How We Got To Here: Christianity Version

#276
#276
82_VOL_83 said:
What is your opinion on a drink driver killing a pregnant woman?
Click to expand...

He should be punished.

If you're asking if it should count as one manslaughter or two... it depends upon the progress of the pregnancy. Life worth protecting doesn't begin at conception for any but the most ardent prolifer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#277
#277
ClearwaterVol said:
Overreact much? Allowing gays to marry doesn't force the populace to do anything. Good grief.
Click to expand...
Sure it does. it forces others to affirm a lifestyle at risk of prosecution.

the SSM issue was not about benefiting society or promoting family. Traditional marriage was never a matter of affirming heterosexual attraction.
 
#279
#279
Roustabout said:
Sure it does. it forces others to affirm a lifestyle at risk of prosecution.
Click to expand...

ssm doesn't force others to do a damn thing. You don't have to like, support, admire, endorse, value or respect ssm. You should come to grips with the fact that the Constitutional protections now apply equally.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#280
#280
Roustabout said:
Sure it does. it forces others to affirm a lifestyle at risk of prosecution.

the SSM issue was not about benefiting society or promoting family. Traditional marriage was never a matter of affirming heterosexual attraction.
Click to expand...

It no more forces others to affirm a homosexual lifestyle than it forces bigots to affirm interracial marriages.

As much as you may not like it, the constitution trumps the Bible every time on any disagreements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#282
#282
ok, let's say I own a banquet hall, and a gay couple wants to rent it to throw a gay pride party. Should I be able to refuse without fear of legal repurcussions?
 
#283
#283
Roustabout said:
ok, let's say I own a banquet hall, and a gay couple wants to rent it to throw a gay pride party. Should I be able to refuse without fear of legal repurcussions?
Click to expand...

Does a business providing a service publicly equate to affirming a lifestyle? Let's not conflate the two ideas.

Second and to your question - I firmly believe that any business should be able to refuse service to anyone within the bounds of existing law. Unless there are state or local laws preventing discrimination against gays, you can refuse service legally since Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't cover their kind. That said, a business owner should go into business with an understanding and full knowledge that breaking a law could have consequences. In other words, don't open a rainbow flag and assless chaps boutique in San Francisco and get surprised when you're sued for refusing sales to gays. One should be aware of the applicable laws and do business accordingly, or not.

"Fear" of being sued is subjective. $40 and grudge is all it takes to sue someone, doesn't mean they'll win. FTR, I'm all for a loser pays civil tort reform as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#284
#284
Septic said:
Does a business providing a service publicly equate to affirming a lifestyle? Let's not conflate the two ideas.

Second and to your question - I firmly believe that any business should be able to refuse service to anyone within the bounds of existing law. Unless there are state or local laws preventing discrimination against gays, you can refuse service legally since Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 doesn't cover their kind. That said, a business owner should go into business with an understanding and full knowledge that breaking a law could have consequences. In other words, don't open a rainbow flag and assless chaps boutique in San Francisco and get surprised when you're sued for refusing sales to gays. One should be aware of the applicable laws and do business accordingly, or not.

"Fear" of being sued is subjective. $40 and grudge is all it takes to sue someone, doesn't mean they'll win. FTR, I'm all for a loser pays civil tort reform as well.
Click to expand...
nothing personal, but I don't care what you believe.
you claimed there were no legal repurcussions.
 
#285
#285
Roustabout said:
nothing personal, but I don't care what you believe.
you claimed there were no legal repurcussions.
Click to expand...

Then don't participate in the discussions. When you get owned you throw a little tantrum. When someone refuses to define words as you wish them defined, you throw a little tantrum and quit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#286
#286
Orange_Crush said:
2 Thes 3:10 -- For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

I think you misunderstand the POV of many conservative Christians. It's not that we don't want to see the poor helped, it's that we believe the liberal welfare policies as the wrong way to do it. Most conservative Christians that I know are very generous and charitable people.

What you need to understand is that Jesus had every opportunity to make His teachings about politics, and He refused to do so. You should be careful trying to hijack Jesus as a political figure. They tried to make Him king, and He fled. When questioned, He repeatedly made it plain that His Kingdom (ideals) are spiritual and not political.

Jesus' teachings were about individual heart responses and individual actions. It's a bit of a disservice to His teachings to try to conscript them to liberal politics. IOW, there's a big difference between,"The individual should show love to their neighbor through action by helping to fill their needs" and "the gov't should tax people heavily and fill that role so that no one will individually notice their neighbor and help them".

If you want to force Jesus into a political figure, I can tell you He'd also never run as a liberal, and would definitely never get elected by liberals.

Liberal rhetoric: More taxes, distribute wealth, war on poverty!

Jesus: You'll always have poor people.

Biblical policy: If you refuse to work, we refuse to feed you.

Can you see that Biblical teaching isn't quite so cut and dry as to say: "If you are a real Christian, you'd be a Democrat"? Perhaps some people may see Biblical teaching per individual hearts and corporate policy?

Be transformed by love to help the truly needy. Don't rely on the gov't to do what we should be doing. Recognize that gov't programs are bloated, inefficient, abused, and contrary to helping the poor not be poor anymore.

