• Colo. court lets ruling stand on baker who denied gay couple service
    87 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Valon Kyre;50202184]Man, thats just not nice. Christian or not, dont shit on people beliefs.[/QUOTE] Why not
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;50205295]New testament, laid out by Christ, is completely different. You find me a quote of Christ saying gays are wrong and we'll talk. Until then, [B]please shut your mouth[/B] about how fundamentally backwards Christianity is when you aren't even understanding the topic properly.[/QUOTE] You don't have to be rude? I think you're not really getting what I'm saying. I'm saying that Christians today will try to ignore the barbaric parts of their religion because it's popular to do so. You can't call the Bible holy scripture, word of god, etc. and then say that part of it is [I]wrong[/I]. I personally believe the entire thing is wrong, but it's simply wrong to say that this baker is following the religion wrong when he appears to care more about the details of the so-called word of god than today's fair-weather christians who think "if I believe in Jesus I'll go to heaven simple as that" [editline]26th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=S31-Syntax;50205544]New testament didn't destroy anything from the old law, Old law still exists, it just literally [I]does not apply to us[/I] [B]because we are not the children of Israel, the jews are[/B]. Bible clearly says this. A lot of christians don't follow that because [I]they don't know[/I] because [I]they don't care[/I] because [I]they aren't as christian as they claim.[/I][/QUOTE] This is an extremely convenient excuse for apologists. Are you saying that if you were a Jew, it would still be okay to stone gays? And is it simply a matter of Jurisdiction that god wants the Jews to hate the gays, and the Christians to love them? What the fuck kind of bullshit is that? This is just another excuse because Christians today [I]know[/I] that the old testament was written by borderline savages
[QUOTE=catbarf;50205432]I'm not sure what your point is, you quoted sections that are explicitly stating exactly what I said. What did I make up, exactly?[/QUOTE] Because when you say this: [QUOTE]As far as I can tell that's pretty much what happened- they accepted the customer, but refused service because of the product requested (a pro-gay-marriage cake). If they didn't want to make a cake endorsing the Black Panthers but would otherwise make any other cake for a black customer, this ruling is implying that that would be racial discrimination. It doesn't seem logical.[/QUOTE] You're implying that there's an inherent distinction between a wedding cake for a "traditional" wedding and a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. When there isn't. A cake is a cake. You stack some cake on some more cake, put icing on it, and that's the cake. It's not like they asked for two dicks swordfighting to be put on the top of it. They didn't ask for it to be rainbow colored. They walked into the store, said "we're looking for a wedding cake", the owner said "sorry, no wedding cakes for fags" (paraphrased) and then that was it. They never mentioned [i]anything[/i] about what would go on the cake. So what if the Black Panthers came in and wanted a wedding cake? Who the hell cares? Your cake being there isn't an endorsement of their organization (had they still existed). [QUOTE=catbarf;50205432]The court disagreed on the grounds that same-sex marriage is politically close to same-sex weddings and concluded that refusing to make a same-sex wedding cake is legally equivalent to refusing service to gays, and I think that's a ridiculous stretch with absurd implications as a precedent.[/QUOTE] Well, did you actually read the decision where they quoted the pages upon pages of [i]precedent[/i] to back up their disagreement? Refusing service to exclusively same-sex weddings inherently means you're refusing service to people based on their sexual orientation. Gay people don't have straight weddings, and vice versa. It's far from a stretch. It's a logical conclusion. Gay people exclusively have same-sex weddings, gay people have a right to not be discriminated against, so refusing people who have same-sex weddings is the same as refusing people who are gay. What's the stretch here? It sounds like an LSAT question.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50206756]You don't have to be rude? I think you're not really getting what I'm saying. I'm saying that Christians today will try to ignore the barbaric parts of their religion because it's popular to do so. You can't call the Bible holy scripture, word of god, etc. and then say that part of it is [I]wrong[/I]. I personally believe the entire thing is wrong, but it's simply wrong to say that this baker is following the religion wrong when he appears to care more about the details of the so-called word of god than today's fair-weather christians who think "if I believe in Jesus I'll go to heaven simple as that" [editline]26th April 2016[/editline] This is an extremely convenient excuse for apologists. Are you saying that if you were a Jew, it would still be okay to stone gays? And is it simply a matter of Jurisdiction that god wants the Jews to hate the gays, and the Christians to love them? What the fuck kind of bullshit is that? This is just another excuse because Christians today [I]know[/I] that the old testament was written by borderline savages[/QUOTE] Again, your only point is that old literal interpretations are wrong, which we all agree with. The only difference between us is that we see the reform and removal of old teachings like that as a positive thing, while you view it as some pussy 'apologist' conspiracy.
What if I went to a gay owned bakery asked to bake a cake that says "'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.' Leviticus 20:13", does the owner have the right to deny me service? IMO any private owned store should be able to deny service to anyone for whatever reasons they want.
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;50207562]What if I went to a gay owned bakery asked to bake a cake that says "'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.' Leviticus 20:13", does the owner have the right to deny me service? IMO any private owned store should be able to deny service to anyone for whatever reasons they want.[/QUOTE] Possibly, because that would be a freedom of speech issue. The bakery wouldn't be forced to write something they don't want to write. The decision talked briefly about this, but since there was no discussion of what would go on the cake in this case, it wasn't relevant. Like I said, a cake is a cake. The act of baking and icing a cake for a same-sex marriage isn't any different from that of a "traditional" marriage. But if the bakery was forced to write "may their dicks forever be in each others' mouths", then they could have a constitutionality argument. Basically, the bakery owner jumped the gun and denied service merely on the basis that he was being asked to serve homosexuals. If he had waited until they went hog wild with their cake, he might have a case. But that didn't happen.
[QUOTE=No Party Hats;50207426]Again, your only point is that old literal interpretations are wrong, which we all agree with. The only difference between us is that we see the reform and removal of old teachings like that as a positive thing, while you view it as some pussy 'apologist' conspiracy.[/QUOTE] No, my point is that old literal interpretations are just as valid as the new, liberal interpretations. I'm not saying that the new, liberal interpretations are wrong (though, to me, they are wrong simply by coming from the assumption that god exists), I'm saying that you can't discount someone else's interpretation of the bible as a religious belief simply because you think your new, modern interpretation is somehow superior. I'm saying both are equally meritorious in the christian perspective
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;50207562]What if I went to a gay owned bakery asked to bake a cake that says "'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.' Leviticus 20:13", does the owner have the right to deny me service? IMO any private owned store should be able to deny service to anyone for whatever reasons they want.[/QUOTE] So how stores operated circa 1960?
