U.S. Supreme Court declines stay 4 clerk refusing to issue gay marriage certificates
- Thread starter crossnote
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M
No this is not the legal constitutional process of our republic that requires that the people through to congressional process makes the laws that shape the society that the people desire. These judges rejected the constitution and acted against our Republic ...this lady upheld the true law of the land, namely the constitution. Many of us have taken a oath to defend our constitution against all enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC ..... We have domestic enemies of our constitution and several of them are on the supreme court and have become lawless. NO ONE ...no citizens has to obey a unconstitutional order from any authority. If an authority rejects the constitution, that authority is void under our Republic
L
There's a lot to be said about obeying government authority in Scripture...even when Paul was instructing the Greek Christians to obey those in their own government...which was corrupt in itself....but..we can argue this forever. I remember when Daniel himself was in a situation like this...when the law was issued against him praying to his God. Daniel continued to pray..which is certainly understandable on his part. He was also thrown into the lion's den as a result. Fair? no. did he fight it? no. God miraculously saved him without human help. No screaming. No protestors outside that lion's den screaming to all the evil doers in his society. No excuses made for Daniel not "obeying the law". None of that. Simple trust in God to do whatever he wills. Can you imagine if Daniel turned around and brought suit against the very government whose actions led him to be thrown into that Den? He came out in all humility, all grace, and was raised up by the King who saw something so true and attractive in this man of God. That is a true lesson to be learned.
K
There should be no argument on this topic though because the bible gives many examples of men and women of God disobeying the laws of the land to continue to obey God.
This is shown from the OT all the way through the NT.............
Why do you think the Apostles/disciples were imprisoned, persecuted, and crucified or exiled ???
The laws of the land told them to stop preaching Jesus and they refused.
The whole obeying the laws of the governing authorities comes from Romans 13, but to take from that chapter we are to obey all the laws rather for or against God's ways is wrong.
This is where discernment needs to come into play as examples throughout the bible show denying man's laws to stand firm in God's ways. Even Acts 5:29 says we must obey God rather then men, therefore if Romans 13 meant all laws then these two passages would contradict. God's word however does not !!!
I don't think everybody is saying sue the governments, but there is enough evidence in the bible that we are to obey God over man.
When a law gets passed in the future under the anti-christ's system to deny Christ or be killed will you denounce the name of Jesus for the sake of the law ???
L
I don't see her response as being anything like Daniel's. To me it's no different than if this were the story (which its not): Daniel believes the law is unjust. Therefore, he actively refuses to permit anybody else to abide by it...in the name of "his allowing them their then legal right "to do so" (whether he considered the law unjust or not) being considered "wickedness against God". Can you imagine how that story would've ended? Certainly, not like Daniel's did.
M
You used the example of Daniel .... which I agree...Gods law is above any wickedness that man might try to impose on a society. And just like Daniel ..God delivered her and now she is a hero to many millions of Americans ... She sure wont ever have to worry about finding work and when the new conservatives come into power in Washington ..I would not be surprised if she ends up in a more powerful position?
L
Difference is this....Daniel defended against that "wickedness" interfering with his own communication/relationship with God...not everyone else's. He didn't become the "defender of societal wickedness". He didn't interfere with his then society's choice to follow through on that wickedness. He made that choice for himself. He knew that cutting off communication with His God, was a direct interference to his relationship...but he certainly didn't go and try to do it for everyone else. As a result of his own trust in God and acceptance of whatever God willed for him, he was miraculously delivered in a way only God Himself can deliver...and it was because of that, an "unbelieving king" saw that power and love of God for Daniel....that is what caused this king to raise Daniel up...and Daniel reflected nothing but humility and grace in the prcess. All the power to Ms. Davis in finding work. I do hope it works out for her. I don't see how suing the governor for her legal woes though, is going to help her reflect the power and love of God in any way. Just sayin'. It's not about the "power". It's about reflecting Christ to an unbelieving world.
M
Of course Daniel represented more than just himself ..it was through his obedience and his rejection of wickedness that his whole nation was strengthened ..even believers today are edified with his example ...I think he is a perfect example of what this brave lady did as was first suggested. I also believe her moral stand in the context of a wicked and perverse world represents the truth of Christ and what all believers are called to suffer as believers. Christianity is not a social club and those that present it in PC terms, present a false Christ.
Daniel brought no suit because that wasn't an option. Paul did bring suit as he appealed to Caesar.
Acts 25:11-12 (KJV)
11 For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar.
12 Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shalt thou go.
And there was a good chance he didn't need to...
Acts 26:31-32 (KJV)
31 And when they were gone aside, they talked between themselves, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds.
32 Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.
Acts 25:11-12 (KJV)
11 For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar.
12 Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, Hast thou appealed unto Caesar? unto Caesar shalt thou go.
And there was a good chance he didn't need to...
Acts 26:31-32 (KJV)
31 And when they were gone aside, they talked between themselves, saying, This man doeth nothing worthy of death or of bonds.
32 Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.