FreeKimDavisNow.com

[Aerex]

If you are comparing interracial marriage to gay marriage, it is testimony to how far we have come. As far as I can discover,in the history of the human race there has never been a religion that sanctioned marriage between two men. She is not being obedient to only Christianity, but to every religion, and to the laws decided upon by the people of Kentucky (75% vote).  The laws she refuses to acknowledge are unconstitutional, illegal, immoral, evil, tyrannical and unprecedented in the history of mankind. Some one like Rosa Parks MUST stand up to tyrannical laws and lawless, activist judges. They are against the "laws of nature and natures God", and against the will of the people. (Of the people, by the people, for the people).  Interesting that once again it is a woman.

You are saying Rosa Parks should have quietly went to the back of the bus? That Christians should have quietly accepted Jim Crow laws?; and carried out racist duties on their jobs because the law required it?  Or maybe you are saying Followers of Jesus should have just quit jobs requiring racism, and went back to their closets to pray in peace?

Is this the typical stance of UR believers when faced with evil and abuse of fellow human beings?  I really need to know the answer to that. Or; if you want to acknowledge and stand against evil as a UR believer is it required that you be a woman?


Kim Davis is in jail "without bail". Jeffrey Dahmer and other serial killers, child rapists, mass murderers have been given bail.

If God doesn't judge this nations sins and let it fall, He'll have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah"

My argument is not that we should not stand up for what is given but to hold the responsibilities that has been given to you. My example suggests that anyone can deny anything based on their personal beliefs it doesn't matter if the person is Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Hindu, etc. which is not right would you not agree? This is the main reason why marriage should not be own by the state. It should be owned by the church like it has always been. I would agree that the government has too much power. The only legal thing that the woman can do to fight against this is to simply resign or request a different judge. Let God be the judge.

[dajomaco]

Now without faith it is impossible to please God, for the one who draws near to Him must believe that He exists and rewards those who seek Him.

Kim Davis seems to be exercising her Faith.

[CHB]

We really don't know what we would do if faced with the same circumstances /situation. It's like with every other situation in life, until we have walked a mile in someone else shoes we don't know, nor can know what we would do. I thought I might just resign, would send the same message as being locked up but maybe she will be released and still have her job and maybe that is the best way to go, who knows? I do know this, the world is in such a mess and needs Christ to straighten it out and I pray for that day. Evil will get worse and worse and the people in charge and religious people also will become more and more tolerant of the wrong that is being done in the world. I have wondered whether we who know the salvation of all will get so sick of the things going on in the world that we will stand up and voice our opinion. What did the disciples do? most of them were tortured and killed for their beliefs. Do you see this day coming again?

Just some thoughts.

CHB 

[Wadif I.M. Rong]

My argument is not that we should not stand up for what is given but to hold the responsibilities that has been given to you. My example suggests that anyone can deny anything based on their personal beliefs it doesn't matter if the person is Jewish, Christian, Islamic, Hindu, etc. which is not right would you not agree? This is the main reason why marriage should not be own by the state. It should be owned by the church like it has always been. I would agree that the government has too much power. The only legal thing that the woman can do to fight against this is to simply resign or request a different judge. Let God be the judge.

I think we agree with each other. We both want the God Ordained dignity and freedom and inalienable rights for all human beings. We are both struggling, perhaps with the best way to protect those freedoms. I am sure others disagree with me, but I strongly beleive that the perfect law Of liberty is: Gods commandments. And Gods commandments according to Jesus, are summed up in the two great commandments of love. His commandments are His plan of liberty and justice for all.

Perhaps the issue we are not all able to agree on has to do with civil disobedience. We have obvious New Testament scripture admonishing strict obedience to governing authorities; written by men who, in every case spent time in jail for civil disobedience. In the case of Paul, it is so blatant when he is set free from prison and refuses to leave prison because his rights had been violated. He would not go quietly until he had confronted government authorities.

