The Tension of Faith

You need to get a handle on your impulse control. You feel the impulse to declare the discussion over, so you do, yet here you are continuing the discussion. You feel the impulse that ignoring me is what to post, so you do, even though you are definitely not ignoring me. And so it goes. Of course you don't. So of course you believe they should be able to buy a wedding cake in any bakery they like. Of course you don't. So of course you have no objection to making abortion clinics available so that woman can freely choose.And you forgot Islam, so I'll fill that one in for you: Of course you don't. So of course you have no objection to allowing immigration for followers of Islam. Well I guess you're just a "Queen of Hearts" kind of person, then. So how many impossible things do *you* believe before breakfast. Ah, I can just feel the love.What if you love God but think he's fictional? A message or two ago you said God is love. Seems to me, as I'm sure it seems to everyone but you, that a God of love would have love for the unrepentant and incorrigibly wicked. I'm sorry Hitler ever existed, but being saved is a Christian fiction, so who cares if he was or wasn't saved? You haven't. What I said was that there's no evidence for apparitions, and no mention of them in the Bible, that you've been reading too many ghost stories. Don't check it out on my behalf - I only linked to it to give you or GDR a starting point. I don't believe miracles exist, but if you or GDR think they exist and think they can be studied (GDR provided the example of the Big Bang, which is already under study and which hasn't revealed any miracles yet) then by all means provide an example of a miracle we can study. This is an "angels on the head of a pin" kind of argument. I don't care how many classes of miracles you believe in or which you think are real, or which you think are parlor tricks, or which you think angels can do and which you think they can't. From where I sit you're just piling the fictions higher and higher, making more and more claims about the real world (since you claim there's really no supernatural world) for which there isn't an ounce of evidence, and for which you claim there can't be evidence anyway, so how could you possibly know?You say you trust eyewitness testimony in the Bible, but there's no evidence in the Bible or anywhere else of their trustworthiness as eyewitnesses. We have much better knowledge of simple human nature, which invents stories about miracles all the time. I'll bet many eyewitnesses to modern miracles would swear on a stack of Bibles that they really saw what they saw, but I'll equally bet that you wouldn't believe them even if they wrote the account in the style of John.You know what one of the most common types of religious flim-flam is today? Faith healing. You know what type of miracle Jesus performed more than any other? Faith healing. Think about it. What did you say? You said the supernatural was very easy to tell from the natural, that anyone could do it, even me.There's still the problem that for you there's not really any supernatural, that it's all really part of the natural, so now what you're really saying becomes completely unclear because you're saying how easy it is to tell the natural that's really the supernatural except that it isn't really the supernatural but is part of the natural but a different part of the natural from the natural. Good luck parsing that, but that's the kind of sense you're making. Where in the Bible does it say that God created angels and demons? And let's not forget apparitions. What you should say is, "I have faith in the Bible, that's my source of inspiration." Mine aren't insults. I just describe what you do or say. Being called out does feel very similar to being insulted, but what you're actually feeling is outrage that someone has the nerve to call you out.You spent a great deal of time and effort describing what you truly believe, so I appreciate that and thank you.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

But I didn't insult you. As I said, I just describe what you do or say, which is exactly what I did in Message 1252: Isn't that merely a description of exactly what you did? I'm sure everyone here is more than willing to cut people a few breaks, but you've been doing this for years. Asking for more than a decade's worth of cutting you a break is an absurd request. If you don't like being called on it, stop doing it.Now, don't forget this time, you've called an end to the discussion, and you're ignoring me. There should be no more posts from you in this thread. Translation: You don't think LGBT people should be able to buy wedding cakes in any bakery they like, you don't think abortion clinics should be available so women have the right to choose, and you don't think followers of Islam should be allowed into the country. Yeah, right, you don't hate anybody, you just want to inflict your own special version of love on everyone. A mere declaration with no evidence yet again. Faith, Faith, Faith, how many times do we have to tell you? You can't just declare something so, you have to show it is so.--Percy

Oh, what a surprise. The simple act of declaring what you're going to do and then doing it is impossible for you. Who ever would have guessed. Your problem? My dear, for you it isn't a single problem but a host of problems. The question isn't whether you'll treat people uncaringly, insultingly and sometimes even threatenly, but which of your many methods of offense you will choose. This time you chose to not do what you said you were going to do, but next time who knows? But we do know there will be a next time, and that it will be something that a person with normal humanity and compassion would not do. But I don't hate you. The discordance between your words and deeds is so extreme that I've been forced to label you a liar, a conclusion I avoided for years, but I don't hate you. And I do think you're a horrible excuse for a human being along the lines of a Trump or a Bannon but without the grandiose delusions, but I don't hate you. But neither do I think that expressions of hate from people like you and Trump and Bannon should be met with a shrug of the shoulders and a polite, "Well, that's just the way they are." I will call out your hate every time. Liar. You're expressing hate every time you threaten your fellow participants with judgment day. You're expressing hate every time you you inflict your attitudes on others, taking away the right of free participation in the economy from the LGBT, taking away choice from women, and taking away immigration from followers of Islam. God is just your excuse of choice for justifying your inhumanity. Your hate is the same hate that Southerners had for the black man. Just like you, God was their excuse for their hate, expressed by holding the black man in bondage.So that's the first point from my list from Message 1248, which I guess still isn't settled. Here's the rest of the items from the list, with your answers if you provided them:

