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

It is interesting to note that in Christian eschatology the apppearance of the antichrist comes before the second advent of Jesus, and in Islamic eschatology ( as far as I understand) the appearance of the Mahdi comes before the appearance of Al-Masih ad-Dajjal. So Christianity has the forces of antichrist opposing Jesus at His second advent, and Islam has the Mahdi (kind of like their Messiah) opposing their version of the false prophet who appears after, not before the Mahdi.

So it seems like the roles are reversed. Our Messiah is (if we go by Chronology of the two eschatologies) is their Dajjal, and their Madhi is similar (in chronology anyways) to what we commonly call the antichrist, (but who is actually more properly called the beast)

I'm not saying Islam is the future world religion of antichrist, but it is interesting how the two views are exact antithesis of each other. In the future world religion prophecied in the Bible, they may adopt a similar eschatology.

Wow. Respect.

Thanks. You know, I'm still looking into it and I have to admit that there is much more to it than what I posted. I am looking into the comparisons and contrasts, as I think it is an interesting study.

Actually as I was looking at it, you have the Mahdi followed by the Al Dajaal, and then ISA (the name moslems give to Jesus) descends from heaven to defeat the Al Dajaal. Nevertheless, the there are many ways in which Islamic eschatology is the antithesis or opposite of Christian eschatology.

For example, Christianity has Jesus coming to save the Jews from antichrist. IN Islamic eschatology, Isa fights against the Jews, who align themselves with Al Dajaal.

Considering God's promises to Abraham, the correct eschatology is certainly the Christian eschatology.

Christianity is pretty much picking and choosing parts of the Bible and trying to beat people over the head with it.

Hence, the issue we're having now with homosexuality.

First of all, just you and chs are mocking that analogy. At least you have a friend. Secondly, have you considered why it's not on the menu?

Yeah and spreading rumors and hate towards others is so Christian like. Respect LOL

Guess I am insane too then.

The Old Testament was the result of Adam's sin. God created laws to show man his sins, and further impossible rules to amplify the sins of man. Man sinned, and God used mans own nature against him to increase that sin exponentially. The only way out was not man's works, not sacrifices, nothing except the Grace of God would be enough. Man could sacrifice every animal on the face of the earth, and it would not be enough to cover even one man's sins.

The Bible, at its core, is a love story ..... the love of God for His creation. Man sins, and sins, and sins .... and God forgives and forgives. Sin was amplified due to these impossible rules, so that God's Grace could increase even more.

I was always one who thought that the New Testament was all that mattered. I was a Christian, so what did I care about the stories of those who came before Jesus. However, I have a new respect for the Old Testament as I have studied it further.

Look at it this way. I have no idea if you have children or not, but imagine that you were a father, and your children did whatever it is that you see as the most offensive a person can do. Now suppose they did it over and over again .... maybe not even realizing why it was so evil or offensive.

What would you, as a father do? Would you just tell them why things offend you, or would you try to help them to see why it is so?

That is what God did. He set rules that could, in many cases, only show man his own sin. Further, God is the only one who can overcome and forgive sin, but man, in that time, wanted to somehow do it for himself. It would be like a son who is 15 years old, to his father, who is a doctor, that he wanted to do the necessary open heart surgery on his mother. He might want to do it, and try really hard, but the simple fact is that he is woefully incapable of doing so. That is us with regards to sin. We cannot overcome sin on our own, no matter how hard we try. That is the point of all of those "stupid laws" .... t show man just how far he was fallen, and just how inadequate his efforts are when it comes to overcoming sin.

Plus, there were also other rules that God set, that were so far ahead of their times that it's just incredible. Sanitation was a God directive, and was a reason why Jewish camps avoided many diseases and plagues that struck other people. The handling and cooking of food was another. So many of those "stupid" rules were actually quite beneficial. Don't sleep with other mens wives. Why? Because genealogy was so vitally important to inheritance in those days. There are many other examples where a God given rule was something that many other cultures in the area did not follow.

My point is that God had to show man his sin, and had to let it sink into our thick skulls. He could have just commanded us to see our sin and turn to Him, but He also gave us free will. God loves us, each and every one of us, but He will not force anyone to come to Him. He will not force any of us to obey Him. He wants us to do so because we return the love He has for us.

I guess I would characterize it as he Old Testament being similar to a parent using tough love. Maybe the parent doesn't enjoy everything that he has to do to show his child the right way and the wrong way, but if that child is to grow up properly, then he has to learn the unpleasant lessons along with the pleasant ones.

