OLAADEGBU:


If you know your history you would have realised that it was the liberals that refused "to let my people go" during the America's civil war.

lol the typical US rightwing unthinking drivel - calling everyone a "liberal" if they dont agree with you. How miserable.

OLAADEGBU:


Do you know the difference between acceptable killing and murdering?

yeah i do... murdering = taking the life of someone rightwing religious hypocrites approves of while acceptable killing = taking the life of someone rightwing religious hypocrites disapprove of.

I dont read any where in the new testament where Jesus or the disciples claimed it was ok to murder a criminal because it was "acceptable" unto the Lord. But continue speaking from both sides of the mouth.

OLAADEGBU:


Abortion is murder. The fact that your government legalised it doesn't change anything.

Perfectly accurate. For the purpose of the secular government, the law is the law. Please keep your religious commandments to your bedroom.

And for the record... capital punishment, war and police shootings are all murder... i never see you hypocrites calling these out.

OLAADEGBU:


Congratulations. You did well by saying that Atheists laugh at christians and not "us" which excludes you seeing that you take pleasure in verbal abuse and insults which is not "Christianly".

Abuse - calling out the incredibly ridiculous things religious pharisees say.

I agree with you, i am not a "christian" by the typical American rightwing definition.

OLAADEGBU:


I didn't know you support the denial of the rights of unborn children. Now that explains why you are quick to deny Kim her religious rights. I thank God that I'm intolerant of evil just as Jesus was.

Another lazy piece of slander. Making the rightful assertion that several states have probed PP and found them not to be in violation of federal law does not make me a supporter of abortion...

1. According to Roe v. Wade, abortion is LEGAL in the USA... you can debate that till you're blue in the face. You had 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush I and 8 years of Bush II... why didnt you do something about it then?

2. PP has not been found to violate any laws so far.

So other than an attempt to pander to the lowest common denominator and lying, what was your point?

The Tonya Parker case is a red herring pulled up either by the completely obtuse or the dangerously dishonest. Tonya Parker has the power to perform weddings but is not obligated by law to do so (Kim Davies on the other hand is obligated by law to issue a marriage license). Not all judges perform weddings, infact most judges in the United States never perform weddings (Straight or gay) by choice. That is nothing new under the sun. It would interest you to note that while 5 of 9 current supreme court justices have officiated weddings... Chief Justice Roberts has not done so... perhaps we should sue him or something? My Lord! the level of abject stupidity. Its why atheists laugh at "christians" all the time... its as if we leave our brains at the door when we don the toga of false religion.

OLAADEGBU:


Now that she is jail do you think it is justice served? God only shows mercy to those who seek for it. If God has wiped away her sin who are you to dig it out?

She didnt have to go to jail, that was a choice SHE made so spare us the crocodile tears. If God has wiped away her sin then she should equally show the same grace and mercy to others. Matthew 18:21-35 is instructive here.

OLAADEGBU:

You cannot deny her religious rights it is only a tyrannical government that will seek to force people into making a choice.

We live in a secular state where gay people have an equal right to NOT wish to practice religion... guaranteed by the constitution of the United States of America. If a christian feels his/her faith will be compromised by serving in government, then find another job. Its that simple. Its why you dont find anabaptists signing up to join the army...

Her religious rights have not been abrogated. However her "right" to deny others a constitutionally guaranteed right to marry whoever they want is unconstitutional and will not be tolerated by others. We do not have a tyrannical government, rather we have a tyrannical set of religious hypocrites whose idea of "rights" = only the things i like.

OLAADEGBU:

Which law? The law of the land says that marriage is between a man and a woman which only congress can change not Obama. The ruling the Supreme Court made was an unjust ruling and as Martin Luther Jnr. said, an unjust ruling is no ruling.

thats quite stupid... i think the supreme court decided this case months ago. Wake up from your delusion. To say the supreme court ruling was unjust is miserably sad. Perhaps the rest of us should also rise up and declare the hobby lobby ruling unjust too?

Perhaps you might consider repenting of your slander - planned parenthood did not violate any federal law... several republican states (including florida and Arizona!) have investigated them and cleared them of any wrong doing. It is your type of "christianity" - loose with the truth, intolerant of others (in the name of hypocritical tough love) and incorrigible that has led many astray.

OLAADEGBU:


And what have you been saying all along? That she deserves to be in jail because her life is not anything to write about. Is yours worth writing about?

this is cringeworthingly dishonest. Let me repeat... no one wants Kim Davies in jail and infact no one cared about her until her latest ego trip. The whole point (which you're probably too wedded to religious dogma to get) is quite simple - dont discriminate against others when your own closet is full of sin... and if the point is that she is ok because she has found mercy, then should we not expect her to show the same grace or mercy to others?

