Friday, May 16, 2008

Interpreting The Fourteenth Amendment

In the wake of yesterday's California Supreme Court decision to defy the good will of the people of California and permit same-sex marriage, I thought it would be an appropriate time to take a look at the implications of just such a decision and how the Court is flawed in their decision.

Just about every single instance in which same-sex marriage is brought up the Courts seem to always trot out the Fourteenth amendment as "justification" for same-sex marriage.

What the Fourteenth amendment says...

Amendment XIV Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or inforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immuniities 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."

Take note of that last part there..."nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within it jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Now, how do we interpret such as Clause? Well, Life, Liberty and property are all our basic rights as are stated within the confines of the Declaration of Independence as they are our God-given rights, and something that must be remembered when we say God-given - We are responsible, and held accountable to God for our rights...not to the government or any earthly individual. This is what the Fourteenth amendment says in relation to when the Framers and Ratifiers of the Constitution created it, and what they intended for it to mean. Thus, no one can deny us those rights that Almighty God is the sole Provider thereof.

Ok, onward we shall go...There are many laws, but, what, in general terms does law actually mean?

Law \'lo\n 1 a: a rule of conduct or action laid down and enforced by the supreme governing authority (as the legislature) of a community or established by custom b: the whole collection of such rules by enforcing rules c: the control brought about by enforcing rules 2 : a or principles stating something that laways works in the same way under the same conditions 4 cap : the first part of the Jewish scriptures - compare HAGIOGRAPHA, PROPHETS 5 : trial in a court to determine what is just and right according to the laws 6 : the department of knowledge that deals with laws and their interpretation and application 7a : the profession of a lawyer b : lawyers as a group.

Definitions #s 1&5 are what I want to capitalize on, both of significant importance to the subject at hand. Before I begin, it's critical to remember here, that, when we speak of law in the above stated terms...these are all definitions created by, and stated under man's conditions.

As was stated in definition #5 - law is determined by what is 'just' and 'right' or 'good' and 'bad' behavior and actions, and thus, in most instances, the laws are created (in most cases) to fit and protect what is good, likewise, resisting what is bad or evil, and ruling that conduct of persons within any said jurisdiction should do the very best they can to conform to what said law states, or suffer the consequences of disobeying said law.

So, where does yesterday's California Supreme Court decision stand in the face of 'Right' and 'Wrong'? The Supreme Court of California acted in false pretension to what the will of the people of California's intentions were. The people of California never intended for same-sex unions to be permissible under the law of California...the same as the majority of the American people don't want same-sex unions in this country. Why? Because homosexuality is 'wrong' and it goes against the Law of the Land, which is bound by and rest upon the Will of, and Law of Almighty God.

In the crux of it ... the Supreme Court Justices of California were never given any authority what-so-ever to enact, or put into effect such a law to allow same-sex unions, they just flat out made it up, and as some well know, the Founders never intended for the intent of the Constituion which they; themselves had framed and ratified under the auspice and authority of Almighty God and the good will of the people of the United States to be changed to support the disemmination of evil througout our God-given, God-blessed land and country, America!

The Fourteenth amendment gives no allusion to the allowance, nor "protection" of same-sex marriage, None!


Thanks for visiting Conservatives United!


  1. So it is time to go back to the roots of your homophobia.

    Let us see what the bible says about it :

    # Leviticus 18:22
    " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
    Leviticus 18:21-23 (in Context) Leviticus 18 (Whole Chapter)

    (bible version : new international version)

    Now let us compare that rule to those who are comparable, ok? Simple criteria : what else is "detestable" in the eye of god?

    Leviticus 7:21
    If anyone touches something unclean—whether human uncleanness or an unclean animal or any unclean, detestable thing—and then eats any of the meat of the fellowship offering belonging to the LORD, that person must be cut off from his people.' "

    Okay, so no nicking food from the altar. What else?

    Leviticus 11:20
    " 'All flying insects that walk on all fours are to be detestable to you.

    so no creepies. Although insects are OK, since they have 6 legs and therefore do not "walk on all fours".

    Hey, so there are no "flying insects that walk on all four". Gee, why bother making a rule if it does not apply?

    Anyway, let us read on.

    Leviticus 11:41
    " 'Every creature that moves about on the ground is detestable; it is not to be eaten.

    # Leviticus 11:42
    You are not to eat any creature that moves about on the ground, whether it moves on its belly or walks on all fours or on many feet; it is detestable.

    okay, so I guess we're only allowed to eat fish and birds, aren't we?

    just kidding, of course, I assume that is a reminder of the "no eating insects" rule.

    because after all, eating birds seems like a bad idea too:

    # Leviticus 11:13
    " 'These are the birds you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture,

    Okay, so let us go and see what is in the sea then.

