[ToTheLeft]

And, as seems to be the norm these days, a judge has taken it upon herself to be the deciding factor in this whole thing.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101012/ap_ ... n_military

A federal judge issued a worldwide injunction Tuesday stopping enforcement of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ending the military's 17-year-old ban on openly gay troops.

I guess I should get ready to get drafted then. Right, Matt Staver?

[LUconn]

And, as seems to be the norm these days, a judge has taken it upon herself to be the deciding factor in this whole thing.

A federal judge deemed it unconstitutional. I don't necessarily agree but isn't that what they're supposed to be judging?

[ValuesVoter]

A federal judge deemed it unconstitutional. I don't necessarily agree but isn't that what they're supposed to be judging?

Not when she completely threw the Constitution and past precedent out the window to come to the conclusion that the law is "unconstitutional."

[LUconn]

and her decision can be appealed. The system seems to be working.

[ValuesVoter]

and her decision can be appealed. The system seems to be working.

Just because the "system seems to be working" and the DOJ has the ability to appeal the ruling, that does not mean that the judge acted within her constitutional authority to rule the way she did. There are a lot of broken judges who have been appointed to lifetime positions on federal benches, and who refuse to apply the law as it was meant to be applied. And, Obama just keeps appointing more and more of them. Here are a few that I've heard about you may be interested in doing some background on (all of them have agendas and muddy records): Liu, Chatigny, Butler, and the list goes on.

From what I understand, Butler refused to apply the law in Wisconsin and instead judged based on his emotions and prejudices and therefore, the people of Wisconsin refused to elect him to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, twice. So, Obama decided to give him a lifetime appointment (he's not been confirmed).

Chatigny, in WAY more than a few cases, refused to apply the minimum sentencing requirements against sex offenders and murderers as a state judge. So, Obama decided to give him a lifetime appointment (he's not been confirmed).

Liu has never been a judge; however, he has a ton of radical views about the United States, and the application of her laws. One view is that we should look to the laws of other countries rather than strictly U.S. law in U.S. court cases. So, Obama decided to give him a lifetime appointment (he's not been confirmed).

[From the class of 09]

(he's not been confirmed).

This is key.

[ValuesVoter]

I agree, but that doesn't mean horrible judges have not been confirmed in the past. Half of the Supreme Court refuses to look to original intent in interpreting the Constitution and at least a few of the justices would admit (or have admitted in the past) that they believe they should be able to judge according to their emotions and past experiences.

Liu, Chatigny, and Butler have all been reported from the Judiciary Committee twice (they expired the first time)... they're just waiting on Reid to schedule the floor vote. I think it's a problem that 1. Obama had the guts to nominate guys like this, and 2. that democrats and a couple of moderate republicans on the Judciary Committee voted to report them. (Note: all did not received republican support.)

[LUconn]

and her decision can be appealed. The system seems to be working.

Just because the "system seems to be working" and the DOJ has the ability to appeal the ruling, that does not mean that the judge acted within her constitutional authority to rule the way she did.

You kind of went off on a tangent about garbage judges.

I'm not certain on this, so correct me if I'm wrong. She is a federal judge. She is not elected to such a position, but appointed by an elected official. This case was presented to her. She "judged" that it violated the constitution so she trashed it. This decision can be appealed or let stand. You disagree with her decision.

I just don't see how everything is not going like it's supposed to other than your opinion disagrees with hers. Which, in the eyes of the United States, her opinion matters and yours doesn't.

[ValuesVoter]

I just don't see how everything is not going like it's supposed to other than your opinion disagrees with hers. Which, in the eyes of the United States, her opinion matters and yours doesn't.

I did go off on a tangent. It's one thing when we can reach different conclusions after looking to the Constitution, the original intent for the Constitution, applicable law, and binding past precedent. It's another thing when activist judges abuse their authority and ignore the Constitution and past precedent, basing their conclusions on their experiences (as women, minorities, or whatever), what they think is right or good, and how they want to change culture. Judges should base their judicial opinions on findings of fact and law. Binding precedent (which tells judges how to determine whether a law is constitutional) required the judge in the dadt case to give defernce to the findings of Congress as to military readiness. She did not do that... she did not do her job, rather, she overturned a law that she disagreed with and called the law "unconstitutional." I have a problem with that.

