything. And actually, it is YOU who made the claim with "You making a claim that is so easy to show to be false does not change the facts either.
So, since it's so easy, go and do it. As I've repeated said, it's right there in Black & White. I'm not spoonfeeding you squat because people don't learn anything from that. Just as I also said on here before."
Fine. It is only possible to show a negative in this case because the solution space is finite and small. None of the words "god", "Jesus", "Christ" or any other deity are mention in the US Constitution or in any of its amendments. No specific religion is mentioned in the US Constitution. The only mentioned of religion in the US Constitution are restrictions on the government, and those mentions are generic and apply equally to all religions. The complete transcript of the US Constitution can be found at www dot archives dot gov.
The real burden of proof is actually on you. You have made the affirmative claim that the US Constitution "clearly states" or references your deities.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Evidently, you have a little problem with tracking and remembering what I previously said so let me repeat myself:
Ever watch Bill O'Reilly when he gives the "Word of the Day"? If so, you'll be familiar with "Go look it up. If someone gives you the answers you don't learn anything and you don't remember it."
"Then you should only be using one name, not three. As you have them written, they are three names, and thus the correct form of the verb is the plural."
Your Biblical ignorance does not dictate the use of the English language.
"None of the words "god", "Jesus", "Christ" or any other deity are mention in the US Constitution or in any of its amendments. No specific religion is mentioned in the US Constitution."
Wrong.
Thank you for posting the website address for all to go to. I appreciate that. I actually went there and I appreciate you proving yourself wrong.
It's right there on that very site you gave in black & white, MUCH APPRECIATED!!
Oh, and btw, I further REALLY appreciate just how blind the spiritually-dead can be.
Fang:
Caitlyn Hope Grimm is an obese teenage girl with a left-wing mom who is a major publicity glutton. Instead of encouraging her daughter to pretend to be a boy named "Gavin," the mother should've encouraged her to lose some pounds and to accept herself the way she was born. There is some serious child abuse going on with these so-called "transgender kids." We don't let kids decide what time they go to bed, we sure as heck shouldn't let them decide they are the opposite sex. Someone has to play the adult here.
David Cary Hart:
Should Gavin's mother heed your advice or that of the clinicians who are responsible for his care? Your medical degree is from —?
Coach:
The old, if they have a medical degree, there always right, unless of course, they haven't brought into the globalist agenda.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Exactly. The spiritually-dead love to tout their "experts". Right up to the point where they are reminded that not all that long ago those same "experts" considered Homosexuality to be a mental disorder and just a couple decades before that it was considered a deviant behavior.
Then, like you said, those who they don't agree with they just dismiss as not being qualified to be an expert. Such as this one who wrote a paper that said there is no such thing as a Transgender:
"Paul Rodney McHugh is an American psychiatrist, researcher, and educator. He is University Distinguished Professor of Psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the author, co-author, or editor of seven books within his field."
And, of course, they don't buy this either from Psychology Today:
"Internet Trolls Are Narcissists, Psychopaths, and Sadists. An Internet troll is someone who comes into a discussion and posts comments designed to upset or disrupt the conversation. Often, in fact, it seems like there is no real purpose behind their comments except to upset everyone else involved. Trolls will lie, exaggerate, and offend to get a response."
Anyone who doesn't drink the Kool-Aid isn't a "reliable" source. Psychiatrists, Psychologists, and other "mental health professionals" are all "experts" and "authoritative sources" UNLESS they happen to deal with Reality and not see things as they do. Then they're just bogus imposters who've all been "debunked".
Ambulance Chaser:
No, the old "they have medical degrees and proved their point with evidence, so they're most likely right until proven otherwise."
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Cite your evidence
Ambulance Chaser:
Arlene Lev: Transgender Emergence: Therapeutic Guidelines for Working with Gender Variant People and their Families
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
That's not evidence. That's a reference. And it's not even a good one.
Ambulance Chaser:
A child with gender dysphoria doesn't determine their gender. They just know that they're in the wrong body. They don't choose it, they don't ask for it, and they don't want it. But they have it anyway.
Amos Moses:
No ....... they "FEEEEEL" they are in the wrong body ...... and their "FEEEEELINGS" are not a valid test ......... FAIL .............
Ambulance Chaser:
Okay, why don't you tell us all what you think the medical procedure for diagnosing gender dysphoria is?
Amos Moses:
you cannot diagnose "FEEELINGS" ........ they are not a true representation of reality ...... and if they are having trouble with reality ..... medicine is not the answer ............. and anyone trying to sell them anything like surgery to "fix it" is the worst snake oil salesman trying to make a buck off the unfortunate .......... and unfortunately .... there are any number of them ......
Ambulance Chaser:
Since you seem to be either ignoring the question or not understanding it, let's try this again.
A person is preparing to have gender reassignment surgery. What procedure led them to this point?
Amos Moses:
reliance on their "FEEEELINGS" which are not reliable as an indication of anything ...... how does a person "know" how the opposite sex "FEEEELS" when they are NOT the opposite sex ...... it is all a lie .......
This is not rocket science. Get the kid to disrobe, and it's quite obvious it's a girl, not a boy. Little children can easily distinguish between male and female.
When something looks fishy, the rule is: Follow the $$$$. There's a whole industry growing up around trannies. Not just the surgery, but lifelong addiction to hormones and (inevitably) lifelong "counseling" by so-called mental health professionals. Convince vulnerable and unhappy people that they are "really" the opposite sex, and you can get them hooked for life and watch the money roll in. What branch of medicine makes money off people who are healthy and satisfied with life? Plastic surgery makes a killing off people who are unhappy with their appearance. The tranny industry takes that even further, not just mutilating the physical body, but also pumping it full of drugs and sending the patient for counseling for the rest of his life. Capitalism is a great thing in itself, but this kind of nonsense should not be legal, and it would be an even worse crime to have this stuff paid for out of insurance. Making sane, healthy people pay for the mutilation of delusional individuals it not justice, it's a crime.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Too bad we don't have a POTUS and a WH Spokesman who can't just come out and say that there is no such things as a Transgender and therefore no legal protections required.
Ambulance Chaser:
You want a POTUS and WH spokesman to lie? Trans people very much exist.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Of course not and NOTHING from my statement could remotely be construed as to say such. But you, on the other hand, just publicly displayed for all to see that you are a Liar just like your father, Satan, who is the author of all lies.
"Trans people" as you call them are a figment of the imagination of Mankind who wishes to cling to their sin rather than the Savior. They most certain do NOT exist for those who wish to deal with Truth and Reality.
Just because someone CHOOSES to engage in a BEHAVIOR of putting on the clothing of the opposite sex, or wearing makeup, or behaving in some other way does not make them another gender. As I've said many times now, what it makes them is Deceived, Deluded, in Denial, Demonically Influenced/Possessed, or a combination of those.
Being a man or woman and putting on the clothes or behaving in any way as the opposite sex does NOT change the truth of who that person is no more than having body modifications to make yourself look like a parrot, tiger, cat, etc. And before you go to the FEELINGS bit, "feeling" like the opposite sex no more changes Truth and Reality that a human being who FEELS like a parrot, tiger, cat, etc.
"God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." (Gen. 1:27)
And there it is. In a nutshell. TRUTH!! God created them MALE and FEMALE. Period. NO exceptions. NO fluidity. Your either male or female. That's it!!
Now stop being so doggone hateful and feeding into the Deception, Delusion, Denial, and Depravity of those who need help. That is perhaps the most unloving thing one human could do to another.
"For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 6:23)
And that' s not just physical death but eternal spiritual-death. So just STOP IT!!! STOP killing people and leading them into the eternal torment that comes with spending ALL Eternity in the Lake of Fire.
Of course, in order for you to actually stop doing that and actually start loving folks, you're gonna have to surrender as a slave to the Lord Jesus Christ first and beg Him to make you a New Creation by being Born Again.