• How can a God of love wreak vengeance on people?
  ​
• You have no evidence of apparitions, nor any citations to provide a Biblical foundation for their existence
  ​
• You don't know how to tell the supernatural (which you say is actually just part of the natural) from the natural.
  ​
• How can the supernatural be part of the natural, since a superset cannot reside within the set it contains?
  ​
• You don't know that angels and demons cannot perform miracles.
  ​
• How do you know you're not one of the people seduced by Satan?
  ​
• How do you know that the miracles described at Religion's Top 10 Astonishing Miracles are not really miracles?

Discussion only diverted down this path when I inquired whether this thread was about true faith or about a faith founded upon evidence. You've offered only evidence that believers can see, that is, no evidence at all. The basis for your beliefs, misguided though they are, is faith, not evidence.--Percy

A second reply to the same message. Making the same points. Why, I am so blessed! Thank you. The baker's thing has been discussed to death, I'm not going to continue it. Suffice to say that the baker is no longer selling wedding cakes in the secular economy, which is open to all. And who better to tell us about God's judgment and threaten us with it than you? You really should get up in Hyde Park some time.--Percy

Of course the baker is still in business: Masterpiece CakeshopAccording to his donation site, Support Jack Phillips, he did give up baking wedding cakes:

quote:

---

Four years ago, to avoid violating his conscience without disobeying the State of Colorado's order requiring that he custom design cakes for same-sex weddings, Jack stopped making wedding cakes altogether. As a major source of income for any small cakeshop, the loss of the wedding cake business has cost Jack nearly 40% of his annual revenue.

---

So I guess we can ignore the rest of your hyperbole: You continue: No, I think Hyde Park's about right for you, but I suggest you get your facts straight, especially before declaring you "know what's going on." One thing we do know, as well stated by the Washington Post: "When a cake artist opens the doors of his bakery, he commits to serving all customers equally."--Percy

Uh-oh, you're back to one-line responses again, never a good sign for you. One more time, you're not God. You don't make things so just by declaring them so.If you want to show I don't "understand anything at all" then you're going to have to show it through discussion. You're going to have to produce meaningful responses to the evidence that proves you have a hate-filled theology that combines with error-filled contradictory claims. My Message 1258 is still there if you can somehow find the wits to come up with more than a moronic one-line response.--Percy

Empty, barren and untruthful replies like this is why you're so deserving of calumny and opprobrium. This was your response (for one could certainly never call it an answer) in your Message 1261: You say nothing, explain nothing, answer nothing. In fact, nothing and emptiness best characterize your contributions thus far.Have you a wish to answer my Message 1258, it still resides where it always has, responded to (twice!) but unanswered.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

You, again, need to check your facts, dear lady. The courts would probably agree with you that "He is not required to decorate his cakes with images or messages that are utterly repugnant to him morally." But the betrothed couple merely told the baker that they wished to purchase one of his custom wedding cakes, at which point he refused them. They left immediately. Nothing was said about images or messages. Given your demonstrated accuracy thus far, or more precisely the profound lack thereof, and especially recently, the only comment I can make about the above unsubstantiated and (because you provide no details, as is your frequent habit) unverifiable claims is that they may or may not be true. With you one never knows, you frequently just say whatever pops into your head to support your position, truth be damned. Your "end justify the means" approach would make Machiavelli proud.--Percy

I think the larger question is why you think the difference between an unadorned cake versus one with "images or messages" is nitpicking? That's an interesting conclusion. However did you arrive there? Well, I guess that would be true if you defined "out for blood" as calling attention to the true meaning of what you've said and done. It is not within my power to do that. You can only do that to yourself. For example, you need only look to the example of Trump tweets to see how ineffective he has been at depriving women of respect. If disdain has been your fortune then the blame is your own. Again, it is not within my power to do that. Here's a wedding cake from the Masterpiece Cakeshop catalog: And just to get the facts straight, in Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips' own words, here's what happened (from Supreme Court hears same-sex marriage cake case):

quote:

---

Flash forward to 2012, when same sex marriage was not yet legal in Colorado, but two men walked into the bakery.

​

"The conversation was fairly short," Philips remembered. "I went over and greeted them. We sat down at the desk where I had my wedding books open."

​

The men told Phillips they wanted a cake to celebrate their planned wedding, which would be performed in another state. Phillips said he knew right away that he couldn't create the product they were looking for without violating his faith.

