Pope says...will the more conservative follow his lead?

[Fanatical Meat]

Isn't that the companies prerogative or do you think it should be forbidden by law? In most states if enough of the employees disagree with that sort of treatment they can form a union and specifically negotiate that actions like that not be allowed. Do you think that Christians are being persecuted to such extent that they are deserving of being a protected class by law in the United States?

As a guy who has been a manager to many, many organized/bargained for employees I can say with certainty no modern union would take on this cause because the target is likely a union member too. Unions hate members fighting with each other. They'd go for some kind of warning but the insulter would get a strong talking to and be told going forward he is on his own.
I've heard the stewards have pretty blunt talks with trouble makers.

 

[Retro Rob]

I don't understand your point, they are perfectly free to denounce it for moral reasons in accordance with free speech. I have seen nor heard of any law that prevents a person from saying that they do not agree with gay marriage nor would I support one if it came up. I'd stand shoulder to shoulder with you to defend your ability to say it despite thinking what you are saying is wrong.

Fair.

Just so you understand, the ban on same sex marriage was never discriminatory anyway. People need to understand that heterosexual persons also were not allowed to marry someone of the same sex just like gay people were not.

Heterosexuals were allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, and so were gay people. Everyone was treated fairly under law.

That's why the gay lobby made this about "love" because they wanted to attempt to make it discriminatory when by definition, it wasn't because no one could marry persons of the same sex.

Just wanted to make sure I put that out there...

 

[Darwin333]

Francis does not speak for all Christians, no more than Richard Dawkins speaks for all atheists. He only speaks for Catholics, and that was the reason why he apologized. He can say "Christians" all he wants. Fact his he represents his religion and no one else's.

I thought that was pretty much a given. However, just because he only speaks for Catholics doesn't mean that most other Christian organisations don't have anything to apologize for. At least not if you truly believe in the bible and the teachings of Christ.

BTW, surely you see the difference between someone calling you a bigot and an organization that all of your family and friends belonging to demonizing you, which is very different than simply disagreeing with you. The impact my words in this post have on your life are very different then the impact of being demonized because you love the wrong person by an entire community.

Again, would Christ really call upon a community to demonize a person because they truly love the wrong person? Not the Christ that I read about and I actually read the bible, cover to cover.... 4 times.

There are far more words about things that Christians as a whole choose to ignore then there are about gay folk. Yet for some reason that is way beyond my understanding a lot of Christians get really hung up on gay folk. They can welcome any other sinner into the fold but if you are in love with someone of the same sex you are no longer welcome in the house of Christ. BTW I absolutely agree that it is the religions right to welcome or not welcome whoever they see fit for whatever reason they see fit. I believe in our rights, all of them and would happily fight side by side with you to defend your right to do something that I absolutely disagree with. That is how rational discourse should work.

 

[Darwin333]

Fair.

Just so you understand, the ban on same sex marriage was never discriminatory anyway. People need to understand that heterosexual persons also were not allowed to marry someone of the same sex just like gay people were not.

Heterosexuals were allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, and so were gay people. Everyone was treated fairly under law.

That's why the gay lobby made this about "love" because they wanted to attempt to make it discriminatory when by definition, it wasn't because no one could marry persons of the same sex.

Just wanted to make sure I put that out there...

Heterosexuals were allowed to marry the people they loved.

Homosexuals were not allowed to marry the people they loved.

You can take the exact same argument and replace it with race and it would make the exact same sense. "Black people were allowed to marry someone of the same race and so were white people. Everyone was treated fairly under law."

How is that not the exact same argument? It simply replaces sex with race and is as fair of a comparison as it gets.

 

[Retro Rob]

Again, would Christ really call upon a community to demonize a person because they truly love the wrong person? Not the Christ that I read about and I actually read the bible, cover to cover.... 4 times.

Does reading a book on Quantum Mechanics cover to cover "...4 times" make me an expert in Quantum Mechanics?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Does reading a book on Quantum Mechanics cover to cover "...4 times" make me an expert in Quantum Mechanics?

He made no claim of being an expert. So if you read it 4 times you'd have an understanding of Quantum Mechanics

 

[Retro Rob]

Heterosexuals were allowed to marry the people they loved.

Gays were also allowed to marry someone they loved -- as long as that person was of the opposite sex.

Homosexuals were not allowed to marry the people they loved.

The ban was based on gender/sex, not love, dude.

You can take the exact same argument and replace it with race and it would make the exact same sense. "Black people were allowed to marry someone of the same race and so were white people. Everyone was treated fairly under law."

Yes it would be the same. It would only be discriminatory if one race was not allowed to marry someone of the opposite race while the other race was allowed to marry someone of the opposite race.

 

[Retro Rob]

He made no claim of being an expert. So if you read it 4 times you'd have an understanding of Quantum Mechanics

He got my point, and so did you. Stop being obtuse...

 

[Fanatical Meat]

He got my point, and so did you. Stop being obtuse...

His exact text

Not the Christ that I read about and I actually read the bible, cover to cover.... 4 times

You made it sound like he was a biblical scholar it may not have been intentional but you are the one who twisted the words.

