Trump sez: Transgenders B gone!

[ok doser]

I don't have any problem with Transgenders.
I just think it would be nice if people figured out who they were before they get half way across the Galaxy.

maybe they could schedule their transformation while they were in hyper-sleep :think:

of course, you know if that was an option the privates would prank their sergeant with it :banana:

 

[fool]

:darwinsm:

have you ever been mistaken for a man?

"You always were an ******* Gorman"

 

[Tambora]

So, anyway, no cyber Monday sale on subscriptions?
That's when I always bought mine and then I got out of step and was waiting for cyber monday to come around again and the Knight gifted me a gold but like at six months off cyber monday and now I'm blue again and I want to be silver but not for no $70.

I don't think there was one last year either.
Didn't even have the TOL-A-THON.
Is $70 out of your price range, or do you just not think it's worth that much?

 

[JudgeRightly]

You want religious laws imposed on all of society.

No, I want morality imposed on all society.

If I wanted religious laws, I would advocate the symbolic laws given only to Israel.

Theonomy is religious legalism.

No, this is theonomy:

https://carm.org/dictionary-theonomy

The logic is so obvious it shouldn't even need to be said.

"it's obvious" :mock:

Not a valid argument, Arthur.

If you enact laws that kill married people for having affairs

Then fewer people will have affairs. :idunno:

and especially if you make it difficult for people to divorce,

Then people will A) not marry someone flippantly and B) not fornicate, for risk of being forced to remain married to someone whom they really don't want to spend the rest of their life with.

then people in the main would be more likely to give it a miss.

It would reduce the number of marriages that would fail.

:AMR:

:AMR:

[emoji33]:

:mock:

How would it?

By deterring those who just want to have sex without bearing the consequences of their actions from having sex outside of marriage.

You force a man and a woman to get married with no possibility of divorce

Only for those who have sex outside of marriage. If they wait until marriage, then later grounds for divorce arise, then that couple would be allowed to divorce. If they didn't wait until marriage, then they would not be, because people need to face the consequences of their actions.

This would also reduce the number of children born out of wedlock.

and with no regard as to whether they're compatible

You'd think that the couple would have thought of that before having sex... :idunno:

and somehow that equates to a stable household for any children?

Having both a father and a mother, even if they aren't good parents, is FAR BETTER than only having a mother or only having a father growing up.

You don't think children would suffer in a household where the "marriage" is effectively a sham?

Of course the children would suffer. But the parents should have thought of that before they had sex before marriage. :think:

No.

:kookoo:

:AMR:

Sure I've heard of it

Talk about irony...

and what you advocate is an infringement on civil liberty and freedom.

People do not have the freedom to degrade society with their perversions.

Sex outside of marriage is one of those things.

You would have your brand

No, not "my brand."

God's brand, the only real brand.

of religious law

Moral law, not "religious." There's nothing religious about "do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, do your neighbor no harm."

imposed on all of society

To prevent, or at the very least, slow, its decay.

and that is a nightmare.

Only in your head, Arty, only in your head.

I value the freedoms we have in the West

So do I.

and living under a tyranny that executes people for being gay, indiscretions,

Such as?

"guilty children" [for committing capital crimes] and forces people into marriage [for having sex outside of marriage] and floggings [for promiscuity]

Sounds like a good, stable society to live in.

is not one that I'd want any part of

:baby:

and if you're honest you know fine well that the vast, vast majority of people, Christian or otherwise wouldn't want to see either.

Because they don't know what God says, rather listening to what liberals say.

It's not that funny

Sure it is!

and Jefferson certainly makes mention of it.

Jefferson is not the constitution. :think:

It would do now.

No, it wouldn't.

"Do not commit adultery" has nothing to do with religion.

Who said you had?

You implied it.

Prohibition was the wrong answer.

It should have been a ban on drunkenness, not on drinking.

[emoji33]:

Oh, and good for you for blowing up yet another irony meter...

:mock:

Possibly, in which case they don't deserve to be married and women don't deserve to be shackled to such a neanderthal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

For all of you that advocate that adulterers must be stoned to death, why haven't you stoned any adulterers if you are to abide by the law GOD gave to Israel over the civil man-made laws of today?
What's your holdup of obeying that law?

Because I, as a civilian, do not have the authority to execute criminals. Only the government has that authority.

Or have you forgotten what Paul said, to give place to wrath? That the government is the one to wield the sword in judgment of criminals?

