The imminent Demise of the United States of America

  • 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.
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#61
#61
crossnote said:
No one was forcing mothers to abort, but we'll see if christian ministers and groups are forced to marry couples against their conscience or else.
Click to expand...
they have their judges, Unless your in one of these modern day churches which welcomes homosexual behavior and denys it is a sin, who would happily marry them off.

I doubt you will see them go to preachers who are against their lifestyle. they have enough resources. but who knows.

 
T

Tintin

Guest
#62
#62
JesusIsAll said:
An interesting characteristic of the Antichrist, seeking to change fundamental things, to the devil's ends, of course,

Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
Click to expand...
Did you just call me the Antichrist?


kidding
 
C

cmarieh

Guest
#63
#63
Tintin said:
Did you just call me the Antichrist?


kidding
Click to expand...
Awe we know you were kidding Tintin, plus we all know you are for Christ and could never be thought of as the Antichrist. Love ya dear brother:)
 
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#64
#64
KennethC said:
Christian ministers should not have anything to worry about unless the government does away with two constitutional laws first;

Separation of Church and State

Freedom of Religion

Until those two get done away with legally they can not force Christian ministers to marry same sex couples.........................
Click to expand...
A careful reading of Kennedy's majority opinion should shake you to the foundation of your faith. He asserts none of these things, except superficially, in his alleged "defense" of religious objections.

Obergefell et all vs. Hodges, Director Ohio Department of Health, et al

Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons. In turn, those who believe allowing same-sex marriage is proper or indeed essential, whether as a matter of religious conviction or secular belief, may engage those who disagree with their view in an open and searching debate. The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex. [Emphasis added]
Click to expand...
Point One: Kennedy carefully dances around the issue exercising the rights of our pastors to refuse to perform a "marriage" ceremony for LGBTs. He says we can continue to "advocate" our beliefs and teachings, we are welcome to "debate" the issue. But nowhere does Kennedy unequivocally endorse the right for our pastors to refuse to perform these ceremonies.

Point Two: With that last line that I emboldened and underlined, he very clearly leaves open the door for pastors to eventually be forced to perform those ceremonies. He has not actually "defended" anything regarding our beliefs. In fact he has couched an apparent endorsement of our right to them in a carefully structured paragraph that can be used in later court cases to deny our rights to repudiate of gay marriage based on the tenets of our faith.
 
mwc68

mwc68

Banned
#65
Nov 14, 2012
2,113
4
0
#65
A lot of people like to compare the US to Sodom and Gomorah and on the surface, it does appear that way, especially if you watch popular tv programming. I recall this conversation between God and Abraham ( Gen 18-32 ). There are millions of believers here in the US and it's downfall will not be a judgement from God. It will be because good people stood by and did nothing. In that respect, we get what we deserve IMO
 
K

KennethC

Guest
#66
#66
crossnote said:
Seems to me those rights have already been seriously eroded. I know of a number of pastors who are ceasing to do marriages because their lawyers are saying the situation is too fluid.
Click to expand...
Sounds to me that those lawyers just don't want to be caught up and be involved in a case like this, because of the controversy they feel will come from it and possible persecution they will face from those in favor of s.s.m.

This is exactly one of the situations Jesus and the bible tells us will happen to some who are weak in the faith, they will fall away and cave to the pressure of the world and place man's laws before God's..................
 
Utah

Utah

Banned
#67
Dec 1, 2014
9,701
251
0
#67
KennethC said:
Christian ministers should not have anything to worry about unless the government does away with two constitutional laws first;

Separation of Church and State

Freedom of Religion

Until those two get done away with legally they can not force Christian ministers to marry same sex couples.........................
Click to expand...
Where is the separation of church and state law written?
 
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#68
#68
Utah said:
Where is the separation of church and state law written?
Click to expand...
Obviously, there is none. It is a red herring dragged throughthese debates by those who want it to exist.
 
K

KennethC

Guest
#69
#69
Tintin said:
Did you just call me the Antichrist?


kidding
Click to expand...

Well that verse can't apply to you or anybody right now because it is referring to the last end time figure of the anitchrist.....a.k.a. man of sin..........a.k.a. prince of this world......a.k.a. 1st beast of Revelation.

I know this can be taken as the spirit of antichrist that is already in the world that tries to corrupt the brethren, but is not the context in that passage, plus the written ordinances of the Mosaic laws do not apply to new covenant believers.....
 
D

Danel

Guest
#70
#70
God's wrath is most likely going to hit us in the form of a dollar collapse. Obama has accumulated more debt to this country during his term than every other president before him combined. This is a fact. His plan from the beginning was to bankrupt us. If you watch the video below for 5 minutes, you'll realize just how close this is to happening.

[video=youtube;Le73sWDlhz4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le73sWDlhz4[/video]
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
#71
#71
Utah said:
Where is the separation of church and state law written?
Click to expand...
the separation of church and state is taken out of context by so many people.

It only was written to make sure no religion ever ruled the nation (like an islamic state, or the Roman State ruled by the catholic church)

nothing more nothing less.
 
K

KennethC

Guest
#72
#72
K

KennethC

Guest
#73
#73
V

Viligant_Warrior

Guest
#74
#74
KennethC said:
It is not a red herring as it is written in the bill of rights in 1947............

Separation of Church and State - U.S. Constitution & Bill of Rights
Click to expand...
Did you even read this website before you posted the link? It denies the modern interpretation of "separation of church and state" -- it says it does not exist, explaining that the Court has never ruled in any, way, shape, or form that the Establishment Clause is a barrier to Congress, not a barrier to free expression of religious beliefs as it is so often interpreted by liberals who don't really know what the First Amendment says.

And by the way, the Bill of Rights was written in 1787, not 1947. I'm not sure what you or that website are talking about.
 
Last edited:
Utah

Utah

Banned
#75
Dec 1, 2014
9,701
251
0
#75
K

KennethC

Guest
#76
#76
eternally-gratefull said:
the separation of church and state is taken out of context by so many people.

It only was written to make sure no religion ever ruled the nation (like an islamic state, or the Roman State ruled by the catholic church)

nothing more nothing less.
Click to expand...
No it was written so that government could not interfere with others religious beliefs, so that government could not force their ways on religious establishments and the religious establishments could not force their beliefs in government....
 
J

JesusIsAll

Guest
#77
#77
Tintin said:
Did you just call me the Antichrist?


kidding
Click to expand...
I was suspicious, but, on further research, the Roman Empire failed to make it to Australia. Though maybe somebody should check under your mattress for AC/DC's Greatest Hits.
 
crossnote

crossnote

Senior Member
#79
Nov 24, 2012
30,706
3,650
113
#79
KennethC said:
No it was written so that government could not interfere with others religious beliefs, so that government could not force their ways on religious establishments and the religious establishments could not force their beliefs in government....
Click to expand...
It says nothing about religious groups not having their say in government.
 
K

KennethC

Guest
#80
#80
Viligant_Warrior said:
Did you even read this website before you posted the link? It denies the modern interpretation of "separation of church and state" -- it says it does not exist.
Click to expand...

Nice way to try and twist it as keep reading as the modern version taken from the 1947 draft is not any different by much then the new revised draft done in the 20th century. It still blocks government from interfering in religious practices, and from religious practices from forcing their beliefs in government. It is a two way blockage....



Utah said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

liberals always seem to leave out the bolded part.
Click to expand...

That bolded part says the government can not interfere with the free right of religion..............
 
You must log in or register to reply here.