OLAADEGBU:


If you cannot provide where I have called the unsaved 'fools and idiots for jumping without a parachute' then you should forever hold your peace. You have not yet disclosed the reason for your frustration in attacking me, and until you do so you will only be compounding your problem.

I have not attacked you... seems you are starting to see the four other fingers pointing back at you and realizing the emperor is indeed naked.

You may not call the unsaved fools and idiots, but you indirectly do so when you attack them in the name of tough love... that excuse religious hypocrites use to justify their unkindness to others.

amalektch:


Senseless... i was talking of people today, not those who crucified Jesus 2000 years ago. Yes people still persecute His disciples today... the Lord already prophesied to this and why in the bible so this is not some deep mystery. If you think a 3-time divorcee, 4-time married, adulterous hypocrite is one of His disciples because she is on an ego trip disguised as "religious rights" then you need to get another bible.

There you go, the reason why you think Kim Davies deserves to go to Jail without bail. Is it because she is a divorcee that she doesn't deserve God's mercy and forgiveness? Is that the reason why you think she should be imprisoned unjustly? Martin Luther Jnr. said something like this: "Any unjust ruling is no ruling". The ruling meted out against Kim Davies is no ruling because it is against the law of the land. You can read the suggested blog for more information:

http://allenbwest.com/2015/09/folks-youre-missing-the-point-about-the-kentucky-clerks-jail-sentence/

OLAADEGBU:


There you go, the reason why you think Kim Davies deserves to go to Jail without bail. Is it because she is a divorcee that she doesn't deserve God's mercy and forgiveness? Is that the reason why you think she should be imprisoned unjustly? Martin Luther Jnr. said something like this: "Any unjust ruling is no ruling". The ruling meted out against Kim Davies is no ruling because it is against the law of the land. You can read the suggested blog for more information:

http://allenbwest.com/2015/09/folks-youre-missing-the-point-about-the-kentucky-clerks-jail-sentence/

point missed again by a wide margin. No one says Kim Davies should go to jail... infact until she chose to use her position of governmental authority to lord it over others, no one cared how many men she had married. The whole point is that someone whose life isnt anything to write home about should not be in the position to sit in judgement over others. Remember the parable of the servant who was pardoned?

Kim Davies deserves God's forgiveness and mercy... but is she showing it to others? Do you think the gay couples she refused and has openly disparaged are also deserving of God's mercy and forgiveness? If yes, is this humiliating open denial of their rights under a secular democracy that they participate in as taxpayers justified by you? Why would you expect mercy yet extend only disgust for others? Is that not the very definition of hypocrisy?

I agree that the ruling meted out against Kim Davies is no ruling because it is against the law of the land... but somehow it escapes you that Kim Davies denial of gay marriage certificates is itself of no use since it is also against the law of the land? Or you think the law of the land is only anything that supports your dominionist theory? Before you accuse anyone else of discrimination and injustice, perhaps you should look in the mirror.

amalektch:


point missed again by a wide margin. No one says Kim Davies should go to jail... infact until she chose to use her position of governmental authority to lord it over others, no one cared how many men she had married. The whole point is that someone whose life isnt anything to write home about should not be in the position to sit in judgement over others. Remember the parable of the servant who was pardoned?

And what have you been saying all along? That she deserves to be in jail because her life is not anything to write about. Is yours worth writing about?

amalektch:


Kim Davies deserves God's forgiveness and mercy... but is she showing it to others? Do you think the gay couples she refused and has openly disparaged are also deserving of God's mercy and forgiveness? If yes, is this humiliating open denial of their rights under a secular democracy that they participate in as taxpayers justified by you? Why would you expect mercy yet extend only disgust for others? Is that not the very definition of hypocrisy?

Is aiding and abetting and condoning sin your understanding of showing mercy?

amalektch:


I agree that the ruling meted out against Kim Davies is no ruling because it is against the law of the land... but somehow it escapes you that Kim Davies denial of gay marriage certificates is itself of no use since it is also against the law of the land? Or you think the law of the land is only anything that supports your dominionist theory? Before you accuse anyone else of discrimination and injustice, perhaps you should look in the mirror.

If you truly agree that the ruling is against the law of the land then why are you insisting that Kim should abide by it?

OLAADEGBU:


And what have you been saying all along? That she deserves to be in jail because her life is not anything to write about. Is yours worth writing about?

this is cringeworthingly dishonest. Let me repeat... no one wants Kim Davies in jail and infact no one cared about her until her latest ego trip. The whole point (which you're probably too wedded to religious dogma to get) is quite simple - dont discriminate against others when your own closet is full of sin... and if the point is that she is ok because she has found mercy, then should we not expect her to show the same grace or mercy to others?

OLAADEGBU:

Is aiding and abetting and condoning sin your understanding of showing mercy?

No one asked her to aid and abet sin. She could just as easily quit the job or asked to be moved to another responsibility if integrity means anything to her. It is blatantly wrong to cry foul (especially when she was aware of the outcome of the supreme court case on gay marriage while campaigning for office) and insist that neither she nor any of the other 6 deputy clerks will issue any marriage licenses and STILL insist on keeping her job. Its either God or mammon... choose one but you cant serve the two.

OLAADEGBU:

If you truly agree that the ruling is against the law of the land then why are you insisting that Kim should abide by it?

Why are you not insisting that Kim abide by the law of the land first or quit if she cant? Why does she get to eat her cake and have it? Imagine if i joined the army, refused to deploy (claiming religious rights) and then insist on staying to claim my salary and benefits? Would you condone this if i was muslim? My guess is you'd be whining about muslim bias.

Perhaps you might consider repenting of your slander - planned parenthood did not violate any federal law... several republican states (including florida and Arizona!) have investigated them and cleared them of any wrong doing. It is your type of "christianity" - loose with the truth, intolerant of others (in the name of hypocritical tough love) and incorrigible that has led many astray.

amalektch:


this is cringeworthingly dishonest. Let me repeat... no one wants Kim Davies in jail and infact no one cared about her until her latest ego trip. The whole point (which you're probably too wedded to religious dogma to get) is quite simple - dont discriminate against others when your own closet is full of sin... and if the point is that she is ok because she has found mercy, then should we not expect her to show the same grace or mercy to others?

Now that she is jail do you think it is justice served? God only shows mercy to those who seek for it. If God has wiped away her sin who are you to dig it out?

amalektch:


No one asked her to aid and abet sin. She could just as easily quit the job or asked to be moved to another responsibility if integrity means anything to her. It is blatantly wrong to cry foul (especially when she was aware of the outcome of the supreme court case on gay marriage while campaigning for office) and insist that neither she nor any of the other 6 deputy clerks will issue any marriage licenses and STILL insist on keeping her job. Its either God or mammon... choose one but you cant serve the two.

You cannot deny her religious rights it is only a tyrannical government that will seek to force people into making a choice.

amalektch:


Why are you not insisting that Kim abide by the law of the land first or quit if she cant? Why does she get to eat her cake and have it? Imagine if i joined the army, refused to deploy (claiming religious rights) and then insist on staying to claim my salary and benefits? Would you condone this if i was muslim? My guess is you'd be whining about muslim bias.

Which law? The law of the land says that marriage is between a man and a woman which only congress can change not Obama. The ruling the Supreme Court made was an unjust ruling and as Martin Luther Jnr. said, an unjust ruling is no ruling.

OLAADEGBU:


Now that she is jail do you think it is justice served? God only shows mercy to those who seek for it. If God has wiped away her sin who are you to dig it out?

She didnt have to go to jail, that was a choice SHE made so spare us the crocodile tears. If God has wiped away her sin then she should equally show the same grace and mercy to others. Matthew 18:21-35 is instructive here.

OLAADEGBU:

You cannot deny her religious rights it is only a tyrannical government that will seek to force people into making a choice.

We live in a secular state where gay people have an equal right to NOT wish to practice religion... guaranteed by the constitution of the United States of America. If a christian feels his/her faith will be compromised by serving in government, then find another job. Its that simple. Its why you dont find anabaptists signing up to join the army...

Her religious rights have not been abrogated. However her "right" to deny others a constitutionally guaranteed right to marry whoever they want is unconstitutional and will not be tolerated by others. We do not have a tyrannical government, rather we have a tyrannical set of religious hypocrites whose idea of "rights" = only the things i like.

OLAADEGBU:

Which law? The law of the land says that marriage is between a man and a woman which only congress can change not Obama. The ruling the Supreme Court made was an unjust ruling and as Martin Luther Jnr. said, an unjust ruling is no ruling.

thats quite stupid... i think the supreme court decided this case months ago. Wake up from your delusion. To say the supreme court ruling was unjust is miserably sad. Perhaps the rest of us should also rise up and declare the hobby lobby ruling unjust too?

