DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Religious Freedom.

[quote]I've already schooled y'all over. and over. and over again why, with facts. Yet y'all dodge the issue like you're playing with AP in Madden. /quote]


First off, God doesn't play favorites and those people (I say that because I'm not going to feel guilty or pay a penalty for something someone did several decades ago) couldn't do what they did.

If there were prophets operating in America during the time of slavery (perhaps there were, but they were called ABOLITIONISTS!) they would've been denouncing slavery and warning of judgement to come (JUST LIKE THE ABOLITIONISTS DID!).

God doesn't move on our timeline, shoot he even left the Israelites in slavery for 400 years, but then judged the Egyptians when he set them free.

I would say God was being patient hoping that slave owners would've actually read his word and saw what he was really saying rather than twisting it to make excuse for what they were doing.

Obviously, slave owners didn't get with the program and our nation was judged by the Civil War.

But what about gays? The Bible says that homosexuality is an abomination. Sorry you don't like that. But that's what it says.

The things racists did to oppress are not supported by the Bible.

Not affirming what the Bible calls a sinful lifestyle is.

What about other sins? Trouble is, how would one know? Is the person entering a place of business asking for something specifically affirming their sin?

There are hundreds of bakers, photographers and other such people who would be happy to serve you regardless of whatever, I find it very disingenuous when a gay couple brings a lawsuit against a business owner just because they didn't want to work with them. People are losing everything they've ever worked for just because you got your feelings hurt? Unacceptable.

Also, after decades of 'you can't legislate morality' when it comes to ripping a baby's brain out the back of it's skull, you all want to get 'moral'?

Two faced.

Tell me swish, does this response sound like a dodge to you? I noticed that no one on your 'side' of the argument didn't respond to this post in the other thread, so I've brought it over here.

How 'bout you do it now. And please, answer all of it-don't just cherry pick it like you and PDR normally do.

Gay person gives $20.00 to the pizzeria in Indianna...

Well, some of you are as 'tolerant' as you say.

Yes, it did say that, in the Old Testament. We already went over how the law changed when Christ came to earth to be sacrificed for our sins. For some reason you keep going back to Old Testament laws, even though those laws were done away with by the sacrifice, on the cross, of Jesus Christ. Read the Bible, and you will see how things changed when Jesus came to earth to be our sacrifice. I realize that you prefer to pull out bits here and there to use ... but you use them out of context, and you use things that have changed. It would be like arguing against a secular law that was changed decades ago. You can do so .... but it's kind of useless.

Contrary to the beliefs of some, not all Christians hate gay people. (and I will admit that some others definitely dos eem to) Personally, I don't worry about a person being gay ..... however, the Bible says that marriage is between one man and one woman. To me, that means that marriage is one man to one woman, period. Those are the words of Jesus, and thus, to me, they are absolute law.

Others disagree. That's fine. I disagree with a lot of people on a variety of subjects. I am not going to pretend that the Bible says something else, because I am afraid that some people will not like what it says.

Gay is no more, r less, a sin than any other sexual sin. I would not celebrate a man cheating on his wife. I would not celebrate a rape. I would not celebrate a man filming a pron film. I would not celebrate a man and woman living together outside of marriage. These all run contrary to the teachings of both the Old and New Testaments.

Anyway, back to gay marriage and such. I don't care about a person being gay. I disagree with their lifestyle, and their sexual expression, but I do not hold it against them. I will do my best not to do anything that would appear that I was approving of that I see as a sinful lifestyle, but I also would never throw someone out for being gay.

There is a difference, however, between accepting a person even though they are are gay, and saying that their behavior, which runs contrary to the teachings of the Bible, is right. To force people to have to act as though that is the case is legislating morality, which so many have railed against throughout the years, only in reverse. I can accept that people have the rights to do as they see fit in regards to their sexual lives, without agreeing that it is right. This is another difficult comparison, but they all are ...... but it is like knowing a problem gambler ...and while you love the person, their behavior is unacceptable to you. Or it is like knowing a girl who is having sex out of marriage, and who has multiple children to irresponsible men ..... and while you may care for her as a human being, you cannot in any way support her behavior. There are many other examples, and people treat them with varying degrees of discrimination and acceptance. We do not all agree ont he behaviors of others, and we never will. We should never be forced into accepting the behaviors of others, no matter our personal beliefs. Why have personal morals if we simply give them away to the world as times change?

