Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2017 9:36 PM
438 online now:
Coyote, Dr Adequate, jar, JonF, Modulous (AdminModulous), NoNukes (6 members, 432 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Happy Birthday: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,969 Year: 6,575/21,208 Month: 2,336/2,634 Week: 524/572 Day: 10/61 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2930
31
3233
...
46NextFF
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12438
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 451 of 688 (802770)
03-20-2017 5:38 AM
Reply to: Message 449 by Tangle
03-20-2017 4:37 AM


Seems to me that you're skating over the big difference between "I don't sell that" and "I don't sell that to your kind"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by Tangle, posted 03-20-2017 4:37 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 452 by Tangle, posted 03-20-2017 6:08 AM PaulK has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4406
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 452 of 688 (802771)
03-20-2017 6:08 AM
Reply to: Message 451 by PaulK
03-20-2017 5:38 AM


Seems to me that you're skating over the big difference between "I don't sell that" and "I don't sell that to your kind"

No, I do recognise and accept the difference. But the not-selling bit is based on a profoundly held - if bonkers - religious belief, which our societies have accepted as ok. We live with their bonkers beliefs because we say they have a right to hold them and we can get our pork elsewhere, and no-one is harmed etc etc etc

We also have to accept that if I, as a straight man, asked for a cake with a support gay marriage' message or for one that I said was intended to be used at a gay marriage, it would not be provided (under Faith's rules of engagement.) They could fairly argue that they wouldn't sell that cake to anyone, it doesn't matter whether they're gay or not. Just like the pork.

The courts come to a different conclusion - direct or indirect discrimination as charged.

My interest in these arguments isn't in their rights and wrongs as individual cases but that we are becoming very intolerant of diversity and whether this intollerance is a good or bad thing.

Just to muddy the waters even more. Here in the UK there are various issues now around Muslim cultures that we tolerated comfortably in the passed that are now surfacing. Perhaps these things should have been confronted far sooner - in the way Modulous and Rrhain are defending now for LGBT rights.

But I don't feel comfortable in a world where many minority groups seems to be in either attack or defense mode over seemingly minor issues. It feels like our minorities are on permanently edge.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2017 5:38 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 453 by Phat, posted 03-20-2017 6:46 AM Tangle has responded
 Message 460 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2017 8:15 AM Tangle has responded
 Message 499 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2017 4:15 PM Tangle has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9260
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 453 of 688 (802772)
03-20-2017 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 452 by Tangle
03-20-2017 6:08 AM


Opting Out Is Not An Option
Tangle writes:

My interest in these arguments isn't in their rights and wrongs as individual cases but that we are becoming very intolerant of diversity and whether this intollerance is a good or bad thing.

I can see both sides of this discussion. (If there are only two sides, that is.. ) There is doubtlessly a difference that one feels belonging to a minority group. Intolerance becomes more of an issue based on defending ones identity. I personally feel more comfortable identifying with a majority group rather than a minority group. I choose to keep any issues that would place me in a minority group private. Others are more comfortable making their issues and challenges in life public...and thus are intolerant of mainstream belief and opinion. I am more apt to avoid rocking the boat...since conflict makes me neurotic.

Tangle writes:

...I don't feel comfortable in a world where many minority groups seem to be in either attack or defense mode over seemingly minor issues. It feels like our minorities are on permanent edge.

Perhaps you feel uncomfortable bearing the responsibility to side with other people's fight. They may look at it as you having to be either for the fight or against the fight...opting out is not an option.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by Tangle, posted 03-20-2017 6:08 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by Tangle, posted 03-20-2017 7:01 AM Phat has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28433
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 454 of 688 (802774)
03-20-2017 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 446 by Faith
03-20-2017 2:39 AM


Classic "True Christian™" response.
Faith writes:

I'd happily punch you in the nose for that lie that has been answered dozens of times already. I'd happily get my hand broken for the trouble. I'd happily sit in jail for it.

Amazing but unfortunately it seems very common.

As I have pointed out it seems that what you and so many other "True Christian™"s want is to suffer and do harm to others.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 2:39 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4406
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 455 of 688 (802776)
03-20-2017 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 453 by Phat
03-20-2017 6:46 AM


Re: Opting Out Is Not An Option
Phat writes:

Perhaps you feel uncomfortable bearing the responsibility to side with other people's fight.

No it's not that. I'm a pretty robust person, I'm very happy to join any fight I feel is right.

They may look at it as you having to be either for the fight or against the fight...opting out is not an option.

They're conflicted. They use the argument that unless I agree with everything they say, I'm part of the problem. But when it's one of them saying it, it's ok.

