[The Urban Sombrero]

You being the gaseous windbag I assume?

Oh that's right, you point out something in the above that had nearly slipped my mind. But thanks for helping me clarify your condition. Make that Bipolar/Psychological projection, which is the theory in psychology in which certain types of the mentally compromised, defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities by denying such existence within themselves, while at the same time attributing them to others. :Thumbs:

Well, look, ol' Siggy himself has Freuded us with his complex analysis. Wait, you're not Sigmund or Karl or Skinner; you're TRT, and wrong again, and dancing 'round the fact that your Constitution, as it is one of your construct, is perfectly willing to deny equal protection in the name of God, much like your Dark Ages exemplars.

[TheRealThing]

Well, look, ol' Siggy himself has Freuded us with his complex analysis. Wait, you're not Sigmund or Karl or Skinner; you're TRT, and wrong again, and dancing 'round the fact that your Constitution, as it is one of your construct, is perfectly willing to deny equal protection in the name of God, much like your Dark Ages exemplars.

You used the word 'us,' so there must be more than one of you in there and may I say I've always suspected as much. And yet though it's true I'm no Freud, it is obvious that at least one of you in there feels of sufficiently high stature so as to speak in condescending terms of the great Antonin Scalia.

[The Urban Sombrero]

You used the word 'us,' so there must be more than one of you in there and may I say I've always suspected as much. And yet though it's true I'm no Freud, it is obvious that at least one of you in there feels of sufficiently high stature so as to speak in condescending terms of the great Antonin Scalia.

No sir. I disagree with Judge Scalia. That is not disparagement nor condescension; it is an American citizen exercising the freedom of speech in the act of dissent. I assert that denying same sex couples the right to marry, and thereby violating equal protection, contradicts the egalitarian principles that undergird our Republic at its highest understanding. Let us say, TRT, that you attend the Hairy Eared King James Old Regular Baptist Church. I would oppose your church being forced to perform or sanction a same sex marriage based on Constitutional principle, just as I would and do oppose leaving to individual states to deny equal protection under the law to citizens of the United States. When Paul starts all those sentences with "let us," well, TRT, what are you saying?

[TheRealThing]

No sir. > I disagree with Judge Scalia. That is not disparagement nor condescension; it is an American citizen exercising the freedom of speech in the act of dissent. I assert that denying same sex couples the right to marry, and thereby violating equal protection, contradicts the egalitarian principles that undergird our Republic at its highest understanding. Let us say, TRT, that you attend the Hairy Eared King James Old Regular Baptist Church. I would oppose your church being forced to perform or sanction a same sex marriage based on Constitutional principle, just as I would and do oppose leaving to individual states to deny equal protection under the law to citizens of the United States. > When Paul starts all those sentences with "let us," well, TRT, what are you saying?

> Do tell, and how about Einstein's theory of relativity? You'd have as good a chance of refuting him as you would Scalia. :please:

> Seriously? You're bringing up 'The' Paul who wrote the book of Romans, you do realize that right? I mean, I just cited Romans 1:27 (KJV)
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Paul also wrote Corinthians. 2 Corinthians 5:17 (KJV)
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

There are no saved practicing homosexuals, much less any gay priests or pastors. They must repent of their sin, completely turning their backs on it forever, and at that point they are sealed by God's Holy Spirit and transformed to become new creatures in Christ, or they cannot be saved at all. This is what is meant in verse 28 when PAUL said God turns the homosexual over to a reprobate mind, and why that particular sin is so terrifying. Romans 1:28 (KJV)
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

There are no ambiguities or areas of great debate in the Bible, and that's one reason I love God's Word so much. Harrys S Truman had a sign on his desk which said "The Buck Stops Here" Well, the lies and distortions and guileful machinations of the those who compromise truth stops with The Almighty. Though we live in the day of lies, they will all come to a thankful end soon enough. Until then we come to Him on His terms only, no negotiating or hint of reservation on our part.

