What to do- what to do- when the Bible actually provides conflicting instructions?
Romans says all authority comes from God- so by obeying the authorities you are doing God's bidding.
Oh SNAP! Hannity & Fox News Throw Down the Gauntlet. Gagged Bakers Tell All.
- Thread starter Silhouette
- Start date
What to do- what to do- when the Bible actually provides conflicting instructions?
Romans says all authority comes from God- so by obeying the authorities you are doing God's bidding.
saintmichaeldefendthem
Gold Member
Not really. It was common practice in pagan nations to sacrifice to idols. Such meat was a premium amenity reserved only for the king and those in his favor. The Jews abstained from all meat, not just certain kinds, because they knew the meat to be dedicated to idols.
saintmichaeldefendthem
Gold Member
We obey every law and ordinance of man unless it conflicts with God's law.
Like I said.
But Romans said that authority comes from God- how can authority conflict with God?
saintmichaeldefendthem
Gold Member
God sets up authorities and tears them down. This was told to King Darius in explanation for the strange message on the wall written by the hand of God. Because God appoints authority, we are advised to obey that authority as we obey God, so long as that authority doesn't conflict with God.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Um, no, those nudists would be charged with indecent exposure.
actually, the ACLU proposed the following.
The American Civil Liberties Union proposed ways to resolve the situation:
- The cross may be dismantled.
- The cross may be sold to a third party and physically transferred off the public land. An Episcopal church, located within a few hundred feet from the present location of the cross, has agreed to place it on its property.
- The government may hold an auction and sell the parcel of the land with the cross to the highest bidder. However, the government is not allowed to give any preference to those buyers who are interested in preserving the cross. An auction such as this was the subject of Proposition K in 2004,[4] which failed 40% to 59%.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
I think you are a little confused. King Darius of Persia didn't get the "Writing on the Wall", it was King Belshazzar's of Babylon.
Jesus, do you Funditards not even know you own fairy tales?
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Not sure where you are getting this "Cult of LGBT". I suspect they live right next door to Mac's "PC Police".
Not really a fan of gender reassignment surgery, I think it's bunk science. I also know they don't do it randomly. It takes an awful lot to get a doctor to do it.
yes, we know the gay marriage thing makes you crazy.
WorldWatcher
Platinum Member
Assuming you are talking about the Mt. Soledad Cross in San Diego, you should learn it's history before commending. The land nor the cross were donated by the VFW. The land and original cross were donated by Cyrus Yawkey. The current cross was not donated by the VFW, it was erected by the Mt. Soledad Association.
• The first cross was erected in 1913, prior to WWI, WWII, or the Korean War.
• The cross was replaced multiple times between 1913 and 1954
• The Mt. Soledad Association itself said the purpose of the 1954 cross was to replace the previous crosses (The crosses were to commemorate wars that hadn’t occurred yet?)
• The Mt. Soledad Association itself in it’s dedication bulletin noted that the cross was dedicated to ““Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” not to war veterans.
• Only one news article between April 17, 1954 and the 1989 lawsuit described the cross as a war memorial. No other references to it as a war memorial were found.
• There is no evidence that the City planed the cross as a war memorial prior to its construction
• Construction and dedication were planned and did occur to allow the dedication to be conducted on Easter Sunday, 1954. Not Memorial Day, not Veterans Day, or any other day to honor veterans.
• Every year between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, the Mt. Soledad Association sponsored religious Easter sunrise services.
• Not once between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, did the Mt. Soledad Assc. or any other organization sponsor ceremony's to honor war dead on Memorial Day.
• Not once between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, did the Mt. Soledad Assc. or any other organization sponsor ceremony's to honor war dead on Veterans Day.
• No plaque or sign was ever in existence at the cross between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, indicating that the cross was a memorial to war dead.
• Regarding the Mt. Soledad Assc. – “Its own bylaws describe its purpose as the promotion of “community interest in the development of the public facilities of the Mt. Soledad park area.” The bylaws make no reference to the commemoration of war dead.”
