Community >> View Thread
1 2 3  >> All
Author
HammerTime


Member Since: Sun Jan 07, 2018
Posts: 2,654



She's teaching at a Christian school, which--who would have thought--does not permit LGBTQ in the student body. However, instead of Huffington Post calling it a Christian school, it's called an Anti-LGBTQ School and labeled as bigoted and discriminatory.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMqXGXinJUQ

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/karen-pence-immanuel-christian-school_us_5c3e62c2e4b0922a21d99f58

Needless to say, whether you're a Christian or not, America has freedom of religion, and the Bible is pretty darn clear about it's position on the topic (or at least has a very compelling argument to believe it does). The only bigotry I see are Huffington Post liberals who do not fully support the 1st Amendment - freedom of religion.


CNN sucks too, with their typical intolerance for anything moral.

https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/16/opinions/karen-pence-evangelical-hypocrisy-clay-cane/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F





Never Recovered After This
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 2,734



    Quote:

    She's teaching at a Christian school, which--who would have thought--does not permit LGBTQ in the student body. However, instead of Huffington Post calling it a Christian school, it's called an Anti-LGBTQ School and labeled as bigoted and discriminatory.



    Quote:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMqXGXinJUQ



    Quote:
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/karen-pence-immanuel-christian-school_us_5c3e62c2e4b0922a21d99f58



    Quote:
    Needless to say, whether you're a Christian or not, America has freedom of religion, and the Bible is pretty darn clear about it's position on the topic (or at least has a very compelling argument to believe it does). The only bigotry I see are Huffington Post liberals who do not fully support the 1st Amendment - freedom of religion.



    Quote:
    CNN sucks too, with their typical intolerance for anything moral.



    Quote:
    https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/01/16/opinions/karen-pence-evangelical-hypocrisy-clay-cane/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F


Well I wouldn't say CNN hates morals...but I would say their agenda is clear. They are nothing but a bunch of "talking head opnionists" with very little journalistic integrity.

If she is teaching at a private school...they are allowed to make clear their requirements for attending. This is within their purview.

That said I think its idiotic to do this. People are people no matter what their sexual orientation is. Of course I know I would never want to go to a private school like this...public schools give you social skills you can never learn in a private school...you get to meet people different than you *gasp!*

But back to your point...I see no issue with what the Pence's believe...and I expect nothing but rabid endless dog attacks from racist CNN.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
Silver Surfer


Member Since: Mon Jun 25, 2018
Posts: 276


I agree that this isn't really news, but...
    Quote:
    a Christian school, which--who would have thought--does not permit LGBTQ in the student body.


Christian and not permuting of gays are not the same thing.

Quaker and Episcopal schools for instance have permitted gay parents and students for decades.

IN catholic and Baptist schools, it sort of depends on the individual school.


    Quote:
    CNN sucks too, with their typical intolerance for anything moral.


Stating that parents have to be male and female isn't moral. It is at best neutral.

While it is irrelevant, since her husband is the politician. However her husband is a politician. A public figure.

What's more, they presumably have shared values, unless otherwise stated, and he is a heartbeat away form the most powerful office in the land.

Those beliefs are fair game for teh knowledge of the American people.

Personally, I though the wife must submit to the husband thing way werider



    Quote:
    Needless to say, whether you're a Christian or not, America has freedom of religion, and the Bible is pretty darn clear about it's position on the topic (or at least has a very compelling argument to believe it does). The only bigotry I see are Huffington Post liberals who do not fully support the 1st Amendment - freedom of religion.



No one is infringing on their religious beliefs. They are stating what they MAY be.

Not trying to take it away.

The other parts of the First Amendment are freedom of speech and freedom of the press.



Finally...
If you will look on the CNN site, it is in the opinion section.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 52.0 on Windows Vista
Silver Surfer


Member Since: Mon Jun 25, 2018
Posts: 276



    Quote:
    Well I wouldn't say CNN hates morals...but I would say their agenda is clear. They are nothing but a bunch of "talking head opnionists" with very little journalistic integr


If you look at the CNN site, it is in the opinion section. Which in newspapers, magazines, online sites, and television are separate from the news.

It is a little weird to be mad at the opinion section for having opinions.

At the opinions, sure. But you seem to think having an editorial section is anti-journalistic integrity.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 52.0 on Windows Vista
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 2,734



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Well I wouldn't say CNN hates morals...but I would say their agenda is clear. They are nothing but a bunch of "talking head opnionists" with very little journalistic integr



    Quote:
    If you look at the CNN site, it is in the opinion section. Which in newspapers, magazines, online sites, and television are separate from the news.



    Quote:
    It is a little weird to be mad at the opinion section for having opinions.



    Quote:
    At the opinions, sure. But you seem to think having an editorial section is anti-journalistic integrity.


This is how they present the news as well when I watch them.

They state their opinions before they are even done giving the facts. Their commentary is quite racist as well but of if its from a minority saying it.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
HammerTime


Member Since: Sun Jan 07, 2018
Posts: 2,654




    Quote:
    Christian and not permuting of gays are not the same thing.


There's no permuting going on here. There aren't any rights being stripped, it's a private institution for like minded religious practitioners who have very solid reasoning for their position pertaining to gays. Nothing is being sold, this is not a business, and it's strictly volunteer attendance, lol. Frankly, it's scary that you question their rights on this. You use a vague description (i.e., permuting) without any elaboration, a common tactic among liberals.


