No thanks-I’ll just participate in the discussion when I think I have something to add, listen to what others are saying, and let you go play with yourself.
No? So do you agree, or disagree, with you with the face when she claimed that “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?”
Or are you going to listen to what others are saying and not add anything, like, say, for example, “This isn’t about a game, Bricker?”
I never said that Religious Freedom Reformation Acts are only about allowing Muslim prisoners to grow beards. I said that Religious Freedom Reformation Acts protect the religious freedoms of everyone in the country against a wide variety of intrusions. You have no justification for suggesting that the only case I listed dealt with Muslims and beards. Shame on you for misrepresenting what I said. I’ve listed only a few cases in which RFRAs have been used in courts, and there was nothing disingenuous about me doing so.
Of the many court cases where federal and state RFRAs have been used to defend people’s religious freedoms, how many have “come at the cost of other citizens’ dignities and rights”?
It’s probably useful to consider that there are huge disputes among devout Christians about key tenets of what gets lumped together as Christianity. The citing the bible trend in the thread highlights one of them- contextual vs literal reading of the Bible. The majority of Christians in America tend to be contextualists according to a Gallup poll.
To represent the contextualist side of the debate, the Bishops from the five Catholic Diocese in Indiana released this. The walk through the middle ground and do support religious freedom. They also come out aganst discrimination based on sexual orientation. They skip recommending specific legislation. It does present an argument from arguably pretty committed and devout contextual Christians on why discrimination against LGBT is wrong.
Were I a devout christian uncertain of religious doctrine or what manner of ethics a christian should have, I should immediately enquire of the nearest atheist.
Or small child.
If by “document” you mean can I point to a tract of some type that outlines the dogma of my faith, sure that would be quite easy for me to produce if you’d need to see that. Such a document would actually be more authentic than the Bible because it would be an original document, penned by the hand of my religion’s founder (me).
Do you not understand the difference between a philosophical argument and a legal one?
You said it well.
Here’s a thought experiment: Jesus was an unmarried man in this 30’s at the peak of his ministry, and his closest companions were a bunch of dudes that professed undying love and devotion to him. What would be his likely response to an in-keeper who would deny him and his crew bread and hospitality because of an assumption about their sexual orientation? Let’s consider the following choices:
-
“Dude, don’t jump to conclusions! We love each other but we’re not homo. I mean, I fully support you dissing the gays and everything, but we’re not about that unholy butt-sex life, I promise! Mary Magdalene knows the deal, look her up. Please give us refuge.”
-
“Dude, we come to you clearly tired and hungry and yet you threaten to turn us away because of who we love? Verily, how small your heart must be that you can find it so easy to ignore its voice, which commands thee to love us as you love yourself. You should pray and/or get a new hobby or something cuz your priorities are fucked up.”
-
“Eh, no service because you think we’re gay? Okay, guys, let’s go. Butt-sex times will need to be had somewhere else tonight.”
I’m thinking he’d say 2, but I’m an apostate so what do I know.
Also? Jesus totally had two dads.
I never thought it was that easy to put wheels on goalposts to get them moving so quickly. Anyway, I’ll bite.
Of course, in 1st cenutry AD even the slightest accusation of them being gay would’ve resulted in a major problem, it’d be like an innkeeper now accusing a group of friends of being rapists. It is as nearly imposible that in any place where they may have stayed, be it barns, inns, roooms, anyone would’ve thought they were gay SIMPLY because they were a group of men going alone; in fact the presence of unmarried women in the group would’ve been a bigger cause for concern.
You’re shifting time and culture in every sentence.
I will state clearly, again: I am 100% sure that if Jesus had a bakery now and a gay asked Him to bake a wedding cake for them He would say no or that, He would convince them of, at least, going somewhere else.
And you know this…how? Homosexuality wasn’t exactly unheard of in those days, as evident in the OT. Certainly if it was familiar enough for men to write about, it was familiar enough to be recognized.
You also are assuming that the Jesus and Friends in my scenario couldn’t be engaged in affection that could ping someone’s gaydar. Imagine them kissing each other, holding hands, and expressing love for each other passionately.
But does this even matter, though?
And you’re fighting the hypothetical. The inn-keeper thinks they are gay. That’s all that you need to worry about.
Can you provide doctrinal support for this belief? Since Jesus was a carpenter, I’m trying to imagine him withholding service from a man whose house was falling apart because he was gay. I find that harder to believe than I do his divinity. It’s simply not consistent with his message of love and refraining from judgement.
And you know it’s not… how? Oh yeah, cuz it’s obviously all full of shit and I expect a massive essay that uses precise Bible cites that are also full of shit to prove me wrong. Then I’ll refute your cites with an ill understood bible quote and we’ll have to laugh at the whole thing. Good times.
Lol at the heads exploding at a mere hypothetical.
I respectfully, but strongly, disagree. I cannot think of any example in scripture of Jesus telling anyone who came to him to go somewhere else*. Whether he would have approved of same sex marriage or not is a matter for speculation, but I do know he would have found a way to draw them in, not shut them out.
*(The closest I can think of is the Syrophoenician woman, whom Jesus at first turned away because she was not a child of Israel. But, he did not turn her away because of any wrong doing and he changed his mind when she pleaded that “even dogs under the table may eat the scraps dropped by children.” But that’s not really a good analogy because his initial refusal had nothing to do with her righteousness).
I agree. Jesus’ approach was to welcome sinners while getting them to change. Being that this was Jesus, he probably would have gotten the guy to become celibate. While they shared a cake.
Why do you think #2? Can you point to a single instance in scripture where Jesus tells people that sin is unimportant? Whenever Jesus encountered a sinner he would tell them to repent.
Sorry to disappoint, but I was just annoyed at your silly debate style. As I said upthread, I am an atheist. My head was not remotely exploding.
This whole thread really is silly. “Gee, if I had a completely different outlook on life, here’s exactly how I would interpret this subject”.
This sounds like a head that has exploded:
So much kneejerk emotionalism is hilarious. What, exactly, would I be providing cites for? That Jesus commanded us to love each other as we love ourselves? That he said “judge not, lest ye be judged”? That he advised us to remove “the beam from thine eye” before we hassle someone about theirs? Everyone except isolated tribes in the Amazonian jungle know that Jesus preached these messages, so it would never occur to me to provide cites.
I don’t want to believe your attitude comes from objecting to the mere idea that Jesus could be assumed to be gay, but it certainly looks that way.
I was a little drunk when I wrote that. You’ll have to trust me when I say my head was not exploding. To be honest I didn’t even noticed you suggested Jesus might be gay but that would still only get an eye roll from me, no exploding head. Do you doubt I’m an atheist?
Sorry, but I can’t respond to a post by a sinner. Emphasis added. That would be aiding in the sin. Now, if you were sharing some of the hooch, that might be different… 