I think this is a very important discussion. I want to know God's will and to do it. If God shows me clearly that I am to stand by passively while a woman is brutalized for her faith, then I want to do his will. But with my limited self awareness and understanding, every conceivable part of my being screems that I must help the helpless. If God does not want me to do that He will have to scream louder.

I think there are people reading this who will be faced with this decision. Maybe there is no way to know ahead of time what will be required of us by the Holy Spirit.

But I know my flesh cannot be depended on to give me Godly signals for a response in an emergent situation. I feel that a "fleshly response" of a father to use force in protecting his own child, might be a Godly response. I just am unclear. Some of us need to "be transformed" ahead of time by complete and thorough understanding of Gods expectations for the followers of Jesus.


Honest: I don't have an agenda. I just want to know who Jesus was and what he taught, and what the living Messiah expects of me in the growing darkness.
I used to think that would be simple to know.

[BenC]

Is this not an issue of jurisdiction?

By a marriage licence, the state purports to grant people the authority to marry.
In Kentucky, a marriage cannot be solemnized without a licence: http://www.lrc.ky.gov/statutes/statute.aspx?id=36473

But isn't the right to marry given by God directly?

So the "marriage licence" is an artifice, a fabrication, a deception.  Kim Davis had presumably sworn an oath of office, by which she voluntarily rendered her services to Caesar, in her case to dispense phony "rights".  But the state has not truly usurped God's authority, it is just engaging in political theatre and card tricks.  Like the trial of Jesus by the Sanhedrin. 

So the play here is to cement the assumption that the state has jurisdiction over marriage.

Just the devil up to his old tricks again, I suggest.

[Wadif I.M. Rong]

The issue of the "state" has appeared earlier also. Do you guys mean it in terms of the state such as Kentucky the state ?  Or "state" meaning generic "government".

Because the bigger issue here to me is not marriage at all. And, by the way, I agree that the story of the marriage of Adam and Eve reveals all the government paperwork required for marriage.

To me the issue is:

1) Tyranny of the federal government over the will of the people of Kentucky brought on by a ruling of five activists judges with their own personal agenda (which just happens to be satanic). The "state" was stripped of any authority in the matter. The ruling was intentionally unconstitutional and illegal, because it is just trendy for those in power to see how much law breaking the people will tolerate. They are finding out we will tolerate any and all of it. And that is how tyranny was born in America over the last six years.

2) The criminalization of Christianity.  They knowingly created a way to start putting Christians in jail for their faith. It really has little if anything to do with marriage. It includes marriage, but is way beyond marriage in it's scope. The only thing missing to put you in jail is to: pass firm laws against hate speach, and Identify one of your Christian activities, (or the refusal of non-Christian activities) as a form of hate speech: jail ...without bail.

How will you feel?  Will you wish for support from Christians at Tentmaker?
Don't wish too hard, because you know you had the option of hiding in a closet until everyone in the universe is saved.  It will be your own fault.

As Cardinal pointed out this is a test case.

It is only the beginning.

[eaglesway]

I agree that the fact she was jailed without bond, instead of fired, or transferred, shows that this is an issue pf persecution for her beliefs. The simple truth is however, that the law of the land must be followd by clerks and officials because otherwise every religion and belief could refuse to issue various permits and licenses that interfered with their religious beliefs.

She could have resigned, but chose to make an issue of it, imo, to make a point and to proclaim her values and to take a stand for them. I applaud that, but the government is not going to distribute exceptions for every persons religious beliefs. She can also apply for transfer within the bureacracy into another position with different responsibilities- it isnt just "quit, be fired, or go to jail". IMO the government is being manipulated by gay activists in the upper echelon, and so is the media. But I still think it is unreasonable to expect the government to issue exceptions to following the law because of religious beliefs, when there are other reasonable options for the employee.

To think that gay marriage will be overturned or repealed because of these kinds of protests is naive. The time for demonstrations of faith on this issue has past, and as usual most of the "church" slept thru the changes they are now crying about.

