Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity

The point is that you want to stop gays from receiving the secular benefits of marriage and you don't care if your arguments to that end are untrue.The prosecutions are just weapons to you. You don't care about the actual cases, or trying to find a better way to solve the issues.

HOWEVER, I would still like to see a distinction made between discriminating against a concept, an opinion, a theological position or whatnot, and against a person, since the former is the case in all the situations we've been discussing, and not the latter. This is clearly a violation of freedom of religion or opinion or thought or however that should be put, it is not about idiscrimination against persons.I'd also be for any legal provision that would protect gays against the painful encounters that they are suing about. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Funny I just happened to be writing a post that IS concerned with finding a better way.

\
Perhaps, but you definition of intolerance appears to include tolerance for intolerance, which causes the conundrum you are expressing here.

Your "better way" isn't.For a start you aren't asking to be allowed to discriminate against a theological position, you are asking to be allowed to discriminate against people.So really all you are suggesting is that discrimination on religious grounds should be allowed. But then we get back to the segregationists.You cannot argue for a better way without understanding the situation in the real cases. And up till now you've repeatedly been attacking a law that has very little to do with them - and justifying that by saying that you DON'T care about the real situation.

But it's the effect that matters, not the thought. If the effect of your discriminating against a theological position is discriminating against a person, that's a problem.Thus a Muslim funeral director that denies service for a Christian funeral on the grounds that God cannot be a man in their theological view, that still results in a Christian being denied service. And that's a problem. If Islam became the majority religion, would you want this precedent being set? I'm happy to concede to that.But you should also concede that rights often come into conflict with one another and primacy has to be established. The right for a cult that sacrifices virgins for religious reasons has to be denied in favour of the rights of the virgins to not be sacrificed for instance.Likewise I think it reasonable that the right to equal access to services takes primacy over the rights to deny those services for religious reasons. But...that's what we have. And that's what you are objecting to. What are you thinking of here? How would you envisage these legal provisions protecting gays? What should be consequence to those that ignored those laws do you think?

If we were discriminating against persons we wouldn't even sell them a cupcake.I said I'd be open to suggestions, I don't offhand know what would work as a solution myself but it's something that could be discussed here."Up until now" I've been run ragged trying to keep up with all the idiotic irrelevant arguments and accusations everybody is throwing at me, haven't had enough breathing space even to stop and think about a way to ameliorate the problems experienced by the gays.You haven't a smidgen of fairness in you. You spit venom with every word.

So obviously YOU have no interest in trying to find a solution that protects both.

I'm asking you what you think, aren't I?I've already given you my solution - avoid businesses you can't in good conscience carry out within the confines of the law.I asked you what a law to protect the gays should look like. I am serious like a heart attack on resolving this problem. Perhaps you could join me rather than dismissing me everytime I try to engage you in a discussion?

You are discriminating against people because it is people who are affected - no theological position is hurt (there isn't even a distinct theological position involved on the other side - the argument is based on the Constitution and basic concerns of justice)

quote:

---

"Up until now" I've been run ragged trying to keep up with all the idiotic irrelevant arguments and accusations everybody is throwing at me, haven't had enough breathing space even to stop and think about a way to ameliorate the problems experienced by the gay

---

Nonsense. First this is something you should have worked out before starting this thread. Second it is not as if this is the first discussion of the matter here. You have certainly had every opportunity to get it right. Third a lot of the responses you are complaint about did correct you on the matter.You lied, and now you are trying to blame other people for it.

quote:

---

You haven't a smidgen of fairness in you. You spit venom with every word.

---

Wrong. You just don't like fairness.If you were really interested in solving the problem you would find out what the problem was instead of asserting that another law was "an attack on Christianity"But there is a simple solution. Abandoned your bigotry, recognise that the Bible does not require you to refrain from providing services to gay weddings any more than it requires you to stone gays to death or kill witches.

