DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Gov. Mike Pence signs 'religious freedom' bill in private

Just saying those things doesn't make them true.

The Old Testament says that a woman having sex before marriage should be pulled from her home and stoned to death.

You said you believe that.

Now you're squirming and claiming I don't know what I'm talking about, when you should be a man and own up to the dumb thing you said.

Do you or do not not believe that sex before marriage should result in death by stoning, as per the Lord, your God?

And for the record, the Old Testament does prohibit mixing meat and dairy. I didn't bring that up to claim what Chrisitans can eat, but as a point that what you said was laughably stupid. If ou believe every word of the Old and New Testament, you're most likely insane and depraved. Tons of nut job stuff in there.

I will not waste my time teaching Scripture to the dead. I will however give you an example you may understand...

If you asked me two years ago if you should invest money in IBM, I would have said no, don't invest in IBM. If you ask me today, I may say Yes, now you should consider it.

Life progresses and so does Christianity.

I like that whenever you get cornered by some ridiculously stupid thing you said, you try to spin it like you don't want to waste time explaining things to the ignorant. It's cute.

Simple yes or no here, don't need to take time to explain. You said you believe every word, old and new, of the Lord, your God.

The Lord, your God, said in the Old Testament that gays and women who have sex before marriage should be stoned to death.

Do you believe that gays and women who have sex before marriage should be stoned to death? Yes or no?

I am not surprised you didn't comprehend my example. Enough time wasted on the ignorant.

That's not an answer.

Yes or no?

You said you believe every word of the Lord, your God - old and new. Now you're dodging and deflecting from the stupidity of that statement.

Yes or no?

Yes, it does say that. But it also says in Leviticus that wearing clothing made of 2 different materials is an abomination. Breeding 2 different animals is an abomination. So is growing 2 different kinds of plants in your garden/field.

Wait, i know...those are just old silly Leviticus laws. But apparently the part about not "lying with another man" is still perfectly valid?

Funny how Christians tend to focus in on only certain Laws and not EVERYTHING. Classic cherry-picking.

And the blunt truth is that homosexuality has always been the one they focus on the most because it allows rationalized bigotry.

Jesus never said a thing about gays. All he said was to love each other. Help each other. Clothe each other. Feed each other.

To me, I don't care that they have this law allowing this. That's their choice. I'll let my maker judge them on how they treat other people.

Yes you did. You completely condoned that type of behavior with your "They can say "I'm sorry, sir, but we're terribly overbooked right now and can't take the job."" statement. You also apparently think that openly bigoted people deserve to be sued. You also overlook the problem that if you discuss business with a person in the first place, you are obviously not overbooked and in a position to refuse business for that reason. Which would you prefer, the open bigot or the hidden bigot? At least you know who one of them really is.

If these Christian businesses would start refusing gay customers, you'd be screaming your head off over them using the excuse you just provided. I'd rather those people be openly bigoted so I don't do business with them in the first place.

On that note, I have also noticed businesses like Apple have come out against the law in Indiana. Doesn't apple sell products in places like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and other anti-gay countries? I also like hypocrites to identify themselves.

Just as an aside, as I seem to hold the same position as Erik and Voleur among others in this thread PDR.

I'm not arguing that the failure of openly bigoted businesses is a grand tragedy. I would rather live in a world where people accepted others.

I'm asking for people to accept that violence is not a solution. That is all. To renounce violence as a solution to problems. To renounce violent action against non-violent offenders. To favor moral condemnation, peaceful protest, business ostracism, and making rational arguments.

This is how you deal with addictions. Whether it be the drunk addicted to drinking or the religious person addicted to fantasy. You ostracize the behavior and you don't enable them. But you don't arrest them, you don't fine them unless they are hurting others. When the junkie mugs someone to get his hit of smack, you arrest him. But we all know he isn't going to beat his addiction without emotional and logical guidance. Violence only hides the symptoms of the dysfunction.

I'm asking for the rational people to stop advocating violence. Even if it means other people are irrational. Put down the gun, stop arresting people, stop threatening people with fines and arrests if they aren't aggressing against people. Stop being addicted to power and controlling others.

I'm not perfect in this regard myself. My desire to control other's viewpoints in this thread is evidence of that. But I am not willing to arrest anyone for disagreeing with me.

The world is cruel. People are raised very very harshly. They lack empathy and they aren't shown sympathy. They develop all kinds of coping mechanisms. Whether it be clinging to comforting beliefs, comforting drugs, social status, or power over others. These all come into place as a refuge to manage the emotional issues we all have. We have some ways of dealing with that as a society. I for one believe the evidence points towards arguing strongly for people to care about eachother and to raise their children tenderly and with interest. To raise a generation that doesn't need comfort from a bible or from a bottle.

