Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JerryNumbers

Prop 8 ruling: nothing 'wrong' with being gay

Recommended Posts

Oh boy, what a thread! I can see the decay of Christians before my eyes. I guess if we want to throw morals as a country out the door to protect rights that is okay. Since we are advocating equal rights, we might as well let older men marry young girls. There is nothing Biblically wrong with it afterall. While we are at it, lets allow euthenasia. I mean they do have a right to die if they want to, don't they? Come on folks, where does the buck stop? Where do you draw the line of freedom versus morals? I actually was waiting for the equal rights argument to come up...I just knew it would!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but that doesn't truly apply - if it did, I'm sure that the CA Supreme Court would have said so - they are usually a pretty liberal bunch. Equal protection doesn't mean marriage. *shrugs* Application of amendments needs to be done by looking up intent.


I'm afraid it does. That's why it was the Federal District Court in CA, not the California Supreme Court, that was hearing the case.

Please don't lock the thread (i.e., "take my ball and go home"), I'm still waiting for John to tell us what we are to do with all these homosexuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid it does. That's why it was the Federal District Court in CA, not the California Supreme Court, that was hearing the case.

Please don't lock the thread (i.e., "take my ball and go home"), I'm still waiting for John to tell us what we are to do with all these homosexuals.

I'm afraid it doesn't - the 13-15th amendments were dealing specifically with racism. Not same-sex marriage, and not the same thing at all.

pt - stop with your smart aleck stuff (talk about emotions). I locked that thread because you were becoming increasingly rude. It looks like you may be continuing that here...knock it off. If you can't discuss without insulting, then take your ball and go home. If you're so intent on what John has to say, you can always pm him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid it doesn't - the 13-15th amendments were dealing specifically with racism. Not same-sex marriage, and not the same thing at all.

pt - stop with your smart aleck stuff (talk about emotions). I locked that thread because you were becoming increasingly rude. It looks like you may be continuing that here...knock it off. If you can't discuss without insulting, then take your ball and go home. If you're so intent on what John has to say, you can always pm him.


I don't have time to give you a primer on constitutional law, but in an effort to help you, I'll at least quote the pertinent part of the 14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

As you can plainly see, it doesn't say anything about race or racism. There is no doubt that it was adopted in response to reconstruction era restrictions on the freedoms of blacks, but the Congress, in its wisdom, saw fit to not limit it's application to anyone other than "persons," which includes everyone and not just blacks. If they would have wanted it to only apply to racism or to blacks, then they would have said so. So, as it stands, every single person in this country is afforded equal protection of our laws. That means if we are going to allow one person to do somthing, then we must allow all persons to do the same thing. We can't pick and chose who our laws are going to apply to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have time to give you a primer on constitutional law, but in an effort to help you, I'll at least quote the pertinent part of the 14th Amendment: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

As you can plainly see, it doesn't say anything about race or racism. There is no doubt that it was adopted in response to reconstruction era restrictions on the freedoms of blacks, but the Congress, in its wisdom, saw fit to not limit it's application to anyone other than "persons," which includes everyone and not just blacks. If they would have wanted it to only apply to racism or to blacks, then they would have said so. So, as it stands, every single person in this country is afforded equal protection of our laws. That means if we are going to allow one person to do somthing, then we must allow all persons to do the same thing. We can't pick and chose who our laws are going to apply to.

I don't need a primer on constitutional law from you, thanks. I have my copy of the constitution and know what it says. And I've even read intent.

Gays are not a protected class (and what you quoted is not the only pertinent part...we must take the whole) nor has marriage been redefined. Until it has been re-defined to mean just marrying the one (or ones) you love, this doesn't apply. Any man can marry any woman (of course, of legal age...for now). The Constitution doesn't deal with marriage, rightly so, because it is not a governmental perogative. It is, however, a societal one - and the people of CA were well within their rights to vote against redefining marriage.

