Religions are fairy tales for adults. Should we encourage them to grow up?

Christians are not objecting to homosexuality as a sin, sin is nobody's business. What has happened is that we are now required to actively deny that it is a sin and accept the idea that it is just a normal sexual variation, which contradicts the Bible; but the main thing is that we are required to treat gay marriage as valid. We will not. That makes us criminals.

I'm not required to treat Hinduism as a "valid religion," whatever that means. Far as I know I can call Hinduism a satanic idolatrous religion without being treated like a criminal. But the same is not true if I say the Bible calls homosexuality a sin and makes gay marriage a violation of God's marriage ordinance.

Oh fer.... What you quoted implied it answered what I said. It doesn't. Jesus was talking to individuals as usual, not to the criminal prosecutor of a state.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Which individuals? We all vote in different directions. However, the actions of the state should operate more like the Law of the Old Testament, I don't say exactly, but more like, eye for an eye being a fair statement of perfect justice. Jesus was talking about how individuals should deal with a slap on the cheek or the stealing of a cloak. That's not a recipe for the prosecution of criminal cases.

Seems to me that the SCOTUS decision on gay marriage is already a fulfillment of my prediction that we bet about before, that things would get worse for Christians over the next few years or something like that. I'll wait for a few more incidents before I ask you to pay up though.No more wagers. The timing of things is never certain. Things seem very close but often take longer than we expect even though they do finally occur. Christians seem to be a target of all the gay marriage action but it may take a while before it plays out in any clearcut way. Although the destruction of Christian businesses is already pretty clearcut.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

If Jesus meant to preach about how nations should prosecute criminals he would have preached to Pilate or perhaps even asked for an audience with Caesar. No, Jesus ALWAYS preached to individual believers, how we as individuals are to live. ALWAYS.

No I do not agree with Gandhi. I consider that to be one of the stuppiddest things ever said by an otherwise great man.The whole world blind? Nonsense. How often is an eye damaged anyway? A tooth? That formula is, I'll say it again, a statement of perfect justice, and as I've understood it the intention was to correct for the excesses tribal peoples brought to their revenge, such as putting out both eyes or lopping off the head for damage to one eye, or punching out all the teeth for the loss of one.One eye for one eye, one tooth for one tooth, is perfect justice.ABE: Jesus did not come to enforce the laws of justice. He came to teach us individual believers how to love our neighbors even when we are persecuted by them.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It IS a metaphor fer cryin out loud. Or a Principle. Good grief. It is a perfect expression of perfect justice. As I said, it was most likely originally intended to put an end to excessive punishments. There is nothing wrong with the formula.Jesus made it the basis for His instruction to His disciples for how we all should personally deal with injustices to ourselves.Back in Jacob's time, his sons went off and murdered a whole clan because one of the sons raped their sister. That's an example of the tribal "justice" eye for an eye would have corrected by some form of punishment fitting the crime.Jesus' teaching is NOT intended for the criminal justice system. Good grief.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You are having a terrible time following the argument. I never said Jesus preached eye for an eye, He preached against it because He was preaching to individuals. People make the dumb mistake of thinking His preaching applies to the criminal justice system, so I've been answering that, since Jesus taught individuals and didn't address the powers that be, and in answering it I've had to defend the principle of eye for an eye as the perfect justice it is, and perfect justice is what the criminal justice system should aim for. Romans 12:21 is also for individual believers and not for the criminal justice system. Your thinking is so confused you probably won't understand this either but try.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, what God said should and did have plenty to do with our justice system, back when it was rational and based on the Ten Commandments. Jesus was not speaking to the justice system but to individual believers. Eye for an eye is a principle of perfect justice.

You are just not thinking, just as Gandhi wasn't, and most aren't when it comes to eye for an eye. So you think the justice system should turn the other cheek to the murderer? The death penalty is the perfect justice for a willful murderer seems to me.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The question is whether this right of sincerely advocating that same-sex marriage should not be condoned, and seeking to teach these principles, etc., extends to Christian business owners who refuse to provide a service for a gay marriage, or to a public statement of the same beliefs as opposed to merely confining it to their private lives. I think we'll probably find out in the near future, but my reading of that paragraph suggests that where there could be considered to be a direct clash with the civil rights of this new protected class the rights of those holding such religious beliefs will have to give. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

First, obviously Jesus is not talking to state authorities but to His own personal followers. Right?
Second, it's simply common sense that the criminal justice system couldn't function on such principles as turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, giving the robber your coat after he's stolen your shirt, and so on and so forth. What Jesus taught along these lines is for individuals dealing with individuals.that an eye for an eye should be the principle that guides the justice system makes sense to me because it is such a perfect statement of justice, but if authorities in that area want to apply principles of mercy based on Jesus' general teachings that's open to discussion.All I'm saying is that you don't give a murderer the freedom to murder again, which is implied by the idea of turning the other cheek, you prosecute him. Makes perfect sense to me, hits me as extremely absurd that anybody would argue against the basic point I'm making.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So far it seems to be the clerks whose job is to issue marriage licenses where the limitations on Christian freedom are being felt.That statement by the Supreme Court is clearly meaningless. There is no meaningful right or freedom upheld in allowing acvocacy against gay marriage in private, and the First Amendment never limited religious rights to private occasions. Where the rubber meets the road is where a Christian is asked to do something that violates Christian faith, such as being asked to issue a license for a gay marriage. The context will of course expand as time goes on. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.