RE: An American dialogue

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: An American dialogue

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: An American dialogue

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: An American dialogue - 12/14/2017 2:53:00 PM

JVoV

Posts: 3231
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

Maybe you should look at the other attorneys mentioned, specifically Paula Greisen of King and Griesen LLP, which is representing the couple.

(in reply to JVoV)

Profile

Post #: 281

RE: An American dialogue - 12/14/2017 3:21:47 PM

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

Fuck your "other attorneys", you Dishonorable, defamatory, scumbag. That was NOT the original claim.

Not to mention: the death of lofty goals:

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to JVoV)

Profile

Post #: 282

RE: An American dialogue - 12/14/2017 3:29:19 PM

JVoV

Posts: 3231
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

A lie is still a lie, no matter how many times you say it.

And you can't prove it with more lies.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Profile

Post #: 283

RE: An American dialogue - 12/14/2017 3:35:54 PM

JVoV

Posts: 3231
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

So here's truth for ya:

The ACLU has only published court documents since they've become engaged in the case, which was after the original filing.

And you're on the side of Roy Moore, an alleged pedophile.

Yet, none of that has to do with the discrimination that took place.

(in reply to JVoV)

Profile

Post #: 284

RE: An American dialogue - 12/14/2017 5:00:11 PM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

It seems to me all present day prohibitions to homosexuality in the Christian Religion originate from Leviticus. It is very specific in describing the act and the punishment. Why should it be permitted to condemn the act and not demand the punishment if the word of God is to be followed?

quote:

Matthew 5:17-20Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.

19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

and:

quote:

John 8:6-8Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

7 When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

I'm curious: Why would you want Christians to call for the death of homosexuals?

You know i don't...but justifying discrimination by verse and not follow the word of the Lord is hypocrisy. And I would like to know why you believe the old Testament when it provides no proof of validity. You said you only believed certain parts of the old Testament because history provided a reasonable alternative of proof... well where is there proof about homosexuals and the old Testament.

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Profile

Post #: 285

RE: An American dialogue - 12/14/2017 5:22:45 PM

JVoV

Posts: 3231
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

As I read through the legal briefs that have been filed in support of the gay couple, I am more and more confident that this was the wrong case for the religious right to push to our high court.

Similar cases have been decided in other countries in favor of gay rights in Canada, the UK, Israel, and other 'civilized' countries.

Even the Boy Scouts of America decision, which ruled in favor of discrimination, only did so for private organizations, not for public accommodations or businesses.

Churches are private organizations, so they are immune to any impact this case may have, in regards to officiating ceremonies or providing a gathering place for such ceremonies.

In many ways, this case is a follow up to the Hobby Lobby decision, which ruled in favor of closely held for-profit businesses in regards to religious beliefs, and that is the primary case being submitted as precedent for this case among the briefs supporting the bakery.

But the Hobby Lobby decision is based on applying the "least restrictive" method of implementing the government's interest, when religious beliefs are in opposition to a regulation. Can anyone present a less restrictive alternative that would secure equal rights for LGBT people in this situation? I fully admit that I can't be objective about this.

(in reply to JVoV)

Profile

Post #: 286

RE: An American dialogue - 12/14/2017 5:37:09 PM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

I see it as simple discrimination
He could have used a number of other ways to deny them a cake that wouldnt have made it "discrimination"
He chose to use their orientation against them.
Having said that, I expect the SCOTUS will rule in favour of him and chaos will ensue.
And that makes me angry on so many levels

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to JVoV)

Profile

Post #: 287

RE: An American dialogue - 12/14/2017 11:03:19 PM

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

Dishonorable, defamatory, scumbag.

Not to mention: the death of lofty goals:

< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 12/14/2017 11:10:21 PM >

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to JVoV)

Profile

Post #: 288

RE: An American dialogue - 12/14/2017 11:04:38 PM

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

Dishonorable, defamatory, scumbag.

Not to mention: the death of lofty goals:

< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 12/14/2017 11:10:46 PM >

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to JVoV)

Profile

Post #: 289

RE: An American dialogue - 12/14/2017 11:23:10 PM

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

You know i don't ...

I do? Then, who typed:

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub (emphasis by DaddySatyr)

... If that damn baker wants to discriminate because of his religion then by God he should also be protesting to have the death penalty for queers.

Butch

? It wasn't me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
...but justifying discrimination by verse and not follow the word of the Lord is hypocrisy.