[The Urban Sombrero]

> Do tell, and how about Einstein's theory of relativity? You'd have as good a chance of refuting him as you would Scalia. :please:

> Seriously? You're bringing up 'The' Paul who wrote the book of Romans, you do realize that right? I mean, I just cited Romans 1:27 (KJV)
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Paul also wrote Corinthians. 2 Corinthians 5:17 (KJV)
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

There are no saved practicing homosexuals, much less any gay priests or pastors. They must repent of their sin, completely turning their backs on it forever, and at that point they are sealed by God's Holy Spirit and transformed to become new creatures in Christ, or they cannot be saved at all. This is what is meant in verse 28 when PAUL said God turns the homosexual over to a reprobate mind, and why that particular sin is so terrifying. Romans 1:28 (KJV)
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

There are no ambiguities or areas of great debate in the Bible, and that's one reason I love God's Word so much. Harrys S Truman had a sign on his desk which said "The Buck Stops Here" Well, the lies and distortions and guileful machinations of the those who compromise truth stops with The Almighty. Though we live in the day of lies, they will all come to a thankful end soon enough. Until then we come to Him on His terms only, no negotiating or hint of reservation on our part.

Hold on there, sir. You referenced my using the pronoun "us" and tied it to an insult. Many times, the Apostle Paul started sentences with "Let us...." Would you suggest Paul suffered from "more than one in there" or whatever crap you were flinging? That was the "let us" line.

You, nor I, believe in human inerrancy. Stop acting like simply because Scalia believed it that it's gospel. Brilliance, genius, superior intellect, none of these fortress the individual from error. In fact, history proves the opposite: great error can spring from great intellect. You may worship Scalia. I do not.

[TheRealThing]

Hold on there, sir. You referenced my using the pronoun "us" and tied it to an insult. Many times, the Apostle Paul started sentences with "Let us...." Would you suggest Paul suffered from "more than one in there" or whatever crap you were flinging? That was the "let us" line.

You, nor I, believe in human inerrancy. Stop acting like simply because Scalia believed it that it's gospel. Brilliance, genius, superior intellect, none of these fortress the individual from error. In fact, history proves the opposite: great error can spring from great intellect. You may worship Scalia. I do not.

Unbelievable, you seriously don't understand Paul was speaking on God's behalf to the saved of that day & onward? Therefore since he was speaking of himself and all Christians, the let 'us' do whatever. You don't agree with Scalia because you don't accept his work based on the Christ denying logic of the liberal.

I accept his work for a lot of reasons, but mostly because it doesn't defy the record of our heritage or common sense, but more importantly he did not advocate for that which is unnatural.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Unbelievable, you seriously don't understand Paul was speaking on God's behalf to the saved of that day & onward? Therefore since he was speaking of himself and all Christians, the let 'us' do whatever. You don't agree with Scalia because you don't accept his work based on the Christ denying logic of the liberal.

I accept his work for a lot of reasons, but mostly because it doesn't defy the record of our heritage or common sense, but more importantly he did not advocate for that which is unnatural.

Lighten up, Francis. You obviously lack a sense of humor. Now, as to your contention that to defend egalitarian principle, not specific races or genders or behaviors, but principle, is Christ denying: pure poppycock. Do you not understand that advocating for equal protection to extend to all is, historically speaking, an advocacy away from history's atrocities? You believe, I take it, that positing same sex marriage under the auspices of equal protection is impossible for one who truly believes homosexuality misses the mark of God. Further, you believe that, being "unnatural," homosexuality is in a class of sin distinct from adultery and fornication as sexual sin. Because Scalia shared that view, you place him beyond reproach or disagreement. And, if anyone dissents from any of that, he or she denies Christ? Back up the truck, your load of manure might grow the roses, but it won't pass the smell test of history.

[TheRealThing]

Lighten up, Francis. You obviously lack a sense of humor. Now, as to your contention that to defend egalitarian principle, not specific races or genders or behaviors, but principle, is Christ denying: pure poppycock. Do you not understand that advocating for equal protection to extend to all is, historically speaking, an advocacy away from history's atrocities? You believe, I take it, that positing same sex marriage under the auspices of equal protection is impossible for one who truly believes homosexuality misses the mark of God. Further, you believe that, being "unnatural," homosexuality is in a class of sin distinct from adultery and fornication as sexual sin. Because Scalia shared that view, you place him beyond reproach or disagreement. And, if anyone dissents from any of that, he or she denies Christ? Back up the truck, your load of manure might grow the roses, but it won't pass the smell test of history.

Homosexuality is a sin in a class distinct from adultery. Sodom and Gomorrah being reduced to cinders and every inhabitant killed as recorded in Genesis 19 is testament of that inescapable fact, and if that were not proof enough as Romans chapter 1 further confirms beyond question.