The Tonya Parker case is a red herring pulled up either by the completely obtuse or the dangerously dishonest. Tonya Parker has the power to perform weddings but is not obligated by law to do so (Kim Davies on the other hand is obligated by law to issue a marriage license). Not all judges perform weddings, infact most judges in the United States never perform weddings (Straight or gay) by choice. That is nothing new under the sun. It would interest you to note that while 5 of 9 current supreme court justices have officiated weddings... Chief Justice Roberts has not done so... perhaps we should sue him or something? My Lord! the level of abject stupidity. Its why atheists laugh at "christians" all the time... its as if we leave our brains at the door when we don the toga of false religion.

amalektch:


Perhaps you might consider repenting of your slander - planned parenthood did not violate any federal law... several republican states (including florida and Arizona!) have investigated them and cleared them of any wrong doing. It is your type of "christianity" - loose with the truth, intolerant of others (in the name of hypocritical tough love) and incorrigible that has led many astray.

I didn't know you support the denial of the rights of unborn children. Now that explains why you are quick to deny Kim her religious rights. I thank God that I'm intolerant of evil just as Jesus was.

OLAADEGBU:


I didn't know you support the denial of the rights of unborn children. Now that explains why you are quick to deny Kim her religious rights. I thank God that I'm intolerant of evil just as Jesus was.

Another lazy piece of slander. Making the rightful assertion that several states have probed PP and found them not to be in violation of federal law does not make me a supporter of abortion...

1. According to Roe v. Wade, abortion is LEGAL in the USA... you can debate that till you're blue in the face. You had 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush I and 8 years of Bush II... why didnt you do something about it then?

2. PP has not been found to violate any laws so far.

So other than an attempt to pander to the lowest common denominator and lying, what was your point?

amalektch:


Another lazy piece of slander. Making the rightful assertion that several states have probed PP and found them not to be in violation of federal law does not make me a supporter of abortion...

1. According to Roe v. Wade, abortion is LEGAL in the USA... you can debate that till you're blue in the face. You had 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush I and 8 years of Bush II... why didnt you do something about it then?

2. PP has not been found to violate any laws so far.

So other than an attempt to pander to the lowest common denominator and lying, what was your point?

Abortion is murder. The fact that your government legalised it doesn't change anything.

amalektch:


The Tonya Parker case is a red herring pulled up either by the completely obtuse or the dangerously dishonest. Tonya Parker has the power to perform weddings but is not obligated by law to do so (Kim Davies on the other hand is obligated by law to issue a marriage license). Not all judges perform weddings, infact most judges in the United States never perform weddings (Straight or gay) by choice. That is nothing new under the sun. It would interest you to note that while 5 of 9 current supreme court justices have officiated weddings... Chief Justice Roberts has not done so... perhaps we should sue him or something? My Lord! the level of abject stupidity. Its why atheists laugh at "christians" all the time... its as if we leave our brains at the door when we don the toga of false religion.

Congratulations. You did well by saying that Atheists laugh at christians and not "us" which excludes you seeing that you take pleasure in verbal abuse and insults which is not "Christianly".

amalektch:


I have not attacked you... seems you are starting to see the four other fingers pointing back at you and realizing the emperor is indeed naked.

You may not call the unsaved fools and idiots, but you indirectly do so when you attack them in the name of tough love... that excuse religious hypocrites use to justify their unkindness to others.

Since you cannot prove where I called the unsaved 'fools and idiots' directly or indirectly then I suggest you do the honourable thing and apologise for lying against me. I believe that you have enough integrity to oblige.

OLAADEGBU:


Congratulations. You did well by saying that Atheists laugh at christians and not "us" which excludes you seeing that you take pleasure in verbal abuse and insults which is not "Christianly".

Abuse - calling out the incredibly ridiculous things religious pharisees say.

I agree with you, i am not a "christian" by the typical American rightwing definition.

OLAADEGBU:


Abortion is murder. The fact that your government legalised it doesn't change anything.

Perfectly accurate. For the purpose of the secular government, the law is the law. Please keep your religious commandments to your bedroom.

And for the record... capital punishment, war and police shootings are all murder... i never see you hypocrites calling these out.

amalektch:


Abuse - calling out the incredibly ridiculous things religious pharisees say.

I agree with you, i am not a "christian" by the typical American rightwing definition.