    Leviticus 11:12
    Anything living in the water that does not have fins and scales is to be detestable to you.

    So that means gay sex is on level with.... eating oysters.

    Gee, I don't see such effort being spent to save the souls of all the sinners that endanger their immortal souls by eating shellfish.

    Have a thought on that, will you?

  2. French Student,

    You should read up on Bible theology, and come to and understanding of what Biblical laws and where they got their origination.

    We don't just say, "It's in the bible."

    Yes, we know it's in the Bible...but we must understand the time-line and sequence of events that God had planned for humanity.

    Many of the laws you cite, are different code systems...You have Civil code ... You have Levitical code ... and you have Moral code...and it is the Moral code that is universal...and many of the Civil codes as well.

    The one you cite, however, in reference to eating Shellfish, is part of the Levitical code at which time God was building the Israelite Nation, and He told the Israelites that ... 'You do these things to honor the Lord your God, and serve Him only.' See? But it was not on those customs that they were penalized in violation, it was in the moral code...that God judged the Nations forth-rightly. And that moral code is the same today, as it was yesterday, is it was 3,000 years ago, why? Because God never changes, the Bible says, He is the 'same yesterday, today, and forever!' In other words, God's standards of morality do not change...So, if the Founders intent of the Fourteenth amendment flowed from the moral code of God...then that does not give you or anyone the right to change it to suit your own purposes.

    It was meant for moral purposes, not for despotic judges ruling from the bench.

  3. however, the "thou shallt not have gay sex" verse is also in the leviticus. There is no time limit on any of the other rules I cited, that you did not put on afterwards, in your interpretation of the text.

    So, in other words, you are picking and choosing which verses to apply.

    That is the only conclusion you can draw, other than that eating oysters in on par with having gay sex. And do not get me started on the price you can sell your sister for (also in leviticus)

  4. or maybe you can quote the passage that is between leviticus 11 (shellfish) and leviticus 18 (gay sex) that says "and now this is a different kind of law, that is also totally unbreakable, but that does not have a peremtion date on it"

    and/or the passage that says "the bible is litterally true for all time but some of the rules in it have a peremtion date, and others do not, and here is how you tell them apart"

    Otherwise you are dismissing parts of the bible you do not like, without any biblical justification, and the whole of the book can be dismissed without anymore justification.

  5. French Student,

    I've already explained it to you.

    First of all, I don't dismiss parts of the Bible, all the parts are relevant to its history, and the importance of those events in relation to present and future lifestyles, as they pertain to the absolute authority of God's Word over our lives.

    Now, on to your question...The Levitical code, Moral code, and Civil codes contained in Exodus and Leviticus throughout....were interspersed to give strength to their meanings...You know, like, when you build a house, you don't start at the top and move down, you start at the bottom and move UP, don't you? Well, it's the same way with Israel, the people of that particular time period had no means of order, to maintain order, no rules...So, God set the rules, but certain rules He demanded and certain rules He gave them a choice and depending on their willingness to be's like allowance, I tell my child if he/she is good that I will give them allowance, otoh, if they're bad, they won't get any allowance and will be grounded, even spanked.

    So, the part you don't understand, is that the Levitical code were set up as customary laws in relation to their own rule making, but the universal moral code was set into place at the same time. Shellfish was something that you eat, and therefore, not somethng that would cause you to be set apart because things we eat are normal, so they had a choice in that respect, in other words, it was voluntary to choose to eat shellfish or not too.

    Sodomy on the other hand, is something not normal to mankind, because God did not create man to engage in the sinful behavior.

  6. where, in the bible, is this distinction made?

    Where, in the bible, is it said how to tell the difference between verses of the optional rules and verses of the non-optional rules?

    I am just waiting for a verse quotation here. If what you say is true, then it should not be hard to find. After all, who would make a book of laws without a clear manual?

  7. where, in the bible, is this distinction made?

    French Student,

    I said it once, I'll say it again...throughout.

    Take the rules against drinking/eating blood for example - In Leviticus 17:15-16 - "And every soul that eateth that which died of itself, or that which was torn with beasts, whether it be one of your own country, or a stranger, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until evening: then shall he be clean. But if he wash them not, nor bathe his flesh; then he shall bear his iniquity.

    And of course, there were other issues concerning cleanliness.

    The law of he leper for another.

    The point here is - There were certain things you weren't supposed to eat, because they were unclean, however, if you did eat them, you had to ask for forgiveness, wash your clothes and take a bath - But if you didn't ask for forgiveness, then you would remain unclean and a penalty imposed upon you, such as sickness, parasites and so forth.

