Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham

Saying anything to you is a very bad idea since you twist it. But I don't recall saying anything that violates separation of church and state, that's some notion of your own, and I don't recall having much of a position on what Ham is doing either. I said I don't see why he thinks he needs Christian employees but that maybe he has a case for it and I'm waiting to find out. I also said most recently I wish he'd drop the case, give up either all-Christian employees or the tax exemption, but I'm not judging him in relation to the First Amendment at all. Mostly what I'm doing here is objecting to the way he's treated by others here. Charlatan? Scam? Talk about hostility to FCPFs.I have no clue to the rest of your post, the usual undecipherable Percyisms. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's a curse, not a prophecy, being as how it's called the Curse of Ham and all.--Percy

It's a prophecy too. It's not a command or a recommendation or a suggestion.

But of course, that's what makes it so useful. I love it. Now THAT paragraph is priceless, a perfect case of the hostility in question. Jihad even, my my my. No, the jihad comes AGAINST Christians. Oh but I can't say that, can I? Lemme see, well I can't think of any way to agree with you about Christians declaring jihad since it doesn't exist. I suppose you're blaming the messenger who warns people about God's judgments. A thankless role but we try.

It's not a command, recommendation or suggestion because it's a curse, the Curse of Ham.But this is just another example of you using one error to distract from another. It makes little difference whether the Curse of Ham is a curse or a prophecy or both, it is still a significant part of the foundation used by Christianity to justify slavery.--Percy

But it's a wrong basis for justifying slavery. The best that can be done with that prophecy curse, the same that is done with the slavery in the OT in general, is claim that slavery is not outright condemned in the Bible, and it isn't. The OT prescribes humanizing laws to govern it, while the NT gently suggests perhaps a slaveowner should let his Christian slave go free, but slavery as such is not condemned until modern times. And then it is condemned on the basis of the Christian message of freedom, the equality of races implied throughout and so on. You can say it's not outright condemned in the Bible but that's simply to accept the cultural status quo that the Bible also accepts and that has been universally accepted throughout history, but you can't say it's *justified* in any sense at all. OK, they used these facts in the Bible to defend slavery, but that's only to defend the universal cultural practice, not justify it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, this goes back to my comment about fundamentalists lacking the shame and embarrassment gene. To embrace fanaticism and paranoia just adds further weight to the possibility that you're a major nutcase. You're somehow managing to miss the point over and over and over again. The mention of jihad was to illustrate how you're just like fundamentalists of all stripes around the world, embracing the conceit that truth travels from your mouth to God's ear. You're overly emotional investment in this discussion is reflected in the many times you've condemned us all hell.It is this same conceit that leads you to believe that you are in sole possession of God's law, putting you above all other laws, including the First Amendment apparently.--Percy

Rereading my Message 748 and your Message 744 that I replied to, I didn't twist anything. I said, "Fundamentalists the world over bark that those in disagreement are misusing religious texts," and you replied with a perfect example of a fundamentalist (namely, you) doing exactly that. What could be more ironic? Really? You didn't state one view of the First Amendment in Message 709 yesterday around 6 PM (my time), and then completely change that view a few hours later? You obviously did, didn't you.Could you please make a greater effort to stop denying saying things that you have obviously said? Or at least have the sanity to go back and edit your messages first so they no longer say what they very plainly said? It would be dishonest, but at least it wouldn't be crazy.--Percy