    Quote:
    Quaker and Episcopal schools for instance have permitted gay parents and students for decades.


And they're idiots! Haha, how can anyone stay a Christian if their religious text has verses like THIS that they don't believe in?  I'll never understand how anyone can be comfortable with the contradiction; there's only one word to describe it: madness!

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (English Standard Version) - "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.


    Quote:
    IN catholic and Baptist schools, it sort of depends on the individual school.


And they're weak-minded idiots who can't handle feeling alone without latching onto a conventional religion. Strong-minded people (like me) see the text, and can live with the decision on being all in or all out.

Regardless, if you're all in, the 1st amendment protects you. Christianity is not just some new, minor religion. It's ancient, the most widely practiced, and its views against homosexuality are rooted since 2,000 years ago.


    Quote:
    Stating that parents have to be male and female isn't moral. It is at best neutral.


That's arguable between the religious and non-religious.


    Quote:
    While it is irrelevant, since her husband is the politician. However her husband is a politician. A public figure.

    What's more, they presumably have shared values, unless otherwise stated, and he is a heartbeat away form the most powerful office in the land.


So what? He hasn't broken any laws and is fully protected by the 1st amendment. In other words, he's perfectly law-abiding according to the United States Constitution, so his religious views are irrelevant.


    Quote:
    Those beliefs are fair game for teh knowledge of the American people.


Fair game in the sense that voters get to choose who they want as president. But attacking the rights of a religious institution for just practicing what its religious text says is right and wrong? That's not fair game.


    Quote:
    Personally, I though the wife must submit to the husband thing way werider


It's a Bible thing.


    Quote:
    No one is infringing on their religious beliefs. They are stating what they MAY be.


They are. They're saying that Pence's church has no right to discriminate against LGBTQ, and they define the "discrimination" as the church not allowing LGBTQ to be faculty members or part of the student body.


    Quote:
    Finally...
    If you will look on the CNN site, it is in the opinion section.


True, along with the rest of CNN's site which is one giant opinion section. #fakenews





Never Recovered After This
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
Butthead2


Member Since: Tue Oct 24, 2017
Posts: 431


I refuse to listen to Liberals or take anything they say as serious. That is a Christian School and they can keep out whoever they want. The Huffington post liberals are the same ones who said that crap about Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer.


Posted with Google Chrome 71.0.3578.98 on Windows 7
Silver Surfer


Member Since: Mon Jun 25, 2018
Posts: 276


Okay, I am really starting to think you are some giant parody.



    Quote:
    There's no permuting going on here. There aren't any rights being stripped, it's a private institution for like minded religious practitioners who have very solid reasoning for their position pertaining to gays. Nothing is being sold, this is not a business, and it's strictly volunteer attendance, lol. Frankly, it's scary that you question their rights on this. You use a vague description (i.e., permuting) without any elaboration, a common tactic among liberals.


I don't say any rights were bring strippied away. You said "a Christian school, which--who would have thought--does not permit LGBTQ in the student body"

Which could be read that you are saying the two are obviously connected. I simply pointed out that they are not automatically one and the same.

I apologize if I misinterpruted you.


    Quote:
    And they're idiots! Haha, how can anyone stay a Christian if their religious text has verses like THIS that they don't believe in? I'll never understand how anyone can be comfortable with the contradiction; there's only one word to describe it: madness!

    1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (English Standard Version) - "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.


Well Quakers are highly involved in community outreach. They were the backbone of the abolitionist movement. Believe in equity among all people, and that none are above any others. They stand against poverty.

All of which are the things that Christ preached. While as The book of Corinthians was part of a series of letters written by Paul, about his meditations on Christianity. He never actually claimed they were divinely inspired.

He is notably the most important figure of the New Testament, ho never met Christ. As you may recall, before his conversion Paul (then Saul) persecuted early Christians.

HE was more acquainted with Judaism, than the actual teachings of Christ. And even then it is debatable how much he was really connected.

For an actual Christ saying, about different interpretations of Christ..

Mark 9:38-40 "...we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbade him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part.

Christ never actually said anything about homosexuality.

However, if one does accept your bible quote as being on equal footing of Christ's, given that it was Paul (formerly Saul) who wrote it, and accepts that homosexuality is a sin, then how about this..

Romans 5:8
But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

or

Ephesians 4:32
Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.


    Quote:
    And they're weak-minded idiots who can't handle feeling alone without latching onto a conventional religion. Strong-minded people (like me) see the text, and can live with the decision on being all in or all out.

    Regardless, if you're all in, the 1st amendment protects you. Christianity is not just some new, minor religion. It's ancient, the most widely practiced, and its views against homosexuality are rooted since 2,000 years ago.


No it isn't a new religion. It has had 2,000 years of people corrupting the message of it.

A message of tolerance love and charity.

And as such, those 2,000 year old beliefs on homosexuality are based more on ancient politics with the Romans.

Both early Christians and Jews of the era had problems with the Roman Empire... mostly that they loved to persecute them.

This happened mostly by the upper crust (interesting fact, in Hebrew numerology, Nero Ceasar's numerical worth is 666), who were known for living a life of debauchery.

This was most likely done to shame the Roman Empire elites, and push a divide.

OF course, that theory.

Homosexuality actually also is banned in books of the Torah. However, most rabbis agree it was done as a measure to increase birthrate. as ancient Jews often found themselves in the minority.

Many Rabbis also see the Torah as a living document, inspired by God. And should be interrupted and debated.