    Sodomites have a chance at redemption, nonetheless, as Revelation explains clearly....'All the sexually immoral, liars, idol worshippers, gossips and so forth...their place is in the fiery lake of burning sulphur, that shall torment them day and night forever and ever.'

    That's how make a correct distinction, is by making the connection between the customs that God had ordained in the beginnning and following Jesus Christ's life on earth.

  8. then who decides which of the detestable things can be atoned for through washing clothes and taking a bath? is it mentionned each time? (in which case please provide the citations for the examples I have given above, or at least the most ridiculous ones) Or is it an interpretation that comes from outside the bible, in which case your interpretation is as good as mine.

  9. Moreover, if you read leviticus 18:1, you will see that these rules (the whole of leviticus 18 ) apply only to israelites and the people they conquered.

    So caucasians are not required to follow these rules. Nore are blacks, asians, ...

  10. Moreover, if you read leviticus 18:1, you will see that these rules (the whole of leviticus 18 ) apply only to israelites and the people they conquered.

    French Student,

    That would be correct, and which, is what I explained to you in my earlier post, God was building the Israelite Nation, therefore, He set the foundation in place by giving them the commandments that they were to be obedient to.

    Likewise...during those days, washing clothes and bathing was the only way to be redeemed...until...Jesus Christ came (God in the flesh) to willingly die for everyones sin, therefore, a sacrifice of blood and meat are no longer needed, we must have faith and willingness to turn from our sin and in this, proves our sincerety of heart and Soul before Almighty God, and therefore, our redemption made complete...but as in olden days, it is still the same, you either choose to live right before God, or you choose to live a life giving into temptation condemning your own soul. Just like if the Israelites didn't wash...the Bible says their iniquity is upon them, or wash and be spared.

    Eternity is not worth living in sin, friend.

    Well, we've made it this far, I'll have a little more later...

  11. Okay, so the rules got changed between the old and new testaments.

    So you will have to get a quote saying that this particular sin cannot be forgiven with the rest of the package. And from the new testament please. Preferably from the mouth of jesus, since he is the one doing the forgiving.

    (oh and by the way, in my opinion, a god capable of the atrocities described in the old testament is not worthy of respect, let alone worship. Even if I did believe in such a god, it would not get my worship)

  12. So you will have to get a quote saying that this particular sin cannot be forgiven with the rest of the package..

    French Student,

    It can be. How? They have to turn from it, abstain from it, never doing it again ... saying in their heart, 'I want to serve the Lord with all my strength, with all my might, with all my soul.

    Look ... All things that you do ... which go against God's plan for your life ... are defined into one word. What is that word?

    S-i-n...Sin! And Sodomy is a sin!

    (oh and by the way, in my opinion, a god capable of the atrocities described in the old testament is not worthy of respect, let alone worship. Even if I did believe in such a god, it would not get my worship).

    Ok...Well, I guess that end this debate then, huh? That's one of Satan's main tactics, is to stifle debate...the same thing that you're doing...and that's how Satan works to lead people astray, leading their souls to Eternal damnation.

    If that's how you feel...then I pity you, friend.

    May God help you.

  13. To you it was a debate?

    To me it was a discussion, since I started from a predicate (the bible is true) that I do not believe in.

    If we were debating, I would have asked you to prove, as a preamble, that the bible is the litteral word of god, that there is no verse in it that is not false, no rule that is not necessary (good luck proving that shellfish are evil)

    As it is, all that you have proven is that your set of beliefs is coherent, not that it is true. Personnally I find homophobia as disgusting as racism, since they both consist of punishing a class of people for something they are not responsible for. If your god asks you to do it, fine. Just don't expect me to worship it.

  14. French Student,

    It has been great discussion, however, the overall discussion has fell more on the side of the following...

    You came with the intention to prove that the Bible is "invalid" by mis-characterizing God's Law without a full understanding of the Scriptures...however, that is just one of two things you've done, another, is you've stated your reasons for not wishing to worship your Creator, and therefore, tempting Him in blind comtempt...and that was your sole purpose for coming here...

    That was one of the things I was going to capitalize on in my last post, but it had completely slipped my mind...So, now that I think of it, I'll add a small addition to that part of this "discussion"...

    French Student...There was a reason for God having to punish, and destroy some of the Nations that He did...In other words, He didn't just destroy them for the fun of it, for God does not punish innocent people who fear Him...No, they have to do something that is displeasing in His sight, and that aren't willing to heed His continual calling to their benefit.