[QUOTE=PelPix123;50208134]i'd rather have them say no than be forced to serve me when they don't want to and do a shit job on my wedding cake[/QUOTE] Then don't go there. Just because they're forced to serve you a generic wedding cake like anyone else with absolutely nothing on it that would distinguish it as glorifying whatever sinful behavior they believe is occurring doesn't mean you are forced to ask for one.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50206756]You don't have to be rude? I think you're not really getting what I'm saying. I'm saying that Christians today will try to ignore the barbaric parts of their religion because it's popular to do so. You can't call the Bible holy scripture, word of god, etc. and then say that part of it is [I]wrong[/I]. I personally believe the entire thing is wrong, but it's simply wrong to say that this baker is following the religion wrong when he appears to care more about the details of the so-called word of god than today's fair-weather christians who think "if I believe in Jesus I'll go to heaven simple as that" [/QUOTE] I'm coming across as rude because I'm sick and tired of people telling me I'm an asshole christian with barbaric views because of a scripture quote from the old testament which, as explained quite clearly, was given to and governs the Israelites. The baker doesn't care more about the word of God, the baker doesn't know what the word of God is. Believing in Christ is a hell of a lot more involved than "I know he existed/was the son of God/etc" Its following [I]his[/I] teachings. Old testament is effectively a prologue, it explains [I]why[/I] Christ was sent to earth. He was sent because people [I]fucking sucked[/I] and life sucked and we were stoning people to death and killing people's families and livelihoods because they weren't exactly like us and He showed up and pretty much said "Wow guys seriously this is some grade A bullshit. No no no no like [I]this.[/I]" [QUOTE=proboardslol;50206756] This is an extremely convenient excuse for apologists. Are you saying that if you were a Jew, it would still be okay to stone gays? And is it simply a matter of Jurisdiction that god wants the Jews to hate the gays, and the Christians to love them? What the fuck kind of bullshit is that? This is just another excuse because Christians today [I]know[/I] that the old testament was written by borderline savages[/QUOTE] No, I'm not saying that at all, because if I were a Jew I'd be [I]fucking jewish.[/I] I wouldn't really care what the Bible says because its not the Torah. Its not bullshit, all that is happening here is I'm literally telling you what the bible says, and you're saying I'm making shit up. The Holiness Code of Leviticus did not apply to anyone anywhere, until God gave it to Moses, for Israel to obey, in the land of Israel. Hell in actuality old testament doesn't apply to [I]anyone anywhere[/I] anymore because It was given to a specific group of people during a specific period of time in a specific place. “Like a will that takes effect when someone dies, the new covenant [the New Testament] was put into action at Jesus’ death.” Hebrews 9:16 Which meaaaaaaans that everything Christ taught us went into effect for everyone on earth forever when Christ died on the cross. Seriously, stop.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;50208515]The Holiness Code of Leviticus did not apply to anyone anywhere, until God gave it to Moses, for Israel to obey, in the land of Israel. Hell in actuality old testament doesn't apply to [I]anyone anywhere[/I] anymore because It was given to a specific group of people during a specific period of time in a specific place. “Like a will that takes effect when someone dies, the new covenant [the New Testament] was put into action at Jesus’ death.” Hebrews 9:16 Which meaaaaaaans that everything Christ taught us went into effect for everyone on earth forever when Christ died on the cross.[/QUOTE] I mean that's true (from a Christian perspective) but how does it preclude the validity of the Old Testament? When a will is executed, it doesn't automatically reverse all of the previous contracts the dead person put into place. Nothing in this quote explicitly invalidates the Old Testament's "enforceability". To my (limited) knowledge, there was never a clause in Leviticus that said "these rules are only valid for the land of Israel and expire on December 31st, 800 BC, no purchase necessary".
I'm sorry roboardslol, but your ignorance of Christianity is at a similar level to a Christian who claims the earth to be 6,000 years old. Please stop pretending that you're educated on the subject. You're clearly not. Here's just a small list: - You brought up the good old fact that Christians are picking and choosing by not following old testament laws when that's been the recognized fact of Christianity since literally the very first Christians. Paul, specifically, talks about this issue in his letters. - Your whole paragraph about God being in the image of man was honestly total non-sense and the author of the book sounds like an ignoramus. The Christian God is almost wholly different from mankind beyond the fact that he has a mind and is a moral being. (he is non-physical, 3 persons instead of 1, omniscient, omnipresent, all good, etc. None of these traits are also applied to humanity) The "white" person that you claim Christianity uses is a very specific, non-biblical, icon used by a specific group. I specifically want to quote this part: [QUOTE]This is an extremely convenient excuse for apologists. Are you saying that if you were a Jew, it would still be okay to stone gays? And is it simply a matter of Jurisdiction that god wants the Jews to hate the gays, and the Christians to love them? What the fuck kind of bullshit is that? This is just another excuse because Christians today know that the old testament was written by borderline savages[/QUOTE] No, it's not some convenient excuse. It's one of the core tenets of the religion. God made a covenantal relationship with the Jews. Following those Old Testament laws were part of that covenantal relationship. Christ brought us into a new covenantal relationship where those laws no longer apply, this also applies to modern day Jews. It's not hard, and it's not a new thought. It's taken directly from the Bible. That's why Paul spoke about it specifically in his letters. [QUOTE=no party hats]because my belief isn't based on a book written almost two thousand years ago, my belief (and the belief of our supreme court) is based on the simple fact that all humans have the right to live as they want without fearing they'll be marginalized because they're simply different from another.[/QUOTE] You're clearly fine with not allowing religions people to live as they want without fearing they'll be marginalized. Let's not pretend that you're some bastion of equality. You, just like every one of us, pick and choose who we allow to be disenfranchised. (although I don't see being served by a private person as right) Also, this gay couple had used this bakery in the past without issue. So the baker obviously didn't refuse them because "they're simply different from another." That's nothing more than a strawman. They refused them because their product was to be used in a way that they fundamentally disagreed with. It would be like a palestinian baker not wanting to make a cake for some zionist conference. The palestinian would not be refusing the person because they were Jewish, but because they didn't support the event that the cake was to be used at. [QUOTE]If you 100% agree with the phrase "If a man lies with another man he should be stoned" then I have zero problem shitting on your beliefs because your beliefs are horrible.[/QUOTE] If you 100% agree with that phrase, then you'll have been in disagreement with the original Christians. Again, this is not less ignorant than a Christian spouting about a 6,000 year old earth. [editline]26th April 2016[/editline] 2 points in summation: 1) Please stop pretending you're informed about Christianity when you're clearly totally ignorant. 