Ten Commandments judge: 'Gay' weddings a 'travesty'
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who was returned to the top judicial post in the state after he fought with bureaucrats over the message of the Ten Commandments, is now adding his voice to a campaign for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage.
‚ÄúIt‚Äôs a travesty,‚ÄĚ Judge Roy Moore told WND on Monday about the move toward judiciary-imposed same-sex ‚Äúmarriages.‚ÄĚ ‚ÄúThe courts are exercising wrongful authority over this country.‚ÄĚ
He said it was no less than the U.S. Supreme Court itself which, in an earlier ruling, said, ‚ÄúWe come nearest to illegitimacy when we deal with judge-made constitutional law with no cognizable roots in the design of the Constitution.‚ÄĚ...
Jim really should not repeat such liberal heresy and propaganda: "a judge who also ignored the Constitution." Judge Roy Moore was fully within the law of the State of Alabama as well as the U.S. Constitution. The well-worn phrase "separation of church and state" is constantly used by atheists and liberals to promote a distortion of history as to the intended meaning of the 1st Amendment. We need more godly judges like Roy Moore!
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Maybe you can enlightening me to the meaning of Rev. 19:10. Based on what you have said about the other passages you listed, my understanding of it can't be close to anything you see. Thank you for the kind remark Shane.
Sir, you won't know what I believe until you ask. I know it forbids the worship of the creature rather than the Creator who is forever blessed. I know that the Apostle John (in an office that no longer exists post canon) was in the Spirit on the Lord's Day as a exile on Patmos. He had seen visions and high things. He could later warn the Church: Little children keep yourself from idols. My teachers said that the original Greek is translated correctly either way The testimony of Jesus is the Spirit of Prophesy or the Spirit of Prophesy is the testimony of Jesus. I believe the Lord will reveal the truth of prophetic Scripture to his saints, sufficient for them to arrive safely in glory unharmed by Antichrist.
Dopey wrote: Lurker , thanks for the link. I had never heard of that site before. I was so impressed after a quick look around that I book marked it for later visiting and reading.
Glad you like it, Bro. It really helped me understand the two different schools of though which emerged from the Protestant Reformation.
One believes God's fingerprints are all over the doctrines which came out of Geneva and the other believes the vernacular bible which came out of Geneva, free from the dictates of church and state, is the crown jewel of His handiwork. Of course, I'm a firm believer of the latter.
Lurker wrote: Mourner can speak for herself but I suspect she is talking about the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643 being binding on our founding fathers and the USA to this day. I don't want to be unkind to our sister but what she proposes is militant Puritanism in the face of Pilgrims. I wonder if Baptists would have any voice in this: "Doctrine is determined by the Ministry ordained of God based on the Word of God." Based on our experience with Presby of a thousand monikers, who reminds us often that only Presbys are "Real Christians", I'd say no. A good read: Pilgrims and Puritans http://endtimepilgrim.org/puritans10.htm
Thanks Lurker (see I can spell it correctly), appreciate you brother. I thought about the city on the hill Puritans, but also remembered the Catholics settled Maryland, Quakers in Pennsylvania and Baptist in Rhode Island, so wasn't sure how she saw all those groups as part of her oath and league. Will look over your link, thanks for the clarification. God Bless.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Thanks all 5 for your response. Please forgive my ignorance, ma'am, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you can enlightening me to the meaning of Rev. 19:10. Based on what you have said about the other passages you listed, my understanding of it can't be close to anything you see.
Mourner can speak for herself but I suspect she is talking about the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643 being binding on our founding fathers and the USA to this day.
I don't want to be unkind to our sister but what she proposes is militant Puritanism in the face of Pilgrims.
I wonder if Baptists would have any voice in this: "Doctrine is determined by the Ministry ordained of God based on the Word of God." Based on our experience with Presby of a thousand monikers, who reminds us often that only Presbys are "Real Christians", I'd say no.
All 5 points wrote: Sir, I will attempt to state wherein I agree and disagree with your statement as well as ask questions:...What does Rev. 19:10 mean?
Thanks all 5 for your response. Please forgive my ignorance, ma'am, but I have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you can enlightening me to the meaning of Rev. 19:10. Based on what you have said about the other passages you listed, my understanding of it can't be close to anything you see.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: First Amendment is....
Sir, I will attempt to state wherein I agree and disagree with your statement as well as ask questions:
If we were once a plantation of Britain, a nation that swore as a Nation to be for Christ and Him alone as well as establish and defend the true religion and three nations joined in an oath and league to God to labor as brethren to agree in the Lord in Ministry making the Church One as stated in Ephes. 4 and the differences between the offices of Ministry and Magistracy (as you pointed out, the civil law is for the men of this world because God's people have the law of God written on their hearts); then were our founding fathers free of that oath sworn on behalf of their posterity to disestablish the truth of the Word of God?
