|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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 Those are all what are called "ceremonial" laws, all types, meant only for the Jews, and rescinded in the New Testament.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 God rescinded that law in the NT.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'm just not up on the subject of usury. I like what Luther said though. Well then, make sure you have a bank account that neither charges nor pays interest.
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. You know, I'm not unsympathetic to your point of view. And yet what are we to say about the Christian who believes that God's law requires the segregation of races? Or that he shouldn't serve Jewish customers? He has a point of view too. Now, you may say that he's not a real Christian. And yet at the very least, the First Amendment says that the law can't distinguish between Christian sects, and decide that some of them are Real Christians and should have their beliefs protected by the law, whereas some of them aren't Real Christians and shouldn't. I can't see what we can do about this that doesn't either legitimize racism (so long as the racist says that he thinks he's doing God's work) --- which would be bad --- or pick and choose which Christian sects are the right ones --- which would violate the First Amendment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
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." This is a bogus and downright evil claim of rights for a group of sinners that should never have even been thought up. A couple of questions. First, are we talking about gay people or bankers? Second, is that a direct quote from the Sudanese judge who sentenced Meriam Yehya, or merely a paraphrase?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
You're all as usual making insanely false moral equivalences. Yeah, there's no valid comparison between those of God's Laws you want to follow and those you want to ignore; between the particular sect of the particular religion you've chosen, and the different religious sects chosen by people who aren't you; between your religious freedoms and everyone else's; between a law restricting your ability to discriminate against the people you disapprove of and a law restricting others' ability to discriminate against the people they disapprove of; and between the minority groups you hate and the minority groups you don't. Because you're special, Faith, you're so fucking special, and it's about time the laws of the land reflected that fact. Maybe we could amend the Constitution for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Christianity has been thrown out of society and is rapidly losing rights ... Apparently it's OK to deprive Christians of their rights so long as we say we're doing it for religious reasons, which would be true pretty much as a matter of logical necessity. All we have to do is condemn you as evil sinners and suchlike, and then we can deprive you of cake and throw you to the lions. Well maybe not the lions, it's one of those legal gray areas. I feel certain we can throw you to something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh no doubt you can throw us to something. Read up on the Inquisition. I'm sure you can come up with some really interesting places to throw us, hang us, bury us, suffocate us, whatever. Well if you have no preferences one way or another, I know a man who can get me some cut-price wombats.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
If they eat her, she's innocent, if they don't, she's a witch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
ABE: There are lots of collections of such quotes: here's one: What proportion of them are goddamned lies?
The United States in Congress assembled recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools. - United States Congress 1782 - Like that one, which is a goddamned lie.
For the use of schools. Is something that goddamned liars pretend they said. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But these quotes aren't false. See post #568. What's more, this is a fake quote on a subject that Barton habitually lies about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I've changed my mind ... to a certain extent.
I am in favor of laws against discrimination, whether on the basis of sexual orientation, religion, race, etc. But I am in favor of religious freedom. Well, these things can come into conflict. Let us imagine a state in which there are laws against religious discrimination. Now suppose a Catholic runs a copying and printing business, and a Protestant turns up wanting 10,000 copies of a pamphlet of the firey kind that denounces the Pope as the Antichrist and the Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon. If the Catholic refuses to print it, that's religious discrimination. If he is forced by law to print it, he is obliged to assist in what he considers blasphemy and heresy, and where is his religious freedom? I would side with his religious freedom. And, mutatis mutandis, similar things could be said of assisting with a gay wedding. (Or, yes, an interracial one. I admit the force of my own arguments. No proposed solution to this problem can be easy, simple, and obviously right.)
However, the laws that allow such religious freedom must be very narrowly defined. The laws that have been proposed allow any amount of discrimination, so long as the person discriminating can cry "religion" --- even to allowing doctors to refuse to treat gay people. But surely it is not beyond the limits of human ingenuity to frame narrower laws. The problem is that Republicans have seized on this issue to excuse framing very broad laws permitting discrimination. But if we really tried, couldn't we frame narrower laws which just go so far as to defend religious freedom, and no further?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I really don't see why it should be so hard to tell the difference between religious freedom and discrimination on the basis of race etc. Discriminating against persons is rightly disallowed by law, but that is not what is going on in the case of businesses being asked to support an IDEA such as gay marriage or Catholicism as the Whore of Babylon. None of the businesses that have refused to support gay marriage have refused to serve homosexuals as such. Well, yes. This is what I'm agreeing with. I agree with you, I know this is a difficult concept. But the fact is that the laws proposed have authorized general discrimination, rather than protecting religious freedom.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In a fair and free society, people have choice - the gay couple needing a wedding cake who deliberately take their order to a company they know have religious reasons for refusing, is ... ... made up in your head.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
What do you think of the lesbian mayor of Houston's issuing subpoenas to five Houston pastors to turn over their sermons and any other communications related to her new ordinance that allows either sex to use the public restroom of his or her choice? I think it's a typical case of American Christians playing make-believe that they're being persecuted, so that they can feel that lovely warm glow of self-righteousness, anger, and hatred that they derive from imaginary martyrdom without any of the inconveniences attendant on actual martyrdom. I think that if that was all there was to it, they would merely be delusional morons, but that since there are people in the world who suffer from actual religious persecution, their behavior is also vulgar and disgusting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It has to start somewhere, and government control of the churches and other inconvenient groups started with similar actions in Nazi Germany. Legal stuff. Laws that required church registration, also firearm registration and surrender for instance. Keep in mind that this action by the Houston mayor against pastors is absolutely unprecedented in America. But this is not the first time that a church has had its documents subpoenaed. Churches are not above the law, so this has happened from time to time, and it is well-established in law that they are obliged to comply. For example Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Stewart.
I do not believe that all of the information in the Diocese's archives is privileged. Like other privileges, only confidential communications are protected. The Diocese's documents may contain no confidential communications at all. They may also be partially discoverable if they contain confidential communications along with other information. Thus, while I would find that the Diocese need not produce documents protected by the privilege as construed above, it must produce unprivileged documents in its archives that are responsive to the subpoena. See also here for general information about churches and subpoenas.
The First Amendment does not protect churches or related ministries from the litigation process, and the mere fact that a ministry is religious in nature is not generally a sufficient reason to avoid complying with a subpoena. But suddenly, this time, it's the end of the world as we know it. I can think of two reasons why: (1) It's about hating the gays. That's important. The state is now encroaching upon the central dogma of conservative Christianity. (2) The sort of mayfly mentality ubiquitous among conservatives which allows them to think that everything is a novelty --- which allows them, for example, to think that the issuing of executive orders (and, in some really whacked-out cases, the use of the Presidential veto) is a novel assumption of dictatorial powers.
In August was the Jackal born; The Rains fell in September; "Now such a fearful flood as this," Says he, "I can't remember!" Let me know if you still see it the same way in a few months to a year, if there's anything around to remind you. Hmm ... fancy a wager?
What would you say if I tell you I've noticed that since I wrote a slightly incendiary post about homosexuality at my blog six days ago, actually pushing it some because I was wondering if it would attract censorship, my daily viewing stats have dramatically dropped since then? For years they've usually fluctuated between about 140 to 180 a day, rising above 200 with the more popular topics, the highest ever being over 700, but over the last three days they dropped to 68 on the 3rd, 40 yesterday and 10 today. Unprecedented. I've written a few posts on different topics since the questionable one. Seems to me cutting off viewers is a form of censorship though not a method I would have anticipated. I'd say you're a paranoid loon. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'm not sure I know what you mean about "general discrimination." Well, as I said, the laws proposed would (for example) protect a doctor who refused to see a gay patient, or even a police officer who refused to investigate a crime against a gay victim, so long as they can claim it's their religion to hate gay people. Now a religious motivation is not generally an exemption from the law, which is why you still get in trouble if you're a devout Christian and behead someone for being a witch, as just happened in Oklahoma. Or, indeed, if you're a Muslim and blow someone up.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024