Next question?

Perhaps because they seek a wife to have as a pet instead of seeking a wife to be bone of their bone and flesh of their flesh.

What in the world are you talking about?

Can we say some sure like to talk the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk they balk.

You could, but that doesn't make it so.

If they were really serious about obeying that law over any civil man-made law then are failing miserably in obeying that law and have made themselves law-breakers by failing to do so.

Trying to place Christians under the law is what Paul got onto one of the other apostles for.

You should avoid doing the same.

It is apparent that they do not obey that law, but insist it should be obeyed.
What's hindering them from obeying it?

How about the fact that we're Christians who are not under any law.... :think:

Or ........ you've been cornered that you do not obey that law at all and want to distract from the fact that you do not obey that law.

Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall.Better to be of a humble spirit with the lowly, Than to divide the spoil with the proud. - Proverbs 16:18-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs16:18-19&version=NKJV

We don't obey the law because we are not under it. :think: Or have you forgotten what Paul said...

No, it's that you have been cornered that you do not obey that law while insisting that it should be obeyed.
You talk the talk but don't walk the walk.
How come?

Pride goes before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall.Better to be of a humble spirit with the lowly, Than to divide the spoil with the proud. - Proverbs 16:18-19 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs16:18-19&version=NKJV

We don't obey the law because we, as Christians, are not under any law.

Just use his example of "reasonable discussion" and say he's boring.
And then watch him make another frivolous report of you doing what he himself does.

No matter how many he tries to get booted from this thread, it will not change the fact that he does not obey the very law he claims should be obeyed.

See above.

Which makes two law-breakers concerning his marriage ---- his wife for adultery and him for not stoning her to death.

Uh, no. See above re: civilian vs government.

Define "whore" . Is a woman "in a nice dress, with a revealing back" who gets raped..a whore?

whore
/hôr/
nounderogatory
noun: whore; plural noun: whores

1.
a prostitute.

Ok thanks But I have a dictionary app.

Then why did you ask for a definition?

:dunce:

Answer the prior question.

Which question?

The only penalties associated with the Commandments were given to ISRAEL.

Could you point out what the punishments for coveteousness or lust were?

Also, What does God tell Israel to do when strangers (ie, non-jews) come into their land?

Why do you think the Ten Commandments were kept inside the ark, and the law of Moses (with the penalties and the other rites and rituals) were kept outside the ark. Think long and hard boys. There will be a test at a later date.

No idea.

No matter though, because all of the mosaic law builds on the Ten Commandments.

In the meantime, this is where your journey (from the "top of Mt. Zion" leads). :nono:

I said, "Thank the Lord" I have your permission. To which you responded.....

1. That is NOT using the Lord's name in vain.

2. It is NOT blasphemy.
3. Because of your ignorance on those issues, you would stone me.

No, I wouldn't.

Why is that, I wonder... :think:

opcorn:

:AMR:

 

[Arthur Brain]

No, I want morality imposed on all society.

If I wanted religious laws, I would advocate the symbolic laws given only to Israel.

By trampling over people's freedom and liberty. You're free to believe that modern society should be governed by OT laws just as everyone is free to live without such being imposed on them. People like you should start your own idyllic little community...

No, this is theonomy:

https://carm.org/dictionary-theonomy

And?

"it's obvious" :mock:

Not a valid argument, Arthur.

It is and I even explained it to you. Then again, I am talking to someone who thinks doing away with speed limits would increase road safety so I'll be sure to join the dots for you in future.

Then people will A) not marry someone flippantly and B) not fornicate, for risk of being forced to remain married to someone whom they really don't want to spend the rest of their life with.

Oh, it would be easy enough for people to still have illicit sex dude, unless you're proposing putting ccctv in everyone's homes?

It would reduce the number of marriages that would fail.

In your head.

:mock:

That's what people generally think of whacked out zealots...

By deterring those who just want to have sex without bearing the consequences of their actions from having sex outside of marriage.

As above, unless you're going to install cameras in every room of everyone's home then folk are still gonna have sex.

Only for those who have sex outside of marriage. If they wait until marriage, then later grounds for divorce arise, then that couple would be allowed to divorce. If they didn't wait until marriage, then they would not be, because people need to face the consequences of their actions.

They don't need to face the consequences that you think they should.

This would also reduce the number of children born out of wedlock.

Another assertion...

You'd think that the couple would have thought of that before having sex... :idunno:

In sane world they don't have to.