OLAADEGBU:

Is aiding and abetting and condoning sin your understanding of showing mercy?

No one asked her to aid and abet sin. She could just as easily quit the job or asked to be moved to another responsibility if integrity means anything to her. It is blatantly wrong to cry foul (especially when she was aware of the outcome of the supreme court case on gay marriage while campaigning for office) and insist that neither she nor any of the other 6 deputy clerks will issue any marriage licenses and STILL insist on keeping her job. Its either God or mammon... choose one but you cant serve the two.

OLAADEGBU:

If you truly agree that the ruling is against the law of the land then why are you insisting that Kim should abide by it?

Why are you not insisting that Kim abide by the law of the land first or quit if she cant? Why does she get to eat her cake and have it? Imagine if i joined the army, refused to deploy (claiming religious rights) and then insist on staying to claim my salary and benefits? Would you condone this if i was muslim? My guess is you'd be whining about muslim bias.

OLAADEGBU:


There you go, the reason why you think Kim Davies deserves to go to Jail without bail. Is it because she is a divorcee that she doesn't deserve God's mercy and forgiveness? Is that the reason why you think she should be imprisoned unjustly? Martin Luther Jnr. said something like this: "Any unjust ruling is no ruling". The ruling meted out against Kim Davies is no ruling because it is against the law of the land. You can read the suggested blog for more information:

http://allenbwest.com/2015/09/folks-youre-missing-the-point-about-the-kentucky-clerks-jail-sentence/

point missed again by a wide margin. No one says Kim Davies should go to jail... infact until she chose to use her position of governmental authority to lord it over others, no one cared how many men she had married. The whole point is that someone whose life isnt anything to write home about should not be in the position to sit in judgement over others. Remember the parable of the servant who was pardoned?

Kim Davies deserves God's forgiveness and mercy... but is she showing it to others? Do you think the gay couples she refused and has openly disparaged are also deserving of God's mercy and forgiveness? If yes, is this humiliating open denial of their rights under a secular democracy that they participate in as taxpayers justified by you? Why would you expect mercy yet extend only disgust for others? Is that not the very definition of hypocrisy?

I agree that the ruling meted out against Kim Davies is no ruling because it is against the law of the land... but somehow it escapes you that Kim Davies denial of gay marriage certificates is itself of no use since it is also against the law of the land? Or you think the law of the land is only anything that supports your dominionist theory? Before you accuse anyone else of discrimination and injustice, perhaps you should look in the mirror.

OLAADEGBU:


If you cannot provide where I have called the unsaved 'fools and idiots for jumping without a parachute' then you should forever hold your peace. You have not yet disclosed the reason for your frustration in attacking me, and until you do so you will only be compounding your problem.

I have not attacked you... seems you are starting to see the four other fingers pointing back at you and realizing the emperor is indeed naked.

You may not call the unsaved fools and idiots, but you indirectly do so when you attack them in the name of tough love... that excuse religious hypocrites use to justify their unkindness to others.

OLAADEGBU:


The bolded in your quote explains your frustration with the gospel. If no one had a problem with the gospel of Christ why then did they crucify Christ and persecute His disciples till date?

Senseless... i was talking of people today, not those who crucified Jesus 2000 years ago. Yes people still persecute His disciples today... the Lord already prophesied to this and why in the bible so this is not some deep mystery. If you think a 3-time divorcee, 4-time married, adulterous hypocrite is one of His disciples because she is on an ego trip disguised as "religious rights" then you need to get another bible.

OLAADEGBU:


So you believe the disciples disobeyed an unjust law but Kim has no right to disobey an unjust law? Why should Kim have her rights denied her when she is also a tax payer who is equally entitled to have her religious rights protected? The fact that you wished that she should go hungry because of her exercising her religious rights shows that you are in the enemies camp who will rather that Christians be chased out of town.

This is a senseless myopic argument.

By the same premise, why should the gay tax payer (who is contributing to Kim Davis' salary) not be entitled to have his right to marry whoever he wants under the law? No one wishes she goes hungry, that is just senseless hyperbole... what of the gay folks who are not entitled to federal benefits that accrue to married people just because Kim Davis does not like her pet sin? Should they go hungry too or do they not matter since they are inferior and thus of no consequence to you?

Kim Davis will not go hungry, as a government employee, she is entitled to retirement benefits, social security or look for another job. Last i checked, county clerk was not the only job in Rowan county. I do not like war... i will not join the army then start to assert my religious right to not have to be drafted... while demanding to be paid a salary of course... i'm astounded that you cannot see the sheer emptiness of your arguments.