I apologize if this comes too personal for you since you've shared intimate details of your life. And I don't mean to exploit that to win an argument. I really wish you well and apologize for being harsh in this thread to you and others. My desire to be right and to prove others wrong is a weakness of mine. I'm sorry. The core of my message is arguing from a place of kindness and sympathy for other's mistakes and illusions. Coming in guns ablazing and insulting people isn't a coherent way to do that and I lack a lot of integrity in the way I approach discussions and in many areas of my life right now.

I just really wish people would stop arguing for violence in this world. I really really do. I wish people would see the government for what it is. I wish people would see religion for what it is. I wish people cared more about eachother. I wish everyone was raised peacefully without yelling or hitting or neglect. I wish we didn't need comforting illusions, substances, and social mechanisms. I really honestly do.

I didn't condone it.

I said they were free to do it.

You can tell someone you can't serve them because you're overbooked. You can't tell them you refuse to serve them because they're black.

Now, if it can be proven in a court of law that 'overbooked' was a lie in the name of refusing to serve a black man, then, yes, you'll face damages.

My point was, this isn't a case of people avoiding personal discomfort. This is people trying to make an ignorant and bigoted political point.

This was a horrible analogy from the start. Don't blame someone for making fun of it.

From which side? I think that pizza place was targeted by the reporter, as he knew they were a Christian business. That pizza place has been run out of business for a belief, not an action. I also think others can easily be targeted because of their religion, and thereby be victims of the current mob mentality.

Only to a few people who want to point out that everyone is not devout in their religion.

jc

I don't think it is in a business' interest to lie to avoid discrimination. But I don't think this law in Indiana and other states is good either.

I always think of Matthew 7:1 when it comes to matters of religious freedom and bigotry: "Judge not, that you be not judged."

What sort of message are Christians sending when they say they want to isolate and block themselves off from homosexuals? The pressing example is Memories Pizza in Indiana. The owner said that if they were told to place an order to cater a gay wedding with pizzas that they would say no, we aren't doing that. We don't agree with your practices. I think Jesus would not only cater the wedding, but use it as an opportunity to bring people closer to Him through his actions. I don't think Jesus would say "nah you're gay, stay away from me and my beliefs."

Two hundred years ago James Calvert and John Hunt went to Fiji to preach the Lord to cannibals. Cannibals! I wonder if that pizza owner in Indiana would undertake such a feat, or if they would write them off. Let the cannibals burn in Hell.

A business came out and said "yeah, we're going to violate someone's civil rights, if it comes to it.

I fail to see the travesty here.

No, it was a pretty awful analogy across the board.

You - quite literally- tried to equate refusing service to a gay or black person because they are gay or black with someone going into an establishment and demanding something that isn't even on the menu.

Why did you have to tell him? I was trying to see how long it would take him to notice... My guess was 3 days.

I am not quite sure how you got that out of what I wrote.

You constantly and consistently demonstrate that you truly do not understand the teachings of Jesus. I might, respectfully, suggest that you read the entire Bible before you try to pick and choose snippets to try and beat people over the head with, especially when those snippets may not truly support your position at all.

No, I tried to equate someone demanding something from a business that won't handle that substance due to a religious belief. But I can also see why someone closed minded wouldn't see that, as you can only see the one side of the argument.

That was the point of you analogy. That's what you were trying to say, but it didn't work out because this hypothetical situation only makes sense in your brain. The pizza place down the street won't cook my mexican food, not because they're racist (though they might be, I have no idea about the owner's philosophy on race), but because they don't offer that good (Mexican food) at all.

Again, your analogy fails because it makes no sense, not because I have tunnel vision.

I'm also fairly sure those religious businesses don't want to cater gay weddings because they believe they are complicit in what they consider a sin. How is that different? Christians eat ham, devout Jews will not. If I were to hire them to cater a Christian wedding, and they refuse to serve ham due to a religious conviction and refuse my business, are they not being discriminatory? I find your analogy about Mexican and pizza to be foolish, as there is no religious overtones to that argument.

It's easy to cherry pick when its obvious you have no idea what your talking about PDR. Your smart in many things but not here.

1. Those are Old Testament Laws, the Laws of the Prophets which was fullfilled and replaced by the New Covenant of Jesus.

2. The Old Testament Law of the Prophets was harsh INTENTIONALLY. its impossible for any man to not break the law. This was done purposely by God as the law was intended to be a tudor(a teacher) to drive mankind to accept the salvation of the Messiah when his appointed time to be born had come. To make mankind thankful for the gift they were going to receive. To give them incentive to accept Christ instead of trying in futility to abide by a law that was impossible for man to keep. Only one person ever lived that never violated the law, and he was more then just a simple man, and that was Jesus.

So if you have actually read the Bible, the books of Isiah, etc you would know the Law was insanely hard to follow intentionally and sounds absurd today purposely to help us come to accept the Messiah.

As for being stoned to death for this, and that, yes it sounds ridiculous to us "Today".

We have been living under the Grace of Jesus for centuries, we are spoiled in that regard, we have no idea what it was like to live under the times before The New Covenant, we have no idea what real hard times actually are.