Having both a father and a mother, even if they aren't good parents, is FAR BETTER than only having a mother or only having a father growing up.

Garbage, a child would be better off with one loving, responsible parent than two who aren't. If that needs explaining to you then you need help.

Of course the children would suffer. But the parents should have thought of that before they had sex before marriage. :think:

Oh, so you admit that children would suffer so I suppose they should just suck it up?

Talk about irony...

It wouldn't be a strong subject for you.

People do not have the freedom to degrade society with their perversions.

Sex outside of marriage is one of those things.

People have the right to have consenting, sexual, non married relationships and if you don't like it then start your own community somewhere.

:thumb:

No, not "my brand."

God's brand, the only real brand.

Nah, it's yours.

Moral law, not "religious." There's nothing religious about "do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, do your neighbor no harm."

There's nothing "moral" about enforcing your particular legalistic branch of law on everybody.

To prevent, or at the very least, slow, its decay.

Oh noes, the sky's falling in! If you think society is that bad then again, start your own somewhere. You should be grateful you were born in the West.

Only in your head, Arty, only in your head.

Um, no. You're in a tiny minority just on this conservative Christian website alone...

So do I.

Pfffft, yeah, sounds like it...

Sounds like a good, stable society to live in.

Then start one then because one of the things to value about living in the West is the amount of personal freedom, something you'd take away.

:baby:

:mock: JR just to return the kindergarten stuff in kind.

and if you're honest you know fine well that the vast, vast majority of people, Christian or otherwise wouldn't want to see either.

Because they don't know what God says, rather listening to what liberals say.

Most conservatives don't go along with your legalism so that was dumb.

Sure it is!

Jefferson is not the constitution. :think:

Have a laughing fit if you like and Jefferson had a somewhat significant part in it. Clever guy, he saw the dangers of unfettered religious rule.

No, it wouldn't.

"Do not commit adultery" has nothing to do with religion.

So you keep saying.

You implied it.

Prohibition was the wrong answer.

It should have been a ban on drunkenness, not on drinking.

Nah, you inferred it.

:mock:

What are you mocking, my post about how women shouldn't have to ask permission from their husbands to do stuff? Are you another one of those misogynist whackos who think women should be tied to the kitchen sink? I sure hope not.

 

[JudgeRightly]

By trampling over people's freedom and liberty.

People don't have the freedom to degrade society just because they don't like the rules.

You're free to believe that modern society should be governed by OT laws just as everyone is free to live without such being imposed on them.

:blabla:

People like you should start your own idyllic little community...

Nah.

And?

:AMR:

It is

"it's obvious"

:mock:

Not a valid argument, Artie.

and I even explained it to you.

No, you complained about how much you dislike what God says.

Then again, I am talking to someone who thinks doing away with speed limits would increase road safety so I'll be sure to join the dots for you in future.

Which has nothing to do with the current topic.

Please stay on topic, Artie...

Oh, it would be easy enough for people to still have illicit sex dude, unless you're proposing putting ccctv in everyone's homes?

Just as it is and would be easy enough for people to still murder.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws against capital crimes. :doh:

In your head.

That's what people generally think of whacked out zealots...

:baby:

As above, unless you're going to install cameras in every room of everyone's home then folk are still gonna have sex.

Therefore... something.

Making something illegal and making the punishment for it the death penalty would deter people from doing it.

Preventing crime is not the goal, and I have never claimed it was. The goal is to deter crime.

They don't need to face the consequences that you think they should.

Not me. God.

"The adulterer and the adulteress should be put to death."

:think:

Another assertion...

In sane world they don't have to.

We don't live in a sane world.

In an ACTUAL sane world, they would.

Garbage, a child would be better off with one loving, responsible parent than two who aren't. If that needs explaining to you then you need help.

Nope. Children of married parents are better off.

https://futureofchildren.princeton....ild_wellbeing_revisited_25_2_full_journal.pdf

http://familyinamerica.org/files/3214/5806/3564/Stanton.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3904543/pdf/nihms547588.pdf

http://www.americanvalues.org/search/item.php?id=81

Should I post more, or are these four witnesses enough to convince you?

Oh, so you admit that children would suffer so I suppose they should just suck it up?

All children suffer, to some extent.

But children in households with BOTH parents, suffer less.

It wouldn't be a strong subject for you.

People have the right to have consenting, sexual, non married relationships

Artie: "there's nothing wrong with sexual immorality."