OLAADEGBU:


Judicial tyranny is when the law discriminates to exercise justice when it comes to Christians exercising their rights. I opened a thread where a lesbian judge refused to marry straight couples and the lesbian judge was not prosecuted for choosing to marry them. You are a typical example of the kind of people who will persecute Christians in the last days seeking to eliminate them as your friends who sought to expose Daniel when he chose to pray when the edict forbid him to do so.

As someone once said, the problem with people like you and Kim Davis is that your "god" isnt really the Lord Jesus but the "god" of freedom and religious rights. Christ did not die so that christians can demand rights under a political system. What of christians in Iraq? Did God forget to give them rights too or are they going to hell since they cannot exercise the same "rights" that american christians bray all day about?

The bible encourages us to show ourselves as examples to others, that they may through our good works (not the demanding of political rights as given to us by a secular, godless constitution) glorify God in heaven. Christ said in the last day, we will be persecuted for His namesake. American christians instead have chosen to crusade for political rights to discriminate against others they dont like instead. You have the right to disobey a law all you want, you however do not deserve the right to demand that you continue getting paid for your disobedience. That is not judicial tyranny, that is common sense.

I notice none of you have said anything about the Express Jet muslim lady fired because she invoked her religious right not to serve alcohol on the plane... i guess you dont care since she doesnt serve the same God as you right? Where you also not complaining whey muslims tried to assert their right to build a mosque at ground zero? American christianity... hypocrisy is thy name.

As another person said, when fascism and persecution will come to America, it will come draped in a flag and carrying the bible.

OLAADEGBU:


If I were you I would rather examine my faith to see if I've not been deceived all alone thinking that I am saved. Daniel was an high official in Babylon when he disobeyed the kings order not to pray to any other God than him. If you were Daniel would you rather resign your position or disobey the edict?

I already responded to the idiocy of trying to compare Kim Davis to Daniel... this is the type of irresponsible bible usage that allows ego-driven people like Kim Davis to erroneously think that God is somehow pleased with their self-serving acts of rebellion. Daniel was a high official... one would have thought he would have used that position to deny ordinary idol-worshiping Babylonians their rights for not bowing down to the Jewish God right? Why did Daniel ignore all the idol worshiping to pray to God in his closet?

Again just to reiterate to the hard of hearing and the dishonest... the problem with Kim Davis was not that she disobeyed a government order. If she had resigned, no one would have cared at all. The problem is that she disobeyed the order and still expects to stay back in the same government drawing a check that is paid out of taxpayers (many of whom are gay and do not subscribe to her form of religion at all). Not only that, she forbids all other 6 deputy clerks from issuing marriage certificates to both the gay and the straight... so regale us, when did Daniel do all of the above?

OLAADEGBU:


Daniel did not 'leave government service' when he was denied his right to pray to the living God did he?

That's true... but i guess your dishonest will not allow you to see the illogicality in trying to equate the two. Daniel lived under a monarchy, he did not have the right to simply walk off the job whenever he wanted. Secondly, Daniel did not attempt to use his position to deny benefits and rights to babylonians who refused to pray to his God now did he?

Nauseating.

OLAADEGBU:


And that is what Peter and many of the disciples did because they would rather obey God than man. That is Christianity for you especially when living under a judicial tyranny.

For the upteenth time, judicial tyranny is not when a court decides that everyone cannot be forced to live under the dictates of your version of god. I'll believe you when courts restrict you from going to church or ask you not to buy a bible... until then, please spare us the false hyperbole. The rest of us, christians too, are tired of your religious tyranny.

OLAADEGBU:


And that is what Peter and many of the disciples did because they would rather obey God than man. That is Christianity for you especially when living under a judicial tyranny.

The actions of peter/the disciples are a complete opposite of what Kim Davis has done. The disciples disobeyed an unjust law but did not attempt to use the instrument of power to force others to live according to their dictates. More importantly, the disciples were not hypocritically drawing salaries from the same government they were rebelling against, while suing the same government for violating their "rights" to discriminate against others who believe differently than they. Even more importantly, the disciples lived lives that were beyond reproach - you could argue about their preaching, but you could never accuse them of living lives that were in complete contrast to what they preached.

Please stop using the gospel heroes to whitewash the unchristian character of your heroes of constitutional activism.

OLAADEGBU:


Did you read the suggested link?

I really tried but i see no use for the frequent caterwauling about muslims destroying christian civilization. I'm not sure Christ is concerned about earthly civilizations...

