Religious Zealotry

[PureX]

You are right. No homosexual pervert will be forcing me to honor homosexuality, hire homosexuals, have my kids allow homosexuals to spend the night at my house, and so forth.

You can hate them all you want in your own house. And in your own heart and mind. But when that hate becomes abusive of them, or others, the law protects them from you (or you from them).

 

[ok doser]

When I open a business to the public, a business that I alone finance and wholly own, I have the right to choose my clientele. You do not have the right to force me to engage in business against my will. It's a matter of contractual law. The government cannot compel a citizen to engage in a contract against his will.

I remember engaging in this conversation with a fellow here in the past, a fellow who won't be named, a fellow who strongly held the same position that Purex holds and who argued it vigorously. As it turns out this fellow owned his own business and after much prodding acknowledged that there was nothing in the law to prevent him from denying his services to potential clients at will. If he chose to avoid working with Negroes there was nothing to prevent it. If he chose to avoid working with Muslims there was nothing to prevent it. If he chose to avoid working with homosexuals there was nothing to prevent it. He held it as his right to choose the people he would enter into a contract with.

And yet he would deny that right to the Christian baker, because the law protects the right of homosexuals to force you to enter into a contract with them if you're a baker.

I always challenged him to show me that law and he never could.

 

[ok doser]

You can hate them all you want in your own house.

I can hate them all I want in public as well. I refuse to give my business to an establishment that celebrates perversion, whether it is homosexuality, adultery, abortion or pedophilia

All the arguments that you're making, that the bananahead's making, that rusha's making - you are amazingly clueless that what you're doing is you're carrying the water for pedophiles, you're doing the heavy lifting for the eventual societal acceptance of pedophilia.

Bravo

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes it did because the whole point of my bringing it up was to show that the law you base your beliefs on had not been enforced by the very group of people who were given that law.

So what? Just because it isn't enforced by a specific group of people doesn't mean it shouldn't be enforced, especially when the scriptures say it should.

We're not talking about "do not murder." We're talking about capital punishment for being homosexual.

Not for "being homosexual."

It's for committing homosexual acts.

In this country, these rights do include being a homosexual.

Just because it's LEGAL to be a homosexual does not give a person the RIGHT to be a homosexual.

It just means that the law that allows homosexuality is an immoral law, by definition.

Again, I want to make this about being subject the the governing authorities, which in this country, are civil authorities.

And the authorities are subject to God, who says that a "man who lies with a male as with a woman" should be "cut off." (And yes, "cut off" here means "put to death.")

You advocate laws based on your religious beliefs be applied to those who do not share your religious beliefs.

False.

I advocate that laws based on absolute morality, given by God in His word, be applied to everyone equally, REGARDLESS of their religion.

Laws like "do not steal, do not murder, do not bear false witness, do not commit adultery (which includes all forms of sexual immorality, including homosexuality), do not covet (used for determining intent, even though "coveting" itself is not a crime)."

Our civil laws don't allow that.

Which laws, specifically? Because I have the first amendment that says otherwise, not that it's any sort of authority on the matter...

I'm not contesting what the Bible says,

Answer the question, Anna. Was God wrong for saying "put those who lie with men as with women to death"?

I'm contesting the idea that what the Bible says should be used to make laws in this country regarding capital punishment for homosexuals.

One what grounds do you contest this?

The fact remains that fundamental Christian belief about executing homosexuals

Comes from God.

is comparable to Sharia in Islam about executing homosexuals.

To the extent that Sharia law imitates God's Law, to that extent those laws are righteous.

The similarity is there.

So what?

It doesn't belong in American civil government.

Is your argument: "Because such a law is present in Islam, therefore it shouldn't be allowed as a law in America?

It's our American government recognizing the equal rights of all citizens.

No, it's not. It's legitimizing immorality, which is inherently immoral and unjust.

God says "put homos to death if they commit homosexual acts." The American government does not have the right to say otherwise.

That early honor of God included burning "witches," owning slaves, counting them as less than fully human, and denying equal rights to Catholics, women, slaves, free Blacks, Chinese and other minority populations.

All of which is justly condemnable by the Bible.

But that doesn't therefore mean that homosexuality should also allowed.

You are not God.

Neither are you.

You do not speak or think for God.

