I believe you do. :thumb:

 

 

I know this question is off-topic and would be best fit for another thread but "what is Heaven?" Is it an actual physical place with streets and buildings and artwork? I can't see that.

I know this question is off-topic and would be best fit for another thread but "what is Heaven?" Is it an actual physical place with streets and buildings and artwork? I can't see that.

 

I have no clue at all but hope to find out one day.

Now that it seems like the Vatican is saying the meeting took place is everybody even now? We had a bomb making Muslim score a White House invite and a bigot got some rosaries from the pope.

Being Christian is not an end all be all "get out of hell free" pass IMO. There are millions upon millions of people in this world that have never even heard of or been exposed to Christianity. If accepting Jesus is the only way for one to get to heaven, I wonder what these people did to deserve no chance without even knowing it?

 

Like I said, I'm very comfortable in my beliefs. I don't care in the slightest if you or anyone else approves of or understands them.

 

Easy. They lost the birth lottery.

Let me add something else to this:

 

Let's say Mrs. Davis is approached by a man and woman in Rowan County who come to her office seeking to obtain a marriage license. And let's say that these two people have the same mailing address, therefore, we can deduce that they are living together without being married. Does she issue them a license, even though such a living arrangement contradicts her faith?

 

If she refused, would she be receiving the same amount of support she's currently received? I say absolutely not.

 

I like this scenario. Don't know if it's apples to apples in some eyes but it is in mine.

 

I would like to hear an answer from the supporters but haven't heard one yet on this. :popcorn:

Let me add something else to this:

 

Let's say Mrs. Davis is approached by a man and woman in Rowan County who come to her office seeking to obtain a marriage license. And let's say that these two people have the same mailing address, therefore, we can deduce that they are living together without being married. Does she issue them a license, even though such a living arrangement contradicts her faith?

 

If she refused, would she be receiving the same amount of support she's currently received? I say absolutely not.

 

Of course not. I'd say chances are she has already issued dozens of licenses to people with the same mailing address.

Well FWIW, I believe in one Holy Trinity (God, Jesus, Holy Spirit) and one path to Heaven... inviting the Holy Spirit into your heart through baptism. I believe that you can do all the good deeds you can do in a lifetime and you still won't go to Heaven without the blood of Jesus.

 

But I won't judge anyone for what they believe. That isn't my job.

Let me add something else to this:

 

Let's say Mrs. Davis is approached by a man and woman in Rowan County who come to her office seeking to obtain a marriage license. And let's say that these two people have the same mailing address, therefore, we can deduce that they are living together without being married. Does she issue them a license, even though such a living arrangement contradicts her faith?

 

If she refused, would she be receiving the same amount of support she's currently received? I say absolutely not.

 

 

While I haven't thought of this exact scenario, I have wondered throughout all of this, what would she do if presented with another situation that would contradict her faith. It would be hard to imagine that she hasn't already been confronted with the above situation.

While I haven't thought of this exact scenario, I have wondered throughout all of this, what would she do if presented with another situation that would contradict her faith. It would be hard to imagine that she hasn't already been confronted with the above situation.

 

No doubt. These days everyone test drives the car before buying it.

Prepare yourselves, this post may make bbf or LN look succinct.

 

I really have no problem with Kim Davis meeting with Pope Francis. I also have no issue if Pope Francis encouraged her in her faith. You see, I have no problem that she believes what she believes. I just have an issue with her using her job to mete out God's will as she believes it to those who don't.

 

But this goes deeper. I don't know anything about the Apostolic Pentecostal denomination. In meting out God's will, shouldn't her actions be applied across the board to all sinners? I don't know what that faith feels about divorce or adultery. But if the Bible they study is similar to the one I study, adultery is a sin. If she knows that someone committed adultery, and now is marrying the person that was the party to it, how does that reconcile? Is heterosexual adultery less reprehensible than homosexual monogamy?