​

"The Bible says, 'In the beginning there was male and female,'" Phillips said. He offered to make any other baked goods for the men.

​

"At which point they both stormed out and left," he said.

---

To summarize, Phillips took the couple over to his wedding cake books, which were full of pictures of cakes like the image above, then discovered that the two men *were* the couple, a gay couple, and refused them service. They then left.Another shorter description can be found at Supreme Court seems divided in case of baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple:

quote:

---

The couple arrived with Craig’s mother and a book of ideas, but Phillips cut short the meeting as soon as he learned the cake was to celebrate the couple’s marriage.

​

Phillips recalled: Our conversation was just about 20 seconds long. ‘Sorry guys, I don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.’

---

A straight couple can walk in off the street into Mr. Phillips shop and purchase this cake, but a gay couple cannot on religious grounds? Could a black couple be denied on religious grounds (imagine a religion where economic intercourse with blacks was "morally repugnant")? If a baker of cakes is an artist, is a hair stylist, a chef or a makeup artist? Can an artist refuse service to anyone, say a black sculptor refusing to sculpt a cross for the Ku Klux Klan? Can the baker post a sign in his window saying that the shop does not make wedding cakes for gay couples? Is a wedding cake speech or just an item for sale by a business?Lots of questions. I can understand that Phillips wouldn't want his cake served at the reception for a gay couple and might find it morally repugnant, but I can't see how businesses open to the general public can pick and choose their customers or who they'll sell which items to.By the way, I happened to come across this letter from Jack Phillips lays out his position pretty clearly, thought you might like to read it: Colorado baker at the center of a Supreme Court case takes no guff from Duff Goldman--Percy

You mean my Message 1258. It's true that you answered some, but it's also true that you didn't answer others. In my list it wasn't that clear which had been answered and which hadn't, so here's the list again, this time with better clarity:

• Question: How can a God of love wreak vengeance on people?
  ​
• Answered question: You have no evidence of apparitions, nor any citations to provide a Biblical foundation for their existence.
  ​
• Answered question: You don't know how to tell the supernatural (which you say is actually just part of the natural) from the natural.
  ​
• Question:How can the supernatural be part of the natural, since a superset cannot reside within the set it contains?
  ​
• Answered question: You don't know that angels and demons cannot perform miracles.
  ​
• Question: How do you know you're not one of the people seduced by Satan?
  ​
• Question: How do you know that the miracles described at Religion's Top 10 Astonishing Miracles are not really miracles?

Why are you evading questions about your own beliefs? Your inhumanity invites criticism. It should not go without comment. Bringing your inhumanity, your callousness, your cruelty, your insensitivity, to your attention is understandably upsetting to you, but you have to take responsibility for own acts - blame lies nowhere else.--Percy

A business isn't a church. Nothing is preventing Mr. Phillips from the free practice of his religious beliefs, but he does seem to be trying to prevent gay couples from the free practice of their civil rights.--Percy

That doesn't align with my actual comments which you failed to quote, so I will. This is from the message you replied to, Message 1312: Mr. Phillips can freely exercise his religious beliefs in his church or his home or the homes of fellow travelers. What he can't do is use his business to discriminate against members of the public. It is obviously untrue that the "Law of God" applies to "every undertaking and every business." The laws of the United States maintain separation between church and state. Church isn't allowed to impose its laws on state.--Percy

Thank you for that expression of your Christian faith. Someday you'll have to explain how calling attention to hateful things you say are personal attacks.You still didn't address any of the unanswered questions, here's the whole list again:

• Question: How can a God of love wreak vengeance on people?
  ​
• Answered question: You have no evidence of apparitions, nor any citations to provide a Biblical foundation for their existence.
  ​
• Answered question: You don't know how to tell the supernatural (which you say is actually just part of the natural) from the natural.
  ​
• Question:How can the supernatural be part of the natural, since a superset cannot reside within the set it contains?
  ​
• Answered question: You don't know that angels and demons cannot perform miracles.
  ​
• Question: How do you know you're not one of the people seduced by Satan?
  ​
• Question: How do you know that the miracles described at Religion's Top 10 Astonishing Miracles are not really miracles?

--Percy

If Phillips refuses to sell to some what he would sell to others, that's discrimination. But the old South used the Bible to justify slavery. Christian interpretations are impermanent. That's a religious belief. It has no place in the secular environment of a bakery.--Pery

So you claim. Other Christians disagree and are more, shall we say, Christian. Do what you have to do. You seem to be forgetting what you said: "The Law of God applies to everyone everywhere at every moment, in every activity and every undertaking and every business." That describes not separation of church and state but a state dominated by church. Not true. Members of all religions regardless of beliefs must follow the laws of the land. For example, particularly conservative Amish used to be regularly hauled into court for refusing to put proper reflectors on their carriages - there was eventually a Supreme Court case (Minnesota vs. Hershberger). As the New York Times wrote at the time (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.

---

You have a vivid imagination, or you're paranoid.--Percy