    Take for example...If I were to go one someone's property without asking permission, and they catch me, and they warn me the first time..saying..."Don't come on my property, I'm going to let you go this time, but if I catch you again, I'm going to call the police" ... Well, if I don't heed the landowner's wishes, and I go back on the property, then I deserved to be rightfully punished to the fullest extent of the law...right? And that wouldn't be just "coherent" No, it would then be reality...It's the same way with your argument that ... all I've proved is that my arguments on the Bible are 'coherent' Yes, they are coherent, but to dismiss their factuality is absurd, to say the least! That would be like you saying you agreed that we had a discussion here today, but totally the opposite tomorrow by saying .... "What discussion/debate?"

    That would be the same thing as mad man Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who denies the Holocaust...No difference!

    At any rate, everything else is of far less importance as to what you want to acknowledge or dismiss....but what we're discussing here and now, The Bible, God's Holy and Righteous Word as more than 2 BILLION profess and claim ever since 2,000 years ago is of utmost, gravest importance, because without a personal relationship with Jesus Christ...You will have no peace, friend.

    So, no, God didn't destroy those people because he "hated" them, but because they REFUSED obey, and therefore, He turned His face away. In this, He set a precedent for future generations to go we know what God likes and dislikes....what is it He dislikes? SIN!

    Sin is what seperates us from the love of God, when we get rid of sin, then He blesses us abundantly!

    It's our place to get rid of sin...God doesn't force us to sin, He doesn't force us to obey Him, therefore, if we choose to sin...then what can we expect? But only a fearful expectation of fiery punishment. If we choose to obey Him? Then He brings peace and joy into our lives, and a promise of riches beyond what we have already here.

    So you don't take what God done to punish others in way to hate and turn against learn from that and say....'I know God loves me, so I'm going to do the best I can to serve Him.'

    As to shellfish being "evil" LOL! No friend, shellfish is not "evil" it was just a custom of the Israelites to show God that they feared and wanted to obey Him.

    On the flip side, Sodomy is evil, because it's not natural to human kind....Sodomy is a lie from Satan. It's as simple as that, Sodom and Gomorrah proved that.

    I hope you understand.

    Have a great day.

  15. "As to shellfish being "evil" LOL! No friend, shellfish is not "evil" it was just a custom of the Israelites to show God that they feared and wanted to obey Him.

    On the flip side, Sodomy is evil, because it's not natural to human kind....Sodomy is a lie from Satan. It's as simple as that, Sodom and Gomorrah proved that.


    Well, they are both "detestable" in the eye of the lord. If one of them was totally forgiven, so should the other (or else you need to prvide a quote showing the contrary)

    If, as you say, the coming of Jesus allowed the forgiveness of all sins through repentance instead of sacrifices, then you should still repent from eating shellfish. Do you?

    As for Sodom and Gomorrah, you will note that the story happens in genesis,to lot, in 1900 BC BEFORE the leviticus and its set of laws were given to moses. In fact, moses was not even born then!

    (Kohath's son, Amram, was born. Amram fathered Moses, Aaron and Miriam. (1646 B.C.) )

    (source :

    Which means sodom at least was destroyed for violating a law that had not been formulated at the time.

    (and remember, if the laws given in the leviticus that you deem unbreakable according to the rule you seem to pull out of your hat are not bound by time, that rules against consanguignity are in the very same chapter as the rules aginst homosexuality, and consanguinity apparently was not a problem before the rule was written)

    You see, I may not know the scripture by heart, but I am learning. And there still are a lot of problems whith what you believe.
    Sorry if it takes some time for me to do my research, btw.

  16. Well, they are both "detestable" in the eye of the lord. If one of them was totally forgiven, so should the other (or else you need to prvide a quote showing the contrary)

    No...they can both be forgiven.'re not paying attention...

    Pay attention closely ...

    Shellfish is food. And the shellfish rule only applied to the Israelites...only to the Israelites, one of a civil nature...Sodomy is an action...a abhorrent action. A possessed of Satan action. Sodomy laws are Moral laws, that apply to everyone, they are universal, meaning worldwide. Everyone. Therefore, it is a strict code of conduct that God has ordained...He says don't do it!

    As for Sodom and Gomorrah, you will note that the story happens in genesis,to lot, in 1900 BC BEFORE the leviticus and its set of laws were given to moses. In fact, moses was not even born then!

    True enough. But the rules for the marriage bed were made clear and set in stone in the beginning long before Sodom and Gomorrah and Moses.
    Genesis 2:24 And's universal. It applies to everybody.

    Sorry if it takes some time for me to do my research, btw.

    No problem. You just need to pay more attention. And if you would open up your heart to what the Lord has to say to you in the Scriptures...the Lord could use you to make a great witness...blessing you in ways you never thought possible.