Will you and I agree in the Lord without a work of GOD upon both of our hearts?
It was called revival and reformation and it was short lived but effectual for generations to come for whose good the sworn biblical oath to GOD was taken to preserve the truth. They knew it was not by power or might but by God's Spirit and he would uphold the Church through all 1260 years of apostasy as explained in Rev. 11&12. and stated in Ephes 4:11-16
Jim Lincoln, do your homework before you make a statement like that. (My homework was I read "Original Intent" by David Barton, good book) The famous "seperation of church & state" is NOT in the Constitution! That was actually found in a PRIVATE letter by Thomas Jefferson! The Constitution DOES say (and I quote from Amendment #1) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." I hope I didn't come across as proud or presumptuous, if I did I humbly apologize.
Hey All 5 I am obviously not Mike, he is a much wiser brother, but let me, if you please, add my mite.
The first amendment is a restriction on government, not the church, and says NOTHING of a separation of church and state (liberals really mean God and state). In fact there were state churches well in to the 1820's.
The Lord Jesus said render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's. So, He definitely made a distinction between the two. Paul talked about believers separating from fornicators but not the fornicators of this world as we would have to leave the earth, so He did not see the world as adhering to God's standards but expected Christians to. The Lord Jesus said His kingdom was not of this world. In fact we look for that heavenly city which hath foundations whose builder and maker is God, not for a Christian rule in our current society. The Bible does talk about the Lord Jesus ruling upon this earth and we look forward with great anticipation to when the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ. A future blessed event.
The unsaved world has but one law of God to obey, that is to repent and believe the gospel. The church has an entire Bible of truth to which it needs to adhere.
Mike wrote: When you use the phrase "keeping the Church and State separate" is that in the Constitution? If so, which religion does he say he wants to make the national government approved religion?
What do you believe the first amendment states?
1. Do you believe that Church and State as instituted by GOD Himself are separate institutions as to their duties to GOD and man?
2. That the State is over all citizens and the Church the citizens of the kingdom of God visible? Do you believe that Jesus Christ as God is the God of all he created and His law is to be obeyed by all His creatures, but in a special way men and in particular His Church?
I believe for that to happen the Church has to define itself for every citizen whether of heaven or earth to avoid confusion, ergo a Confession of Faith. That it must be affirmed by said nation by both institutions as to its necessity for clarity. Doctrine is determined by the Ministry ordained of God based on the Word of God. A nation under vows to GOD that they, to the best of their ability by GOD's mercy and grace have stated the truth or doctrine that is agreeable to what is to be believed among them, so help them, in His blessed name which will be unto them a high tower of defense.
Jim Lincoln wrote: What a statement from a judge who also ignored the Constitution. He has a problem with keeping Church and State separate. He would make a good Pharisee. --- So, he wants to take away the states' rights to govern marriage, interesting.
When you use the phrase "keeping the Church and State separate" is that in the Constitution? If so, which religion does he say he wants to make the national government approved religion?
How is it he ignores the Constitution by supporting its limits on judges, but you support the Constitution by repeating things not found in it?
You really need be careful of putting too much stress on that knee, Jim.
‚ÄúFurther, if the government is sincere about its support for ‚Äėequal love,‚Äô http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/ten-commandments-judge-gay-weddings-a-travesty/#UzGVFL0XvcqkfDVW.99
'Equal love'??? Love is defined by the Moral Law that the 10 Commandments summarizes and 1 Cor. 13 Gospel'izes' by applying the fruits of the Spirit of Love to the Law. There is no ability to change the hearts of men without the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In a nation that does not believe the Government was given 'not only' for social order but for the upholding of the Truth; her citizens will not be changed by a Constitutional Amendment, though Society could possibly be more 'moral', that does not necessarily mean it will be more just.
Micah 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? 'Thy God' is key.
Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: 31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
What a statement from a judge who also ignored the Constitution. He has a problem with keeping Church and State separate. He would make a good Pharisee.
Yes, I support the Nine Commandments, [URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=6300694456]]]The Ten Commandments[/URL], I am also against queer "marriages" [URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=92807123612]]]The Bible Says Homosexuality is Sin[/URL]. I have even pointed out there are secularists against it, [URL=http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html]]]The Secular Case Against Gay Marriage[/URL]. So, he wants to take away the states' rights to govern marriage, interesting.
Queer "marriages," are not only immoral, but stupid, they don't contribute financially to a society, but are a financial detriment. (Read the secular argument above.)