You should make sure that you are a Christian according to the biblical definition.

amalektch:


Perfectly accurate. For the purpose of the secular government, the law is the law. Please keep your religious commandments to your bedroom.

And for the record... capital punishment, war and police shootings are all murder... i never see you hypocrites calling these out.

Do you know the difference between acceptable killing and murdering?

OLAADEGBU:


Do you know the difference between acceptable killing and murdering?

yeah i do... murdering = taking the life of someone rightwing religious hypocrites approves of while acceptable killing = taking the life of someone rightwing religious hypocrites disapprove of.

I dont read any where in the new testament where Jesus or the disciples claimed it was ok to murder a criminal because it was "acceptable" unto the Lord. But continue speaking from both sides of the mouth.

amalektch:


yeah i do... murdering = taking the life of someone rightwing religious hypocrites approves of while acceptable killing = taking the life of someone rightwing religious hypocrites disapprove of.

Does that mean that the wrongwing leftwing religious liberals approves of the taking the lives of the unborn babies?

amalektch:


I dont read any where in the new testament where Jesus or the disciples claimed it was ok to murder a criminal because it was "acceptable" unto the Lord. But continue speaking from both sides of the mouth.

You can read this from the NT where it gave instances of "acceptable killing":

"For he is the minister of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil" (Romans 3:4).

This verse supports the use of "the sword" by the government, whether as in capital punishment or warfare.

Gombs:



Using scriptures to justify your outlandish claims, gossip and hate ladened writings.

If I supply the Scriptures of Christ will that suffice since it's not coming from Chris?

Gombs:


Can you show me where Jesus was intolerant of other religions... Samrarians, Greeks, Romans.... Gentiles in general.

.. Take your time, I can wait for the scriptures.

If the Words of Christ means anything to you then consider these eternal Words of His when He was responding to a Samaritan woman who believed in another religion:

"You worship you know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22).

I'm sure if you were there at the time Jesus uttered this statement you would have said that Jesus is intolerant of other people's religion (Samaritans).

Our Lord Jesus seemed to be harsh when addressing this Gentile woman who came seeking help for her daughter. What would have been your thoughts at this time knowing that these kind of words from the mouth of Christ are strange to you?

"I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24).

What Jesus said to this Caananite woman was even harsher when He compared her to dogs:

"It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs" (Matthew 15:26).

Here again you would have accused Jesus of intolerance, bigotry and racism and that He was not sensitive to the Gentile woman's feelings.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6).

When Jesus asserted that He is the Way to God, the Truth of God and the Life in God your likes will accuse Him of being intolerant of other ways and this is the main reason why true Christians are being persecuted for being 'unloving' and 'unsympathetic' to people's feelings when they say Jesus is the only way. Jesus says: 'No one comes to the Father but through Me'. And I reiterate the same and say every other proposal is one of darkness. You can call me an intolerant hater if you like they did the same to Christ.

OLAADEGBU:


If I supply the Scriptures of Christ will that suffice since it's not coming from Chris?



If the Words of Christ means anything to you then consider these eternal Words of His when He was responding to a Samaritan woman who believed in another religion:

"You worship you know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22).

I'm sure if you were there at the time Jesus uttered this statement you would have said that Jesus is intolerant of other people's religion (Samaritans).

Our Lord Jesus seemed to be harsh when addressing this Gentile woman who came seeking help for her daughter. What would have been your thoughts at this time knowing that these kind of words from the mouth of Christ are strange to you?

"I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matthew 15:24).

What Jesus said to this Caananite woman was even harsher when He compared her to dogs:

"It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs" (Matthew 15:26).

Here again you would have accused Jesus of intolerance, bigotry and racism and that He was not sensitive to the Gentile woman's feelings.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6).

When Jesus asserted that He is the Way to God, the Truth of God and the Life in God your likes will accuse Him of being intolerant of other ways and this is the main reason why true Christians are being persecuted for being 'unloving' and 'unsympathetic' to people's feelings when they say Jesus is the only way. Jesus says: 'No one comes to the Father but through Me'. And I reiterate the same and say every other proposal is one of darkness. You can call me an intolerant hater if you like they did the same to Christ.

Below was your response and challenge to my post above. I have now brought it to the appropriate thread for you to thrash out as you have boasted. Are you still game?

Gombs:




Horse crap. I dare you to open a thread with this write you have, let me come whip you there.

Until then, I wouldn't want to derail the pounding you're getting here.