I said this about Faith in my post 428

quote:

---

[Faith said this in post 399, 302, and 318]

​

POST 399 In this post you are claiming there's some kind of difference between 'ceremonial ' sin and some other kind of sin? Sin is sin, it's all judged by God as sin. POST 302 Prostitution is referring back to what he'd said about having liberty as a Christian to eat meats sacrificed to idols... fornication is identified as a sin... however we are to understand him it can't be as a license to visit a prostitute. POST 318 it is clear from pages of NT text that we are to give up all sin so it can't be treating fornication or any other sin as optional.

​

-Faith-

​

[then I said]

​

Now You have said that Acts 15:20, 15:29, Revelation 2:14, 2:21, is about "table fellowship " just like you are saying here about I Corinthians 6 (selectively you are in this case ),chapter 10 (this thread), plus elsewhere in I Corinthians 8 and Romans 14-15. But the Acts 15:20, 15:29, Revelation 2:14, 2:21 are about "fornication" but you say it is obsolete "table fellowship " and you said that in a response to my quoting a fundi dictionary saying it was just a TEMPORARY ceremonial issue. I plan to start a thread so you can not hide from your own claims and perhaps it can be only us two posting.

---

Faith then said this in 430

quote:

---

I don't haave a clue what you are talking about. I've never used the term "table fellowship" and have no idea what it means. You seem to be going on about something in your own head, certainly not anything that has to do with me. (except the upper part of your post above the asterisks, that I recognize as mine but I have no idea what you are saying about it.

---

But see posts 205 and 206 in this threadEvC Forum: Why did the Christian messiah fail to fulfill the messianic prophecies?Here is me in post 205

quote:

---

Re: The Righteiousness of Obedience vs the Righteousness of Faith
There is an interesting issue about the law. Jesus said, in Matthew 5:18, the he will not abolish 1 letter of the law.
Then Paul said the things he said.

​

Then you have the modern day Christians.

​

Faith said:

​

quote:

---

[Faith]
Jesus had already taught that the Law is a lot deeper than outward obedience, it's a matter of the dispositions of the heart, that even lusting in the heart is adultery, and hatred in the heart is murder. Is there anyone who could ever claim to never have committed such sins? James says that we are guilty of all the Law if we sin against it even in part. The purpose of the Law, then, according to Paul again, is to bring us to Christ, who alone fulfilled every jot and tittle of the Law and took all the sins on His own body of those who believe in Him, so that He could die in our place, pay for our sins that we are certainly unable to pay for, and set us free from the burden of the Law.

---

​

The interesting thing is that Acts 15 does maintain some Mosiac Law issues (related to food and fornication)

​

I put "alfred acts 15:23-29" into a google books search so I could find information on his historic translation of the 10 commandments and Acts 15:23-29 for his (typically interpreted as )law code. The issue of the 10 commandments often comes up when questions are asked about the old law.

​

quote:

---

Alfred the Great and Our Common Law Pamphlet — December 18, 2005
by Rev. Prof. Dr. F.N. Lee (Author)
Clearly, then Alfred believed that the Apostles here (at the Synod of Jerusalem or the first General Assembly of the Christian Church) enjoined God's Commandments upon all of the Gentile Christians who had heard it - and who indeed should keep it. For here he recalls that also "the Gentiles...should abstain from pollutions and idols and fornication and from blood [shed]. For Moses has those who preach him in every city from of old, being read out in the meeting-places every weekly sabbath-day." Acts 15:19-21 (cf. Genesis 9:5-6 and Exoduc 20:1-17).

​

King Alfred the Great and Our Common Law - F. N. Lee, Rev. Prof. Dr. F.N. Lee Rev. Prof. F. N. Lee - Google Books...

---

​

They had to weed out the weeds but found fundamentally important issues in the Mosaic Law and the oral law (traditions)to use as a foundation of maintained commandments which would be built upon with vice lists and further sins against conscience (which are sins against Jesus Christ).

​

The fact that the law was still changed creates a contradiction, but the entire law wasn't thrown out.

​

Contradiction?

​

Yes!

​

Abolishment?

​

No.

​

In my opinion.

