Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(5)
Message 484 of 1309 (727899)
05-21-2014 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 452 by Faith
05-20-2014 10:29 PM


Re: evidence
Article on bakery "facing hundreds of thousands of dollars fine" for refusal to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple
But they have in fact, not been fined. Nor are they necessarily even going to court.
Same situation in Colorado only at the time of the report no fines had yet been levied.
As the article states - no fines were levied.
Here's a story about the Christian photographer in New Mexico
Who wasn't fined.
And a similar situation involving a Washington State florist
No fine.
You can also google lawsuits against churches over gay weddings.
I did. The top search results are about churches who have issued legal proceedings because of same-sex marriage. And some blogs about churches fearing being sued.
Where is YOUR evidence that they weren't fined because everything I've heard is that they were.
Since it hasn't been to court yet, you've heard wrong.
The pastors who have been arrested also weren't kept in jail. But some have definitely been arrested and that's enormity enough in a formerly Christian nation.
Like whom? A google search shows me pastors being arrested for child abuse, and pastors faking being arrested - but I don't see anything pertinent.
It doesn't matter right now what the specific outcome of a case is.
Well, actually, since you asserted the specific outcome was being fined - the fact that you were not telling the truth does matter.
Do Biblical Christians consider saying falsehoods doesn't matter?
What the stories show is that there is a lot of conflict going on between the gay rights people and Christians and that the courts are against the Christians.
Yes, it shows there is conflict. It does not show that the courts are against the Christians. Indeed, in Canada, a Muslim barber was sued for not cutting the hair of a lesbian and the Canadian laws are quite close to the US ones. So no, it's not about the Christians.
These are early cases, we're up to about the early 30s in Germany.
German laws in the early 30s:
Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service (Jews out of government)
Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring (sterilize the gypsys)
Paragraph 175 (criminalize homosexual sex (1871) which was expanded in the mid-30s to close loopholes, and was used as the pretence to send homosexuals to concentration/death camps.)
And the US laws you are complaining about?
Like the Ralph Civil Rights Act:
quote:
All persons within the jurisdiction of this state are free and
equal, and no matter what their sex, race, color, religion,
ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic
information, marital status, or sexual orientation are entitled to
the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities,
privileges, or services in all business establishments of every kind
whatsoever.
I don't think your comparison works. Or is sane.
The fact that Christians and churches are being baited like this is a sign of more to come.
Going to a place of business and offering to give custom, is not baiting. Or, in the cases we have discussed so far, are you suggesting that the person ascertains the business owner's opinions without asking them?
Hey, I put this one up and this photographer WAS fined and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case:
Page Not Found | The Guardian
Except they weren't fined, regardless of what the media tells you. I provided you with the actual decision in Elane Photography v Willock.
They were told they had to pay the plaintiff's legal fees, that's it. Obviously the plaintiffs shouldn't have to pay, nor should the lawyers work for free, making the tax payers pay is obviously out. So who if not the defendants that lost?
Also the story about the bakery that I posted said that the business was forced to close, and here's that story told by someone else:
Sucuri WebSite Firewall - Access Denied
The business is still operating. It wasn't forced to close.
Their business was harmed by their choice. They could have simply opted to stop selling wedding related bakery products if they could not do so within the law and their conscience. They opted to try and profit illegally.
Were they fined?
No. It hasn't been to court.
But the story shows the basic attitude toward Christians that is shared by all here at EvC.
The Christians I know in real life are super sweet. I offer free tech support to one of them on a regular basis. She gave me her old computer as a thanks. Over 50% of my family are Christian. I love them all.
We don't like anybody, regardless of their religion or lack thereof, that discriminates against homosexuals or black people etc. You have just equated 'Christian' with 'bigoted', which is not true. We criticize the bigoted Muslims and atheists too.
The Colorado baker wasn't fined but the court tried to force him to bake a wedding cake anyway. Last I heard he refused and is facing prison time.
http://www.breitbart.com/...l-for-Declining-Gay-Wedding-Cake
That's not true, not even Breitbart's site claims that. Nobody tried to force him to bake a wedding cake.
The court said he had a choice: Serve wedding cakes to homosexual couples and heterosexual couples in the future, or from here on don't serve wedding cakes to either.
Either would comply with the law.
Christians leave gays alone.
It was a Christian that tried to screw Lawrence and Garner's life up after they were discovered having sex in a private home.
Being forced to close their shop even if they continued at home is a pretty big price to pay I'd say.
Making bad business decisions can affect your bottom line. Maybe these small businesses will realize they need to change their business model or it could cause them problems.
If you'll excuse the turn of phrase - it's called covering your ass.
No, we leave them alone. It is they who come baiting us to refuse them service. They do not have to go to Christian businesses, there are plenty of others who would serve them just fine.
Didn't the racists use this exact line of reasoning to justify refusing to serve non-white people?
There is a lot of legal tradition in the US which holds that this is bad because of the harm it causes individuals and society.
Businesses used to have the right to refuse service, you remember the signs that said "No shoes, no shirt, no service" and "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."
Businesses still have the right to refuse service. As long as they don't only refuse Jews or Christians.
You all turn this into a racist thing but the fact is that it hardly ever was a racist thing.
Well no. But when it was a racist thing - we thought we'd be able to both agree that this harmed society and individuals.
. In any case refusing service on the basis of race is opposed by the Bible, but Christians must refuse service when forced to support something in violation of God's law, such as gay marriage.
Then they should stop operating non-religious public businesses that put them in these difficult positions. Cake makers can simply stop making wedding cake, but continue making other cakes.
Like everyone else on this thread you also prefer terms that misrepresent the case.
You've misrepresented the law and the cases quite spectacularly.
"Offends me?" No, offends God, is a violation of God's law.
I think God can handle judgement and punishment for himself.
We oppose gay marriage so we're being set up to act on it and be persecuted for it, having OUR freedoms violated, but that doesn't matter, only gay freedoms matter, not Christians.'
You know, working in a the wedding industry or working in associated industries, is not mandatory.
There are plenty of industries that it would offend me to work for. I would not work for a weapons manufacturer or a short term pay-day loan company with APRs in the hundreds or thousands of percent. I probably wouldn't work at a church or for a Christian bookstore, either (though I have applied to work at a Christian school, didn't get it).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by Faith, posted 05-20-2014 10:29 PM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 488 of 1309 (727915)
05-21-2014 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 487 by Faith
05-21-2014 5:46 PM


Re: evidence
I'm sure you know. But it said "for any reason" once upon a time.
Yes, and your interpretation of this was the way things were prior 1964. Then there was this tyrannical civil rights act passed that made America a better place to live.
It is tyranny to force a private business to serve someone they don't want to serve, except for racist reasons, that I'll grant.
Why is it not tyranny in the case of racist reasons?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 487 by Faith, posted 05-21-2014 5:46 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 489 by Faith, posted 05-21-2014 6:18 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 490 of 1309 (727917)
05-21-2014 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 489 by Faith
05-21-2014 6:18 PM


Re: evidence
Racism is a very good reason to impose sanctions.
You basically said that already.
I asked you why?
If all men are created equal that means all
Yes indeed. And women too, of course.
Race is not a behavior
Neither are sex, colour, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by Faith, posted 05-21-2014 6:18 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by Faith, posted 05-21-2014 6:29 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 496 of 1309 (727924)
05-21-2014 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 493 by Faith
05-21-2014 6:29 PM


Re: evidence
No but homosexual lifestyle IS a behavior
As Reagan appointee and notorious Conservative Christian Justice Antonin Scalia said, in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic - 506 U.S. 263 (1993):
quote:
Some activities may be such an irrational object of disfavor that, if they are targeted, and if they also happen to be engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people, an intent to disfavor that class can readily be presumed. A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews
Wearing yarmulkes is a behaviour. Discriminating against people that wear yarmulkes is discriminating against jews.
Homosexual marriage is an activity that is an irrational object of disfavor... engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people.
Nobody is discriminating against anyone for "sexual orientation." We are being asked to validate a marriage that is a travesty of marriage and violates God's laws.
Because of legal theory such as described by Scalia, and reiterated in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010), there is no legal difference between status and conduct. In fact, in the legal opinion of the Colorado baker's case they described your thinking as 'drawing a distinction without a difference':
quote:
....because it was due to
their objection to same-sex weddings, not because of Complainants’ sexual orientation. Respondents deny that they hold any animus
toward homosexuals or gay couples, and would willingly provide other types of baked goods to Complainants or any other gay customer. On the other hand, Respondents would refuse to provide a wedding cake to aheterosexual customer if it was for a same-sex wedding. The ALJ rejects Respondents’ argument as a distinction without a
difference.

The salient feature distinguishing same sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same- sex weddings.
Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not because of their sexual orientation.
Emphasis mine.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by Faith, posted 05-21-2014 6:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 497 by Faith, posted 05-21-2014 7:03 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 500 of 1309 (727936)
05-21-2014 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 497 by Faith
05-21-2014 7:03 PM


Re: evidence
Sigh. I'm for protecting people who can't help what they are, and that includes homosexuals. I was trying to distinguish between a natural condition and a behavior, but really that misses the point too,
I'll take that as a concession that your argument was indefensible.
because the ONLY thing at issue here is being asked to do something that violates God's law.
But nobody is being asked to do something that violates God's law. Even if we assume that selling a cake to be used in a same-sex marriage is violating God's law, nobody is being asked to do that. It is certainly something you are free to do - but you are not obligated to. In fact there are hundreds of millions of Americans that have never and will never bake and sell a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage ceremony.
This is the ONLY thing I've been talking about, the ONLY thing that the Christians are accused of "discriminating" about.
A few Christians. Not close to the majority.
This is not about serving homosexuals or anybody else under any other circumstances, just this one, as I've said over and over and over again.
It is about refusing to serve people on the basis of their sexual orientation. You think only Christians are targeted, but Muslims and Jews alike have holy books that condemn homosexuality.
I detoured to consider what makes the situation different from racism because this is stupidly and irrelevantly hurled at the Christians for refusing to support gay marriage, as if all you all want to do is pin something on us, anything.
We choose racism to compare it to because we're confident its actually something we can agree on from which to attempt to help explain and to draw explanations from you.
You are supporting homophobia.
This is like supporting
misogyny
xenophobia
disability discrimination,
racism.
Since your religion still has a lot of people that are misogynistic and xenophobic in it, we tend to avoid that comparison in case it leads to pointless sub-debates.
Racism - specifically the act of it, notably in the refusal to provide equal service context, you agree is wrong. Even if you justify it with religious opinion or textual interpretation. It's still wrong.
So homophobia (the act, refusal to serve) why is this not wrong? Is it because it is YOUR personal religious opinion? Why is your view more important than another Christian who interprets Arabs as Philistines and refuses them service?
And I think that is what some of you do want to do, you really aren't interested in the context at all.
I'm not interested in the context? I've just read pages upon pages of legal discussion as well as various State's acts. What additional context do I need?
Homosexuality IS sin, but we are NOT discriminating against sinners either, the whole accusation is trumped up.
You are proposing we should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals, and that forbidding this is tyrannical like the Nazis did in the 1930s.
Do you think that refusing to serve customers wearing a yarmulke, because they are wearing a yarmulke, is cool too?
Again, the ONLY situation here is being asked to do something that validates gay marriage which is asking us to dishonor God's law.
But you don't have to do it!
I could not care less what the courts say about any of this if it forces a Christian to do anything that dishonors God's law.
If you don't care what the courts say, why you are you bothering to discuss a law and the legal consequences to Christians?
You know that there is no law in America that forces you to dishonour your version of God's law? Not a single one.
You know how abortion is legal in the USA? Does this mean that you are forced to dishonour God by being forced to abort innocent babies? Well no, you just don't work in abortion clinics.
Muslims have to tolerate immodest women, they have to serve practicing Bah' apostates. Is America forcing Muslims to work in a bar and serve alcohol? All of this is can be construed as being against their God's law (YMMV*.)
* Your Muslim May Vary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by Faith, posted 05-21-2014 7:03 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 507 by Faith, posted 05-22-2014 6:06 AM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 524 of 1309 (728020)
05-22-2014 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 507 by Faith
05-22-2014 6:06 AM


True Christian business owners that serve weddings have a choice
Funny then that these bakers, and a photographer and a florist WERE asked to do something that violates God's law
But not by the government. Someone went to a bakers and asked for a certain cake. That's not actually something to get upset about. No more than a Muslim hotel owner who gets asked if they have a vodka in the mini bar.
and when they refused they were subjected to a lawsuit and the courts sided with their accusers.
The law was public knowledge.
They could have avoided it by either
a) not making wedding cakes
b) selling to homosexual clients the same way they serve heterosexual
They chose option c) which involved making people feel bad and making society a worse place to live while profiting from this, despite their competitors obeying the law and consequently their actions were unfair, unjust, and not legal.
I don't count those who reject God's law.
So we agree, at last, that America is not a Christian nation. Apparently there are less than half a dozen Christians in the USA.
t. The principle is that a Christian CAN be sued for standing on Christian beliefs.
Anybody can be sued for 'standing on their beliefs' if it breaks civil law.
They can therefore be sued for operating a public business while treating people unequally.
I consider this to be an evil unjust legal situation
I know, but you haven't done a good job defending that opinion. But you've done a stellar job in repeating it with little heed to the counter-arguments, so there is that.
The culture has decided that Christians must act against our belief concerning gay marriage
Not it hasn't. It has decided that everybody that operates a public business has to provide their goods/services to everybody equally regardless of their sex, colour, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation.
If they can't, in good conscience, serve wedding cakes for gay marriages, they should stop selling wedding cakes.
This is unprecedented in American history, and it's just the toe in the door.
The Civil Rights Act became law in 1964. Hardly unprecedented.
Bob Jones University lost its case in 1983 where it argued its religious beliefs should allow them to discriminate without themselves being legally prejudiced for so doing.
And in the context under discussion when I don't I get sued and fined.
Do you operate a business that sells services or products for heterosexual marriages? No? Then you won't get sued or fined. Yes? Then you'll have to change your business if you can't in good conscience continue.
You presented the views of Scalia as if I should take them as a reason to give up my views. I don't.
So you think that a tax on wearing yarmulkes is not anti-semitic?
Why do you keep twisting the context? If a business can be sued and fined for refusing to do a service that in their view dishonors God's law then there is definitely a law that forces this on us.
But they aren't being forced to do a service that in their view dishonours God's law.
The bakers could stop selling cakes.
The bakers could stop selling wedding cakes.
The bakers could sell wedding cakes to everybody regardless of their sex, colour, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, or sexual orientation.
They have three choices. They are not being forced to choose the last one by the law.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by Faith, posted 05-22-2014 6:06 AM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 526 of 1309 (728027)
05-22-2014 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 525 by Faith
05-22-2014 1:30 PM


Re: God's Other Laws
I'm just not up on the subject of usury.
You should: It is one of the reasons Jews were and are reviled.
The Jews were basically forbidden from entering into almost all business in Europe. But because Christians couldn't loan at interest to one another, they allowed the Jews to loan money to them. With so little free competition Jewish moneylenders could charge high interest rates with (sort of) impunity. This lead to them becoming very wealthy, which upset European Christians so much it was often the driving force for persecutions and expulsions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by Faith, posted 05-22-2014 1:30 PM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 530 of 1309 (728044)
05-22-2014 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 527 by Dr Adequate
05-22-2014 1:55 PM


Re: God's Other Laws
Well then, make sure you have a bank account that neither charges nor pays interest.
Indeed, Faith might be interested in Islamic banking - those guys have banking without usury down to a fine art.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2014 1:55 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(3)
Message 548 of 1309 (728081)
05-23-2014 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 540 by Faith
05-23-2014 11:14 AM


Satanists don't worship Satan
The idea that a sin should have any rights whatever in conflict with the God who made us all is so disgustingly ludicrous there is nothing to "analyze."
Sin does not have rights.
Sinners do.
Which is why we don't hang draw and quarter murderers, and ensure they are given as fair a trial as is possible etc. Because they have a right to due process and to not be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.
Christianity has been thrown out of society and is rapidly losing rights, all in keeping with the lovely sentiments at EvC too.
It is not thrown out of society.
It is not losing rights.
It is losing privilege. That's what you've mistaken for 'rights'.
Again you are discussing something that is an absolute abomination as if it were a rational conflict of rights in a rational society.
I think that circumcision is an abomination, I really do. I think it is an outrage against morality. But it turns out that religious rights and the rights of a parent have traditionally outweighed the rights of the infant and my right to not be sympathetically upset.
I call that a 'rational conflict of rights', but maybe its my notorious open-mindedness.
"Society" is writing Christians out of our time-honored rights in what used to be a Christian society
Didn't America get founded because of all the problems that time-honoured rights in Europe were causing?
Honoured by time is meaningless.
What is happening is that Christians of similar views to you, were so predominant in society that they could get away with killing their child, failure to provide employees with full medical coverage, firing people for being atheist or gay, failing to vaccinate their children and numerous others no doubt. Furthermore, the IRS still refuses to do anything about the fact that about 1500 churches admit to breaking regulations that permit them to be tax exempt (Pulpit Freedom Sunday), and secularists are not getting far in asking the IRS to fulfil its legal duty.
But things are changing. And that bothers you. Because your little privileged bubble is being burst and you are slowly being equalized with every other group in the USA.
what that means is that Christians are going to be punished more and more as we are going to disobey this outrageous travesty.
Yes - that happened to the racists too (including the Christian ones). Eventually it stopped.
In keeping with all this outrageously evil stupidity, a Satanist society in New York is trying to get a statue of Satan erected on government grounds in Oklahoma
Satanism don't worship Satan, you know that right? It's just a name they chose to get your knickers in a twist. That particular group has 7 tenets
quote:
One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.
The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forego your own.
Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.
Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
Regarding Satan they say:
quote:
Satan stands as the ultimate icon for the selfless revolt against tyranny
I can see you disagreeing, but I can't see why you'd think that is evil.
Anyway, you know what is evil stupidity? Allowing Christians to have a public display of their religious position on Government grounds, but no other religion is. A Hindu group is also trying to get something put up there.
You know why?
Lucien Greaves writes:
They envisioned it more as a ‘poison pill’ in the church-state debate. The idea was that Satanists, asserting their rights and privileges where religious agendas have been successful in imposing themselves upon public affairs, could serve as a poignant reminder that such privileges are for everybody, and can be used to serve an agenda beyond the current narrow understanding of what ‘the’ religious agenda is
Because what Oklahoma are doing is unconstitutional if and only if they deny other religious monuments. The State has issued a moratorium on other monuments until the ACLUs case to get the 10 commandments removed is over.
David Silverman writes:
There is now a law, on the books of Oklahoma, respecting the establishment of Christianity, which is grossly unconstitutional.
They are making a point. The State tried to have the case dismissed, but their motion was denied just yesterday.
Finally, they did not try and erect a statue of Satan. It was Baphomet.
Lavey writes:
The Devil does not exist. It is a false name invented by the Black Brothers to imply a Unity in their ignorant muddle of dispersions. A devil who had unity would be a God... 'The Devil' is, historically, the God of any people that one personally dislikes... This serpent, SATAN, is not the enemy of Man, but He who made Gods of our race, knowing Good and Evil; He bade 'Know Thyself!' and taught Initiation. He is 'The Devil' of the Book of Thoth, and His emblem is BAPHOMET, the Androgyne who is the hieroglyph of arcane perfection... He is therefore Life, and Love. But moreover his letter is ayin, the Eye, so that he is Light; and his Zodiacal image is Capricornus, that leaping goat whose attribute is Liberty
But then, why would I expect you to know (or be interested in) the facts about other religious viewpoints?
just tried to have a Satanic black mass on the Harvard campus
Black Mass is a religious tradition designed to satire (Catholics primarily, but others by extension/association) and educate. It's not 'real' devilry.
That's where society has gone
Yes, all religious viewpoints are starting to get equal access to public space. That must really rankle Christians who have enjoyed a monopoly for so long.
Now out and out Satanism is claiming its "rights" too.
Being humans who practice a religion means they have had rights since the formation of the USA.
So far Oklahoma has resisted and the black mass was shouted down at Harvard but give it time
Shouted down by Christians who wanted to curtail the freedoms of other religious viewpoints. But sure, its the Christians being persecuted here.
Probably doesn't bother any of you one bit.
Why would humanists who appreciate the power of symbolism and the community of religion, asserting the rights the founding fathers gave them, bother me?
Soon I expect to hear you all, hey maybe today, saying well but all religions should have equal rights in "society" and why shouldn't that include Satanists?
Well why shouldn't it?
Hey, the statue is going to have children there too, Satan's really a nice god of love and stuff.
Most Satanists are atheists. Lucien Greaves, the co-founder of the Satanic Temple in Oklahoma is an atheist.
Does anybody even know that Harvard's original motto was "Truth for Christ and the Church?"
Do you know that the USA's original motto was E Pluribus Unum? Seems you have a big problem with the Pluribus bit.
You'll find it interesting that originally, students in Harvard who had homosexual sex could be put to death. Being a Quaker could get you hanged. Being a female doctor was bad for your health too. Then of course there was slavery (with all the whippings and dismemberments that involved). And may God help you if your ancestors had lived in America for thousands of years.
Do you think Harvard's founders, is educators and those educated there were interested in 'truth for Christ'? What's worse - legalizing slavery, executing people on trumped up charges and for practicing homosexuality or being born to the wrong religion and genocide - Or mocking Catholic rituals (the Black Mass) and beliefs (along with some other popular hits)?
So Christians who have the guts to stand for truth (how many will that be I wonder?) are going to be punished as soon as the flood of evil has the upper hand.
No - those Christians who operate public businesses who do not provide services and products equally, will be punished. The rest will be fine.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 540 by Faith, posted 05-23-2014 11:14 AM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 549 of 1309 (728082)
05-23-2014 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 507 by Faith
05-22-2014 6:06 AM