 

[Retro Rob]

His exact text


You made it sound like he was a biblical scholar it may not have been intentional but you are the one who twisted the words.

My point is that just reading something in no way means you understand it. I've read pieces of scientific literature laced with scientific jargon that I could not understand no matter how many times I read it.

It takes more than simply "reading" the bible or any literary work to understand it. One would have to consider setting, context, audience, history, and a host of other things for them grasp what it means.

I didn't think I needed to explain this to you.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Fair.

Just so you understand, the ban on same sex marriage was never discriminatory anyway. People need to understand that heterosexual persons also were not allowed to marry someone of the same sex just like gay people were not.

Heterosexuals were allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, and so were gay people. Everyone was treated fairly under law.

TOTAL FUCKING BULLSHIT.

The ban on same sex marriage discriminated on the basis of gender, you intellectually stunted nitwit. It said that while Steve was allowed to marry Jennifer, Jessica could not marry Jennifer because Steve is a man and Jessica is a woman. Jessica's rights were not equal to Steve's, therefore. A clear violation of the 14th Amendment.

God dammit, are you getting dumber?

 

[werepossum]

Jesus told them to sin no more as well which is the part people keep conveniently leaving out.

He did not? So basically you're saying that thievery and prostitution are acceptable for a Christian to practice? Thieves are good Christians, though they cause harm and loss to others?

What you mean to say is Jesus accepted those who did those things, as long as they stopped after learning to follow him.

Remember "go and sin no more"?

What do you think that means?

You guys don't see a slight difference between JESUS telling someone to go forth and sin no more, and YOU telling someone to go forth and sin no more? Methinks there are some beams here that bear examining.

We are all sinners. All of us.

I don't understand your point, they are perfectly free to denounce it for moral reasons in accordance with free speech. I have seen nor heard of any law that prevents a person from saying that they do not agree with gay marriage nor would I support one if it came up. I'd stand shoulder to shoulder with you to defend your ability to say it despite thinking what you are saying is wrong.

To be fair, there is a strong movement on the left to criminalize such speech, as well as demanding the firing of anyone who expresses such sentiments.

Excellent posts here, Darwin.

 

[werepossum]

Fair.

Just so you understand, the ban on same sex marriage was never discriminatory anyway. People need to understand that heterosexual persons also were not allowed to marry someone of the same sex just like gay people were not.

Heterosexuals were allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, and so were gay people. Everyone was treated fairly under law.

That's why the gay lobby made this about "love" because they wanted to attempt to make it discriminatory when by definition, it wasn't because no one could marry persons of the same sex.

Just wanted to make sure I put that out there...

That has to be the single worst logic ever. Under that logic, it would be perfectly fine to ban Christian churches because Muslims and atheists aren't allowed to establish Christian churches either.

Government needs a damned good reason to make anything illegal; the default in America should always be maximum personal liberty. Beyond that, there should be as little discrimination as is practical. Not technical rules lawyering, as little discrimination as is practical, period. When government establishes a law in such a way that it costs me nothing I value while costing someone else something very dear to my (and his) soul, there needs to be an incredibly high bar to hurdle before we accept that. A prohibition against marrying children clears such a bar; a prohibition against marrying someone of the same sex does not.

Government discriminating against someone else in my name is effectively me discriminating against someone else, if I passively accept it. No "clever" word play can change that.

 

[Retro Rob]

You guys don't see a slight difference between JESUS telling someone to go forth and sin no more, and YOU telling someone to go forth and sin no more? Methinks there are some beams here that bear examining.

No, I just see someone trying to save face.

 

[werepossum]

No, I just see someone trying to save face.

You know, there IS a group of people who can tell you whether or not you are Jesus. What's that name again . . .

Oh, right. They are called "Everyone in the freakin' world."

 

[buckshot24]

You guys don't see a slight difference between JESUS telling someone to go forth and sin no more, and YOU telling someone to go forth and sin no more? Methinks there are some beams here that bear examining.

We are all sinners. All of us.

You brought up the comparison!

http://biblehub.com/acts/17-30.htm

God clearly wants people to repent. Saying so isn't hypocritical.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You brought up the comparison!

http://biblehub.com/acts/17-30.htm

God clearly wants people to repent.

Saying you have any certainty at all about what "God clearly wants" is nothing more than a chicken shit fig leaf trying to cover for your own obvious bigotry because you're too much of a pussy to own your hatred.

Saying so isn't hypocritical.

You're not just saying "people should repent."

You're saying "THOSE PARTICULAR PEOPLE need to repent." You don't say that equally about everyone. You say it to certain individuals because you have judged them where it is not your place to judge. That's why you're a hypocrite, and why everyone thinks you're an asshole.

 

[buckshot24]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

HAHAHA. Love you buddy.

 

[Darwin333]

Does reading a book on Quantum Mechanics cover to cover "...4 times" make me an expert in Quantum Mechanics?

You would surely know what was in the book, at least I presume that you would. Are you saying that the bible is a book that requires vast amounts of knowledge before you can begin to understand the concepts? The conman man couldn't possibly hope to understand it, he must be spoonfed his "bible" to him from some expert? Is that really the religion you are saying that your God intended or is your analogy really bad?