All that said, congratulations! You've earned yourself the Plato Award!!
"Wise men speak because they have something to say, fools speak because they have to say something" – Plato
Ambulance Chaser:
Okay, well, if you're done ranting, all major medical organizations in America recognize trans people as A) existing B) suffering from a biological conditioning that cannot be controlled or changed, but is measurable.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
No rant there at all. But thanks for showing how the Liberals work again. Falsely characterize what's said or who said it and then rely on falling back on the typical reliance upon the so-called "expert" people and "major" organizations as long as they agree with your POV.
No, "Trans'" people do NOT exist. What does exist is Deception, Delusion, Denial, Demonically Influenced/Possessed, or a combination of those.
Ambulance Chaser:
Yes, and you've proven this because you stomp your foot and scream that it is so.
Whereas I have science.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Lying again I see. No stomping of the foot or screaming here. As for the rest...
"Whereas I have the science I choose to accept and the rest I just ignore or try to discredit by saying they're not "experts" or "major".
There, I fixed it for ya.
Ambulance Chaser:
Well then let me fix it back.
I have science. You have anger.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Lies again. No anger here. Another false characterization. Once again proving all you have.
I'll fix it for ya again.
"I have the science I choose to accept and the rest I just ignore or try to discredit by saying they're not "experts" or "major".
There, I fixed it for ya again. There's PLENTY of science that proves otherwise and here's a REALLY BIG point you seem to have missed. SCIENCE IS NOT BASED ON FEELINGS!!!!
Ambulance Chaser:
OK, let's see some of this "science" you have.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Sure. Go see "Genesis In History". Just got back from the theatre and it's chocked full of actual Science. Aside from that, try a simple Google search. There is NO shortage of actual Science. Check out CRI, CMI, AIG and an absolutely SUPERB piece of actual Scientific Evidence that PROVES Evolution as it's been understood for years can be found by a Google search for "Larry Vardiman+RATE".
Now, that should keep you busy for some time. From there you could even go the the site where oodles of Scientists, MOST of them Atheists, sign a document saying the continued teaching of the Big Bang is wrong because it's scientifically false.
Of course, I really do NOT expect you to be open-minded enough to actually let the science speak to you.
"Your post isn't honest. Children aren't being "encouraged" to ignore their gender, you can't encourage or discourage such things just as you can't "recruit" people to alter their sexuality. People are what they are. But WHEN a child, or adult, feels they are the opposite sex trapped in a body of the wrong gender, we listen to them, we are compassionate. We don't call them faith-based names and insults and call them sinners over something they don't choose."
Your post isn't honest. That's the biggest load of hogwash to come down the pipe since the pig factory closed. How does one know malarkey when they see it? Just take what's said and insert another likely scenario into it. Such as:
"People are what they are. But WHEN a child, or adult, feels they are the opposite sex trapped in a body of the wrong gender, we listen to them, we are compassionate."
Okie Dokie, let's check that theory out:
People are what they are. But WHEN a child, or adult, feels they are a serial killer, we listen to them, we are compassionate.
People are what they are. But WHEN a child, or adult, feels they are an orangutan, we listen to them, we are compassionate.
People are what they are. But WHEN a child, or adult, feels they are a necrophiliac, we listen to them, we are compassionate.
Need I go on?
If a child feels like he wants to pick up an axe and chop his little brother or sister into pieces, you just sit 'em down and listen to them and be compassionate with them and let 'em know that's perfectly ok. Not me.
If a child feels like all they want to eat is ice cream every day all day long, you just sit 'em down and listen to them, be compassionate with them, and validate their FEELINGS! Not me.
I can only hope you're not adding your genetics to the gene pool.
Moreover, the Homosexual literature of the 60's and 70's contradict what you're saying. They made it clear their goal was to go after the children AND they wrote about how to RECRUIT them!!
