Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 615 of 824 (749467)
02-04-2015 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 609 by Faith
02-04-2015 8:47 PM


And as a religious organization, that's entirely within both state and federal law.
Yes, it's within state and federal law. But then they don't get the tax breaks they want. That's also the law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 609 by Faith, posted 02-04-2015 8:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 616 of 824 (749468)
02-04-2015 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 608 by Faith
02-04-2015 8:43 PM


Re: Ham To Sue For Divinely Appointed Tax Rebates
I think the government pulled a bait and switch on him from the sound of it.
Uh, no. The other way round. He said, this is a tourist attraction, give us money. Then after they'd said yes, he's all "Ta-da it's a Christian ministry! Now, about that money?" So that after Ham initially got the tax breaks on the grounds that he was building a tourist attraction, the FRC is explaining that they AiG should be allowed to discriminate because they're a "religious organization".
Well, religious organizations are allowed to discriminate in their hiring practices, but they don't get public subsidies. Ham can have his cake, or he can eat it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 608 by Faith, posted 02-04-2015 8:43 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 618 by Faith, posted 02-04-2015 11:28 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 631 by JonF, posted 02-05-2015 8:44 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 669 of 824 (749582)
02-05-2015 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 667 by Faith
02-05-2015 9:09 PM


I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Sometimes I almost think it would have been better if, when God was writing his Word, he'd been consistent instead of contradicting himself all the time. But since he did, I guess you can pick and choose which bits to follow.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 667 by Faith, posted 02-05-2015 9:09 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 670 by Faith, posted 02-05-2015 10:05 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 671 by subbie, posted 02-05-2015 10:21 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 673 of 824 (749592)
02-06-2015 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 670 by Faith
02-05-2015 10:05 PM


Another case where a Christian does not find a contradiction but an unbeliever does.
Yeah, I see your point, Christians suck.
Wait, that wasn't your point?
What Paul is teaching is that we avoid BELIEVERS ("called a brother") who are guilty of those sins ...
And the people who actually, LITERALLY followed Jesus, the people who, according to the Bible, he actually asked to have lunch with him ... they weren't believers? What were they, autograph hunters? "I'm a big fan of your dad, can you ask him to sign my copy of the Old Testament"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 670 by Faith, posted 02-05-2015 10:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 674 by Faith, posted 02-06-2015 1:07 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 675 of 824 (749595)
02-06-2015 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 674 by Faith
02-06-2015 1:07 AM


As the quoted verses say, they were sinners in need of the Physician.
Were they believers?
It's a pretty strange position you're taking anyway ... apparently, according to you, it's OK to hang with sinners so long as they're also atheists, but not otherwise.
Well, trying to make sense of the Bible will lead you down some strange roads.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 674 by Faith, posted 02-06-2015 1:07 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 677 by Faith, posted 02-06-2015 3:30 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 806 of 824 (749862)
02-09-2015 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 804 by Faith
02-09-2015 2:39 PM


Re: Remedial Reading for me, please
Owning slaves was part of the economy, it had nothing to do with personal sin.
Does that apply to other things? In Nevada, it's OK to own a whorehouse, so long as it's not in Clark County. If I do so, does this have "nothing to do with personal sin", it's just "part of the economy" of Nevada? Would you/God not hold me personally responsible if I was a brothelkeeper? Would you/God say that it's just "part of the economy" if I do so, and that it's not a "personal moral sin"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 804 by Faith, posted 02-09-2015 2:39 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 315 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 807 of 824 (749863)
02-09-2015 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 805 by New Cat's Eye
02-09-2015 3:13 PM


Re: Remedial Reading for me, please
Economies don't own slaves, people do.
Like Cat Sci said. Even if you live in an economy where many people own slaves, it's not obligatory to do so. And even when something is obligatory, Christians have chosen torture and death over (for example) worshiping the Roman Emperor as a god. But there was never any such obligation to own slaves. Any Christian could always have said "Nuh-uh, I won't own slaves". So how is it not a personal sin if a particular person chooses to do so? If our society allowed us to own slaves, and I personally choose not to own slaves, and Fred personally chooses to own slaves, why am I not personally in the right on this issue, and Fred personally in the wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 805 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-09-2015 3:13 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024