Statewide and national fasts called for three days before these laws were passed might have been way more effective.

[CHB]

I agree that the fact she was jailed without bond, instead of fired, or transferred, shows that this is an issue pf persecution for her beliefs. The simple truth is however, that the law of the land must be followd by clerks and officials because otherwise every religion and belief could refuse to issue various permits and licenses that interfered with their religious beliefs.

She could have resigned, but chose to make an issue of it, imo, to make a point and to proclaim her values and to take a stand for them. I applaud that, but the government is not going to distribute exceptions for every persons religious beliefs. She can also apply for transfer within the bureacracy into another position with different responsibilities- it isnt just "quit, be fired, or go to jail". IMO the government is being manipulated by gay activists in the upper echelon, and so is the media. But I still think it is unreasonable to expect the government to issue exceptions to following the law because of religious beliefs, when there are other reasonable options for the employee.

To think that gay marriage will be overturned or repealed because of these kinds of protests is naive. The time for demonstrations of faith on this issue has past, and as usual most of the "church" slept thru the changes they are now crying about.

Statewide and national fasts called for three days before these laws were passed might have been way more effective.

Very good and sound words, I would say.

CHB

[Cardinal]

To think that gay marriage will be overturned or repealed because of these kinds of protests is naive. The time for demonstrations of faith on this issue has past, and as usual most of the "church" slept thru the changes they are now crying about.

Statewide and national fasts called for three days before these laws were passed might have been way more effective.

:cloud9: Couldn't agree more....too little too late....

[Lazarus Short]

Curious fallout...

http://www.businessinsider.com/tennessee-judge-refuses-to-divorce-a-couple-because-of-the-supreme-courts-gay-marriage-ruling-2015-9

[BenC]

The issue of the "state" has appeared earlier also. Do you guys mean it in terms of the state such as Kentucky the state ?  Or "state" meaning generic "government".

Because the bigger issue here to me is not marriage at all. And, by the way, I agree that the story of the marriage of Adam and Eve reveals all the government paperwork required for marriage.

To me the issue is:

1) Tyranny of the federal government over the will of the people of Kentucky brought on by a ruling of five activists judges with their own personal agenda (which just happens to be satanic). The "state" was stripped of any authority in the matter. The ruling was intentionally unconstitutional and illegal, because it is just trendy for those in power to see how much law breaking the people will tolerate. They are finding out we will tolerate any and all of it. And that is how tyranny was born in America over the last six years.

2) The criminalization of Christianity.  They knowingly created a way to start putting Christians in jail for their faith. It really has little if anything to do with marriage. It includes marriage, but is way beyond marriage in it's scope. The only thing missing to put you in jail is to: pass firm laws against hate speach, and Identify one of your Christian activities, (or the refusal of non-Christian activities) as a form of hate speech: jail ...without bail.

How will you feel?  Will you wish for support from Christians at Tentmaker?
Don't wish too hard, because you know you had the option of hiding in a closet until everyone in the universe is saved.  It will be your own fault.

As Cardinal pointed out this is a test case.

It is only the beginning.

I mean "state" as used in leftist agitprop, Big Brother and all that.

I agree.  Clearly it's part of a bigger agenda, which includes attempts to confuse gender, racial and cultural identity and generally debase God's law as written on our hearts in favour of something a bit less indelible, shall we say.  The agenda is anti-Christ in its means and ends. 

I would hope that Kim Davis would be comforted and fortified by Acts 5:41 where apostles rejoice at being worthy to suffer in Jesus' name.

You'd want to have faith that it's all part of God's plan.  As the Tenessee fallout spotted by Laz shows, is exposing fractures in the administration and government foolishness in failing to head off what would seem obvious direct consequences.

