Religions are fairy tales for adults. Should we encourage them to grow up?

I didn't address my post to you.

I addressed my post to you.

As I already said you can't use one scripture against another and Peter would agree.

I'm not using scripture at all, it just says what it says.

"Obey the laws and be nice."

Funny how that's too much to ask...

Of course you can counter scripture with scripture. The most famous example in the entire Bible is of Jesus citing Deuteronomy in response to the tempter citing Psalms 91.

Tempter: "For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee: And in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone."

Jesus: "It is said, Thou shalt not tempt the LORD thy God."

It would be tempting if he'd intentionally put himself in harm's way. There is no contradiction otherwise.

You apparently forgot the scripture I already quoted, even said by Peter as well, that "we ought to obey God rather than man." You can't put the other one above this one. Both are true. Scripture has to be read in context, in the light of every other scripture.

Faith writes: Just because she knew in advance that she couldn't go along with the law before it happened does not mean she did anything to "set this up" in advance. That's pernicious nonsense.

Well, that's herpetic hornswoggle, Faith.

She knew full well she likely wouldn't fulfill her oath of office when she took it. She was already resolved to assert that her religious beliefs trumped the law. She has declared herself (literally) a vessel of God's will: I thought he preferred the devout to self-righteous, thrice-divorced mothers of two out-of-wedlock kids.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. For a pagan.

You've previously argued she never in her wildest dreams imagined she'd have to issue licenses to gays; so has Ms. Davis and her lawyers. They lied. I guess you believed them, though you should know by now that nobody lies like an evangelical Christian in a public policy debate.

New York Times on other refusal to issue licenses :

Http://www.nytimes.com/...davis-denies-marriage-license.html

When she took the oath? When was that?

Also much is being made of her divorces but I haven't followed the history of her life so I don't know if those preceded or followed her conversion to Christ. Although we are all unfortunately still susceptible to sin after conversion, some of us come to Christ with a lot of sin baggage already dragging behind us. He saves sinners, remember? That doesn't make the sin disappear.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You mean her oath to uphold the law? Sometime in 2014, the year of her election.

The comment came from a neighbor and supporter out to reinforce Davis' claim of religious sincerity in an NPR interview--as if that mattered.

Even during the campaign, she knew her oath was worthless.

You are making a lot of unwarranted assertions and accusations but I haven't yet seen you say anything to prove that she "knew" she was going to be in the position of disobeying her oath. It wasn't until a few months before the SCOTUS ruling that any of us started to see what was coming. So where are you getting your certainty about her frame of mind. You're a mind-reader now? Or perhaps, like the rest of us, she could see what was brewing but hoped against hope it wouldn't go against Christians. BUT AGAIN, it doesn't matter. If a law violates God's law, that law must be disobeyed.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How odd. I'm getting my certainty about her frame of mind from her own statements.

When you campaign for office already resolving aloud to ignore laws you don't like, then swear to uphold all the laws without favor or bias, you were lying--even before you lie about never imagining it could happen. She feared it would happen and had made up her mind to defy the law before taking the contradictory oath.

QED

All the hand-waving in the world won't change that

You are referring to information I'm not up on. All I can say is so what. She anticipated a conflict and she took the chance anyway. So what.

You're right. She's just another liar for Jesus.

There's no lie involved.

Here's an explanation of why Davis is almost alone in her defiance:

Despite many loud proclamations of defiance after the ruling, the vast majority of counties have accepted the law. One little-known and controversial practice might be behind some of this unexpected compliance. In Utah, North Carolina, Texas and other states, local governments are shifting responsibilities so that employees who object to gay marriage do not have to be involved with wedding licenses at all. In this scenario, the objectors’ co-workers or other government officials rotate to handle the task, allowing clerks who object to fade into the background and not participate. In fact, this might be what happens in Davis’s case: Late Thursday afternoon, five of her deputy clerks offered to begin issuing marriage licensing, a move that could save her from jail. They won’t be the only clerks covering for their bosses. Hood County Clerk Katie Lang denied a marriage license to a same-sex couple in Texas several times after the Supreme Court ruling. But after the pair filed a federal lawsuit, their licenses were quickly granted. Lang released a statement saying she would “personally refrain” from issuing them, but that other people in her office would do so instead. These kinds of personal exemptions have flourished elsewhere, as well.

HERE'S THE STORY

But at the end, just exactly whose signature is on those documents?

In most government offices, it's the elected/appointed official whose signature is placed on all documents going through that office, regardless of whatever sub-official actually performed the actual transaction.

Admittedly, I don't know the procedural riggoramo ... er ... officious BS wording that must be used officially. OK, I am relying on my USAF Leadership School training here. Who has the authority to sign off on anything? Where did that person derive his/her authority from? In our USAF command's Leadership School, we suffered through a long and tortuous lecture that started with the Constitution of the United States of America and meticulously traced down to the authority of a non-commissioned officer (NCO) to issue orders to his subordinates.

There was something else that we were taught. We not only could delegate authority, but we were actually required to do so, so that our subordinates could discharge the duties that we had delegated to them. At the same time, we could never delegate responsibility. We were still responsible for what our subordinates did.

Now that Davis is imprisoned as is appropriate, her subordinates are issuing marriage licenses. Whose name appears on those licenses? In whose authority are those subordinates acting? What difference exists?

I really don't know what point you are trying to make. My point is very simple: if ANY human law, doesn't matter what its source, contradicts God, a Christian must disobey that law. Period.

You can render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, you can't render unto Caesar what is God's.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.