[QUOTE=monstro]
Can you offer a cite from your wise book that convinces me God doesn’t want his children to sit quietly, meekly, submissively, with their hands folded in prayer and devotion, waiting for him to take care of everything?
[/QUOTE]
Matthew 25:14-30.
Regards,
Shodan
So, there is no question as to who is totally responsible for the destruction of the body and soul in Hell?
I blame Bush.
Regards,
Shodan
I agree with your first sentence, and I totally support the rights of people who believe that same-sex marriage is sinful to not have to be married in one. I disagree that baking them a cake, or taking their picture, is participating in their wedding - it’s a business transaction. Do you think the tentmaker apostle Paul would have refused to make a tent for a gay couple?
“Appearing to condone sinful activity” is a copout. Jesus appeared to condone sinful activity all the time, didn’t he? He went and ate supper with Zacchaeus, the tax collector! He let that prostitute wash his feat with her hair! He talked to that adulterous Samaritan woman at the well! The message is, don’t worry what it looks like – just love people. Treat them with respect and dignity. Telling someone you won’t bake them a cake until they repent of their sin is not showing them love; it is showing them judgment and condemnation.
Yes, I do.
You present some statistics about public support for same sex marriage, and then you say that Religious Freedom Restoration Acts will see challenges. Why? Religious Freedom Restoration Acts have nothing to do with gay marriage, or with sexual orientation at all. They have to do with protecting religious freedom, as the name implies. Do you have any evidence that public opinion has turned decisively against religious freedom? And if so, couldn’t we all agree that would be a bad thing?
So you’re saying Jesus would never fashion a whip out of cords and used it to thrash businessmen, overturn their tables, and drive them away merely because he considered their acts sinful?
Why is it “regressive thinking” to believe that all people should have the right to freely practice their religion? Does that mean that the First Amendment was regressive? And how does protecting everyone’s right to free religious practice have anything to do with “Christian supremacy”? We’ve already noted numerous cases in which the Religious Freedom Restoration Act helped a wide variety of people to practice their religion freely:
[ul]
[li]Robert Soto, an Apache religious leader and dancer, was allowed to make his tribe’s traditional costume, thanks to the RFRA.[/li][li]Kawal Tigore, a Sikh employed by the federal government, was allowed to carry religious mementos on the job.[/li][li]Abdul Mohammed, a federal prisoner, was allowed to grow a beard, in accordance with his Muslim beliefs.[/li][li]Bruce Rich, an Orthodox Jewish man serving prison time in Florida, was allowed to eat kosher meals.[/li][li]And many others.[/li][/ul]
Why do you think that all of these things are the result of “regressive thinking”?
If you want to fashion a whip out of cords and use it to thrash gay people…
…well, a lot of us are actually okay with that.
I dunno-looking at how he ended up, I’d guess he didn’t have a good grasp on how “safe words” worked.
You’re misspelling that last word “lie”. It should be spelled “bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
The difference being that “not lying” is impossible. Period. Everyone lies and some lies are good. Whereas the prohibition about false witness is talking about testifying in court or under oath which is contemptible.
There’s no actual commandment to not lie.
Using public policy to accommodate religious prejudice is regressive when it comes at the cost of other citizens’ dignities and rights. You can be disingenuous and pretend that what this really is about is allowing Muslims to grow beards in prison, but you’re not fooling anyone with this BS.
A religion can be anything anyone wants it to be, and that’s really why this is a pile of offensive nonsense. I declare right now that I worship a creator who thinks Jesus-believers are full of taint. If I were a hotel owner, do you think it would be acceptable for me to deny service to Christians? I mean, otherwise I’m being forced to have my precious bedsheets sullied by the taint. How unfair is that?!
Condone? Hardly. Zacchaeus was so impressed by Jesus’ very reputation that he climbed into a tree to see him pass by, and was so overjoyed by what Jesus said that straight away he was giving half his wealth away and additionally inviting anyone he’d overcharged to come back and be recompensed four hundred percent. Jesus didn’t need to speak a word of judgment: Zacchaeus did the judging himself.
The prostitute abominated her wicked life so much that she dared not even rise in Jesus’ presence nor so much as speak a word to him, instead washing his feet with her hair and anointing them with expensive perfume and tears of remorse until Jesus assured the crowd that her sins (which were many) were forgiven her on account of the great devotion she was showing him. He didn’t deny that what she had done was sinful, nor tell her to go and carry on as she was.
The Samaritan woman at the well? She was certainly impressed enough by his perspicacity that she called her neighbours around to see this man who could tell everything she had ever done, and there’s nothing in the story that remotely suggests that Jesus said to her “Carry on as you are - I don’t care as long as you’re having fun”.
Treating people with respect and dignity does not mean assuring them that whatever they do is right when, as a matter of fact, you think that it is not. Jesus was more than willing to accommodate people who were one step ahead of him in admitting their fault; but that’s not what you’re describing here, is it?
Are you able to document this religion of yours in any way, shape or form, or can I just assume that you are making shit up and that I can point and laugh accordingly?
Regards,
Shodan
All right, let’s play a game. I’ll name a court case that actually, literally resulted in a Muslim being able to grow a beard in prison. I get one point.
Then you name a court case that actually, literally resulted in a gay couple not being served by a public accommodation. You get one point. Then it’s my turn.
Who do you think will win?
I’ll even go first: Holt v. Hobbs, No. 13-6827, Supreme Court 2015.
Your turn.
This isn’t about a game, Bricker.
edited to add: If this thread was about the rights of Muslims to grow beards in prisons, would you have put this much effort into it?
I would say that, yes: it was not merely because he considered their acts sinful.
But would any of those people - Zacchaeus, the former prostitute, or the woman at the well - have come to that point of repentance if Jesus had not loved them first? If he had refused to join Zachhaeus or talked to the adulterous woman - would that have brought them closer to God? Or would it have pushed them further away?
When Christians treat other people (and, notably, only some other people) as unclean, they are not furthering God’s kingdom. They are drawing little lines around it that say “we are inside God’s love, and you are outside. I don’t to give you the impression that I approve of you.” That’s not the Gospel. There are people in my own church I disapprove of more than the gay couples I know - but my job is to love them anyway and let God decide who the sinners are.
Possibly more effort. It depends how many factual errors were adduced by either side as the discussions commenced, and how fervently they clung to their errors even after correction.
The “game” was intended to highlight the flaw in you with the face’s claim. To remind you, she said:
My illustrative game demonstrates that as a matter of factual record, the RFRA and progeny laws are much more about allowing Muslim beards in prison than they are about allowing public accommodations to discriminate against gays. There are many cases in which these laws have been used to require prison authorities to permit beards for Muslims’ religious practices, and none that allow a place of public accommodation to discriminate.
So right now the score is 1-0. I’ll even let you team up with you with the face. It’ll be a killer combo – you two against me.
Your turn. Name the first RFRA case that permitted public accommodation discrimination against gays.
I endorse this view, personally.
I do not agree that this view is mandated by each and every Christian tradition, however.