 

Today on the Terry Meiner's show, one of the original plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case called in to speak about Kim Davis' visit with the Pope. He's upset, but that's not where I'm going. This man is a cradle Catholic. He and his partner have been married for 11 years, having legally gotten married in Canada. They've been together 33 years. They belong to a parish, have been involved in their parish, and one of them was a boy scout leader in the parish (now being denied to be a leader due to Archbishop Kurtz's refusal to reinstate him after the reversal of the Boy Scout's position a couple of months ago).

 

They have 2 kids, both teenagers. They've both been sent to Catholic schools since kindergarten, and are in a Catholic high school in Louisville. The reason they wanted a legally recognized marriage in Kentucky was because they wanted to both be able to adopt the children. As it stood, only one of them could legally adopt the children, meaning one could be legally the parent to one or both, or the other could legally adopt one or both. But both men could not legally adopt both children as heterosexual couples could. As one can imagine, that has a very wide number of issues attached to it, with regard to the legal care, responsibility and welfare of the children.

 

So, then I am struck by the number of homosexual couples I personally know that have the same concerns...in my eyes, legitimate concerns. The matter of religious belief should not usurp the ability to those kinds of legal rights. Denying those rights also jeopardizes those minors in the example above. Other legal rights afforded to heterosexual couples are not only healthcare benefits, tax implications, etc, but also end of life rights, end of relationship legalities in terms of division of property, custody of children, etc.

 

Then I go off on tangents. The couple above has been together 33 years. Another couple I know have been together 25. Yet another 12. Now, I'm just going to throw out, I was married a grand total of 4.5 years. It was an epic failure, as marriages go...even as relationships go. These couples are obviously committed. Damn! 33 years! That's a hell of a strong relationship! They've raised two kids together. I'm certain they've had issues that threatened to tear them apart. All marriages go through that to some degree. But they have stayed together and they have a family. They're faithful, committed to their parish, and committed to their faith so much so that they are raising their children in that faith, including their education.

 

Winding down here...I expect that Pope Francis would encourage anyone in their faith. And at this time, that is ALL we know. We don't know if he encouraged her to keep breaking the law for her faith. We don't know anything except what Kim Davis' attorney's have told us. And, while I do admire her faith, I feel that the limited information that has been released is part of an orchestrated event. The way it's been initially released, Kim Davis has the Pope's unwavering support, which makes her credible. More will be released, in my opinion, when she starts fading out of the limelight again.

 

But now I'm back to my initial question: Why is Kim Davis so concerned with what the Pope thinks? From my limited research, Apostolic Pentecostal's don't hold much stock in the Catholic Faith and have absolutely rejected the authority of an earthly man having the kind of position in faith that we Catholic's hold the Pope to possess.

 

Anywho....it's all very interesting.

^People were judgmental because she was breaking the law and using her position of power to discriminate against others. She shouldn't be rewarded for that.

 

Oh and spare us the "I'm Christian and I hate to see people be judgmental" stuff. Christians are the most judgmental group of people there is.

 

To be accurate she was breaking office regulations.

Absolutely. I stand by that. She's a bigot. She's using a position of power to discriminate against a specific class of people. That's a bigot in my eyes.

 

You realize by the actual definition of bigot your statements about her beliefs is closer to the actual definition of bigot. I don't think you are . But her actions don't fall into that category. She very well could be . But I've yet to hear anything that makes me take that leap.

For the record, I'm cool with gay marriage AND I'm cool with her viewpoint and I believe her that she feels having her name on the license causes her to go against her religion. I am AGAINST her not doing her job.

 

This is where I'm at 100%. Also adding as long as the government never forces the church to perform gay marriage.

How many times have city governments come out and blatantly said "We are not going to do our jobs"?

 

How many city governments have said they are not going to do their jobs because of their religious beliefs?

 

Dozens of sanctuaries cities have been doing it for years. But they don't do it for religious reason they don't like the law so they don't follow it.

This is where I'm at 100%. Also adding as long as the government never forces the church to perform gay marriage.

 

Agreed. As I always say I would stand at the front door of Randy Parker's church to protest anyone forcing him to perform a gay marriage.