Posted on 02/12/2015 10:19:21 AM PST by PROCON
During a heated discussion over gay marriage, CNN morning Anchor Chris Cuomo opined that the unalienable rights endowed to all Americans do not come from God.
Cuomo was debating Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage. Near the end of the back-and-forth and after Moore argued that rights cannot be handed down by men, Cuomo blurted out:
“Our rights do not come from God, your honor, and you know that. They come from man... That’s your faith, that’s my faith, but that’s not our country. Our laws come from collective agreement and compromise.”
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
That strikes home, but ...
Scientists tell us that Earth is 4.5 billion years old.
And his father.
There must be some part of the country where liberals have cooped the name libertarian. The libertarians here in Colorado believe in God, Guns and don’t general smoke rope.
I would think that is what they meant.
Also, there is the following:
"Before he [the President] enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:"
I'm no expert in this matter, but it almost appears to me that the Founders were allowing for the possibility that an elected President might have some qualms about swearing an oath; perhaps as a matter of religious principle. But one explicit option was an "oath" which I believe has a religious denotation.
So is slavery permitable now?
“God no more “accepted” slavery than He accepts theft, murder, homosexuality, etc. He permitted slavery, knowing that it was part of a fallen, sinful world, while laying out rules to govern the practice. He did the same with divorce, which the Bible says He hates.”
Why did He permit something that was unacceptable? Why didn’t He permit other unacceptable things as well?
I’m not talking about any specific code, I just used one example from the Christian moral code as an example. The religious often state that atheists have no fixed or foundational morality. The point I’m making is that, in many ways, neither do the religious. Their moral codes today are sometimes wildly at odds with what was considered moral within their own religion in the past and even at odds with what their own revealed scripture states.
Bill of rights was ratified in 1791 is what I was talking about.
Ahh....you’re absolutely right!
I think the Declaration was the greatest piece of literature ever written. The Constitution? Not so much. I think the Constitution is what you get when too many people have a hand in its writing. Sure, that’s the good part of it- that there were a lot of people who had input- but I think they could have clarified a few things.
The Second Amendment could have been clearer so generations later on wouldn’t be argued over because of where a comma is! Lol. Seriously?! It is what it says!!!! Now Liberals argue where the comma is?!?!?!
Many of the precise grievances against George III, were for things that he had allowed the Parliament to do. The attack was not on the Monarchy, per se, but on London's meddling in clearly local affairs.
Properly presented, I can assure that most Leftist spokesmen will not laugh at you. I have been tearing them up for over half a century, with little effort.
Note, here, that the typical Leftist airhead--take Chris Matthews for an example--loves to quote the phrase, "all men are Created equal," as though this was a call for Egalitarian government, which it emphatically was not. The context is what refutes the ongoing effort of the Left to claim that America's fulfillment is in some form of Communism, or extreme Socialism that forces egalitarian/collectivism on our people.
The Declaration is the ultimate embodiment to the States Rights & individual liberty arguments, against the stifling cross-border consolidation of functions & coerced uniformity of social policy, that epitomizes the Obama Administration.
By whom? Western countries? You already know the answer to that, and it has no bearing on God's standards.
"Why did He permit something that was unacceptable?"
Previously explained in my post #139. Also, God created us with free will; we're not robots.
"Why didn’t He permit other unacceptable things as well?"
Also explained to you in #139, but let's give it another go. He allows divorce, which Scripture says He hates. Knowing that we're a fallen race, and that spouses would divorce regardless of His view of the matter, He laid down rules for its circumstances...as He did with slavery.
We commit countless sins every day; none of them are permissible in the eyes of God. Again, we're not automatons, so until Jesus comes back, the world will go on as it is.
Do you think murder is all right with God? (A rhetorical question, since I think your personal answer might not reflect the truth). Anyway, we know it's not. But He knew it would happen, and He stated clearly that the man who commits murder forfeits his own life. But that rule is largely ignored nowadays, isn't it? Life in prison is the usual sentence...sometimes less. Recently in my area, a man beat his infant son to death; his punishment was 25 years in jail and a fine.
Again, the problem is man's deviation from the will of God in committing the murder in the first place, and in the second place, ignoring His commandment for the punishment.
You said:
“No. Neither the Scriptures nor Christianity’s moral codes change. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.”
and then followed that with:
“He permitted slavery....”
So my question is; does He still permit slavery?
It’s certainly not clear God permitted slavery to non-Jews at all, and slavery among Jews had so many restrictions it’s clear that kind of slavery wasn’t remotely similar to race-based slavery in America.
I’m afraid you don’t understand what I’m saying at all. Let’s let it rest with that. Have a great day.
Ok sorry about that. You too.
It’s not clear that God had any interest in the Gentiles prior to Jesus Christ. The restrictions He placed on Jewish ownership of non-Jew slave were much harsher than on Jewish slaves; for example ownership was perpetual.
This has been answered in two separate posts to you. A third won't be forthcoming.
Read the previous two and try to let it sink in.
Where to start....Israel for 400 years was a Theocratic republic when the direct revelations of God were said to be few. They had a three branch governing structure...a Judge, a representative group chosen from among the people to present the needs of their people yearly at Shiloh during the yearly sacrifices for the sins of the nation, and the judicial branch; the levites who were priests and knew the finer points of the law. Their covenant (or constitution) was the mosaic law and the rules of execution of the Law. Our founding fathers were very schooled in religion. They also drew upon greek and Roman traditons as well.
The bankruptsy laws with the “7 year inter banruptsy period” found in the constitution comes from the OT where upon all public and private debts were to be canceled every 7 years and all lands returned to the original families every 49 years during the jubilee year!
The Constitution is full of amazing biblical parallels like the above.
Cuomo is secular communist rubbish, a biopsy of the atheist cancer that is destroying the Republic. Our rights come from Almighty God. John Locke, whom our Founders relied on, thought so, as did they. It would not take more than a few minutes to study a history book that they were not referring to some heathen idol. Our rights do not come from a compromise, because God has no need to compromise, being always right. Nor do our rights come from other people, or a sheet of paper- both of those perish or fail, and rights as eternal as the Lord that made them.
I don’t think understanding is lacking...except in a spiritual sense.
It’s atheist procedure on religion forums to feign obtuseness. Repeat questions even after receiving answer/explanation...nitpick...phrase inquiries in a subtle manner to try and induce doubt. All the while choosing words carefully to fly under the radar, as we see here.
I’ve seen it countless times before, and not just on this forum. The atheist doing the questioning is not interested in honest responses nor does he want to learn. It’s a game...playing with the toothless snakehandlers while exercising his (he believes) superior intellect. Not realizing that sad little human intellect is a pathetic thing to depend upon. He also doesn’t realize his game is old hat-—easy to spot, unoriginal, and so easily refuted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.