LGBTQ and the Bible

You sure thats not the same as telling a kid not to stick his finger in the fire, wherein he will suffer dearly?

If murder is adjudged wrong by society is not one who commits murder shunned by society?

Puhlease, secularism is just another religion, look how your alleged secularism destroyed the kliens for following their own religion instead of your secular religion.

Again is telling a kid they will burn their finger and suffer or not burn their finger and not suffer seriously bribing? Sounds like drama queen all the way to me.

Acceptance is not blind obedience, these are more strawman conclusions

again no one has shown them all to be imaginary.

 

Yes. You may want to think through that analogy.

No. Secularism is the separation of religion from the state. It is what keeps your religious belief and practice safe from those who may want to ban it. It is why we can have multiple religions operating within one society, without one repressing another.

No. Telling a kid he will burn his hand if he sticks it into a fire is simply imparting knowledge. You don't torture the child forever if he disobeys you.

It really does, this religion thing, doesn't it? Needing to believe the whole universe was created with you in mind, and then claiming to be humble. Much drama.

It is blind obedience to do whatever the authority tells you to do, without daring to question if you should. It is turning yourself into a amoral puppet for whoever convinces you they speak for the authority.

 

On abortion, those who want abortion to be illegal are the minority.

This past year there were 7 states that passed harsher laws against abortion.

Yet, in 4 of those 7 states, the majority do not want abortion to be illegal!

What we're seeing is politial activism countering the will of the majoirty.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/01/21/do-state-laws-on-abortion-reflect-public-opinion/

Gallup polling indicates only 20% of America wants abortion to be illegal in all cases. And, that's the way it has been since the 1970's, within only minor excursions.

Claiming that Christians oppose abortion is just not supportable.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

 

For same sex marriage, Gallup shows 67% in favor.

The percent in favor has grown fairly steadily over the last more than 20 years and continues to grow.


Agains, Christians are in the majority. You can't claim that Christians are anti-same sex marriage.

If that were true, it would be impossible to achieve a 2/3 majority on this issue. There just aren't NEARLY enough nonChristians to pull that off. In fact, even if Christians broke 50-50 on this issue, I doubt a 2/3 majority woud be possible.

 

But they aren't reeeeeeaaaaal Christians.

 

Since marriage has taken on a "whole new Meaning" I too can finally acknowledge it.....but it isn't Christian Marriage. Not even close.

While we're at it.....I never have based my convictions on polls. No I'm not what you would call a collectivist. They don't mean much at all.

 

reeeeeeaaaaal" Christians can acknowledge the term "marriage" has been hijacked and taken on a new meaning. Therefore, it can be acknowledged. Words, unlike humanity, evolves. If animals would stick with a mate for life, I guess we could apply the term there as well......oh wait! Very few humans have that in their definition today either!

 

Its a choice because by definition its a relationship that is not appropriate, its a pornographic relationship.

Homosexuality=erotic activity between same gender.
Pornography=erotic material.

Homosexuality is inappropriate pornographic relationships.

 

Homosexuality=desiring to have sex with a member of the same sex.

 

Which is lust, which is inappropriate pornographic behavior.

Lust and pornography are inappropriate behaviors related to wanting to touch what doesnt belong to someone.

 

Its not behavior at all.

 

What "whole new Meaning" are you referring to?

Clearly, the stats are not evidence that one position is more "right" than some other position.

The sats are interesting in that they note there is NOT a unified religious or Christian view on this subject. One could also note that there are Christian denominations that marry same sex couples and that have full acceptance of LGBTQ membership. Finally, stats note the direction of the change that is taking place - which is at least a political reality. So, efforts to make law discriminating against this community are counter to our nation's direction.

 

I already did, you got a point?

false, Secularism is PURPORTED TO BE separation of religion from the state. A nice notion in practice but a notion nonethe less

False, the religious secular gubmint banned poly marriages, and forced the baking of gay cakes, both are state imposed religious dogma. You would need to be sleeping at the wheel to honestly claim there is in 'fact' seperation, there is not.

false atheism has taken over under the guise of secularism and like stalin oppress others religious positions, with fine penalties and bankruptcy.

No different than telling you that you will burn in hell, cause/effect.

Atheist hyperbole and subterfuge seems to rule the day, under the pretense they are not a religion.

and all these new age atheists all running lock step with dawkins, hitchens, and flew are different how exactly?

abortion is a religious decision between the parties and outside the jurisdiction of corporate law, see 1st amendment. It should never have been touched, neither legal nor illegal.

extraconstitutional and no one is the wiser, well almost no one lol

ah the sweetness of democratic dictatorships!

you first need to seperate practicing christians from those giving it lip service. I high doubt you will find too many 'practicing' christians that that are not unified.

 

Where in hell do you people get all your **** from?

 

It's closer to note that the separation is the law, but there are details on the margin that aren't worth litigation.

The justification for ending polygamy didn't (or shouldn't) involve opposition to the LDS church. There ARE problems with polygamy that have to do with law that is secular. One CAN find laws that are counter to behaviors accepted or even important to various religions. You can't have a naked pig roast in your front yard. You can't hold religious services at your home with a minneret calling people to worship at your house 5 times per day. Etc.

It's not rational to suggest these laws are an assault on religion or crossing the divide between secular and religious governmnet.

That's not dictatorship

Also, let's remember that in a democracy, everyone has a vote - and the vast majority of the population hold to some religion. Religion DOES get represented.

One can't blame the government for the fact that people have different religious beliefs.

Your comment about agreement between religions doesn't make sense to me. The variety in religion today is significant. And, it isn't just that people are lax about their religious practice - there are significant differences in doctrine.

 

Science does not support your twisted “opinion”s regarding homosexuality.
What color you paint your house is a choice.
What you order at a restaurant is a choice.
Deciding to have sex or not is a choice.
Sexual orientation is not a "choice".

 

I suppose if you interpret separation to mean the ability to enforce your religion on others, personally I don't see that as separation.

Polygamy is part of a religion, not the US legal system, well unless you want to admit the US legal system is a religion then of course all bets are off.

Yeah well unfortunately it did.

Yeah that comes under Congress/legislature shall make no law but it seems they didand of course by doing so they violated the 1st amendment, that you so freely hand wave away.

Well at least you admit the government violates religion all the time imposing their religion ior which ever religion is todays favorite.
Either way the religion of the other side is being trampled by the fictitious secular gubmint. The facade labelled 'separation'.

if the community voted on it in that particular neighborhood I would agree with you but we both know that's not the case in practice in the real world in the US.

sure you can.

It's not rational to suggest that religious laws made by the state are not religious laws that's irrational as irrational could ever be.

what you mean you've never heard of a democratic dictatorship? Since when do you have the right to vote on somebody else's religion? Either public or private outside your personal property?

oh really I didn't know that please show me the results of the votes in the referendum that outlawed polygamy? trust me I won't hold my breath this will be just another post that you skip.

that's why the government should keep its nose out of religion and making rules in favor of one religion while against another religion. Even worse label at secularism.

So then you admit that the government is a theocracy. This is getting really juicy here Will!

One can blame the government for turning itself into a theocracy by favoring one religion or creating their own over another and preventing people from practicing their religion and protecting all people with all religions from each other and most importantly the gubmint itself, but you wont see any of that in a gubmint that is in 'fact' a theocracy.

you didn't use the quote function so I have no idea what you're talking about

let me clarify, in the land of the stupid, as I said you do not know those purported to be christian are in fact christian, today we have new age atheists claiming to be christian atheists ffs

Where has the 'legitimate' authority been granted for 'anyone' to vote on anyone elses religion Will?

Lets take a democratic vote to outlaw atheism punishable by death, how about that?

 

The point is you don't have a point. Torturing somebody forever in hellfire because they didn't obey your every word and worship you is nothing like telling a child not to put his hand into a fire.

That's what Secularism is, by definition. If you don't think people who call for secularism are genuinely calling for secularism that's a different thing. To use that to dismiss the very idea of secularism isn't rational.

Both are violations of secularism, and I oppose both because I endorse secularism. Gay marriage is a classic case of church / state separation to me. The sate should have no business telling the hcurch who it must recognize as being in a spiritual union, and the church should have no business telling the state who should have assumed contracts or civil rights. My solution was always to have civil unions for anyone who wanted them through the state (opposite gender, same gender, any number of people, people who are blood relatives, whatever), and then "marriage" can be a word people can define and recognize how they want. One church can say two gay men are in a spiritual union and "married", and another church need not recognize it.