OLAADEGBU:


Be sincere now. If the Nazi regime put a gun to your head and told you that you either shoot the Jews or you get shot what will you do?

Ask them to shoot me rather quickly. I know where i'm going when i leave this world so no need to fear. But this had nothing to do with my response. What would the three hebrew children do if they were in Kim Davis's shoes? Would they make it about Christ or about their own religious piety and rebellious tantrums?

OLAADEGBU:


"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6).

Jesus did not come to show us the way, teach us the truth, and give us the life, though He does all of this. Jesus is the only way to God, the only Truth and the Only Life in God. Jesus was exclusive in His assertions and I know this is a stumbling block to people like you who easily get offended because you seek a different lifestyle and this is the main reason why Christians all over the world are persecuted by people like yourself just as you are currently doing here.

Nevertheless, one cannot be a Christian and believe otherwise. Christians are not being unloving when they try to win others to Christ because they are aware that all people regardless of their religious affiliations and sinful lifestyles are eternally lost without Christ.

You're preaching to the wind as i doubt anyone has a problem with the gospel. It is true that sinners are eternally lost without Christ... but you dont reach those sinners by treating them as inferior beings who are beneath the very dust under the soles of your feet.

OLAADEGBU:


Your problem here is being politically correct, not wanting to offend the sinners and that's if you know the danger of a person going into a Christless eternity. If you really do you will not hesitate to offer a parachute to a person who is ready to jump our of a air-plane thinking that by flapping his hands he will be able to land safely. Jesus is the only 'parachute' that we have to put on as we are all under the death sentence because of sin. Using any other means to crash land will be catastrophic.

you don't ameliorate that danger by living a life that is a complete contradiction of the gospel either. its great to offer a parachute to someone jumping out of a plane, but i wonder if you're helping by calling them fools and idiots for jumping without a parachute before you help them. Most would just rather die than listen to you... and that is the danger of the type of unkind empty religious rhetoric that passes for preaching from people like you really.

OLAADEGBU:


If Jesus was to be tolerant of the adulterer He should have condoned their lifestyle. He did not condemn them because He was shortly going to pay for the penalty of our sins. He said that they should go and sin no more instead of telling them to continue in their sinful lifestyle. If you have a problem with me preaching against sin they you've got to repent and believe the gospel.

I'm not sure what strawman you're building to knock down but obviously you're not reading my responses with any objective view to understanding them at all. You've convinced yourself that political activism, religious zealotry and hateful rhetoric are the new fruits of the spirit contrary to Galatians 5:22.

Jesus did not tell us to condone sin... but He didnt ask us to forget to love the sinner in convicting them of sin either. More often than not, the biggest impediments to spreading the gospel is that our own lives are a complete contradiction of what we claim to preach. Lets take Kim Davis as an example -

This is a woman who was divorced 3 times (God hates divorce - Mal 2:16), married 4 times, had a child out of wedlock after committing adultery with at least 2 men. How many of her colleagues has she evangelized to? What exactly about this life brings any glory to the Lord? If i were a sinner, i'd be laughing her out of my house too. Look at Josh Duggar - he spent a great deal of time condemning gays and claiming that progressives were ruining the concept of family... all the while watching porn and committing adultery with porn stars... yeah i'm sure he also couched his hateful and empty rhetoric as "tough love".

The other problem is that American christians (like you) seem to have problems only with certain sins. If Kim Davis were a true christian - rather than a religious activist - is she also taking care to not issue marriage licenses to fornicators, liars, adulterers, divorcees, rebellious children, single parents? Why do those deserve marriage licenses but gays do not? Are there grades of sin in the bible?

I have no problem with anyone preaching against sin... i have a problem with people who do so with a sneering spirit and with selective hypocrisy.

OLAADEGBU:


With the way you are talking will you obey Hitler's Nazi law to murder the Jews or not?

Do exactly as the three hebrew children did... refuse by choosing to leave government service and going obediently to death if it came to that. What would you do? Call Hitler a demon or sue him to court? How christian.

OLAADEGBU:


Will you raise alarm alerting a person sleeping in his house that has caught fire or rather not disturb his 'peace'? I guess if you really love him you will sound the alarm not mindful of whether you disturb his peace or not. That is what I call tough love and not a spineless, weak concept that you call tolerance.

The point is how do you raise the alarm? By calling him an irresponsible idiot who is sleeping why his house burns?