There has been no life, liberty or property denied gays. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Just one of each. But, truly, if Prop8 is upheld as Constitutional by the SCOTUS (rather than rejected on rational basis) then that renders unconstitutional all laws outlawing polygymy and other forms of "marriage" that perverted people might come up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still want four wives! Why can't I have four wives! It is my constitutional right to have four wives!

It is now - at least you could successully argue it based on this "precedent." (if it's upheld by SCOTUS). But just be prepared: wife #1 might have something to say (or do) about it. :laff cry: I want pictures when she blacks both your eyes. :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't need a primer on constitutional law from you, thanks. I have my copy of the constitution and know what it says. And I've even read intent.

Gays are not a protected class (and what you quoted is not the only pertinent part...we must take the whole) nor has marriage been redefined. Until it has been re-defined to mean just marrying the one (or ones) you love, this doesn't apply. Any man can marry any woman (of course, of legal age...for now). The Constitution doesn't deal with marriage, rightly so, because it is not a governmental perogative. It is, however, a societal one - and the people of CA were well within their rights to vote against redefining marriage.

There has been no life, liberty or property denied gays. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Just one of each. But, truly, if Prop8 is upheld as Constitutional by the SCOTUS (rather than rejected on rational basis) then that renders unconstitutional all laws outlawing polygymy and other forms of "marriage" that perverted people might come up with.


This is why it is dangerous to allow everyone a copy of the constitution. We should have a judicial class that has complete control over all of this.

And you are right, gays aren't a protected class. But people are. However, not allowing two people to marry is not denying them, as a couple, equal protection, it is denying equal protection to each one of them as an individual person. And why are we concerned about polygymy? A man can live with two women as if they were his wives right now anyway. I just fail to see why it is so bad to allow them the benefits of tax deductions and intestate succession. The way I see it, it's just none of my business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why it is dangerous to allow everyone a copy of the constitution. We should have a judicial class that has complete control over all of this.


Alrighty then! I like how you subtly take jabs at people. Of course I am sure you think it is okay for you to own a constitution as you are smarter than the rest of us, and it is part of your jOB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alrighty then! I like how you subtly take jabs at people. Of course I am sure you think it is okay for you to own a constitution as you are smarter than the rest of us, and it is part of your jOB.


It is part of my jOB and have received a proper education in the field, so I am part of the judicial class, so to speak. But that doesn't mean I am smarter than you. It simply means I have the benefit of education and experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why it is dangerous to allow everyone a copy of the constitution. We should have a judicial class that has complete control over all of this.

And you are right, gays aren't a protected class. But people are. However, not allowing two people to marry is not denying them, as a couple, equal protection, it is denying equal protection to each one of them as an individual person. And why are we concerned about polygymy? A man can live with two women as if they were his wives right now anyway. I just fail to see why it is so bad to allow them the benefits of tax deductions and intestate succession. The way I see it, it's just none of my business.

(I find it interesting that you champion certain "rights" but denigrate others - like people being "allowed" to have a copy of the Constitution...sometimes I think you make statements just to get people's dander up.)What is actually dangerous is supposed education, and ignorance of the Constitution - and of what this Republic was founded to be. Having a judicial class that has complete control over "all of this" would destroy the Republic completely (as it is, judicial activism is rampant and should be stopped).

Sorry, but each individual already has equal protection - in actual fact, gays have more protection. Shouldn't, but they do. And, since gays are not a protected class, since the lifestyle is not a trait, but a lifestyle, the 14th amendment does not apply.

Why are we concerned about polygamy? WE aren't. But polygamists are sure happy with this ruling. Sure, a man can live with two women as if they were his wives right now. But so can gays. You fail to see...? Perhaps that is because you fail to know what God says in His Word? Apart from societal concerns, God condemns it, and you should see it as wrong that way, at least.

Allowing them tax deductions and intestate succession (which they could fix themselves by writing a will...) redefines marriage. Do a little reading of history and you will see that every country that has normalized gay marriage has been destroyed. It breaks down society, even if a person doesn't want to consider what God says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is part of my jOB and have received a proper education in the field, so I am part of the judicial class, so to speak. But that doesn't mean I am smarter than you. It simply means I have the benefit of education and experience.