Yarmulkes
Is a tax on wearing yarmulkes a tax on Jews?
Why, or why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by Faith, posted 05-22-2014 6:06 AM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 562 of 1309 (728108)
05-23-2014 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 559 by Faith
05-23-2014 5:14 PM


Yes, death by wombats ought to be interesting.
I'm surprised you haven't read the ancient accounts of the nobles right to trial by wombat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 559 by Faith, posted 05-23-2014 5:14 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 563 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-23-2014 6:49 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 570 of 1309 (728142)
05-24-2014 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 569 by RAZD
05-24-2014 9:39 AM


Re: And More Christian Pseudohistory Self Absolvements - a good example
Now find them in the actual papers written by the actual people and not what appears to be fabrications of the Christian Pseudohistory ilk
Sounds fun, the one you mentioned sounds like a Lincoln quote:
quote:
In letters and documents sent from this office I have expressed myself better than I now can. In regard to this Great Book, I have but to say, it is the best gift God has given to man.
reported in 1 (one) newspaper, I can't find the original. The other?
Massachusetts Historical Society: Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia, page 98
(Look down to where there is crossing out and tiny writing).
quote:
...that of the proprietors of slaves a very small proportion indeed are ever seen to labour and can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever; that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events; that it may become probable by supernatural interference! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in such a contest. -But it is impossible to be temperate and to pursue this subject through the various considerations of policy, of morals, of history natural and civil. We must be contented to hope they will force their way into every one's mind. I think a change already perceptible, since the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of the master is abating, that of the slave rising from the dust, his condition mollifying, the way I hope preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation, and that this is disposed, in the order of events, to be with the consent of the masters, rather than by their extirpation.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 569 by RAZD, posted 05-24-2014 9:39 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 572 of 1309 (728150)
05-24-2014 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 571 by Faith
05-24-2014 11:13 AM


I'm getting tired of being let down by my sources.
You could try looking for the originals before posting them.
I mean, you understand that a source like http://www.usachristianministries.com/ obviously has an agenda. It might say things that are true, but you shouldn't trust that kind of site alone.
I looked up the memorial and that one isn't there as you said, JUST THAT ONE mind you
Though it should be mentioned the other quote was actually an amalgamation of two quotes from different writings.
...speaks of "the holy author of our religion" which certainly shows a strong identification with Christianity
He also states:
quote:
Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.
Remember that Jefferson made his own Bible. He cut out all the supernatural references but clearly he liked what the Bible had to say otherwise, especially Jesus' teachings.
He corrupted the Bible, by your understanding, did he not? I would have thought normally you would think badly of this. He called what was left diamonds out of a dunghill.
quote:
I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines.
46 pages. He didn't think there were many diamonds. But yes, like most white people of his time, the Bible was clearly an influence on his thinking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 571 by Faith, posted 05-24-2014 11:13 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 576 by Faith, posted 05-24-2014 12:03 PM Modulous has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 585 of 1309 (728188)
05-24-2014 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 576 by Faith
05-24-2014 12:03 PM


My point, for pete's sake, is that EVEN THOUGH these men were not Christians, and in fact could rightly be called antichrists because they rejected the Deity of Christ and His salvation, that NEVERTHELESS they all considered Christian morality to be superior and essential to a successful nation. This much IS shown by Jefferson's preserving all of the Bible that wasn't supernatural. Sheesh.
Did you object to anything I actually said?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 576 by Faith, posted 05-24-2014 12:03 PM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 586 of 1309 (728189)
05-24-2014 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 507 by Faith
05-22-2014 6:06 AM


so, equal rights legislation...
Is a tax on wearing yarmulkes a tax on Jews?
Why, or why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by Faith, posted 05-22-2014 6:06 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 587 by Faith, posted 05-24-2014 9:32 PM Modulous has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024