That is what God did with the Old Testament. That was the lesson. The New Testament is for when we have learned the lessons of the Old Testament, and have realized that only God's love can save us, and that nothing we can ever do will be enough for us to do it for ourselves. There are some jobs that are so big that only God can handle them.

The Old Testament is not worthy of "mocking" when you understand just what it is. However, if you only have a perfunctory and passing knowledge of the Bible, in minor snippets, and without any context, then I can see why you might feel the way you do.

I think that you should read the Bible before you decide to mock it. Your doing so without reading it through is like me mocking calculus because I looked at a calc textbook once.

Would that kind of statement convince you that you are wrong?

Man, don't argue against disagreeable statements or people by being disagreeable.

A truly devout Jew would not allow pork in any business belonging to him. He would also not allow any non-kosher meats to be carried there. Just touching such things would be a sin for a Jewish person.

Comparing serving ham vs serving gays is false equivalence anyway. A better comparison would be a Christian serving gays versus a Muslim serving someone who is Jewish. Which is a real scenario I think could happen under this law Indiana passed.

And sometimes, like David vs Goliath one can no longer sit back on ones hands and hear the ignorant insults against ones God and not reach for a stone.

...and throw it at some broad who had sex before they got married.

Now that all this has been said, here's the law.

Religious freedom restoration act. Provides that a state or local government action may not substantially burden a person's right to the exercise of religion unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to the person's exercise of religion is: (1) essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and (2) the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest. Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding. Allows a person who asserts a burden as a claim or defense to obtain appropriate relief, including: (1) injunctive relief; (2) declaratory relief; (3) compensatory damages; and (4) recovery of court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.

I fail to see any discriminatory action this law might possibly condone. In fact, it looks to me that it more protects the religious from the government instead of protecting religious people from others.

No the language seems beefed up specifically to help in cases of business vs. individual claims, not business vs. govt.

See here:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arch...fferent/388997/

I think that there is a line between discriminating against a person, and disagreeing with their actions on a religious basis. I would have a problem being a pastor of a church, for example, and being forced to officiate a gay wedding, when the Bible says that marriage is one man to one woman for life. If I were a pastor of a church, would I invite a gay person into the congregation? Sure, we are all sinners, and they are no worse a sinner than I am. Would I stay away from the teachings of Jesus because I would not want to offend them, or want to take part in giving the appearance of approving of sin? No. That is the problem I have with this whole argument. We all have lines we will never cross. As a massively extreme example, would we help a child molester set up an event to meet small children? Of course not. Is that discrimination, or is it disagreeing with the behavior? Where do we draw the line in disagreeing with behaviors? How far down the line are we allowed to go, and who decides where that line is drawn? Isn't that what our personal morals are for? Do we have the right to force people to go against their personal morals? Who decides that?

So if interacting with black people goes against my moral code, do you think I should be able to refuse to seat blacks in my restaurant?

There are already religious protections for churches and individuals. I had three preachers refuse to marry me and my wife because we were living together before we got married, and that was within their right. It is not illegal for a preacher to refuse to officiate any wedding for ANY REASON.

The concern here is with for profit businesses being able to discriminate on the basis of religion, and that is where it conflicts with many anti-discrimination laws on the books.

Is Black a behavior?

We can debate whether or not gay is a behavior, but then again we can debate whether anything man does is a behavior, or a part of their personal core being.

Where does the line get drawn? No one seem s willing to answer that question.

So, the author of the article you posted has a problem with this wording: Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding.

It looks to me that someone has to prove their beliefs have been substantially burdened. In other words, they would have to refuse to serve a certain clientele consistently to prove that burden. If they don't do it all the time, they can't do it in certain situations.

I'm not sure where burden implies consistency or repetition.

As for the law itself, the key addition appears to be (emphasis mine): Provides that a person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a state or local government action may assert the burden as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding, regardless of whether the state or a political subdivision of the state is a party to the judicial proceeding.

Why is this important? Because freedom of religion is granted from the government to the people. Filing religious infringement has usually required it to be filed against the state. This law allows religious infringement to be filed on individuals/corporations.

This is all proving moot pretty fast anyway because of the proposed fix to the RFRA law that will prohibit businesses refusal to provide service on basis of sex/orientation/religion/etc. This *IMO* will gut the law as presented.

The line gets drawn when you violate someone's civil rights.

Refusing service to someone because they are gay or black is such a violation.

Making a bigot serve a gay or black person a cheeseburger in a public restaurant is not.

If the bigot has a problem serving a gay or black person in a public restaurant, maybe they're in the wrong line of work.