• No one plague, not one sign, not one brick in the present "war memorial" wall now surrounding the cross was placed until after the City lost the suit.
• Prior to the lawsuit travel guides, maps, phone directories, and even government publications referred to the cross as the “Soledad Easter Cross”.
• The cross was replaced multiple times between 1913 and 1954
• The Mt. Soledad Association itself said the purpose of the 1954 cross was to replace the previous crosses (The crosses were to commemorate wars that hadn’t occurred yet?)
• The Mt. Soledad Association itself in it’s dedication bulletin noted that the cross was dedicated to ““Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” not to war veterans.
• Only one news article between April 17, 1954 and the 1989 lawsuit described the cross as a war memorial. No other references to it as a war memorial were found.
• There is no evidence that the City planed the cross as a war memorial prior to its construction
• Construction and dedication were planned and did occur to allow the dedication to be conducted on Easter Sunday, 1954. Not Memorial Day, not Veterans Day, or any other day to honor veterans.
• Every year between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, the Mt. Soledad Association sponsored religious Easter sunrise services.
• Not once between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, did the Mt. Soledad Assc. or any other organization sponsor ceremony's to honor war dead on Memorial Day.
• Not once between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, did the Mt. Soledad Assc. or any other organization sponsor ceremony's to honor war dead on Veterans Day.
• No plaque or sign was ever in existence at the cross between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, indicating that the cross was a memorial to war dead.
• Regarding the Mt. Soledad Assc. – “Its own bylaws describe its purpose as the promotion of “community interest in the development of the public facilities of the Mt. Soledad park area.” The bylaws make no reference to the commemoration of war dead.”
• No one plague, not one sign, not one brick in the present "war memorial" wall now surrounding the cross was placed until after the City lost the suit.
• Prior to the lawsuit travel guides, maps, phone directories, and even government publications referred to the cross as the “Soledad Easter Cross”.
If you would like to read the History of the Cross of the case decision, it can be found in: Paulson V. San Diego, Civ. No. 89-020 GT
[FROM COURT DOCUMENTS]D. The Mt. Soledad Cross
The Latin cross displayed atop Mt. Soledad is subject to the same constitutional infirmities to which the Latin cross displayed atop Mt. Helix is subject. Like its Mt. Helix counterpart, the Mt. Soledad cross is a powerful sectarian symbol, the religious effect of which is evidenced by the uses to which it has been put as the backdrop of Christian sectarian events, such as weddings, baptisms and Easter sunrise services. Its commanding presence and nightly illumination at the very summit of Mt. Soledad render it the focal point of the public park in which it stands – so much so that it may be said, as between the Latin cross and the park, it is not clear which is meant to adorn which. No comparable symbols of other religions are present to moderate the cross’ sectarian message. Nor is the cross’ sectarian significance mitigated by its history. In fact, to the contrary, history belies and reinforces the sectarian significance of the Latin cross displayed atop Mt. Soledad.
The City contends that is permits the cross to stand in order to commemorate the lives and sacrifices of fallen soldiers. “It is obvious,” asserts counsel for the City, “that a cross used as a war memorial has lots its religious symbolization and has become resymbolized to take on a new commemorative secular meaning.” Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgement, November 13, 1990, at 11. Obvious though this may seem to counsel for the City, however, it is equally obvious to this court that “even if one strains to view the [cross] in the context of a war memorial, [its] primary effect is to give the impression that only Christians . . . are being honored.” Eckels, 589 F.Supp. at 235. See also Declaration of Rabbi Michael Sternfield; Libin, above n. 26.
More troubling that the City’s characterization of the Mt. Soledad cross as a secular memorial, however, is its characterization of the Mt. Soledad cross as a memorial at all. Whereas Cyrus Yawkey’s deed corroborates the genuineness of the commemorative objective attending the cross on Mt. Helix, no corresponding evidence corroborates the genuineness of the alleged commemorative objective which the City advances in support of the cross on Mt. Soledad. In fact to the contrary, the evidence indicates that the city’s purported commemorative objective is a pretext.