Some of us have the benefit of education, also. Perhaps not in corporate law, but there are other areas of education - that you don't have. And just because someone might not have gone to school to study law doesn't mean they aren't familiar with it, or at least certain aspects of it. T

To assume that you have the benefit of education and thus are more able to decide things than others is absolutely wrong (regarding a ruling judicial class). As to experience: Life experience teaches a lot, too. Something you will find as you get older.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(I find it interesting that you champion certain "rights" but denigrate others - like people being "allowed" to have a copy of the Constitution...sometimes I think you make statements just to get people's dander up.)What is actually dangerous is supposed education, and ignorance of the Constitution - and of what this Republic was founded to be. Having a judicial class that has complete control over "all of this" would destroy the Republic completely (as it is, judicial activism is rampant and should be stopped).

Sorry, but each individual already has equal protection - in actual fact, gays have more protection. Shouldn't, but they do. And, since gays are not a protected class, since the lifestyle is not a trait, but a lifestyle, the 14th amendment does not apply.

Why are we concerned about polygamy? WE aren't. But polygamists are sure happy with this ruling. Sure, a man can live with two women as if they were his wives right now. But so can gays. You fail to see...? Perhaps that is because you fail to know what God says in His Word? Apart from societal concerns, God condemns it, and you should see it as wrong that way, at least.

Allowing them tax dedcuctions and intestate succession (which they could fix themselves by writing a will...) redefines marriage. Do a little reading of history and you will see that every country that has normalized gay marriage has been destroyed. It breaks down society, even if a person doesn't want to consider what God says.


I believe that homosexuality is wrong, but I don't believe in outlawing homosexuality. It's not my place to force my moral beliefs on others. And it is not the right to live as they chose that they are concerned with, it is the same rights that the rest of us have.

And no, I really believe that way. I am leaving this country in a few months and I think I am going to enjoy watching things develope from afar. I intend to send as much money back here as I can in an effort to make each and every illegal alien a voting citizen then watching the evolution of our voting base and the changes in policy that brings. It should be very interesting. Eventually I think we'll see the dissolution of our establishments which will cause a lot of people to leave thereby open up large tracts of land for the taking. I truely believe we can see a feudal system in place within my lifetime. Hopefully, by then, I will have enough money to fund a respectable army and will be able to set up my own little kingdom right here in the American South.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that homosexuality is wrong, but I don't believe in outlawing homosexuality. It's not my place to force my moral beliefs on others. And it is not the right to live as they chose that they are concerned with, it is the same rights that the rest of us have.

And no, I really believe that way. I am leaving this country in a few months and I think I am going to enjoy watching things develope from afar. I intend to send as much money back here as I can in an effort to make each and every illegal alien a voting citizen then watching the evolution of our voting base and the changes in policy that brings. It should be very interesting. Eventually I think we'll see the dissolution of our establishments which will cause a lot of people to leave thereby open up large tracts of land for the taking. I truely believe we can see a feudal system in place within my lifetime. Hopefully, by then, I will have enough money to fund a respectable army and will be able to set up my own little kingdom right here in the American South.

I never said anything about outlawing homosexuality. Although it was illegal for many years (and still is in some states' blue laws). The 14th amendment does not offer "equal protection" for choices of lifestyle. Period. And that is what homosexuality is.

Yes, I thought you really did believe that. And I think it's sad that you will enjoy the demise of America. She is going to fall - but she will not become a feudal system. And I think it's truly sad that a lawyer would advocate for making every illegal alien a voting citizen. I'm for immigrants coming here legally. And becoming citizens. But not for the purpose of changing the country.

It's too bad you're not more interested in seeing the country thrive again, as it used to. But then, I guess you got all of your patriotism (assuming you had any to begin with) educated out of you.

