The Tension of Faith

Protections for minors and and protections for society against felons with guns are not discrimination. At least you're freely admitting that your position *is* one of discrimination against gays, but in Colorado businesses that do not serve all comers regardless of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, religion, age, national origin, or ancestry are discriminating. The Supreme Court will decide whether the Colorado law stands. They were as fervent in their Christianity as you. If they could be wrong, you could be wrong. That's your opinion, something, as I mentioned above, the Supreme Court will decide.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

quote:

---

I don't care what the Old South did, they were biblically wrong.

---

Religious freedom is not religious freedom if it only applies to people who agree with you. If banning discrimination against gays was a First Amendment violation, so was banning discrimination against Blacks. That is indisputable.So you should care because your case rises or falls with theirs.

My goodness, caps again. Hope you can hold it together there.It is not within my power to define what is hateful. Society decides that, and then you make your own decisions about whether to be hateful or not. Yes, because you treat some people (in this thread gays) as if they were not entitled to all the same rights guaranteed other human beings in this country. You put yourself in the category of inhumane, I merely noted it. God is just your excuse for hate. You earlier denied that screeds like this were threats, but it's difficult to see it in any other way. You're threatening me with God's wrath. I'm not feeling the love here. And I responded, to which there has been no answer. Why can't God love unrepentant evildoers? A God who serves only those who provide unconditional fealty cannot be considered a God of love but of compulsion. You are right that if your God exists I will be punished, but it won't be by a God of love but of vengeance. Summarizing, you say demons possess people in the Bible, but you don't say that the apparition you saw was a possessed person, so demons aren't apparitions. And you say that angels do not appear as apparitions. And you concede that apparitions have no Biblical foundation. Sounds pretty much like there's no such thing as apparitions, not as long as you remain within the confines of your version of Christianity. This is different from what you said before, which is the problem with making stuff up, it's hard to keep it consistent. Plus this is in itself inconsistent. What you've just said is that the supernatural is natural because it's created, but we call it supernatural anyway. But what we call it doesn't affect what it is. If the supernatural is actually natural, then continuing to call it supernatural doesn't make it supernatural. It's natural, you said so. So if it's natural then we should be able to study it scientifically, just like everything else that is natural. Right? But I thought Satan was a trickster and deceiver, that people under Satan's sway were unaware it was Satan. "Satan disguises himself as an angel of light" (2 Corinthians 11:14) and "Satan immediately comes and takes away the word which is sown in them." (Mark 4:15) If you're under Satan's power you wouldn't know it, and even if you did you wouldn't admit it. I think your hateful nature plus your denials that you're under Satan's control is pretty much proof that you're a Satan sycophant. I'll remind you once more that you're not God. Declaring something so doesn't make it so. Declaring the miracles at that website (Religion's Top 10 Astonishing Miracles) petty does not make it so. You must show that they are petty.That being said, when anyone provides proof of miracles I'm not going to be picky about whether they're petty or not. A miracle would be pretty amazing, no matter how trivial. Let God or an angel or a demon cause a dim light to glow hovering in the center of this room, certainly a very insignificant miracle, and I'll set up equipment to study it.--Percy

Evidently not, and you have the memory of a gnat. I just quoted you what the New York Times wrote about Minnesota vs. Hershberger (Supreme Court Roundup; Justices Reject Minnesota Exemption of Amish From Road Law):

quote:

---

The Court said a criminal law that does not single out religion for adverse treatment will be upheld even if it puts a burden on some religious practices.

---

And as Jar reminded you, most Christian bakers have no problem baking wedding cakes for any couple.--Percy

What confusion? The simplest solution, especially given all the associated rights of health insurance, inheritance, hospital rights, joint tax returns, etc., is to let any two people marry.I'm curious, what does your version of Christianity say about someone who has XY chromosomes but is otherwise female, or who has XX chromosomes but is otherwise male, or who has XXY chromosomes or ambiguous genitalia? Who can they marry? Which side of sports do they compete on? Which bathroom do they use?--Percy

Jesus never taught His Disciples to disobey nor challenge the Roman government. Likewise, any business run by Christians needs to obey the laws of the land. It is George Washington, not Jesus Christ who appears on the US Dollar.

Evidently you're wrong. Again. Your Christian prejudices and tendency to cast hate (in this case claiming gay parents are bad parents) are leading you astray, not to mention revealing your ignorance. Check this out: Dumping children into the foster care system should be a last resort. Check out Outcomes of children who grew up in foster care: Systematic-review:

quote:

---

In both systems, children who leave care continue to struggle on all areas (education, employment, income, housing, health, substance abuse and criminal involvement) compared to their peers from the general population. A stable foster care placement, establishing a foothold in education and having a steady figure (mentor) who supports youth after they age out of care seem to be important factors to improve the outcomes.

---

Note that it mentions as important missing factors those same ones mentioned by, I think, DWise1.You are again speaking out of ignorance while promoting a system that is grossly inadequate where the welfare of children is concerned.I can see why there is so much tension in your faith. It keeps pushing you toward the worst answers and solutions.--Percy

Yes, we have an example before us right now.--Percy

Oooh, two one-liners in a row, combined with the ALLCAP messages never a good sign for you.Please, if you don't have something intelligent to contribute, don't post.--Percy

Just start acting like a true Christian bringing love and good news and stop behaving like a God of vengeance and all your problems of participation here will melt away.--Percy

Translation: "Just come around to agreeing with all of us here and everything will be fine, we'll stop hating you."I'm beginning to think you expect EvC to fold pretty soon since you are so aggressively violating your own rule about personal attacks as if none of it matters any more. You know, "argue the topic not the person." Wouldn't it be simpler just to suspend me?

I thought my post was particularly to the point myself.

Just love how the heathen have given themselves the authority to define Christianity. No doubt part of the move to the One World Antichrist religion.

It isn't really about competence to be parents, it's about what I said: pretense to be equivalent to heterosexual parents which promotes a false idea of marriage and family. Of course if there is no such pretense, but more like being aunts or uncles as guardians, that's something else. I'm sure there are many gays who can be fine parents if they treat it as a guardianship and don't try to confuse biological and social categories in the minds of children..Just because I oppose the playing of false roles because that twists society's categories in people's minds, really doesn't mean I hate gays at all. I don't think it's healthy to pretend you are something you aren't.ABE: Gays are sinners like everyone else. They need to be set free from their sin and redeemed by Christ. In any case nobody's sin should be allowed to dictate social policy. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Just saw this post.Phat, you are desperately confused.If your understanding of giving unto Caesar were correct, the early Christians should not have refused to worship Caesar as God. We have to obey God above all and if there is a conflict with Caesar we suffer the consequences, which in those days meant death by one means or another. We cannot defy God.abe: Paying taxes to Caesar is our duty to Caesar and it doesn't require us to disobey God. But directly defying God's ordinance of marriage does.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.