Let's try and consolidate some of our threads into one Super-thread. Instead of talking about same-sex marriage, trans-bathrooms, and Religious Freedom Bills in seperate threads, let's get them all consolidated into one place to discuss LGBTQ vs. Religious Freedom nonsense into one easy to read and ignore thread.
To begin the discussion i submit the following Quote from the NCAA to Indiana in regards to the states Religious Freedom Law:
"The NCAA national office and our members are deeply committed to providing an inclusive environment for all our events. We are especially concerned about how this legislation could affect our student-athletes and employees. We will work diligently to assure student-athletes competing in, and visitors attending, next week’s Men’s Final Four in Indianapolis are not impacted negatively by this bill. Moving forward, we intend to closely examine the implications of this bill and how it might affect future events as well as our workforce."
d-usa wrote: I don't think that bathrooms have much to do with religious freedom, so this seems like we might be trying to shoehorn things together a bit.
Give me five minutes and it will; I now announce the Church of the Golden Toilet. You must wear a toilet seat around your neck at all times. Services will be held in the Men's room, and constitute watching stoner movies
d-usa wrote: I don't think that bathrooms have much to do with religious freedom, so this seems like we might be trying to shoehorn things together a bit.
You cant go more than 5 minutes on the internet without seeing someone discriminate against LGBTs because of their religious views (not as common as shown, but thats media for you), and the Religious Freedom Laws allow this practice to continue. Fits together quite well actually.
Easy E wrote: Let's try and consolidate some of our threads into one Super-thread. Instead of talking about same-sex marriage, trans-bathrooms, and Religious Freedom Bills in seperate threads, let's get them all consolidated into one place to discuss LGBTQ vs. Religious Freedom nonsense into one easy to read and ignore thread.
To begin the discussion i submit the following Quote from the NCAA to Indiana in regards to the states Religious Freedom Law:
"The NCAA national office and our members are deeply committed to providing an inclusive environment for all our events. We are especially concerned about how this legislation could affect our student-athletes and employees. We will work diligently to assure student-athletes competing in, and visitors attending, next week’s Men’s Final Four in Indianapolis are not impacted negatively by this bill. Moving forward, we intend to closely examine the implications of this bill and how it might affect future events as well as our workforce."
Will this impact Trans-bathroom states as well? Should the NCAA be getting involved? Will NCAA events now be boycotted by activist groups now?
the NCAA might get boycotted, starbucks seems to get boycotted a lot, but yet it hardly seems to affect their profits.
The NCAA has a very good legitimate reason for not wanting to go to places like Indiana. I'm sure some percentage of their players/managers/school officials/head of the NCAA are LGBTQ. Now put yourself in their shoes, would you go to a place knowing Indianans are now legally protected to discriminate against you. They don't have to rent you a hotel room, they don't have to feed you at restaurants, they don't have to provide you medical care if you get hurt playing. Would you force your teammates to go?
I completely see the point that a Roman Catholic doctor should not be required to perform an abortion against his conscience.
I don't at all see the point that some Landover Baptist state legislature should be allowed to dictate to private companies and individuals who they allow into their lavatories.
Kilkrazy wrote: I completely see the point that a Roman Catholic doctor should not be required to perform an abortion against his conscience.
Aye, this I can agree on. If an abortion is against your religious teachings you shouldn't have to do it. But discriminating people (like refusing same-sex couples a meal) surely has nothing to do with religion? Or providing contraceptives to people that don't care about you being forbidden from using them?
I'm all for letting everyone practice their religion in peace, but they should also have the decency to not try to force others to live according to their standards. Why would it be wrong for a Catholic to sell condoms to non-Catholics? Or for a Muslim (or Hindu) working in a supermarket to sell pork (or beef)? They're not the ones using it! The rules concern them, not outsiders.
Kilkrazy wrote: I completely see the point that a Roman Catholic doctor should not be required to perform an abortion against his conscience.
Aye, this I can agree on. If an abortion is against your religious teachings you shouldn't have to do it. But discriminating people (like refusing same-sex couples a meal) surely has nothing to do with religion? Or providing contraceptives to people that don't care about you being forbidden from using them?
I'm all for letting everyone practice their religion in peace, but they should also have the decency to not try to force others to live according to their standards. Why would it be wrong for a Catholic to sell condoms to non-Catholics? Or for a Muslim (or Hindu) working in a supermarket to sell pork (or beef)? They're not the ones using it! The rules concern them, not outsiders.
Indeed.
The difference is between the doctor and the baker that it is not against a Christian baker's religious creed to bake a cake for a homosexual, it's against his creed to practice homosexuality. Thus, the baker is interpreting a religious principle that doesn't apply to the case in order to justify discrimination against homosexuals. I don't mean the baker is a fether who hates gays and is cheating on the religion thingin order to have an excuse for being a pricky bastard. He probably genuinely believes it's a sin for him to bake the cake, but actually he's wrong.
IDK what the position is regarding a Roman Catholic selling condoms. I do know that Italians buy a lot of condoms.
As for Muslims in supermarkets, I believe generally they are willing to sell alcohol or pork providing they don't have to touch or consume it. Merely selling it isn't against the religion.
I know it stands for "queer".... but I honestly have no idea what THAT means in the context of LGBTQ issues.
Queer is a term adopted for gender fluid, non binary and undecided genders, along with being a broader label for those who simply don't feel the need to specify which aspect of sexuality or gender they personify.
The truly obnoxious term is QUILTBAG
Queer, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Trans, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay.
It's obnoxious for many reasons but also because Pansexual isn't included due to spoiling the term.
Spetulhu wrote: If an abortion is against your religious teachings you shouldn't have to do it.
Exactly. If abortion is against your religion then you should be free to choose a job where abortions are not part of your duties. Nobody should ever be coerced into becoming a doctor against their religion.
Spetulhu wrote: If an abortion is against your religious teachings you shouldn't have to do it.
Exactly. If abortion is against your religion then you should be free to choose a job where abortions are not part of your duties. Nobody should ever be coerced into becoming a doctor against their religion.
Am I correct in assuming that you feel all ob/gyn doctors should be required to perform abortions regardless of personal belief?
I know it stands for "queer".... but I honestly have no idea what THAT means in the context of LGBTQ issues.
Queer is a term adopted for gender fluid, non binary and undecided genders, along with being a broader label for those who simply don't feel the need to specify which aspect of sexuality or gender they personify.
The truly obnoxious term is QUILTBAG
Queer, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Trans, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay.
It's obnoxious for many reasons but also because Pansexual isn't included due to spoiling the term.
When you say obnoxious, do you mean derogatory? Or is it just slightly irritating because it can be used to spell a word that has nothing to do with gender?
I know it stands for "queer".... but I honestly have no idea what THAT means in the context of LGBTQ issues.
Queer is a term adopted for gender fluid, non binary and undecided genders, along with being a broader label for those who simply don't feel the need to specify which aspect of sexuality or gender they personify.
The truly obnoxious term is QUILTBAG
Queer, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Trans, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay.
It's obnoxious for many reasons but also because Pansexual isn't included due to spoiling the term.
I was under the impression that "bi" is being phased out in favour of "pan". I'm fairly old, and all my acquaintances that formerly identify as bi now call themselves pan.
feeder wrote: Am I correct in assuming that you feel all ob/gyn doctors should be required to perform abortions regardless of personal belief?
No, actually he does have a point there in his particular way. Abortions isn't the only thing a religious person might object to. IIRC Jehowah's Witnesses are against blood transfusions so a JW doctor could perhaps claim he shouldn't oversee such a procedure. Some other Christian cults forbid their members from donating organs to non-cult persons but aren't averse to receiveing those same organs from non-cult members - the bloody bits of a fellow human will become holy if inserted in a cult member. If a doctor objects to homosexuals existing on religious grounds, should he be allowed to refuse life-saving (or otherwise critical) surgery to one? IMO that's against his Hippocratic oath, but you never know what fanatics think.
I think the concept is sound, but will completely agree the phrase itself is kind of bizarre. Another one like that is "Culinary Justice." I totally get the concept and agree with it, but I just have an innate issue taking the phrase "culinary justice" seriously. It makes me think of a superhero who beats people with kitchen utensils XD
LordofHats wrote: I think the concept is sound, but will completely agree the phrase itself is kind of bizarre. Another one like that is "Culinary Justice." I totally get the concept and agree with it, but I just have an innate issue taking the phrase "culinary justice" seriously. It makes me think of a superhero who beats people with kitchen utensils XD
Is culinary justice where the waiter spits in your food when you aren't polite?
LordofHats wrote: I think the concept is sound, but will completely agree the phrase itself is kind of bizarre. Another one like that is "Culinary Justice." I totally get the concept and agree with it, but I just have an innate issue taking the phrase "culinary justice" seriously. It makes me think of a superhero who beats people with kitchen utensils XD
Is culinary justice where the waiter spits in your food when you aren't polite?
It's a term used by a man named Michael Twitty in talks about food traditions and customs. The concept is essentiallly an expansion of Social Justice into food traditions. It makes sense to me even if Twitty is a bit wordy in how he goes about explaining it, but I just can't take the phrase itself seriously XD
Is there really a place for this on this forum? Didn't we spend a whole other thread discussing why this is cancerous to any type of intelligent debate?
Indeed, steering away from comments like that would be advisable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spetulhu wrote: I'm all for letting everyone practice their religion in peace, but they should also have the decency to not try to force others to live according to their standards. Why would it be wrong for a Catholic to sell condoms to non-Catholics? Or for a Muslim (or Hindu) working in a supermarket to sell pork (or beef)? They're not the ones using it! The rules concern them, not outsiders.
It's not quite as simple as them not using it themselves, though. There are all sorts of moral issues raised when you find yourself in a position where you have to help someone else do something that you consider to be wrong.
Let's say you work in a hardware store, and some guy comes up to the counter with a coil of rope and tells you he's buying it so that he can go home and hang himself. I think most of us would feel somewhat uncomfortable with going through with that sale.
Now let's say you run, say, a cake shop, and someone comes in asking for a wedding cake for a wedding that you firmly believe is morally wrong and going to damn them to an eternity of torment. Sure, it's not your wedding. They may or may not share your beliefs... but their sharing (or not) of your beliefs has no impact on your belief that if they do what they are planning to do, they're going to suffer for it, and by selling them that cake, you're helping them to do it. It's the moral equivalent of aforementioned hardware store guy saying 'Hey, good plan! Want me to tie that up for you to make sure it's good and secure?'
It's not a matter of forcing others to live according to your standards. It's a matter of not making yourself a party to something that you honestly believe to be wrong.
feeder wrote: Am I correct in assuming that you feel all ob/gyn doctors should be required to perform abortions regardless of personal belief?
Exactly. It's part of the job, if you don't want to do your job then feel free to find a different one.
Personally FWIW, I think that if a doctor is morally opposed to performing abortions, regardless of his/her reasons (could be religion, could just be a personal moral belief)... I think that it's one specific task that they shouldn't be forced to perform....
HOWEVER, I think that if a doctor is one who does refuse on those grounds, they should be ethically and legally required to recommend a physician who does perform those operations.
Though I'm more in the camp of religion doesn't belong in the hospital/doctors office period. The couple who are facing legal ramifications for their "faith healing" BS, I think are rightly facing those issues. There is literally nothing scientifically sound in regards to medicine in the bible, stop trying to act like there is!
Personally FWIW, I think that if a doctor is morally opposed to performing abortions, regardless of his/her reasons (could be religion, could just be a personal moral belief)... I think that it's one specific task that they shouldn't be forced to perform....
HOWEVER, I think that if a doctor is one who does refuse on those grounds, they should be ethically and legally required to recommend a physician who does perform those operations.
A doctor refusing to perform abortions would be perfectly acceptable provided they're not employed in a position that would require them to perform abortions.
If you can't carry out the duties for which you were employed, whatever the reason, then you're in the wrong position.
insaniak wrote: Indeed, steering away from comments like that would be advisable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spetulhu wrote: I'm all for letting everyone practice their religion in peace, but they should also have the decency to not try to force others to live according to their standards. Why would it be wrong for a Catholic to sell condoms to non-Catholics? Or for a Muslim (or Hindu) working in a supermarket to sell pork (or beef)? They're not the ones using it! The rules concern them, not outsiders.
It's not quite as simple as them not using it themselves, though. There are all sorts of moral issues raised when you find yourself in a position where you have to help someone else do something that you consider to be wrong.
Let's say you work in a hardware store, and some guy comes up to the counter with a coil of rope and tells you he's buying it so that he can go home and hang himself. I think most of us would feel somewhat uncomfortable with going through with that sale.
Now let's say you run, say, a cake shop, and someone comes in asking for a wedding cake for a wedding that you firmly believe is morally wrong and going to damn them to an eternity of torment. Sure, it's not your wedding. They may or may not share your beliefs... but their sharing (or not) of your beliefs has no impact on your belief that if they do what they are planning to do, they're going to suffer for it, and by selling them that cake, you're helping them to do it. It's the moral equivalent of aforementioned hardware store guy saying 'Hey, good plan! Want me to tie that up for you to make sure it's good and secure?'
It's not a matter of forcing others to live according to your standards. It's a matter of not making yourself a party to something that you honestly believe to be wrong.
The line here however I believe is that in one instance you are preventing physical harm and death, something that is pretty universal and transcends the boundaries of religious dogma, while in the other instance the harm is purely in the realm of the unknowable, the metaphysical.
insaniak wrote: Indeed, steering away from comments like that would be advisable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spetulhu wrote: I'm all for letting everyone practice their religion in peace, but they should also have the decency to not try to force others to live according to their standards. Why would it be wrong for a Catholic to sell condoms to non-Catholics? Or for a Muslim (or Hindu) working in a supermarket to sell pork (or beef)? They're not the ones using it! The rules concern them, not outsiders.
