Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: DelphiUser
"We did not change anything, true the law of the land changed. (Render unto Caesar what is Caesars…) Jesus has always preached living with the current government, his kingdom is not of this world."



Not to belabor the point, but don't you find it at least a little strange, that today's church wants to carve into stone the laws of the land (that you say changed), that it was so vehemently against in the past?

Rendering unto Caesar is one thing, but actively working with Caesar in another matter. Wouldn't you say?
54 posted on 05/27/2006 10:50:12 AM PDT by nralife
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]


To: nralife

are you for same sex marriage?


107 posted on 05/27/2006 2:38:59 PM PDT by restornu ( Will I accept of an offering, saith the Lord, that is not made in my name? D&C 132:9)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

To: nralife
Not to belabor the point, but don't you find it at least a little strange, that today's church wants to carve into stone the laws of the land (that you say changed), that it was so vehemently against in the past?

Ummm... Since when has the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints supported Homosexual Marriage?

You are implying, apparently, that the church is trying to sneakily outlaw polygamy to cover its own past mis-steps through this letter (which support the amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman). I think anyone with a fair mind about the matter will see it as the church trying to save the family from the pernicious evil of Homosexual Marriage. I suppose your conclusion that it will also outlaw polygamy could be construed from it. I think any one who reads the article realizes that times have changed. The homosexualization of America was not an issue a hundred years ago. It is an issue now. So the church is trying to fight it, as is any one with any sense.

As for your implication that the Church is trying to cover for it's past practice of polygamy in the 1800's I just don't buy

152 posted on 05/29/2006 11:02:47 PM PDT by Rameumptom (Gen X = they killed 1 in 4 of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

To: nralife

>>Rendering unto Caesar is one thing, but actively working with Caesar in another matter. Wouldn't you say?


No, I would not “say”, this amendment is pro-family something the church has always been about. Outlawing deviancy and making sure “Heather has two mommies” is not a reality is a good thing. (the church gets involved in “Good Things”, always has.)

I do however find it interesting that those who present themselves as “Christians” (presumably Bible reading) have more of a problem with polygamy than homosexuality. Especially when Polygamy is accepted in the Bible, but homosexuality is condemned (Abraham, Jacob, Solomon…)


157 posted on 06/03/2006 6:25:22 AM PDT by DelphiUser ("You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson