(September 2, 2015 at 4:04 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:

(September 2, 2015 at 3:52 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: She won't cave.  She is too invested in this and stands to gain too much by sticking to her guns to change now.

I don't think she'll cave because even if she doesn't see herself as a hypocrite for being a divorcee refusing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, she definitely would see herself as a hypocrite for augering in like she has only to cave in at the end.  It would take a herculean amount of rationalization for her to defend such an action to herself and she would not only be in a continual losing situation with her ideological opposition who would just see her as more of a hypocrite than she already is, but she would become a hypocrite to her current ideological allies who are backing her for "taking a stand for christ!"

Despite the lack (total absence) of criticism from ACTUAL Christians, her theological ERROR is considerable.  We've got 3 Gospels where Jesus forbids divorce, and there's at least one OT verse (God hates divorce) too.  And the icing on the cake, Christ never mentioned homosexuality.

This heretic is tightrope walking without a net.  That the current crop of slacker Christians aren't condemning her is telling as to the actual extent of sincere religious conviction as it exists today.

(September 1, 2015 at 6:40 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(September 1, 2015 at 5:07 pm)A Theist Wrote: Ha! I knew you anti Christ bigots would be all over this one! Just read the article online and thought I'd check in to see if you guys were bitching about it! HEEEEEEE HAWWWWW, y'all.

Would it be possible to disagree with you on this issue and not get labeled "anti-Christ" by you?

I also find it interesting that, to you, being anti-Christ means expecting that elected officials follow the law. Though something tells me that if any Democrat had disobeyed the law and several court orders, you'd pounce on them just as opportunistically as you're dismissing us now.  

Sure, you can disagree with me without being labeled "anti-Christ" if I can disagree with you without being labeled an intolerant bigot. I think that for the preservation of our Constitutional right of religious liberty, people of faith who take issue with gay marriage should be exempt from accommodating gay weddings. Also, I think it's time for a strong Christian political movement and lobbying effort.

I'm outraged obviously insincerely held religious beliefs are being touted in the media without being labeled as such.  In fact coverage has explicitly stated her beliefs are sincere when we have incontrovertible evidence they are not.

(September 2, 2015 at 5:53 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: I'm outraged obviously insincerely held religious beliefs are being touted in the media without being labeled as such.  In fact coverage has explicitly stated her beliefs are sincere when we have incontrovertible evidence they are not.

You don't know that. That's just you labeling people of faith, namely Christians, as insincere simply because you don't agree with their religious convictions.

Xtian sincerity?  Oxymoron.

(September 2, 2015 at 5:58 pm)A Theist Wrote:

(September 2, 2015 at 5:53 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: I'm outraged obviously insincerely held religious beliefs are being touted in the media without being labeled as such.  In fact coverage has explicitly stated her beliefs are sincere when we have incontrovertible evidence they are not.

You don't know that. That's just you labeling people of faith, namely Christians, as insincere simply because you don't agree with their religious convictions.

I'm pretty sure he's talking about the evidence that her beliefs aren't sincere, namely that she's on her fourth marriage.

Bingo.

What more do we need?

Open and shut case.

If she would open her heart, let Jesus in, she would repudiate her subsequent whoredoms and go and sin no more in the arms of her first husband.

Jesus said it, the Bible records it, and she better the fucking Hell believe it.

(September 2, 2015 at 5:41 pm)A Theist Wrote:

(September 1, 2015 at 6:40 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Would it be possible to disagree with you on this issue and not get labeled "anti-Christ" by you?

I also find it interesting that, to you, being anti-Christ means expecting that elected officials follow the law. Though something tells me that if any Democrat had disobeyed the law and several court orders, you'd pounce on them just as opportunistically as you're dismissing us now.  

Sure, you can disagree with me without being labeled "anti-Christ" if I can disagree with you without being labeled an intolerant bigot. I think that for the preservation of our Constitutional right of religious liberty, people of faith who take issue with gay marriage should be exempt from accommodating gay weddings. Also, I think it's time for a strong Christian political movement and lobbying effort.

Lol, they tried that in the 80s and 90s. It is now a largely irrelevant faction in the GOP.

Also, no gov't official should be excused from discharging all the duties of their office.

(September 2, 2015 at 6:08 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: If she would open her heart, let Jesus in, she would repudiate her subsequent whoredoms and go and sin no more in the arms of her first husband.

Jesus said it, the Bible records it, and she better the fucking Hell believe it.

Why isn't A/S/K working on this kunt ?

Is Drich praying hard enough ??