Is that not broadly analogous to the lead-up to Calvary? People will eventually look upon the harm done to the sacred principle with their complicity, and then repent and look once more to God for guidance.  If anything, should our reasonable response not be to expose the travesty and help win souls? :2c:

[eaglesway]

Just to mention, according to the news I have read, Kim Davis is a member of a denomination that believes everybody that isnt baptized in Jesus name and filled with the Holy Spirit with the evidence of speaking in tongues is going to hell forever- including the rest of Christians who dont believe like they do. Not sure what her personal beliefs are but if she fellowships in an apostolic church odds are she believes that way.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/09/splainer-whats-apostolic-christian-and-why-kim-davis-hair-so-long/71947018/

[Wadif I.M. Rong]

The most surprising thing to me is how much I learned about U.R. because of Kim Davis.  I am guessing some things were revealed and clarified for other folks in other places as well.

One of those things that make you go "hmmm"

It has been that for me, anyway.

[Molly]

How ironic.  A Christian in America is jailed for following her faith.

And, nobody says, boo.

If this is not the end times, I don't know what is.

[Molly]

The officials in Hitlers government were government officials as well. When their laws changed and became immoral they also should have refused to obey them. For some of us, backing down quietly will not be an option.

She is an elected official and cannot be fired. She can be impeached. Yet in the mean time, her name is on those documents.

When the government or anyone else forces me to perform/endorse (put my name on) an act that to me is immoral, I will respond in a similar way.

You are a very wise person.

God Bless.

[Molly]

Read Justice Scalia's scathing dissent of the majority opinion.  When have you ever heard a Supreme Court Justice call his fellow Justices, tyrants?


(Christian News Network) As one of the four justices that dissented from today's U.S. Supreme Court ruling declaring that all 50 states must legalize same-sex "marriage," Justice Antonin Scalia issued a sharp rebuke of his colleagues' arrogance, warning that "pride goeth before a fall."

"The opinion is couched in a style that is as pretentious as its content is egotistic," he wrote. "It is one thing for separate concurring or dissenting opinions to contain extravagances, even silly extravagances, of thought and expression; it is something else for the official opinion of the court to do so."

Scalia was speaking of his disapproval of five black-robed justices issuing an edict that he opined was "highly unrepresentative" of the nation and "hardly a cross-section of America."

"Today's decree says that my ruler, and the ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," he said. "And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation."

"This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the people of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves," he said.



Scalia then began to speak with sarcasm, stating that he believed the justices' ruling reeked of arrogance.

"[W]hat really astounds is the hubris reflected in today's judicial putsch," he said. "The five justices who compose today's majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every state violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification and Massachusetts' permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003."

Continue reading


http://bereanresearch.org/justice-scalia-issues-scathing-dissent-in-same-sex-marriage-ruling-pride-goeth-before-a-fall/

[Wadif I.M. Rong]

Thank you, I wondered where to find Scalia's words.

I had to look up the word "Putsch": "a secretly plotted and suddenly executed attempt to overthrow a government" (Merriam Webster)

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Wow. He hit the nail on the proverbial head.... :doh:

[Caffus]

I believe if we do anything we believe is against Gods will..it is wrong for that reason if no other.

[GodIsLove]

My thoughts on this: what about a Christian lawyer who deals with divorce (jesus clearly spoke against divorce)...a Christian who works at a drug store and sells condoms to someone who clearly is not married/fornicating...a Christian who works at a supermarket and sells beer to someone who is a known alcoholic. Or for that matter a Jewish person working at a supermarket selling pork or non kosher food. A Buddhist selling meat... I get that there is an agenda with the media and politicians and a clear anti-christian shift in this country. I also agree homosexuality is spoken against in the bible, but I don't agree that homosexuality should be what we as Christians are crusading against.

Most people who are gay (in my experience) aren't Christian, so why do we expect them to follow God's ways without first following God?

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: I read something about her having been married 4 times, and they are using that against her. Anybody else see that? Blessings...

