Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 69 (9101 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: sensei
Upcoming Birthdays: AlexCaledin
Post Volume: Total: 904,129 Year: 1,010/14,231 Month: 1,010/1,514 Week: 43/234 Day: 24/19 Hour: 2/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 931 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 511 of 1309 (727961)
05-22-2014 6:23 AM
Reply to: Message 505 by zoetherat
05-22-2014 1:41 AM


Re: evidence
Hard to see a Christian defending slavery, that's why I called them pseudoChristians, but perhaps they were simply misquided Christians. Also to emphasize that it was Christians who opposed slavery because it's always Christians who are accused of defending it when that is not the case.
And you twisted the whole intent of what I said about Christians who are persecuted. Why not be inclusive in such a case?
The RCC is not a Christian institution. I've argued this many times here as a separate issue. Your logic chopping is just gameplaying.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 505 by zoetherat, posted 05-22-2014 1:41 AM zoetherat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 514 by Larni, posted 05-22-2014 8:07 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 515 by NoNukes, posted 05-22-2014 8:58 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 516 by Diomedes, posted 05-22-2014 9:56 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 521 by zoetherat, posted 05-22-2014 12:12 PM Faith has not replied

Heathen
Member (Idle past 770 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 512 of 1309 (727964)
05-22-2014 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 489 by Faith
05-21-2014 6:18 PM


Re: evidence
If all men are created equal that means all
Except gays. Obviously.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 489 by Faith, posted 05-21-2014 6:18 PM Faith has not replied

Heathen
Member (Idle past 770 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 513 of 1309 (727965)
05-22-2014 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 510 by Faith
05-22-2014 6:16 AM


Re: evidence
I don't see that you've said anything I haven't already answered a hundred times in this thread.
perhaps you should attempt to acually read and respond..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 510 by Faith, posted 05-22-2014 6:16 AM Faith has not replied

Larni
Member (Idle past 189 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 514 of 1309 (727968)
05-22-2014 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 511 by Faith
05-22-2014 6:23 AM


Re: evidence
Why not be inclusive in such a case?
Because when it suits your purpose you label them as Christians and when it does not you label the same people as pseudo Christian.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
Edited by Larni, : No reason given.

The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286
Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.
-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134

This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by Faith, posted 05-22-2014 6:23 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 518 by 1.61803, posted 05-22-2014 11:09 AM Larni has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 515 of 1309 (727971)
05-22-2014 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 511 by Faith
05-22-2014 6:23 AM


Re: evidence
Hard to see a Christian defending slavery, that's why I called them pseudoChristians, but perhaps they were simply misquided Christians.
For example, you find it hard to see James Madison as a Christian?
I don't think the practice of declaring people who act badly as fake Christians works all that well for you in general. But slavery is a particularly thorny issue over which to judge not only the founding fathers, but large groups of Christians. Both the Southern Methodist Church and the Southern Baptist church were created by splits from larger national bodies over the issue of slavery.
And there is of course the problematic stance taken on the topic within the Bible itself. It seems that the only bad slavery described in the Bible was that imposed on Hebrews by others.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by Faith, posted 05-22-2014 6:23 AM Faith has not replied

Diomedes
Member
Posts: 980
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 516 of 1309 (727977)
05-22-2014 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 511 by Faith
05-22-2014 6:23 AM


Re: evidence
Hard to see a Christian defending slavery, that's why I called them pseudoChristians, but perhaps they were simply misquided Christians.
No True Scotsman Logical Fallacy
"No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing"). It can also be used to create unnecessary requirements."
No true Scotsman - Wikipedia
Bible Versus
quote:
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
quote:
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever." (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
quote:
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment." (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Oh, and here are some New Testament examples for any Christian trying to play that old testament, new testament thing:
quote:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
quote:
"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them." (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
So actually, by the looks of it, the Christians who supported and advocated slavery were the ones in fact who were being true to their book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by Faith, posted 05-22-2014 6:23 AM Faith has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 538 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 517 of 1309 (727979)
05-22-2014 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 501 by Faith
05-21-2014 7:42 PM