Lifted from this thread==> https://www.nairaland.com/2570881/belgian-mp-muslim-immigration-europe/1#37767740

OLAADEGBU:


What does the Bible say about political correctness? Should a Christian be politically correct? Is not offending others to be our highest priority?

Suggested answer:

Political correctness (PC) is defined as "a term that describes language, ideas, policies, and behaviour seen as seeking to minimize social and institutional offence in occupational, gender, racial, cultural, sexual orientation, religious belief, disability, and age-related contexts." The key word here is offense. No individual or group is to be offended in the PC world. Certainly, as Christians, we are not to go out of our way to offend anyone personally, but the truth is that Christianity itself is offensive.

The apostle Paul references the "offense of the cross" in Galatians 5:11. The cross was an offense to the Jews because their idea of salvation was to "work the works of God" (John 6:28–29), meaning keeping the numerous burdensome Old Testament laws and rules. When Jesus came preaching salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, they were shattered. He made it plain that "by works of the law, no human being will be justified in his sight" (Romans 3:20) and that all their law-keeping was of no value to them whatsoever. Especially repugnant to them was the idea that, without Jesus, they who prided themselves on their meticulous adherence to the letter, if not the spirit, of the law, could do nothing of spiritual value (John 15:5).

Truly, the offense Jesus created was a stumbling block to the Jews, as Paul explained to the Romans. He reminded them of Isaiah's prophecy that God would lay a Cornerstone (Christ) in Zion over which many would stumble and fall (Isaiah 8:14; 28:16; Psalm 118:22; 1 Peter 2:6). Just as the Jews stumbled over the idea of their works being of no value to God, so do many today hate the idea that Christ will build His church not on human merits, but on His righteousness alone. That message is as offensive today as it was in Jesus' day. No one likes to be told there is nothing he can do to earn his place in heaven.

Equally offensive is the necessity of dying to self in order to follow Christ. Of all the religions of the world today, Christianity is the only one where its founder tells you to follow Him and die. "Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me'" (Matthew 16:24). Those who heard this message knew exactly what Jesus meant; to follow Him was to die to self and give up everything they ever held dear. That's why everyone ran away when He was arrested; they weren't prepared to die with Him.

Correctness in the secular, political realm is not the concern of Christians or the church because "our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Saviour from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will, by the power that enables him, "bring everything under his control" (Philippians 3:20–21).

http://www.gotquestions.org/political-correctness.html

OLAADEGBU, If you were alive during the time of slavery, the same bible and people whose opinion you are promoting would have been used to put you in chains. The KKK and other right wing christians used the bible to justify segregation in the south of the US during Jim crow. The US has legalized gay marriage, if you don't like it then go and drink rat poison.

dalaman:


OLAADEGBU, If you were alive during the time of slavery, the same bible and people whose opinion you are promoting would have been used to put you in chains. The KKK and other right wing christians used the bible to justify segregation in the south of the US during Jim crow. The US has legalized gay marriage, if you don't like it then go and drink rat poison.

If you know your history you would have realised that it was the liberals that refused "to let my people go" during the America's civil war.

OLAADEGBU:


If you know your history you would have realised that it was the liberals that refused "to let my people go" during the America's civil war.

You are a lair. The confederate states are all conservative states. I can't find staes like New York, California, New Jersey etc there.t

OLAADEGBU:


If you know your history you would have realised that it was the liberals that refused "to let my people go" during the America's civil war.

lol the typical US rightwing unthinking drivel - calling everyone a "liberal" if they dont agree with you. How miserable.

OLAADEGBU:


If you know your history you would have realised that it was the liberals that refused "to let my people go" during the America's civil war.

Which "liberals"? The ones in Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina? I think what yo're trying to say is that back in the day, the south (which was the bastion of slavery) was actually a democrat stronghold. Just so you know, democrat was not always equivalent to liberal. You seem to have an aversion to serious thinking.

amalektch:


Which "liberals"? The ones in Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina? I think what yo're trying to say is that back in the day, the south (which was the bastion of slavery) was actually a democrat stronghold. Just so you know, democrat was not always equivalent to liberal. You seem to have an aversion to serious thinking.

At least you accede that it was a democrat stronghold. Who are Democrats today? Conservatives?

Bumped.

Donald Trump gave the PC brigage a TKO.

dalaman:



You are a lair. The confederate states are all conservative states. I can't find staes like New York, California, New Jersey etc there.t

This is why those who don't know their history are doomed to become liberals.