I "justified" nothing. Leviticus "laid out" Hebrew law. Jesus never changed Leviticus' statement that homosexuality was sin. He did change Leviticus' proscribed "punishment"

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
And I would like to know why you believe the old Testament when it provides no proof of validity. You said you only believed certain parts of the old Testament because history provided a reasonable alternative of proof...

Actually, I didn't say that I only believed in certain parts of the OT, based upon history propping them up. I said that I tended to look at the Bible (all of it) with a critical eye and that, even after all that, I still relied on faith because I choose to believe the things said in the Bible.

What's going on here, is you're conflating two things, really. I said words to the effect that you're claiming, when I responded:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
that sort of insight, I think, is an interesting and worthwhile consideration for reading all of the bible.

I agree, though. I tend to look at all of the Bible with a critical eye. If it withstands my scrutiny, even if it still requires some faith, I'm okay with that. As an example: there's a military explanation for why Jericho's wall fell. So, I still believe it fell.

There's a theory about how Moses evaded the Egyptians which doesn't embody hundreds (or thousands) of Egyptian soldiers and charioteers dying. So, I still believe Moses got away.

... to:

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

im not in disagreement with anything you said, except for id clarify your paul meeting jesus thoughts with the road to Damascus interaction, in which paul met jesus not in the flesh, but in some spiritual form which proves all the more meaningful.

I was trying to keep it more "fact-based" for the dissenters. Believing Paul "met" Jesus requires not only faith in scripture, but faith in Paul who was human and the only one to make the claim. It couldn't be verified.

that sort of insight, I think, is an interesting and worthwhile consideration for reading all of the bible.

When talking about homosexuality and the OT and NT, I said:

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
This discussion is (sort of) why I brought Leviticus into the argument (since the OT was invoked by someone else), but I really meant it in a more general way.

For years, the argument from Christians was: "The Bible forbids/condemns homosexuality".

The response from the Left/Pro-homosexual forces was: "Look, you ignorant 'christian', even Jesus said he came to 'perfect' the OT and He never condemned homosexuality".

It was upon that premise that I based my argument.

Jesus did indeed say that he came to "perfect" the law and I believe he did just that. The only mention of homosexuality in the NT was Paul (who never met Jesus), regurgitating Leviticus (I believe it was in I Corinthians, but I could be wrong).

Since Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, he never countermanded it, per se. I'll go further: I believe "silence lends assent" is an axiom. So, I believe Jesus "backed up" part of Leviticus' claim/teaching.

However, in a very broad and general way, Jesus changed Leviticus, when he stated: "Let he among you who is without sin ...".

So, He did (in my view) "perfect" Leviticus, when he acknowledged (by way of silence) that homosexuality is a sin, but that doesn't mean homosexuals should be put to death, as Leviticus clearly called for.

I would remind you (as I reminded someone earlier in the thread), Butch: Christians are called Christians because (presumably) they follow the teachings of Christ. The teachings of Christ can only be found in the NT, but that doesn't mean that Christians are supposed to ignore the OT, because Jesus didn't.

By His own statements, Jesus implied - with some exceptions, which He specifically taught/preached about - that the OT laws were not wrong. On a few occasions, He specifically said that the "perfect" Abrahamic Law was what He was teaching. So, the NT teaches that the OT is not "wrong", but that men had "done some damage" to God's original intent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
well where is there proof about homosexuals and the old Testament.

I just answered that.

< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 12/15/2017 12:13:45 AM >

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to kdsub)

Profile

Post #: 290

RE: An American dialogue - 12/15/2017 1:14:57 AM

JVoV

Posts: 3231
Joined: 3/9/2015
Status: offline

Revelation 22:11
King James Version

quote:

He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

And with that, I'll let you keep lying, still.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Profile

Post #: 291

RE: An American dialogue - 12/15/2017 4:19:35 AM

bounty44

Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline

not for the first time, and probably not the last time i'll be saying this, I wish the left would learn what a lie is.

your issue with Michael here is not that he's lying, its that youre continuing to settle on that as an explanation when you ultimately don't, or don't want to, understand what he's saying.

and I agree with the "death of lofty goals" sentiment long before it was even pointed out.

(in reply to JVoV)

Profile

Post #: 292

RE: An American dialogue - 12/15/2017 4:48:22 AM

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

Dishonorable, defamatory, scumbag.