2) They were not denied service because they were gay as shown by the simple fact that they didn't deny them previous service while knowing they were gay. If you believe that they did deny them for that reason, then please show how this fact is consistent with your theory.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;50208697]I mean that's true (from a Christian perspective) but how does it preclude the validity of the Old Testament? When a will is executed, it doesn't automatically reverse all of the previous contracts the dead person put into place. Nothing in this quote explicitly invalidates the Old Testament's "enforceability". To my (limited) knowledge, there was never a clause in Leviticus that said "these rules are only valid for the land of Israel and expire on December 31st, 800 BC, no purchase necessary".[/QUOTE] In Leviticus, no, but it was in Deuteronomy [quote=Deu 5:3]“The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, [the Jewish nation] who are all of us here alive this day.” [/quote] "who are all of us [B]here[/B] alive this day" Everybody in this place, this place being Israel. "who are all of us here [B]alive[/B] this day" Nobody who died already, it is not retroactive "who are all of us here alive [B]this day[/B]" During this period of time. Ultimately meaning only those who were alive at that moment in Israel. Abraham, Jacob, and Isaac had died several hundred years prior to this event, which took place roughly 1450 B.C. Christ, his disciples, and the new testament wouldn't be discussed for nearly 1500 years [I]after[/I] that. After everyone alive in the moment that Leviticus was instated had died. Leviticus itself was put into place specifically to combat and ultimately ban Pagan rituals. The practices, the sacrifices, the preparation, all things Pagan was banned. This included rituals to Moloch and Astaroth, during which the priests and their followers while getting ready to kill a kid so that everyone there could have more babies by fucking each other like rabbits. This is why context is so, so important. The homosexual activity that occurred back then [I]was[/I] dirty, it [I]was[/I] an abomination, because the whole point of them doing it was to appease a false God and then kill a kid to really drive the point home. When Christ died, New testament became the new law, Old testament was rendered inactive. The first five books of the Bible are referred to as "the Books of the Law", they laid out everything related to the Old Testament. [quote=Galatians 3:10]All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.”[/quote] If we rely on following the Law (the first five books of the Bible) we are under a curse simply because, if we are looking at purely old testament, we are sinning literally every day. The passage above, Galatians 3:10, contains a quote from the Law itself, Deuteronomy 27:26. When Christ is referred to as "The Redeemer", they're referring to him absolving us of our [B]old testament[/B] sins. [quote=Galatians 3:13]Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. [/quote] When he did that, he was effectively saying "old testament is pretty borked, its literally impossible to follow, super outdated (even by 0 A.D. standards!), and we need something new, Ima call it the New Covenant." Or, as we call it, the New Testament. Holy crap I'm textwalling today.
[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;50208515]I'm coming across as rude because I'm sick and tired of people telling me I'm an asshole christian with barbaric views because of a scripture quote from the old testament which, as explained quite clearly, was given to and governs the Israelites. The baker doesn't care more about the word of God, the baker doesn't know what the word of God is. Believing in Christ is a hell of a lot more involved than "I know he existed/was the son of God/etc" Its following [I]his[/I] teachings. Old testament is effectively a prologue, it explains [I]why[/I] Christ was sent to earth. He was sent because people [I]fucking sucked[/I] and life sucked and we were stoning people to death and killing people's families and livelihoods because they weren't exactly like us and He showed up and pretty much said "Wow guys seriously this is some grade A bullshit. No no no no like [I]this.[/I]" [/quote] All that I'm hearing from you is "My religion is right his is wrong that's why he shouldn't be able to hide behind it". [quote]No, I'm not saying that at all, because if I were a Jew I'd be [I]fucking jewish.[/I] I wouldn't really care what the Bible says because its not the Torah.[/quote] Oh, so the bible has specific prescriptions for how Jews should live, but the Jews don't have to follow it because it's not in the Torah. So it was pointless to put it in the bible in the first place? [quote]Its not bullshit, all that is happening here is I'm literally telling you what the bible says, and you're saying I'm making shit up. The Holiness Code of Leviticus did not apply to anyone anywhere, until God gave it to Moses, for Israel to obey, in the land of Israel. Hell in actuality old testament doesn't apply to [I]anyone anywhere[/I] anymore because It was given to a specific group of people during a specific period of time in a specific place. “Like a will that takes effect when someone dies, the new covenant [the New Testament] was put into action at Jesus’ death.” Hebrews 9:16 Which meaaaaaaans that everything Christ taught us went into effect for everyone on earth forever when Christ died on the cross.[/quote] So why even include the old testament? You're basically just saying the same thing as any other apologist, that the Old testament is irrelevant because reasons. It sounds to me like you're saying the old testament isn't relevant and never was relevant? [quote]Seriously, stop.[/QUOTE] "Stop disagreeing with me!" [editline]26th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;50209123]I'm sorry roboardslol, but your ignorance of Christianity is at a similar level to a Christian who claims the earth to be 6,000 years old. Please stop pretending that you're educated on the subject. You're clearly not. Here's just a small list: - You brought up the good old fact that Christians are picking and choosing by not following old testament laws when that's been the recognized fact of Christianity since literally the very first Christians. Paul, specifically, talks about this issue in his letters.[/quote] And? Do you care to elaborate? [quote]- Your whole paragraph about God being in the image of man was honestly total non-sense and the author of the book sounds like an ignoramus. The Christian God is almost wholly different from mankind beyond the fact that he has a mind and is a moral being. (he is non-physical, 3 persons instead of 1, omniscient, omnipresent, all good, etc. None of these traits are also applied to humanity)[/quote] The author wasn't making a theological argument. He starts off with the premise that god doesn't exist, so when he says "god is made in mans image", he means that god was made up by people, hence why god resembles people so closely. The literal image of Jesus being white is anecdotal. [quote]The "white" person that you claim Christianity uses is a very specific, non-biblical, icon used by a specific group.[/quote] A very specific group such as nearly every Christian in America and Europe. [quote]No, it's not some convenient excuse. It's one of the core tenets of the religion. God made a covenantal relationship with the Jews. Following those Old Testament laws were part of that covenantal relationship. Christ brought us into a new covenantal relationship where those laws no longer apply, this also applies to modern day Jews. It's not hard, and it's not a new thought. It's taken directly from the Bible. That's why Paul spoke about it specifically in his letters. [/quote] So you're saying that god wants the Jews to hate gays and oppress women but christians to love them. Are you saying god was wrong? Are you saying god changed his mind? What logical reason could there be for two different laws to apply to two different people? Also why does a covenant exist between god and jews in the first place? Is your religion not your choice? God is fine with people saying that Jesus wasn't the Messiah while some people say he was? One of them has to be right (or, it could be they're both wrong!) [quote]2 points in summation: 1) Please stop pretending you're informed about Christianity when you're clearly totally ignorant.[/quote] "I disagree with you so you must be stupid"
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50209381]And? Do you care to elaborate?[/QUOTE] Elaborate about what? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. None at all. Like I said before, it's like a Christian going on about how the earth is 6,000 years old all the while talking like they're knowledgeable about geology. The only proper response to that kind of person is to state how ignorant they are. [QUOTE]The author wasn't making a theological argument. He starts off with the premise that god doesn't exist, so when he says "god is made in mans image", he means that god was made up by people, hence why god resembles people so closely. The literal image of Jesus being white is anecdotal.[/QUOTE] Right, and the author is an idiot if he actually argued that the Christian image of God is man-like. God differs from man in every way other than having a mind and being a moral being. It's just a totally ignorant point as it relates to Christianity. If you want to apply it to religions like Greek polytheism, then I'll be the first to agree with you, but that's not what you did. [QUOTE]A very specific group such as nearly every Christian in America and Europe.[/QUOTE] More like Catholics, and even their depiction of Jesus as white is more traditional from the middle ages. I doubt they actually believe it. No protestant church I've seen actually believes that Jesus was white. [QUOTE]So you're saying that god wants the Jews to hate gays and oppress women but christians to love them. Are you saying god was wrong? Are you saying god changed his mind? What logical reason could there be for two different laws to apply to two different people? Also why does a covenant exist between god and jews in the first place? Is your religion not your choice? God is fine with people saying that Jesus wasn't the Messiah while some people say he was? One of them has to be right (or, it could be they're both wrong!)[/QUOTE] Did you miss the part where I said that those laws also don't apply to modern Jews? There are plenty of answers to all your questions, but this is not the place. If you're actually interested in learning about Christianity instead of spouting out of ignorance, then put in the effort and learn about it.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50209381]Stuff[/QUOTE] Read the post immediately above yours, that one was also directed to you. [editline]26th April 2016[/editline] Not that it matters if you read it or not, you're pretty much plugging your ears and yelling you can't hear us at this point anyway.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50209493]Elaborate about what? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. None at all. Like I said before, it's like a Christian going on about how the earth is 6,000 years old all the while talking like they're knowledgeable about geology. The only proper response to that kind of person is to state how ignorant they are.[/quote] you said [quote]You brought up the good old fact that Christians are picking and choosing by not following old testament laws[B] when that's been the recognized fact of Christianity since literally the very first Christians. Paul, specifically, talks about this issue in his letters.[/B][/quote] Once again: care to elaborate? [quote]Right, and the author is an idiot if he actually argued that the Christian image of God is man-like. God differs from man in every way other than having a mind and being a moral being. It's just a totally ignorant point as it relates to Christianity.[/quote] Do you really not comprehend that "god was made in mans image" is figurative? I'm not talking about the image of god specifically, I'm saying that the things that we celebrate as holy and divine and 'word of god' are pretty conveniently the things that we believe at the current time. hundreds of years ago it's ok to kill gays. Nowadays, because of apologists like yourself, hating gays is now against the bible because we re-interpretted it to be so because it fits better with today's liberal ideas. [quote]More like Catholics, and even their depiction of Jesus as white is more traditional from the middle ages. I doubt they actually believe it. No protestant church I've seen actually believes that Jesus was white.[/quote] Google "Jesus" and see how many of those pictures are white. The overwhelming majority of christians (esp in america) think of a white dude when they think of jesus. But once again, it's an anecdote, not central to the idea. [quote]Did you miss the part where I said that those laws also don't apply to modern Jews? There are plenty of answers to all your questions, but this is not the place. If you're actually interested in learning about Christianity instead of spouting out of ignorance, then please go and look it up.[/QUOTE] Right, so the old testament doesn't apply to modern Jews. So god was wrong right? Or was he just having a pissy day? Kind of like when he murdered all the gays in Sodom and Gomorrah? Wait sorry that was the old testament, not relevant anymore is it? So why don't those laws apply anymore? Why did they apply at all in the first place? Are you saying that it USED to be right for people to murder gays? [editline]26th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=S31-Syntax;50209537] Not that it matters if you read it or not, you're pretty much plugging your ears and yelling you can't hear us at this point anyway.[/QUOTE] Coming from a christian lol
[QUOTE=KingOfScience;50202331]the difference is arbitrary, really. it's the "i don't mind the gays but they shouldn't be able to get married" mindset that people use to pretend they're not homophobic (they still are)[/QUOTE]No it isn't??? All the controversy regarding "gay marriage" stems from the fact that some religious people think that a homosexual act is, in itself, a sin and consummating a marriage with an act that is a sin devalues marriage itself. That's why unstable retards claim that allowing gay marriage is just a slippery slope to pedophilia, bestiality, etc because it's devaluing that institution of marriage to such an extent where it's just pointless bullshit. Sure, most of the people who hold this belief aren't able to really explain it as clearly as I just did but that is their reasoning. Aside from that a big tenet of Christian theology is forgiveness of sins, embodied in the phrase, "hate the sin, love the sinner," (a phrase that is contested because hate is sometimes considered a sin) so being against "gay marriage" doesn't necessarily mean somebody is homophobic. [QUOTE=proboardslol;50206756]You don't have to be rude? I think you're not really getting what I'm saying. I'm saying that Christians today will try to ignore the barbaric parts of their religion because it's popular to do so.[/QUOTE]That's... not how it works. Holy fuck, I wasn't paying attention to this discussion until this post but holy fuck you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Not surprising since, [QUOTE=proboardslol;50202265]I don't think that's a fact. As an atheist,[/QUOTE][QUOTE=proboardslol;50206756]I personally believe the entire thing is wrong,[/QUOTE][QUOTE=proboardslol;50207963](though, to me, they are wrong simply by coming from the assumption that god exists)[/QUOTE]Yes, even if you didn't announce you were an atheist we would have figured it out already. Ignoring that for a bit, let me explain to you why you're wrong: [quote=Matthew 5:17]Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.[/quote]What does "fulfill" mean in this context? There's a lot of debate what it means but one thing is clear, Jesus didn't show up to destroy the Jewish way of life. "Fulfill" in this context, I believe, would mean that Christians are not beholden to Jewish customs and commandments and the "old laws" of the 10 Commandments? Those are the ones directly from God himself, those definitely count. Paul apparently agrees with me: [quote=Hebrews 8:13]When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.[/quote]Pretty straightforward don't you think? If you're still confused: [quote=Hebrews 8:7]For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.[/quote]I believe in common vernacular this would be, "the Jews fucked up hard." Everything I said to you above should be enough to prove you wrong but here you go proving you don't know what the fuck you're talking about:[QUOTE=proboardslol;50206756]This is an extremely convenient excuse for apologists.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=proboardslol;50209381]You're basically just saying the same thing as any other apologist,[/QUOTE]I guess the actual deity of the whole religion is an apologist according to you! Since I know that confused you and this is hard let me demonstrate to you: [quote=Hebrews 8:8]But God found fault with the people and said: "The days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah.[/quote][quote=Hebrews 8:9]It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.[/quote]In short you are talking out of your ass and have no room to talk down to anyone else, no matter how hard you tip that fedora. [QUOTE=proboardslol;50206756]Are you saying that if you were a Jew, it would still be okay to stone gays? And is it simply a matter of Jurisdiction that god wants the Jews to hate the gays, and the Christians to love them? What the fuck kind of bullshit is that?[/QUOTE]This is amazing, you're missing the point and stuffing words in other people's mouths at the same time. Has it ever occurred to you that the Jews, i.e. the people who threatened to riot if a peaceful hippie wasn't tortured and brutally executed, maybe have a little bit different interpretation of "God" when compared to Christians who constantly spout shit about charity and humility? Perhaps maybe it isn't a fucking jurisdictional issue but rather a misunderstanding of the instructions given to them? No of course not, that would be the logical and rational choice that leaves no room to argue while prancing around squealing, "look at meeee, I'm the atheist here!" Just because you lack the faculties for religious and/or spiritual faith doesn't make you special, so your passive-aggressive, sanctimonious bullshit is just irritating and makes me want to be spiteful and condescending toward you. For example, [QUOTE=proboardslol;50206756]This is just another excuse because Christians today [I]know[/I] that the old testament was written by borderline savages[/QUOTE]Jews are savages you say? I always knew you were antisemitic, glad you're finally coming clean to us. [QUOTE=proboardslol;50207963]No, my point is that old literal interpretations are just as valid as the new, liberal interpretations.[/QUOTE]lmao so Christianity is a "liberal interpretation" now? Okay. [QUOTE=proboardslol;50207963]I'm saying that you can't discount someone else's interpretation of the bible as a religious belief simply because you think your new, modern interpretation is somehow superior. I'm saying both are equally meritorious in the christian perspective[/QUOTE]See this is the crux of why you're full of fucking shit: you don't actually understand the bible, Christianity, hell I bet religion itself is a fucking mystery to you. I would point to your atheism as evidence, but you've already been waving that fucking billboard around in all your posts so nobody could possibly mistake you for a Jew defending the Torah. We're discussing the actual book the religion is built around and what could be argued as "true Christianity" in the face of decades of dogmatic bullshit that was just made up for political bullshit. Yes, I know, religion used as a tool to bludgeon the population so the elite could satiate their desire for more power!? Wow! Oh wait, was I supposed to forget that you've used this very point about religion when you've criticized it in [I]other threads[/I] for the sake of your argument? Well tough titties, Charlene! [QUOTE=proboardslol;50209381]Oh, so the bible has specific prescriptions for how Jews should live, but the Jews don't have to follow it because it's not in the Torah. So it was pointless to put it in the bible in the first place?[/QUOTE][QUOTE=proboardslol;50209381]So why even include the old testament?[/QUOTE]Because it was? What does it fucking matter? The point is you don't know your own ass from a biblical hole in the ground and you're still arguing as if you do. [QUOTE=proboardslol;50209381]You're basically just saying the same thing as any other apologist,[/QUOTE]All you're doing right now is trying desperately to justify anti-Christian bigotry for whatever inane reason you have. All the while this is [I]happening in a thread that is arguably about another instance of bigotry, and you're using your own bigotry to justify why that instance of bigotry is wrong.[/I] I mean there's incredible levels of irony here, the best and most impressive part about [I]my[/I] response to your bullshit is I'm not even a Christian and yet I can argue on their behalf against you. You must be asking yourself, "why would JumpinJackFlash do this?" That's simple: I don't like uninformed people who try to pass off stupid bullshit as a good argument and act like they're the better person while doing it. I'm sure that makes me an apologist though, and if I told you what I really thought of "Christianity" as a religion (not as a spiritual belief, there is a difference!) I'd get banned for flaming/trolling. You'll probably come up with the mental gymnastics to reconcile all this together though, you seem to be pretty good at that in spite of so much adversity. [QUOTE=proboardslol;50209381]"Stop disagreeing with me!"[/QUOTE]Actually he's imploring you to just stop shitposting, but whatever I guess that's a "liberal interpretation." Or is it a "literal interpretation?" Who knows! This next part is like a combination of all your previous bullshit in a single paragraph though: [QUOTE=proboardslol;50209381]So you're saying that god wants the Jews to hate gays and oppress women but christians to love them.[/QUOTE]Gotta say, I read his whole post and I didn't see that once in there. [QUOTE=proboardslol;50209381]Are you saying god was wrong?[/QUOTE]I mean he could be? Maybe it's a difference of faith and interpretation of what God wants? [QUOTE=proboardslol;50209381]Are you saying god changed his mind?[/QUOTE]My magic 8-ball says, "could be." [QUOTE=proboardslol;50209381]What logical reason could there be for two different laws to apply to two different people?[/QUOTE]"What is 'differences in faith' for $400, Alex." [QUOTE=proboardslol;50209381]Also why does a covenant exist between god and jews in the first place?[/QUOTE]Didn't you [B]just[/B] call Jews savages? Wait, there's more! [QUOTE=proboardslol;50209381]One of them has to be right (or, it could be they're both wrong!)[/QUOTE]Oh of course, you had to remind everyone of the atheist option! [editline]26th April 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=proboardslol;50209601]Coming from a christian lol[/QUOTE]I love how you're so fucking predictable. [editline]26th April 2016[/editline] I can feel angry typing from here, I've upset somebody's euphoria and it makes my cock so [I]goddamn hard.[/I]
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50209601]you said Once again: care to elaborate?[/QUOTE] Here's just one example of it being clearly stated: "23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. [B]24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.[/B] 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise." Galatians 3:23-29 [QUOTE]Do you really not comprehend that "god was made in mans image" is figurative? I'm not talking about the image of god specifically, I'm saying that the things that we celebrate as holy and divine and 'word of god' are pretty conveniently the things that we believe at the current time.[/QUOTE] I actually have no idea what you're saying here. So the claim that God is made in man's image isn't actually claiming that God resembles man? What does it mean, then? [QUOTE]hundreds of years ago it's ok to kill gays. Nowadays, because of apologists like yourself, hating gays is now against the bible because we re-interpretted it to be so because it fits better with today's liberal ideas.[/QUOTE] Remember when Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman? Or when Jesus ate with the tax collectors? Or when Jesus taught salvation to the adulteress? Or when Jesus condemned the religious leaders as hypocrites? Or when the New Testament says that we are not to judge those outside of the church? etc. etc. etc. (Although I don't actually expect you do know about any of these, let alone the significance of them, because you clearly don't know much about Christianity.) All of these things were seen as horrible at the time of Jesus, yet he did them. This isn't some new age liberal belief. It's the comprehensive interpretation of the Bible. [QUOTE]Google "Jesus" and see how many of those pictures are white. The overwhelming majority of christians (esp in america) think of a white dude when they think of jesus. But once again, it's an anecdote, not central to the idea.[/QUOTE] So you have no real point here. Got it. [QUOTE]Right, so the old testament doesn't apply to modern Jews. So god was wrong right? Or was he just having a pissy day? Kind of like when he murdered all the gays in Sodom and Gomorrah? Wait sorry that was the old testament, not relevant anymore is it?[/QUOTE] I can tell that you don't want to have a real discussion about these questions. So I'll say again, there are plenty of answers to these questions. If you ever come to a point where you realize your ignorance about the subject, then go put in the effort and learn about it.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;50202234]The cake wasn't denied on sexual preference, he didn't not make them a cake because they where gay. He refused to make them a cake for a same sex wedding. There is a difference.[/QUOTE] I’ve been thinking about this a lot these last few days and I need to rant. In my government class, we’ve been doing a lot of discussion about “hot button” topics (as my teacher calls them). One of them that was consistently brought up was gay rights and gay marriage. I will start out by saying, I am not a member of the LGBT community. I am straight, but some of my friends and family are part of the community and I respect them. I don’t understand people who are anti-LGBT. I think it’s incredibly stupid and disrespectful to judge and discriminate people based on gender and sexuality. I know some people believe that it’s “an abomination” and “against human nature” solely based on their religious beliefs. “It’s Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.” Bullshit. I wouldn’t exactly call Adam and Eve people that you should look up to since they screwed over mankind for all of eternity. And if Adam and Steve want to hook up, are you really going to stand between them? If Steve wants to become Stephanie and if Adam wants to sleep with both Eve and Steve, who are we to tell them otherwise? I have no issue with people being passionate about their religion, but don’t shove it down everyone’s throats, especially people who don’t believe what you believe or choose lifestyles you wouldn’t (because newsflash: the world does not revolve around you). And why is it of anyone’s business what people do in the comfort of their own homes? Is your life really that sad and pathetic that you actually give a shit if two guys (or two girls) are sleeping with each other in their houses? I mean, they’re getting laid and being happy while you are being pissed about the ratio of men’s junk to women’s junk in the bed. Also, about the marriage thing, the 14th amendment promised equality to all American people. Despite what you haters might think, “people” includes the LGBT community. They can marry whoever they want to marry. And it’s legal in all 50 states, so build a bridge and get the fuck over it. Members of the LGBT community, I have the utmost respect for you. To have your confidence and courage to face the world head-on is amazing and I applaud. I really wish people weren’t such assholes and so petty that they can’t see past your gender/sexuality and for that I’m really sorry. I hope you find nice people to share your life with. And to you haters, antis, whatever you would like to call yourselves, I want you to think long and hard on whether or not this is solely based on your religion. If the Bible didn’t say it was an abomination, would you still be against it? And is who people decide to marry really such a big problem on the worldwide scale? Because with all the shit that’s happening in the world right now like terrorist attacks, enslavement of people, sex trafficking, families going hungry, people living on the streets, why would you deny someone something as amazing as [B]love[/B]?
[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;50209652]No it isn't??? All the controversy regarding "gay marriage" stems from the fact that some religious people think that a homosexual act is, in itself, a sin and consummating a marriage with an act that is a sin devalues marriage itself. That's why unstable retards claim that allowing gay marriage is just a slippery slope to pedophilia, bestiality, etc because it's devaluing that institution of marriage to such an extent where it's just pointless bullshit. Sure, most of the people who hold this belief aren't able to really explain it as clearly as I just did but that is their reasoning. Aside from that a big tenet of Christian theology is forgiveness of sins, embodied in the phrase, "hate the sin, love the sinner," (a phrase that is contested because hate is sometimes considered a sin) so being against "gay marriage" doesn't necessarily mean somebody is homophobic. That's... not how it works. Holy fuck, I wasn't paying attention to this discussion until this post but holy fuck you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. Not surprising since, Yes, even if you didn't announce you were an atheist we would have figured it out already. Ignoring that for a bit, let me explain to you why you're wrong: What does "fulfill" mean in this context? There's a lot of debate what it means but one thing is clear, Jesus didn't show up to destroy the Jewish way of life. "Fulfill" in this context, I believe, would mean that Christians are not beholden to Jewish customs and commandments and the "old laws" of the 10 Commandments? Those are the ones directly from God himself, those definitely count. Paul apparently agrees with me: Pretty straightforward don't you think? If you're still confused: I believe in common vernacular this would be, "the Jews fucked up hard." Everything I said to you above should be enough to prove you wrong but here you go proving you don't know what the fuck you're talking about:I guess the actual deity of the whole religion is an apologist according to you! Since I know that confused you and this is hard let me demonstrate to you: In short you are talking out of your ass and have no room to talk down to anyone else, no matter how hard you tip that fedora. This is amazing, you're missing the point and stuffing words in other people's mouths at the same time. Has it ever occurred to you that the Jews, i.e. the people who threatened to riot if a peaceful hippie wasn't tortured and brutally executed, maybe have a little bit different interpretation of "God" when compared to Christians who constantly spout shit about charity and humility? Perhaps maybe it isn't a fucking jurisdictional issue but rather a misunderstanding of the instructions given to them? No of course not, that would be the logical and rational choice that leaves no room to argue while prancing around squealing, "look at meeee, I'm the atheist here!" Just because you lack the faculties for religious and/or spiritual faith doesn't make you special, so your passive-aggressive, sanctimonious bullshit is just irritating and makes me want to be spiteful and condescending toward you. For example, Jews are savages you say? I always knew you were antisemitic, glad you're finally coming clean to us. lmao so Christianity is a "liberal interpretation" now? Okay. See this is the crux of why you're full of fucking shit: you don't actually understand the bible, Christianity, hell I bet religion itself is a fucking mystery to you. I would point to your atheism as evidence, but you've already been waving that fucking billboard around in all your posts so nobody could possibly mistake you for a Jew defending the Torah. We're discussing the actual book the religion is built around and what could be argued as "true Christianity" in the face of decades of dogmatic bullshit that was just made up for political bullshit. Yes, I know, religion used as a tool to bludgeon the population so the elite could satiate their desire for more power!? Wow! Oh wait, was I supposed to forget that you've used this very point about religion when you've criticized it in [I]other threads[/I] for the sake of your argument? Well tough titties, Charlene! Because it was? What does it fucking matter? The point is you don't know your own ass from a biblical hole in the ground and you're still arguing as if you do. All you're doing right now is trying desperately to justify anti-Christian bigotry for whatever inane reason you have. All the while this is [I]happening in a thread that is arguably about another instance of bigotry, and you're using your own bigotry to justify why that instance of bigotry is wrong.[/I] I mean there's incredible levels of irony here, the best and most impressive part about [I]my[/I] response to your bullshit is I'm not even a Christian and yet I can argue on their behalf against you. You must be asking yourself, "why would JumpinJackFlash do this?" That's simple: I don't like uninformed people who try to pass off stupid bullshit as a good argument and act like they're the better person while doing it. I'm sure that makes me an apologist though, and if I told you what I really thought of Christianity as a religion I'd get banned for flaming/trolling. You'll probably come up with the mental gymnastics to reconcile all this together though, you seem to be pretty good at that in spite of so much adversity. Actually he's imploring you to just stop shitposting, but whatever I guess that's a "liberal interpretation." Or is it a "literal interpretation?" Who knows! This next part is like a combination of all your previous bullshit in a single paragraph though: Gotta say, I read his whole post and I didn't see that once in there. I mean he could be? Maybe it's a difference of faith and interpretation of what God wants? My magic 8-ball says, "could be." "What is 'differences in faith' for $400, Alex." Didn't you [B]just[/B] call Jews savages? Wait, there's more! Oh of course, you had to remind everyone of the atheist option! [editline]26th April 2016[/editline] I love how you're so fucking predictable.[/QUOTE] Wow wall of text. I don't want the point-by-point debate to expand any further, so I'll try to just write something that should sum up my beliefs in this thread: First off, calling an ancient group of people who murdered each other for following the wrong god "savages" does not make me an anti-semite. Any group of people who murders one another for their religion is a savage, and it's not limited to the Jews of 2000+ years ago. Are the Israelies of today savages? No, because they don't murder each other for religious reasons. Calling someone an anti-semite is a quick and cheap way to try to win an argument by painting your opponents argument wrong because they stem from an underlying hatred of the people in question. This is a pretty low-brow argument and I'd expect better from anyone, really. Secondly, I bring up my OWN beliefs on religion so as not to confuse any of the readers with the idea that I may AGREE with an old-fashioned interpretation of the Bible. I'm not defending the old fashioned interpretation of the bible as [I]moral[/I], but saying that it is a [I]legitimate[/I] interpretation from a theological perspective. The original point was not that the belief that gays are immoral is wrong, but that the entire interpretation of the bible can't even be [I]considered[/I] to be defensible by the protections of religious liberty in this country because those who believe homosexuality is wrong [I]aren't [B]real[/B] Christians.[/I] I disagree; I think that both the liberal christian apologists of today, as well as the old-fashioned christians are equally legitimate in their interpretations of the bible (even if we have to go so far as to call them two completely different religions). It is not homosexuals that the Christians are trying to defend, but Christianity itself. Their fear is that, despite their best efforts to re-write the last 1700 years of history, they may still be grouped under one flag of "gay-bashers". Notice that the first instinct of an apologist is not to come to the defense of a homosexual being persecuted, but to come to the defense of Christianity being, in their view, misappropriated. I think that this is not an attempt to ditinguish their theology from the "regressive" theology (one which I'd identify more closely with catholicism). I think that christian apologists [I]need[/I] to use instances like this to try to justify their existence. I think that Feuerbach is right when he says that religion is used to justify the ideology of the day, and not vice/versa. It wasn't until modern philosophy and rationalism that we really examined the existence of god under a microscope (and even then, apologists like Kant warped reality in order to justify God's existence). I think that this rush to defend Christianity is a sign of the weakening of religion in the western world. I think that, as we progress more towards industrialization as a whole, dogma and faith becomes less important to us than reason and liberal/secular attitudes. Then, our interpretation of Christianity becomes much more vague and nuanced, to the point that we can openly admit that god was [I]wrong[/I]? How can god be wrong? If god is wrong, he's not god. I'd also like to point to the idea of Jesus dying on the cross to "pay for our sins". To whom is this deficit paid? God? God made Jesus go through this whole ordeal just to forgive our sins? It seems like god could have forgiven the sins himself. It seems to me that the whole "Jesus died for our sins" narrative leaves something to be explained. It sounds to me like god is [I]not[/I] all-powerful if he has to rely on some sort of transaction to occur before he can wipe the slate clean, so to speak. If we accept that god changed his mind/was wrong, then we can also conclude that he's not omniscient either. [I]Maybe[/I] we can accept that god is omnipresent but he sure does rely on worldly vessels to do his talking for him. But once again, the point is not that god doesn't exist, but that as we liberalize our ideas more and more, we find that it is [I]God[/I] who has to follow our reasoning, and not vice-versa. To this end, modern day Christian apologists are almost ready to admit that god is not god-like. Finally, if we accept these inconsistencies with the apologist interpretation, the only possible reason we can give for our faith is not reason but some kind of "relationship" (often expressed by saying "God works in mysterious ways"). I'll accept that God doesn't have to bow down to human reason, that the laws which govern the universe aren't the same ones which govern God, and that God's reasoning and methods are incomprehensible by mortal minds, but then we also can't even [B]begin[/B] to rationalize the Bible, since it is the word of god through which our relationship with god exists. In this case, we have to accept that both the liberal interpretation of the bible and the regressive interpretation of the bible are equally valid views and deserve legal protection under the 1st amendment. You can't just say "he's not a real christian" and therefore we shouldn't protect him. His faith is [B]his faith[/B], and nobody can take it away from him just as nobody can take [B]your faith[/B] away from you. By asking him to create a speech-act which gives his blessing and acceptance of the wedding, we're asking him to create a speech-act against his religious beliefs. Even if I'm wrong here, and you all are right, and we [B]can't [/B]call his beliefs Christian, they are based on faith in some way. Name it something else, fine, but he didn't just make up a religion because he hates gays. [editline]26th April 2016[/editline] But no, just keep calling me ignorant, it's easier than critically evaluating your religion.
Your entire post can be summed up as: I have an opinion and you should take it seriously even though all my points are continually shown to be based on ignorance.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50209923]But no, just keep calling me ignorant, it's easier than critically evaluating your religion.[/QUOTE]I didn't read your post because you didn't read: I specifically said I wasn't Christian, if you can't even read the goddamn words I type I'm not going to pour through all that bullshit. [editline]after some consideration[/editline] I lied, I read it: [QUOTE=proboardslol;50209923]Wow wall of text. I don't want the point-by-point debate to expand any further,[/QUOTE]I like point-by-point which is why my response is going to be a hell of a lot shorter and to the point: [QUOTE=proboardslol;50209923]First off, calling an ancient group of people who murdered each other for following the wrong god "savages" does not make me an anti-semite.[/QUOTE]First off, if you actually had read my post correctly you would have noticed why I said you were antisemitic: you put an entire narrative into somebody's mouth and then went, "HA! See? Christians are stupid!" That's what got me to post in the first place, it's why I did the same thing to you to teach you through example why that's not okay but it seems that lesson flew over your head anyway. Fucking outstanding. [QUOTE=proboardslol;50209923]Secondly, I bring up my OWN beliefs on religion so as not to confuse any of the readers with the idea that I may AGREE with an old-fashioned interpretation of the Bible.[/QUOTE]Oh cut the shit already, the whole reason why you keep reminding everyone why you're an atheist is because you clearly find religion and religious people to be primitive bullshit. You've made it [I]perfectly clear[/I] that you consider yourself well above such simple beliefs, and again, I've seen you take this stance in other threads. In short: you're the same useless flesh sack of meat, bones, and bullshit just like every other uninformed motherfucker out there and you are not special. [QUOTE=proboardslol;50209923]I disagree; I think that both the liberal christian apologists of today, as well as the old-fashioned christians are equally legitimate in their interpretations of the bible (even if we have to go so far as to call them two completely different religions).[/QUOTE]Except to do so would rob the militant atheist of one of his most coveted reasons for bigotry against theists: religion has been responsible for political strife and persecution resulting in repression of thought, torture, and death. Accepting that the more belligerent "interpretation" (rather a complete dismissal) of Christ's teachings is [I]so far removed[/I] from Christian theology that you would honestly say they're different religions really undermines that point. In the end though only one has written evidence to support it's dogma, the other had political convenience. [QUOTE=proboardslol;50209923]I disagree; I think that both the liberal christian apologists of today,[/QUOTE]This is where I stopped reading. You still don't know what the fuck you're talking about, but I think I (and others) have demonstrated that enough in this thread so much so that any further commentary isn't necessary.
[QUOTE=Petachepas;50209884]I’ve been thinking about this a lot these last few days and I need to rant. In my government class, we’ve been doing a lot of discussion about “hot button” topics (as my teacher calls them). One of them that was consistently brought up was gay rights and gay marriage. I will start out by saying, I am not a member of the LGBT community. I am straight, but some of my friends and family are part of the community and I respect them. I don’t understand people who are anti-LGBT. I think it’s incredibly stupid and disrespectful to judge and discriminate people based on gender and sexuality. I know some people believe that it’s “an abomination” and “against human nature” solely based on their religious beliefs. “It’s Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.” Bullshit. I wouldn’t exactly call Adam and Eve people that you should look up to since they screwed over mankind for all of eternity. And if Adam and Steve want to hook up, are you really going to stand between them? If Steve wants to become Stephanie and if Adam wants to sleep with both Eve and Steve, who are we to tell them otherwise? I have no issue with people being passionate about their religion, but don’t shove it down everyone’s throats, especially people who don’t believe what you believe or choose lifestyles you wouldn’t (because newsflash: the world does not revolve around you). And why is it of anyone’s business what people do in the comfort of their own homes? Is your life really that sad and pathetic that you actually give a shit if two guys (or two girls) are sleeping with each other in their houses? I mean, they’re getting laid and being happy while you are being pissed about the ratio of men’s junk to women’s junk in the bed. Also, about the marriage thing, the 14th amendment promised equality to all American people. Despite what you haters might think, “people” includes the LGBT community. They can marry whoever they want to marry. And it’s legal in all 50 states, so build a bridge and get the fuck over it. Members of the LGBT community, I have the utmost respect for you. To have your confidence and courage to face the world head-on is amazing and I applaud. I really wish people weren’t such assholes and so petty that they can’t see past your gender/sexuality and for that I’m really sorry. I hope you find nice people to share your life with. And to you haters, antis, whatever you would like to call yourselves, I want you to think long and hard on whether or not this is solely based on your religion. If the Bible didn’t say it was an abomination, would you still be against it? And is who people decide to marry really such a big problem on the worldwide scale? Because with all the shit that’s happening in the world right now like terrorist attacks, enslavement of people, sex trafficking, families going hungry, people living on the streets, why would you deny someone something as amazing as [B]love[/B]?[/QUOTE] Just to be clear, there has never been a right to marry whoever you want for anyone at anytime in the history of the US.
K well if you've both decided to stop reading, then there's no point in me being here
[QUOTE=proboardslol;50210249]K well if you've both decided to stop reading, then there's no point in me being here[/QUOTE] SInce you're intentionally ignoring key points of everyone's rebuttals and just putting words into our mouths instead, frankly there was no point in you being here to begin with. You had no intention of actually having a rational discussion. You just wanted to come and flex dem muscles expecting a big "hell yuh man christians are dumb" response and when you got called on it you had nothing to back your claims up. We presented literal quotes from the bible stating in no uncertain terms that Leviticus, along with all old testament law, is irrelevant to modern Christianity and exists in the bible as both recorded Christian history and a prologue to Christ's arrival on earth and the message He brought with him. What did you do in response? [quote]LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU GOD'S NOT REAL LALALALALA[/quote] followed by nothing but proof that you haven't really read a damn thing we've posted. I'd post an actual response to your text wall up there but whats the fucking point? All you're going to do is ignore every point I make, twist my words, and say I'm not a real christian because I love everyone [I]like Christ did when he walked the earth.[/I] Fuck me though, right?
Christians aren't evil because their book says evil shit, Christians are doing the world a disservice because they indoctrinate children with bullshit and instill a "no-facts-necessary" outlook on life which is [b]incredibly[/b] toxic to society.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.