I went off on a tangent because for so long people have not been voicing concerns over the caliber of judges being granted lifetime appointments. Recently, Senators (during the Kagan confirmation) stated that elections have consequences, meaning that people elected Obama and therefore, Obama should get to pick his judges for the Supreme Court and the lower courts as well. However, these activist judges have negative impacts for a lifetime. They're the ones who determine whether, when, and how Christians can speak in the public square, they're the ones that determine whether bakers have to bake rainbow cookies and churches have to let same-sex couples marry at their facilities, and they're the ones who (at least in the California Prop 8 case) decided to override the will of the people. We cannot be apathetic about the kinds of people our representatives are confirming to serve for a lifetime on a federal bench (or the caliber of people that are being appointed and to state court positions either).

[Innocent Bystander]

What I think is interesting about this ruling is that the Obama administration has two choices....
1. Order the DOJ to appeal the ruling, thereby ticking off the Democratic base heading into the election
2. Order the DOJ not to appeal and effectively end DADT, thereby giving fuel to the Republicans heading into the election.

[ATrain]

What I think is interesting about this ruling is that the Obama administration has two choices....
1. Order the DOJ to appeal the ruling, thereby ticking off the Democratic base heading into the election
2. Order the DOJ not to appeal and effectively end DADT, thereby giving fuel to the Republicans heading into the election.

To go off topic for this question: Where have you been????

And yes, the LGBT community is well aware of what Obama HASN'T been able to accomplish DESPITE promises made AND HAVING all the available resources to fulfill those promises. Unlike other demographics, the LGBT community tends to have a better perception of what is really going on.

[Sly Fox]

... and they tend to keep on voting the same way regardless.

[ALUmnus]

What I think is interesting about this ruling is that the Obama administration has two choices....
1. Order the DOJ to appeal the ruling, thereby ticking off the Democratic base heading into the election
2. Order the DOJ not to appeal and effectively end DADT, thereby giving fuel to the Republicans heading into the election.

Actually, for choice 2 I'd take the Republicans out of it, as they've been very quiet on the whole thing. In their place, put the DoD. It's the Pentagon that he'll be ticking off. Whatever choice he makes, he'll be breaking a vow to someone.

[twise]

As Christians, I think we can all agree that living a homosexual lifestyle is sinful. To me, it makes sense to make laws against sinful actions. I mean where would we be if theft wasn't unlawful? Same thing goes for murder or rape. Granted we can't make a law against everything that is sinful but it makes sense to cover the major ones. And nobody can say that homosexuality isn't a major sin either because God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for it and the same goes for Rome. So, in all honesty, I think we should back Liberty Counsel up and speak with one unified voice.

[From the class of 09]

can't we just let the thread die...

[ToTheLeft]

As Christians, I think we can all agree that living a homosexual lifestyle is sinful. To me, it makes sense to make laws against sinful actions. I mean where would we be if theft wasn't unlawful? Same thing goes for murder or rape. Granted we can't make a law against everything that is sinful but it makes sense to cover the major ones. And nobody can say that homosexuality isn't a major sin either because God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for it and the same goes for Rome. So, in all honesty, I think we should back Liberty Counsel up and speak with one unified voice.

So then you'd like to be prosecuted for lusting, lying, cheating, and in any other way going against the will of God?

IT'S NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB, IT'S THE CHURCH'S.

The reason theft is illegal is because it's detrimental to the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of another human. Someone being homosexual does not stop you from breathing, being free, or being able to pursue things that make you happy, content, and otherwise are important to you.

And it's not a "major sin", God hates ALL sin. The sin of pride, the sin of lust, the sin of gluttony. All the same to him. I don't know what God you serve if you serve one that thinks certain sins are worse than others.

[thepostman]

TTL ignore this thread from now on...it needs to die

[ATrain]

can't we just let the thread die...

I keep waiting for it, problem is one of the Liberty Counsel or Matt Staver minions keep coming back trying to get the final word in.

[LUconn]

I'm going to bump it up every week if nobody else posts in it.

[From the class of 09]

I'm going to bump it up every week if nobody else posts in it.

Thanks

[ValuesVoter]

The sin of pride, the sin of lust, the sin of gluttony. All the same to him. I don't know what God you serve if you serve one that thinks certain sins are worse than others.