Now, I have asked this before, but whose rights are more important? If a gay couple asks a bakery to make a cake for their joining ceremony, should that person be forced to do so even if doing so implies approval of what they see as a sinful relationship? Should they be forced to make a cake for a young, unmarried couple who live together outside of marriage even if they disagree with such a relationship? Should they be forced to make "divorce cakes", even if they believe that divorce is wrong?

If so, then why? We have a right to religious freedom in this country, and we must be able to separate behavior from the person, and disagree with the behavior while still accepting that the person is a human being, and worth respecting. If we are not free to do so, then we might as well give up now, because we will have to accept any and all behaviors eventually. If our morality is based upon "people want to do it", then we are on a fast track right off the edge of the cliff.

Why come up with laws that negatively impact a person due to genetics encoded upon conception? An overwhelming body of scientific evidence supports that people are born attracted to who they're attracted to.

Go ahead and "choose" to start living life as a gay man. Tell me how easy it is to just "choose" and be happy. You know that uncomfortable feeling you get? Now you know what most individuals identifying as homosexual feel like when they're told "oh, just choose to be straight! It's not that hard! I choose to be straight."

Saying "Well, Satan entered the womb and screwed them up" is way too disingenious of an argument to hold up against Occam's Razor. As for the "go pray the gay away crowd!", I leave you with this: Reparative therapy to "fix" individuals leads to dangerous outcomes.

We are not responsible for our urges, or for our temptations ... even Jesus was tempted .....but we are responsible for our behavior.

People have all kinds of ingrained urges. Some are more apt, for example, to become an addict if they try drugs. Others may be abusive in their inner core. Some may be unable to handle gambling, and lose everything.

Just because we feel something does not make it right. If we are Christians, then we are to surrender ourselves to the Holy Spirit, and do our best to turn away from sin.

Many people have ingrained desires that are unacceptable in polite society, or downright illegal. Simply because people feel that their feelings and behaviors are who they are does not mean that this is the way it has to be. No one wants to talk about other options .... but a person can choose to simply not pursue every urge they have. I know, that's "mean" ..... but it really isn't. We all face temptations of one sort or another, and even, on occasion, face temptation about things that we would never consider on a rational basis ... but they do come to us anyway. Temptation is not an excuse for sin. Jesus was tempted with far more than any of us will ever face. He managed to withstand His temptation. God gives us the power to do the same, if we trust in Him.

Some people are attracted, sexually, to children. We do not excuse the behavior of a 30 year old man when he sexually abuses a small child. We should not do so either. However, one can argue that such urges are part of that person at their core, because who would, in their right mind, do such things if they were in full control of their behavior? (especially given the illegal nature of such things) Others are predisposed towards violence. Others still are predisposed to addiction, and the behavioral issues that often go along with such a curse. We can feel compassion for their struggle, while not excusing their behaviors.

These are extreme examples, but the point is there. Just because someone feels a certain way in their core does not mean that their feeling is proper, moral, or appropriate according to the Lord. You ask us to approve of things that the Bible tells us are not proper. Many of us simply cannot do so. We love those who sin, just as Jesus did, but we do not love, nor approve of that sin. This has become a "gay only" kind of debate, but adultery, cohabitation, pornography, sex outside of marriage, divorce, and other sexual sins are all included in this range of sins. Hate the sin, but love the sinner is an axiom, but it is appropriate. We cannot confuse blind acceptance of sin with true love for another. Blind acceptance of sin may make a person feel good now .... but has consequences later.

It is my right to feel this way. You probably feel differently, and that is your right. The Constitution allows me the right to my religious beliefs, and that includes the right to separate sexual orientation from the behavior a person exhibits. It allows me to speak out against rampant and abusive sexuality, that damages people and families in so many ways. Other people feel that this is a prudish way of looking at the world. That is their right.

Today we are "free" to do as we please without moral implications in so many ways, and families lie in shambles, sexual irresponsibility rules in so many lives, and so many use drugs, pornography, and so many other such diversions to escape the pain of the world. Do we try to return to morals that restrain such behaviors as a way to help heal so many of these problems? No, we are expected to simply excuse and allow more and more behaviors that go against the teachings of the Bible, and more traditional morality. (which, granted, has always had holes in it .... because we are human, and sinful in our natures) We should be more accepting of people, in all forms, but that does not mean blind acceptance of sin as well. We should help the sinner, not encourage their sin.