There is NO such thing as Transgenderism. It IS a made-up concept to justify one's CHOICE to sin. Calling them Sinners is simply attaching the truth to their behaviors. Just like calling one who CHOOSES to kill an innocent person a Murderer or calling one who steals a Thief.
If the shoe fits, and you like the shoe, then wear it.
Sodom's SCOTUS means not a thing. God rules the world and He is coming back to punish the Sodomic West. You must repent of your sins to get saved. Read John chapter 3.
Jeff Sessions, Who Vowed to ‘Respect’ and ‘Follow’ ‘Unconstitutional’ Roe Abortion Ruling, Confirmed as Trump AG
Great another AG who is clueless about the Constitution.
Ambulance Chaser:
You can't change your orientation OR your gender. If you're born a female, you'll be a female, you'll be a female for your entire life.
It's just that some females were born with male genitalia.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Another lie from the AC. I suggest you talk to Rosaria Butterfield, Sam Allberry, Christopher Yuan, Matt Moore, Jackie Hill-Perry, Joe Dallas - just for starters!
Additionally, there is no difference between one's sex and one's gender. It's is only a fairly recent phenomenon that the LGBTQABCXYZ Community has drummed up as a way to try and rationalize and justify there perversion and sin.
And no, there are NO females born with male genitalia. Another figment of your imagination.,
Ambulance Chaser:
Any evidence to support any of those assertions?
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Absolutely! Thanks for asking.
I'd love to provide links to all of those. Unfortunately, CNN doesn't allow that. So just Google them. Here are some titles for the videos. Enjoy your time watching them! Maybe you'll actually learn something..
[He posts a bunch of books, articles and YouTube videos.]
Oh yeah, almost forgot. One more piece of evidence for you. Wrt to the " there are NO females born with male genitalia. Another figment of your imagination", here's your evidence.... wait for it.... wait for it.... drum roll please.....
IT'S CALLED A MIRROR!!
Ambulance Chaser:
So, nothing, aside from personal testimonials, aka, no evidence whatsoever. Got it.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Yup. Just like in a court of law. We've been down that road before too.,
Thanks for completely discrediting yourself once again and showing that you prefer to stay in your Denial and cling to your Delusion.
Oh, and only one little problem with your Denial though. That personal testimony that you so easily wish to dismiss is followed up by a CHANGED LIFE!!!!
In every single one of those cases.
Which is a WHOLE LOT MORE EVIDENCE than ANYTHING you've ever put out. Oh, and the mirror, THAT is FIRSTHAND EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY which is reliable in any court of law.
BAM!! KABOOM!! Better go back to school and get a real law degree.
Ambulance Chaser:
Actually, first-hand testimony is considered the lowest, least reliable form of testimony.
I'm not the one in denial and delusion. You're the one trying to present YouTube videos and article in Christian magazines as biological evidence. Come back to me when you have a peer-reviewed scientific journal article.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Wrong again. Bet sharpen up those legal skills.
I've provided evidence and you've refused to even look at it!! THAT is denial.
Come back to me after you've watched them and bring something that refutes the evidence provided.
I'll wait...
Ambulance Chaser:
No, you haven't. You've provided personal testimony.
"They're lying to the world and/or to themselves." There, I refuted it. Now you're going to tell me I have no way to prove that, which is exactly the POINT. We have no way to prove or disprove what they're saying. The statements are unfalsifiable, and thus, worthless.
If you hooked one of these people up to an MRI and measured their hypothalamus before gay conversion therapy, and then after, and the size of the hypothalamus matched a control-group gay brain before, and then a control-group straight brain after, and if this procedure were documented in a respected neurological or medical journal, you might have something.
Stories are nothing.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
Thank you for showing all you got and that you think that's refuting evidence.
Much appreciated!! The statements are NOT unfalsifiable. Denial and rejection of a truth does not change the facts or the truth.
Like I said, it's good enough in a court of law. Sorry, you lose.
But thanks again! Your denial is NOTHING!
Ambulance Chaser:
You keep saying things as if your bald-faced, unsupported assertions were true.