First, no atheism hasn't. Second, no, even if it had that would be absolutely nothing close to telling people they will burn in hell forever.

Atheism is not a religion.

I don't see these legions of atheists you are imagining that run lock step with Dawikins or Hitchens. Both of those men have some good points that can be agreed with and examined. Both men also have said many things that aren't very popular. Hitchens supported aggressive offensive war overseas, for example.

I see no reason to doubt any Christian who says they are Christian. And I see no way to distinguish between them. You no doubt will say those who agree with you are "real" ones or "practicing" ones, whole whose you disagree with are not.

 

The science you parrot is insufficient for your twisted claims as well

no it's part better for humanity to torture them using prisons for life

Well I'm glad to see you got a definition too bad you can't live up to it

well they think they're calling for secularism they don't know any better they don't even know what a religion is especially atheists most of them have demonstrated no clue whatsoever that they know what a religion is

Well that's sort of a straw man now isn't it since I'm not dismissing secularism I'm just dismissing your usage of it and the government's usage of it, simply put the ends don't match the means

oh that's right I forgot the first amendment says that we the people have the right to enjoy the gubmint forcing its secular religion on us! The gubmints religion take precedence with higher standing to the people who created it.

no it's a classic case of another religion doing their thing has nothing to do with separation of anything from anything else, different strokes for different folks unless of course you can qualify that nonsense

however those contracts and civil rights cannot be in violation of someone else's reserved religious rights such that it infringes upon their right to exercise them and if those civil contracts are in violation of those religious rights then the civil contracts have to back down to the religious rights since the religious rights take precedent over civil rights with the exception of injury and damage

Marriage is not a state institution it's a religious institution between two people or more for that matter in the case of polyamory we don't need a state to be married in any religion including atheism

Right and our theocratic church state does exactly that and that's fine makes no difference until you start stomping on other people's religions and imposing their ownand forcing other religions to bake gay birthday cakes or wedding cakes or whatever it was

Really we've had lots of discussions about this, clearly atheism is a religion it has all the ingredients of a religion if you care to argue the point be my guest and good luck with that!

Same as going to jail for life torment you for your whole life difference with no distinction

oh well I guess you haven't been in any of the atheist discussions we've had previously want to see them come out let's talk about atheists and their religion

Sure some people agree with Charles Manson I mean so what lunacy is everywhere and plenty in gubmint

Well they are very popular in atheist circles since they use them to argue their religion

Irrelevant

well when we have Christians that say they're Christian atheists believe me we have plenty of reason to doubt who is a Christian with that kind of crazy

Of course there is you have to interview them and ask them their philosophy/theology etc and you'll see very quickly

are you kidding me nobody ever agrees with me and I'm an agnostic but nice try

 

We don't discriminate. We just don't recognize it as the same. You would like to "force us" to recognize.....but you can't do that. Sorry. Now if you want to call yourself "Christian" and engage in such fantasy, you have to somehow bypass the teachings of Jesus and what He declared to be Truth. I don't doubt you will. As you pointed out, many have.

 

Well, this is just plain nonsense.

There are numerous cases where people have faced discrimination from Christians in employment, housing, ability to buy goods, the rightt to be married by the state, the right NOT to treat the sick or fulfill medical prescriptons, etc., etc.

There is a LONG way to go for Christians to decide to stop discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation - even in the courts, let alone society as a whole.

How do these Christians you mention square that blatant discrimination with the the direction of Jesus on how to treat others?

 

Real Christians that follow Jesus will treat you as they would anyone else, WillReadmore. With respect as a human being.

 

I don't believe you've made any kind of argument here AT ALL.

It's always going to be the case that there will be religious ideas that are not accepted by a society as a whole. So, for example, there are a tiny number of Americans who favor polygamy. Yet, state marriage in America does not include plural marriage, and for some solid reasons that have NOTHING to do with religious belief.

Our founders KNEW what would happen when government and religion are combined.

Whining about the principles they established here hits me as ridiculous.

If you don't like it, then propose an improvement!/////

 

So, you're suggesting that all those who are discriminating are not real Christians?

I seriously doubt that.

Maybe there are Christians who see their brothers who discriminate as not real Christians, but if that were actually the case, I don't believe we would have the court cases concerning discrimination that we have today.

How could white supremacy survive? Why would we have to have Black LIves Matter?

 

Stick to comedy, science is not your forte.