Research on Belief in God

Page 91 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Ruby United said:
If one thinks that acting gay is an immoral choice then why is that offensive? Jspear's comment was emphasizing how he does not dislike homosexuals because they are homosexuals, rather simply disagrees with their life choice. How is that offensive, seems the opposite to me.
He meant that thinking being gay is immoral is offensive, I think. To then belittle an intollerable act of discrimination, simply because "Christians are being killed in the world" (as are Muslims, Jews, Budhists and atheists, among others)- which by the way, is also in the news - is just nonsense.
 
rhubroma said:
No, please, Maaaaarten, you hypocrisy shrinks from no baseness.
Maarten is not a hypocrite. You just re-write history, as usual.

Christianity is absolutely NOT to blame for slavery. Mainly Jews organised the slave trade. Christianity is NOT to blame for the colonization of Africa. The colonial Empires were built up by Freemasons and secularists who hated Christianity.

"The aim of the secular school is to take God out of the hearts of the people."

"We should openly say that the superior races have a right towards the inferior races. I repeat there's a right for the superior races because there's a duty for them. They have the duty to civilise the inferior races."

Two quotes by the same person, the main architect of the French colonial Empire: Jules Ferry. A die-hard anticlericalist.

The missionaries did a great job in Africa: teach them to read & write, built hospitals, etc. Subsaharian Africans freely chose the Christian religion. The missions were independent from the colonies, even opposed to it.
 
Echoes said:
Maarten is not a hypocrite. You just re-write history, as usual.

Christianity is absolutely NOT to blame for slavery. Mainly Jews organised the slave trade. Christianity is NOT to blame for the colonization of Africa. The colonial Empires were built up by Freemasons and secularists who hated Christianity.

"The aim of the secular school is to take God out of the hearts of the people."

"We should openly say that the superior races have a right towards the inferior races. I repeat there's a right for the superior races because there's a duty for them. They have the duty to civilise the inferior races."

Two quotes by the same person, the main architect of the French colonial Empire: Jules Ferry. A die-hard anticlericalist.

The missionaries did a great job in Africa: teach them to read & write, built hospitals, etc. Subsaharian Africans freely chose the Christian religion. The missions were independent from the colonies, even opposed to it.
First of all can we agree that if someone does something terrible and completely against his religions laws we do not categorize the religion because of him.

I don't dislike Muslims because some are terrorists or hate Jews
I don't dislike Christians because they persecuted Jews for centuries
Each religion, or individual, should not be judged based on what they're extremists/anarchists have committed.

You seem to hate Jews because of what some misguided Jews may have committed, and that is unfair.

Also, I completely disagree, and do not believe for a second that the slave trade was because of Jews.
 
rhubroma said:
He meant that thinking being gay is immoral is offensive, I think. To then belittle an intollerable act of discrimination, simply because "Christians are being killed in the world" (as are Muslims, Jews, Budhists and atheists, among others)- which by the way, is also in the news - is just nonsense.
I was not belittling it. I said so in my post. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy in our modern society where we so often get upset about the treatment of LGBT's but hardly ever focus on even bigger issues. Again not belittling gays.
 
ray j willings said:
Hey Jspear. There is nothing stopping you walking into a cake shop or staying at any hotel. No form of discrimination is good. Its not the world I want to live in or my kids to live in. Its very poor form IMO to try and tie in the slaughter of Christians with the issues you have with homosexuality.
When you say that you disagree with their life choices I can tell you that its not a life choice. I'm attending my friends gay wedding in a few weeks and it will be fantastic and it shows how much society has come/moved forward but comments like "Life choices" do nothing but back up your own ideology which is offensive. There are a lot more pressing issues in the world and its time people got over their own prejudice. I don't see any gay armies causing terror anywhere. I do see a lot of religious based terror going on. That's a problem that's real and concerns the safety of people.
Actually you would be surprised. There are lots of places in liberal America where I am not welcomed at all because of my beliefs (aka discrimination.) But I agree with you that discrimination isn't right.