The life of the tribe, the unity of the people, a strict way of living was required back in those days as the Israelite were surrounded on all sides by people that wanted their heads on a pike. Things were set up by God in a specific manner to ensure the succes and survival of his people, to ensure they would do what needed to be done to survive.

Honestly, folks really just need to shut up when it comes to pointing out how ridiculous they perceive the Old Testament Law to be. Its easy to point your finger and say such things when you have a multitude of grocery stores right down the street, easy access to abundance of water, a stable roof over your head, not having foreign people hunting you day and night wanting to kill not only you, but your entire tribe. Stop putting a modern spin on a Law that was written before Christ was born to deal with things in a different time period.

Jesus amended the Law, the New Covenent is what we live under now. If you want to make any conversation concerning the Bible, please use the New Covenant which is what is relevant since that is the law we are currently under as Christians.

Some day you are gonna need that breath you just wasted.

This isn't about the teachings of Christianity. Someone jokingly asked if 40 was an Old Testament guy (the joke being that the OT is particularly insane nonsense). He said he believed every word - old and new - of the Lord, his God.

Clearly, that's a crazy statement, as the Old Testament is full of insane nonsense, where a litany of things are to be punished by horrible death.

When one says "I believe in everything the Old Testament says", they should and will be mocked for it.

Classic Stupidity!
Your questions just make you look more and more ignorant. Please Please educate yourself!

PDR say...

Duh, 40 say sun rises in da east, but who turn it on each morning? Answer 40! Don't avoid the question! Do God or do God not turn on da sun each morning? Simple question, answer she! Yes or Know 40?

They're not refusing to serve ham. It's not a good they offer. Wal Mart will not cater a gay wedding, not because they believe gay people are sinful, but because they don't cater weddings*

*I have no idea if Wal Mart caters weddings, I'm just assuming they don't.

Your analogy fails because you don't know what goods and services mean.

Again, attempting to paint others as lacking in comprehension doesn't really work effectively when you've spent months demonstrating that you have a tenuous grasp of the English language.

Remember the thread where you (incorrectly) assumed people were telling you that your quiz for high school students was biased, and you kept copying and pasting the site's about us section over and over, attempting to cite their claim to be independent as "proof" refuting something no one was arguin? That went on for like 5 pages.

There are numerous threads on this board that demostrate your inability to grasp simple concepts, let alone be able to argue them. This makes your attempts to paint others as clueless as more of a joke on you than the other way around.

Very good. The first step to ending ignorance is for you to change the subject from something you are clueless about to personal insult in which you excel!
Excellent.

What subject would you like to stay on?

Thus far we have "we were God's favorite country when we had slaves, but gays make him mad'?

Or 'I believe every word of the Old Testament'?

Really, you have no clue whatsoever. Jews and Arabs wouldn't carry ham (if they were going to be that devout about it) based on their faiths teachings to begin with.

His analogy fits here perfectly.

I agree 100% with this.

And no where does Jesus say anything about being gay. He just says to love and help your fellow man.

I don't understand why this message isn't preached more by conservative Christians.

Wow. That was one impressive post! I agree 100%. Well said.

His analogy compared refusing service to gays or blacks because they are gay or black with going into an establishment and demanding something not on the menu.

What about that analogy seems perfect to you?

That was awesome. In the laughable sense.

So much time wasted on one book.

No it doesn't. It's true that they don't serve ham because of their faith, but they're not refusing service to a select group of people because of that.

I'm assuming you're just a painter and do not offer a hitman service on the side. I assume you don't have a hitman service for a multitude of reasons, but one of those is because it would go against your belief in Christ.

Assuming all that is true if I came to you as a gay man and asked you to kill someone for me it's because you don't offer that service. If a straight man asked you to kill something, your answer would still be, "No." This is neither religious nor gay discrimination. It's just something you don't do. You do not offer that service. True, your religion does play a part of that decision, but you're not discriminating against anyone.

Now if a gay person asked you to paint his house and you refused (and I'm not saying you would), that would be discrimination. You offer that service and are now not offering it to a group of people.

That's the difference. I hope I could explain that well for you.

Actually, I made an analogy on a religious refusal and equated it to another religious refusal. I also understand that you will argue that point forever, as you are trying to change the subject and get me off point, and you are also closed minded. You refuse to see why someone would refuse a service as such, because of your apparent bigotry against Christians.

"People have to serve blacks in restaurants? What's next? What happens if I got into Home Depot and demand "Caddyshack" on VHS? Is Home Depot going to have to start carrying Caddyshack on VHS?"

You made an analogy comparing refusing to serve blacks or gays with someone going into an establishment and ordering something that establishment doesn't have on the menu.

People aren't mocking it because of a bias. They're mocking it because it's void of logic.

Not serving someone ham at a kosher Jewish place isn't religious refusal. It's refusal based on lack of inventory.