You seem to be under the impression that society at large should give credence to the rules and laws of your ancient book of fairy tales, and work to accommodate them.

It doesn't work that way. Society isn't a New York City subway car. The crazy person doesn't get their way.

You're free to believe that homosexuality is a sin. You're free to express that view. No one can take those rights from you.

But it more or less ends there. You're not entitled to ask the society at large to bend over backwards to create laws reflecting your outdated superstitions. You're not entitled to be taken seriously, nor are you entitled to violate the civil rights of others.

Laws are rooted in logic and reason. Not baseless comparisons of homosexuality and pedophilia (which is a great example of why society is taking you less seriously as it moves towards enlightenment).

I understand your confusion Orange, so let me explain. I DO NOT think religion (based on ancient beliefs of supernatural beings and fairytale LIKE stories told by men who were not long out of caves) is appropriate to base modern laws upon. HOWEVER, I do support everyone's right to religious freedom and would not expect anyone to take part in a religious ceremony that was against their beliefs. As a matter of fact, if I were gay and you were a business owner that did not want to provide me a service based upon me being gay, I would not want to give you ANY business. That's what you don't get. I understand the views and DO think a business should be able to reserve the right to refuse service to anyone based on beliefs.

I also pointed out that this is a slippery slope. Because right now it's GAY UNIONS that are the focus, but someday soon it could be Christians, Muslims, or Jews... It could be Blacks, Whites or Hispanics... It could be the Elderly, Young, the Poor or the handicapped that become the target of LEGAL BIGOTRY.

It happened in Germany. It has happened throughout History as a matter of fact. SO when I say modern politics is no place for religion or that this is a slippery slope, that is what I mean.

Before the Equal Rights movement in the 60's, Blacks (mostly in the south) were treated like Gay Couples are being treated now. It was legal to be black, everyone knew some black people and as long as black people kept to themselves and didn't cause any disturbances they were able to go about living their lives. BUT the constant fear that they might draw the ire of a bigot or a group of bigots, only to be harassed or possibly killed was a fact of life.

This caused a segregation of races in most parts of the country. In places like Harlem where a black business owner could find opportunity, Black communities thrived. In places throughout the deep south were Jim Crow kept blacks from seeing opportunity, most blacks lived in terrible poverty.

It's been 60 years since the Equal Rights laws were enacted and we still see black people being denied opportunity, being harassed and many living a lower standard of life due to bigotry. The laws that forced desegregation, in my opinion, done more harm than good. Given equal opportunities in an all black communities (without race based bias toward the individual) most black people would be better off today.

Rather we like it or not, we are a nation of communities. Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, LGBT, Heterosexual, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Atheist, Religious, Scientific, Artistic, Rich, Super Rich, Middle Class, Lower Class, Working Class, Poor... the list of differences, cultural diversity, religious diversity, economic diversity, etc.; they just go on and on.

So as a nation of such diversity can we even imagine a world that allows a LAW which makes any form of bigotry, bias, denial of opportunity, segregation, refusal of good and services or any other such notion (based primarily on the differences in peoples culture or beliefs) legal?

I'm an Atheist, should I have the right to LEGALLY BAN everything religious in my world, no. Should I have the right to avoid everything religious in my world, yes if I choose to do so. Should I be forced to except religion and take part in it, absolutely NOT.

This is a slippery slope. Any attempt to legislate this has the potential to alienate somebody. I believe and support some of the arguments on all sides. But it does not change my view that politics or legislation should be in anyway based on religious views. Religion came from caves, and in my opinion that is where it belongs. If you feel somehow enlightened by your religion, then more power to you and good for you. BUT don't try to make any part of it law.

Also as an Atheist, you should understand, I don't hate Christians, Muslims or Jews. I simply don't believe in religion. Telling me what the Bible says we should do, is the same as telling me what the author of a Dick and Jane book says we should do. The bible (just like a Dick and Jane book) has some quality moral lessons, but it's also full crap about many other things (I'm sure Jane would agree).

God sees sin as something very wrong and destructive to ourselves and to our relationship with Him. No one can enter Heaven while in sin.

God sees sin as such a serious matter that He has always, throughout time, demanded blood as atonement. It is the only way to achieve reconciliation of God and humankind. Throughout the days before Jesus the people of God sacrificed animals and birds as atonement for sin.

Today, we Christians celebrate the ultimate atonement for our sins in the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ.
First Peter 3:18 tells us, “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit.”

So God wanted the streets to run red with the blood of sinners, until his son, who was born to a virgin, was murdered and rose from the dead? And then the sacred, infallible text of the Old Testament became moot?

I think I understand now. Here I was thinking it was all a bunch of arbitrary fantasy, when actually it all makes perfectly logical and rational sense.

That's a great statement. Silenced by anyone on this thread? I think not. Some of us are simply intelligent enough to know when to stop banging our heads. Others, not so fortunte.

+1

Should we base laws off of innumerable amount of belief systems that possess little to no actual evidence they're the "true" religion? Or should we base laws off of scientific principles?

Nowhere did you attempt to refute the scientific findings about the link of genetics and attraction, or the damaging "pray the gay away" reparative therapy.

If one is asked to make a logical or reasonable fact-based argument as to why homosexuality is a detriment to society that warrants suppression, without relying on the notion of sin or the Bible, they are left with nothing, which is precisely why such notions have no place in the arena of rational or critical thinking.

Yes, it is much more intelligent to hide and cling to your beliefs. I know from experience that a true believer in any religion is seldom swayed by fact or science; with the great power of the unseen, unheard and unproven to back up your arguments, you are right in everything you say and the winner by default.



Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Is this the same intelligence that gave us such thoughtful gems as:



Also, if you're going to talk about how you're intelligent, and others aren't, it helps to spell the words that make up such declarations correctly.

Speaking of the "ancient book of fairy tales", are you ever going to revisit your "challenge" thread and provide the essay you've been working on? Or did I miss that?

I'm curious as well. It was to be a thesis, but I forget the descriptive word used just prior to "thesis".

From the Cross...

THE FIRST WORD

"Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do."
Gospel of Luke 23:34

So says the person that wrote this:

(first post of the "pdr's olive branch/challenge" thread.

Ah - it was to be a "considered" thesis. Back in January.

Probably not any time soon.

I've got the file on my work laptop but lost track of everything when I decided to hoover cocaine like an aardvark for a spell.

Once things calm back down and I get my house in order I may take another crack at it, but my head isn't really in that place at the moment.

THE SECOND WORD

"Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."
Gospel of Luke 23:43

THE THIRD WORD

"Jesus said to his mother: "Woman, this is your son."
Then he said to the disciple: "This is your mother."
Gospel of John 19:26-27

THE FOURTH WORD

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34

THE WORD

"The Bird."
The Trashmen

THE FIFTH WORD

"I thirst."
Gospel of John 19:28

We should seriously consider changing the name of this site from Dawgtalkers to Our Lady of the Gridiron.

Sheesh…

THE SIXTH WORD

"It is finished;"

Gospel of John 19:29-30

I am at a loss. Are there not gay Christians? Religion in this context is only applied as it applies to the 1st Amendment. Nothing more, nothing less. I am certain there are gay Muslims as well. They are probably hiding as the Muslim radicals would harm them. I suspect a gay Muslim is better off in Indiana than in say... Iran.



They are a joke, to take them seriously is to give them more credibility than they deserve.



Federal law and state law are subservient to the Constitution, Amendment 1.



The same thing that protects every other citizen in the USA, the Constitution. A person cannot give up their rights. They have them regardless of exercising them. Where Sharia law conflicts with the Constitution, Sharia law must bend to the Constitution. However, the argument against discrimination is not in the Constitution. It is based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a Federal Law, not to override the Constitution.



Shocking bigoted and hateful statement.



Continued hateful and bigoted statement. To believe the Christian faith in America is equivalent to the Mullahs of Iran is disingenuous at best, hateful at worst.



You have the Constitution to protect your rights just as Christians have the right to religious liberty. Where your rights begin, their rights end. That is a good rule to follow. Porn bans would have to pass Constitutional muster. I am not sure they would.



Gay Christians want to persecute gays?




Another disingenuous statement because I believe you know that separation of Church and State is not there to keep religion out of government, it is to keep government out of religion. Separation of Church and state is misused to persecute Christians and try to stifle moral opposition to secularism.