It's not quite as simple as them not using it themselves, though. There are all sorts of moral issues raised when you find yourself in a position where you have to help someone else do something that you consider to be wrong.
Let's say you work in a hardware store, and some guy comes up to the counter with a coil of rope and tells you he's buying it so that he can go home and hang himself. I think most of us would feel somewhat uncomfortable with going through with that sale.
Now let's say you run, say, a cake shop, and someone comes in asking for a wedding cake for a wedding that you firmly believe is morally wrong and going to damn them to an eternity of torment. Sure, it's not your wedding. They may or may not share your beliefs... but their sharing (or not) of your beliefs has no impact on your belief that if they do what they are planning to do, they're going to suffer for it, and by selling them that cake, you're helping them to do it. It's the moral equivalent of aforementioned hardware store guy saying 'Hey, good plan! Want me to tie that up for you to make sure it's good and secure?'
It's not a matter of forcing others to live according to your standards. It's a matter of not making yourself a party to something that you honestly believe to be wrong.
The line here however I believe is that in one instance you are preventing physical harm and death, something that is pretty universal and transcends the boundaries of religious dogma, while in the other instance the harm is purely in the realm of the unknowable, the metaphysical.
Everything is metaphysical and in the realm of the unknowable. Killing anyone, including yourself, then being unrepentant about that killing is setting yourself up for Hell, at least from what I perceive the Bible to mean and my perception only goes so far.
Vaktathi wrote: ...while in the other instance the harm is purely in the realm of the unknowable, the metaphysical.
Which makes no difference to someone who genuinely believes it.
I'm sure, but society can't operate around everyone's head mythos (particularly given how...outlandish it can sometimes get), no matter how much they believe it, and that's where laws usually draw the line, particularly with regards to businesses serving the general public.
Vaktathi wrote: I'm sure, but society can't operate around everyone's head mythos (particularly given how...outlandish it can sometimes get), no matter how much they believe it, and that's where laws usually draw the line, particularly with regards to businesses serving the general public.
Which then leads to the question of whether or not it's any business of the law to determine whether someone in a shop should sell you something.
Quite frankly, I don't think it is. A private business owner should be free to deal with whomsoever he chooses, for whatever reason he chooses. Any discrimination that results from that is generally counterbalanced by the loss of revenue when word gets around that the business owner is an donkey-cave.
Spetulhu wrote: I'm all for letting everyone practice their religion in peace, but they should also have the decency to not try to force others to live according to their standards. Why would it be wrong for a Catholic to sell condoms to non-Catholics? Or for a Muslim (or Hindu) working in a supermarket to sell pork (or beef)? They're not the ones using it! The rules concern them, not outsiders.
It's not quite as simple as them not using it themselves, though. There are all sorts of moral issues raised when you find yourself in a position where you have to help someone else do something that you consider to be wrong.
Let's say you work in a hardware store, and some guy comes up to the counter with a coil of rope and tells you he's buying it so that he can go home and hang himself. I think most of us would feel somewhat uncomfortable with going through with that sale.
Now let's say you run, say, a cake shop, and someone comes in asking for a wedding cake for a wedding that you firmly believe is morally wrong and going to damn them to an eternity of torment. Sure, it's not your wedding. They may or may not share your beliefs... but their sharing (or not) of your beliefs has no impact on your belief that if they do what they are planning to do, they're going to suffer for it, and by selling them that cake, you're helping them to do it. It's the moral equivalent of aforementioned hardware store guy saying 'Hey, good plan! Want me to tie that up for you to make sure it's good and secure?'
It's not a matter of forcing others to live according to your standards. It's a matter of not making yourself a party to something that you honestly believe to be wrong.
No, absolutely in no way are these things related. Suicide is most often caused by mental illness brought on by emotional or physical trauma. Somebody who says they are going to go out and hang themselves is far different from two marrying because they love each other.
Presumably because you don't accept that the two people marrying each other are doing themselves any harm.
And that's fine. I agree with you. But to someone who believes that said marriage is going to result in some seriously nasty consequences for those involved, there is far less difference.
insaniak wrote: Presumably because you don't accept that the two people marrying each other are doing themselves any harm.
And that's fine. I agree with you. But to someone who believes that said marriage is going to result in some seriously nasty consequences for those involved, there is far less difference.
But that is the problem, one of these is a judgement based in science and the other is one based in faith. The government recognizes faith but it does not pass or rather it should not pass laws based on faith. Sadly that is not the case in most places as we have seen lately.
The same person is also taught in the same book that they should turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor, also a little something about not blaming the sinner or throwing the first stone? If you are going to use an argument for turning down customers based on your faith, you should be aware you are violating your own faith in doing so.
The same person is also taught in the same book that they should turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor, also a little something about not blaming the sinner or throwing the first stone? If you are going to use an argument for turning down customers based on your faith, you should be aware you are violating your own faith in doing so.
You're assuming that the person denying service is doing it out of something other than love.
If you refuse to give your child a cheese grater to play with because you think they'll hurt themselves with it, does that mean you don't love them?
Don't get me wrong, I fully realise there are a plenty of bigots out there who hide behind their religion as an excuse for their prejudices. But there are also plenty of people out there to whom their religion is every bit as real as anything that science has to say, and for whom behaving in a way that would bring harm to another would be simply unacceptable behaviour.
The way to get past that isn't (IMO) to legislate against it, but to educate and encourage people to want move past it.
The same person is also taught in the same book that they should turn the other cheek and love thy neighbor, also a little something about not blaming the sinner or throwing the first stone? If you are going to use an argument for turning down customers based on your faith, you should be aware you are violating your own faith in doing so.
You're assuming that the person denying service is doing it out of something other than love.
If you refuse to give your child a cheese grater to play with because you think they'll hurt themselves with it, does that mean you don't love them?
Don't get me wrong, I fully realise there are a plenty of bigots out there who hide behind their religion as an excuse for their prejudices. But there are also plenty of people out there to whom their religion is every bit as real as anything that science has to say, and for whom behaving in a way that would bring harm to another would be simply unacceptable behaviour.
The way to get past that isn't (IMO) to legislate against it, but to educate and encourage people to want move past it.
Not really, I am assuming the person denying service is doing it out of a major misunderstanding of their own religion. If you love something, you support it. You are not held accountable for other peoples actions according to the bible. If your neighbor is homosexual and married, just because you are nearby and allowing it to happen does not mean you are also going to hell. You may pray for their souls to go to heaven, but you do not get to deny them the same treatment as you expect for yourself just because you believe they are immoral.
The RC Church confirms it is a sin to have an abortion or if you are a doctor to give an abortion, except if the purpose is to save the mother's life (e.g. an already dead foetus, to give a clear example.)
The RC Church confirms it is a sin to have a gay wedding, but it does not confirm that it is a sin to bake a cake for a gay couple.
Therefore the anti-gay baker is not committing a sin, he does not have valid religious grounds for refusing service, and he is governed by the general law of society. This in its current state holds that businesses are not allowed to discriminate against people on the grounds of race, religion, or sexual orientation.
There are religious authorities to whom the civil authorities can refer for expert judgements in these matters as they may affect their celebrants.
The theoretical case involving selling rope to someone who wants to hang himself is not a specific religious thing. Practically all of society religious and secular believes suicide to be a bad thing, whether it is a sin or not.
Dreadwinter wrote: If your neighbor is homosexual and married, just because you are nearby and allowing it to happen does not mean you are also going to hell.
Some might disagree.
However, there is a difference between being aware that something is happening, and actively participating in making it happen. The fact that, somewhere in the world, a child is playing with a cheesegrater is sad, but knowing that fact doesn't make you at all responsible for it happening.
Kilkrazy wrote: The theoretical case involving selling rope to someone who wants to hang himself is not a specific religious thing. Practically all of society religious and secular believes suicide to be a bad thing, whether it is a sin or not.
I feel that I should also point out that some places have criminalized suicide. As such, especially in those places, an individual who can prevent it (ie, not selling rope, or bullets, or whatever) without risking themselves is kind of obligated to do so.
This is kind of the same idea as a gun shop is supposed to deny sale of ammunition if they have cause to believe a crime will be committed with said purchase (ie, the customer is talking about knocking over a bank, shooting his/her Ex, etc)
Dreadwinter wrote: If your neighbor is homosexual and married, just because you are nearby and allowing it to happen does not mean you are also going to hell.
Some might disagree.
However, there is a difference between being aware that something is happening, and actively participating in making it happen. The fact that, somewhere in the world, a child is playing with a cheesegrater is sad, but knowing that fact doesn't make you at all responsible for it happening.
Handing the child a cheesegrater (arguably) does.
But they are not actively participating in making it happen. They are going to get married regardless. The cake is not the cornerstone to the marriage. Nothing the baker does is going to determine whether or not they get married.
The theoretical case involving selling rope to someone who wants to hang himself is not a specific religious thing. Practically all of society religious and secular believes suicide to be a bad thing, whether it is a sin or not.
That's exactly why I used it as an example.
Most of us would at the very least refuse to help someone commit suicide, or to otherwise harm themselves, if we were in the position to do so.
The issue with the gay wedding cake is, to those who believe that homosexuality is a sin, no different. Supplying that cake would be helping these people to do something harmful to themselves.
The issue with the gay wedding cake is, to those who believe that homosexuality is a sin, no different. Supplying that cake would be helping these people to do something harmful to themselves.
Which is rich, considering the word homosexuality wasn't even in the bible till at least the 1950s.
But they are not actively participating in making it happen. They are going to get married regardless.
There are people out there in the world doing all sorts of things that I think are wrong. They're going to do those things regardless of whether or not I help them... but that doesn't make it ok for me to help them.
Not supplying the cake doesn't stop a gay couple from getting married, no. But it stops the baker from being involved in something that they feel is wrong and/or harmful to those involved.
But they are not actively participating in making it happen. They are going to get married regardless.
There are people out there in the world doing all sorts of things that I think are wrong. They're going to do those things regardless of whether or not I help them... but that doesn't make it ok for me to help them.
Not supplying the cake doesn't stop a gay couple from getting married, no. But it stops the baker from being involved in something that they feel is wrong and/or harmful to those involved.
Which again, is not a determination they should be making. They do not really have the luxury of picking and choosing what parts of the bible they wish.
As Christians, their own religion tells them this is not okay. So it is not a valid argument.
Which is rich, considering the word homosexuality wasn't even in the bible till at least the 1950s.
I'm not sure how that's relevant. There are all sorts of common English words that weren't originally in the bible.
It is actually a hotly debated topic by religious scholars. The word translated to mean homosexual is not considered 100% accurate. It is a tossup between homosexual and pedophile, depending on who you ask.
Which is rich, considering the word homosexuality wasn't even in the bible till at least the 1950s.
I'm not sure how that's relevant. There are all sorts of common English words that weren't originally in the bible.
It is relevant precisely for that reason... These religious bigots claim to base their bigotry on things that are "in the bible."
And yet, they are basing some of these things on both modern language, as well as semi-modern science. And even then, a number of these translations are quite shoddy, the original hebrew and greek languages use words that, until translated in the particular way for the bible... had never been translated to mean "homosexual" and in fact had much more in relation to the priesthood and religious practices than to anything remotely LGBTQ.
Certainly when it comes to legislature. Faith based law are very likely to be discriminatory, as in the cake example, in some way towards people of a different/no faith and quite possibly members of the dominant faith as well.
Laws should always be completely secular in any country that thinks of itself as a democracy and who espouse personal freedom.
Throughout history, I think there's been a fairly consistent result whenever someone finds their faith to be at odds with the law of the land.
Well they have 3 options. Be a law abiding citizen, attempt to get the law changed or stage a coup to create, or move to, a glorious (?) biblical/sharia/spaghetti monster theocracy.
Failure to comply with the law means that they are exactly the same as everyone else who breaks a law, no special snowflake status allowed.
Well they have 3 options. Be a law abiding citizen, attempt to get the law changed or stage a coup to create, or move to, a glorious (?) biblical/sharia/spaghetti monster theocracy.
Or, in other words, the same options as the rest of us find ourselves with when our morals or personal beliefs put us at odds with the law...
To be clear, here, I'm not saying that refusing service because someone is acting at odds with your religion is the right thing to do. I'm just saying that I can understand why someone might think it's the right thing to do...
The issue with the gay wedding cake is, to those who believe that homosexuality is a sin, no different. Supplying that cake would be helping these people to do something harmful to themselves.
Which is rich, considering the word homosexuality wasn't even in the bible till at least the 1950s.
You don't need the exact word in the Bible to know its against homosexuality. It makes its position quite clear.
The Bible also says to set a priest's daughter on fire if she has sex out of wedlock. The Bible says lots of things, and even the Christians who think it's the literal word of God don't do everything in it says (that would result in pretty much all of them going to prisons so realistically...)
I know it stands for "queer".... but I honestly have no idea what THAT means in the context of LGBTQ issues.
Queer is a term adopted for gender fluid, non binary and undecided genders, along with being a broader label for those who simply don't feel the need to specify which aspect of sexuality or gender they personify.
The truly obnoxious term is QUILTBAG
Queer, Undecided, Intersex, Lesbian, Trans, Bisexual, Asexual, Gay.
It's obnoxious for many reasons but also because Pansexual isn't included due to spoiling the term.
When you say obnoxious, do you mean derogatory? Or is it just slightly irritating because it can be used to spell a word that has nothing to do with gender?