Christians are to be salt and light in the world, so yes, we do speak for God. We preach His word.

Your judgment is not God's judgment.

Says the one judging us for judging. Hypocrite.

Your idea of righteousness is not God's idea of righteousness.

To the extent that it conforms to what God says about what is righteous in His word, yes, it is.

You cannot see what God can see.

So what?

You cannot know what God can know.

So what?

You have not been appointed God's instrument of judgment or wrath.

No, but the government has been. When the government fails to enforce justice and righteousness, we as Christians are called to tell them they are in the wrong.

Your idea of a righteous America is no one's but your own.

False.

The Proposed Constitution of America | KGOV.com

kgov.com

It is not God's,

God has set forth principles of a righteous government in His word. Based on those principles, we can advocate for a righteous government in America.

and it has no moral authority over anyone else's idea of a righteous America.

That assumes anyone else HAS an idea of what a righteous America looks like...

Not many do, and unless you'd like to provide us with what you think it should look like, I'm going to stick with the proposed constitution at the link above.

Yet you seem not to be able to accept this.

Supra.

And in spite of what you think about them.

Correct.

They are right because they support freedom, justice, and opportunity for all.

Wrong.

They are right because they conform to "love your neighbor.

They support your right to believe and live as you see fit, so long as you don't deny anyone else those same rights.

Which rights are we talking about here?

Because there is no freedom without equality.

Again: Freedom and equality are mutually exclusive ideas. You cannot force everyone to be equal without taking away their freedoms.

And there is no absolute freedom. Everyone has to give some to get some.

Whatever that means...

They aren't forcing Christians to do anything.

False.

Homosexuality: The sin and danger (with Wayne Besen) | KGOV.com

kgov.com

When anyone opens a business to the public, they have to abide by the laws governing businesses open to the public.

That doesn't mean they can be forced to serve anyone they don't want to serve.

One of those laws protects the public from unjust discrimination.

Which does not trump one's right to freedom to run a business as he sees fit.

Being a Christian or being gay has nothing to do with it. It's just about maintaining fair business practices. Practices that everyone, including Christians, agree to when they open their business to the public.

Again, you don't have the right to force me to serve someone I do not want to serve.

 

[annabenedetti]

Here is your post.

Nobody's forcing you to accept it as anything other than what you believe. What you believe stops with you where your neighbor begins. Are you in your neighbor's business if you know he's a homosexual? Or do you just talk about being in his business on the internet?

I am not a baker so nobody is forcing me to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding. That does not mean homosexuals and their supporters do not force their beliefs on others.

I believe mothers have no right to murder their children before or after they are born. I seek to enforce protections for the rights of children that wicked sinners seek to violate.

Is my neighbor indulging in child sexual perversion or pornography and should I care? I do not advocate unprovoked witch hunts but I do advocate for the enforcement of laws of decency, morality, and civilized behaviors.

I said neighbor. Hypothetically: if your next door neighbor is a homosexual living with his partner or spouse, what are you going to do about it?

Next: pedophilic acts perpetrated on a minor are criminal. Homosexual acts between consenting adult partners are not criminal.

You're falling into the trap of trying to hold the two as identical in the eyes of *U.S.* law (not Biblical law) and they are not the same, and to present them as the same *under U.S. law* is a false equivalence. Again - we're not talking about Biblical law, but U.S. law as it is currently, not past U.S. law. Whether or not you think U.S. law should have been changed, your opinion doesn't change the fact that it is changed.

 

[annabenedetti]

So what?

 

[Yorzhik]

It appears to me that when a person recognizes, honestly, that they can always be wrong even when they feel and think they are right, they are no longer a zealot.

Can you tell us something you are wrong about but still hold to?

They become a human; one among many, as opposed to imagining themselves to be some sort of infallible demigod, lording their imagined righteousness over everyone they encounter.

Although you said so with a smile, you did just say I'm less than human. That's worse than honestly calling a person who doesn't listen to reason "stupid".

 

[Idolater]

I see rights violations as using might to invade the privacy and rights of others that doesn’t include valid protections.

Could be might, but also could be non-violent coercion, or violent threats, or perjury, or even trickery.

 

[annabenedetti]

Although you said so with a smile, you did just say I'm less than human. That's worse than honestly calling a person who doesn't listen to reason "stupid".