​

The more honest fundamentalist dictionaries admit that it is just their opinion that these Acts 15:20 laws were ceremonial (also called cultic).

​

Here is one honest one and it is a classic.

​

quote:

---

Blood (1.) As food, prohibited in Gen. 9:4, where the use of animal food is first allowed. Comp. Deut. 12:23; Lev. 3:17; 7:26; 17:10—14. The injunction to abstain from blood is renewed in the decree of the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:29). It has been held by some, and we think correctly, that this law of prohibition was only ceremonial and temporary; while others regard it as still binding on all. Blood was eaten by the Israelites after the battle of Gilboa (1 Sam. 14:32—34
Blood

---

​

They don't go into much detail.

​

I have a quote (on my zip drive) that comes from an article (in a book) which covers a special conference the World Council of Church's held on the Apostolic Council. The World Council of Church's write it off as not having much of a binding effect when one looks at the rest of the New Testament. They said the decision seemed to be "limited" in its influence.

​

The problem is that there are numerous references to these Acts 15 rules. Revelation 2, 1 Corinthians 8, etc.

​

It seems that these rules get written off simply because Christians today don't follow them. But, history shows us that is was essentially the Catholics (and those in their sphere of influence) who didn't follow these rules. The "Western church" (ie. Roman Catholics) even changed the text to remove all food references in the Acts 15 text. The oldest Acts of the Apostles in-situ manuscripts we have date from 200 A.D. (possibly slightly earlier) and it is the Roman Catholic corruption.

​

The scholars of today know that the later (350 A.D. in-situ texts) are the true representations of the (more) "original" Acts 15 text, and that the oldest texts we have were alterations.

​

All modern Bibles avoid using the text from the archaeological discovery which uncovered the Roman Catholic corruptions. (it was called P75 or P47 or something)

​

But the early Roman Catholics have won the larger battle.

​

Their post 1000 AD "cultic" (or "ceremonial") interpretation has won the day.

​

You don't need to change the text, you just need the power to impose your interpretation on everybody.

​

Is that a lesson for this whole Law issue?

---

You responded in post 206

quote:

---

My understanding of the judgment in Acts 15 is that it was intended to require the Gentile believers to obey certain laws that would have greatly offended the Jewish believers if disobeyed. It's an application of the principle that we are not to act in a way that causes our brother to stumble, even if we have every right to ignore the law altogether because it has been fulfilled. It was important that Gentiles not be required to be circumcised so that was the first judgment; but then they did require obedience to some laws for the sake of the conscience of the Jews:
As one commentator says: "If the decision is that one does not have to be Jewish to be a Christian, it must also be declared that one does not need to forsake the Law of Moses to be a Christian."

​

So it's not a matter of whether the law was ceremonial or not, but a matter of respect for the conscience of other believers -- in this case the Jewish believers who had been brought up in strict observance of the Law of Moses. When the Jews were later no longer the leaders in the Church it was recognized that there was no longer a need to obey these laws -- because there is no requirement any more to obey any of the laws as the Jews understood it.

​

abe: We're "in Christ," (we used to be "in Adam" as all human beings are, but when we give ourselves to Christ we are now "in Him." There's lots of theology wrapped up in that but I guess I should make it brief). Christ obeyed all the Law for us, we are reckoned as righteous (as obedient to the Law) through our faith in Him. (Not that we are to flout the Law in any way of course, which is one way salvation by faith and not by works has been misunderstood -- when we commit sin, which is defined as transgression of the Law, we confess it and forsake it, depending on Jesus for cleansing.) Sinners can't be saved; your sins have to be completely done away with because only the perfectly obedient/righteous can see God. We have no power in ourselves to wipe out our sins; that's what Jesus did for us, and we possess His righteousness through faith in Him.

---

Back to this thread.Now here is a parallel in Revelation 2:14 to the 1 Corinthians 10 Balaam Idol (food fornication) issue (Jannes and Jambres story from Josphus) issue.

quote:

---

14 But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

---

See Revelation 2:20 to 21 too.Maybe fornication was ceremonial or table fellowship too?