Enjoy your little kingdom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that homosexuality is wrong, but I don't believe in outlawing homosexuality. It's not my place to force my moral beliefs on others. And it is not the right to live as they chose that they are concerned with, it is the same rights that the rest of us have.

And no, I really believe that way. I am leaving this country in a few months and I think I am going to enjoy watching things develope from afar. I intend to send as much money back here as I can in an effort to make each and every illegal alien a voting citizen then watching the evolution of our voting base and the changes in policy that brings. It should be very interesting. Eventually I think we'll see the dissolution of our establishments which will cause a lot of people to leave thereby open up large tracts of land for the taking. I truely believe we can see a feudal system in place within my lifetime. Hopefully, by then, I will have enough money to fund a respectable army and will be able to set up my own little kingdom right here in the American South.



I hope you don't spend too much money on making every illegal immigrant legal. You might end up as a peasant without any money because you spent it all on trying to become a NOBle by making this nation feudal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that LuAnne has already given a sound biblical answer as to what to do with homosexuals: "What do we do to keep people from being homosexual? Christians need to get busy telling others about Christ. Not just homosexuals, but all lost. There have been large numbers of homosexuals saved and turned from that lifestyle."

I've studied Constitutional law in university as well as being certified as a paralegal. LuAnn has the most accurate account as to the legal matters which have been discussed. ptwild continues to take the modernistic, liberal/progressive/socialist approach that is contrary to original intent.

Even given all that, being Christians we are to abide in the Word of God, not in the Constitution. Every aspect of our lives should be governed by the Word of God, not just some areas, and in no area should we conduct ourselves contrary to the Word of God.

For the Christian, this whole issue should be settled according to what Scripture clearly says. Regardless of what the Constitution says or what some court or judge has said, none of these should even factor into our position on this. Scripture is very clear, we need not look to anyone or anything else to know how we should stand on this issue.

All the dancing around with the Constitution and legal bantering is little more than an attempted fig leaf covering for sin.

Will we stand with God on this issue and serve Him or will we stand with the world and serve the devil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see that LuAnne has already given a sound biblical answer as to what to do with homosexuals: "What do we do to keep people from being homosexual? Christians need to get busy telling others about Christ. Not just homosexuals, but all lost. There have been large numbers of homosexuals saved and turned from that lifestyle."

I've studied Constitutional law in university as well as being certified as a paralegal. LuAnn has the most accurate account as to the legal matters which have been discussed. ptwild continues to take the modernistic, liberal/progressive/socialist approach that is contrary to original intent.

Even given all that, being Christians we are to abide in the Word of God, not in the Constitution. Every aspect of our lives should be governed by the Word of God, not just some areas, and in no area should we conduct ourselves contrary to the Word of God.

For the Christian, this whole issue should be settled according to what Scripture clearly says. Regardless of what the Constitution says or what some court or judge has said, none of these should even factor into our position on this. Scripture is very clear, we need not look to anyone or anything else to know how we should stand on this issue.

All the dancing around with the Constitution and legal bantering is little more than an attempted fig leaf covering for sin.

Will we stand with God on this issue and serve Him or will we stand with the world and serve the devil?


Please explain to us what "legal matters" you think have been discussed. I merely quoted the 14th Amendment (no smoke in mirrors, just a simple word for word qoute) and explained the Court's interpretation thereof. I didn't tak an "approach" that is identified with any group. I merely stated things the way they are. Happy offered her opinion about they way things "should" be, which just so happens to line up with the way you think things should be (despite the fact that things are not that way, and never in fact have been with regards to the equal protection clause).

I have not read where Happy even suggested what we do with homosexuals. Please refer me to her post if I have overlooked it, or maybe she can tell us again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not exactly. Marriage in the legal/civil sense of the word brings with it certain protections under the law. Tax and legal status are the most notable. When you do not allow same-sex marriage that falls into discrimination on the basis of gender. Therefore, certain people are not allowed equal protection under the law which is illegal and unconstitutional. It would be the same thing (in a legal sense) as not allowing a white person and a African-American to marry (which a short time ago was also illegal).