Would you mind providing a Scripture reference for this? I've heard it before, but have never seen it substantiated. Of course, the wages of all sin is death (we know that all sin yields the same eternal consequence); however, I've not been able to find a passage of the Bible that says when a person eats too many fries, it grieves God the same as when one person murders another. I also haven't found Scripture to substantiate the idea that all sin has the same temporal consequences. In fact, it seems, based on the earthly consequences of sin in my personal life, that perhaps some sins could be worse than others.

I know this is off topic, to a degree, but I'm hoping that once we introduce some actual Scripture into this part of the discussion, TTL and I will be on the same page.

Thanks guys!

[ToTheLeft]

Romans 6:23 The wages of sin is death.

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

(Isaiah 59:2) But your iniquities have separated you and your God; and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And 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.

Sin is sin, and it separates us from God. The consequences in terms of how it affects a person's walk with Christ is obviously different, the guilt and shame from murder or rape is much worse than the guilt over stealing a cookie from a friend.

But in Corinthians, we find a list of sins that cause people to not inherit the Kingdom, including "homosexual offenders" and the "sexually immoral", alongside things like drunkeness, slandering, greed, and swinlding. All of those sins lead to an inability to inherit the kingdom of God, but all are cleansed by the blood and the name of Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness

The earthly consequences for certain sins may change based on the sin, and the impact on the soul of the sinner may change (Hardening of the heart, turning further from God) but in the eyes of God, man is sinful, lawless, and not worthy to be brought into his presence upon death. Only the blood of Christ changes that.

The rich, young ruler is an example here. He claimed to have followed all of the law (although clearly that was not true), but was unwilling to sell all he had to follow Christ. He was not a homosexual offender or a drunkard or a rapist, it was his greed, and his servanthood to money rather than Christ that held him out (at least temporarily) from the Kingdom of God.

God hates sin. God is the antithesis of sin. However, there are examples (in the Old Testament) of God destroying towns and people over sin. Is this because of the specific sins, or because of a breaking of a covenant with God, and completely turning their back on the 10 commandments...

Ezekiel 16:49-50 "Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me..."

From what I have read, the word detestable there comes from the same word used to condemn homosexual sex in Leviticus, so it's clear that homosexuality was not the only reason for the demise of Sodom and Gomorrah. It was an abundance of sin, including sin directly targeted at angels who visited the city. They weren't hospitable, they were proud, they were self-indulgent and self-reliant, and had turned their back on God completely.

Also take Ananias and Sapphira as an example. They were killed as a direct response to their sin. Why? It was a direct lie to God himself, and a blatant turning of the back to God, despite keeping up appearances of being a "Christian".

Acts 5: "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God."

There was no one sin that caused Ananias to be killed, it was a filling of his heart by Satan, caused by his greed, selfishness, and self-reliance, and turning his back on God.

---

Now please, if you would, find me verses that show that God believes some sins are worse than others. I am sure that the golden calf and Judas' betrayal will be among them because the language used is "great sin" or "greater sin".

In the case of Jesus betrayal, he is talking to Pilate. Is it possible he is trying to ease the mind of Pilate, because he knows it's beyond his control, and is simply a part of the plan to save humanity from its sin?

John 19:

When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, 9and he went back inside the palace. "Where do you come from?" he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer. 10"Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?"

11Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

12From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jews kept shouting, "If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar."

13When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge's seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). 14It was the day of Preparation of Passover Week, about the sixth hour.
"Here is your king," Pilate said to the Jews.

15But they shouted, "Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!"
"Shall I crucify your king?" Pilate asked.
"We have no king but Caesar," the chief priests answered.

16Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified.

The way I understand that, Jesus is basically removing guilt from Pilate, since he was judging Christ fairly, and while he did cave in to the will of the people, Jesus made it clear to him that his "sin" was a part of the plan orchestrated by God. The "greater" sin was the betrayal, someone who was so close to Christ, who turned his back on Him for some money.

So I guess the answer here is, if you blatantly turn away from God and turn towards desires of the flesh and are self-reliant, then that would be a worse sin, since it's directly to God. But there is no way to legislate against this, and it's a sin of the individual, not a sin of the people.

If my exegesis here is incorrect, let me know. I may claim to be right all the time at football, but when it comes to the Word of God I don't claim to know it fully and completely, nor do I claim to understand the complete mind or will of God.

[Schfourteenteen]

Next time peterpan, please alternate the colors of your paragraphs. Thanks.