While that is disputed, few synagogues meditate on it. And Judaism is older.

It is also important to remember that the bible was not written in Latin or English. Translation can become an issue.

Not to mention the fact that it was kept from the common man for most of its history. And was original copied by hand, by monks.

But the reality is, despite the attempts to distance themselves from Rome, things happened. Eventually the Roman Empire was converted. With that came Greek and Roman philosophy. Which states that things are absolutes.

Jewish teaching are often more about debate and nuance. Tradition matters a great deal, but also why one does the tradition. There is a reason why most synagogues look at the creation story as parable.

At the fact is, Christianity came from Judaism. And should be more aligned with those traditions of worship ad teaching, and not Greek and Roman.

And once again, Christ said nothing about homosexuality.

However, since here you seemingly profess to be a Christian (otherwise that "like me" insert was an odd non sequitur)...

you judged several branches of Christianity, as well as CNN...

Matthew 7:1
“Judge not, that you be not judged.

How much stuff do you have, because Christ actually said...

Luke 12:33-34
Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

If you... and a lot of members of the GOP... can pick and choose what to follow, why can't others choose not to follow the parts Christ didn't say, and seem to contradict his message of love?


    Quote:
    That's arguable between the religious and non-religious.


No it isn't.


    Quote:
    So what? He hasn't broken any laws and is fully protected by the 1st amendment. In other words, he's perfectly law-abiding according to the United States Constitution, so his religious views are irrelevant.


Just out of curiosity, did you take a civics class in High School?

The first amendment only states that the government can not enforce religius beliefs.

Itr does not mean a religion is free from scrutiny. It doesn't mean that people can't dislike someone for their religious beliefs.... or want them out of office for that.

Criticizing someone;'s belief's is absolutely fair game. It may not be fair. It is fair game.

And it is ESPECIALLY fair game to let the American people know about their decision makers.


    Quote:
    It's a Bible thing.


That doesn't mean I can't find it weird, slick.


    Quote:
    They are. They're saying that Pence's church has no right to discriminate against LGBTQ, and they define the "discrimination" as the church not allowing LGBTQ to be faculty members or part of the student body.


And unless they are passing a law, nothing is being infringed. You have the right to any opinion you want. It doesn't make it law.

The only thing the 1st amendment protects you from.

I can say Catholics have no right have a confessional. That doesn't mean much.


    Quote:
    True, along with the rest of CNN's site which is one giant opinion section. #fakenews


No, it is an opinion piece, because it is said in large letters "opinion" at the top.

I know, that is a level of deduction beyond most people. I'm gifted, I know. Not everyone can look in a corner.







Posted with Mozilla Firefox 52.0 on Windows Vista
Silver Surfer


Member Since: Mon Jun 25, 2018
Posts: 276



    Quote:
    This is how they present the news as well when I watch them.

    They state their opinions before they are even done giving the facts. Their commentary is quite racist as well but of if its from a minority saying it.


CNNN is certainly not sinless by any means, and I think I know what racism you mean (by any chance was the guy talking have a name that is also a fruit?)

There are a fair number of issues that I can name off hand.

However, it may depend on when you were watching, and the truth is WAY more messed up.

CNN, like Fox News, and MSNBC, all have opinion shows. Hannity claims this as important for him all of the time.

Now that in and of itself, is nothing.

The real issue is that they start at about 5:00 on all channels. The reason is that people like opinion more than just facts, so they situate all of their viewing to start just about the time most people get off work. Then it ends after they go to sleep.

Then it starts again in the morning, and closes about the time people go to work.

It is really pretty messed up. Information takes a back seat to ratings. it is actually legit, since they say it is editorials, but that doesn't make it right to have the majority be as such.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 52.0 on Windows Vista
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 2,734



    Quote:

      Quote:
      This is how they present the news as well when I watch them.



      Quote:
      They state their opinions before they are even done giving the facts. Their commentary is quite racist as well but of if its from a minority saying it.



    Quote:
    CNNN is certainly not sinless by any means, and I think I know what racism you mean (by any chance was the guy talking have a name that is also a fruit?)



    Quote:
    There are a fair number of issues that I can name off hand.



    Quote:
    However, it may depend on when you were watching, and the truth is WAY more messed up.



    Quote:
    CNN, like Fox News, and MSNBC, all have opinion shows. Hannity claims this as important for him all of the time.



    Quote:
    Now that in and of itself, is nothing.



    Quote:
    The real issue is that they start at about 5:00 on all channels. The reason is that people like opinion more than just facts, so they situate all of their viewing to start just about the time most people get off work. Then it ends after they go to sleep.



    Quote:
    Then it starts again in the morning, and closes about the time people go to work.



    Quote:
    It is really pretty messed up. Information takes a back seat to ratings. it is actually legit, since they say it is editorials, but that doesn't make it right to have the majority be as such.


Yeah it drives me nuts. Maybe I am viewing the past through rose colored glasses but I swear the news used to go a little like this:

1)They present the facts
2)They then state "This reporters take on the information"
3)Give their opinions and the reasons why

Simple and for me far more likely to sway me to their side if their arguments are logical.

Now its just 1/2 of #3...State their opinions

I think this is one reason why Trumps terms of FAKE NEWS comments resonate so strongly with people, even if not quite true.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 16,135


that may shock you, but it is not one of the main teachings of Jesus. And there are Christian schools that allow gay students, teachers and so on to be involved.

This school made a choice that it wanted to do that, but you are confusing the two.