Obnoxious to my eyes because it's a sort of smug cuddly term to describe a group of people largely discriminated against and turns it into a fluffy bunny.
To me it'd be like turning a cause for racial equality into "JAMMYTOAST" or something else.
Pansexuality is not encompassing bisexuality. I'm not by any means a spokesman but iirc it can be broken down like this.
Bisexual: Bi = two = preference of people encompassing two genders. An attraction to men, women, and occasionally others, because of their genders and aspects that appeal. Of course personality and getting to know people is a big parts, and it runs like other relationships, be them Herero, gay, etc.
Pansexual: Pan = all = attraction to people regardless of gender. A people person. Often the slogan "hearts, not parts" is applied. A pansexual likes someone because of who they are before taking into account sex characteristics.
insaniak wrote: Most of us would at the very least refuse to help someone commit suicide, or to otherwise harm themselves, if we were in the position to do so.
The issue with the gay wedding cake is, to those who believe that homosexuality is a sin, no different. Supplying that cake would be helping these people to do something harmful to themselves.
The difference is that one harm can be demonstrated to exist, while the other can't. It is indisputable fact that someone who (successfully) commits suicide is dead. On the other hand there is no evidence at all for the argument that homosexuality is harmful. And the legal system is supposed to deal with facts and evidence, not personal opinions and wild speculation about mythical beings.
Demonstrate your religious claims in any way reflect reality and that your god(s) exists - then we might consider the validity of including your religious beliefs in law.
Until such time law should be secular and evidence based, providing equal protections, rights and responsibilities to all.
Ultimately religious freedom laws are a last ditch attempt by certain hardcore religious elements (or politicians pandering to these reasonably large dedicated voting blocks) to deny equality for all based on religious intollerance and bigotry.
Whilst America's obsession continues to amuse and confuse me, I do have to ask this.
Someone I know posted this on Facebook today (I hope the image works - if not let me know):
Now I can kinda see what they're saying (ie. I can follow my religion but I can't force people to abide by my beliefs), but then I thought about that first sentence:
"I can't [bake a cake for your gay wedding], it's against my religion."
H.B.M.C. wrote: Now I can kinda see what they're saying (ie. I can follow my religion but I can't force people to abide by my beliefs), but then I thought about that first sentence:
"I can't [bake a cake for your gay wedding], it's against my religion."
Weren't people saying that that was unreasonable?
What am I missing?
Probably the fact that the person posting the image and the people arguing against the bakery refusing service to gay customers are not the same people, and therefore can hold different beliefs?
In the case of the bakery though there are various laws that a business has to serve all customers and can't discriminate. For example, you can't say "my religion says black people are a lesser race and should not mix with my white customers" and refuse service*. So the business owner is not merely refusing to act in a way that contradicts their religion, they're insisting that they are entitled to special treatment and that anti-discrimination laws shouldn't apply to them. A genuine case of religious freedom would be that the state can not force a person to work as a baker. If selling cakes to gay customers is against your religion then you are free to choose a job that does not involve doing so.
*Explicitly stated by the supreme court when they rejected that exact argument.
We cannot factually disprove all gods, although the burden of evidence in on the ones claiming a god. However, we can probably disprove your specific god. If you assume Jesus died around 33 AD, then the first gospels would have been recorded about 50 years after his death. The average lifespan was around 35 years in israel at that time, so the apostles would have been dead for about 35 years before the first book was written, and about 75 years for the 4th.
-King Herod died at around 4 BC. He was known by contemporary scholars for his construction projects, the murder of rabbis, and killing 2 members of his family, not for murdering a city's children. So unless mary took 4 or so years to give birth...
-The bible explicitly states that the wounds were in his hands, when romans used the wrists for crucifixion. Hands were never used, because they would eventually not be able to support the weight and the nails would be ripped out.
-Jesus is a descendant through his father, and his father's father, in multiple books. Unfortunately, in jewish culture descendants are traced through the mother's family. In greek culture(mark, for example) descent is traced through the father's family. In addition, the apostles disagree on the lineage, to the point where only 3 names match up out of around 70. Not to mention, since joseph wasn't yet married, and had no part in the conception, he was in no way related to jesus.
-Pontius pilate was known for his cruelty and bloodlust. Why did he suddenly decide to prevent a petty criminals punishment?
-There are no historical documents for the existence of jesus. Some reference christian cult members in the first century.
-Why didn't any of the romans, including historians, write down the fact that thousands of the dead were walking in jerusalem?
[u]Not to mention the central premise, that a talking snake convinced a clay man and rib woman to eat a fruit that was forbidden, even though since god is all knowing, he would know they would eat the fruit in the first place, meaning that god had to kill himself for a few days so he wouldn't have to send us to a place he created specifically to torture us for all eternity, as long as we believe that he is capable of being a magical lich to save us from himselt.
(yes, the syntax was intentionally nonsensical for effect)
Not to mention the parts of the story borrowed from local mythology, such as;
virgin birth
resurrection
walking on water
messiah
etc
I will just leave this here... because you have to obey your holy book, right?
Forced abortion by priests
Numbers 5:11-31
slavery approved in New Testament
1 Timothy 6:1
Titus 2:9-10
1 Peter 2:18
Jesus saying things(supposedly)
Obey the laws of the old testament
Matthew 5:17-read the old testament and realize why this is horrible, unless you enjoy a good stoning
Thought Crime
Matthew 5:28
Encourages mutilation
matthew 5:28-29
[b]Keep your religion to yourself
Matthew 6:6
Honestly I could go on, but I haven't gotten sleep in 20 hours. My point is, if you want to believe in something absurd and transparently false, and use it as an excuse to do horrible things, don't try to get the government to respect your decision.
It's irrelevant whether we can prove religion or not. We can't prove humanism and civil rights either. What's important is that people do have these strong feelings and society has to take them into account in forming a general code of conduct and law.
The issue with the gay wedding cake is, to those who believe that homosexuality is a sin, no different. Supplying that cake would be helping these people to do something harmful to themselves.
Which is rich, considering the word homosexuality wasn't even in the bible till at least the 1950s.
You don't need the exact word in the Bible to know its against homosexuality. It makes its position quite clear.
Actually, it doesn't. There are some verses that are against it, and some that don't care. For example
Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve.
The special relationship between Jonathan and David. 20:3-14
Jonathan has a secret meeting with David in the forest. David will be king, he says, and he will be right beside him. "And they two made a covenant before the LORD." 23:16-18
David loved Jonathan more than women. (And he loved a lot of women!) 1:26
If you wish I can give more explicit examples, there are several examples of erotica in the bible
Kilkrazy wrote: It's irrelevant whether we can prove religion or not. We can't prove humanism and civil rights either. What's important is that people do have these strong feelings and society has to take them into account in forming a general code of conduct and law.
Humanism and civil rights don't make assertions that are not in line with our scientific understanding. Therefore, they are valid perspectives. Disagreement is a matter of opinion, not rationality.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: The average life span was 35 because the massive infant mortality rate skewed the average.
My apologies, median lifespan. I also forgot to mention all of the apostles are described as having professional lives, so they might be older
How so? The positions of humanism and civil rights can both be thought through in a rational order, and the postulates, such as it is evolutionarily advantageous to cooperate, or that people are not less equal based on race, can be tested empirically.
It's not a matter of rationality because however much you say to religious people that their ideas are impossible they won't go, Oh! You're right! Hang on five minutes while I change my complete worldview."
At the same time there are billions of religious people and they can't be ignored. Society is made of everyone, not just a few self-selecting groups that approve of themselves and not everyone else.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's not a matter of rationality because however much you say to religious people that their ideas are impossible they won't go, Oh! You're right! Hang on five minutes while I change my complete worldview."
At the same time there are billions of religious people and they can't be ignored. Society is made of everyone, not just a few self-selecting groups that approve of themselves and not everyone else.
You mean like religious organizations? And I honestly think we should try to ignore horrible ideas. Like, for example, we probably shouldn't teach religiously motivated sex ed. Now a lot of people want it, but I think we should ignore them and do what doesn't harm children.
They are free to have their views. However, they shouldn't be allowed to act on them all the time, just as I cannot yell fire in a crowded movie theater. When their or my rights start to infringe on others rights, they end, we don't write a law that extends them.
Omnipotent beings in the Star Trek universe of course...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
like refusing same-sex couples a meal) surely has nothing to do with religion?
Not necessarily. If a religion proscribes the Chosen from any interaction with sinners, or alternatively the unclean, and group X falls in that category, then it could actually.
Having said that, a lot of this doesn't appear to be driven by that, at all.
Alternatively there may be activities group X does that the religious specifically could not support under the same grounds. For a real world example of the argument- Baker Bob can bakes cakes for group X. However if group X marries it is against the beliefs of his religion which only recognizes marriages between group Y. He is not opposing group X, but this actitivty of group X.
The final query that relates is not a religious one but a rights one. Slavery is illegal here and we have a capitalist system. The thought of forcing someone to work or perform an activity is abhorrent to the US system of commerce and individual rights. Its the Batman rule. They can't stop you, but they on't have to participate.
Note much of the above has nothing to do with the recent BathroomGate(TM*). Bathroomgate is just a cray cray wedge issue to garner votes and distract from the entire world freaking falling apart.
Personal note only: I prefer the view of another libertarian I heard. If you are in the business of commerce, your ethics should involve ethically providing a quality product, quality service to your client, and quality management of your people. Here endeth the lesson.
*I coined it. Its mine! My...precious....
It's not a matter of forcing others to live according to your standards. It's a matter of not making yourself a party to something that you honestly believe to be wrong.
I'm torn on these religious freedom laws. They're pretty transparently the states involved saying "we agree that gay people are bad," but there are some interesting questions of the rights of self expression here.
I think that "public accommodations," meaning those businesses that are open to the general public and serve anybody with cash, should not be allowed to discriminate on demographics (sex, race, orientation, religions, etc.) If you run a pizza place, you're selling pizza to anybody that has the cash.
However, professionals and artists have, and should have, a lot more say in what clients they select or what projects they take on.
The question becomes: when is a business a public accommodation, such that it must serve anybody, and when is it a professional or artistic service such that clients select it because of a particular style or specialty.
What I'm getting it is that while all people have the right to enter into commerce, you also cannot tell people to use their skills in a way that they do not care to.
But they are not actively participating in making it happen. They are going to get married regardless.
There are people out there in the world doing all sorts of things that I think are wrong. They're going to do those things regardless of whether or not I help them... but that doesn't make it ok for me to help them.
Not supplying the cake doesn't stop a gay couple from getting married, no. But it stops the baker from being involved in something that they feel is wrong and/or harmful to those involved.
You're also ignoring the context of it all though. that gay bit was just one line in leviticus, those same people who refuse to bake the cake probably have tattoos, eat shrimp, wear clothes of mixed fabric, and violate everything else written in the old testament. The old testament which I've been told many times is out of date because jesus changed the rules. So knowing what we know of jesus and his views on hypocrites, the bakers should get themselves right with god first and not worry what others are doing.
It's pretty telling when people pick one line out of 2 bibles to hold as a deeply held religious belief.
As far as I'm concerned, those with religious beliefs should not have to do things against there religion (an OB/GYN would not have to preform abortions, for example) same with any strongly held belief, but should not be allowed to to treat people differently (the baker must make a cake for the gay couple same as if they were a strait couple).
Basically, equal treatment, but no special treatment. And if those strongly held belifs cause them to not be able to do there job (such as the johvas witness doctor not doing blood transfusions), then they should be fired for not being able to do there job.
I will just leave this here... because you have to obey your holy book, right?
I do.
Forced abortion by priests
Numbers 5:11-31
Irrelevant. Old testament law I do not have to follow. See that all the laws in Leviticus and where you decide to arbitrarily pull them from begin with "The Lord said to Moses, 'Give these instructions to the people of Israel.' " I am not an Israelite, I am a Gentile. This Law is null and designed for a group of people who came thousands of years before me.
slavery approved in New Testament
1 Timothy 6:1
Titus 2:9-10
1 Peter 2:18
Are you a slave? Don't let that worry you-But if you get a chance to be, free take it. 1 Corinthians 7:21
Jesus saying things(supposedly)
Obey the laws of the old testament
Matthew 5:17-read the old testament and realize why this is horrible, unless you enjoy a good stoning
We are gentiles, these laws are null.
Thought Crime
Matthew 5:28
God is incapable of doing evil. Even the mere thought of evil is outside his person. If you have that thought, you have sinned against him and must repent.
Encourages mutilation
matthew 5:28-29
I can't refute this. If something is causing you to sin, remove that thing. Its probably more figurative than it is literal.
Keep your religion to yourself
Matthew 6:6
No, keep it to yourself if the only purpose of showing it is to show you are a religious person.
Read 2 Corinthians 4.
My point is, if you want to believe in something absurd and transparently
Vaktathi wrote: ...while in the other instance the harm is purely in the realm of the unknowable, the metaphysical.
Which makes no difference to someone who genuinely believes it.
I'm sure, but society can't operate around everyone's head mythos (particularly given how...outlandish it can sometimes get), no matter how much they believe it, and that's where laws usually draw the line, particularly with regards to businesses serving the general public.
To one who is a firm believer of the Bill of Rights and the French System, they can actually.
1. As already noted, quit forcing commerce.
2. Go the other way. The nation is governed by the religious laws of one group. There are a whole plethora of nations like that, none of which I personally want to live in. But thats their call and they can do what they want.
I completely see the point that a Roman Catholic doctor should not be required to perform an abortion against his conscience.
This is one I've never understood. No doctor or nurse is ever forced to perform an abortion or provide care for women who've undergone one, because they have a choice in what specialism they practice and a choice in where they work.