There are only two views where moral issues are concerned, the right view and the wrong view. The record establishes Scalia as one of the greatest jurists in the history of the Supreme Court. But past that he resisted the efforts of guile filled hot shot lawyers seeking to erode truth by eternally attacking same with recycled arguments reframed and repackaged ala the liberal, and in this case, the been there done that NOT, Sombrero. The laughable critic of great men of virtue and faith.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Homosexuality is a sin in a class distinct from adultery. Sodom and Gomorrah being reduced to cinders and every inhabitant killed as recorded in Genesis 19 is testament of that inescapable fact, and if that were not proof enough as Romans chapter 1 further confirms beyond question.

There are only two views where moral issues are concerned, the right view and the wrong view. The record establishes Scalia as one of the greatest jurists in the history of the Supreme Court. But past that he resisted the efforts of guile filled hot shot lawyers seeking to erode truth by eternally attacking same with recycled arguments reframed and repackaged ala the liberal, and in this case, the been there done that NOT, Sombrero. The laughable critic of great men of virtue and faith.

While I doubt you knew Scalia, I have disagreed with him, not criticized him. To say that a man is fallible is hardly controversial. When Scalia debated Breyer and Ginsberg, the "winner" was in the eye of the beholder. I watched both and Scalia did not seem any more or less versed in the law than either: they disagreed.

To assert that upholding egalitarian principle, even in cases where one's personal convictions lie elsewhere, protects against the kinds of injustices and atrocities perpetrated in history, and that lurk still in the human heart, is of the highest spirit of the Constitution and not anti Christian. You, TRT, are flat wrong at that point. Period. Now, don't go using abusive ad hominem, then act all offended and hurt when it has no effect.

[TheRealThing]

While I doubt you knew Scalia, I have disagreed with him, not criticized him. To say that a man is fallible is hardly controversial. When Scalia debated Breyer and Ginsberg, the "winner" was in the eye of the beholder. I watched both and Scalia did not seem any more or less versed in the law than either: they disagreed.

To assert that upholding egalitarian principle, even in cases where one's personal convictions lie elsewhere, protects against the kinds of injustices and atrocities perpetrated in history, and that lurk still in the human heart, is of the highest spirit of the Constitution and not anti Christian. You, TRT, are flat wrong at that point. Period. Now, don't go using abusive ad hominem, then act all offended and hurt when it has no effect.

To criticize Scalia's work is to criticize him. You can't compartmentalize everything in spewing poisonous opposition to the cause of moral standards and then feign innocence by standing back with your hands up like the basketball player who just clobbered his opponent on a shot attempt. You came on this forum like I have said, and within the first 10 posts had made a defense of same sex marriage.

In fact you've argued for legalized homosexual unions under several patriotic sounding abstractions from freedom of conscience, to essential liberty, and now it's on to the more concrete concept of equal protection. The only problem with your last attempt is that the sexually depraved are not, (or at least shouldn't be) a protected class.

So I'll grant you, although every knee will one day bow before Him, as things stand now I lack the authority to slam the door on you hard enough to ever argue you down because you deal in feelings. One of those being unwavering contempt in that you evidently despise those that are good (2Tim 3:3), as in those who are Christians or who resist the liberal's assault on the US Constitution and all they hold dear. However the verse that most often comes to my mind as being applicable to our little discussions is the following;
Matthew 12:36 (KJV)
36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

Sombrero, defender of the disobedient and advocate of those who knowingly do wrong, is to one day I suppose, lay out his oral treatise before the Almighty on these matters.

[The Urban Sombrero]

To criticize Scalia's work is to criticize him. You can't compartmentalize everything in spewing poisonous opposition to the cause of moral standards and then feign innocence by standing back with your hands up like the basketball player who just clobbered his opponent on a shot attempt. You came on this forum like I have said, and within the first 10 posts had made a defense of same sex marriage.

In fact you've argued for legalized homosexual unions under several patriotic sounding abstractions from freedom of conscience, to essential liberty, and now it's on to the more concrete concept of equal protection. The only problem with your last attempt is that the sexually depraved are not, (or at least shouldn't be) a protected class.

So I'll grant you, although every knee will one day bow before Him, as things stand now I lack the authority to slam the door on you hard enough to ever argue you down because you deal in feelings. One of those being unwavering contempt in that you evidently despise those that are good (2Tim 3:3), as in those who are Christians or who resist the liberal's assault on the US Constitution and all they hold dear. However the verse that most often comes to my mind as being applicable to our little discussions is the following;
Matthew 12:36 (KJV)
36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

Sombrero, defender of the disobedient and advocate of those who knowingly do wrong, is to one day I suppose, lay out his oral treatise before the Almighty on these matters.