God: "Adulterers, fornicators, and sodomites/homosexuals are to be punished."

Sorry, Artie, I'm gonna stick with God on this one.

and if you don't like it then start your own community somewhere.

:thumb:

What I like has nothing to do with it.

Nah, it's yours.

There's nothing "moral" about enforcing your particular legalistic branch of law on everybody.

God's law isn't moral? :mock:

Oh noes, the sky's falling in! If you think society is that bad then again, start your own somewhere. You should be grateful you were born in the West.

I would much rather save the society I live in, out of love.

Um, no. You're in a tiny minority just on this conservative Christian website alone...

So what?

I'm on God's side.

He's the majority here.

Pfffft, yeah, sounds like it...

:mock:

Then start one then because one of the things to value about living in the West is the amount of personal freedom, something you'd take away.

:mock: JR just to return the kindergarten stuff in kind.

:blabla:

Most conservatives don't go along with your legalism so that was dumb.

:blabla:

Have a laughing fit if you like and Jefferson had a somewhat significant part in it. Clever guy, he saw the dangers of unfettered religious rule.

There is no such thing as "separation of church and state" in the Constitution.

It DOES prohibit the government from establishing a national religion.

I'm not advocating the establishment of a religion.

I'm advocating the establishment of moral and upright laws.

So you keep saying.

Because it's true.

Nah, you inferred it.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Artie.

What are you mocking,

"Who," not "what."

my post about how women shouldn't have to ask permission from their husbands to do stuff?

I think that a husband who loves his wife won't lock the door to the outside.

Are you another one of those misogynist whackos who think women should be tied to the kitchen sink? I sure hope not.

Because I totally care about your opinions on marriage, considering that you think that adultery, fornication, homosexuality, sodomy, should all be legal.

 

[Arthur Brain]

People don't have the freedom to degrade society just because they don't like the rules.

People have the right to have consenting adult relationships outside of wedlock no matter how much your sensibilities might be offended. If you don't like it, then ship out.

:blabla:

Oh, outstanding argument.

lain:

Nah.

And again...

:AMR:

What's confusing you now?

"it's obvious"

:mock:

Not a valid argument, Artie.

It is and explained.

No, you complained about how much you dislike what God says.

Nope, just what one track legalists say.

Which has nothing to do with the current topic.

Please stay on topic, Artie...

It made the point. Once again you assert things without anything but blustering waffle to back it up.

Just as it is and would be easy enough for people to still murder.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws against capital crimes. :doh:

Sure we should have laws against crime, like the ones we already have.

:baby:

Really not very mature are you?

Therefore... something.

Making something illegal and making the punishment for it the death penalty would deter people from doing it.

Dude, there's no way your bonkers idea of government would ever come about in a free society as it is, this ain't Uganda or Saudi Arabia.

Preventing crime is not the goal, and I have never claimed it was. The goal is to deter crime.

Then you'd need cameras in everyone's homes then. You surely aren't shy about invading privacy?

Not me. God.

"The adulterer and the adulteress should be put to death."

No, you, like all other legalists you can't seem to get away from the notion that laws prescribed to ancient tribes still hold today. The Bible seems to begin and end with you lot at the OT. You've even be corrected on this by conservative Christians but you won't listen.

We don't live in a sane world.

In an ACTUAL sane world, they would.

Pffft, what you advocate isn't sane by a long shot.

Nope. Children of married parents are better off.

https://futureofchildren.princeton....ild_wellbeing_revisited_25_2_full_journal.pdf

http://familyinamerica.org/files/3214/5806/3564/Stanton.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3904543/pdf/nihms547588.pdf

http://www.americanvalues.org/search/item.php?id=81

Should I post more, or are these four witnesses enough to convince you?

Um, no, children with two loving, responsible parents would be better off but not with two unresponsible, unloving ones they wouldn't be. Do the bloody math.

:doh:

All children suffer, to some extent.

But children in households with BOTH parents, suffer less.

Not if they're irresponsible and unloving they don't. Why does the obvious need to be explained to you so much?!

Oh, and whilst all children, like adults may suffer to some extent there's no excuse for exacerbating it.

Artie: "there's nothing wrong with sexual immorality."

God: "Adulterers, fornicators, and sodomites/homosexuals are to be punished."

Sorry, Artie, I'm gonna stick with God on this one.

Nah, you're gonna stick with your whacko legalism.

What I like has nothing to do with it.