It is a tricky subject though. You have Christians who believe it is wrong to bake a cake for a gay couple that are getting married. Should that Christian be forced to go against his/her conscience? Should he/she lose their business license? Plenty of Christian business men and woman have lost their jobs because of gay individuals that have no tolerance for the beliefs of Christians. This to is intolerant behavior on their part. Personally I think both sides should be able to agree to a compromise. You're gay and you walk into my shop. I in a loving and civil manner could explain why I can't and I could then give a list of other shops in the area that would serve them. That's just an example. IMO there are plenty of ways where both groups need to learn how to respectively disagree and get along in society. Both "sides" need to get better with this.
 
Echoes said:
Maarten is not a hypocrite. You just re-write history, as usual.

Christianity is absolutely NOT to blame for slavery. Mainly Jews organised the slave trade. Christianity is NOT to blame for the colonization of Africa. The colonial Empires were built up by Freemasons and secularists who hated Christianity.

"The aim of the secular school is to take God out of the hearts of the people."

"We should openly say that the superior races have a right towards the inferior races. I repeat there's a right for the superior races because there's a duty for them. They have the duty to civilise the inferior races."

Two quotes by the same person, the main architect of the French colonial Empire: Jules Ferry. A die-hard anticlericalist.

The missionaries did a great job in Africa: teach them to read & write, built hospitals, etc. Subsaharian Africans freely chose the Christian religion. The missions were independent from the colonies, even opposed to it.
I didn't say Christianity was to blame, but that Western Christians (among other factions) organized and perpetuated the slave trade.

The rest of your post is just the usual deranged psycho-babble.
 
Jspear said:
I was not belittling it. I said so in my post. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy in our modern society where we so often get upset about the treatment of LGBT's but hardly ever focus on even bigger issues. Again not belittling gays.
Nobody is not focusing on the "even bigger issues" you refer to (they are in the mass media all the time), but the point is something else: namely, that such "bigger issues" are in no way diminished by the promotion of equal rights.

Once again, your bigotry allows a concept of "impurity" to interfere with rational critique.
 
Ruby United said:
You seem to hate Jews because of what some misguided Jews may have committed, and that is unfair.
And what makes you think I do? Just because a couple of nutcases on this forum claim I'm anti-Semitic, without substantiating, of course, you have to believe them?

I'm only looking at the facts. The prominence of Jews in the slave trade is a well-established fact. It's not my fault and it does not commit the whole community. Beside, they seem to have justify their action by the Talmud more than the Torah.

I can refer to the work of Marc Lee Raphael, who is himself of Jewish heritage or Dr Tony Martin (lol) whose conference I've already shared here I think. Dr Panzerwagen even has the honesty to admit that slavery is a universal phenomenon and that other communities were involved, he doesn't even deny that some black African leaders sold their own brothers.

So when people are attacking Christians for their supposed role in the slave trade I as a Catholic have to restore the truth. I think it's about time we woke up because we had to internalise many lies (myself included), just like the Galileo case or the "Hitler's Pope" myth.

Some Christian leaders have persecuted Jews in history but others have protected them, depending on time and place.

Jews & Christians have also lived in peace for centuries in Islamic lands.
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
Chatting in the local used bookstore yesterday a very old man said "information that isn't transformative is just gossip".

Make of that what you will.
 
Echoes said:
And what makes you think I do? Just because a couple of nutcases on this forum claim I'm anti-Semitic, without substantiating, of course, you have to believe them?

I'm only looking at the facts. The prominence of Jews in the slave trade is a well-established fact. It's not my fault and it does not commit the whole community. Beside, they seem to have justify their action by the Talmud more than the Torah.

I can refer to the work of Marc Lee Raphael, who is himself of Jewish heritage or Dr Tony Martin (lol) whose conference I've already shared here I think. Dr Panzerwagen even has the honesty to admit that slavery is a universal phenomenon and that other communities were involved, he doesn't even deny that some black African leaders sold their own brothers.

So when people are attacking Christians for their supposed role in the slave trade I as a Catholic have to restore the truth. I think it's about time we woke up because we had to internalise many lies (myself included), just like the Galileo case or the "Hitler's Pope" myth.