I don't think that's what he meant at all. I think he meant merely human, rather than more than human - a demigod.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Are you unable to respond to what I said in my post?

 

[annabenedetti]

Are you unable to respond to what I said in my post?

I don't see the point in continuing with you, I'll continue with other conversations I have going in the thread.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I don't see the point in continuing with you, I'll continue with other conversations I have going in the thread.

You use fallacious logic, and then you refuse to continue the discussion. Seems like a cop out to me, but I can't force you to respond.

 

[Idolater]

... I always challenged him to show me that law and he never could.

That doesn't mean that he didn't believe the law should be made. My only contention is that, which legal theory do you base your view on, that this law should be made? The answer is, utilitarian legal positivism. This legal (and moral) theory is repugnant to the Constitution, and to the moral theory of the founders who wrote the Constitution, expressing their (public) morality in legalese. Un-American.

 

[annabenedetti]

You use fallacious logic, and then you refuse to continue the discussion. Seems like a cop out to me, but I can't force you to respond.

It's not a copout, JR. Just my common-sense opinion that we're not getting anywhere and if I continue to push back on you, you'll ban me at some point. If I told you I thought you the way you truncated my sentence so you could answer it in a different way as my original sentence was meant, and when I tell you that you say "so what," would you ban me for saying what I thought about it? Because that's how I think it'll end up if we continue.

 

[marke]

You can hate them all you want in your own house. And in your own heart and mind. But when that hate becomes abusive of them, or others, the law protects them from you (or you from them).

When I was a teenager I was propositioned several different times by homosexuals breaking the law, and I could easily see why those laws were in place. I don't want homosexuals propositioning kids and yet that is what perverted school teachers and officials are doing today in public schools of all grades.

 

[annabenedetti]

When I was a teenager I was propositioned several different times by homosexuals breaking the law, and I could easily see why those laws were in place. I don't want homosexuals propositioning kids and yet that is what perverted school teachers and officials are doing today in public schools of all grades.

Don't you care about heterosexuals propositioning kids? Don't you realize that heterosexual abuse is more common?

 

[marke]

I said neighbor. Hypothetically: if your next door neighbor is a homosexual living with his partner or spouse, what are you going to do about it?

Nothing. They are keeping their perversion out of public view. Let God deal with them.

Next: pedophilic acts perpetrated on a minor are criminal. Homosexual acts between consenting adult partners are not criminal.

Teaching kids to accept homosexuality and teaching them how to pleasure homosexual partners is hardly "consenting sex between adults."

You're falling into the trap of trying to hold the two as identical in the eyes of *U.S.* law (not Biblical law) and they are not the same, and to present them as the same *under U.S. law* is a false equivalence. Again - we're not talking about Biblical law, but U.S. law as it is currently, not past U.S. law. Whether or not you think U.S. law should have been changed, your opinion doesn't change the fact that it is changed.

Enemies of God seek to change good laws and/or replace them with bad laws. I do not support such wickedness. God has foretold of such wickedness in the end times as Satan assembles his earthly kingdom intending to set himself up as God. Wicked Americans are either willingly or ignorantly aiding the devil in this.


Daniel 7:25
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

 

[Rusha]

When I was a teenager I was propositioned several different times by homosexuals breaking the law, and I could easily see why those laws were in place. I don't want homosexuals propositioning kids and yet that is what perverted school teachers and officials are doing today in public schools of all grades.

But you are fine with heterosexuals propositioning kids? If that were the case, you would clearly state adults shouldn’t proposition or mess with kids.

What you leave out of your post is telling insofar as your actual dedication to the issue.

 

[Rusha]

Don't you care about heterosexuals propositioning kids? Don't you realize that heterosexual abuse is more common?

I just made the similar observation … reminds me of the Phil Robertson threads of the past.

 

[marke]

But you are fine with heterosexuals propositioning kids? If that were the case, you would clearly state adults shouldn’t proposition or mess with kids.

What you leave out of your post is telling insofar as your actual dedication to the issue.

There are laws on the books criminalizing sex with underage kids so don't try to pretend there aren't. Schools and teachers who teach the acceptance and practice of wicked perverted gutter homosexual sex should be fired and/or prosecuted.