Homosexual Marrage Decision: How Should States Respond?

[Atwood]

Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin.



We can anticipate divine judgment coming, as in the example of ancient Sodom; yet it doesn't seem fair
that a state like Texas (which has resisted both baby-murder and men-lying-with-men) should share in
the punishment of the nation & those particularly responsible for the heinous crimes.

So, what should states who abominate these SCOTUS imposed crimes, do?
1) Abolish marriage licensing & licenses?
2) Cease conducting marriages altogether?
3) Put in the office of county clerks a big stack of common-law papers? (In Texas, right now,
a couple can fill out a piece of paper declaring that they are common-law married.) Anyone
can grab a form and fill it out.
4) Abolish informal (no paper) common law marriage, before the courts are inundated with same-sex pairs
(or one of the two) claiming common-law marriage. In Texas you can "marry" without any
papers whatsoever, just by declaring it and acting married. But there is no common-law divorce!
So after a pair shack-up, there may be a court squabble over one claiming there was a marriage
(for alimony or whatever). So ambiguous situations happen where a couple were quasi-married,
& it is hard to figure out if they were or were not married). Satanic confusion.

5) Abolish marriage as a legal category altogether?
A possible problem with that is that if there is legally no marriage, then is there legally a family?
And then are there no parents anymore, just children who are wards of the state?

6) Should a state like Texas put on its next ballot, a declaration of independence from the USA? (Amendments to
the State constitution are very common on the regular ballot in Texas). Such a declaration would add 2 provisions:
A) "This amendment shall not go into effect for 3 months, and it shall never go into effect if the SCOTUS of the USA
shall reverse its abominable decisions." and
B) "This amendment shall in any case not go into effect until the President of the USA, shall declare that he will
not use police or military force to hold Texas in the union." ???

7) Should Christians not support #6 because new national boundaries might impede evangelism, and
because of the fact that a nation that blesses sodomy is no more lost than a nation that plays being Christian with no new birth?

8) Regardless of #7, should states that oppose baby-murder & men-lying-with-men, seek to peaceably secede (in self-defense) just to avoid a coming Judgment of Sodom in our day?

There is one particularly objectionable reaction to this SCOTUS decision, as exemplified by the dissenting justices,
this miserable reaction:

"It is quite OK to give the Sodomists their freedom to equate the male excretory
organ with the female reproductive recipient organ; quite commendable to let 2 males marry, but the way it was done was horrible,
because it violated the democratic principle of the nation & substituted 5 oligarchs on the SCOTUS, granting
the SCOTUS oligarchical supremacy. I don't mind sodomite marriage, but I do loath being undemocratic."

Hey, the governments that be are ordained of God. The Bible does not establish any particular form of human government (democracy, republic, oligarchy, monarchy, or mixed constitution). And whatever form the government has; if the governors are wicked, the laws will be wicked. So while I don't like the elitist oligarchical SCOTUS composed of 9 lawyers from 2 law schools (Yale & Harvard) with no protestants & no evangelicals, the abomination is not the oligarchy. The abomination is men lying with men & women lying with women.

 

[crossnote]

I see the abomination as SCOTUS redefining what God had already defined and doing it in a way that is a radical departure from God's Word and ignoring the warnings attached .

I don't see how a State like Texas can remain part of the 'United' States while dropping marriage etc. (e.g. what happens when same sex couples move into the State?). It seems the choice for any State is to either 'join em' or secede, otherwise with the family being so integral to society how can there be 'unitedness' between States?

 

[TecumsehGR]

Push to amend the Constitution. That's about it. Of course, that won't happen, and in forty years time support for same sex marriage will be through the roof. Each successive generation is more in favor than the previous one. I believe the latest Pew data I saw had Millenials supporting SSM at roughly 75%. That'll eventually become the new norm.

 

[Atwood]

Push to amend the Constitution. That's about it. Of course, that won't happen, and in forty years time support for same sex marriage will be through the roof. Each successive generation is more in favor than the previous one. I believe the latest Pew data I saw had Millenials supporting SSM at roughly 75%. That'll eventually become the new norm.

If our constitution had been different, these decisions probably would not have happened with their impact. However, the problem remains that whatever our government structure is, it gets down to people governing, people making decisions; and if the deciders are wicked, you can expect wicked laws. If the Prez is wicked, then u shall have wicked executive orders & actions. If the people are wicked, then you shall expect wicked results to democratic referendums.

The USA constitution has some defects:
1) No statement that the Bible is God's Word.
2) Not a strong enough statement that Jesus Christ is Lord, though it is in the dating at the end, "In the Year of our Lord."
3) No statement as to who gives the final interpretation & how it is to be done, final interp of the Constitution itself.

Suggested amendment Provisions:

1) No law enacted by Congress or the states shall be declared federally unconstitutional by any court other than the SCOTUS. Furthermore, No SCOTUS declaration of "unconstitutional" shall be effective until it is affirmed by regular legislative process or endorsed by the people in a plebiscite. Any Declaration of unconstitutionality by the SCOTUS shall be immediately submitted to the houses of congress for vote; and if passed, then submitted to the president for signature (in the normal manner of passing laws). Alternatively, the SCOTUS may submit its declaration to the people in a plebiscite.

2) SCOTUS justices shall be limited to a term of 10 years maximum.

3) If either of the 2 houses of Congress, acting alone, shall pass a resolution of "Legislation from the Bench," then at once judge(s) who voted in favor of that "Legislation from the Bench," shall be put up for immediate recall election.

4) If both houses of Congress (acting without the president) shall declare that a judicial decision was "Legislation from the Bench," then immediately the judge(s) who issued that judicial decision, shall be put up for immediate recall election; and also that judicial decision shall be vacated.

5) No more than 4 of the 9 SCOTUS justices may be persons who ever have been lawyers.

 

[Atwood]

I don't see how a State like Texas can remain part of the 'United' States while dropping marriage etc. (e.g. what happens when same sex couples move into the State?). It seems the choice for any State is to either 'join em' or secede, otherwise with the family being so integral to society how can there be 'unitedness' between States?

Good question, Crossnote. However, I don't know of any legal theory that requires a state to have marriage. Yet since a state must honor the laws of other states, I think that a state like Texas would only have to honor the legal fact that for (e.g.) California, the couple is married. But I can't see how Texas would be forced to have retirement benefits for persons because "married." I think that Nevada has legal brothels. But I don't see how that forces any other state to have a matching law. There must be many crimes defined in one state, but non-crimes in another state, as for example carrying guns. Under our present legal system, I don't think that having a Concealed Carry permit in Texas allows a man to carry a gun when he is in New York, just visiting.

As to secession: History tells us that nations expand, contract, break up, unite from time to time (Soviet Union for example). Given enough time, the USA will break up -- just a historical fact. The UK came near breaking up last year (Scotland leaving).

In Texas, for example, constitutional amendments are routinely on regular election ballots. Texas might pass a TX constitutional amendment as follows:

The State of Texas hereby declares its independence, seceding from the United States of America, and is hereby an independent, sovereign nation. This Declaration of Independence shall not go into effect for 3 months, and then only if the SCOTUS of the USA does not reverse its abominable decisions allowing baby-murder and sodomy, and nullifying Texas law on those subjects (to wit, decisions . . .). Moreover, this Declaration of Independence shall not go into effect until the President of the USA declares that he will not use force to hold Texas into the union.

 

[atwhatcost]

Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin.

View attachment 125000 View attachment 125020

We can anticipate divine judgment coming, as in the example of ancient Sodom; yet it doesn't seem fair
that a state like Texas (which has resisted both baby-murder and men-lying-with-men) should share in
the punishment of the nation & those particularly responsible for the heinous crimes.

So, what should states who abominate these SCOTUS imposed crimes, do?
1) Abolish marriage licensing & licenses?
2) Cease conducting marriages altogether?
3) Put in the office of county clerks a big stack of common-law papers? (In Texas, right now,
a couple can fill out a piece of paper declaring that they are common-law married.) Anyone
can grab a form and fill it out.
4) Abolish informal (no paper) common law marriage, before the courts are inundated with same-sex pairs
(or one of the two) claiming common-law marriage. In Texas you can "marry" without any
papers whatsoever, just by declaring it and acting married. But there is no common-law divorce!
So after a pair shack-up, there may be a court squabble over one claiming there was a marriage
(for alimony or whatever). So ambiguous situations happen where a couple were quasi-married,
& it is hard to figure out if they were or were not married). Satanic confusion.

5) Abolish marriage as a legal category altogether?
A possible problem with that is that if there is legally no marriage, then is there legally a family?
And then are there no parents anymore, just children who are wards of the state?

6) Should a state like Texas put on its next ballot, a declaration of independence from the USA? (Amendments to
the State constitution are very common on the regular ballot in Texas). Such a declaration would add 2 provisions:
A) "This amendment shall not go into effect for 3 months, and it shall never go into effect if the SCOTUS of the USA
shall reverse its abominable decisions." and
B) "This amendment shall in any case not go into effect until the President of the USA, shall declare that he will
not use police or military force to hold Texas in the union." ???

7) Should Christians not support #6 because new national boundaries might impede evangelism, and
because of the fact that a nation that blesses sodomy is no more lost than a nation that plays being Christian with no new birth?

8) Regardless of #7, should states that oppose baby-murder & men-lying-with-men, seek to peaceably secede (in self-defense) just to avoid a coming Judgment of Sodom in our day?

There is one particularly objectionable reaction to this SCOTUS decision, as exemplified by the dissenting justices,
this miserable reaction:


Hey, the governments that be are ordained of God. The Bible does not establish any particular form of human government (democracy, republic, oligarchy, monarchy, or mixed constitution). And whatever form the government has; if the governors are wicked, the laws will be wicked. So while I don't like the elitist oligarchical SCOTUS composed of 9 lawyers from 2 law schools (Yale & Harvard) with no protestants & no evangelicals, the abomination is not the oligarchy. The abomination is men lying with men & women lying with women.

Don't worry about it. Apparently Christians will have nothing to do with how things are other than watching and complaining. The news is nothing but a spectator sport in Christianity.

 

[ThomistColin]

Suggested amendment Provisions:

1) No law enacted by Congress or the states shall be declared federally unconstitutional by any court other than the SCOTUS. Furthermore, No SCOTUS declaration of "unconstitutional" shall be effective until it is affirmed by regular legislative process or endorsed by the people in a plebiscite. Any Declaration of unconstitutionality by the SCOTUS shall be immediately submitted to the houses of congress for vote; and if passed, then submitted to the president for signature (in the normal manner of passing laws). Alternatively, the SCOTUS may submit its declaration to the people in a plebiscite.

2) SCOTUS justices shall be limited to a term of 10 years maximum.

3) If either of the 2 houses of Congress, acting alone, shall pass a resolution of "Legislation from the Bench," then at once judge(s) who voted in favor of that "Legislation from the Bench," shall be put up for immediate recall election.

4) If both houses of Congress (acting without the president) shall declare that a judicial decision was "Legislation from the Bench," then immediately the judge(s) who issued that judicial decision, shall be put up for immediate recall election; and also that judicial decision shall be vacated.

5) No more than 4 of the 9 SCOTUS justices may be persons who ever have been lawyers.

1. No. The federal courts and the Supreme Court have the right to strike down unconstitutional laws. What you suggest would put most of the power in the legislature, a dangerous endeavor.

2. No. The US Supreme Court should not have term limits. By doing this, you make the Supreme Court part of the whimsical political leanings of the day, instead of a long overarching body that is slow to acknowledge the new fads in politics. (By the way, before you say that their most recent decision was whimsical. The Justices right now grew up or were grown up in the 1960s. Think about that and you'll realize that this issue is 50 years old.)

3. Do NOT ELECT JUDGES!!!! Its called bribery and corruption.

4. See 3.

5. What? You want people who have no understanding of LAW and how it works on the Supreme Court? Seriously? That's gonna stop activist judges? Nope, its gonna made more of them.

 

[Desdichado]

Common law is built partially on custom. If you want common law to go your way, buckle down for the long fight and take back the culture.

 

[Mitspa]

Best we can hope for is that The Lord will take out all these false judges and a conservative president will appoint some real judges.... May Gods judgment be upon these wicked people and may they learn the fear of the Lord.

 

[Atwood]

Don't worry about it. Apparently Christians will have nothing to do with how things are other than watching and complaining. The news is nothing but a spectator sport in Christianity.

Let's see now, doth the lady protest too much? Naive? Woe Man, but no lady? LOL.

IMHO (just that):
Christians had a lot to do with politics in the era of Jerry Falwell and James Kennedy. They actually seemed to come near winning the USA Cultural War over baby-murder, which was enacted by our SCOTUS under Jimmy Cahtah (good S Baptist like Bill Clinton and Al Gore). And there was the ol Ray Gun getting elected after appealing to Christians for their vote. But once the Ray Gun got in power, he was interested in military buildup, the economy, and astrology. A book came under his name against abortion, but he did nothing to stop it. Like Cahtah, he could have issued executive orders like, "For the exec branch, unborn babies are persons." Or even more boldly (as with Andrew Jackson -- Johnny has made his decision, now let's see him enforce it):

Exec Order:
"Inasmuch as the SCOTUS has itself committed the unconstitutional act of legislating from the bench, even having legislated baby-murder, the President of the USA Proclaims that such SCOTUS decision is null & void, & will not be enforced by the Executive Branch. The President shall use the national guard of any state to protect the civil rights of unborn babies, as Eisenhower did in Little Rock to protect the civil rights of Afro-americans."

But the Christian voters were used & let-down by Ronald the Ray Gun -- he did nothing of the sort. And between Reagan & Bush I, 5 SCOTUS justices were appointed, 3 voting the wrong way on baby-murder.

So, IMHO, Christians have been politically active -- to no avail.

 

[crossnote]

"They actually seemed to come near winning the USA Cultural War over baby-murder, which was enacted by our SCOTUS under Jimmy Cahtah..."

wasn't that under Nix shun? 1973

 

[Atwood]

IMHO:
If the USA is to be a Republic, then that means that the laws are made by the elected representatives of the people, not a small elite Roman Catholic & Jewish oligarchy called the SCOTUS.

Term limits are required for SCOTUS justices, because being unelected & not removable by recall elections means a strong temptation to legislate from the bench, to declare the law to be whatever the judge wants it to be, then figure out some tortured logic referring to the Constitution to justify it.

Unfortunately indeed a Republic tends to degenerate into government by bribery. People vote for benefits; people contribute to campaign for selfish benefits. But the threat of removal from office is needed to avoid tyranny. A recall election is not the same as a Republic representative election. A recall election is simply voting whether to remove a man from office, with no competitor.

And no, the Constitution nowhere declares that the SCOTUS is the one to determine finally what the constitution means. They arrogated the power for themselves. Our constitution is defective in not prescribing who & how the document is to be finally interpreted. and the Constitution does not say that the SCOTUS can declare a law to be unconstitutional.

By having a small unelected, life-appointed oligarchy make the final laws, the whims of the people at a point in time, are avoided, but the whims of the elitists are not avoided. And choosing 9 men does not make them less corruptible than choosing 300 million men to make the laws.

If you are in favor of what the SCOTUS is doing, then you may wish to find some argument to have it keep on that way. But once they start stepping on the toes of your basic life values, you would not be so sympathetic.

As well the SCOTUS knows, it is not so much the legalistic justification for your moral principles which is important, as it is the actual moral principles arrived at. And so, if the goddess of women's lib must be worshipped, then some way to allow baby-murder will be found. And if turning the skins of Jewish people into lampshades is an abomination, then regardless of the legalistic principles followed, a decision has to be made to stop the lampshades.

 

[Atwood]

"They actually seemed to come near winning the USA Cultural War over baby-murder, which was enacted by our SCOTUS under Jimmy Cahtah..."

wasn't that under Nix shun? 1973

You are correct; I am corrected. The decision came down about a year before Nick's son left office. He of course must have had his attention on other matters at the time, Vietnam & Watergate.

I think that the abortion decision was new enough that Jimmy Cah Tah could have issued such an executive order against it, had he wanted to do so strongly enough. In fact, I seem to recall that he admitted that he did not follow his conscience in that matter -- but my memory may be wrong.

 

[Atwood]

Common law is built partially on custom. If you want common law to go your way, buckle down for the long fight and take back the culture.

I don't think that the culture can be taken back now -- I am pessimistic on it anyway. To take back the culture as it was in the 1950's (at least in some parts of the USA) would mean that again the public schools read the Bible every day. Students each read a passage of their choice every morning. Each student chose what he wanted to read to the class. I think that today there is a much wider spread of Bible-illiteracy and a constant indoctrination of the children with humanism.

Some years ago I went back to school to work on an advanced degree at a state university; that was when the anti-sodomy law in my state was still in force. It seemed like every class I took somewhere had a professor speaking in favor of homosexuality. So with the public schools pushing this agenda, along with tax supported NPR (which the Republicans did nothing to stop under Bush) -- and the majority of the media, how is the culture going to be taken back?

I see nothing but matters getting worse & worse. In the last days perilous times shall come. I thoroughly expect the USA to be destroyed in a nuclear holocaust. I just hope the Rapture comes first.

I suppose that a Civil War might do something as it did to abolish slavery. But the states are not that well distinguished (as with slave vs free states) in terms of traditional vs liberal moral standards.

I think that Christians will have to fish in the fish pond that we have, even as it gets more & more polluted & stinking. We are, after all, strangers & pilgrims.

 

[Romolomo]

Push to amend the Constitution. That's about it. Of course, that won't happen, and in forty years time support for same sex marriage will be through the roof. Each successive generation is more in favor than the previous one. I believe the latest Pew data I saw had Millenials supporting SSM at roughly 75%. That'll eventually become the new norm.

And then all those abominable fags will be able to marry without aggressive opposition. God forbid if there be peace for people to choose their own sexual partners and get the same rights as other American people! No,the OP's right. Texas is the answer. We should all move to Texas and become KKK-loving, gun-toting might-fine Christian Texans that hate the blacks, beat the gays and make up a significant majority of the state's murderers and rapists. THEN we'd be living the good life!!

 

[Atwood]

And then all those abominable fags will be able to marry without aggressive opposition. God forbid if there be peace for people to choose their own sexual partners and get the same rights as other American people! No,the OP's right. Texas is the answer. We should all move to Texas and become KKK-loving, gun-toting might-fine Christian Texans that hate the blacks, beat the gays and make up a significant majority of the state's murderers and rapists. THEN we'd be living the good life!!

Your reply is dishonest, attempting to connect Texas with loving the KKK, hating blacks & beating people.

Next they will be pushing to choose own sexual partners, including children; man-boy.
You don't have any right to choose wickedness.

"the same rights"?

What is the same about a woman's vagina & a man's anus?
How does a right for a man to enter the first become equal to a right to enter the second?

Bottom line:
Men-lying with men is an abomination worthy of divine judgment, as on Sodom.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
And thou shalt not lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith;

neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto: it is confusion.


Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you; and the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye therefore shall keep my statutes and mine ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations; neither the home-born, nor the stranger that sojourneth among you; (for all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you, and the land is defiled); that the land vomit not you out also, when ye defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore shall ye keep my charge, that ye practise not any of these abominable customs, which were practised before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am YHWH your God.

 

[Atwood]

IMHO:

Who is qualified to sit on the SCOTUS? Right now we have 6 papists and 3 Jewish "justices."
There are no evangelicals, not even 1 Protestant. I understand that all of the 9 came from either Yale or Harvard and all are attorneys. That fact leads to decisions which are anti-Christian and skewed from the consciences of the mass of citizens.

There is no need to have attorneys. Attorneys are likely to be tuned to an ethic which says that getting one's way in court is the ultimate principle; twist words, pull tricks to win cases. The majority should not be attorneys. Any intelligent person can read and interpret the Constitution without necessarily a lawyer's mindset on it. Giving one class of a corrupt profession a monopoly of SCOTUS seat is an injustice in itself.

Right now this nation needs the removal of at least 5 of the SCOTUS-men. One proposal has been to make them stand for recall election every 8 years. Mine would have them stand for recall election whenever just 1 House of Congress declares "Legislation from the Bench," or even
"Unconscionable Decision."