Some Christian leaders have persecuted Jews in history but others have protected them, depending on time and place.

Jews & Christians have also lived in peace for centuries in Islamic lands.
Firstly, I have several sources that disagree with your 'fact,' instantly rendering it an opinion and destroying its status as a fact:

http://tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/137476/slave-trade-black-muslim

A little extract:

Eli Faber, professor of history at CUNY and author of Jews, Slaves, and the Slave Trade: Setting the Record Straight;

?Overwhelmingly,Jewish merchants and shippers were not involved at all; they represent a minuscule portion of owners of ships.? While Jews did own slaves, he found, ?their ownership was directly proportionate to their numbers.? Both were about 18 percent. The two companies with slaving ventures had small numbers of Jews among their owners"

The numbers just aren?t there to support the view, Jews were involved, but to an insignificant degree. That doesn?t absolve them of that guilt, but everyone made money off African slaves: Arabs, Europeans, Africans,?

And about the book 'The Secret Relationship' which claims Jews 'dominated' the trade:

'For example, the book?s anonymous author cites the fact that in 1774, the Jews of Jamaica owned 310 slaves, which, horrific as it is, is only 4 percent of the total slave population in Jamaica at that time (7,424). A grand total of 12 Jews owned plantations, and yet this doesn?t stop the author from concluding that Jews dominated the trade.'

and finally:

Davis has been writing about slavery for over 60 years. An emotional writer, he wrote feelingly in the New York Review of Books in 1994 about the slave trade and the Jews, arguing that the historical record itself is infused with the kind of inaccuracies found in The Secret Relationship. He writes:

Much of the historical evidence regarding alleged Jewish or New Christian involvement in the slave system was biased by deliberate Spanish efforts to blame Jewish refugees for fostering Dutch commercial expansion at the expense of Spain. Given this long history of conspiratorial fantasy and collective scapegoating, a selective search for Jewish slave traders becomes inherently anti-Semitic unless one keeps in view the larger context and the very marginal place of Jews in the history of the overall system. It is easy enough to point to a few Jewish slave traders in Amsterdam, Bordeaux, or Newport, Rhode Island. But far from suggesting that Jews constituted a major force behind the exploitation of Africa, closer investigation shows that these were highly exceptional merchants, far outnumbered by thousands of Catholics and Protestants who flocked to share in the great bonanza.

Davis continues:

To keep matters in perspective, we should note that in the American South, in 1830, there were only 120 Jews among the 45,000 slaveholders owning twenty or more slaves and only twenty Jews among the 12,000 slaveholders owning fifty or more slaves. Even if each member of this Jewish slaveholding elite had owned 714 slaves?a ridiculously high figure in the American South?the total number would only equal the 100,000 slaves owned by Black and colored planters in St. Domingue in 1789, on the eve of the Haitian Revolution.
 
Jspear said:
Actually you would be surprised. There are lots of places in liberal America where I am not welcomed at all because of my beliefs (aka discrimination.) But I agree with you that discrimination isn't right.

It is a tricky subject though. You have Christians who believe it is wrong to bake a cake for a gay couple that are getting married. Should that Christian be forced to go against his/her conscience? Should he/she lose their business license? Plenty of Christian business men and woman have lost their jobs because of gay individuals that have no tolerance for the beliefs of Christians. This to is intolerant behavior on their part. Personally I think both sides should be able to agree to a compromise. You're gay and you walk into my shop. I in a loving and civil manner could explain why I can't and I could then give a list of other shops in the area that would serve them. That's just an example. IMO there are plenty of ways where both groups need to learn how to respectively disagree and get along in society. Both "sides" need to get better with this.
How would they 'know' your beliefs unless you were dressed like the weirdo in 'Angels and Demons'?

It's not that they have a problem with Christians, they have a problem with discrimination. Just so happens Christian and discrimination go hand in hand.
 
Oct 23, 2011
3,846
0
0
Bustedknuckle said:
How would they 'know' your beliefs unless you were dressed like the weirdo in 'Angels and Demons'?