In your attempt to mock religious people, you stumbled into a truism. The Constitution gives religions status over sexual orientation, economic status, or political ideology. Where your rights end is where mine begin.



More hateful diatribe, you do have a right to ignore them. To act as the victim in such a case is beyond understanding. If I understood what you desire, and I believe I do. You want religious faith kept in the dark and not to allow it to express itself openly in the public forum. How tolerant of you? (How do you do sarcasm again?)



Sounds like any religion any person believes in is the right one...... for them.




You do more than that, you do tell people what to think, when to think it, and yes even what is right and wrong. You do not call it religion but it is called secular humanism. It is not right or wrong, it is what it is. Embrace your faith in yourself. I for one am happy you have faith in yourself.

THE SEVENTH WORD

"Don't cater gay weddings."
Gospel of John 19:29-30

I was so hoping you'd put up some Goyo gospel.

THE SEVENTH WORD

Jesus cried out in a loud voice,
"Father, into your hands I commend my spirit."
Gospel of Luke 23:46

I will now quote from Stephen King's "It" over the course of 13,500 posts.

PAGE 1

“Want your boat, Georgie?' Pennywise asked. 'I only repeat myself because you really do not seem that eager.' He held it up, smiling. He was wearing a baggy silk suit with great big orange buttons. A bright tie, electric-blue, flopped down his front, and on his hands were big white gloves, like the kind Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck always wore.

PDR, I think rationalization is not needed. However, the 1st Amendment of the Constitution is not scientific but it works for everyone. The question is not suppressing homosexuality, it is more like not having any sexual orientation, preference, or perversion dictating any rights to anyone. I am okay with letting the Constitution speak for me.

My rights do not end at the tip of my nose, my front door of my home, or the cash register of my business. I find it amazing that tolerance is preached with such derogatory language and then are shocked that people are not persuaded by such rational thought (sarcasm).

I'd prefer the long speech in Atlas Shrugged, personally.

lol, stop with your self-righteous nonsense.

The only time i go on the attack is when i'm being attacked.

it's that simple.

It's not in my nature to ignore whats said to me. I don't have that patience, and yes, i'm petty.

so when people start running their mouth, i'm going to fire back. every. single. time.

Don't want me talking trash about religion? don't tell me i'mma burn in a lake of fire.

check your boys before stepping to me.

You have started a number of controversial threads recently that you absolutely had to know were going to result in the kind of fight you say you don't seek out.

You say you want to move back to Europe so you aren't treated like a black dude but you continue to start controversial threads about race.


You don't talk trash about the Muslim religion but based on their religion, I'm pretty sure they think you are going to hell.. yet I get the impression that you don't antagonize them nearly as much. Is it because of the connection between Christianity and American politics? Is that the difference for you?

I talk constant trash about muslims.


constant. On top of that, you'd think you and others realize i shouldn't have to point out my disdain for Islam, since i volunteered to join the army and willingly got deployed multiple times to go fight them,

That should probably tell you that i don't like them. it is pretty obvious when you think about it.

but whatever.

and yes, muslims aren't running our politics. Christians are. If i'm going to complain about muslims, i need to be in a place where there are tons of them.

i'm not. I'm in america.

just because i want to move back doesn't mean i can't post about the problem here, cause i'm still AMERICAN and i live here NOW.

The threads i start, truthfully i don't want to fight like this. But sorry if you got guys saying imma burn in hell, and i decide to defend myself, and go on the offensive.


basically, you guys have 3 options:

1. put me on ignore.
2. get a petition going to have me removed from the board.
3. deal with it. Cause i won't stop. I can be back in Germany and still make whatever post I deem an important topic to discuss.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm not exactly trying to sway hearts and minds here.

If one believes that a talking snake told a woman made out of a rib to do bad things, then there's probably not going to be a whole lot of rational thought or persuasion based on logic, is there?

As for your assertion that the Civil Rights Act doesn't hold water because it's not a part of the Constitution, and can understand and respect the logic of that viewpoint, but it's not a part of practical reality. It's pretty much law and here to stay.

I don't know if Swish said something to that effect or not, but I've been to soccer matches where bananas were thrown at opposing black players, and heard chants that would fit in at a Klan rally.

Europe isn't exactly black-friendly.