[Shev]

To me the only "what she should have done" is to be led by the Spirit. That may sound vague, but not every specific situation is covered in scripture. ("Thou shalt not issue immoral licenses" - Book of Addendums 5:3). As someone said, without faith it is impossible to please God, and as many who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. So when something is not absolutely, directly covered, it becomes a matter for being led, and those on the sidelines can argue either side. Of course, being led is vital in everything, but there are many things that are not up for debate, as they are more directly referenced in scripture.

I would illustrate it further with the story of Corrie Ten Boom. One of her sisters did not believe in lying - ever - even to protect Jews, so she told the truth at one point with consequences that should have been disastrous, but things actually worked out because of her faith. But who could chide the others for lying, in order to protect the Jews? It was a very situational problem.

Ultimately, what matters in any situation for a believer, is the glory of Christ and increase of His kingdom. My problem with so many of these hot button issues is that even the 'Godly' side of the argument rarely proclaims the gospel in any way, but rather focuses on why it is "against" something. At the point where Christ is dropped from the conversation, these things become carnal, intellectual disagreements to a large degree, even though the base of the issue is still spiritual (which is true of anything, really).

In this homosexual debate, which becomes unseemly very quickly, rather than simple pronouncements of "God sees homosexuality as a sin" etc etc, true though they may be, I feel as though it would be better to say (or say in addition) something about how marriage is a picture of Christ and the church, and a beautiful metaphor with many layers that shows forth His glory and His gentleness towards His people. Christ is not homosexual, and the very implication of that would be Christ loving Himself more than the world, as homosexuality is a parable of self-love (lusting after your mirror image, so to speak). Marriage proclaims the gospel in its own way, even down to the tradition of the woman taking the man's name, which is a metaphor for us taking on the nature of Christ and leaving our old nature behind (though I know some cultures do not do this). As with anything, the opportunity is there to proclaim Christ, but instead it feels more like an Old Covenant pronouncement of having broken a law, with no clarification of what this means in a spiritual sense. As GodIsLove said, we are expecting these people to follow God without knowing Him. How can they follow without knowing? And how can they know without hearing? And how can they hear unless the gospel is preached?

:dsunny:

[GodIsLove]

Yes, I agree with how the discussion is rarely Christ centered, but even more than that I disagree with having a discussion at all while the person is still a non-Christian. It is pointless. The apostles were jailed and killed for believing, preaching and converting others to follow Christ. The Holy Spirit convicts us of our sins. And how did they preach the gospel? Wasn't it usually telling people to believe in Jesus as the savior from our sins, repent, be baptized? It wasn't "let me point out all of your sins...nothing else." Even talking about how marriage is a reflection of Christ and the church will fall on deaf ears if the person isn't Christian.

"Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with mena 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."

How many Christians today tell alcoholics they are not going to inherit the kingdom of God? Alcoholic or not isn't the true issue, it is Faith in Jesus and the Holy Spirit that washes and cleanses us, and causes us to be able to overcome our sins.

So the passage above said adulterers do not inherit the kingdom:
"8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

I think for me I am just upset at how Christians continue to portray themselves as finger pointers, showing others their sin, without sharing the actual good news, and doing so humbly and with love, didn't Paul say "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst." I know many in the world won't hear because many hearts are hardened, but some may if it is shared with humility and love. I feel like when I tell people I am Christian I also need to explain more so they can get the caricature out of their heads of what they think a Christian is.   

[Patinak]

I think for me I am just upset at how Christians continue to portray themselves as finger pointers, showing others their sin, without sharing the actual good news, and doing so humbly and with love, didn't Paul say "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst." I know many in the world won't hear because many hearts are hardened, but some may if it is shared with humility and love. I feel like when I tell people I am Christian I also need to explain more so they can get the caricature out of their heads of what they think a Christian is.

:iagree:

[sheila]

what part of 'ye shall be hated and persecuted because of me by all nations' do you not understand?