It's not that they have a problem with Christians, they have a problem with discrimination. Just so happens Christian and discrimination go hand in hand.
You know it has happened several times in the recent past that Christians got sued for discrimination in the US after they declined to provide services for gay weddings. Recently there was the case of a 70 year old florist who got condemned for violating anti-discrimination laws after she declined to provide flowers for a gay wedding. She actually had a friendly relation with the homosexual man in question before this incident; the gay couple have been customers of hers for nine years already. She had employed a homosexual in her business before. It's clear she had no problems at all dealing with homosexuals, she treated everybody normally and respectfully, but when she refused to actively partake in an event that violated her consciousness she drew a line. But apparently that's discrimination now........

Here's an article about it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/20/living/stutzman-florist-gay/index.html
 
Echoes said:
Beside, they seem to have justify their action by the Talmud more than the Torah.
When you talk about the Talmud, we can take that to mean the oral law in general as the Talmud is effectively the oral law written down.

The Oral Law and the Torah are complementary; they work hand in hand

Christians don't hold of the Oral Law, yet I have some proofs it exists and I will be interested to hear answers:

No commandment in the Torah/Bible has instructions on how to fulfill them, so how can the Torah command us instructions if we don't have an oral law to explain the instructions

Firstly, the Mishna (The first books to write the oral law, the Talmud is based and expands on the Mishna) says that
"All [fish] that have scales also have fins [and are thus kosher]; there are [fish] that have fins but do not have scales [and are thus unkosher]."
The Mishna which was written before 217 CE says that there are no fish in the world with scales but no fins. How is it possible that this idea can originate from humans and can claim this and to this day no fish have been discovered with scales but no fins. Despite evolution, crossbreeding, and that 72% of the world is water and this was written 2000 years ago and the new marine fish species is being identified at an average rate of 160 per year. 200000 fish are acknowledged by scientists and yet not one has scales but no fins!

So, to summarize, how could a human being thousands of years ago know that no fish would have scales but no fins, despite hundreds of fish being discovered every year?!

Secondly, look at this qoute from Babylonian Talmud, Berachot 32b:

(God is speaking) "Twelve constellations have I created in the firmament, and for each constellation I have created thirty hosts, and for each host I have created thirty legions, and for each legion I have created thirty cohorts, and for each cohort I have created thirty divisions, and for each division I have created thirty camps, and to each camp I have attached three hundred and sixty-five thousands of myriads of stars"
That comes out to 1 x 10^18
Scientific ESTIMATE is only 1 x 10^22
That is just four orders of magnitudes from what the Talmud predicted 2000 years ago!!!
Galileo approximately 400 years ago created the telescope, before that all they knew about stars was what they could count manually. In fact, it seems inconceivable that they would think the stars amounted to more than the thousands, never mind an 19 digit number. In fact it is doubtful that 'scientists' of those days could even conceive of such a large number.
How could the Talmud possibly know the number of stars so many years ago?

And a quote from Aish.com

However, the Talmud relates more than a raw number. The passage explains that the distribution of stars throughout the cosmos is neither even nor random. Rather, it states that they are clustered in groups of billions of stars (what we call galaxies), which themselves are clustered into groups (what astronomers call galactic clusters), which in turn are in mega-groups (what we call superclusters).

To describe the stars as clustered together, both locally and in clusters of clusters, was far beyond the imagination and the telescopes of scientists until Edwin Hubble's famous photographs of Andromeda in the 1920s. Galactic clusters and superclusters have been described only in the past decade or so. Moreover, the Talmud states categorically that the number of galaxies in a cluster is about 30. And wouldn't you know it, astronomers today set the number of galaxies in our own local cluster at 30!

I have many more proofs that the Oral Law exists but that's enough for now.
I don't understand after reading this how someone can not believe in the Oral Law?

Also no-one has attempted to answer my first question on christianity on page 208, does anyone have an answer?
 
Jan 27, 2013
1,383
0
0
Ruby United said:
When you talk about the Talmud, we can take that to mean the oral law in general as the Talmud is effectively the oral law written down.