I find it rather ironic that you chose that and that alone to reply to. Bottom line is God, through his inspired word, got a bunch of shit wrong that man decided was wrong. There are very very few words that are interpreted to mean gays are horribly wrong to be worthy of the absurd amount of time spent denouncing that particular sin. Rather specific instructions on what to do to those who work on the Sabbath though...

 

[Darwin333]

Yes it would be the same. It would only be discriminatory if one race was not allowed to marry someone of the opposite race while the other race was allowed to marry someone of the opposite race.

Ok, so you agree that banning interracial marriage is the exact same equivalent of banning gay sex. I personally think they are all discriminatory, and luckily the people that matter agree with me, but you are free to your opinion.

 

[buckshot24]

You would surely know what was in the book, at least I presume that you would. Are you saying that the bible is a book that requires vast amounts of knowledge before you can begin to understand the concepts? The conman man couldn't possibly hope to understand it, he must be spoonfed his "bible" to him from some expert? Is that really the religion you are saying that your God intended or is your analogy really bad?

You aren't an expert because you read the bible a couple times. It does take more to be an expert, original languages, church history, sociological studies of the times it was written in etc etc. It is deep enough to study your entire life.

But why do you equate not being an expert with not having any idea whatsoever about it?

 

[Darwin333]

That has to be the single worst logic ever. Under that logic, it would be perfectly fine to ban Christian churches because Muslims and atheists aren't allowed to establish Christian churches either.

Government needs a damned good reason to make anything illegal; the default in America should always be maximum personal liberty. Beyond that, there should be as little discrimination as is practical. Not technical rules lawyering, as little discrimination as is practical, period. When government establishes a law in such a way that it costs me nothing I value while costing someone else something very dear to my (and his) soul, there needs to be an incredibly high bar to hurdle before we accept that. A prohibition against marrying children clears such a bar; a prohibition against marrying someone of the same sex does not.

Government discriminating against someone else in my name is effectively me discriminating against someone else, if I passively accept it. No "clever" word play can change that.

Very well said yourself my friend.

 

[Darwin333]

You brought up the comparison!

http://biblehub.com/acts/17-30.htm

God clearly wants people to repent. Saying so isn't hypocritical.

God also clearly wants his followers (you for one) to kill and/or shun people for working on the Sabbath.

http://biblehub.com/exodus/31-14.htm

Not doing so is hypocritical.

PS: Same exact place you linked from. Oh wait, that's some of God's words that you choose to ignore, right? So, did God just fuck that part up, and mere mortals decided that, or what? Maybe some cosmic loophole that allows you to skip the passage altogether?

PPS: I can come up with soooo many more, I just don't feel the need. Please argue the point and not the passage or I will find the time and quite literally go Old Testament on you.

 

[Darwin333]

You aren't an expert because you read the bible a couple times. It does take more to be an expert, original languages, church history, sociological studies of the times it was written in etc etc. It is deep enough to study your entire life.

But why do you equate not being an expert with not having any idea whatsoever about it?

I never claimed I was an expert. I made the claim that I read it and I know what it says, I know what it says because I read it. I am pretty darn sure that I understand it because I assume that it was inspired/written/meant for the common man to understand. If not the first page should have started with "You need a someone much smarter than you to translate this for you" and frankly the church shouldn't be handing out material that is obviously going to be confused by the average reader. To use your analogy, you don't see anyone handing out advanced quantum mechanics textbooks and claiming that they spread knowledge.

Again, I am no expert but I actually read the damn thing multiple times. That is far more than I can say for the vast majority of the Christians that I know and that everyone I have ever asked knows, to their knowledge and mine.

So again, for the cheap seats, I am not an expert but I've done more homework than almost all Christians I know and have ever spoken to and I would wager more than 75% or so in the country.

 

[buckshot24]

God also clearly wants his followers (you for one) to kill and/or shun people for working on the Sabbath.

http://biblehub.com/exodus/31-14.htm

This is what I'm talking about, you have a cursory understanding so you make these kinds of mistakes.

I am not the government of a recently liberated Hebrew people. God does not want me to kill anybody. I wasn't the government and I am not that people.

Not doing so is hypocritical.

PS: Same exact place you linked from. Oh wait, that's some of God's words that you choose to ignore, right? So, did God just fuck that part, up and mere mortals decided that, or what? Maybe some cosmic loophole that allows you to skip the passage altogether?

I don't ignore anything, you apply them to situations that NO LONGER EXIST and act as if I am ignoring the passage. This is how your little bit of knowledge becomes an actual hindrance.

Am I ignoring the command to go to Nineveh to call them to repentance? According to your logic here, I have been. Except God told Jonah, not me. The Acts passage is after the ascension of the Lord and does apply to our age. Dispensations is something you should look up.

PPS: I can come up with soooo many more, I just don't feel the need. Please argue the point and not the passage or I will find the time and quite literally go Old Testament on you.

All ripped out of context. If you don't want me to discuss passages then don't bring them up!