Really, the whole religious out thing is a bit crazy to me. Given anybody could form a religion and try to get out of various rules or things they do not want. It is not like various private institutions held out with racist views longer for a reason.

It does a disservice to many Christians to hear that in the US being anti-LGBT is now a benchmark. That is clearly not so.


It is a bit of hypocrisy on Mike Pence, I do not know about his wife, to focus so much on this thing. His time as governor and what not. Jesus was about loving thy neighbor and helping people. Not using religious belief as a hammer to exclude people.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 64.0 on Windows 7
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 16,135


Well, that any the general drum beat that the news is lying to and the liberal media bias has been something that has taken hold in many people's mind.

Does not matter if it is not totally true. Trump's base is very much willing to ignore all news that is not supportive of Trump. This is unusual. There have always been people in corners that would back their guy and resist things.

It is on a different level now. Even if Trump outright lies, people do not care. So we have outright lies vs some mistruths and lies are winning because they are parroted enough.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 64.0 on Windows 7
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 16,135


it may mean homosexuality but it is not at all clear.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2015/08/clobbering-the-confusion-about-1-corinthians-69-10/

Other parts of it are clearer but not what the words that mean homosexuality are saying. It is more of a PR spin to take it as certainty, like those translations did.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 64.0 on Windows 7
HammerTime


Member Since: Sun Jan 07, 2018
Posts: 2,654




    Quote:
    I don't say any rights were bring strippied away. You said "a Christian school, which--who would have thought--does not permit LGBTQ in the student body"

    Which could be read that you are saying the two are obviously connected. I simply pointed out that they are not automatically one and the same.


You're trying to be clever by appearing baffled that a Christian school wouldn't permit gays to teach at their schools because a minority of Christians are okay that the two situations can exist. Yet if you don't deny that the vast majority of Christians believe the situations are incompatible, it's hardly believable to argue that it doesn't appear automatic for most.


    Quote:
    All of which are the things that Christ preached. While as The book of Corinthians was part of a series of letters written by Paul, about his meditations on Christianity. He never actually claimed they were divinely inspired.


Yes he did, he would actually spell out the instances when he wasn't divinely inspired. For your point to stand, you would have to show where he made such a disclaimer regarding homosexuality. If you can do that, I will gladly change my mind.

1 Cor. 7:12, "But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, let him not send her away."

1 Cor. 7:25, "Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy."

2 Cor. 11:17, "That which I am speaking, I am not speaking as the Lord would, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting."


    Quote:
    He is notably the most important figure of the New Testament, ho never met Christ. As you may recall, before his conversion Paul (then Saul) persecuted early Christians.


He never met Christ in the flesh, but as I'm sure you're aware, he claimed he heard the physical voice of Christ while on the way to Damascus, leading to his conversion. So clearly, he was, if you believe the Bible, in direct connection with Christ.


    Quote:
    HE was more acquainted with Judaism, than the actual teachings of Christ. And even then it is debatable how much he was really connected.


You're just making things up. Again, if you believe the Bible, Paul had a very good understanding and connection with Christ and was the man who brought the teachings to the gentiles (non-Jews). Further, your argument only adds confusion by suggesting that large parts of the Bible (the 13 books ascribed to Paul) were written by a man who had no business being part of the Biblical anthology. And if you're willing to go there, then other parts of the Bible are fair game, too, even the Gospels because some argue that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John didn't actually write them.


    Quote:
    For an actual Christ saying, about different interpretations of Christ..

    Mark 9:38-40 "...we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbade him, because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part.


That's a very, very vague verse that doesn't prove the required precision to answer the topic of homosexuality. And to prove it, here are some people that would meet your criterion of just having a different interpretation of Christ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism


    Quote:
    Christ never actually said anything about homosexuality.


Paul did.


    Quote:
    However, if one does accept your bible quote as being on equal footing of Christ's, given that it was Paul (formerly Saul) who wrote it, and accepts that homosexuality is a sin, then how about this..

    Romans 5:8
    But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

    or

    Ephesians 4:32
    Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.


Again, you're just throwing out vague, vague verses that can't possibly address the precision required on the question of a particular behavior's morality.


    Quote:
    No it isn't a new religion. It has had 2,000 years of people corrupting the message of it.

    A message of tolerance love and charity.


Balanced with discipline and justice, among others. Look, I'd appreciate if you can collect your thoughts and get to your points in a more succinct manner.


    Quote:
    And as such, those 2,000 year old beliefs on homosexuality are based more on ancient politics with the Romans.

    Both early Christians and Jews of the era had problems with the Roman Empire... mostly that they loved to persecute them.

    This happened mostly by the upper crust (interesting fact, in Hebrew numerology, Nero Ceasar's numerical worth is 666), who were known for living a life of debauchery.

    This was most likely done to shame the Roman Empire elites, and push a divide.

    OF course, that theory.

    Homosexuality actually also is banned in books of the Torah. However, most rabbis agree it was done as a measure to increase birthrate. as ancient Jews often found themselves in the minority.

    Many Rabbis also see the Torah as a living document, inspired by God. And should be interrupted and debated.

    Well there you go. Most Christians don't believe the Bible is a living document.

    While that is disputed, few synagogues meditate on it. And Judaism is older.

    It is also important to remember that the bible was not written in Latin or English. Translation can become an issue.

    Not to mention the fact that it was kept from the common man for most of its history. And was original copied by hand, by monks.

    But the reality is, despite the attempts to distance themselves from Rome, things happened. Eventually the Roman Empire was converted. With that came Greek and Roman philosophy. Which states that things are absolutes.

    Jewish teaching are often more about debate and nuance. Tradition matters a great deal, but also why one does the tradition. There is a reason why most synagogues look at the creation story as parable.

    At the fact is, Christianity came from Judaism. And should be more aligned with those traditions of worship ad teaching, and not Greek and Roman.

    And once again, Christ said nothing about homosexuality.

    However, since here you seemingly profess to be a Christian (otherwise that "like me" insert was an odd non sequitur)...

    you judged several branches of Christianity, as well as CNN...

    Matthew 7:1
    “Judge not, that you be not judged.

    How much stuff do you have, because Christ actually said...

    Luke 12:33-34
    Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

    If you... and a lot of members of the GOP... can pick and choose what to follow, why can't others choose not to follow the parts Christ didn't say, and seem to contradict his message of love?

    Just out of curiosity, did you take a civics class in High School?

    The first amendment only states that the government can not enforce religius beliefs.

    Itr does not mean a religion is free from scrutiny. It doesn't mean that people can't dislike someone for their religious beliefs.... or want them out of office for that.

    Criticizing someone;'s belief's is absolutely fair game. It may not be fair. It is fair game.

    And it is ESPECIALLY fair game to let the American people know about their decision makers.

    And unless they are passing a law, nothing is being infringed. You have the right to any opinion you want. It doesn't make it law.

    The only thing the 1st amendment protects you from.

    I can say Catholics have no right have a confessional. That doesn't mean much.


Eh, shut up.





Never Recovered After This
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
MysteryMan


Member Since: Fri Apr 28, 2017
Posts: 2,734



    Quote:
    it may mean homosexuality but it is not at all clear.



    Quote:
    https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2015/08/clobbering-the-confusion-about-1-corinthians-69-10/



    Quote:
    Other parts of it are clearer but not what the words that mean homosexuality are saying. It is more of a PR spin to take it as certainty, like those translations did.


Honestly as far as the bible goes...how many hands have re-written or re-interpreted it over time? It's a great work of fiction at this point even if it was the truth at one time.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 16,135


I agree with you. Just pointing out that folks that study this sort of thing for a living are unclear about some of the words that were used and what they mean.

To me, that makes it questionable that people would use the versus to just claim anything as an absolute reason.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 64.0 on Windows 7
HammerTime


Member Since: Sun Jan 07, 2018
Posts: 2,654






This is hardly satisfying for Christians who would be right to assume they were misled by the church, and that God allowed for believers to unjustly believe (for 2,000 years) through the church and translated Bibles that they were required to hold views against homosexuals.

But that's not what I'm arguing. I'm merely arguing that the Bible, in English, is pretty clear on its stance regarding homosexuality, and to force a Christian school to employ gay teachers violates the 1st amendment. And to attack Pence's wife for being a devout follower of the world's largest religion is a disgusting tactic employed by the Left. It is this type of rhetoric that eventually leads to a constitutional right taken away, which almost happened here:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html

"At the same time the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," Kennedy wrote, adding that the "neutral consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here."

"The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy said, adding to say that the case was narrow.





Never Recovered After This
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 16,135


I doubt Christians care much. Just like most people, most pick and choose what they like. The fact of the matter is that the book they are using as justification is not so iron clad as they would like to think that it is on the matter.

Unless they want to start supporting some contradictory things or things that would be considered odd in a modern context. One can easily pick on any person with a harsh anti-LGBT from within the Bible itself. Let alone outside of it. So it is not like their grounds are rock solid.

The second part is more important, although it is variable what religious expression allows one to get away with. In the example you initially gave about Pence, she is allowed to work at such a place. She is allowed to believe whatever she wants too.

But others would be expressing a First Amendment right condemning it too. Either from just a speech angle or from a religious freedom angle as well.

I just am of the mind that folks that try to use religion to defend their bigoted views should actually take the whole book into context, not just the very few passages they like. The book on the whole rarely mentions it.

Hell, Jesus said ""it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God". We hardly hear any of these people talk smack about the wealthy.





Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 64.0 on Windows 7
HammerTime


Member Since: Sun Jan 07, 2018
Posts: 2,654




    Quote:
    I just am of the mind that folks that try to use religion to defend their bigoted views should actually take the whole book into context, not just the very few passages they like. The book on the whole rarely mentions it.


Okay, since you're sharing your mind.. Was the bakery owner who refused to make a wedding cake for the gay couple a bigot? And in your opinion, should he have been forced to make the cake?







Never Recovered After This
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 16,135


You are mixing multiple issues. My post is pretty clear what I mean. It is inconsistent with the text with which the deeply held belief is kept.

It is picking and choosing a small part of the Bible to represent the faith of the whole. Not loving thy neighbor or anything else.

I know many that expose this view of gays and use the Bible also ignore all the various things Jesus said about greed, or how hard it is for a rich man to get into God's Kingdom or various other dictates. It is selective reasoning at its finest.

One that you are attempting to use now to muddy waters. The people that are using the Bible to go after gays as a tenant of Christianity are hypocrites. Pure and simple. And given that, draw what conclusions that you will.

He has the Constitutional right to believe it, but that does not change much. Even in that case in particular, the SCOTUS had a very narrow ruling that required both sides to be addressed fairly in considerations.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 64.0 on Windows 7
HammerTime


Member Since: Sun Jan 07, 2018
Posts: 2,654




    Quote:
    You are mixing multiple issues. My post is pretty clear what I mean. It is inconsistent with the text with which the deeply held belief is kept.

    So, I think he and anybody using the Bible as justification for that sort of view is being a hypocrite based on the teachings of Jesus. As I said above, Jesus never commented on homosexuality but made many comments about greed and economics. Things that are often celebrated under capitalism. Even a comment about it being nearly impossible for them to see the Kingdom of God. I imagine most conservative Christians are all about that and do not seek to accumulate wealth...

    So, yes. They are either horribly misled about things that define what it means to be Christian or they are using it as cover for things they already think. And the person may not even know they are doing it.


You only answered my first of two questions. For the first, that yes, you consider the baker a bigot. Now what about my second: Should the baker have been forced to make the cake?








Never Recovered After This
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 16,135


Except that is not what I said in that response. I think that view is bigoted. If he is as a person or not I cannot say but that view is. And that a mock religious justification was given.

You never addressed any of the points I have made really that are potential problems.

I am not sure you can force anybody to make anything for something else. The guy took his recourse and stopped making things for everybody. He deeply believed what he was doing but his religious grounding was flawed. Just like the one Kentucky clerk who decided that her religious belief was more important than the law was.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 64.0 on Windows 7
HammerTime


Member Since: Sun Jan 07, 2018
Posts: 2,654




    Quote:
    Except that is not what I said in that response. I think that view is bigoted. If he is as a person or not I cannot say but that view is. And that a mock religious justification was given.


So to be clear, a person can have bigoted views but not be a bigot? Correct?


    Quote:
    I am not sure you can force anybody to make anything for something else. The guy took his recourse and stopped making things for everybody. He deeply believed what he was doing but his religious grounding was flawed. Just like the one Kentucky clerk who decided that her religious belief was more important than the law was.


Your dancing around my question. Clearly, you can force businesses to serve and make things for people through state and federal anti-discrimination laws. So since you're so stubborn, let me narrow my question for you. Do you believe state and federal anti-discrimination laws should prevent wedding cake bakers from having a business if they refuse to serve homosexuals?







Never Recovered After This
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
Silver Surfer


Member Since: Mon Jun 25, 2018
Posts: 276



    Quote:
    You're trying to be clever by appearing baffled that a Christian school wouldn't permit gays to teach at their schools because a minority of Christians are okay that the two situations can exist. Yet if you don't deny that the vast majority of Christians believe the situations are incompatible, it's hardly believable to argue that it doesn't appear automatic for most.


I'm not baffled, I just don't believe the two are automatically the same.



    Quote:
    That's a very, very vague verse that doesn't prove the required precision to answer the topic of homosexuality. And to prove it, here are some people that would meet your criterion of just having a different interpretation of Christ.


I never claimed it had anything to do with homosexuality. It had to do with you calling other denominations, or groups fools and idiots for not following your view of Christianity.


    Quote:
    Paul did.


Didn't realize that Paul was Christ.


    Quote:
    Again, you're just throwing out vague, vague verses that can't possibly address the precision required on the question of a particular behavior's morality.


No mI am not.

Fist of all :God Shows love to all sinners," is not vague.

second the point is that even if you do view something as immoral or wrong.. a sin if you will... banning or excluding someone because of it is not inherently Christian.



    Quote:
    The first amendment only states that the government can not enforce religius beliefs.

    Itr does not mean a religion is free from scrutiny. It doesn't mean that people can't dislike someone for their religious beliefs.... or want them out of office for that.

    Criticizing someone;'s belief's is absolutely fair game. It may not be fair. It is fair game.

    And it is ESPECIALLY fair game to let the American people know about their decision makers.

    And unless they are passing a law, nothing is being infringed. You have the right to any opinion you want. It doesn't make it law.

    The only thing the 1st amendment protects you from.

    I can say Catholics have no right have a confessional. That doesn't mean much.



    Eh, shut up.



Wow, what a mature and well thought out response.

So, I will just take it that you know there was no first amendment violation.

And there wasn't.


I am glad I could teach you about basic civics. You are welcome.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 52.0 on Windows Vista
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 16,135


I want to cycle back before I go into your things, because I addressed some points of yours at the start that you did not really address much at all. You are quite good at changing a topic altogether into somewhat related but not the topic at hand.

Your initial points to Silver Surfer were that Christians have very solid reasoning for their beliefs. You go as far as to say that their religious text pretty much orders them to be that way. However, not all Christians are. I provided something questioning the verse you choose. You shifted the goalposts from their views being based on sound reasoning to what they believe.

So, your argument boils down to them being able to believe whatever they want to believe with whatever loose context they choose to believe it.

You also made a bunch of other claims about people that do not believe like you are weak minded idiots. A random judgement. Particularly considering the exact Bible quote you brought up was not translated that way until about 1946. Hardly 2000 years, like you were claiming.

There are over 2000 Bible versus on poverty and the poor. Only a handful on homosexuality. So any Christian defining the faith by that as a moral feature while ignoring the other teachers is acting shady.

Jesus himself never condemned it. The Old Testiment did. Hell, even arguing for the belief in traditional marriage from the Bible is bunk. If we take it at its word there is support for polygamy, marrying your rapist and so on. How often are those held up today as virtues?

So, you can change a subject wildly. Good for you.


As to your questions, which I will answer and not change the subject on you.

1. A person could. Just like any given person could have a racist, bigoted or sexist view and not be totally in that area. One could argue they are spectrums anyway and where you put the line with vary.

The moral of the story is there is not as much Biblical proof as you like to think there is or many Christians like to think there is. It is knocked in places, but there is more about acceptance and helping the poor and turning away from greed and so on than that.

Yet, you seem to prefer to support the point of view that allows one person to degrade another person. A person has the legal right to say what they want in the US but that does not mean they have a super sound argument for it. They can just pull text out and do it. And are able to rationalize it. That does not make it less wrong.


2. That is not true, really. A person could have stopped running their business and been done with it. You also answered the question. The only question for you is do you think a person's religious rights overrides somebody else's rights. I imagine that you do, given that you seem to find it pretty compelling in your response to SS.

I question at the core the reason why religious conservatives feel that way. The Bible has been used for numerous ends as a defense. This one is no different. People have had deeply held beliefs about horrible things and have corrupted the Bible to support it.

This is much less horrible than those but the current iteration, but I would love for somebody to remind these folks of the Bible's numerous other stances. Ones that I am sure you would be opposed to, but seem to support people using when they back your views.

The Bible is a contradictory book, but the teachings of Jesus are mostly pretty clear.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 71.0.3578.98 on Windows 10
HammerTime


Member Since: Sun Jan 07, 2018
Posts: 2,654




    Quote:
    I want to cycle back before I go into your things, because I addressed some points of yours at the start that you did not really address much at all. You are quite good at changing a topic altogether into somewhat related but not the topic at hand.


Because you and Silver Surfer ramble way too much and need to be more succinct. You cannot expect to hold a person's attention without getting to the point more quickly.


    Quote:
    Your initial points to Silver Surfer were that Christians have very solid reasoning for their beliefs. You go as far as to say that their religious text pretty much orders them to be that way. However, not all Christians are. I provided something questioning the verse you choose. You shifted the goalposts from their views being based on sound reasoning to what they believe.


Because it seemed irrelevant to me. It appeared that you were arguing that the original Greek texts in the New Testament could have been translated to mean something different than homosexuality. That is a debatable, complicated argument that you just can't expect most people to delve into. The vast majority of Christians will just accept the language that the Bible was given to them and trust that the translators of the time did a good faith effort to translate to the best of their abilities. Plus, the public is skeptical when others come 2,000 years later and only then start questioning what the Greek language really meant at the time. It comes across as an agenda to achieve a contradictory, desired outcome. People don't like that and are rightfully skeptical, so why should they be burdened with your argument? If they believe in the Bible's truth as written in English, they are morally justified and you don't seem to think so.


    Quote:
    So, your argument boils down to them being able to believe whatever they want to believe with whatever loose context they choose to believe it.


These are not loose texts. For example, the King James version had over 54 translators that were university graduates, many from Oxford and Cambridge. Other Bibles also have translators with impressive credentials. Why would people have reason to doubt the scholarly abilities that went into the translations?


    Quote:
    You also made a bunch of other claims about people that do not believe like you are weak minded idiots. A random judgement. Particularly considering the exact Bible quote you brought up was not translated that way until about 1946. Hardly 2000 years, like you were claiming.


Because it's so obvious that it was referred to before. Besides, you're an atheist, so I thought you would be quite happy that this is the case rather than arguing.

1 Timothy 1:9-10

King James Version (1611): "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine"


    Quote:
    There are over 2000 Bible versus on poverty and the poor. Only a handful on homosexuality. So any Christian defining the faith by that as a moral feature while ignoring the other teachers is acting shady.


That's not what we're arguing, though. You need to stay on point.


    Quote:
    Jesus himself never condemned it. The Old Testiment did. Hell, even arguing for the belief in traditional marriage from the Bible is bunk. If we take it at its word there is support for polygamy, marrying your rapist and so on. How often are those held up today as virtues?


It doesn't matter if Jesus didn't condemn it. Paul did, and I already made an argument in another thread of the connection between Paul and Jesus.


    Quote:

    As to your questions, which I will answer and not change the subject on you.

    2. That is not true, really. A person could have stopped running their business and been done with it. You also answered the question. The only question for you is do you think a person's religious rights overrides somebody else's rights. I imagine that you do, given that you seem to find it pretty compelling in your response to SS.


You didn't answer my question: In your opinion, should the bakery owner have been forced to make the cake or else have his business closed?


    Quote:
    I question at the core the reason why religious conservatives feel that way. The Bible has been used for numerous ends as a defense. This one is no different. People have had deeply held beliefs about horrible things and have corrupted the Bible to support it.

    This is much less horrible than those but the current iteration, but I would love for somebody to remind these folks of the Bible's numerous other stances. Ones that I am sure you would be opposed to, but seem to support people using when they back your views.

    The Bible is a contradictory book, but the teachings of Jesus are mostly pretty clear.


The teachings of the Bible and Jesus, in the Christian view, are one and the same. You're employing an underhanded tactic to carve the Bible into segments for belief, which is offensive to Christians and a non-starter.





Never Recovered After This
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
HammerTime


Member Since: Sun Jan 07, 2018
Posts: 2,654




    Quote:

    It is a bit of hypocrisy on Mike Pence, I do not know about his wife, to focus so much on this thing. His time as governor and what not. Jesus was about loving their neighbors and helping people. Not using religious belief as a hammer to exclude people.