Not to mention: the death of lofty goals:

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to JVoV)

Profile

Post #: 293

RE: An American dialogue - 12/15/2017 4:52:32 AM

Awareness

Posts: 3918
Joined: 9/8/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

A lie is still a lie, no matter how many times you say it.

And you can't prove it with more lies.

No, but as feminists have ably demonstrated - if you repeat a lie long enough, people start to believe it. I think it was Goebbels who said that. How appropriate.

_____________________________

Ever notice how fucking annoying most signatures are? - Yes, I do appreciate the irony.

(in reply to JVoV)

Profile

Post #: 294

RE: An American dialogue - 12/15/2017 5:01:23 AM

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

and I agree with the "death of lofty goals" sentiment long before it was even pointed out.

What is hysterically ironic and hypocritical, all at the same time, was the "lofty goals" (at least one) died in the first post:

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV (emphasis by DaddySatyr)

My hope is that topics can be brought up without our prospective talking points, and without personal or party-based attacks, in order for more of us to not only understand facts of whatever issue is currently at play, because there are so many, but also to understand the other side's views when presented rationally.

Literally, a quote box and paragraph, later:

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV (emphasis by DaddySatyr)
Bosco, you're perhaps one of the most ironwilled right wing posters around. When you can avoid making the knee-jerk hateful response, and present a clear headed post free of talking points, you're also one of the most well-spoken. I hope that you can do that in this thread, so that an open, respectful dialogue can happen.

Fucking laughable, from the start

Peace,

Michael

< Message edited by DaddySatyr -- 12/15/2017 5:11:18 AM >

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to bounty44)

Profile

Post #: 295

RE: An American dialogue - 12/15/2017 9:38:03 AM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

quote:

Yeah, those uppity Christians, refusing to turn their backs on their faith and having the cock of "gay rights" forced down their throats

That is because it is NOT GAY rights... it is human rights.

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Profile

Post #: 296

RE: An American dialogue - 12/15/2017 9:59:02 AM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

Here is what you actually said:

I agree, though. I tend to look at all of the Bible with a critical eye. If it withstands my scrutiny, even if it still requires some faith, I'm okay with that. As an example: there's a military explanation for why Jericho's wall fell. So, I still believe it fell.

There's a theory about how Moses evaded the Egyptians which doesn't embody hundreds (or thousands) of Egyptian soldiers and charioteers dying. So, I still believe Moses got away.

I do understand what you are saying... But I am asking you what do you mean by... if it withstands my scrutiny? What scrutiny... it seems to me there is NO scrutiny only blind Faith on your part that the verse is truly the word of God and not just the feelings of the scribe. Would you not agree that some conflicting verses in the Bible can not reasonably be true? What scrutiny on your part reinforces your belief?

If blind faith then OK I have blind faith as well... but scrutiny has nothing to do with it.

Butch

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Profile

Post #: 297

RE: An American dialogue - 12/15/2017 11:03:49 AM

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

Yeah, those uppity Christians, refusing to turn their backs on their faith and having the cock of "gay rights" forced down their throats

That is because it is NOT GAY rights... it is human rights.

Butch

Well, one might think so, but if it's about human rights ... are Christians not humans?

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to kdsub)

Profile

Post #: 298

RE: An American dialogue - 12/15/2017 11:05:33 AM

DesideriScuri

Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
Then what do you believe should be done to punish homosexuals?

I believe Bounty is arguing that the faiths that are based on the OT should be putting them to death, if they are going to be true to their religious texts. Christians, however, shouldn't be putting them to death, but, probably pray for them, and let God do the judging.

It seems to me all present day prohibitions to homosexuality in the Christian Religion originate from Leviticus. It is very specific in describing the act and the punishment. Why should it be permitted to condemn the act and not demand the punishment if the word of God is to be followed? Some of the wannabe Christian scholars have been posting verse to justify their discrimination... well then follow their God's command.
One poster even said he only believes certain passages in the Bible that he found reasonable proof of validity...Well I challenge him to show proof of validity in Leviticus to back his discrimination against gays. It bugs me when people pick and choose different parts of the Bible to follow...as long as it does not interfere with their lives and agrees with their discriminating views.
If that damn baker wants to discriminate because of his religion then by God he should also be protesting to have the death penalty for queers.
Butch

Except a Christian isn't bound to the OT, and the NT doesn't mention the death penalty for homosexuality. But, if you'd been reading, you'd have known that. Sorta puts a kink (pun intended) in your argument, no?

_____________________________

What I support: