Let's Be Honest: Opposition to Religious Freedom Laws Is Based on Anti-Religious Hate and Bigotry

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The OP is right, conservative Christians are definitely disliked in this country.



Now, I wonder why that is..

It's because the majority of people hate God.

Not true... a majority of the people, counted specifically as 100%, fall short of the glory of God.

Thus within a majority of those, they fear their own failure to ever be worthy of God's love. Having failed to embrace God's grace through Christ. That fear is used by evil, manifested through Relativism, to rationalize that God hates THEM... thus the perception is that they hate God.

Seems like a fine line, but it is not.

The moment that a person realizes that God is the epitome of fair... judging everyone equally (All men are created equal...) and that through Christ their inability to ever rise to any sense of perfect obedience to God's law, is forgiven, this typically results in their embracing God's grace and the subsequent life altering change wherein they come to love God.

The problem is that so few ever take the time and put forth the effort to UNDERSTAND IT!

I believe that the Bible has much to say about those who REJECT God. Since the vast majority is bound for hell, that can only mean that they have rejected Him, since God is just and would never send anyone to hell who didn't deserve it.

We agree, the majority have rejected God.

My point is that they have done so because of their own willingness to be mislead from him.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Let's Be Honest: Opposition to Religious Freedom Laws Is Based on Anti-Religious Hate and Bigotry"

No, if conservatives were to be honest, they'd admit that there's no need for 'religious restoration' laws, that religion is in no need of 'restoration,' that public accommodations laws in no way 'violate' religious freedom, and that 'religious freedom laws' are in fact a 'solution' in search of a 'problem' that doesn't exist.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Let's turn your argument around. Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Using your faith as an excuse to discriminate or shun another person, because of who they are, violates that commandment. To claim to be a Christian, and yet to refuse service to one type of sinner, again, violates what Jesus taught. When it came to stoning the adulterer, Jesus said "Let you who is without sin among you, cast the first stone". He opposed treating those who have sinned badly.

Using religion, especially Christianity which teaches against such behavior, as an excuse to discriminate, just comes across as dishonest.

They don't follow Jesus, Dragonlad. They follow an admixture of Paul and the Old Testament.

If a rational and fair minded person picked up the N.T. and started reading it from cover to cover, about the LAST thing they would conclude Jesus was all about was the persecution of Gay people. He never once mentioned Homosexuality, never urged his disciples to hate them, and never indicated there was anything wrong with it. His was the New Covenant and not that of the Pharisees.

Modern day Pharisees are not content with actual religious freedom, though. Nobody is telling them what they can or cannot preach in churches. Nobody is saying a priest has to marry a gay couple or that a church has to perform a gay wedding. What they want isn't freedom of belief, but freedom of action and not just freedom of action within the confines of their religion, but within the public sphere.

I am interested in this idea pr persecution.

Where do you see general Christians persecuting gays (Because institution like Wesburro do not really count here)? Is not baking a cake now persecuting? That is how far out of proportion this has been blown.

Is not baking a cake now persecuting?

And to be even more accurate about how out of proportion it is....these bakers routinely baked all sorts of other baked goods on every other occasions for gay people....it was only one type of cake....and for that they deserve to have their lives destroyed.....and be sent to prison.......

And ...

If what they claim is valid and true... where is the public OUTRAGE over the Islamic Bakers that openly refused to bake cakes to celebrate the pretense of marriage by the Sexual Deviants?

WATCH-Muslim-Bakeries-Refuse-To-Make-Gay-Wedding-Cakes-28813266

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

"Let's Be Honest: Opposition to Religious Freedom Laws Is Based on Anti-Religious Hate and Bigotry"

No, if conservatives were to be honest, they'd admit that there's no need for 'religious restoration' laws, that religion is in no need of 'restoration,' that public accommodations laws in no way 'violate' religious freedom, and that 'religious freedom laws' are in fact a 'solution' in search of a 'problem' that doesn't exist.

No Christian is obligated by any law which forces them to participate in what they conclude is: abhorrent
>PERIOD<​

 

[-S-]

But you do not have a right to deceive others, through the projection that what is an otherwise antithetical deviation from the human physiological standard is normal...

And that is because that position is delusional... which is to say that the position is a lie... specifically: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

Christ made no accommodation for Homosexuality as normality, why then would you assume, as a RIGHT, the means to do so.

Christ's position was that Marriage was the joining of one man and one woman.

"But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”"

Now, you may "FEEL" that Christ Got it Wrong. But in taking that position, you're faith has taken on something which rests outside of faith.

As a result you may also feel that Divorce is a viable option... as the Left has provided you the legal rationalization for just that.

But Christ again made this clear:

"10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”"

It is through this simple but incontrovertible test, that we can know Christ's position. Thus we can know the CHRISTIAN POSITION.

It is not subject to debate... thus your credentials are set to doubt.

Now it is not for me to say what you are... only that what you profess you are, is not in sync with what you say you are, as you describe it.

I'd suggest you spend more time on your knees, and less time advising the readers of this board to believe that which Christ said was NOT true, as truth.

The Bible also says to obey the laws of the land. The USA tells us that everybody should have the same rights. Marriage is a federal government institution in the USA. It is a legal contract between two consenting adults. Not allowing a person to partake in that because they do not believe a religion's specific views on marriage is not obeying the laws of the land. I never stated whether homosexuality was 'normal' or not. That is a false claim on your end. I only stated that they should have all the same rights as you and I. Thus, my reasons for thinking that. It is my opinion, and I stated that above.

Also, you asked me for my opinion. I gave it, with disclaimer that it was my opinion. I didn't spend any time "advising the readers of this board", as you put it, what to believe. That is yet another false claim. You should read closer and try to keep emotions out of intelligent discussion.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

But you do not have a right to deceive others, through the projection that what is an otherwise antithetical deviation from the human physiological standard is normal...

And that is because that position is delusional... which is to say that the position is a lie... specifically: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

Christ made no accommodation for Homosexuality as normality, why then would you assume, as a RIGHT, the means to do so.

Christ's position was that Marriage was the joining of one man and one woman.

"But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ 7 ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, 8 and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. 9 What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”"

Now, you may "FEEL" that Christ Got it Wrong. But in taking that position, you're faith has taken on something which rests outside of faith.

As a result you may also feel that Divorce is a viable option... as the Left has provided you the legal rationalization for just that.

But Christ again made this clear:

"10 And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. 11 And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”"

It is through this simple but incontrovertible test, that we can know Christ's position. Thus we can know the CHRISTIAN POSITION.

It is not subject to debate... thus your credentials are set to doubt.

Now it is not for me to say what you are... only that what you profess you are, is not in sync with what you say you are, as you describe it.

I'd suggest you spend more time on your knees, and less time advising the readers of this board to believe that which Christ said was NOT true, as truth.

The Bible also says to obey the laws of the land.

The Bible say to give unto Ceasar, that which is Ceasars.

This is the United States... A Constitutional Republic, wherein THE PEOPLE GOVERN OURSELVES.

What "WE" are doing is deciding what the Law is... and what we are FIGHTING is Relativism, wherein a corrupt judiciary strips THE PEOPLE OF THEIR MEANS TO GOVERN THEMSELVES on the basis of addle-minded, invalid reasoning... and no Christian is obligated to obey any law which undermines their God-given Rights... and what's more, is that it is the SACRED RESPONSIBILITY of every Christian to FIGHT THE EVIL WHICH SEEKS TO TAKE FROM THEM WHAT GOD HAS GIVEN THEM.


Now, this is all VERY SIMPLE:

Christ says that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. It's not even a remotely debatable point.

YOU SAY that Christ got it wrong... that whatever man says 'in law', trumps whatever Christ said. So, from your own mouth, the US Legal Code represents Christianity.