Comparing it to a right to murder makes no sense because everyone has a right to life and to not be harmed. Murder causes physical harm to another human being. It has nothing to do with equal protection under the law which is what the judge's decision hinged on. Also, it doesn't matter if the people or a legislature voted on it if it is unconstitutional. If it violates a clear principle like equal protection then it can be struck down by the courts. That's why they were created as part of the system of checks and balances.

Please note that nowhere in here have I made a moral judgement about same-sex marriage. All I have done is pointed out the legality behind it. I'm sure I'm going to get blasted for this and everyone has a right to their moral beliefs. You are free to discourage the practice of homosexuality on moral grounds until the cows come home, but the fact remains that if you award legal protections with a certain status and then refuse that status to a certain group of people you are denying equal protection under the law.

What if someone else believes everyone doesn't have a right to life?

How, then, do you explain that, up until recently, these supposed legalities were not an issue?
In Christ,
Joel ><>.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that homosexuality is wrong, but I don't believe in outlawing homosexuality. It's not my place to force my moral beliefs on others. And it is not the right to live as they chose that they are concerned with, it is the same rights that the rest of us have.

And no, I really believe that way. I am leaving this country in a few months and I think I am going to enjoy watching things develope from afar. I intend to send as much money back here as I can in an effort to make each and every illegal alien a voting citizen then watching the evolution of our voting base and the changes in policy that brings. It should be very interesting. Eventually I think we'll see the dissolution of our establishments which will cause a lot of people to leave thereby open up large tracts of land for the taking. I truely believe we can see a feudal system in place within my lifetime. Hopefully, by then, I will have enough money to fund a respectable army and will be able to set up my own little kingdom right here in the American South.

If we did that, we would have to legalize everything.

As to the second part of your post, I assume you're being sarcastic.
In Christ,
Joel ><>.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain to us what "legal matters" you think have been discussed. I merely quoted the 14th Amendment (no smoke in mirrors, just a simple word for word qoute) and explained the Court's interpretation thereof. I didn't tak an "approach" that is identified with any group. I merely stated things the way they are. Happy offered her opinion about they way things "should" be, which just so happens to line up with the way you think things should be (despite the fact that things are not that way, and never in fact have been with regards to the equal protection clause).

I have not read where Happy even suggested what we do with homosexuals. Please refer me to her post if I have overlooked it, or maybe she can tell us again.

You quoted it a few posts back...

Never have been? It's sad how lacking your eduction in history was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You quoted it a few posts back...

Never have been? It's sad how lacking your eduction in history was.


I went back and read your posts and you'll have to forgive me, but I cannot find where you said what we are to do with all these homosexuals. You don't have to retype it, just tell me what post #.

And as to my lacking education in history: Just show us the Supreme Court case you are relying on (I know you understand that it is the Federal Courts -not some private citizen's opinion- that determine how our constitutional amendments are applied). Show us the one that says it only applies to racism or that it was only intended to apply to racism. If you can show us that case I think you can change at least a part of the curriculum of every constitutional law class at every law school in the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went back and read your posts and you'll have to forgive me, but I cannot find where you said what we are to do with all these homosexuals. You don't have to retype it, just tell me what post #.

And as to my lacking education in history: Just show us the Supreme Court case you are relying on (I know you understand that it is the Federal Courts -not some private citizen's opinion- that determine how our constitutional amendments are applied). Show us the one that says it only applies to racism or that it was only intended to apply to racism. If you can show us that case I think you can change at least a part of the curriculum of every constitutional law class at every law school in the country.

If you know your history, then you know that the 14th amendment was enacted in response to the black codes that resulted after the war. The purpose of it - not some private citizen's opinion - was to protect black citizens from the racism that existed.

You might recall Strauder vs. WV, 1880. A black man had been accused of murder and was being tried by an all white jury because WV statute didn't allow blacks to serve on juries. And the court's decision was (please note: this was basically the FIRST decision, or at least the first landmark, by SCOTUS regarding the 14th) that its purpose was:
to assure to the colored race the enjoyment of all the civil rights that under the law are enjoyed by white persons, and to give to that race the protection of the general government, in that enjoyment, whenever it should be denied by the States.


