So Much for "All Men Are Created Equal"?

Right. Unless you are a doctor or other healthcare provider, then you are subject to the duties as prescribed (Ha ha, Rx!!) by your profession. And once you undertake a rescue/aid, you cannot abandon it once in progress. If you do, you can be sued for abandoning the effort. However, there is no law that requires someone to be a good samaritan.

The first person who raised the "Good Samaritan" law posited in such a way so that to make sense would require interpreting it as a requirement to act when encountering a person in need. It doesn't make sense as an example of how Biblical law is the same as secular law otherwise.

To require someone to render aid would be an example of Biblical law codified in the secular law, but there are no such laws. Only indemnification in the event aid is rendered by a non-medical professional.

SOOO your saying I should be able to marry as many women or sheep as I want??? Dude, cool.

The reason the laws of the country we live in do not permit the establishment of religion by the government was so the government could not say we ALL have to be the Episcopalian (aka the Church of England). It was not meant to exclude religion from the discussion of law as some now inturperate it.

I would agree with living by the laws of our country, I hope I don't sound like a radical. I'm thought of as pretty "open minded" in my circle of friends. I love all people and count as dear friends many people I don't agree with on many issues, even, dare I say, ...sooners. I'm not a maker of laws nor even an authority, I'm fundamental flawed in my nature and even with his forgiveness I'm not whole and perfect until after the first death. I'm just a guy with a couple of kids trying to be a good Daddy and to point my children down the right path with the proper barries in place to keep them safe and sound in a world where other think they should live outside the boundries. We all step over those boundries now and again, but I don't think we should reward those steps or condone them. That does NOT mean we should be ok with any action but love toward those who step over them or disagree with us on where they are drawn.

I'm not making any assumptions but do want to point out the the Jewish Priests were well versed in their traditions and the law. They still got it wrong.

Don't forget that God uses the poor, weak, and unwise to get His message across. Just because you have education on your side doesn't mean you know the true meaning of the Gospel, or Jesus' Word.

I would recommend that you don't use that as your proof of knowing the Word. Wisdom from the bible comes only from the Holy Spirit within.

First point: The definition is one of the bases for all the hubbub. It is not defined in many instances, and those who seek to ban same-sex marriage do so by proposing that it be statutorily defined as one man, one woman.

Second point: In states where same-sex unions are permitted (CT, VT, MA, HI are the ones I can recall - there might be another or others), it is not a "marriage" but a "civil union" (or similar nomenclature). Thus, the union between the same-sex pair is granted the civil rights afforded by marriage (inheritance, insurance coverage, etc.) without getting entangled in religious tradition.

Third point: The necessity for the constitution to establish a basic minimum, or "floor", of individual rights is to guarantee and protect certain liberties and rights to everyone, notwithstanding the fact that a majority of the populace might not agree with extending such rights to everyone. For example, you might generate a majority to get behind the idea that all redheads (or whatever group) shall be denied the ability to procreate. Just because you might find a majority to agree with you does not make it constitutional.

Ever hear the phrase "tyranny of the majority"? The constitution protects us against it.

Ha! If only... But don't tell my wife!

As are we all. God's peace to you.

And what are your qualifications to dispense recommendations to me, exactly?

Then you ought to know the difference between moral law and ceremonial law, and the effects on each of Christ's fulfillment of the law. Your previous post shows no evidence of such.

Oh, please, you're going to label me with a pejorative and then tell me I'm the one being offensive...

Are you aware of how the Bible tells us to behave towards those who are weaker in the faith, and what it means to us, those who are stronger in the faith and more learned in doctrine, if we cause them to stumble?

I'm sorry, Verb, but what I saw in your earlier message was someone who was using scripture politically, and not someone who was trying to improve another Christian's understanding of doctrine. I've seen the exact same "thumbing through Leviticus" argument used by atheists. I say again, if you are a learned Bible scholar you can do better.

I don't have any. Who am I to do or say anything to change your mind?

However, I can provide the wisdom that I have been given in my reading of the bible; the Jewish Priests thought they were right because of their education of the law and traditions. If you feel the same way, then reconsider your position.

Being offended is not harm.

18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

give me a concrete limit or a purely objective rational for what defines something as right or wrong or what defines something as a right or not a right.

if Adam and Steve run a red light, they might kill someone. if they get married, they... ummm... wait, how are those the same?

I found two that doesn't say that at all.

Luke 20, give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.
Romans 13, submit to governing authorities since God places them in that position.

Linked for reference. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=luke 20:20-26;romans 13:1-7;&version=50;

1 Peter 2:13: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."

Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

That doesn't say that at all. It is saying that you must submit to the authority placed by those in position of authority. Not keep government and God separate.

Submit and separate do not equal the same thing Verb.

Read your own words again. Is that what you are doing?

You can't exclude God from anything. That's like taking the wet out of water.

What we are supposed to do, however, is make and enforce law based on secular principals. While each of us will (and should) act in acordance to what we beleive is God's will for us; if we want to make a law we need to be able to come up with something that is objectively quantifiable.

It is perfectly fine to want to pass a law because we believe that is God's will, but we can't use that reason as the justification for our hypothetical law; we need to look into the secular need for the law.

As soon as we give any religious tradition authority to justify law we all loose our 1st amendment protection to freely practice our religion.

I thoroughly disagree with your interpretation, and I think Paul does, too.

What you were describing is a "good samaritan" but the good samaritan law is a little different. The good samaritan laws grant immunity, if the good samaritan makes an error while rendering emergency medical care, he or she cannot be held legally liable for damages in court.

Are not Caesar's things God's things? All things are God's. I think Jesus is trying to teach them that these "Earthly / Caesar's" things don't really matter that much. Give Caesar what he wants it's only temporary, Give God everything he's eternal. That's how I would interpret it based on the context it's in. They were trying to trap him on trivia, he threw it in back in their face. It says less about separation of church and state and more about WHO is in control of all things. After all WHAT things are God's things?? All things.

But, as with most things Jesus taught it had more than one lesson and it does ALSO say that we should obey the laws of the land.