YOU ARE THEREFORE NOT A CHRISTIAN, you are a Leftist.

Thus, adding to the EVIDENCE WHICH STANDS AS Everest over the denials which seek to undermine the law of nature which requires that Conservative and Christian are AXIOMATIC SYNONYMS!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

See how that works?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Let's face it: Opposition to the Far Right Religious Discrimination Laws Against the Ickies is Based on American Virtue

 

[JakeStarkey]

Secular Law in America trumps the Bible.

End of story.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Let's Be Honest: Opposition to Religious Freedom Laws Is Based on Anti-Religious Hate and Bigotry

The whole affair is based on intolerance and resentment on both sides of the issue. No Christian is going to go to Hell for catering a gay wedding and their refusal to do is just pure prejudice plain and simple. Likewise, gays attacking these business owners aren't doing it for a sense of equality; they're doing it to get revenge on these people for not accepting their lifestyle. Who would want to give their business to someone who disapproves of them? I certainly wouldn't. It makes no logical sense.

The free market is perfectly capable of working this out without government intrusion either in the form of the RFRA or civil rights commissions. If I were a baker I'd take advantage of the controversy, advertise that we will proudly cater gay weddings, and watch the cash come rolling in. In fact, I would turn my bakery into the most popular caterer for gay weddings in all of Las Vegas.

 

[-S-]

The Bible say to give unto Ceasar, that which is Ceasars.

This is the United States... A Constitutional Republic, wherein THE PEOPLE GOVERN OURSELVES.

What "WE" are doing is deciding what the Law is... and what we are FIGHTING is Relativism, wherein a corrupt judiciary strips THE PEOPLE OF THEIR MEANS TO GOVERN THEMSELVES on the basis of addle-minded, invalid reasoning... and no Christian is obligated to obey any law which undermines their God-given Rights... and what's more, is that it is the SACRED RESPONSIBILITY of every Christian to FIGHT THE EVIL WHICH SEEKS TO TAKE FROM THEM WHAT GOD HAS GIVEN THEM.


Now, this is all VERY SIMPLE:

Christ says that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. It's not even a remotely debatable point.

YOU SAY that Christ got it wrong... that whatever man says 'in law', trumps whatever Christ said. So, from your own mouth, the US Legal Code represents Christianity.

YOU ARE THEREFORE NOT A CHRISTIAN, you are a Leftist.

Thus, adding to the EVIDENCE WHICH STANDS AS Everest over the denials which seek to undermine the law of nature which requires that Conservative and Christian are AXIOMATIC SYNONYMS!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

See how that works?

Whoooa! Simmer down there, Hulk

Sorry, but the only person that knows the status of my relationship with God is me.

Also, that Caesar line had nothing to do with the situation. The part of the Bible I was referring to was actually in Romans:

13
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

I encourage you to read further in this chapter. You might learn something.

It's all about obeying the laws of the land.

I'm sorry that we disagree, but I wish you the best. Try to put a handle on that anger.

 

[Nosmo King]

Let's just be honest, shall we? Deep down, everyone here knows that the liberals' opposition to, and smearing of, religious freedom laws is based on their hatred of, and bigotry toward, religion, especially Christianity.

You can see the liberals' hatred and bigotry shining through in the numerous threads on this subject, as they repeatedly avoid answering logical objections to their posturing and as they keep using the same erroneous comparisons even after you've shown them that the comparisons are utterly ridiculous.

If placed under a truth serum that worked, liberals would readily admit that they would not dream of filing a lawsuit if a gay couple were turned down by a photographer who was an old-style hippie who rejected all forms of marriage and who therefore refused to service any weddings whatsoever, gay or straight. They would admit that the gay couple would--and should--just go get another photographer. They would not think about whining that they were "victims of discrimination." Why can't gay couples show the same tolerance toward religious vendors? Answer: Because most of them hate religious people and can't stand any reminder that homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural.