Royce E. Van Blaricome:
You keep saying things as if your bald-faced, unsupported assertions were true.
[On a person who identifies with neither gender.]
Amos Moses:
"gender neutral" ........ intellectualized double speak ............
NCOriolesFan:
more like the dumming down of human sexuality.
[Tweets Taunt Trump for Allegedly Wanting Female WH Staffers to ‘Dress Like a Woman’ at Work]
Yes ! the President has a point ( if this is true) ...modesty in dress and women dressing different from men meaning woman wear skirts and NOT pants is IMO a great idea.
...
Women issues are always controversial , one reason is, too many women are rebellious , and deceived, wanting to be and act like men. Maybe the President needs a pass on this issue....
Seriously, white people need Biblical Christianity to be right, like all others are that way. What went wrong with them this century? The last thing the world needs is Sodomic tyranny from the West. Female ordination is a curse in the Christendom. White people totally overdid the civil rights movements by putting colored people and sexually immoral people in the same category. Sin has no equal rights. Bible illiteracy = slavery's reign. Western Luthrans should read the Holy Bible and stop promoting the abnormal immorality which God has condemned. Endorsement of homosexuality sends unrepentant sinners into eternal damnation instead of salvation.
TheKingofRhye:
If you agree with this or not, it would require overturning Roe v. Wade, wouldn't it?
Oboehner:
Given that only Congress can make law, how is one court case even relevant?
Ambulance Chaser:
Is this your first day in America? Are you not aware of how the three branches of government work?
Oboehner:
Article 1,Section 1. "ALL legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." - you mean this government?
Ambulance Chaser:
What exactly is it you think the Supreme Court does?
Oboehner:
See Article 3, Section 2.
Ambulance Chaser:
Okay, let's try this a different way. You are aware that every single time the Supreme Court issues a ruling, everyone in this country stops doing what they're doing and immediately complies with it.
You are aware of that, right?
Oboehner:
That sounds like a personal problem brought on by ignorance on the part of "everyone in this country". Still not law.
Ambulance Chaser:
I see. So, then, literally every judge, lawyer, law professor, politician, and federal agency simply doesn't know how the Constitution works. Only you do. Correct?
Oboehner:
Simple ignorance or indifference - most often the latter, and I would hardly say "every".
Ambulance Chaser:
Oh, really? Okay, so cite me some legal scholars who think that case law doesn't matter. Go ahead. I'll wait.
Which legal publications do you subscribe to? It couldn't be the ABA journal. Or the Harvard Law Review. Or the Yale Law Review. Or any law review, because those are all full of case citations.
Oboehner:
"Case law" is an oxymoron. Opinions are like sphincters, everyone has one yet the Constitution is clear.
TheKingofRhye:
That old argument again? Really? Haven't we already been through this? (and refuted it, at that) If Supreme Court cases have no relevance, why is it that we have interracial and same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states? If nothing the courts do is relevant, what is even their purpose?
(and, no, before someone says it, because I KNOW they will, I'm not saying race and sexual orientation are the same thing or something like that)
Oboehner:
Article 1, Section 1.
ALL legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the
United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives.
So you're refuting the Constitution now? Or does the meaning of the word ALL escape you?
TheKingofRhye:
OK, then tell me, which laws that we have now has the Supreme Court made? Roe v. Wade didn't make a new law, Obergefell didn't make a new law....
And what do you the think the SC is FOR, if their rulings aren't relevant in any way?
Oboehner:
Why on earth would RvW have to be overturned then? It is not law therefore not binding?
*sigh* Article 3, Section 2 Basically settling matters between states and as an appeals court for lower courts settling matters between two parties.
[The Freedom From Religion Foundation successfully persuaded a city to remove a religious symbol from a public park.]
The nation has become very bad. Great Americans were made into mere cowards by the atheists' tyranny. Who could ever imagined such a day on the American soil? So shameful. Poor your founding fathers. Americans must never bash the German people of the Nazi era again. Americans are not better than the Germans. USA has no morality other than Christianity, and Americans must stop being subdued by the atheists. It's a treason against God and also against all the great American fathers and war heroes.