  17. Well… rereading the argument from the start (BTW, please do something about the size of the popup, it is not comfortable to read), it seems your whole argument is based on saying there are two kinds of laws given by god, some being optional/only applying to Israelites and the others having to be enforced on everyone (believer or not)

    However, when I asked you to cite the passage where the difference between the two kinds of laws was made, you could not cite a passage that said “this only applies to the Israelites” or “this is how to make the difference between optional and absolute laws.”

    The best you could come up with was that some of the laws had a built-in atonement clause (burnt offering…) and some did not.

    However, when I asked you whether you did said burnt offerings in all cases, you sent me back to the New Testament that, you claimed, said atonement was all that was necessary now.

    So these are my final arguments on this subject:

    You have not proven to my satisfaction that the rules laid out in the bible have different weights or fields of application. Every time I asked you to cite your sources from the bible to prove what you said was true, you either said “I have already explained you this part” or sent me back to interpretations of the bible, not the text of it.

    It is my opinion, then , that the fact that some rules apply while others do not stem from YOUR INTERPRETATION of the bible rather than from the book itself.

    Therefore, all rules laid in the bible apply equally.

    Therefore, a man having sex with another man and not being repentant afterwards is on the same level of sin as a man eating shellfish and not being repentant afterwards.

    Which was my point all along. I do not see lines of “Christians” picketing seafood restaurants to condemn those who eat there to hell.

    As a finishing point, I would like to ask you whether you also believe practicing lesbians go to hell. After all, the Leviticus rule does not condemn a woman for “lying with a woman as she would lie with a man”.

  18. French Student,

    I'll make it short - Because obviously you don't want to take what the Bible says into consideration, and is one of things that you have to remember here - I'm not interpreting, I'm giving you what the Bible says, I may not quote the Bible, but what I say is what it means.

    To say that eating shellfish is a sin equal to that of Sodomy is really a foolish statement/question.

    Here's what Jesus said - Matt 6:25 - Therfore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?'

    Now...let's stop for a second and think..............If say I asked you if it was "acceptable" to eat human flesh...what would you say? Most people would freak out and say...Absolutely NOT!!!

    You see the difference? Humanity is different from the animals.

    Ok, now, let's look in 1 Timothy 4: 3-4 - Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.'

    What's Paul saying? He's saying that if anyone does not eat food for health and denies himself the privileges of marriage than that man is questioning the will of God for his life - and what was the definition for marriage? God back to Genesis 2:24 - One man and One woman.

    Let us look at another:

    Romans 14:2-3-14

    'For one believeth that he may eat all things : another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God heath received him.

    14 - I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to h im that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. (As not to be critical of those who don't have a firm understanding of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable to eat - because most of what they partook of to eat in the Bible was for ceremonial purposes - Any other time it just as acceptable to eat as it was during the ceremonies.)

    17 - 'For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.'

    You see? What you eat is different from what you do in the body.

    1. There is sin - which is under the Moral code.

    2. There is wrong - which is under Civil code.

    3. There is customary - which falls under the Levitical code, which many of the Jews still adhere to today.

    Which one of those is universal? Number 1 - The Moral code.

    Where can the Moral code be found? Exodus and all of the New Testament.

    So, I sincerely hope you understand that I am not "judging" you here, and share with you the testimony of those who wrote the Bible. And I believe it with all of my heart.

    (I almost made it a short post, but you know how these things go.)

  19. French Student,

    My apologies.

    I almost forgot to answer the last part of your question -

    As a finishing point, I would like to ask you whether you also believe practicing lesbians go to hell. After all, the Leviticus rule does not condemn a woman for “lying with a woman as she would lie with a man”.

    Although it does not say explicitly in the Levitical code that there were sanctions against "lesbianism" ... they does give instructions to women on sexual morality, such as: Leviticus 18:23 - 'Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it. A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it; that is a perversion.'

    And I'll quote the rest of the chapter -

    Starting in verse 24 - Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. ANd if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you. Everyone who does any of these detestable things--such persons must be cut off from their people. Keep my requirements and do not follow any of the detestable customs that were practiced before you came and do not defile yourselves with them. I am the Lord your God.'

    Pretty strict, huh?

    Now, you may ask, is two women in lust for one another any different than two men? No! they are both the same. Therefore, since they are the same, they defiled that which is natural, and thus, they are both in sin.

    Read Romans 1:21-27

    For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images mdade to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie (which will be covered in Revelation at the second death), and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.'

    Do I think lesbians will go to hell? Yes, most certainly.

    Read Revelations 21:8 -

    But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars--their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulphur. This is the second death.'