Some basic facts that liberals here keep avoiding like the plague:

* Getting a vendor to provide a flower arrangement at a wedding, or to bake a wedding cake, or to host a wedding, or to cater or photograph a wedding is not a "basic need." These are conveniences that quite a few people have either skimped on or done without when they got married. Lots of people have done their own wedding flower arrangements. Lots of people have baked their own wedding cakes or had friends do so (we did). And lots of people, especially with the advent of digital cameras, have simply had a friend or two take pictures at their wedding.

* For that matter, marriage itself is not something that we "have" to do to survive. It is a choice, a choice that many people in our day reject altogether. We need to eat, sleep, live somewhere, and get medical care. We do not "have" to get married to survive. Indeed, it was not all that long ago that the gay rights advocates, along with other leftists, were screaming that marriage was an archaic, oppressive institution.

* If a religious vendor declines to host or service a gay wedding, he has not denied the gay couple a single basic right or need, and the gay couple has not suffered "discrimination." Instead, the gay couple has merely encountered a vendor whose moral beliefs are different from theirs, and the religious vendor has merely exercised his constitutional freedom of religion to not be forced to host or service a ceremony that he finds morally and spiritually offensive.

* After a religious vendor declines to host or service a gay wedding, the gay couple still has plenty of readily available options. What's more, the gay couple has not in any way been prevented from getting married. They are perfectly free to just go find another vendor, which they can quickly and easily do. They are not being forced to do anything that they find morally offensive. If they simply live and let live and go use another vendor, they get what they want and the religious vendor gets what he wants.

* But what if the gay couple wants a religious vendor and doesn't want to use another vendor? Okay, do we have to get everything we want? The gay couple does not "need" to use a religious vendor, nor any vendor at all. Just because a gay couple might prefer Vendor A who happens to be religious does not mean that the vendor should be forced to host or service a ceremony that he finds offensive.

* If I'm hosting a seminar on the health risks of homosexuality and I would prefer that a certain printer who happens to be gay do the printing of the seminar's booklets, should my preference overrule the gay printer's desire not to be forced to print something that he finds offensive? As long as I can find another printer, wouldn't the polite, decent thing to do be to just go use another printer? Can you imagine the explosion of outrage that would occur among the gay rights gestapo if I sued the gay printer and won, and he got fined and was then forced to print my booklets?

In the threads on religious freedom laws, I have mostly used non-religious arguments in favor of them. I have rarely mentioned God or the Bible as reasons for opposing the coercion of religious vendors.

But if I were to emphasize the fact that we know from the Bible that God himself has said that homosexuality is unnatural and immoral, and that God wants us to avoid homosexuality because he wants us to be healthy and happy, you would see the fury of the liberals become even more intense and unbounded. (Liberals get annoyed when you point out the scientific fact that we know of no examples in the animal kingdom of two animals of the same gender living together as a romantic couple--this is simply unheard of in nature.)

Liberals could not even begin to try to defend gay marriage, much less defend forcing religious vendors to service gay weddings, if they acknowledged the reality of God and the Bible's validity. Liberals typically react with dismissive anger and/or sarcasm anytime someone cites what the Bible says about marriage, the family, and homosexuality. Only by excluding God from their worldview and from the discussion can liberals even hope to defend their position on these issues.

I am a Christian and a heterosexual man. And I disagree with the premise that those who seek basic civil rights are in ny way anti-Christian.

Rather, I believe that a new, Conservative approach to the basic tenets of he Christian Faith, i.e. Love thy neighbor, judge not lest ye be judged and those without sin should cast the first stone, seeks to use Chrisianity as a shield to perpetuate their bigotry. These Conservative Christians are, in fact, more aligned with the scriptural interpretations of the Westboro Baptist church crowd than with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

This all stems from a reaction among the Social Conservatives to the opening of marriage equality all around this Land of the Free. Their political, ecumenical and social opposition to this newly won freedom for homosexuals has stirred the ugliest manifestations of fear, suspicion, bigotry and hate from the shadows of a peculiar Christian dogma.

And to what purpose has this dogma arisen? To further repress segments of society that fail to fit into the narrow template of morality and civic comportment imposed by those with similarly narrow minds.

Are homosexuals not members of our community? Are they not tax payers, business owners, serving in our armed forces, property owners? Do they not play an active and beneficial part in our community organizations, our government, our businesses, our schools and our churches? Are they not sober, committed adult citizens worthy of respect? What purpose is served by denying them access to the exact same goods and services offered by public businesses?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Keys is a fascist protagonist of religious jingoism.

Give him all the respect he deserves.

 

[Mr.Right]

Secular Law in America trumps the Bible.

End of story.

And you claim to be a Christian? God's word tells us that we should obey God rather than man. What part of that don't you understand?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Secular Law in America trumps the Bible.

End of story.

And you claim to be a Christian? God's word tells us that we should obey God rather than man. What part of that don't you understand?

God does not tell you to disobey the secular authority, little buddy. Your own inner Mr.Rightgod tells you that.

 

[-S-]

Secular Law in America trumps the Bible.

End of story.

And you claim to be a Christian? God's word tells us that we should obey God rather than man. What part of that don't you understand?

God does not tell you to disobey the secular authority, little buddy. Your own inner Mr.Rightgod tells you that.

Exactly. In fact, read Romans, chapter 13. God in fact demands the opposite.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The Bible say to give unto Ceasar, that which is Ceasars.

This is the United States... A Constitutional Republic, wherein THE PEOPLE GOVERN OURSELVES.

What "WE" are doing is deciding what the Law is... and what we are FIGHTING is Relativism, wherein a corrupt judiciary strips THE PEOPLE OF THEIR MEANS TO GOVERN THEMSELVES on the basis of addle-minded, invalid reasoning... and no Christian is obligated to obey any law which undermines their God-given Rights... and what's more, is that it is the SACRED RESPONSIBILITY of every Christian to FIGHT THE EVIL WHICH SEEKS TO TAKE FROM THEM WHAT GOD HAS GIVEN THEM.


Now, this is all VERY SIMPLE:

Christ says that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. It's not even a remotely debatable point.

YOU SAY that Christ got it wrong... that whatever man says 'in law', trumps whatever Christ said. So, from your own mouth, the US Legal Code represents Christianity.

YOU ARE THEREFORE NOT A CHRISTIAN, you are a Leftist.

Thus, adding to the EVIDENCE WHICH STANDS AS Everest over the denials which seek to undermine the law of nature which requires that Conservative and Christian are AXIOMATIC SYNONYMS!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

See how that works?

Whoooa! Simmer down there, Hulk

Sorry, but the only person that knows the status of my relationship with God is me.

Also, that Caesar line had nothing to do with the situation. The part of the Bible I was referring to was actually in Romans:

13
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

I encourage you to read further in this chapter. You might learn something.

It's all about obeying the laws of the land.

I'm sorry that we disagree, but I wish you the best. Try to put a handle on that anger.

You still don't know crapola about the Bible and you're far too easy


Acts 5:27-29 “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles replied “We must obey God rather than men.

 

[Mr.Right]

The Bible say to give unto Ceasar, that which is Ceasars.

This is the United States... A Constitutional Republic, wherein THE PEOPLE GOVERN OURSELVES.

What "WE" are doing is deciding what the Law is... and what we are FIGHTING is Relativism, wherein a corrupt judiciary strips THE PEOPLE OF THEIR MEANS TO GOVERN THEMSELVES on the basis of addle-minded, invalid reasoning... and no Christian is obligated to obey any law which undermines their God-given Rights... and what's more, is that it is the SACRED RESPONSIBILITY of every Christian to FIGHT THE EVIL WHICH SEEKS TO TAKE FROM THEM WHAT GOD HAS GIVEN THEM.


Now, this is all VERY SIMPLE:

Christ says that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. It's not even a remotely debatable point.