Re: God's Other Laws
And those laws have nothing to do with the Moral Law anyway, which is where the conflict enters. Those are all what are called "ceremonial" laws, all types, meant only for the Jews, and rescinded in the New Testament. Jesus IS our Sabbath, we no longer have the law against picking up sticks. Shrimp was a food meant to separate the Jews from the Gentiles. God rescinded that law in the NT.
Your new law against making cakes for gay people seems fairly ceremonial to me. I notice that you didn't mention usury. The Reformers didn't think that that one was ceremonial:
First of all, in a well regulated state, no usurer is tolerated: even the profane see this: whoever therefore professedly adopts this occupation, he ought to be expelled from intercourse with his fellow-men. For if any illiberal pursuits load those who pursue them with censure, that of the usurer is certainly an illiberal trade, and unworthy of a pious and honorable man. Hence Cato said that to take usury was almost the same as murder. For when asked concerning agriculture, after he had given his opinion, he inquired, But what is usury? Is it not murder? says he. And surely the usurer will always be a robber; that is, he will make a profit by his trade, and will defraud, and his iniquity will increase just as if there were no laws, no equity, and no mutual regard among mankind. --- John Calvin
The sins forbidden in the eighth commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, theft, robbery, man-stealing, and receiving anything that is stolen; fraudulent dealing, false weights and measures, removing landmarks, injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man, or in matters of trust; oppression, extortion, usury ... --- Westminster Larger Catechism
Christ, however, excluded no one from his commandment; indeed, he included all kinds of people, even one's enemies, when he said in Luke 6, "If you lend only to those from whom you expect a loan in return, what kind of goodness is that? Even wicked sinners lend to one another, to receive as much again." And again, "Lend, expecting nothing in return". I know very well that a good many doctors have interpreted these words as though Christ had therein commanded to lend in such a way as not to make any charge for it or seek any profit, but to lend gratis. This opinion is doubtless not wrong, for he who makes a charge for lending is not lending, and neither is he selling; therefore, this must be usury.
[...]
Charging for a loan is contrary to natural law. The Lord points this out in Luke 6 and Matthew 7, "As you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."
[...] Therefore, it is clear that such lenders are acting contrary to nature, are guilty of mortal sin, are usurers, and are seeking in their own profit their neighbor's loss --- Martin Luther, Sermon on Usury
And yet not only do Christians tolerate usury, many of them participate in it and profit by it by having interest-bearing bank accounts. Still, at least they're not queers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by Faith, posted 05-21-2014 7:42 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 525 by Faith, posted 05-22-2014 1:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

1.61803
Member (Idle past 991 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


(1)
Message 518 of 1309 (727986)
05-22-2014 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 514 by Larni
05-22-2014 8:07 AM


Re: evidence
Larni to Faith writes:
Because when it suits your purpose you label them as Christians and when it does not you label the same people as pseudo Christian.

"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 514 by Larni, posted 05-22-2014 8:07 AM Larni has not replied

dronestar
Member (Idle past 112 days)
Posts: 1396
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


(1)
Message 519 of 1309 (727995)
05-22-2014 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 498 by Dr Adequate
05-21-2014 7:22 PM


Re: God's Other Laws
A cotton-nylon . . . MIX?
Gosh, and I thought it was bad when my slave obstentatiously wore a wool and polyester blend. What was HE thinking? Boy, did I ever beat him for three days straight. I used barb-wire wrapped around a stick, ha ha ha. He was a bloody mass of pulp. But don’t you worry now, I was real careful, he didn’t die from my beatings, I paid good attention to God’s loving pronouncement:
quote:
Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. Exodus 21:20-21
Not sure why god gave us brains, but I sure am glad that god bothered to tell us how to think about all the REAL important stuff in life, . . . textile blends, . . . seafood discrimination, . . . beating-of-slave guidelines.
I shudder to think, If god was a retarded jackass, he might’ve filled up the bible with a lot of petty and horrific crap.
I’m so glad to have a kindred spirit with Faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-21-2014 7:22 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 3746
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 520 of 1309 (727996)
05-22-2014 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 507 by Faith
05-22-2014 6:06 AM


Re: evidence
The culture has decided that Christians must act against our belief concerning gay marriage when put in the position of having to choose, and if we refuse we are subject to sanctions.
Society has decided that discrimination will not be tolerated, and that the intolerance of discrimination is not itself discrimination.
This is unprecedented in American history, and it's just the toe in the door.
Don't be silly. The toe has been in the door since the civil rights movements of the 60's. This is about civil rights for everyone.
I think it is extraordinary that the framers of our constitution and Bill of Rights could produce a document that continues to address new issues of equal rights for everyone.

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 531 by NoNukes, posted 05-22-2014 6:50 PM Tanypteryx has replied

zoetherat
Junior Member (Idle past 3039 days)
Posts: 4
From: New Hampshire, US
Joined: 06-22-2010


(1)
Message 521 of 1309 (728002)
05-22-2014 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 511 by Faith
05-22-2014 6:23 AM


Re: evidence
"And you twisted the whole intent of what I said about Christians who are persecuted. Why not be inclusive in such a case? The RCC is not a Christian institution."
I don't mind you being inclusive when listing off persecutions against Christians. I do however, mind you being inclusive when listing off persecutions *against* Christians, but exclusive when counting off persecutions *by* Christians. Someone impartial would either be exclusive with both lists or inclusive with both lists.
Concerning the Catholic Church, of course they've done more things we consider wrong then Reformation Protestants have. That's because they have a longer history. They were the religious power in Europe from the end of the roman era to the Reformation (a long period of history that supersedes liberal notions of separation of church and state and individual rights). If you deliberately exclude most of western history, then of course the list of wrongs done by Christians will be much shorter then if you don't.
In any case, if your criteria for being a "real" Christian is being a Protestant, then what justification do you have for excluding pre Civil War American southerners? It appears that your definition of "Christian" also exclude protestants that did and believed things that are now considered wrong. That makes how you define Christian even more inconsistent and self serving: expanded to include any self described Christian who has been wronged, while simultaneously contracted to exclude any Christian who has done wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by Faith, posted 05-22-2014 6:23 AM Faith has not replied

ringo
Member
Posts: 20801
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 522 of 1309 (728014)
05-22-2014 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 493 by Faith
05-21-2014 6:29 PM


Re: evidence
Faith writes:
No but homosexual lifestyle IS a behavior....
I just saw an interesting movie called Albert Nobbs. Set in Victorian Ireland, it concerns a woman who has lived as a man for thirty years. At one point, she meets another woman who is living as a man and is married to another woman. There is no mention of "homosexual behaviour" but the couple do love each other as any other husband and wife.
So... question: If two women or two men were married to each other for the tax breaks and the hospital visitation rights and they didn't engage in "homosexual behaviour", would that still offend your sensibilities?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by Faith, posted 05-21-2014 6:29 PM Faith has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9289
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 523 of 1309 (728019)
05-22-2014 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 475 by Faith
05-21-2014 10:22 AM


Being forced to close their shop even if they continued at home is a pretty big price to pay I'd say.
Persecuting people using discriminatory practices should come with a big price. In a place of public business, all people should be treated equally. If you can't treat people equally, then don't be in that business. It's not that hard to figure out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 475 by Faith, posted 05-21-2014 10:22 AM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 1591 days)
Posts: 7789
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

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 931 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 525 of 1309 (728022)
05-22-2014 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 517 by Dr Adequate
05-22-2014 10:06 AM


Re: God's Other Laws
I'm just not up on the subject of usury. I like what Luther said though.
I'll say it again. Being asked to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding puts one in the position of approving of gay marriage by complying, and that's asking a Christian to dishonor God's law. That's how a Christian feels it. You don't have to see it our way, there is such a thing as different points of view, which should be supported in a supposedly free society.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2014 10:06 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 526 by Modulous, posted 05-22-2014 1:52 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 527 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-22-2014 1:55 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 528 by dronestar, posted 05-22-2014 3:13 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 529 by frako, posted 05-22-2014 3:13 PM Faith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023