If, however, they choose to work in reproductive health, and they choose to work in a facility that provides abortions or aftercare for patients who've undergone abortions(or any kind of emergency care, since that might require them to treat a woman with complications from an abortion), then they should damn well do their job and stop whining.
If a devout Jew were to train as a seafood chef and then choose to work in a lobster restaurant, they either work with shellfish regardless of what Leviticus has to say about them, or they get the sack. Jobs have responsibilities, if you're incapable of fulfilling those responsibilities you don't do that job, end of.
It's not a matter of forcing others to live according to your standards. It's a matter of not making yourself a party to something that you honestly believe to be wrong.
Then, as above, don't put yourself in that situation. If you choose to enter a service or sales profession that requires you to interact with people, you interact with all the people on the same terms. Is everyone forgetting "VACANCY - No Jews, No Blacks, No Irish"? Segregated counters in restaurants? Discrimination is discrimination, it doesn't matter what the reason is, and it has to be that way because otherwise society stops working.
Consider, an atheist opens a bookshop. Maybe it's a really arsey atheist who actually hates/is very uncomfortable with religious people. That atheist bookshop owner has two choices - they can choose to stock, say, the latest Richard Dawkins book, or they can choose not to stock it. What they can't do is choose to stock it and then refuse to sell it to a customer who comports themselves entirely within the law while in the store but happens to be Christian. Just like bakers have a nice easy choice - they can bake wedding cakes or not bake them, they can offer the service of writing a message on the cake or not offer that service. They can't offer a product or service and then refuse it only to certain people that they disapprove of.
In the developed world being gay is legal, and thankfully in most of it gay marriage is now also legal. That is the only thing that matters when determining whether or not someone is allowed to refuse to do something their job requires them to do, because we're not a sodding theocracy and your(plural, nonspecific) feelings about gay people or trans people or ginger haired people are utterly irrelevant.
Quite frankly, I don't think it is. A private business owner should be free to deal with whomsoever he chooses, for whatever reason he chooses. Any discrimination that results from that is generally counterbalanced by the loss of revenue when word gets around that the business owner is an donkey-cave.
You mean like when that chicken fast food chain was punished by the public for their homophobia with lots of extra money from people showing up to support them? You mean like how free market mechanics ended racial segregation in American businesses? Utter fantasy. Almost every electronic device(and certainly all the most popular ones) we own in the developed world is soaked in the blood of innocents, from children forced to mine the metals right up the chain to workers kept in perpetual slave labour conditions killing themselves to escape their miserable existence, and even that, literally even children being worked to death in mines, isn't enough to generate change through market pressure, so in what universe is "a gay couple couldn't get the wedding cake they wanted" or the like meant to make any serious difference to behaviour driven by what is still a pretty widespread prejudice?
SilverMK2 wrote: Demonstrate your religious claims in any way reflect reality and that your god(s) exists - then we might consider the validity of including your religious beliefs in law.
Until such time law should be secular and evidence based, providing equal protections, rights and responsibilities to all.
Ultimately religious freedom laws are a last ditch attempt by certain hardcore religious elements (or politicians pandering to these reasonably large dedicated voting blocks) to deny equality for all based on religious intollerance and bigotry.
Why should the government have the power to force someone to provide a good or service against their will?
Should you be forced to provide posters for Ted Cruz complaining about "those people?"
No of course not. Neither should anyone else be forced to do something against their will.
The concept is disturbing and goes against fundemantl western concepts.
inversely is the argument that you are in the business to do business.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
What I'm getting it is that while all people have the right to enter into commerce, you also cannot tell people to use their skills in a way that they do not care to.
Of course in actuality you completely are.
In your instance, the pizzamaker (hereafter referred to as the holy of holies) is using her skill and expertise to provide a service. Yet she is forced to provide that service regardless.
Its all just a matter of degree.
SilverMK2 wrote: Demonstrate your religious claims in any way reflect reality and that your god(s) exists - then we might consider the validity of including your religious beliefs in law.
Until such time law should be secular and evidence based, providing equal protections, rights and responsibilities to all.
Ultimately religious freedom laws are a last ditch attempt by certain hardcore religious elements (or politicians pandering to these reasonably large dedicated voting blocks) to deny equality for all based on religious intollerance and bigotry.
Why should the government have the power to force someone to provide a good or service against their will?
Should you be forced to provide posters for Ted Cruz complaining about "those people?"
No of course not. Neither should anyone else be forced to do something against their will.
The concept is disturbing and goes against fundemantl western concepts.
So you're in favour or returning to the days of segregation and refusing service and employment based on race, religion, and national origin then?
So you're in favour or returning to the days of segregation and refusing service and employment based on race, religion, and national origin then?
I'm making a philosophy argument. Please stick to the topic and not make it personal thanks.
I would say philosophically people should not be forced to do anything. As a policy I am completely supportive of current federal and state laws (except Oklahoma, they are flat)
In the inverse why should someone be forced to bake a cake for people they don't like. Why should a baker be forced to make a cake for NAMBLA (not the National Association of Marlon Brando Lookalikes)
I will just leave this here... because you have to obey your holy book, right?
I do.
Forced abortion by priests
Numbers 5:11-31
Irrelevant. Old testament law I do not have to follow. See that all the laws in Leviticus and where you decide to arbitrarily pull them from begin with "The Lord said to Moses, 'Give these instructions to the people of Israel.' " I am not an Israelite, I am a Gentile. This Law is null and designed for a group of people who came thousands of years before me.
slavery approved in New Testament
1 Timothy 6:1
Titus 2:9-10
1 Peter 2:18
Are you a slave? Don't let that worry you-But if you get a chance to be, free take it. 1 Corinthians 7:21
Jesus saying things(supposedly)
Obey the laws of the old testament
Matthew 5:17-read the old testament and realize why this is horrible, unless you enjoy a good stoning
We are gentiles, these laws are null.
Thought Crime
Matthew 5:28
God is incapable of doing evil. Even the mere thought of evil is outside his person. If you have that thought, you have sinned against him and must repent.
Encourages mutilation
matthew 5:28-29
I can't refute this. If something is causing you to sin, remove that thing. Its probably more figurative than it is literal.
Keep your religion to yourself
Matthew 6:6
No, keep it to yourself if the only purpose of showing it is to show you are a religious person.
Read 2 Corinthians 4.
My point is, if you want to believe in something absurd and transparently
Back at it again with the religion bashing.
There is nothing wrong with "bashing" an idea. Ideas don't have feelings. And in my mind, that is an accurate description.
You referenced corinthians twice... a new testament piece that endorses slavery. What the ? You believe in a god, and you believe that god is incapable of doing evil. Anyone who encourages slavery in my book is evil, and I would like to see why you believe that is not the case.
Try to avoid making claims like "He cannot be evil" without providing rationale that isn't circular reasoning or pulling a "none of us can understand but I know it anyway somehow" argument
I don't believe that thoughts can ever have moral standing. Only actions reflect morals. I base this on actions being the only things that affect other people, and the effect we have on others dictates our morality.
Considering that, I would like you to explain how, hypothetically, I would have any obligation to listen to what your god says?
All of this is irrelevant, as you still haven't responded to any of the contradictions that cast doubt on the authenticity of your holy book, not to mention you still haven't responded to the numerous homosexual relationships depicted positively or neutrally in the bible.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, only it isn't against Christianity to bake a cake for a gay person or couple.
Then why are some people in this thread arguing that it is OK to do so?
Would I make a cake for a gay person? Sure. Would I make a cake for a obese person (Gluttony is a sin, after all)? Sure. Would I make a cake glorifying gay marriage? No. Am I going to make a cake glorifying obese people? No.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, only it isn't against Christianity to bake a cake for a gay person or couple.
Then why are some people in this thread arguing that it is OK to do so?
Would I make a cake for a gay person? Sure. Would I make a cake for a obese person (Gluttony is a sin, after all)? Sure. Would I make a cake glorifying gay marriage? No. Am I going to make a cake glorifying obese people? No.
but the devil in your theology is the creation of yahweh, and since he is omnipotent and omniscient, he created him specifically to make parasites in the future.
A Town Called Malus wrote: If God isn't evil then why did he create parasites whose entire function is to feed off other living things, often to the detriment of their host?
How is that question relevant at all to the the government forcing privately owned businesses to provide goods and services to people against their will?
That would put the Devil on the same power level as God.
Which kind of defeats the purpose of God being all-powerful. Not to mention that I'm pretty sure it says that God created all life and he must also have saved these parasites during the Great Flood.
So you're in favour or returning to the days of segregation and refusing service and employment based on race, religion, and national origin then?
I'm making a philosophy argument. Please stick to the topic and not make it personal thanks.
I would say philosophically people should not be forced to do anything.
As a policy I am completely supportive of current federal and state laws (except Oklahoma, they are flat)
In the inverse why should someone be forced to bake a cake for people they don't like. Why should a baker be forced to make a cake for NAMBLA (not the National Association of Marlon Brando Lookalikes)
My argument is also philosophical, I simply disagree with you where exactly along the chain one freedom overrides the other. For example - nobody is forcing a baker to make a cake for anyone they don't like, because nobody is forcing them to be a baker and nobody is forcing them to offer that product for sale.
Once they do, however, the right of any given individual to be treated equally in their day-to-day life overrides any personal feelings the baker may have.
You can choose not to make wedding cakes. You can choose not to put a sign in the window offering to decorate wedding cakes with a customer-specified message. However, once you do either of those things(ie, offer a product or service to the public), your personal opinion of any given customer, provided what they ask of you is within the law, no longer has any bearing, you should serve all of the public.
My point in making that comment was not to "make it personal", it was to illustrate the logical outcome of the philosophical position you're taking - it applies just as well to schools, or employment, or any number of other public spheres, as it does to any number of other prejudices like race and religion. Business doesn't get a pass.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, only it isn't against Christianity to bake a cake for a gay person or couple.
Then why are some people in this thread arguing that it is OK to do so?
apparently some people in this thread with one religion backing them think it's a good idea to be able to deny service based on their religion. They'll rejoice in that idea until the other shoe drops.
Just to pick on frazz for a minute as my way of welcoming him back, and meaning no offense. Some people want this for their society, not frazz specifically.
He leaves the church of the weenier dog and on his way home he stops at 7/11 to pick up some beans & franks, and some beer. the clerk refuses to sell these item to him because the clerk has a deeply held belief that anyone with a weenier dog is gay.
The next 2 stores won't sell those items because their muslims and won't sell beer to people, even though it's on sale in their store.
the next store won't even let his weenier dog in the store, so of course no weenier dog loving person would shop there.
the next store is being staffed by a vegan and not only won't sell the hotdogs, but suggests frazz set his dogs free.
so finally after crossing the state line and 30 stores later frazz is finally able to buy his beans and franks.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: There is nothing wrong with "bashing" an idea. Ideas don't have feelings. And in my mind, that is an accurate description.
Good for you then.
You referenced corinthians twice... a new testament piece that endorses slavery.
Excuse me?
Are you a slave? Don't let that worry you-But if you get a chance to be, free take it. 1 Corinthians 7:21
Try to avoid making claims like "He cannot be evil" without providing rationale that isn't circular reasoning or pulling a "none of us can understand but I know it anyway somehow" argument
And I can't argue that he isn't Evil without using circular reasoning because I can only reference my Bible or by saying "You can't understand it, not yet."
I don't believe that thoughts can ever have moral standing. Only actions reflect morals. I base this on actions being the only things that affect other people, and the effect we have on others dictates our morality.
I consider everything you do or think has moral standing. In which case, we are all evil.
Considering that, I would like you to explain how, hypothetically, I would have any obligation to listen to what your god says?
You don't. Isn't free will a great thing?
All of this is irrelevant, as you still haven't responded to any of the contradictions that cast doubt on the authenticity of your holy book, not to mention you still haven't responded to the numerous homosexual relationships depicted positively or neutrally in the bible.
Really? Is the concept of a deep relationship between two people of the same sex only confined to a homosexual relationship? Is the concept of brotherly or sisterly bonds so foreign these days?
A Town Called Malus wrote: If God isn't evil then why did he create parasites whose entire function is to feed off other living things, often to the detriment of their host?
How is that question relevant at all to the the government forcing privately owned businesses to provide goods and services to people against their will?
It's relevant to the current discussion of the philosophy of the Bible. If God is capable of "evil" then that makes him no better than humanity. This in turn means that we should not regard his laws and wishes above the wellbeing of our fellow humans as he is not truly a higher power who wishes to look after us.
A Town Called Malus wrote: If God isn't evil then why did he create parasites whose entire function is to feed off other living things, often to the detriment of their host?
Because Adam and Eve chose to eat from the tree of knowledge and thus were capable of understanding good and evil. As such, Earth could no longer be perfect, as now mankind could understand evil. And such, evil was allowed to be on the earth.
Polonius wrote: I'm torn on these religious freedom laws. They're pretty transparently the states involved saying "we agree that gay people are bad," but there are some interesting questions of the rights of self expression here.
I think that "public accommodations," meaning those businesses that are open to the general public and serve anybody with cash, should not be allowed to discriminate on demographics (sex, race, orientation, religions, etc.) If you run a pizza place, you're selling pizza to anybody that has the cash.
However, professionals and artists have, and should have, a lot more say in what clients they select or what projects they take on.
The question becomes: when is a business a public accommodation, such that it must serve anybody, and when is it a professional or artistic service such that clients select it because of a particular style or specialty.
What I'm getting it is that while all people have the right to enter into commerce, you also cannot tell people to use their skills in a way that they do not care to.
This right here.
As long as the person isn't part of the statelocal 'protected class'... businesses have the right to refuse service.