YOU SAY that Christ got it wrong... that whatever man says 'in law', trumps whatever Christ said. So, from your own mouth, the US Legal Code represents Christianity.

YOU ARE THEREFORE NOT A CHRISTIAN, you are a Leftist.

Thus, adding to the EVIDENCE WHICH STANDS AS Everest over the denials which seek to undermine the law of nature which requires that Conservative and Christian are AXIOMATIC SYNONYMS!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

See how that works?

Whoooa! Simmer down there, Hulk

Sorry, but the only person that knows the status of my relationship with God is me.

Also, that Caesar line had nothing to do with the situation. The part of the Bible I was referring to was actually in Romans:

13
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

I encourage you to read further in this chapter. You might learn something.

It's all about obeying the laws of the land.

I'm sorry that we disagree, but I wish you the best. Try to put a handle on that anger.

Secular Law in America trumps the Bible.

End of story.

And you claim to be a Christian? God's word tells us that we should obey God rather than man. What part of that don't you understand?

God does not tell you to disobey the secular authority, little buddy. Your own inner Mr.Rightgod tells you that.

Exactly. In fact, read Romans, chapter 13. God in fact demands the opposite.

What if the government ordered all Christians to report to extermination camps? Will you obey them?

 

[JakeStarkey]

econchicklass just demonstrates why the Bible is not consistent and cannot be trusted on this point. She believes the Roman cohorts failed to recapture Route Irish as well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Bible say to give unto Ceasar, that which is Ceasars.

This is the United States... A Constitutional Republic, wherein THE PEOPLE GOVERN OURSELVES.

What "WE" are doing is deciding what the Law is... and what we are FIGHTING is Relativism, wherein a corrupt judiciary strips THE PEOPLE OF THEIR MEANS TO GOVERN THEMSELVES on the basis of addle-minded, invalid reasoning... and no Christian is obligated to obey any law which undermines their God-given Rights... and what's more, is that it is the SACRED RESPONSIBILITY of every Christian to FIGHT THE EVIL WHICH SEEKS TO TAKE FROM THEM WHAT GOD HAS GIVEN THEM.


Now, this is all VERY SIMPLE:

Christ says that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman. It's not even a remotely debatable point.

YOU SAY that Christ got it wrong... that whatever man says 'in law', trumps whatever Christ said. So, from your own mouth, the US Legal Code represents Christianity.

YOU ARE THEREFORE NOT A CHRISTIAN, you are a Leftist.

Thus, adding to the EVIDENCE WHICH STANDS AS Everest over the denials which seek to undermine the law of nature which requires that Conservative and Christian are AXIOMATIC SYNONYMS!

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

See how that works?

Whoooa! Simmer down there, Hulk

Sorry, but the only person that knows the status of my relationship with God is me.

Also, that Caesar line had nothing to do with the situation. The part of the Bible I was referring to was actually in Romans:

13
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

I encourage you to read further in this chapter. You might learn something.

It's all about obeying the laws of the land.

I'm sorry that we disagree, but I wish you the best. Try to put a handle on that anger.

Secular Law in America trumps the Bible.

End of story.

And you claim to be a Christian? God's word tells us that we should obey God rather than man. What part of that don't you understand?

God does not tell you to disobey the secular authority, little buddy. Your own inner Mr.Rightgod tells you that.

Exactly. In fact, read Romans, chapter 13. God in fact demands the opposite.

What if the government ordered all Christians to report to extermination camps? Will you obey them?

And the trap snaps shut on both Mr.Right and the Lass.

That is an exception that proves the rule.

What if the government ordered all Americans to respect each others civil rights in the commerce of goods and services av?

 

[-S-]

You still don't know crapola about the Bible and you're far too easy


Acts 5:27-29 “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles replied “We must obey God rather than men.

Oh wow, yet another two parts of the Bible that conflict. Since neither can be proven as more correct than the other since they come from the same source, I guess it's a draw. Or are you going to insist on being 'right' again, SassyLassy?