Well, better get used to the way things are then.

God's law isn't moral? :mock:

Your legalism isn't.

I would much rather save the society I live in, out of love.

By getting rid of one of the most valuable things in it, personal freedom and liberty.

So what?

I'm on God's side.

Oh, and all the conservatives who have corrected you with reason aren't? Spoken like a true, puffed up legalist. You and aCW are very similar in some respects and as you can imagine, that's hardly a compliment.

He's the majority here.

Your legalism isn't.

:mock:

:blabla:

:blabla:

Really are just a kid aren't ya?

There is no such thing as "separation of church and state" in the Constitution.

It DOES prohibit the government from establishing a national religion.

Which means your "distinctive" brand couldn't come about.

I'm not advocating the establishment of a religion.

I'm advocating the establishment of moral and upright laws.

Sure you are, you're advocating laws based on the OT.

Saying it doesn't make it so, Artie.

Sure it does. You inferred something and that's on you.

"Who," not "what."

Pffft, you're hardly in a position to mock anybody.

I think that a husband who loves his wife won't lock the door to the outside.

Because I totally care about your opinions on marriage, considering that you think that adultery, fornication, homosexuality, sodomy, should all be legal.

Do you think a loving husband would expect his wife to seek permission for going out and the like? I notice you've totally avoided answering any of that which is kinda telling in its way. There was nothing to mock about anything I wrote in that post unless you are one of the neanderthals I was referring to...

 

[ok doser]

People don't have the freedom to degrade society ....

freedoms, rights and liberties don't exist in a vacuum

they mean nothing without a recognition of the responsibilities they come with

 

[Tambora]

Because I, as a civilian, do not have the authority to execute criminals. Only the government has that authority.

Or have you forgotten what Paul said, to give place to wrath? That the government is the one to wield the sword in judgment of criminals?

Next question?

Hold on!
Our civil law does not say that adulterers are to be stoned to death.
Are you now saying you should obey the civil authorities no matter what the OT law said?
I thought the point you have been making all along is that the law of stoning adulterers should be obeyed no matter what sort of laws our civil authorities come up with (the old "obey GOD's law rather than man's law" speech).
So which is it, JR????
If GOD meant for us to obey civil authorities, and our civil authorities don't say to stone an adulterer to death, then why do you still want them to be stoned to death?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Hold on!
Our civil law does not say that adulterers are to be stoned to death.
Are you now saying you should obey the civil authorities no matter what the OT law said?
I thought the point you have been making all along is that the law of stoning adulterers should be obeyed no matter what sort of laws our civil authorities come up with (the old "obey GOD's law rather than man's law" speech).
So which is it, JR????
If GOD meant for us to obey civil authorities, and our civil authorities don't say to stone an adulterer to death, then why do you still want them to be stoned to death?

:think:

Prediction:

*Crickets*

 

[ok doser]

Because I, as a civilian, do not have the authority to execute criminals. Only the government has that authority.

Or have you forgotten what Paul said, to give place to wrath? That the government is the one to wield the sword in judgment of criminals?

you should have called her out for a strawman

tam said: "For all of you that advocate that adulterers must be stoned to death..."

that's not your position and it's not mine

I advocate for a change of law to make adultery a capital crime - i think you do too

that's why i disengaged with her yesterday


eta: and as you can see a couple of posts further, instead of admitting her mistake and accepting correction, she chooses to double down :sigh:

 

[ok doser]

I thought the point you have been making all along is that the law of stoning adulterers should be obeyed no matter what sort of laws our civil authorities come up with ...

and you thought this because...?

is it

A. you had an aneurysm

B. artie's tardliness is rubbing off on you

C. it's a convenient position to take to continue your trolling

or

D. other

 

[Tambora]

Can we say some sure like to talk the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk they balk

You could, but that doesn't make it so.

It is so if you are still claiming that we should stone adulterers to death per GOD's law, but don't obey that law.

 

[Tambora]

and you thought this because...?

is it

A. you had an aneurysm

B. artie's tardliness is rubbing off on you

C. it's a convenient position to take to continue your trolling

or

D. other

Clear it up right now.
Are we to obey GOD's law of stoning adulterers to death or not?

 

[Arthur Brain]

and you thought this because...?

is it

A. you had an aneurysm

B. artie's tardliness is rubbing off on you

C. it's a convenient position to take to continue your trolling

or

D. other

I thought you'd "disengaged" with Tam? He's stated it enough times and as you know, you're the last person on this entire forum to accuse anyone of trolling. You're also farrrrrrrrr from the brightest crayon in the box either.