In the case of the baker or pizza joint... anyone can come through their door and purchase their products.
However, they shouldn't be *forced* to cater a gay wedding. That's asinine.
The way I look at it, I think it's silly... those businesses are losing a potential transaction and the public at large should be free to express their dispproval over such actions via protest/boycott or to simply take their business somewhere else.
But, to get the state to force you to do it? Man... that's dangerous territory there...
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, only it isn't against Christianity to bake a cake for a gay person or couple.
Then why are some people in this thread arguing that it is OK to do so?
apparently some people in this thread with one religion backing them think it's a good idea to be able to deny service based on their religion. They'll rejoice in that idea until the other shoe drops.
Just to pick on frazz for a minute as my way of welcoming him back, and meaning no offense. Some people want this for their society, not frazz specifically.
He leaves the church of the weenier dog and on his way home he stops at 7/11 to pick up some beans & franks, and some beer. the clerk refuses to sell these item to him because the clerk has a deeply held belief that anyone with a weenier dog is gay.
The next 2 stores won't sell those items because their muslims and won't sell beer to people, even though it's on sale in their store.
the next store won't even let his weenier dog in the store, so of course no weenier dog loving person would shop there.
the next store is being staffed by a vegan and not only won't sell the hotdogs, but suggests frazz set his dogs free.
so finally after crossing the state line and 30 stores later frazz is finally able to buy his beans and franks.
Why, because religious freedom.
If those stores turn away too many customers then they'll go out of business. If there are no stores in business to supply goods and services to people in the community willing and able to pay for those goods and services then new businesses will open to provide those goods and services. Problem solved.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, only it isn't against Christianity to bake a cake for a gay person or couple.
Then why are some people in this thread arguing that it is OK to do so?
Would I make a cake for a gay person? Sure. Would I make a cake for a obese person (Gluttony is a sin, after all)? Sure. Would I make a cake glorifying gay marriage? No. Am I going to make a cake glorifying obese people? No.
Why?
I don't want to celebrate sin nor help someone celebrate sin.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: There is nothing wrong with "bashing" an idea. Ideas don't have feelings. And in my mind, that is an accurate description.
Good for you then.
You referenced corinthians twice... a new testament piece that endorses slavery.
Excuse me?
Are you a slave? Don't let that worry you-But if you get a chance to be, free take it. 1 Corinthians 7:21
Try to avoid making claims like "He cannot be evil" without providing rationale that isn't circular reasoning or pulling a "none of us can understand but I know it anyway somehow" argument
And I can't argue that he isn't Evil without using circular reasoning because I can only reference my Bible or by saying "You can't understand it, not yet."
I don't believe that thoughts can ever have moral standing. Only actions reflect morals. I base this on actions being the only things that affect other people, and the effect we have on others dictates our morality.
I consider everything you do or think has moral standing. In which case, we are all evil.
Considering that, I would like you to explain how, hypothetically, I would have any obligation to listen to what your god says?
You don't. Isn't free will a great thing?
All of this is irrelevant, as you still haven't responded to any of the contradictions that cast doubt on the authenticity of your holy book, not to mention you still haven't responded to the numerous homosexual relationships depicted positively or neutrally in the bible.
Really? Is the concept of a deep relationship between two people of the same sex only confined to a homosexual relationship? Is the concept of brotherly or sisterly bonds so foreign these days?
1. Except the bible also tells slaves to obey the people who own them.
2. So what you are saying is that- you have to believe the bible is authentic and ignore all the parts of it that show evil things that the god does, which is extremely unlikely given what we know from historical records, or that- you cant understand it? I can understand it pretty well, thats why I don't believe it.
3. Quick question. How are thoughts ever immoral? Explain how a thought leads to tangible problems, and don't say something like "well they are more likely to do something if they think about it" because the moral issue is following through, not thinking.
4. No, because apparently according to most theologies if you dont worship them, you end up being tortured for all eternity. Saying "you send yourself to be tortured" is like saying "you decided to get killed instead of giving the man your wallet, it isnt the muggers fault!"
5. Please explain how some of the pretty obviously homosexual stuff is just brotherly/sisterly love, when it says she loves a women like a man loves a woman? Also, still haven't addressed the historical problems.
Kilkrazy wrote: Yes, only it isn't against Christianity to bake a cake for a gay person or couple.
Then why are some people in this thread arguing that it is OK to do so?
Would I make a cake for a gay person? Sure. Would I make a cake for a obese person (Gluttony is a sin, after all)? Sure. Would I make a cake glorifying gay marriage? No. Am I going to make a cake glorifying obese people? No.
Why?
I don't want to celebrate sin nor help someone celebrate sin.
The bible in some cases celebrates homosexuality. I am an atheist. If I took the bible as the word of god brought through fallible writers, I would recognize the homosexual love stories in the bible more than a few isolated rants against homosexuality, especially because homophobia is often associated with homosexual tendencies, and these were mostly celibate men ranting.
A Town Called Malus wrote: If God isn't evil then why did he create parasites whose entire function is to feed off other living things, often to the detriment of their host?
Because Adam and Eve chose to eat from the tree of knowledge and thus were capable of understanding good and evil. As such, Earth could no longer be perfect, as now mankind could understand evil. And such, evil was allowed to be on the earth.
I am no scholar, but that is my view.
So God created and then allowed evil to exist because a man and a woman ate some fruit. And why is he still punishing us thousands of years later for what this man and woman did? We as humans agreed that reprisals against family members was a bad thing so why hasn't God? Why does God think it is okay to punish us now for things which we had absolutely no way of preventing considering that they happened (going by the Bible timeline rather than science) thousands of years ago?
Also God, who is all-knowing and all-powerful, is punishing Adam and Eve for eating the fruit of knowledge. 1) Without the knowledge given by the fruit how could Adam and Eve ever conceive of the reasons behind it being forbidden. Yet God punishes them for it. This is like putting someone with no concept of the repercussions of their actions on death row because they didn't realise that pulling the trigger on a gun could kill somebody. 2) God knew that they would eat that fruit but put the tree there anyway. Therefore he put the tree there because he wanted them to eat the fruit so he could punish them. God is a dick. 3) God allowed the serpent into the garden to persuade them to eat the fruit. He already knew the outcome (being all-knowing and such) so yet again, God is a dick.
A Town Called Malus wrote: If God isn't evil then why did he create parasites whose entire function is to feed off other living things, often to the detriment of their host?
How is that question relevant at all to the the government forcing privately owned businesses to provide goods and services to people against their will?
It's relevant to the current discussion of the philosophy of the Bible. If God is capable of "evil" then that makes him no better than humanity. This in turn means that we should not regard his laws and wishes above the wellbeing of our fellow humans as he is not truly a higher power who wishes to look after us.
The rationale behind a given religion has no bearing on the government using their monopoly of force to require people to take actions against their will.
Here in the USA people have the right to hold whatever religious beliefs they want, even if those beliefs can be proven to be wrong, illogical, unscientific or fantastical. On the other hand, the government doesn't have the right to force people to engage in commerce against their will.
If those stores turn away too many customers then they'll go out of business. If there are no stores in business to supply goods and services to people in the community willing and able to pay for those goods and services then new businesses will open to provide those goods and services. Problem solved.
Considering how long jim crow lasted, somehow I doubt the free market will fix it.
The rationale behind a given religion has no bearing on the government using their monopoly of force to require people to take actions against their will.
Here in the USA people have the right to hold whatever religious beliefs they want, even if those beliefs can be proven to be wrong, illogical, unscientific or fantastical. On the other hand, the government doesn't have the right to force people to engage in commerce against their will.
Not quite true, they don't have to provide those services, but if they offer them, they aren't allowed to refuse service for things like race sex, ect.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: There is nothing wrong with "bashing" an idea. Ideas don't have feelings. And in my mind, that is an accurate description.
Good for you then.
You referenced corinthians twice... a new testament piece that endorses slavery.
Excuse me?
Are you a slave? Don't let that worry you-But if you get a chance to be, free take it. 1 Corinthians 7:21
Try to avoid making claims like "He cannot be evil" without providing rationale that isn't circular reasoning or pulling a "none of us can understand but I know it anyway somehow" argument
And I can't argue that he isn't Evil without using circular reasoning because I can only reference my Bible or by saying "You can't understand it, not yet."
I don't believe that thoughts can ever have moral standing. Only actions reflect morals. I base this on actions being the only things that affect other people, and the effect we have on others dictates our morality.
I consider everything you do or think has moral standing. In which case, we are all evil.
Considering that, I would like you to explain how, hypothetically, I would have any obligation to listen to what your god says?
You don't. Isn't free will a great thing?
All of this is irrelevant, as you still haven't responded to any of the contradictions that cast doubt on the authenticity of your holy book, not to mention you still haven't responded to the numerous homosexual relationships depicted positively or neutrally in the bible.
Really? Is the concept of a deep relationship between two people of the same sex only confined to a homosexual relationship? Is the concept of brotherly or sisterly bonds so foreign these days?
1. Except the bible also tells slaves to obey the people who own them.
2. So what you are saying is that- you have to believe the bible is authentic and ignore all the parts of it that show evil things that the god does, which is extremely unlikely given what we know from historical records, or that- you cant understand it? I can understand it pretty well, thats why I don't believe it.
3. Quick question. How are thoughts ever immoral? Explain how a thought leads to tangible problems, and don't say something like "well they are more likely to do something if they think about it" because the moral issue is following through, not thinking.
4. No, because apparently according to most theologies if you dont worship them, you end up being tortured for all eternity. Saying "you send yourself to be tortured" is like saying "you decided to get killed instead of giving the man your wallet, it isnt the muggers fault!"
5. Please explain how some of the pretty obviously homosexual stuff is just brotherly/sisterly love, when it says she loves a women like a man loves a woman? Also, still haven't addressed the historical problems.
1. Colossians 3:22
2. God cannot be evil. Do you have any proof that he is evil? God is the reason "Good" exists. Satan, the Dragon, the Devil or whatever you want to call him is the reason Evil exists.
3. Because the Bible said so. Yes, that is my only reasoning.
4. You have the free will to make those decisions. He won't stop you if you want to go away from him, but he would love to have you back.
5. Cite some "pretty obvious homosexual stuff"
The gay cake case went to appeal in February but was adjourned until May. The court reconvenes on 9th May.
Peter Tatchell (one of the UKs's foremost gay rights campaigners) now feels he was wrong to support the initial verdict that condemned the bakers for refusing to make the cake. He feels they were not discriminating against the gay customer but against the slogan supporting gay marriage. In other words tha it is a freedom of expression issue.
This is essentially the same position as A Town Called Malus.
A Town Called Malus wrote: If God isn't evil then why did he create parasites whose entire function is to feed off other living things, often to the detriment of their host?
Because Adam and Eve chose to eat from the tree of knowledge and thus were capable of understanding good and evil. As such, Earth could no longer be perfect, as now mankind could understand evil. And such, evil was allowed to be on the earth.
I am no scholar, but that is my view.
So God created and then allowed evil to exist because a man and a woman ate some fruit. And why is he still punishing us thousands of years later for what this man and women did? We as humans agreed that reprisals against family members was a bad thing so why hasn't God? Why does God think it is okay to punish us now for things which we had absolutely no way of preventing considering that they happened (going by the Bible timeline rather than science) thousands of years ago?
Also God, who is all-knowing and all-powerful, is punishing Adam and Eve for eating the fruit of knowledge.
1) Without the knowledge given by the fruit how could Adam and Eve ever conceive of the reasons behind it being forbidden. Yet God punishes them for it. This is like putting someone with no concept of the repercussions of their actions on death row because they didn't realise that pulling the trigger on a gun could kill somebody.
2) God knew that they would eat that fruit but put the tree there anyway. Therefore he put the tree there because he wanted them to eat the fruit so he could punish them.
3) God allowed the serpent into the garden to persuade them to eat the fruit. He already knew the outcome (being all-knowing and such) so yet again, God is a dick.
1. They were told not to eat it and they did. God does not mess around.
2. There is a theory that God chooses to know and chooses not to. He asked Abraham what was going on at Sodom and Gammorah when, in his infinite wisdom, power and presence, he could have known himself. I am not God so I can't answer this like you want it to be answered.
3. He did, but again, he gave them a choice. Perhaps he knew the outcome of either choice, but chose not to know the true outcome. Again, I am not God and won't pretend to understand this.
A Town Called Malus wrote: If God isn't evil then why did he create parasites whose entire function is to feed off other living things, often to the detriment of their host?
Because Adam and Eve chose to eat from the tree of knowledge and thus were capable of understanding good and evil. As such, Earth could no longer be perfect, as now mankind could understand evil. And such, evil was allowed to be on the earth.
I am no scholar, but that is my view.
So God created and then allowed evil to exist because a man and a woman ate some fruit. And why is he still punishing us thousands of years later for what this man and women did? We as humans agreed that reprisals against family members was a bad thing so why hasn't God? Why does God think it is okay to punish us now for things which we had absolutely no way of preventing considering that they happened (going by the Bible timeline rather than science) thousands of years ago?
Also God, who is all-knowing and all-powerful, is punishing Adam and Eve for eating the fruit of knowledge.
1) Without the knowledge given by the fruit how could Adam and Eve ever conceive of the reasons behind it being forbidden. Yet God punishes them for it. This is like putting someone with no concept of the repercussions of their actions on death row because they didn't realise that pulling the trigger on a gun could kill somebody.
2) God knew that they would eat that fruit but put the tree there anyway. Therefore he put the tree there because he wanted them to eat the fruit so he could punish them.
3) God allowed the serpent into the garden to persuade them to eat the fruit. He already knew the outcome (being all-knowing and such) so yet again, God is a dick.
4. the punishment for the first sin was to introduce death, jesus died for that sin so we could be forgiven, yet apparently that was a worthless gesture as we still have death.
God tried a universe where adam & eve had listened, I found video proof of it
2. God cannot be evil. Do you have any proof that he is evil? God is the reason "Good" exists. Satan, the Dragon, the Devil or whatever you want to call him is the reason Evil exists.
God created the Devil knowing full well what it would lead to. He is responsible.
I am only going to address 5 right now, because that seems to be the one you are least unreasonable on...
Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)
1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)
Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)
Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.
Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel.
Kilkrazy wrote: The gay cake case went to appeal in February but was adjourned until May. The court reconvenes on 9th May.
Peter Tatchell (one of the UKs's foremost gay rights campaigners) now feels he was wrong to support the initial verdict that condemned the bakers for refusing to make the cake. He feels they were not discriminating against the gay customer but against the slogan supporting gay marriage. In other words tha it is a freedom of expression issue.
This is essentially the same position as A Town Called Malus.
That's basically my opinion. You can't refuse to serve a gay couple, you can refuse to write "Gay Marriage is Awsome". Same as you can't refuse to serve a Nazi, but you can refuse to put swastikas, and racist slurs on it.
Basic service as everyone else, but no forced speciality service.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: I am only going to address 5 right now, because that seems to be the one you are least unreasonable on...
Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)
1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)
Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)
Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.
Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel.
Am I going to say this still isn't a homosexual relationship? You bet. Or as the Old Testament loves doing, shows that humans suck at following rules.
2. God cannot be evil. Do you have any proof that he is evil? God is the reason "Good" exists. Satan, the Dragon, the Devil or whatever you want to call him is the reason Evil exists.
God created the Devil knowing full well what it would lead to. He is responsible.
He gave Satan, Lucifer, the Morning Star, free will. Satan chose to be like God and ate gak for his effort. Satan is a copycat God and only has power because God allows him to do what he does.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: I am only going to address 5 right now, because that seems to be the one you are least unreasonable on...
Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)
1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)
Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)
Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.
Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel.
Am I going to say this still isn't a homosexual relationship? You bet. Or as the Old Testament loves doing, shows that humans suck at following rules.
Ah, I see now. You're either a troll or unable to see the obvious if it doesn't agree with your preconceived notions. Well, thanks for wasting my time.
He gave Satan, Lucifer, the Morning Star, free will. Satan chose to be like God and ate gak for his effort. Satan is a copycat God and only has power because God allows him to do what he does.
If it is within God's power to stop Satan's evil, but he chooses not to for some reason (entertainment? laziness? who knows?) then he is not completely good.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: I am only going to address 5 right now, because that seems to be the one you are least unreasonable on...
Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)
1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)
Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)
Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.
Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel.
Am I going to say this still isn't a homosexual relationship? You bet. Or as the Old Testament loves doing, shows that humans suck at following rules.
Ah, I see now. You're a troll. Well, thanks for wasting my time.
Guys, lets not engage him any further.
well he could be, but he's not the only one who denies it was a homosexual relationship. My stepdad the jehova's witness assured me they were just good friends, when I made the same argument to him
He gave Satan, Lucifer, the Morning Star, free will. Satan chose to be like God and ate gak for his effort. Satan is a copycat God and only has power because God allows him to do what he does.
If it is within God's power to stop Satan's evil, but he chooses not to for some reason (entertainment? laziness? who knows?) then he is not completely good.
God & Satan have a bet going to test humanities faith, so satan gets free run of the place while god sits by doing nothing but watching & judging. It's Job on a larger scale as I'm sure they got bored betting on specific people.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: I am only going to address 5 right now, because that seems to be the one you are least unreasonable on...
Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)
1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)
Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)
Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.
Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel.
Am I going to say this still isn't a homosexual relationship? You bet. Or as the Old Testament loves doing, shows that humans suck at following rules.
Ah, I see now. You're a troll. Well, thanks for wasting my time.
Guys, lets not engage him any further.
I won't. Naomi says she's too old to marry and Ruth is her daughter in law. Ruth then marries Boaz. Jonathan was David's bro. Literally 16 verses after it says "Jonathan loved David like he loved himself," which you equate to homosexuality, David marries Saul's daughter.
He gave Satan, Lucifer, the Morning Star, free will. Satan chose to be like God and ate gak for his effort. Satan is a copycat God and only has power because God allows him to do what he does.
If it is within God's power to stop Satan's evil, but he chooses not to for some reason (entertainment? laziness? who knows?) then he is not completely good.
God & Satan have a bet going to test humanities faith, so satan gets free run of the place while god sits by doing nothing but watching & judging. It's Job on a larger scale as I'm sure they got bored betting on specific people.
Except if a god isn't omniscient and therefore doesn't know how people would react without having to test them, why call it god?
He gave Satan, Lucifer, the Morning Star, free will. Satan chose to be like God and ate gak for his effort. Satan is a copycat God and only has power because God allows him to do what he does.
If it is within God's power to stop Satan's evil, but he chooses not to for some reason (entertainment? laziness? who knows?) then he is not completely good.
Or he wants you to realize that you chose evil and now suffer the consequences of your actions.
He gave Satan, Lucifer, the Morning Star, free will. Satan chose to be like God and ate gak for his effort. Satan is a copycat God and only has power because God allows him to do what he does.
If it is within God's power to stop Satan's evil, but he chooses not to for some reason (entertainment? laziness? who knows?) then he is not completely good.
God & Satan have a bet going to test humanities faith, so satan gets free run of the place while god sits by doing nothing but watching & judging. It's Job on a larger scale as I'm sure they got bored betting on specific people.
Except if a god isn't omniscient and therefore doesn't know how people would react without having to test them, why call it god?
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: I am only going to address 5 right now, because that seems to be the one you are least unreasonable on...
Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)
1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)
Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)
Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.
Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel.
Am I going to say this still isn't a homosexual relationship? You bet. Or as the Old Testament loves doing, shows that humans suck at following rules.
Ah, I see now. You're a troll. Well, thanks for wasting my time.
Guys, lets not engage him any further.
I won't. Naomi says she's too old to marry and Ruth is her daughter in law. Ruth then marries Boaz. Jonathan was David's bro. Literally 16 verses after it says "Jonathan loved David like he loved himself," which you equate to homosexuality, David marries Saul's daughter.
That doesn't mean anything, the bible allowed for having multiple marriages. David was married to Jon & sauls daughter.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: I am only going to address 5 right now, because that seems to be the one you are least unreasonable on...
Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)
1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)
Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)
Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.
Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel.
Am I going to say this still isn't a homosexual relationship? You bet. Or as the Old Testament loves doing, shows that humans suck at following rules.
Ah, I see now. You're a troll. Well, thanks for wasting my time.
Guys, lets not engage him any further.
I won't. Naomi says she's too old to marry and Ruth is her daughter in law. Ruth then marries Boaz. Jonathan was David's bro. Literally 16 verses after it says "Jonathan loved David like he loved himself," which you equate to homosexuality, David marries Saul's daughter.
Remember, Ruth marries out of duty to Naomi, Jonathan was david's bro who he also had sex with, and Saul also references how David is both entwined with jonathan and sauls daughter.
"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain."
In modern English, this might be written: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children" That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. The Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. The KJV highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics; the NIV translation is clearly deceptive.
Also, he pretty much says it right here!
bullet 2 Samuel 1:26
"I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother; you were very dear to me. Your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of women."
He gave Satan, Lucifer, the Morning Star, free will. Satan chose to be like God and ate gak for his effort. Satan is a copycat God and only has power because God allows him to do what he does.
If it is within God's power to stop Satan's evil, but he chooses not to for some reason (entertainment? laziness? who knows?) then he is not completely good.
Or he wants you to realize that you chose evil and now suffer the consequences of your actions.
He gave Satan, Lucifer, the Morning Star, free will. Satan chose to be like God and ate gak for his effort. Satan is a copycat God and only has power because God allows him to do what he does.
If it is within God's power to stop Satan's evil, but he chooses not to for some reason (entertainment? laziness? who knows?) then he is not completely good.
God & Satan have a bet going to test humanities faith, so satan gets free run of the place while god sits by doing nothing but watching & judging. It's Job on a larger scale as I'm sure they got bored betting on specific people.
Except if a god isn't omniscient and therefore doesn't know how people would react without having to test them, why call it god?
But he is omniscient.
If he is omniscient, it is cruel to give children cancer to test them when he knows how, if he gave them cancer to test them, they would react. It would be like me saying, I know the baby seals will be hurt if I club them, but I want to test, just to be sure!
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: I am only going to address 5 right now, because that seems to be the one you are least unreasonable on...
Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)
1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)
Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)
Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.
Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel.
Am I going to say this still isn't a homosexual relationship? You bet. Or as the Old Testament loves doing, shows that humans suck at following rules.
Ah, I see now. You're a troll. Well, thanks for wasting my time.
Guys, lets not engage him any further.
I won't. Naomi says she's too old to marry and Ruth is her daughter in law. Ruth then marries Boaz. Jonathan was David's bro. Literally 16 verses after it says "Jonathan loved David like he loved himself," which you equate to homosexuality, David marries Saul's daughter.
That doesn't mean anything, the bible allowed for having multiple marriages. David was married to Jon & sauls daughter.
Have you read the Old Testament? People die all the time for failing to obey the law. David had sex with some woman then sent her husband to die on the front lines then the baby of David and the Woman died.
FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote: I am only going to address 5 right now, because that seems to be the one you are least unreasonable on...
Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." (KJV) The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (KJV)
1 Samuel 18:1
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)
"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)
Most translations use the term "soul" rather than "spirit" to describe the bond. They speak of an "immediate bond of love", their souls being "in unison," their souls being "knit" etc. Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew, describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.
1 Samuel 18:3-4
"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)
Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.
Daniel 1:9 refers to Ashpenaz, the chief of the court officials of Nebuchadnezzar, the King of Babylon.
Some religious liberals detect the possibility of a homosexual relationship here. The Hebrew words which describe the relationship between Daniel and Ashpenaz are chesed v'rachamim The most common translation of chesed is "mercy". V'rachamim is in a plural form which is used to emphasize its relative importance. It has multiple meanings: "mercy" and "physical love". It is unreasonable that the original Hebrew would read that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and mercy." A more reasonable translation would thus be that Ashpenaz "showed mercy and engaged in physical love" with Daniel.
Am I going to say this still isn't a homosexual relationship? You bet. Or as the Old Testament loves doing, shows that humans suck at following rules.
Ah, I see now. You're a troll. Well, thanks for wasting my time.
Guys, lets not engage him any further.
I won't. Naomi says she's too old to marry and Ruth is her daughter in law. Ruth then marries Boaz. Jonathan was David's bro. Literally 16 verses after it says "Jonathan loved David like he loved himself," which you equate to homosexuality, David marries Saul's daughter.
That doesn't mean anything, the bible allowed for having multiple marriages. David was married to Jon & sauls daughter.
Have you read the Old Testament? People die all the time for failing to obey the law. David had sex with some woman then sent her husband to die on the front lines then the baby of David and the Woman died.
So basically only the innocent people died? The wife coerced into sex, the unknowing husband, and an infant?
So you're in favour or returning to the days of segregation and refusing service and employment based on race, religion, and national origin then?
I'm making a philosophy argument. Please stick to the topic and not make it personal thanks.
I would say philosophically people should not be forced to do anything.
As a policy I am completely supportive of current federal and state laws (except Oklahoma, they are flat)
In the inverse why should someone be forced to bake a cake for people they don't like. Why should a baker be forced to make a cake for NAMBLA (not the National Association of Marlon Brando Lookalikes)
My argument is also philosophical, I simply disagree with you where exactly along the chain one freedom overrides the other. For example - nobody is forcing a baker to make a cake for anyone they don't like, because nobody is forcing them to be a baker and nobody is forcing them to offer that product for sale.
Once they do, however, the right of any given individual to be treated equally in their day-to-day life overrides any personal feelings the baker may have.
You can choose not to make wedding cakes. You can choose not to put a sign in the window offering to decorate wedding cakes with a customer-specified message. However, once you do either of those things(ie, offer a product or service to the public), your personal opinion of any given customer, provided what they ask of you is within the law, no longer has any bearing, you should serve all of the public.
My point in making that comment was not to "make it personal", it was to illustrate the logical outcome of the philosophical position you're taking - it applies just as well to schools, or employment, or any number of other public spheres, as it does to any number of other prejudices like race and religion. Business doesn't get a pass.
Philosophically this is the a strong argument and the one I personally subscribe to.
As you note, nothing is truly black and white, well let me rephrase. Life generally isn't although there are people who manage to have an absolutist policy.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Or he wants you to realize that you chose evil and now suffer the consequences of your actions.
I have not been given a choice.
I would like to expand on how the whole free will thing and has a perfect plan don't really work together. They are kind of mutually exclusive, and that's before taking into account that yahweh would already know what you are going to do the second the universe started exactly how he planned it, so you can either have free will or an omniscient god, but you cant have both
Tactical_Spam wrote: Or he wants you to realize that you chose evil and now suffer the consequences of your actions.
I have not been given a choice.
I would like to expand on how the whole free will thing and has a perfect plan don't really work together. They are kind of mutually exclusive, and that's before taking into account that yahweh would already know what you are going to do the second the universe started exactly how he planned it, so you can either have free will or an omniscient god, but you cant have both
I like how a human, with the little knowledge that we possess, can determine what a god can or can't do.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Or he wants you to realize that you chose evil and now suffer the consequences of your actions.
I have not been given a choice.
You could take one now and repent. No one is beyond salvation.
Except that wouldn't be a choice, if it happened god would have been responsible, because he knows exactly how the cards will fall, because he put them there. No free will or no omniscience/omnipotence, your choice.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Or he wants you to realize that you chose evil and now suffer the consequences of your actions.
I have not been given a choice.
I would like to expand on how the whole free will thing and has a perfect plan don't really work together. They are kind of mutually exclusive, and that's before taking into account that yahweh would already know what you are going to do the second the universe started exactly how he planned it, so you can either have free will or an omniscient god, but you cant have both
I like how a human, with the little knowledge that we possess, can determine what a god can or can't do.
Because I assume that even the fantastical has to remain internally consistent within its own definition.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Or he wants you to realize that you chose evil and now suffer the consequences of your actions.
I have not been given a choice.
You could take one now and repent. No one is beyond salvation.
Except that wouldn't be a choice, if it happened god would have been responsible, because he knows exactly how the cards will fall, because he put them there. No free will or no omniscience/omnipotence, your choice.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Or he wants you to realize that you chose evil and now suffer the consequences of your actions.
I have not been given a choice.
I would like to expand on how the whole free will thing and has a perfect plan don't really work together. They are kind of mutually exclusive, and that's before taking into account that yahweh would already know what you are going to do the second the universe started exactly how he planned it, so you can either have free will or an omniscient god, but you cant have both
I like how a human, with the little knowledge that we possess, can determine what a god can or can't do.
Because I assume that even the fantastical has to remain internally consistent within its own definition.
Also, you are just using that as a cop out to say "what I say is right" and your argument doesnt make sense because you are only a human and arent god.
If we want to take that line of thinking to its logical conclusion, you don't know your god at all either.
So basically only the innocent people died? The wife coerced into sex, the unknowing husband, and an infant?
God is a dick. He punishes everyone, whether they were responsible or not.
He really isn't a dick, but are entitled to an opinion.
All people are evil. Not one is beyond judgment unless you repent and let Jesus take your place for judgment.
Why should I let someone who has allowed genocide to happen where he had the power to stop it sit in judgement over me? What has God ever done to earn such a right?
So basically only the innocent people died? The wife coerced into sex, the unknowing husband, and an infant?
God is a dick. He punishes everyone, whether they were responsible or not.
He really isn't a dick, but are entitled to an opinion.
All people are evil. Not one is beyond judgment unless you repent and let Jesus take your place for judgment.
So why did god intentionally kill those innocent people while allowing a murderer and rapist to live? And dont say he didn't, because even if we assume free will, god would still know the outcome of the decision. Omniscient, remember?
So basically only the innocent people died? The wife coerced into sex, the unknowing husband, and an infant?
God is a dick. He punishes everyone, whether they were responsible or not.
He really isn't a dick, but are entitled to an opinion.
All people are evil. Not one is beyond judgment unless you repent and let Jesus take your place for judgment.
Why should I let someone who has allowed genocide to happen where he had the power to stop it sit in judgement over me? What has God ever done to earn such a right?
Actually, I am betting that if 90-95% of humans had that power, the world would be a much better place. And no one would be tortured infinitely for finite crimes they were entrapped into.
I like how a human, with the little knowledge that we possess, can determine what a god can or can't do.
That's quite easy and has been done.
Can god make something so heavy, that he can't lift it?
Can god die?
Is he dead?
No.
No.
No.
Actually, you just proved his point. Ninjaed,
Quick question, if god controls all the rules of the game, and one of the rules is that if you X you get tortured forever, why wouldn't he change the rule to if you do X I don't really care, because unconditional love?
Anyway, getting back on topic, everyone has different interpretations and if we let them all run amok in the public sphere we wouldn't really be a secular state. And if you don't want to live in a secular state, I hear saudi arabia is lovely this time of year.
A transgender teen in Michigan is using her growing online popularity to raise awareness for the LGBTQ community.
Last year, 14-year-old Corey Maison received her first estrogen prescription from her mom in a video that went viral online. Maison endured years of bullying at school before fully embracing her gender identity as a teen.
To commemorate Maison's transition, her mom arranged a photo session with New Jersey-based photographer Meg Bitton in December.
A few weeks ago, North Carolina passed their controversial "bathroom bill" aimed at keeping transgender individuals from using the bathrooms intended for the gender they identify as. Maison says the bill is an attack on basic human rights.
"I feel transgender rights are not about gender identity, but about equal rights for ALL human beings," Maison wrote to A Plus. "We aren't aliens, we are PEOPLE and deserve the same rights as everyone else. I shouldn't have to use a family or special 'staff' bathroom to exclude me or single me out more than I already am and put an even bigger target on my back. I should be allowed to use the bathroom I feel most comfortable in, just like everyone else is allowed to do."
Her mother and Bitton decided to share the photograph on Facebook to show that North Carolina's law is putting transgender kids like Maison in danger.
"If this was YOUR daughter, would you be comfortable sending her into a men's bathroom? Neither would I," Bitton wrote on Facebook. "Be fair. Be kind. Be empathetic. Treat others how you would like to be treated."
Bitton's message seems to echo a common sentiment from supporters of the bathroom bill, who say they feel uncomfortable sending their cisgender daughters into bathrooms with transgender women. Powerfully, she turns the argument on its head to promote tolerance and advocate for the personal safety of girls like Maison — girls the bill's supporters appear to have forgotten.
The Facebook photo received over 21,000 shares in a single day. Many people thanked Maison and Bitton for bravely putting a face to this issue.
"The public reaction has been both positive and negative, thankfully MORE positive than negative," Maison wrote to A Plus. "People are just using fear mongering and religion to disguise their bigotry and hate. All of the messages I have received have been 100 percent positive and of support. People are telling me how brave I am for sharing my story and thanking me for having the courage to share it."
Any attempts to allow religious privileges that are not universal lead to a violation of the separation of church and state doctrine. And if universal privileges are given out and they only reflect one religion's or a group of religions' tenets, than that would also be a violation. The only logical conclusions would be to either not give any religious privileges or to give out all religious privileges for every religion, including the more violent ones. So, since I feel better not getting decapitated legally for being a heathen, I suggest we avoid allowing religious people more rights than the rest of us.
Kilkrazy wrote: Please stick to the topic or I shall be forced to start handing out Spam notices.
The topic isn't the existence of God or his powers.
It kind of is though, when it comes to religious freedom laws and the right to practice your religion. As we learned from the flying speghetti monster thread recently, if you can show the religion to be a parody, or made up, or that they're not really worshiping anything, then their religious beliefs can be simply dismissed outright.
Kilkrazy wrote: Please stick to the topic or I shall be forced to start handing out Spam notices.
The topic isn't the existence of God or his powers.
It kind of is though, when it comes to religious freedom laws and the right to practice your religion. As we learned from the flying speghetti monster thread recently, if you can show the religion to be a parody, or made up, or that they're not really worshiping anything, then their religious beliefs can be simply dismissed outright.
How dare you insult his noodly lordship! Do you not feel his noodly appendages within your soul? My worship of his noodliness is just as valid as any other religion. The government cannot decide what religions are genuine or fake without showing favoritism.
People are talking about Christianity, a religion over 2,000 years old with 1.5 billion members, not Pastafarianism, and they are arguing about the omniscience of God not how religious belief should be acccomodated in society.
If those stores turn away too many customers then they'll go out of business. If there are no stores in business to supply goods and services to people in the community willing and able to pay for those goods and services then new businesses will open to provide those goods and services. Problem solved.
Considering how long jim crow lasted, somehow I doubt the free market will fix it.
The rationale behind a given religion has no bearing on the government using their monopoly of force to require people to take actions against their will.
Here in the USA people have the right to hold whatever religious beliefs they want, even if those beliefs can be proven to be wrong, illogical, unscientific or fantastical. On the other hand, the government doesn't have the right to force people to engage in commerce against their will.
Not quite true, they don't have to provide those services, but if they offer them, they aren't allowed to refuse service for things like race sex, ect.
Jim Crow laws were laws. It was institutionalized state sponsored racism. State laws forbid businesses from allowing customers of different races to intermingle. It wasn't possible for businesses to choose not to racially descriminate because the law required them to descriminate.
Once Jim Crow laws were repealed businesses, schools, etc. were able to be inclusive and not descriminatory.
In principle, the laws governing Protected Classes are just as oppressive on businesses as the Jim Crow segregation laws were. Instead of the state forbidding businesses to serve nonwhites the state no requires businesses to serve nonwhites. In both instances the govt is forcing private businesses to serve customers the state chooses without giving the private business the ability to choose their own customers.
We are getting more into the age of each person being "their own special snowflake".
In the past, resources were tight so people were pigeon-holed out of convenience so statements like "that is how it is" or "that is your job" get bandied about.
Doctors have to follow the "Hippocratic Oath" which BTW the original oath specifically states not to perform abortion so that already gets strange not even getting into separate religious beliefs. Personally I think abortion should be allowed but should be on a volunteer basis for physicians... I can see the "do no harm" being taken seriously in those circles.
One washroom (all people, all genders) with stalls from the floor to ceiling would be reasonable.
I keep hearing in the news phones sneaking out from under the divide... creepy stuff.
Many bylaws are probably determining how the washrooms are divided perpetuating the "classic" design.
A marriage between two people with all the rights that entails is slowly getting traction.
We are far past banning marriage, so allowing a formal partnership between people is about the only fair way to go.
The sooner we get the state to a gender neutral view of "people" in law the better.
One way or another, people do sometimes want/need the marriage to pool resources to raise children and all the rights by law that entails.
It does not matter your gender or orientation status, it is the act of raising children.
Marriage as a general commitment and bond should still be respected for the pooling of resources and entitlement to the partner when the other passes.
What would be an interesting question: say a job would require certain duties that would go against certain religious beliefs.
Would it be correct for a company to not consider an applicant if they are unable to perform those duties because of the religious beliefs?
Or would they be required to provide some accommodations if the majority of the duties can be performed?
The employer has the right to choose what duties are required for a position.
A person has the right to choose what actions they will or will not perform.
The Burka is a great divider for the general population.
Here we are all concerned about security and being identified and then there are people who insist on wearing clothing that hides every portion of who they are.
If we get into hand-held eye identification methods it might work out then.
All this caused by a rather strong view of "modesty" where the female face is considered a sexual object.
If the men wore veils as well, I would have less of an issue oddly.
I dunno... we use this forum to loudly proclaim our beliefs and then say "like it or lump it"?
If those stores turn away too many customers then they'll go out of business. If there are no stores in business to supply goods and services to people in the community willing and able to pay for those goods and services then new businesses will open to provide those goods and services. Problem solved.
Considering how long jim crow lasted, somehow I doubt the free market will fix it.
The rationale behind a given religion has no bearing on the government using their monopoly of force to require people to take actions against their will.
Here in the USA people have the right to hold whatever religious beliefs they want, even if those beliefs can be proven to be wrong, illogical, unscientific or fantastical. On the other hand, the government doesn't have the right to force people to engage in commerce against their will.
Not quite true, they don't have to provide those services, but if they offer them, they aren't allowed to refuse service for things like race sex, ect.
Jim Crow laws were laws. It was institutionalized state sponsored racism. State laws forbid businesses from allowing customers of different races to intermingle. It wasn't possible for businesses to choose not to racially descriminate because the law required them to descriminate.
Once Jim Crow laws were repealed businesses, schools, etc. were able to be inclusive and not descriminatory.
In principle, the laws governing Protected Classes are just as oppressive on businesses as the Jim Crow segregation laws were. Instead of the state forbidding businesses to serve nonwhites the state no requires businesses to serve nonwhites. In both instances the govt is forcing private businesses to serve customers the state chooses without giving the private business the ability to choose their own customers.
Personally I think it's fine to "oppress" businesses to not unfairly discriminate against people. It's part of what liberal government is for, to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
The question is what is fair or unfair discrimination?
Kilkrazy wrote: People are talking about Christianity, a religion over 2,000 years old with 1.5 billion members, not Pastafarianism, and they are arguing about the omniscience of God not how religious belief should be acccomodated in society.
Right, the religion was made up by humans 2000 years ago. Adam & eve were not christians, they couldn't be jews, they weren't even real people for that matter, they were just a metaphor. So any religions based on them are just man made parodies, no different than pastafarianism.
So with that in mind, none of their beliefs should be accommodated in society, especially in a secular society.
First, you can't have parody's without sincere examples. The only way to have a parody religion is to admit the existence of sincere religions.
Just because you don't like religion, doesn't mean you can just decide that thousands of years and billions of people are all just deluded, and there are no sincere religious beliefs.
Polonius wrote: First, you can't have parody's without sincere examples. The only way to have a parody religion is to admit the existence of sincere religions.
Just because you don't like religion, doesn't mean you can just decide that thousands of years and billions of people are all just deluded, and there are no sincere religious beliefs.
At the same time, you cannot say that one group has sincere religious beliefs and turn around and say another does not. We either have freedom of religion or we do not.
If those stores turn away too many customers then they'll go out of business. If there are no stores in business to supply goods and services to people in the community willing and able to pay for those goods and services then new businesses will open to provide those goods and services. Problem solved.
Considering how long jim crow lasted, somehow I doubt the free market will fix it.
The rationale behind a given religion has no bearing on the government using their monopoly of force to require people to take actions against their will.
Here in the USA people have the right to hold whatever religious beliefs they want, even if those beliefs can be proven to be wrong, illogical, unscientific or fantastical. On the other hand, the government doesn't have the right to force people to engage in commerce against their will.
Not quite true, they don't have to provide those services, but if they offer them, they aren't allowed to refuse service for things like race sex, ect.
Jim Crow laws were laws. It was institutionalized state sponsored racism. State laws forbid businesses from allowing customers of different races to intermingle. It wasn't possible for businesses to choose not to racially descriminate because the law required them to descriminate.
Once Jim Crow laws were repealed businesses, schools, etc. were able to be inclusive and not descriminatory.
In principle, the laws governing Protected Classes are just as oppressive on businesses as the Jim Crow segregation laws were. Instead of the state forbidding businesses to serve nonwhites the state no requires businesses to serve nonwhites. In both instances the govt is forcing private businesses to serve customers the state chooses without giving the private business the ability to choose their own customers.
Personally I think it's fine to "oppress" businesses to not unfairly discriminate against people. It's part of what liberal government is for, to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
The question is what is fair or unfair discrimination?
It's fair to let private businesses chooser their own customer base. If an underserved segment of the population is created by private businesses not wanting to do business with those people then that creates a demand for new businesses to be created to profit from engaging in commerce with the underserved people.
There is no tyranny of the majority in this instance. Individuals who own a business aren't a majority, they're the most important minority, the individual. If there was collusion or monopolies in play that would be different and other laws, that work to oppose collusion and monopolies would come into play.
The govt can't force people to start a business, can't force people to choose what kind of business they start and shouldn't be allowed to force people to serve customers they don't want to serve.
Fairness is a subjective value. There is no one true objective value of what is fair so it is wrong for the govt to use their authority and monopoly of force to oppress people to conform to a certain version of "fairness." The purpose of govt isn't to somehow save people from themselves. People are free to make their own decisions about their own lives and businesses. It is not the govt's job to make sure every private business is run well or fairly. Business owners are free to make bad decisions, cost themselves business and fail. Youre allowed to be stupid and wrong.
The legal right to choose your own customers doesn't mean that every business or even a majority of businesses would change how they operate or what type of customers they're willing to serve. Successful businesses aren't going to suddenly unveil descriminatory practices to reduce their customer base and profits just because the law says they can. It's still a choice. How many businesses would make the choice to be exclsionary? What evidence is there that the number of such businesses would be great enough to effectively prohibit certain segments of the population from obtaining commonly available goods and services?
The law already allows religious leaders to descriminate on the grounds of religion. You can't force a Catholic priest to marry a Jewish couple. You can't force a Baptist minister to marry an atheist couple. The law allows them to only officiate weddings that comply with the tenets of their religion. The state doesn't require rabbis and ministers and monks to prove that their religious beliefs are valid or worthwhile, their religious conviction is taken at face value and they aren't forced to violate those convictions. Why should the state not treat everyone in the same manner when it comes to religious ceremonies such as weddings? Participation in such ceremonies should always be voluntary.
Polonius wrote: First, you can't have parody's without sincere examples. The only way to have a parody religion is to admit the existence of sincere religions.
Just because you don't like religion, doesn't mean you can just decide that thousands of years and billions of people are all just deluded, and there are no sincere religious beliefs.
At the same time, you cannot say that one group has sincere religious beliefs and turn around and say another does not. We either have freedom of religion or we do not.
Like the county clerk who refused to hand out marriage licenses to gay couples. She claimed it was due to her religious beliefs.
But she had also been divorced three times, something not allowed under strict biblical law. So whilst she may have a strong belief that homosexual marriage is bad, doesn't her infractions against other religious laws indicate that her belief in that religion is not sincere? Which would indicate that her opposition to same-sex marriage is not due to sincere religious belief.
I argue that if you want to use the argument of sincere religious belief to not have to do something then, in order to demonstrate that that belief is truly sincere, you must abide completely by the rules laid out in your religious text. You cannot pick and choose what you believe from a religion if you want to argue that you sincerely believe in it.
If those stores turn away too many customers then they'll go out of business. If there are no stores in business to supply goods and services to people in the community willing and able to pay for those goods and services then new businesses will open to provide those goods and services. Problem solved.
Considering how long jim crow lasted, somehow I doubt the free market will fix it.
The rationale behind a given religion has no bearing on the government using their monopoly of force to require people to take actions against their will.
Here in the USA people have the right to hold whatever religious beliefs they want, even if those beliefs can be proven to be wrong, illogical, unscientific or fantastical. On the other hand, the government doesn't have the right to force people to engage in commerce against their will.
Not quite true, they don't have to provide those services, but if they offer them, they aren't allowed to refuse service for things like race sex, ect.
Jim Crow laws were laws. It was institutionalized state sponsored racism. State laws forbid businesses from allowing customers of different races to intermingle. It wasn't possible for businesses to choose not to racially descriminate because the law required them to descriminate.
Once Jim Crow laws were repealed businesses, schools, etc. were able to be inclusive and not descriminatory.
In principle, the laws governing Protected Classes are just as oppressive on businesses as the Jim Crow segregation laws were. Instead of the state forbidding businesses to serve nonwhites the state no requires businesses to serve nonwhites. In both instances the govt is forcing private businesses to serve customers the state chooses without giving the private business the ability to choose their own customers.
Jim crow was more than just a legal institution, it was a cultural one. The laws were there just to legitimize the already deep-seated racism in the south. The businesses did make the choice, the choice to enact the racist policies within there own businesses.
As far at it being "just as oppressive" to force people to be treated equally on the basis of race, sex, ect that is to force them to be unequal, I find the notion vile. You think that equal protection is the same as discrimination, really? I can only hope you didn't think about the implications of what you wrote, and didn't mean it.
I argue that if you want to use the argument of sincere religious belief to not have to do something then, in order to demonstrate that that belief is truly sincere, you must abide completely by the rules laid out in your religious text. You cannot pick and choose what you believe from a religion if you want to argue that you sincerely believe in it.
Agreed! I'm going to have a busy weekend!
Kill everyone that cheats: If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).
God hates the crippled, and you should, too: People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
God's last name isn't Dammit: Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)
50% polyester is 100% sin: Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
Kill the Buddhists: If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
I argue that if you want to use the argument of sincere religious belief to not have to do something then, in order to demonstrate that that belief is truly sincere, you must abide completely by the rules laid out in your religious text. You cannot pick and choose what you believe from a religion if you want to argue that you sincerely believe in it.
Agreed! I'm going to have a busy weekend!
Kill everyone that cheats: If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).
God hates the crippled, and you should, too: People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
God's last name isn't Dammit: Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)
50% polyester is 100% sin: Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
Kill the Buddhists: If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
Did you just cite a bunch of laws that begin with "The Lord said to Moses, 'Give these instructions to the people of Israel?' "
I argue that if you want to use the argument of sincere religious belief to not have to do something then, in order to demonstrate that that belief is truly sincere, you must abide completely by the rules laid out in your religious text. You cannot pick and choose what you believe from a religion if you want to argue that you sincerely believe in it.
Agreed! I'm going to have a busy weekend!
Kill everyone that cheats: If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).
God hates the crippled, and you should, too: People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
God's last name isn't Dammit: Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)
50% polyester is 100% sin: Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
Kill the Buddhists: If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
FYI, buddhists don't have a god.
Don't forget if your kid is disrespectful, take him down to the river and stone him.
Polonius wrote: First, you can't have parody's without sincere examples. The only way to have a parody religion is to admit the existence of sincere religions.
Just because you don't like religion, doesn't mean you can just decide that thousands of years and billions of people are all just deluded, and there are no sincere religious beliefs.
I was rather fond of the "Church of the Sub-Genius".
http://www.subgenius.com/ All praise be to Bob!
In all sincerity, quite a few philosophers have brought up a few issues on the topic "for thousands of years".
This site is quite helpful on trying out some more critical thinking (or at least the sincerity and reasoning for your devotion...)
http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/
A more recent philosopher I "enjoy" is Nietzsche:
The everyday Christian. -- If the Christian dogmas of a revengeful God, universal sinfulness, election by divine grace and the danger of eternal damnation were true, it would be a sign of weak-mindedness and lack of character not to become a priest, apostle or hermit and, in fear and trembling, to work solely on one's own salvation; it would be senseless to lose sight of ones eternal advantage for the sake of temporal comfort. If we may assume that these things are at any rate believed true, then the everyday Christian cuts a miserable figure; he is a man who really cannot count to three, and who precisely on account of his spiritual imbecility does not deserve to be punished so harshly as Christianity promises to punish him.
from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human"
He generally viewed religion as THE parody and not needing anything further to make fun of it.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Did you just cite a bunch of laws that begin with "The Lord said to Moses, 'Give these instructions to the people of Israel?' "
Pretty sure kronk's post is reduction ad absurdum to show why Malus's "you have to obey every precept 100%" comment is unworkable.
I mean, I thought it was fairly obvious.
so what percentage is required to be considered a true christian?
Surely if people are trying to get the freedom to practice with no legal consequences, then where is the line drawn? are they going to be happy with just the ability to discriminate at will, or will they start burning people as witches again?
So basically only the innocent people died? The wife coerced into sex, the unknowing husband, and an infant?
God is a dick. He punishes everyone, whether they were responsible or not.
I like where this thread has gone.
This is why we can't have nice things. Yodrin/Killkrazy if you want to discuss the philosophical, and policy merits via PM that would be fine but I think we're knocking on banhammer here.
I'd love to discuss the policy implications as well.
The punishment for this is not listed and it makes me sad. Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
In my head, they are forced to wear plaid skorts.
Nope, because The fool has said in his heart, there is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that does good.
Which was fine, but the pope after discussing it with god stated atheists can be good and get into heaven. So there you go, christianity is no longer needed, just be good, forget god, and still get into heaven without having to worry about who is in the stall next to you
Tactical_Spam wrote: Did you just cite a bunch of laws that begin with "The Lord said to Moses, 'Give these instructions to the people of Israel?' "
Pretty sure kronk's post is reduction ad absurdum to show why Malus's "you have to obey every precept 100%" comment is unworkable.
I mean, I thought it was fairly obvious.
so what percentage is required to be considered a true christian?
Surely if people are trying to get the freedom to practice with no legal consequences, then where is the line drawn? are they going to be happy with just the ability to discriminate at will, or will they start burning people as witches again?
I have no idea why you're asking me, I was just heading off the "Old Testament isn't for Christians!" argument before it even started. I don't believe in any of it, so uh... 69%? That's a good number, right?
I argue that if you want to use the argument of sincere religious belief to not have to do something then, in order to demonstrate that that belief is truly sincere, you must abide completely by the rules laid out in your religious text. You cannot pick and choose what you believe from a religion if you want to argue that you sincerely believe in it.
Agreed! I'm going to have a busy weekend!
Kill everyone that cheats: If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).
God hates the crippled, and you should, too: People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
God's last name isn't Dammit: Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)
50% polyester is 100% sin: Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
Kill the Buddhists: If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
But then this raises a point which is actually in support of my argument. Why are there not people out there arguing against mixed fabrics or infidelity or any of the others as there are those arguing against gay marriage? They are all against Gods laws and God did not specify which laws are more important so why hold one above the other when it comes to petitioning for change in the law?
The answer could be that these people don't oppose gay marriage because it is against their religion but rather that they oppose gay marriage because they don't like it, without religion even having to come into it until they need something to justify that dislike.
So in that scenario can you really say with certainty that their opposition to gay marriage (or other LGBTQ issues) stems from sincere religious belief or just because they dislike gay marriage?
I argue that if you want to use the argument of sincere religious belief to not have to do something then, in order to demonstrate that that belief is truly sincere, you must abide completely by the rules laid out in your religious text. You cannot pick and choose what you believe from a religion if you want to argue that you sincerely believe in it.
Agreed! I'm going to have a busy weekend!
Kill everyone that cheats: If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).
God hates the crippled, and you should, too: People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
God's last name isn't Dammit: Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)
50% polyester is 100% sin: Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
Kill the Buddhists: If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
But then this raises a point which is actually in support of my argument. Why are there not people out there arguing against mixed fabrics or infidelity or any of the others as there are those arguing against gay marriage? They are all against Gods laws and God did not specify which laws are more important so why hold one above the other when it comes to petitioning for change in the law?
Don't ask me! I was agreeing with you. I just bought some Redbull and a new bat. Let's get some sinners!
I argue that if you want to use the argument of sincere religious belief to not have to do something then, in order to demonstrate that that belief is truly sincere, you must abide completely by the rules laid out in your religious text. You cannot pick and choose what you believe from a religion if you want to argue that you sincerely believe in it.
Agreed! I'm going to have a busy weekend!
Kill everyone that cheats: If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, both the man and the woman must die. (Leviticus 20:10).
God hates the crippled, and you should, too: People who have flat noses, or is blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God (Leviticus 21:17-18)
God's last name isn't Dammit: Anyone who curses or blasphemes God, should be stoned to death by the community. (Leviticus 24:14-16)
50% polyester is 100% sin: Don't wear clothes made of more than one fabric (Leviticus 19:19)
Kill the Buddhists: If anyone, even your own family suggests worshipping another God, kill them. (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)
But then this raises a point which is actually in support of my argument. Why are there not people out there arguing against mixed fabrics or infidelity or any of the others as there are those arguing against gay marriage? They are all against Gods laws and God did not specify which laws are more important so why hold one above the other when it comes to petitioning for change in the law?
The answer could be that these people don't oppose gay marriage because it is against their religion but rather that they oppose gay marriage because they don't like it, without religion even having to come into it until they need something to justify that dislike.
So in that scenario can you really say with certainty that their opposition to gay marriage (or other LGBTQ issues) stems from sincere religious belief or just because they dislike gay marriage?
There is no law about multi-fabric clothing for Gentiles. Stop bringing up Leviticus.
Homosexuality is a sin. I don't hate gay people, I hate their decision to be gay.
there Mod. And we were all getting along so well. Even had a rare nonhostile philosophy argument going.