The Oral Law and the Torah are complementary; they work hand in hand

Christians don't hold of the Oral Law, yet I have some proofs it exists and I will be interested to hear answers:

No commandment in the Torah/Bible has instructions on how to fulfill them, so how can the Torah command us instructions if we don't have an oral law to explain the instructions

Firstly, the Mishna (The first books to write the oral law, the Talmud is based and expands on the Mishna) says that
"All [fish] that have scales also have fins [and are thus kosher]; there are [fish] that have fins but do not have scales [and are thus unkosher]."
The Mishna which was written before 217 CE says that there are no fish in the world with scales but no fins. How is it possible that this idea can originate from humans and can claim this and to this day no fish have been discovered with scales but no fins. Despite evolution, crossbreeding, and that 72% of the world is water and this was written 2000 years ago and the new marine fish species is being identified at an average rate of 160 per year. 200000 fish are acknowledged by scientists and yet not one has scales but no fins!

So, to summarize, how could a human being thousands of years ago know that no fish would have scales but no fins, despite hundreds of fish being discovered every year?!

Secondly, look at this qoute from Babylonian Talmud, Berachot 32b:

(God is speaking) "Twelve constellations have I created in the firmament, and for each constellation I have created thirty hosts, and for each host I have created thirty legions, and for each legion I have created thirty cohorts, and for each cohort I have created thirty divisions, and for each division I have created thirty camps, and to each camp I have attached three hundred and sixty-five thousands of myriads of stars"
That comes out to 1 x 10^18
Scientific ESTIMATE is only 1 x 10^22
That is just four orders of magnitudes from what the Talmud predicted 2000 years ago!!!
Galileo approximately 400 years ago created the telescope, before that all they knew about stars was what they could count manually. In fact, it seems inconceivable that they would think the stars amounted to more than the thousands, never mind an 19 digit number. In fact it is doubtful that 'scientists' of those days could even conceive of such a large number.
How could the Talmud possibly know the number of stars so many years ago?

And a quote from Aish.com

However, the Talmud relates more than a raw number. The passage explains that the distribution of stars throughout the cosmos is neither even nor random. Rather, it states that they are clustered in groups of billions of stars (what we call galaxies), which themselves are clustered into groups (what astronomers call galactic clusters), which in turn are in mega-groups (what we call superclusters).

To describe the stars as clustered together, both locally and in clusters of clusters, was far beyond the imagination and the telescopes of scientists until Edwin Hubble's famous photographs of Andromeda in the 1920s. Galactic clusters and superclusters have been described only in the past decade or so. Moreover, the Talmud states categorically that the number of galaxies in a cluster is about 30. And wouldn't you know it, astronomers today set the number of galaxies in our own local cluster at 30!

I have many more proofs that the Oral Law exists but that's enough for now.
I don't understand after reading this how someone can not believe in the Oral Law?

Also no-one has attempted to answer my first question on christianity on page 208, does anyone have an answer?

Yeah, people should read the Babylonian Talmud:
http://www.come-and-hear.com/tcontents.html

Then they'd realize that they don't just have fanatical Muslims and Christian crazies to worry about.
 
Maaaaaaaarten said:
You know it has happened several times in the recent past that Christians got sued for discrimination in the US after they declined to provide services for gay weddings. Recently there was the case of a 70 year old florist who got condemned for violating anti-discrimination laws after she declined to provide flowers for a gay wedding. She actually had a friendly relation with the homosexual man in question before this incident; the gay couple have been customers of hers for nine years already. She had employed a homosexual in her business before. It's clear she had no problems at all dealing with homosexuals, she treated everybody normally and respectfully, but when she refused to actively partake in an event that violated her consciousness she drew a line. But apparently that's discrimination now........

Here's an article about it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/20/living/stutzman-florist-gay/index.html
+1

Bustedknuckle said:
How would they 'know' your beliefs unless you were dressed like the weirdo in 'Angels and Demons'?