The numerous declarations, news articles, book excerpts, and other exhibits submitted by the parties reveal only one occasion between the erection of the cross on Mt. Soledad and the filing of this lawsuit on which the cross site has ever been recognized as a war memorial. That occasion was the cross’ dedication on April 17, 1954, when the San Diego Union reported that the cross “is meant to be a lasting memorial to the dead of the two world was and the Korean fighting.” With the exception of this single newspaper report, there is no evidence that prior to this lawsuit the City intended the cross to serve as a memorial.
Correspondence between the City and the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, which the city authorized to build and maintain the cross, together with newspaper accounts from 1954 indicated that the cross was intended to replace predecessor crosses which had once been the scene of Easter sunrise services but had since been vandalized or fallen into disrepair. Clearly these predecessor crosses, which date as far back as 1913, could not have been erected as memorials to the dead of two world wars and the Korean fighting, all of which occurred after 1913. Nevertheless, the fact that non-commemorative crosses once stood on a site where citizens subsequently chose to erect a new cross should not by itself defeat the genuineness of the new cross’ purported commemorative purpose.
News accounts reveal further indications of a religious purpose. Several such accounts indicate, for example, that a ceremony dedicating the cross occurred, as planned, on Easter Sunday 1954. Although Memorial Day occurs just 6 weeks after Easter, the Memorial Association evidently preferred to schedule the cross’ completion and dedication for the day of the Resurrection. Although it could have selected any of innumerable different symbols, including many different types of crosses, in order to commemorate fallen soldiers of all faiths, the Memorial Association selected the configuration of the Latin cross, the type of cross on which biblical and historical accounts indicate that Jesus Christ, on the morning marked by Easter, was crucified.
City records, correspondence and news articles indicate, moreover, that every Easter without fail since 1954, the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association has sponsored an Easter sunrise service at the site of the cross. There is no record of the Association, the City or any other organization having sponsored a memorial service or ceremony at the site of the cross on Memorial Day, Veterans Day or any other day between Easter Sunday 1954 and the day on which this suit was filed. Also during the period between Easter Sunday 1954 and the day on which this suit was filed, no plaque or sign existed to indicate to visitors that the cross was intended to commemorate our country’s war dead. As plaintiffs observe, there was “no way for a visitor to know that on April 18, 1954, someone stood beside the Cross and described it as a veterans memorial.”
In light of this evidence, it is not surprising that numerous travel guides, road maps, the Yellow Pages telephone directory and even the federal government publications refer to the structure atop Mt. Soledad as the “Soledad Easter Cross.” Eveb the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association itself appears to have lost sight of the purported purpose for which it erected the cross. Its own bylaws describe its purpose as the promoton of “community interest in the development of the public facilities of the Mt. Soledad park area.” The bylaws make no reference to the commemoration of war dead.
Faced with this battery of evidence, it is difficult to conclude that the commemorative objective advanced by the City is anything other than pretext. The court, therefore, finds that insofar as the disposition of the Mt. Soledad Latin cross, the City has impermissibly exhibited (if not exercised) preference. The City’s conduct, consequently, in unconstitutional, and the is directed that, if it truly wishes to honor the war dead, then it should do so other than with the Latin cross which iit has permitted to stand atop Mt. Soledad. Cf. Eckels, 589 F.Supp. at 234 (“because the county can effectively recognize its war dead without resourt to the use of these religious symbols, it must do so”).