There is no hypocrisy. If the Bible has verses regarding homosexuals and believers practice according to what the Bible teaches, there is no hypocrisy with respect to homosexuals. Refusing to employ homosexuals as Christian school teachers does not negate loving thy neighbor and helping poor people. Your argument is shallow and petty.





Never Recovered After This
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
Silver Surfer


Member Since: Mon Jun 25, 2018
Posts: 276



    Quote:
    Because you and Silver Surfer ramble way too much and need to be more succinct. You cannot expect to hold a person's attention without getting to the point more quickly.


I'll grant you, we can't all be as eloquent as, "eh shut up," and that really did say it all. That you have nothing to say.

As for the length, it is a habit of people who actually think on a subject. Don't worry, you'll get there one day.

Most importantly, I'm not sure you should be admitting that is too much text to hold your attention. I'm a little embarrassed for you.


    Quote:
    Besides, you're an atheist, so I thought you would be quite happy that this is the case rather than arguing.


Atheism doesn't automatically mean you hate religion, or that you don't have people in your life you care about who are religious, or that you respect the teachings of a religion (and not want them used for hate).

pardon me for speaking on your behalf Bd2999.


    Quote:
    That's not what we're arguing, though. You need to stay on point.


You're right, the discussion was about you being upset that an opinion section had an opinion.

Oh, right, and also that you believed first amendment violation had been made.

Which, you pretty quickly lost any ground on.

I made a side comment that hating gays was not inherently Christian, and when I listed denominations with schools that accepted gay people, you called them idiots.

You criticized their religious beliefs, the same thing you were upset about happening to Karen Pence.

You then got distracted, most likely because you thought it was an easier argument to win.


You just want to argue. Not discuss. Not have a conversation. Not even make a point about anything you do or don't believe.




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 52.0 on Windows Vista
HammerTime


Member Since: Sun Jan 07, 2018
Posts: 2,654




    Quote:
    Atheism doesn't automatically mean you hate religion, or that you don't have people in your life you care about who are religious, or that you respect the teachings of a religion (and not want them used for hate).


For you it does. You don't respect the Bible's teachings over homosexuality, or how believers are perfectly within their moral obligations to not employ gays as Christian teachers. You hate that, and you hate the people who hold this viewpoint.


    Quote:
    Oh, right, and also that you believed first amendment violation had been made.

    Which, you pretty quickly lost any ground on.


You're a liar, Silver Surfer, and you take pride beating up on strawmen. I never said this and now you're just using dirty tactics as a crutch for your weak arguments.


    Quote:
    I made a side comment that hating gays was not inherently Christian, and when I listed denominations with schools that accepted gay people, you called them idiots.


Like here, for example. Nobody said anything about it being okay to hate gays, just that there's nothing wrong if a Christian school doesn't want to employ gays as Christian teachers.

Your tactics are easily exposed, and if you keep it up, you'll just be dropped from my attention. As much as I don't care for bd2999's viewpoints, he never once used dirty tactics as a crutch to mislead others about my viewpoints.


    Quote:
    You criticized their religious beliefs, the same thing you were upset about happening to Karen Pence.


I criticized that they're weak-minded, that they don't have the mental strength to leave rather than stay but pick and choose which parts of the Bible they find acceptable. Such people cannot handle that there might not be a God and eternal life, so they latch onto whatever imperfect sacred text they can find, like a night light for bedtime.


    Quote:
    You then got distracted, most likely because you thought it was an easier argument to win.


Because your argument was so lousy to begin with. You have difficulties organizing your thoughts, you go on tangents, you write 10 pages that should be more succinct, and you blame others for your handicap.


    Quote:

    You just want to argue. Not discuss. Not have a conversation. Not even make a point about anything you do or don't believe.


Eh, shut up already.





Never Recovered After This
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
Trent Trueheart


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 793


I don't really want to get involved in this thread, but I'm curious to know which Christian denominations you find "weak-minded." Throughout history, Christians have argued over how to interpret the Bible and the best way to worship God, which has lead to many splits in the church. It seems to me that they all "pick and choose which parts of the Bible they find acceptable." Does that make most of Christianity "weak-minded"? I'm sure you believe the only Christians that aren't weak-minded are whatever denomination you belong to.


Posted with Mozilla Firefox 64.0 on Windows 10
HammerTime


Member Since: Sun Jan 07, 2018
Posts: 2,654




    Quote:
    I don't really want to get involved in this thread, but I'm curious to know which Christian denominations you find "weak-minded." Throughout history, Christians have argued over how to interpret the Bible and the best way to worship God, which has lead to many splits in the church. It seems to me that they all "pick and choose which parts of the Bible they find acceptable." Does that make most of Christianity "weak-minded"? I'm sure you believe the only Christians that aren't weak-minded are whatever denomination you belong to.


Many denominations may have different interpretations, but most don't pick and choose which verses to ignore.

When you have verses like this--

Leviticus 18:22 (ESV) - You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

--there is no interpretation about it. It's black and white and described as an abomination.

This is different than disagreements between, for example, Southern Baptists and Calvinists, who disagree on philosophical points, not textually translated words.

Calvinism, based on the teachings of 16th-century Protestant Reformer John Calvin, differs from traditional Baptist theology in key aspects, particularly on the role of human free will and whether God chooses only the “elect” for salvation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/southern-baptists-agree-to-disagree-over-calvinism/2013/06/11/d9ea4280-d2d5-11e2-b3a2-3bf5eb37b9d0_story.html?utm_term=.ecedcf05980e






Never Recovered After This
Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 10
1 2 3  >> All

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software