Gosh, "nutcase." And it doesn't even trigger the censor. Major nutcase too. Great, maybe I can tack that on to the title, Fanatically Conservative Paranoid Fundamentalist Major Nutcase. Yes, I like it! No way to miss that point, Percy, it's loud and clear. And totally wrong. Actually, whenever I do claim to be speaking truth, which isn't as often as you make it out to be, though it's interesting that it seems to have stuck with you. Maybe it will eventually have a good effect. Anyway, it's from His Word and it's from His mouth to my ear, through His Word. Oddly enough I've never condemned anybody to hell, though I believe I've issued the customary Biblical warning in some cases that certain actions and attitudes will get you there. I'm also not particularly emotional about it, I'm just trying to be faithful to the Biblical message. So as I said it's the usual Blame the Messenger I'm getting from you. Sole possession? But God's Law is written on the human heart, even yours. I've found it helps to speak it out sometimes though, since this world is bending over backwards to violate it and that's only going to bring down God's wrath on the planet.Again you are accusing me of violating the First Amendment in defending Ken Ham? Really don't see that I've said anything to that effect, though you've certainly put such words in my mouth.It's interesting that just about everything you say to me lately is Ad Hominem. I'm a fanatic, I'm genetically incapable of appropriate behavior, I'm a nutcase and so on and so forth. But there's no hostility toward us FCPFMNs. Naa.

I get sloppy but I don't care since you misread everything anyway.

Faith, you're completely missing the point. Of course we all disagree with a Biblical defense of slavery today. The point is that in the past the Bible has been interpreted as supporting slavery, which seemed to surprise you. Apparently having the era prior to the Civil War in mind you stated that it was Christians who opposed slavery, listing Newton and Wilberforce, but it was also Christians who defended slavery, like James Henly Thornwell. It was the schism between northern and southern Baptists that drove the creation of the Southern Baptist Convention.Here's a webpage of Christian justifications for slavery: Why Christians Should Support SlaveryThe main point that you're missing is that the First Amendment protects all religions, including fundamentalist Christianity, from discrimination and persecution because government can neither favor nor disfavor any religion.--Percy

I'm not missing anything, I'm just trying to get out of this madhouse without leaving too much unanswered.

If it were true that it protects Fundamentalist Christianity then the Oregon bakers would not have been driven out of business and subjected to harassment by LGBT vandals and thugs and fined a ruinous punitive amount for simply obeying the Bible. Nor the Colorado baker fined, nor the four or five other Christian business owners abused, whose First Amendment protection has been similarly violated, and I'm sure it's only going to get worse when the Supreme Court issues its judgment on gay marriage. No, there's no hostility in this country to Christians, meaning of course FCPFMN Christians. And I'm sure you'll go on being blind to it for a LONG time to come. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You're pleading guilty to being fanatical and paranoid, and now apparently to being a major nutcase. Do you expect people to fail to note that someone acting like a crazy person is acting like a crazy person? Then do what you just failed to do, explain how your fundamentalism is different from fundamentalism of different stripes. In spirit, not in detail. Naturally you don't bow towards Mecca, but those aren't the kind of differences that matter. Fundamentalism is a state of mind, one that doesn't brook disagreement or rational argument. For fundamentalists it is belief that counts. That's you plural, fundamental Christianity in general, not you personally. It would make no sense to accuse you personally of a First Amendment violation. You were the one who embraced the label when I used it while countering your claim that the US government has become hostile toward Christians. I explained that 73% of the country is Christian, that you're actually referring to a small sub-sect of Christianity, and that the government has not, in fact, become hostile toward you (that's you plural again).If you don't like the label then stop embracing it and start making sense. If you have rational reasons why Ken Ham should be allowed to engage in discriminatory hiring practices that go beyond, "I think he has good reasons," then please let us know.--Percy

quote:

---

If it were true that it protects Fundamentalist Christianity then the Oregon bakers would not have been driven out of business and subjected to harassment by LGBT vandals and thugs and fined a ruinous punitive amount for simply obeying the Bible

---

The First Amendment has never given anyone carte blanche to break the law by claiming a religious justification. It was never intended to. And I note that the Oregon bakers were DISOBEYING the Bible anyway...Really you shouldn't pontificate on things that you don't understand. Which includes pretty much everything, I'm afraid.I do understand that you're upset that people refuse to obey you, dare to criticise you, even commit the "sin" of telling truths that you don't like. But the fact that you are upset about these things rather indicates that the problem is with you.