It's not that they have a problem with Christians, they have a problem with discrimination. Just so happens Christian and discrimination go hand in hand.
This is actually a very skewed way of looking at things. Can't speak for everyone; I'll explain things from my point of view. I handle this issue similar to the story Maaaaarten referenced. I believe homosexuality is a sin. I also think stealing is a sin. I have no problem interacting with gays, socializing, and even doing business with them. If I distanced my self from all sinners then I couldn't do anything with anyone, including myself. What I won't do is participate in any act that is going to directly promote or say I agree with their life style. Hence my example of not making them a wedding cake. I believe that would be affirming their lifestyle. I would have no problem making them a cake or doing any business with them in any other context though. That's hardly discrimination.
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
Jspear said:
+1



This is actually a very skewed way of looking at things. Can't speak for everyone; I'll explain things from my point of view. I handle this issue similar to the story Maaaaarten referenced. I believe homosexuality is a sin. I also think stealing is a sin. I have no problem interacting with gays, socializing, and even doing business with them. If I distanced my self from all sinners then I couldn't do anything with anyone, including myself. What I won't do is participate in any act that is going to directly promote or say I agree with their life style. Hence my example of not making them a wedding cake. I believe that would be affirming their lifestyle. I would have no problem making them a cake or doing any business with them in any other context though. That's hardly discrimination.
Come on Jspear. The year is 2015 and you won't make a cake for homosexuals. Do you realise how crazy that sounds.
I cannot understand your view. How do you explain god's creation of homosexuality in animals or are they making a life choice:D
IMO your prejudice comes from fear and your religion gives you a way to mask your fear.

Here is something for you to ponder

Dolphins have a position on the top tier of animal intelligence, and are comparable to both chimpanzees and humans in cognitive and social abilities. Great diversity exists in dolphin societies as well, and numerous same-sex liaisons have been identified.

In one incredible case, a pair of gay dolphins enjoyed a seventeen year relationship, while researchers identified a whole pod of dolphins?composed entirely of males?whose members were certainly not lacking in romantic experiences. It has become clear that dolphin relationships are extremely strong, regardless of the specific orientation of the marine mammals involved. Many other dolphins have been found to be bisexual, enjoying passionate contact among their own sex as well as the opposite
 
Maaaaaaaarten said:
You know it has happened several times in the recent past that Christians got sued for discrimination in the US after they declined to provide services for gay weddings. Recently there was the case of a 70 year old florist who got condemned for violating anti-discrimination laws after she declined to provide flowers for a gay wedding. She actually had a friendly relation with the homosexual man in question before this incident; the gay couple have been customers of hers for nine years already. She had employed a homosexual in her business before. It's clear she had no problems at all dealing with homosexuals, she treated everybody normally and respectfully, but when she refused to actively partake in an event that violated her consciousness she drew a line. But apparently that's discrimination now........

Here's an article about it:
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/20/living/stutzman-florist-gay/index.html
You have a strange concept of discrimination. And besides the Christian right in America is a very powerful lobby, which has been conceded every allowence in the US.

It is thus rather pathetic that some Chrisitians whine about being "descriminated against," for their own discriminatory behavior, especially when the basis for every discrimination has been, past and present, founded upon a concept of a one and universal divine Truth of which they claim to be the sole possessors. Idem for Muslims and Jews.

The only cristicism I have is this: why in the world would such homosexuals expect to be welcomed into that Christian community with the same dignity and rights as the heterosexual community?
 
Oct 23, 2011
3,846
0
0
ray j willings said:
Here is something for you to ponder

Dolphins have a position on the top tier of animal intelligence, and are comparable to both chimpanzees and humans in cognitive and social abilities. Great diversity exists in dolphin societies as well, and numerous same-sex liaisons have been identified.

In one incredible case, a pair of gay dolphins enjoyed a seventeen year relationship, while researchers identified a whole pod of dolphins?composed entirely of males?whose members were certainly not lacking in romantic experiences. It has become clear that dolphin relationships are extremely strong, regardless of the specific orientation of the marine mammals involved. Many other dolphins have been found to be bisexual, enjoying passionate contact among their own sex as well as the opposite
We can also see forced copulation among Dolphin's, so forced copulation must be perfectly natural and moral.......