Correct. Yes, it's dumb. And wrong. No. Well I've quoted what you said, it's there for all to see. Fuck you" x2 not enough to qualify? I think it would be perfectly natural for you to agree with people you identify with. You're no more imune from bias than anyone else. No.You appear to have a problem with speculative questions and uncertainty. I'm a big fan of evidence but unless we're looking backwards, usually there isn't any. I'm interested in discussing likely future outcomes and it seems to me that there are risks here. You know what discussion and argument is? It's not writing a dissertation for peer review or writing an essay for your professor. It's not my problem if my replies frustrate you because they don't conform to your personal evidential standards. In daily life 'what ifs' are important.

The two excerpts above appear to be going in opposite directions, so it's hard to tell what it is you're actually saying. Would fundamentalist Christians with a bakery sell a wedding cake with no writing to a gay couple? If not then you *are* refusing to sell a cake. But it's not religious at that point. When you open a bakery to sell to the public at large then you have entered the secular world where you must follow secular laws. You can't select a subset of the public to sell to. Still inflated and exaggerated. You're just encouraging people to call you names back. I think you need to look up totalitarian.--Percy

Cogent. See? That wasn't so hard to admit was it? We could have moved past this question a long time ago if you'd have done it sooner. Correct. I have no problems with questions or uncertainty. I have a problem with the fact it took you so long to admit you got nothing but questions. But since you have no evidence for your questions again I ask the same question: Might your questions result in more harm than good? Yeah, it's were two people go back and forth with ideas and explore an issue, sometimes on opposite sides of an issue. It isn't asking a hypothetical question and then repeating it over and over again as someone tries to talk to you. But only if you approach them with honesty. By admitting the hypotheticals have no evidential basis for instance. At which point I can say 'Why should I care?' Let's remember that you started with a little more than hypotheticals, so I'd like to also point out that questioning your questions has produced the result that you've backed off some of your earlier points:

quote:

---

Similarly, why ask a right-wing fundamentalist jerk-off to bake you a cake if you're queer? Some people are just looking for a fight.

---

quote:

---

Artificially targetting bigots on trivial issues doesn't help the cause.

---

quote:

---

LGBTs have won the major argument, so don't go around deliberately targeting baking bigots, it doesn't look good.

---

No evidence of any targeting or gays looking for a fight. Concession accepted.

quote:

---

Just pick your fights shrewdly otherwise you risk being seen not being normal, nice etc.

---

No evidence of any unshrewd fights being picked. Concession accepted.

quote:

---

There is a difference between saying 'never do this' and 'do this more strategically'.

---

No evidence what would be 'more strategic' so meaningless management speak as I originally claimed 'Do good things, but more optimally'. Concession accepted.

quote:

---

if the public hears constantly about seemingly trivial complaints from a particular section of society it will turn them against that sector.

---

No evidence that this is in fact true. Concession accepted. Not that this is not a hypothetical what if. This this is a 'if this then this' statement. So if you are backing off ino the world of 'what ifs' then concession is accepted.

quote:

---

it's likely to be counter-productive to complain about bigots not baking cakes

---

Nothing supporting your belief of likelihood. Concession accepted.So why should I take your question or your concerns seriously?What ifs are important, if they are discussed. Their merits and likelihoods can or are explored. Just shooting the shit is at best useless, at worst harmful. There is literally no way it can help.So if you want to discuss, how about we turn to the Ashers case. I raised some reasons why I thought that ultimately the decision was correctly found - (though I should say I'm not necessarily on board with all of the courts arguments in favour of the decision). What do you make of them? This is a debate forum - It is perfectly legitimate in this medium to point out you have no evidence, no supporting arguments and to criticize this fact. Said the Creationist to the scientist.

Seems we have a few people here that think that word can mean anything they want it to mean. Makes it tough to have an honest debate.
I don't think anyone should aspire to emulate Humpty Dumpty.

quote:

---

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less."

---

Through the Looking-Glass - WikiquoteBut I guess, if it works for them.