It's the outsider/insider thing. The general assertion is that an outsider has no right to comment unless it's in support. Different rules for insiders - though insiders too can get it rough, particularly between rank and file and activist. But hey-ho, that's life.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by Phat, posted 03-20-2017 6:46 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 456 by Phat, posted 03-20-2017 7:11 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9260
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 456 of 688 (802777)
03-20-2017 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 455 by Tangle
03-20-2017 7:01 AM


Re: Opting Out Is Not An Option
Allow me to bring up another issue. Equal access for handicapped people. I can see the fairness of it, but I can also see the economic cost to small businesses. For many of them, the expense outweighs the benefit that the remodeling would allow through the extra customers. How should a business pay for such an accommodation if they are a small store who can't afford to remodel the bathroom for 2% of the population?

I don't get Faiths argument, though. I am a checker at a grocery store. If I let my personal beliefs influence the service I provide to my customers, I would be discriminating based on principal.

As a ridiculous example, don't sell to thieves because they don't deserve service due to their propensity at stealing from our establishment.

Perhaps Faith herself feels she belongs to a minority group---Biblical Christians---and feels her rights are also being violated.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by Tangle, posted 03-20-2017 7:01 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 457 by jar, posted 03-20-2017 7:27 AM Phat has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28433
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 457 of 688 (802780)
03-20-2017 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 456 by Phat
03-20-2017 7:11 AM


Where is the harm?
Faith writes:

Perhaps Faith herself feels she belongs to a minority group---Biblical Christians---and feels her rights are also being violated.

There are two problems with that. First, the US Constitution would seem to preclude any rights for any group that claims a religious identity to anything more than the freedom to hold their beliefs and the free exercise of those beliefs within that group.

No religious group has the right to impose their beliefs on anyone not a member of their group.

Second, Faith has never shown how the actions called into question cause any form of harm to the "True Christians™". This is fairly subtle I will admit. Granted NOT performing the acts results in harm but Faith and the others need to show that performing the acts causes harm.

How does baking the cake for a gay wedding harm the baker?

Faith resorts to the claim that it goes against God's law but even if true where is the harm in that?

They may claim that it damns the baker to hellfire, but again, there is no evidence to support that.

They may claim it causes them emotional suffering but that is the same argument used by the other side so it will not fly.


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by Phat, posted 03-20-2017 7:11 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by Phat, posted 03-20-2017 7:35 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9260
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 458 of 688 (802782)
03-20-2017 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 457 by jar
03-20-2017 7:27 AM


Re: Where is the harm?
As A Christian, I would argue that we all sin, thus there is hypocrisy involved in discriminating against certain sinners and not others.

We can't simply become daily judges on who gets blessed and who gets cursed. that is Gods job.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
"as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler

This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by jar, posted 03-20-2017 7:27 AM jar has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 459 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 8:14 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 459 of 688 (802786)
03-20-2017 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 458 by Phat
03-20-2017 7:35 AM


The harm is in disobeying God
As A Christian, I would argue that we all sin, thus there is hypocrisy involved in discriminating against certain sinners and not others.

In case you think this is what the Christian baker, florist and photographer are doing, it ought to be clear by now that they are not, as has been said many times already. It's about the definition of marriage given by God, as understood by conservative Christians. it's not about any class of sinners. You ought to have grasped that by now.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by Phat, posted 03-20-2017 7:35 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12438
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 460 of 688 (802787)
03-20-2017 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 452 by Tangle
03-20-2017 6:08 AM


quote:

We also have to accept that if I, as a straight man, asked for a cake with a support gay marriage' message or for one that I said was intended to be used at a gay marriage, it would not be provided (under Faith's rules of engagement.) They could fairly argue that they wouldn't sell that cake to anyone, it doesn't matter whether they're gay or not. Just like the pork.

The courts come to a different conclusion - direct or indirect discrimination as charged.


But that is still not a straightforward equivalence. The Jewish butcher does not stock pork to sell. If the bakers advertise that they ice the customer's choice if message then they are taking a risk if they refuse to ice a message for discriminatory reasons. Refusing to provide an advertised service is quite obviously distinct from refusing to stock particular items.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by Tangle, posted 03-20-2017 6:08 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by Tangle, posted 03-20-2017 8:42 AM PaulK has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4406
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 461 of 688 (802788)
03-20-2017 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 460 by PaulK
03-20-2017 8:15 AM


PaulK writes:

But that is still not a straightforward equivalence. The Jewish butcher does not stock pork to sell. If the bakers advertise that they ice the customer's choice if message then they are taking a risk if they refuse to ice a message for discriminatory reasons. Refusing to provide an advertised service is quite obviously distinct from refusing to stock particular items.

Yes, yes, I know.

I'm just trying to point out how torturous and convoluted a process this is. Both forms of failure to supply are on religious grounds, both apply to all customers who ask. One is called discrimintaion, the other isn't.

The only difference is the multi-purpose useage for a cake.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2017 8:15 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2017 8:55 AM Tangle has acknowledged this reply
 Message 464 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 8:56 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15491
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 462 of 688 (802789)
03-20-2017 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 401 by Faith
03-19-2017 11:31 AM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
Faith writes:

Those "compelling" arguments may be compelling to you but millions of Bible-believers don't find your objection compelling, and especially those who have actually acted on our Bible-based position and been punished for it. You can't tell us what to believe.

No one's telling you what to believe. You said:

Faith in Message 353 writes:

Everything in the Bible is to be read in the light of everything else in the Bible because it's all true and one part can't be made to contradict another part.

You said "everything in the Bible." Obviously it can't all be true, and when I brought up examples you replied:

It's been explained over and over why most of the OT practices no longer apply today, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE ITSELF.

But not even you believe this. You're fine with some parts of the OT, like Genesis 1, and you're not fine with other parts, such as stonings and witch killings. You pick and choose which parts of the Bible you'll believe and then invent rationalizations for your beliefs that are obvious nonsense, then you have the chutzpah to demand other people accept your nonsense.

I thought it was common knowledge. Here are a few examples:

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

You've rejected the OT, and Leviticus is OT, but your other two references are NT and seem to clearly indicate a Biblical basis for considering homosexuality a sin.

The definition is complete as given: it applies to nothing other than a man and a woman.

If the definition were complete and said what you think it says, then it would say it applies to only one man and one woman, but it doesn't. And as I noted earlier, it doesn't even say anything about women.

It doesn't need to. References in the rest of the Bible make it clear if it escapes you as written.

Well, that's great - if you can provide those references and they say what you claim they say then that would settle this discussion.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 401 by Faith, posted 03-19-2017 11:31 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 9:55 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 466 by Faith, posted 03-20-2017 10:01 AM Percy has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12438
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 463 of 688 (802790)
03-20-2017 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 461 by Tangle
03-20-2017 8:42 AM


The distinction is much clearer than that.

The Jewish butcher objects to a product and does not stock it. He cannot sell what he does not have.

The baker who refuses to provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding is refusing to provide a completely ordinary service largely because they object to the customers - who are in a protected class, in the cases considered.

The baker who refuses to ice a particular message comes between the two - but closer to the second. The court gets to decide whether their refusal crosses the legal boundary or not. In places where gays are protected from discrimination, refusing to ice an otherwise harmless message in favour of gay marriage is quite obviously risky.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by Tangle, posted 03-20-2017 8:42 AM Tangle has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 464 of 688 (802791)
03-20-2017 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 461 by Tangle
03-20-2017 8:42 AM


I think this gets unnecessarily confusing when you include what a business simply does not stock. Just because there may be a religious reason for that in some cases can't be made an issue because businesses only stock what they stock for WHATEVER reason.

Shouldn't the topic be confined to what IS stocked but available under some circumstances and not others?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by Tangle, posted 03-20-2017 8:42 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 546 by Phat, posted 03-21-2017 3:28 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23978
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 465 of 688 (802795)
03-20-2017 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 462 by Percy
03-20-2017 8:48 AM


Re: Bible definition of gay marriage
Everything in the Bible is to be read in the light of everything else in the Bible because it's all true and one part can't be made to contradict another part.

You said "everything in the Bible." Obviously it can't all be true, and when I brought up examples you replied:

It's been explained over and over why most of the OT practices no longer apply today, ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE ITSELF.

But not even you believe this. You're fine with some parts of the OT, like Genesis 1, and you're not fine with other parts, such as stonings and witch killings.

Not so, I regard every word of it as true, when read in the light of everything else in the Bible. If you read it that way you understand there are conditions and contexts that define how to read parts of it today, especially the OT in light of the NT. It doesn't make the OT any less true to recognize that it had a different role in the time of Moses versus the time of Jesus. Jesus' coming changed the whole meaning of the OT (however, many preachers argue that it's all there in the OT if you understand how to read it properly, because there are plenty of hints about the role of the Messiah to come, but that's too fine a point for this discussion.) At the very least the OT was written for a theocracy, the NT is written to the universal Church which is scattered among all the nations on the planet, and whose "citizenship is not of this world." But ALL of it is still read as true, as "admonitions" as the NT puts it (the stonings and killings teach about the severe offensiveness of sin), or just in general to understand the mind of God.

You pick and choose which parts of the Bible you'll believe and then invent rationalizations for your beliefs that are obvious nonsense, then you have the chutzpah to demand other people accept your nonsense.

I would expect people to accept what a person says about why they believe what they believe, yes, and what I believe and have tried to explain does not come from me but from years of hearing sermons and reading theology. My view of these things falls pretty much right in line with the standard views of the Protestant Christian Church since the Reformers. It is certainly shared by the majority of conservative Christians today who would agree that God's definition of marriage as I quoted it requires us to refuse to do anything to appear to legitimize gay marriage.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by Percy, posted 03-20-2017 8:48 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 467 by jar, posted 03-20-2017 10:05 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2930
31
3233
...
46NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017