 

[Atwood]

Posted below:

peace for people to choose

"And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she painted her eyes, and attired her head, and looked out at the window. And as Jehu entered in at the gate, she said, Is it peace, thou Zimri, thy master’s murderer? And he lifted up his face to the window, and said, Who is on my side? who? And there looked out to him two or three eunuchs. And he said, Throw her down. So they threw her down; and some of her blood was sprinkled on the wall, and on the horses: and he trod her under foot. And when he was come in, he did eat and drink; and he said, See now to this cursed woman, and bury her; for she is a king’s daughter. And they went to bury her; but they found no more of her than the skull, and the feet, and the palms of her hands. Wherefore they came back, and told him. And he said, This is the word of YHWH, which he spake by his servant Elijah the Tishbite, saying, In the portion of Jezreel shall the dogs eat the flesh of Jezebel;" -- 2 Kings 9

Compare:

And Joram said, Make ready. And they made ready his chariot. And Joram king of Israel and Ahaziah king of Judah went out, each in his chariot, and they went out to meet Jehu, and found him in the portion of Naboth the Jezreelite. And it came to pass, when Joram saw Jehu, that he said, Is it peace, Jehu? And he answered, What peace, so long as the whoredoms of thy mother Jezebel and her witchcrafts are so many? And Joram turned his hands, and fled, and said to Ahaziah, There is treachery, O Ahaziah. And Jehu drew his bow with his full strength, and smote Joram between his arms; and the arrow went out at his heart, and he sunk down in his chariot. Then said Jehu to Bidkar his captain, Take up, and cast him in the portion of the field of Naboth the Jezreelite; for remember how that, when I and thou rode together after Ahab his father, Jehovah laid this burden upon him: Surely I have seen yesterday the blood of Naboth, and the blood of his sons, saith Jehovah; and I will requite thee in this plat, saith Jehovah. Now therefore take and cast him into the plat of ground, according to the word of Jehovah.

 

[Atwood]

Posted below:

peace for people to choose

"And when Jehu was come to Jezreel, Jezebel heard of it; and she painted her eyes, and attired her head, and looked out at the window. And as Jehu entered in at the gate, she said, Is it peace, thou Zimri, thy master’s murderer? And he lifted up his face to the window, and said, Who is on my side? who? And there looked out to him two or three eunuchs. And he said, Throw her down. So they threw her down; and some of her blood was sprinkled on the wall, and on the horses: and he trod her under foot. And when he was come in, he did eat and drink; and he said, See now to this cursed woman, and bury her; for she is a king’s daughter. And they went to bury her; but they found no more of her than the skull, and the feet, and the palms of her hands. Wherefore they came back, and told him. And he said, This is the word of YHWH, which he spake by his servant Elijah the Tishbite, saying, In the portion of Jezreel shall the dogs eat the flesh of Jezebel;" -- 2 Kings 9

 

[Romolomo]

Your reply is dishonest, attempting to connect Texas with loving the KKK, hating blacks & beating people.

Next they will be pushing to choose own sexual partners, including children; man-boy.
You don't have any right to choose wickedness.

"the same rights"?

What is the same about a woman's vagina & a man's anus?
How does a right for a man to enter the first become equal to a right to enter the second?

Bottom line:
Men-lying with men is an abomination worthy of divine judgment, as on Sodom.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
And thou shalt not lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith;

neither shall any woman stand before a beast, to lie down thereto: it is confusion.


Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out from before you; and the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it, and the land vomiteth out her inhabitants. Ye therefore shall keep my statutes and mine ordinances, and shall not do any of these abominations; neither the home-born, nor the stranger that sojourneth among you; (for all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you, and the land is defiled); that the land vomit not you out also, when ye defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you. For whosoever shall do any of these abominations, even the souls that do them shall be cut off from among their people. Therefore shall ye keep my charge, that ye practise not any of these abominable customs, which were practised before you, and that ye defile not yourselves therein: I am YHWH your God.

म तिमीलाई अल्पसंख्यक एक व्यक्ति हुन् खुशी छु
धन्यवाद तर्क गर्न
इस्राएलका परमेश्वरले दुखकष्ट को कारण छ
कारण यस्तो विरुद्ध छ