Egalitarian principle is a feeling? Not unless you're a fool.

Defending equal protection under the law is not the same as advocating for the rightness of a behavior, unless you're a slab head.

God makes his rain to fall, his son to shine on righteous and unrighteous, just and unjust. In so doing, according to your logic, he is advocating injustice and wrong action.

Criticizing a legal opinion is criticizing Scalia? What? Are you 12? And I'm dealing in feelings? That's really funny.

[TheRealThing]

Egalitarian principle is a feeling? Not unless you're a fool.

Defending equal protection under the law is not the same as advocating for the rightness of a behavior, unless you're a slab head.

God makes his rain to fall, his son to shine on righteous and unrighteous, just and unjust. In so doing, according to your logic, he is advocating injustice and wrong action.

Criticizing a legal opinion is criticizing Scalia? What? Are you 12? And I'm dealing in feelings? That's really funny.

Oh excuse me I forgot, Equal Protection is not faux muckety muck enough for the likes of the Sombrero. No, the newly repackaged nome de jour is egalitarian principle. Under which no doubt, the rabidly revisionist imagine they can now more appropriately operate.

Let me dispense with my logic and in your case, anti-logic, in favor of the immutable Word of God.
Matthew 12:36 (KJV)
36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

Rage on defender of depravity.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Oh excuse me I forgot, Equal Protection is not faux muckety muck enough for the likes of the Sombrero. No, the newly repackaged nome de jour is egalitarian principle. Under which no doubt, the rabidly revisionist imagine they can now more appropriately operate.

Let me dispense with my logic and in your case, anti-logic, in favor of the immutable Word of God.
Matthew 12:36 (KJV)
36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

Rage on defender of depravity.

Of course, it was Christ who said the sun shines and rain falls on righteous and unrighteous, just and unjust. And, once again, your seeming inability to make a distinction with a difference is uncanny. Rant on, pompous wind bag.

[TheRealThing]

Of course, it was Christ who said the sun shines and rain falls on righteous and unrighteous, just and unjust. And, once again, your seeming inability to make a distinction with a difference is uncanny. Rant on, pompous wind bag.

It probably just seems that way to you. You who despite the clarity of and finality of God's Own warnings, (given to us in love I might add) are nonetheless awash in your own agnostic rationalizations.

[The Urban Sombrero]

It probably just seems that way to you. You who despite the clarity of and finality of God's Own warnings, (given to us in love I might add) are nonetheless awash in your own agnostic rationalizations.

Funny, egalitarian principle and equal protection protect the Christian also. However, when the state will not mantle Christianity as state religion, you've got gruff to spew. Somehow, I guess, you believe that your ilk have risen above the slippery slope of history's lessons and can be trusted in your revisionist constructions.

[TheRealThing]

Funny, egalitarian principle and equal protection protect the Christian also. However, when the state will not mantle Christianity as state religion, you've got gruff to spew. Somehow, I guess, you believe that your ilk have risen above the slippery slope of history's lessons and can be trusted in your revisionist constructions.

Wrong, the redefined principles of the rabidly liberal protect no one. They only impose on others the wishes of those who disagree with our long established moral norms. But like I said with Gorsuch being confirmed this week, and with 8 years of Trump at the helm, likely to be followed by Mike Pence, liberals have a lot of whining to look forward to. And even given the liberal propensity to conjure up their own reality, for your ilk, I see tough times ahead. :biggrin:

[The Urban Sombrero]

Wrong, the redefined principles of the rabidly liberal protect no one. They only impose on others the wishes of those who disagree with our long established moral norms. But like I said with Gorsuch being confirmed this week, and with 8 years of Trump at the helm, likely to be followed by Mike Pence, liberals have a lot of whining to look forward to. And even given the liberal propensity to conjure up their own reality, for your ilk, I see tough times ahead. :biggrin:

I will be at Pine Mountain Grill on the Wednesday following election day 2024. If Mike Pence is President, order the T-bone or filet, or both, send the bill over to the Sombrero. My treat.

[TheRealThing]

I will be at Pine Mountain Grill on the Wednesday following election day 2024. If Mike Pence is President, order the T-bone or filet, or both, send the bill over to the Sombrero. My treat.

I hope that day finds you in good health. I will make it a point to be there.

[The Urban Sombrero]

I hope that day finds you in good health. I will make it a point to be there.

It's a deal. Note the time and date. We've agreed on something: a Wednesday, 2024, Pine Mountain Grill. Now that's funny; I don't care who you are.