Kentucky: Oath Keepers Say They Will Protect Kim Davis From The Law

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

well that's my whole argument for why ms. davis was not thinking clearly: marriage is a divine event in christian literature. what the office did where ms. davis works/worked, is provide a business document between two people that wish to enter into a financial arrangement. the marriage part already happened (in christ lingo), when they fell in love and had sexual thoughts/activities with/about each other.

as i said earlier in the thread: the government is not in the business of divine decrees. ms. davis would not have been disobeying god in the matter, cause the part she was concerned about (the actual marriage) is not something she has to sign off on nor involve herself in.

I logged on a short while ago, intending to catch up with and reply to this thread. Sadly the first thing I came across is the news that RisingAgainst has passed away.

This is a heartbreaking loss to many of us in the ATS family, myself included. This loss is hitting far closer to home than I would care to publicly admit and it's going to be a rough few days for me I think.

Tomorrow is obviously going to be a big day for the story behind this thread and I will try to, at least, update things as they happen - but I may not have it in me to keep up very well, so please be patient friends.

Thank you.

originally posted by: Hefficide

I logged on a short while ago, intending to catch up with and reply to this thread. Sadly the first thing I came across is the news that RisingAgainst has passed away.

This is a heartbreaking loss to many of us in the ATS family, myself included. This loss is hitting far closer to home than I would care to publicly admit and it's going to be a rough few days for me I think.

Tomorrow is obviously going to be a big day for the story behind this thread and I will try to, at least, update things as they happen - but I may not have it in me to keep up very well, so please be patient friends.

Thank you.

i didn't know him but can see his loss is effecting a great many mods and posters on ats. hang in there.

a reply to: undo

A marriage vow is not the same thing as a marriage oath, one has to do with God, the other with the government. So tell me, why do Christians take both when they get married? Jesus said not to take ANY oath.

Any politician who swears or takes an oath on the bible is slapping Jesus in the face, Republican or Democrat.

My point is, marriage is almost indistinguishable from the government in today's society. Kim Davis is a hypocrite in more than one way and so are those who support her.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: undo

A marriage vow is not the same thing as a marriage oath, one has to do with God, the other with the government. So tell me, why do Christians take both when they get married? Jesus said not to take ANY oath.

Any politician who swears or takes an oath on the bible is slapping Jesus in the face, Republican or Democrat.

My point is, marriage is almost indistinguishable from the government in today's society. Kim Davis is a hypocrite in more than one way and so are those who support her.

christians really don't have to take a vow before anyone in marriage. the actual act of loving and being sexually interested in another human being, constitutes marriage in christian teaching. it's a divine event. no government needed. i agree about the hand on bible oath, that it isn't necessary and is rather unbiblical. these types of ideas are all vestiges of when church and state were one entity.

are you really squaring off on me, when i'm like a very reasonable person? you sound rather rabid to me.

a reply to: undo

I'm not squaring off with you, sorry if it comes off that way. Tone doesn't translate very well into text.

I agree that love for another person is what constitutes a spiritual marriage, whether it be straight or gay makes no difference. If two people love each other, God accepts it.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

and do you also agree the government is not in the business of divine decrees and therefore are not actually asking religious people to sign a divine document? and if so, that it means the document is just a business deal not a divine deal?

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Annee

it's good to have independent interpretation. if everyone was on the same page, it would be a monster

I think what Jesus says is pretty clear.

The rest of it is man.

Are you interpreting Jesus' message - - or man's?

a reply to: Annee

well since i think i'm the temple of god, i interpret it however i want to.

originally posted by: undo
and do you also agree the government is not in the business of divine decrees and therefore are not actually asking religious people to sign a divine document? and if so, that it means the document is just a business deal not a divine deal?

What is a 'divine document'?

a reply to: undo

Totally in agreement there. No argument from me.

I've been pointing out that a government document has nothing to do with true marriage ever since this situation popped up. Christians who are up in arms about it are misinformed and hypocritical.

originally posted by: undo
a reply to: Annee

well since i think i'm the temple of god, i interpret it however i want to.

Didn't you say you are Christian?

I'm atheist. Me interpreting however I want makes sense.

That there are over 3000 different Christian sects - - doesn't really make sense.

Done. Back to Oath Keepers.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: undo
and do you also agree the government is not in the business of divine decrees and therefore are not actually asking religious people to sign a divine document? and if so, that it means the document is just a business deal not a divine deal?

What is a 'divine document'?

there's really not such a thing, is there? let me restate that: since the gov doesn't claim to be in the business of issuing divine decrees whether written or spoken, the marriage license is not an actual divine decree in written form.

sheesh, technicalities. hehe

a reply to: Annee

yep, i'm a christian. but since i'm an individual, i reserve the right to believe whatever i want. and you can't change that.

originally posted by: undo

there's really not such a thing, is there?

I would have to say, no, there is not.

Unless God opened a Kinkos without me seeing it.

a reply to: Hefficide

Sorry to hear that....!!


What the hell happened? He was one of my favorites.... .
I will always picture him as JFK.

Thanks for letting us know...We'll all be here when you feel like coming back in....take care of yourself, John.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: undo

there's really not such a thing, is there?

I would have to say, no, there is not.

Unless God opened a Kinkos without me seeing it.

LOL!

thanks for that.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
What is a 'divine document'?

There is none. That's the point. Kim Davis seems to view the license as some sort of divine document.

The "divinity" of marriage happens between people (and for some, with their god), not on paper. What's on paper is all government. It's just clerical.

My husband and I were married in the court house after work on the 23rd, in our work clothes. The next day, in the woods, all alone, we dressed up and had OUR ceremony and made vows to each other. THAT is what we consider our marriage. The 24th is our anniversary, not the 23rd.

I'd say for MOST people, there are these two different aspects to their marriage. The legal aspect and the personal aspect.

a reply to: Hefficide

I totally understand, Heff. I didn't know him well, but he was an impressive presence here and I can't believe he's gone. Take Care.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

I'd say for MOST people, there are these two different aspects to their marriage. The legal aspect and the personal aspect.

Same here. We filled out the paperwork at town hall two weeks before the ceremony on our front porch.