Part of Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy:
These two amendments [the 13th and 14th - HC], if enforced according to their true intent and meaning, will protect all the civil rights that pertain to freedom and citizenship. Finally, and to the end that no citizen should be denied, on account of his race, the privilege of participating in the political control of his country, it as declared by the Fifteenth Amendment that

the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.
These notable additions to the fundamental law were welcomed by the friends of liberty throughout the world. They removed the race line from our governmental systems. They had, as this court has said, a common purpose, namely to secure

to a race recently emancipated, a race that through [163 U.S. 556] many generations have been held in slavery, all the civil rights that the superior race enjoy.
They declared, in legal effect, this court has further said,

that the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States, and, in regard to the colored race, for whose protection the amendment was primarily designed, that no discrimination shall be made against them by law because of their color.


In 1938, there was Missouri where a black man wasn't allowed to matriculate at an all-white university. 14th amendment to the rescue. Sweatt, Shelley, MacLauren, Brown...all about race...

RE what I said we should do with homosexuals: end of post #23:
What do we do to keep people from being homosexual? Christians need to get busy telling others about Christ. Not just homosexuals, but all lost. There have been large numbers of homosexuals saved and turned from that lifestyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must have not been clear. There is no doubt that the 14th Amendment affords equal protection to all races. You have contended that it was only meant to apply to recently freed blacks and I asked you to show us a case that says it was only meant to apply to issues revolving around race. You have provided us with cases that do in deed deal with the 14th Amend. being applied in connection with issues revolving around race. However, none of those cases say that the 14th Amend. was only intended to apply to race issues. In fact, one of the cases you cited, Strauders v. WV (I thougth you might chase after that one), says this: "Whether the amendment had other, and if so what, purposes not decided." The fact of the matter is that the Court has never stated that the 14th Amend only applies to race issues. And rightfully so, for if it did only apply to race, then we would still be allowed to deny equal protection based on gender, nationality, religion . . . (I know you, being so educated in our legal system and all, understand that just as many cases dealing with these issues can be cited as can be cases dealing with race) The persecutions of blacks no doubt brought about the 14th Amendment, but our Courts have consistently refused to limit its application to only race issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must have not been clear. There is no doubt that the 14th Amendment affords equal protection to all races. You have contended that it was only meant to apply to recently freed blacks and I asked you to show us a case that says it was only meant to apply to issues revolving around race. You have provided us with cases that do in deed deal with the 14th Amend. being applied in connection with issues revolving around race. However, none of those cases say that the 14th Amend. was only intended to apply to race issues. In fact, one of the cases you cited, Strauders v. WV (I thougth you might chase after that one), says this: "Whether the amendment had other, and if so what, purposes not decided." The fact of the matter is that the Court has never stated that the 14th Amend only applies to race issues. And rightfully so, for if it did only apply to race, then we would still be allowed to deny equal protection based on gender, nationality, religion . . . (I know you, being so educated in our legal system and all, understand that just as many cases dealing with these issues can be cited as can be cases dealing with race) The persecutions of blacks no doubt brought about the 14th Amendment, but our Courts have consistently refused to limit its application to only race issues.

And I knew you would say this. :icon_mrgreen: As to your snarky comment on my being so educated in our legal system and all...you have absolutely no idea what I've learned in my 50 years, so cut out the disparagement (and, yes, I know your comment was meant to be disparaging). Funny, but you asked for one that said only. Of course, Strauder didn't say only, but it sure defined its purpose. But that's not acceptable, is it. Yep, it has been applied to gender, nationality, religion...but it does not apply to sexual orientation. *shrugs* Homosexuals are not a "minority" (another buzzword that appears often in the 14th cases). And shouldn't be treated as so, because it is an insult to true minorities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 54 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...