We can simply follow the examples of Jesus and the apostles... tough love is the "cultural christian's" excuse for being unkind, uncharitable and a blanket for hurling insults at other people who they deem spiritually inferior. Extending the love of Christ includes sitting with sinners, eating with them, gently sharing the gospel with them... knowing that their sin is not of their own accord but as a result of spiritual blindness. We teach them with humility, knowing fully well that but for Christ, we would be no better. I prefer a spineless Jesus who told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more. I prefer a weak Jesus who let a prostitute use her tears to wash His feet... as His love and meekness gradually melted away the hardness of her heart.

OLAADEGBU:


If you admit that Jesus was not tolerant as the 'PC' police will like us to be, why would Christians lack the spine to call a spade a spade?

You're being very dishonest... as i have mentioned TWICE already, Christ was not politically correct TO RELIGIOUS HYPOCRITES. To sinners, He had extreme compassion... something we lack and try to dress up as "calling a spade a spade". Imagine Christ doing the same to the woman at the well with 4 husbands? Why didn't he just unkindly call her a harlot? What of the woman caught in adultery? Wonder why He did not yell at her and demand that she be stripped naked and whipped according to the law?

OLAADEGBU:


As I said the powers that be are ordained by God even when they are evil. Christians are only obliged to obey their Governments when it does not go against the Law of God who ordained them.

"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" (Romans 13:1).

You're looking at one side of the coin... 1 Pet 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. 19 For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. 20 For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.

Christians should certainly not obey laws that go against the scriptures. But how did God teach us to do so? To openly and rebelliously use the instruments of power to disobey the government? The three hebrew children refused to bow to Nebuchadnezzar, but they did so with humility, taking care NEVER to speak evil of the king. They boldly went to their deaths, praising God and asking Him to show Himself on their behalf. Their testimony brought even the wicked king to his knees... is anyone under the illusion that Kim Davis' actions have been of any positive benefit to the kingdom of God?

If Kim Davis wanted to follow their example, she could have simply resigned, trusting the Lord to get her a better job. That would have been a powerful witness for her faith. Rather, her attitude portrays christians as intolerant bullies and uncharitable hypocrites. She swears an oath to obey ALL laws of the land (secular laws by the way), pocketing a salary paid for by sinners she hates... while denying them a constitutional right that has been mandated by three layers of the judicial system? and we think God is impressed? lol

OLAADEGBU:


Are you now admitting that Jesus was not 'politically correct' when it comes to addressing 'powerful' personalities and issues in His day?

When often American southern christians talk about not being politically correct, they mean they want the unencumbered right to be as abusive as possible to their pet sinners - gays, illegal immigrants...

Jesus on the other hand, showed love, kindness and compassion for the least of these. Christ reserved His strong words for the religious hypocrites... folks like you, Franklin Graham and others who thumb their noses down at those they consider spiritually beneath them... all in the name of "truth" of course.

OLAADEGBU:


Was Jesus tolerant of sin and the sinful lifestyle?

No He wasnt, but He did not verbally beat up the publican or the woman caught in adultery or Zaccheus or Judas Iscariot... too often we mistake unkindness, uncharitable words and hurtful barbs for "truth".

OLAADEGBU:


And what do you think about them?

Where and when did I insult you? If I did I do sincerely apologise.

All you need to do is to look at countries whose constitutions are influenced by the Bible as opposed to those that are not and come to your own conclusion.

Read how the following Scriptures have influenced civilisation today. http://crossandquill.com/journey/the-influence-of-christianity-on-western-civilization/

Where are the countries whose constitutions are influenced by the bible? Please name them. Secondly, where did Christ say He was interested in making sure that the bible influenced constitutions of nations? Christ was here on earth for 33 years... at what point did He fight to politically influence the Jewish laws and statutes? Christ came to take God out of a building and into the hearts of men, we have spent the last few centuries fighting to put Him back behind constitutions, courts and federal buildings.

Nigeria and a lot of african countries are heavily influenced by christianity... of what benefit has it been to us? What does western civilization mean? You mean white civilization?

SirJeffry:
When the white men came to Africa, they had the bible and we had the land. Then they said let us pray and we closed our eyes. When we opened our eyes after the prayer, they had the land while we had the bible...Archbishop DESMOND TUTU.

then they gave us back the land, what have we done with it?

ennon92:
In a sane society, the prof will be taken care of...but in an insane society, u'll be left to rot: such is life.






If u read d whole write up finish click "like"...if u didn't click "share"

in a sane society, the prof would have saved for his retirement. The problem is most people forget that they would not have the capacity to earn a salary for life and need to save for the rainy day - when they are no longer able to draw on a wage. Its not the government's sole responsibility to save you from your irresponsibility. Harsh but true.