The Latin cross displayed atop Mt. Soledad is subject to the same constitutional infirmities to which the Latin cross displayed atop Mt. Helix is subject. Like its Mt. Helix counterpart, the Mt. Soledad cross is a powerful sectarian symbol, the religious effect of which is evidenced by the uses to which it has been put as the backdrop of Christian sectarian events, such as weddings, baptisms and Easter sunrise services. Its commanding presence and nightly illumination at the very summit of Mt. Soledad render it the focal point of the public park in which it stands – so much so that it may be said, as between the Latin cross and the park, it is not clear which is meant to adorn which. No comparable symbols of other religions are present to moderate the cross’ sectarian message. Nor is the cross’ sectarian significance mitigated by its history. In fact, to the contrary, history belies and reinforces the sectarian significance of the Latin cross displayed atop Mt. Soledad.
The City contends that is permits the cross to stand in order to commemorate the lives and sacrifices of fallen soldiers. “It is obvious,” asserts counsel for the City, “that a cross used as a war memorial has lots its religious symbolization and has become resymbolized to take on a new commemorative secular meaning.” Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgement, November 13, 1990, at 11. Obvious though this may seem to counsel for the City, however, it is equally obvious to this court that “even if one strains to view the [cross] in the context of a war memorial, [its] primary effect is to give the impression that only Christians . . . are being honored.” Eckels, 589 F.Supp. at 235. See also Declaration of Rabbi Michael Sternfield; Libin, above n. 26.
More troubling that the City’s characterization of the Mt. Soledad cross as a secular memorial, however, is its characterization of the Mt. Soledad cross as a memorial at all. Whereas Cyrus Yawkey’s deed corroborates the genuineness of the commemorative objective attending the cross on Mt. Helix, no corresponding evidence corroborates the genuineness of the alleged commemorative objective which the City advances in support of the cross on Mt. Soledad. In fact to the contrary, the evidence indicates that the city’s purported commemorative objective is a pretext.
The numerous declarations, news articles, book excerpts, and other exhibits submitted by the parties reveal only one occasion between the erection of the cross on Mt. Soledad and the filing of this lawsuit on which the cross site has ever been recognized as a war memorial. That occasion was the cross’ dedication on April 17, 1954, when the San Diego Union reported that the cross “is meant to be a lasting memorial to the dead of the two world was and the Korean fighting.” With the exception of this single newspaper report, there is no evidence that prior to this lawsuit the City intended the cross to serve as a memorial.
Correspondence between the City and the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, which the city authorized to build and maintain the cross, together with newspaper accounts from 1954 indicated that the cross was intended to replace predecessor crosses which had once been the scene of Easter sunrise services but had since been vandalized or fallen into disrepair. Clearly these predecessor crosses, which date as far back as 1913, could not have been erected as memorials to the dead of two world wars and the Korean fighting, all of which occurred after 1913. Nevertheless, the fact that non-commemorative crosses once stood on a site where citizens subsequently chose to erect a new cross should not by itself defeat the genuineness of the new cross’ purported commemorative purpose.
News accounts reveal further indications of a religious purpose. Several such accounts indicate, for example, that a ceremony dedicating the cross occurred, as planned, on Easter Sunday 1954. Although Memorial Day occurs just 6 weeks after Easter, the Memorial Association evidently preferred to schedule the cross’ completion and dedication for the day of the Resurrection. Although it could have selected any of innumerable different symbols, including many different types of crosses, in order to commemorate fallen soldiers of all faiths, the Memorial Association selected the configuration of the Latin cross, the type of cross on which biblical and historical accounts indicate that Jesus Christ, on the morning marked by Easter, was crucified.
City records, correspondence and news articles indicate, moreover, that every Easter without fail since 1954, the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association has sponsored an Easter sunrise service at the site of the cross. There is no record of the Association, the City or any other organization having sponsored a memorial service or ceremony at the site of the cross on Memorial Day, Veterans Day or any other day between Easter Sunday 1954 and the day on which this suit was filed. Also during the period between Easter Sunday 1954 and the day on which this suit was filed, no plaque or sign existed to indicate to visitors that the cross was intended to commemorate our country’s war dead. As plaintiffs observe, there was “no way for a visitor to know that on April 18, 1954, someone stood beside the Cross and described it as a veterans memorial.”
In light of this evidence, it is not surprising that numerous travel guides, road maps, the Yellow Pages telephone directory and even the federal government publications refer to the structure atop Mt. Soledad as the “Soledad Easter Cross.” Eveb the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association itself appears to have lost sight of the purported purpose for which it erected the cross. Its own bylaws describe its purpose as the promoton of “community interest in the development of the public facilities of the Mt. Soledad park area.” The bylaws make no reference to the commemoration of war dead.
Faced with this battery of evidence, it is difficult to conclude that the commemorative objective advanced by the City is anything other than pretext. The court, therefore, finds that insofar as the disposition of the Mt. Soledad Latin cross, the City has impermissibly exhibited (if not exercised) preference. The City’s conduct, consequently, in unconstitutional, and the is directed that, if it truly wishes to honor the war dead, then it should do so other than with the Latin cross which iit has permitted to stand atop Mt. Soledad. Cf. Eckels, 589 F.Supp. at 234 (“because the county can effectively recognize its war dead without resourt to the use of these religious symbols, it must do so”).
>>>>
Paulson V. San Diego, Civ. No. 89-020 GT
Murphy v. Bilbray, US District Court, CIV NO 90-0134
Philip K. Paulson v. City of San Diego, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 00-55406
Jewish War Veterans v. Rumsfeld, US District Court Complaint Dtd 8/24/2006
Paulson v. Abdulnour, Superior Court of California, Dtd 10/7/2005
Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,942
- 265
- Thread starter
- #170
They're taking down every Christian monument in the country, really?
Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,942
- 265
- Thread starter
- #171
Well, one thing's for darn sure. All this removal of beloved local icons representing faith or Christianity or any oldschool value system at all is sure going to get a lot of votes in 2016 for the GOP. It's that old visercal-reaction. Idiot dems are cutting their own throats again.
UPDATE
The Kleins remain blessedly defiant:
UPDATE
The Kleins remain blessedly defiant:
And plan to appeal:
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Guy, the homophobes didn't vote for Obama in 2012. You guys have just as many votes in 2016 as you have in 2012. Probably less.
LeftofLeft
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2011
- 29,380
- 20,232
- 1,405
Try being consistent with that position.....say for when the Muslim cab driver or check out clerk refuses to serve a Christian or Jew because they are carrying alcohol or pork
TheOldSchool
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #174
When has that happened?
LeftofLeft
Diamond Member
- Oct 18, 2011
- 29,380
- 20,232
- 1,405
Minneapolis airport cab driver and Target checkout clerk.
TheOldSchool
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #176
The Target clerks would find someone to do it. They did not send a customer away from the business. And Target moved them away from the registers anyways because it doesn't matter.
As for the cab drivers, whatever company they work for needs to do something about them. Not sure it's worth a lawsuit though, as people of all kinds drink alcohol. So they're discriminating against people who drink alcohol? I'm not sure that's a thing. If I were their boss I'd tell them to do it or take a hike. Same if I were the owner of Target.
Silhouette
Gold Member
- Jul 15, 2013
- 25,815
- 1,942
- 265
- Thread starter
- #177
Also there is the question of the depth of a sin. For instance, for a jew to serve pork is a venial sin. It doesn't send them to hell for eternity. For a Christian to promote the homosexual culture to take over the normal one (marriage as the hub of any culture) is a mortal sin that comes with a promise of soul-death. So the motivation for a Christian to deny doing that comes with much higher stakes.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
Video: Trump will only feel safe in '28 with a Trump dynasty taking over. Will you be happy with Eric Trump or Don Trump Jr. as president?- Started by Invisibleflash
- Replies: 5
-
Zone1 What knowledge does the Holy Spirit lead us into?- Started by Woodznutz
- Replies: 0
-
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
The billionaires club that is the trump government is poised to get another member.- Latest: C_Clayton_Jones
-
-
If any individual compared themselves to Jesus, what would you think of them?
- Latest: The Sage of Main Street