:hi:
Click to expand...

As you are well aware, I am not a Christian, but this is a beautifully stated sentiment and one that I can find very little fault in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#287
#287
Roustabout said:
nothing personal, but I don't care what you believe.
you claimed there were no legal repurcussions.
Click to expand...


I claimed no such thing. If you don't care what people think then perhaps you shouldn't ask what people think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#288
#288
Roustabout said:
nothing personal, but I don't care what you believe.
you claimed there were no legal repurcussions.
Click to expand...

Let's be clear here, nobody is forcing you to own a banquet hall in your example. That is a decision you are making with the full knowledge this awful immoral and sacreligious decision of upsetting God or getting sued might take place. Nobody is forcing this decision on you, especially not the law. The choice is ultimately yours to own this establishment.

Likewise, this is separate from philosophically believing that a business should be able to refuse service to anyone. You are conflating the two ideas with a ridiculous analogy. I'm a firm believer in letting the market decide this stuff, but that doesn't change the fact that the law is the law, and nobody is forcing you to own this business. Owning it comes with the knowledge that certain laws and regulations of all kinds will apply.

It's called freedom, and the primary goal is to preserve it for all parties. You don't want gays in your banquet hall and you don't want to get sued? Don't own a banquet hall. Otherwise serve the banquet or take your chances in court.

In any case, nobody is forcing you to affirm anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#289
#289
ClearwaterVol said:
Then don't participate in the discussions. When you get owned you throw a little tantrum. When someone refuses to define words as you wish them defined, you throw a little tantrum and quit.
Click to expand...

Oh, ok


(Anyone else, think clear's post sounded a little like a tantrum.)
 
#292
#292
joevol320 said:
then how would you define good? if there is no God or the Bible (who set the laws of what is good and bad) then we couldn't never question a dictator or murderer. Hitler would have been justified by society for doing what he did.
Click to expand...

Yes we couldn't determine genocide was evil without the God that killed all but 8 people in the world with a flood and ordered the mass killings of all the peoples of Canaan.

Inb4 "It's not evil cuz God said THAT genocide wuz cool".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#293
#293
BTW that was strictly a response to the bad joevol, not really trying to piss anyone else off. It was purposely extra snarky.
 
#294
#294
VolsSportsFan said:
Yes we couldn't determine genocide was evil without the God that killed all but 8 people in the world with a flood and ordered the mass killings of all the peoples of Canaan.

Inb4 "It's not evil cuz God said THAT genocide wuz cool".
Click to expand...

If you created something and saw it was irreversibly corrupt, what would you do?
 
#297
#297
ClearwaterVol said:
Seriously? You throw a fit for 2 days and it's me? I've asked you the same question over and over and over and over and it's me?

Lmao
Click to expand...
This is typical tactics by you and exactly why I SAID I didn't respond to you I the first place. Your an antagonist.

Ask a loaded question and then when your interlocutor doesn't answer, insult them and attack their character.
 
#298
#298
Roustabout said:
This is typical tactics by you and exactly why I SAID I didn't respond to you I the first place. Your an antagonist.

Ask a loaded question and then when your interlocutor doesn't answer, insult them and attack their character.
Click to expand...

I asked you a very simple question. You wanted it's terms redefined to suit you. I declined. You refused to answer unless the question was changed.

How did I attack your character?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#299
#299
ClearwaterVol said:
I asked you a very simple question. You wanted it's terms redefined to suit you. I declined. You refused to answer unless the question was changed.

How did I attack your character?
Click to expand...
And I explained the problem I had with your question. You said you meant exactly what you typed.

Your question would have required me to first admit that a positive argument for miracles was illogical.

Do you still beat your wife?

And you deem that a "fit?"

I then ask a question regarding homosexuality based on undefended claims (it doesn't force you to affirm...). We then get 3 vitriolic fits.
 
#300
#300
Roustabout said:
And I explained the problem I had with your question. You said you meant exactly what you typed.

Your question would have required me to first admit that a positive argument for miracles was illogical.

Do you still beat your wife?

And you deem that a "fit?"

I then ask a question regarding homosexuality based on undefended claims (it doesn't force you to affirm...). We then get 3 vitriolic fits.
Click to expand...

My "vitriolic fit" was pointing out your fit? LMAO.

Now back to my question? I wasn't seeking to paint you into a corner. As I recall, without going back and looking at the actual post... you made a comment about how the story of Noah didn't necessarily require a global disaster, but it could have been a very local issue. This explanation is logical and alleviates a lot of the issues that I have with the story. I asked if there was a similarly simple and logical explanation for Jonah and the big fish.

Now, your answer could have been as simple as I cannot offer any explanation of Jonah's encounter with the big fish without first acknowledging that a miracle occurred. Simple, easy and I sure as hell wasn't asking for you to refute David Hume's position on miracles. Truthfully, I had never heard the localized flood theory before and I liked it. I was then trying to ascertain whether there were any other common sense type theories to explain implausible, at least to me, biblical stories. We are now on day three of you attempting to redefine the question into something you would prefer to address, but not something I am interested in rehashing with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top