[On California no longer prosecuting children in the sex trade]
Ambulance Chaser:
What purpose do you think is served by prosecuting minors who have sex with adults?
Amos Moses:
ummmmm ..... oh, gee .... to KEEP them from having sex with adults for money ...... DUH ...
Ambulance Chaser:
So tell me, do you ordinarily recommend blaming, arresting, and punishing the victims of crimes, or just this one?
Amos Moses:
Californian Senator Richard Pan pushing to outlaw parental rights in all medical decisions
guess Calif. is not done with their radical restructuring of the "family" ........... a person in prostitution is not a victim .... they are participants ......
[California has passed a law that forbids law enforcement from arresting or filing charges against children found in child prostitution rings.]
pedophila legalized. adults can now say "you wont get in trouble, it is legal if YOU do it" ...... and so the pattern is set and it IS legalized pedophilia ..... and they will be preyed upon even more so ............. and their victimization will continue unabated ........... and the biggest promoter of pedophilia gets what it wants .........
[On female Marines]
Don't. It's as barbaric as sending under-age boys to battlefields for combat. What are the men doing? Playing games? Such world is not a world worthy to be protected by any kind of combatants. USA has over 300 million people. Make men combatants. Women should keep chastity for marriage, dress properly, and raise children instead of doing man's works; that contributes to the national security far more. Women doing men's jobs also feminize boys and men and increase men's violence against girls and women. Men should not consider women equal that way (the physical and emotional strength is different) but protect women and children always and everywhere. Men are women are equal but different; the roles do not overlap in everything.
Better do your homework. Making contraception available INCREASES the number of abortions done. You have to teach women to respect their own bodies and not to give them away free to men who just want to use women for pleasure. That's the only thing that works. Sex education just encourages irresponsible sexual activity as well. There is a REASON why Planned Parenthood provides contraception and sex education. This stuff is CALCULATED to INCREASE abortion clients, because that is where Planned Parenthood makes its money. It is simply NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS of a woman to have sex with a man who has not committed himself to cherish her. I'm all for education on alternatives. Funniest thing: Planned Parenthood tends to SUE anybody who tries to provide this service. Even when they "provide" it, again, it's calculated to get more clients for abortion. And I'm all for access to adoption services. We have four adopted children in our family, so I am a firm believer, obviously. But you need to understand that free contraception DOES increase the number of abortions. That's why most Republicans don't favor it. It has nothing to do with providing something for free. As for "minding your own business", what would you do if you saw a person beating a child in public? Walk by? That's half the problem in our society today. When someone needs help, we don't bother.
("Responding" to a story about a man from Virginia being accused of providing support to ISIS):
Don't pop songs sing exactly like that nowadays, promoting violence and immorality upon young people? Children and youth need Christian education to value everyone's life unconditionally. Secular education teaches immorality and makes young people hopeless about life. Secular society teaches that evil is cool. Humans are born-sinners. Systematic amorality in the land sure leads to crimes against humanity one way or another. Secular West must at least stop attacking Christianity. It is so suicidal for a civilization to attack something so unequally good and true. Christianity alone is also the Western civilization's sane conscience. Man must never attack his own conscience or his own parents. Secularism gives no reason to respect human life. Teach children the Ten Commandments before it's too late.
(on the age of the earth being 4.5 billion years)
Do you have historical documentation of that or do I have to take it on faith?
"Helioseismology and/or measuring radioactive decay."
Took that long for that? Helioseismology, the study based on the assumption that the Sun's makeup hasn't changed. I like a good assumption as much as the next guy, but hardly scientific.
Then there is the ever popular measuring radioactive decay, "scientists" believe they can tell the age of something by how much radiation it contains, yet they have no record of the beginning levels or any outside influences involved. It's the same as trying to find the answer to a math problem that goes like this: An '86 TA goes by at 60 mph, how long has it been traveling?