Heck, you're even buddying up to aCW these days...

:freak:

 

[Tambora]

you should have called her out for a strawman

tam said: "For all of you that advocate that adulterers must be stoned to death..."

that's not your position and it's not mine

I advocate for a change of law to make adultery a capital crime - i think you do too

that's why i disengaged with her yesterday

It's no strawman, silly boy.
If y'all are saying that adulterers should be stoned to death (and y'all are), then you are going against the civil authorities that GOD says to obey.
So, are we to obey the civil authorities that don't say to stone an adulterer to death or obey that OT law of stoning adulterers to death?
Have not y'all said that we should obey GOD's law no matter what laws man comes up with?
Which is it?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Hold on!

Holding...?

Our civil law does not say that adulterers are to be stoned to death.

Correct. In fact, only in 17 states (as of '17) is it illegal, and the punishments vary depending on the state, which, if it's even enforced (which is damning in and of itself), the punishment is usually a fine and/or jail time.

Are you now saying you should obey the civil authorities no matter what the OT law said?

I defer to Paul and other scriptures:

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. - Romans 13:1-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans13:1-7&version=NKJV

Only if man's law violates God's law should we commit civil disobedience (but never revolt)

I thought the point you have been making all along is that the law of stoning adulterers should be obeyed no matter what sort of laws our civil authorities come up with (the old "obey GOD's law rather than man's law" speech).
So which is it, JR????

See above.

I am advocating that we CHANGE our current laws to more closely resemble God's law. As it stands today, they're just getting farther and farther from it.

If GOD meant for us to obey civil authorities, and our civil authorities don't say to stone an adulterer to death, then why do you still want them to be stoned to death?

Because our current law is unjust. Simple as that.

Stoning them is a just and swift and painful punishment for adultery.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Hold on!

Holding...?

Our civil law does not say that adulterers are to be stoned to death.

Correct. In fact, only in 17 states (as of '17) is it illegal, and the punishments vary depending on the state, which, if it's even enforced (which is damning in and of itself), the punishment is usually a fine and/or jail time.

Are you now saying you should obey the civil authorities no matter what the OT law said?

I defer to Paul and other scriptures:

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. - Romans 13:1-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans13:1-7&version=NKJV

Only if man's law violates God's law should we commit civil disobedience (but never revolt)

I thought the point you have been making all along is that the law of stoning adulterers should be obeyed no matter what sort of laws our civil authorities come up with (the old "obey GOD's law rather than man's law" speech).
So which is it, JR????

See above.

I am advocating that we CHANGE our current laws to more closely resemble God's law. As it stands today, they're just getting farther and farther from it.

If GOD meant for us to obey civil authorities, and our civil authorities don't say to stone an adulterer to death, then why do you still want them to be stoned to death?

Because our current law is unjust. Simple as that.

Stoning them is a just and swift and painful punishment for adultery.

you should have called her out for a strawman

tam said: "For all of you that advocate that adulterers must be stoned to death..."

that's not your position and it's not mine

I advocate for a change of law to make adultery a capital crime - i think you do too

that's why i disengaged with her yesterday

Good point.

Tam, the punishment for adultery should be death. It should be made a capital crime, and enforced as much as is possible.

I DO NOT ADVOCATE that we catch adulterers in the act and stone them right then and there without a trial before a judge.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's no strawman, silly boy.
If y'all are saying that adulterers should be stoned to death (and y'all are),

If they are found guilty, they should be. In other words, our current law is unjust and should be changed.

then you are going against the civil authorities that GOD says to obey.

How is advocating for righteous laws going against the government?

So, are we to obey the civil authorities that don't say to stone an adulterer to death or obey that OT law of stoning adulterers to death?

But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men. - Acts 5:29 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts5:29&version=NKJV

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same.For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. - Romans 13:1-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans13:1-7&version=NKJV

Have not y'all said that we should obey GOD's law no matter what laws man comes up with?
Which is it?

We should OBEY the current authorities to the extent that they do not violate God's laws, AND ADVOCATE that the laws that do violate God's laws be changed so that they do not.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It is so if you are still claiming that we should stone adulterers to death per GOD's law, but don't obey that law.

We should. "We" being the government.

WE (the people) should not stone adulterers because we (the people) do not have the authority to do so.