I've honestly never understood the comparison with animals. Animals do lots of things, so what? How is that relevant for whether or not similar behaviour among humans is moral or not?

rhubroma said:
It is thus rather pathetic that some Chrisitians whine about being "descriminated against, for their own discriminatory behavior, especially when the basis for every discrimination has been, past and present, founded upon a concept of a one and universal divine Truth of which they claim to be the sole possessors. Idem for Muslims and Jews.
Wait, what? :confused::confused:

Are you really actually claiming that discrimination is always religious?!

I sincerely hope I'm misinterpreting you here, because this claim would be pretty ridicules.
 
Jspear said:
+1



This is actually a very skewed way of looking at things. Can't speak for everyone; I'll explain things from my point of view. I handle this issue similar to the story Maaaaarten referenced. I believe homosexuality is a sin. I also think stealing is a sin. I have no problem interacting with gays, socializing, and even doing business with them. If I distanced my self from all sinners then I couldn't do anything with anyone, including myself. What I won't do is participate in any act that is going to directly promote or say I agree with their life style. Hence my example of not making them a wedding cake. I believe that would be affirming their lifestyle. I would have no problem making them a cake or doing any business with them in any other context though. That's hardly discrimination.
How about a cake for their 'civil union'? And allowing these couples to have the same rights as hetero couples? Like visitation in hospital, death and insurance benefits and the like? Being 'married' needn't be a result of some guy in robes in an ornate, expensive building. My son got married at the JOP.

How about as a lawyer, would you preside over a divorce?
 
Bustedknuckle said:
How about a cake for their 'civil union'? And allowing these couples to have the same rights as hetero couples? Like visitation in hospital, death and insurance benefits and the like? Being 'married' needn't be a result of some guy in robes in an ornate, expensive building. My son got married at the JOP.

How about as a lawyer, would you preside over a divorce?
Nope.
10 chrs.
 
Maaaaaaaarten said:
We can also see forced copulation among Dolphin's, so forced copulation must be perfectly natural and moral.......

I've honestly never understood the comparison with animals. Animals do lots of things, so what? How is that relevant for whether or not similar behaviour among humans is moral or not?
It's relevant because "it's unnatural" is one of the most common reasons given by the Christian right to justify their anti-gay discrimination.

Unlike dolphin rape, however, dolphin (and human) homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone - on the contrary, it brings about happiness to the people involved. Hell, that must be as close to a definition of "morally right" as you can get.
 
Aug 4, 2011
3,647
0
0
hrotha said:
It's relevant because "it's unnatural" is one of the most common reasons given by the Christian right to justify their anti-gay discrimination.

Unlike dolphin rape, however, dolphin (and human) homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone - on the contrary, it brings about happiness to the people involved. Hell, that must be as close to a definition of "morally right" as you can get.
Well said. I mean Maaaaaaaarten is just looking to score goals and insinuate that all gays are rapists. I think perhaps Maaaaaaaarten should seek some therapy to get a grip of his underlying and plain stupid fear that is obviously lurking in his mind.
I have a question. When I was single and having a good time with "the ladies"
I dated more than 1 or 2 girls/women who for a better word " liked some action in their backdoor area"
Is a gay women " no backdoor action " viewed worse ?
How does that fit in with the religious view?
 
Maaaaaaaarten said:
We can also see forced copulation among Dolphin's, so forced copulation must be perfectly natural and moral.......

I've honestly never understood the comparison with animals. Animals do lots of things, so what? How is that relevant for whether or not similar behaviour among humans is moral or not?



Wait, what? :confused::confused:

Are you really actually claiming that discrimination is always religious?!

I sincerely hope I'm misinterpreting you here, because this claim would be pretty ridicules.
I don't know, from where does discrimination come? Other than an insult to intelligence.

Those fanatics that pulverized some stones, because they can't support civilization (any civilization), are so annihilated by civilization that they must hate it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS