The *Actual* Persecution of Christians In Trump’s America

The *Actual* Persecution of Christians In Trump’s America January 30, 2018

Screen Shot 2018-01-30 at 8.43.31 AM

Those on the Religious Right claim that Trump is a Christian president who cares about Christian values.

Those on the Religious Right also claim that Trump is going to protect Christians from being persecuted for practicing their faith.

But those who are on the front lines of being the hands and feet of Jesus know differently– Trump’s Amerika knows nothing of Christian values, nor is he a president committed to protecting the free exercise of Christian principles.

I’ve often and very publicly criticized the “Conservative Christian persecution complex” that we see perpetuated by the Religious Right– it’s an absolute joke, and everyone knows it. When the government tells you, “I’m sorry, but your business isn’t allowed to discriminate- if someone has the money to buy a cake, you should be fair and sell it to everyone.” you’re not being persecuted– you’re just being told to stop doing the persecuting.

While the Christian persecution complex has been harmful for the Church in that it’s made us look petty, whiny, and overall made the Gospel unattractive by how we live, the biggest tragedy of it all is that it’s caused us to completely miss the actual persecution of Christians in Trump’s America.

No, there is not systematic persecution of Christians in America– America is a country that’s nearly 80% Christian, and overwhelmingly governed by Christians at every level of government.

But yes, some Christians in America are being persecuted for practicing their faith– because if obeying what Jesus commanded gets you arrested and thrown in jail, I don’t know what other word to call it.

I suppose the tragic irony of the Religious Right selling their soul in exchange for a promise to not have to sell any more gay wedding cakes, is the reality that they’ve not just ushered in actual Christian persecution, but have turned the most basic things someone would learn in a Jesus 101 class into a criminal act.

Case in point: one need not even be a Christian to recognize one of the most well-known statements Jesus made to his followers:

“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me…”

In fact, when Jesus makes this statement in Matthew 25 he’s not issuing some suggestion on what his followers should do– he’s actually warning people that divine judgement awaits those who refuse to give food to the hungry, water to the thirsty, clothes to the naked, and shelter for the stranger.

This is basic Christian stuff– but obeying Jesus and practicing your Christian faith in this basic area will land you in jail with a felony charge in Trump’s America.

Screen Shot 2018-01-30 at 10.27.04 AMJust ask Scott Warren. He’s a volunteer for a humanitarian aid organization called No More Deaths, a ministry founded by a coalition of community and faith leaders that is committed to faith-based principles of immigration reform.

Those community and faith leaders have found themselves deeply concerned with how many people die from lack of water while wandering the desert in an attempt to cross into the United States from Mexico. In an effort to care for the stranger in their midst, as Jesus commanded, they’re known to leave random jugs of water in the desert, along with other basic supplies that some immigrants may need to survive in that hostile environment. And in cases where they encounter an immigrant who is hungry, thirsty, and in need of shelter– they’ve been known to provide it, just as Jesus said to.

But following Jesus is a criminal act in Trump’s America. Warren was arrested and thrown in jail last week for giving immigrants water, food, and clean clothes. And he isn’t alone– nine members of the faith-based group have been arrested and charged with federal crimes recently by the Trump administration, mainly for leaving jugs of water in the desert in hopes of saving a human life.

So, I take back what I’ve said in the past regarding anti-Christian persecution in America.

Christians are being persecuted.

They are being thrown into jail for practicing the basic tenets of the Christian faith.

But it has nothing to do with wedding cakes, and everything to do with giving water to those who are thirsty, food to those who are hungry, and clothes to those who are naked.

And until you, my random Christian brother or sister somewhere on the internet, stand up in defense of those jailed by the Trump administration for following Jesus 101 type stuff– for literally giving water to people who would die without it– I’m not interested in hearing about how “oppressed” those cake shop owners are, or anything else you have to say about the persecution of Christians in America.

 


unafraid 300Dr. Benjamin L. Corey is a public theologian and cultural anthropologist who is a two-time graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary with graduate degrees in the fields of Theology and International Culture, and holds a doctorate in Intercultural Studies from Fuller Theological Seminary. He is also the author of the new book, Unafraid: Moving Beyond Fear-Based Faith, which is available wherever good books are sold. www.Unafraid-book.com. 

Be sure to check out his new blog, right here, and follow on Facebook:


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • $144948586

    Oh the irony of this article.

    *DISCLAIMER*
    Yes, it is wrong to criminalize someone for leaving random jugs of water out in the desert (except under the auspices of littering–which, of course, isn’t the real issue).
    Yes, it’s also wrong to discriminate based on, well, anything.

    Claim 1: It’s a good thing to leave jugs of water out “to save a human life”.
    Claim 2: It should be illegal to not sale your property to anyone you want, even if your religious convictions inform you that the goal is “to save a human life.”

    Regardless of the poignancy, do you not realize that these to claims rest on the mandates of the State?
    If you want less say of government for the first claim, then fight for less say of government in both claims.

    Don’t be arbitrary or really you are just persecuting people who want to sell their property to only the people they want; it’d be the same hypocrisy of those who claim the rights of the baker to discriminate but not the rights of CIVILians to leave water jugs….in fact, the first claim even has the externalities of ecological damage via littering and BPA poisoning.

    It doesn’t matter YOUR convictions on this matter, because I’m sure there are bakers who’ve felt strong in their (ADMITTEDLY MISLEAD) convictions.

    But ya know what, if this were a matter of private property and not government overreach, we wouldn’t have hypocritical blog posts about a subject you care much about and believe it is more important than those religious right Christians you despise so greatly.

    “People should be free to go to hell in whatever way they want.” I forgot what libertarian (philosophy, not politic) I stole that quote from.

    You might say, “Feeding the hungry and clothing the poor are more important than selling a cake.”
    I’ll say, “That’s a value judgment. Some people don’t believe that and it’s not your place to impose upon them your moral standards. Recognizing the natural rights of an individual and their property is also vitally important, unless you just don’t want ‘those who exclude’ to be included–in the irony of all ironies.”
    As Jesus said, “Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?”

  • Electoral Collagen

    “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was breaking the laws of the land and you aided and abetted me.”

  • Phil Teichroew

    One thing is for sure about this website is they clearly know little about Jesus & they’ve sadly missed the ONLY reason He came, died & rose again!

  • Matthew Funke

    If you want less say of government for the first claim, then fight for less say of government in both claims.

    This assumes that the amount of government interference is an inherent evil. It’s not.

    The government needs to allow us to do good while preventing us from doing evil. If it gets in the way of doing a good thing, that is bad. If it fails to prevent the commission of an evil act, that, too, is bad.

    That’s a value judgment. Some people don’t believe that and it’s not your place to impose upon them your moral standards.

    Yes, it is a value judgment. A good government should reflect the social value that human life is more important than sale of a luxury good.

    As Jesus said, “Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me?”

    Cite, please?

  • $144948586

    “One thing is for sure about this website is they clearly know little about Jesus”
    I’d disagree; he sometimes gets it right–it’s extension of rights that he’s particularly wrong on, imo.

    “they’ve sadly missed the ONLY reason He came, died & rose again!”
    What did he miss?

  • $144948586

    “The government needs to allow us to do good while preventing us from doing evil. ”
    That’s just nonsense; there are dozens of evil things we do that we’d recognize as oppressive if the government stopped us.
    I’ve lied to my parents. I’ve driven 3-5 over the speed limit. I’ve earned cash and not paid taxes on it.

    “A good government should reflect the social value that human life is more important than sale of a luxury good.”
    But government, particularly acute to the industrialized world doesn’t reflect “social value” of a human life. Governments have exterminated more people in the last century than all nations in times prior. And that’s not even accounting for abortion or one’s stance on it.

    “Cite, please?”
    Parable of the vineyard workers.

    The fact is that your very own argument rests on a uniform ideal (or even a majority ideal) of “social value”.
    What we see clearly is that substantially-sized groups oppose eachother’s views as to what should and should not be legal.

    The fact that this is an addressed topic makes your argument for a government based on “the good thing” worth nothing. For those on the pro-law side, they oppress those on the con-law side. And Corey, here, is now complaining of government intervention that is in the same vain of what he supports to oppress those horrible Christian bakers: government intervention. This time it’s his social values that aren’t honored, and he doesn’t like it.

    They’re both making arguments as to what is “morally right” and “good for one’s soul”, but Corey thinks he’s more right and thus his belief should be law.

    “This assumes that the amount of government interference is an inherent evil.”
    I won’t argue over this claim here, but government interference IS ALWAYS an inherent evil for reasons cited above: Christians now have the opportunity to force their wills on others in very non-Jesus fashion.

  • Richard Lambert

    He was referring to this https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+20%3A1-14&version=NIV

    …. though im not sure what his point was. If he’s gonna quote scripture, he should probably quote it all, instead of “some convenient bit of it” out of context.

    “For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire workers for his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard.About nine in the morning he went out and saw others standing in the marketplace doing nothing.He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’So they went. “He went out again about noon and about three in the afternoon and did the same thing.About five in the afternoon he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them, ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?”Because no one has hired us,’ they answered. “He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.'”When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.'”The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius.So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius.When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner.These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius?Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you.”

  • Iain Lovejoy

    And those on his left hand said to him: “but they (who BTW were the people we voted for) made it illegal to give food to the hungry, and drink to the thirsty, to take in the stranger and clothe the naked: we would have been breaking the law of the land.” And Jesus said, “OK sorry, my bad, obviously that’s fine then, I wouldn’t what you to get arrested by the authorities or anything, no one wants that.”

  • $144948586

    “instead of “some convenient bit of it” out of context.”
    Out of context? The only context needing representation is that Jesus recognized a person’s right to own property–and that it isn’t right for others to begrudge him for what the owner does with it–in this case be generous. After all, they agreed to transact with him (and, notably, he agreed first to transact with them).

    This, Corey doesn’t do; but he sure cares about it when it suits his value judgment–and calls it persecution when the same government bars those doing what they want with their property (what he agrees with). I just would like him to extend the same right to those bakers who choose do what they want with their property (not sale the things they own to people they don’t want to).

  • Iain Lovejoy

    “Corey thinks he’s more right and thus his belief should be law.”
    Well no he isn’t. He’s pointing out that if the religious right were interested in freedom of religion as a principle, rather than specifically their own right to do whatever they want and bash gays because they don’t like them, they would be interested in the religious freedom of those Ben highlights, not just the bakers.

  • $144948586

    “He’s pointing out that if the religious right were interested in freedom of religion as a principle, rather than specifically their own right to do whatever they want and badh gays because they don’t like them, they would be interested in the religious freedom of those Ben highlights, not just the bakers.”
    If only Corey honored the same.

    EDIT:
    1) “they would be interested in the religious freedom of those Ben highlights”
    What religious freedom are they not interested in?

  • Matthew Funke

    That’s just nonsense; there are dozens of evil things we do that we’d recognize as oppressive if the government stopped us.

    That’s hardly a counterargument to the notion that government should stop whatever evil is reasonable.

    Parable of the vineyard workers.

    Ah, but that’s Christ talking about God’s property, not ours.

    I won’t argue over this claim here, but government interference IS ALWAYS an inherent evil for reasons cited above: Christians now have the opportunity to force their wills on others in very non-Jesus fashion.

    I disagree with this unilateral statement. Oppression!

    … doesn’t that seem weird?

  • Iain Lovejoy

    You think the parable is about the right to freedom of contract? How did you manage to read the Bible and come away with the idea that the Kingdom of Heaven was about free market capitalism? I mean, seriously, WTF? Have you actually read any of it?

  • Matthew Funke

    The only context needing representation is that Jesus recognized a person’s right to own property

    Not true, because the context isn’t about people or their property. Those things are merely analogues, and analogues are, by definition, not the thing they are making an analogy to.

    In fact, drawing a conclusion on a thing based on a property of an analogous thing is a well-known flaw in reasoning.

  • $144948586

    “You think the parable is about the right to freedom of contract?”
    Of course not, but without these right supposed there’s no purpose to the parable. The workers COULD begrudge. The workers COULD demand more. The owner WOULDN’T have to pay the workers.

    “How did you manage to read the Bible and come away with the idea that the Kingdom of Heaven was about free market capitalism?”
    Because no one is coerced in to entering the Kingdom of Heaven. That’d be the anti-thesis of Jesus’ “love you neighbor as yourself” message.

  • $144948586

    “Not true, because the context isn’t about people or their property.”
    I didn’t say it was; but these are facets of the owner’s right to give what he wills as he sees fit–and that it’s not the laborers place to have a say in the matter.

    I wasn’t arguing the purpose of the parable; I was arguing what is necessarily assumed in the parable as it applies to what I was saying. Regardless, your earlier argument is still bunk.

  • $144948586

    “That’s hardly a counterargument to the notion that government should stop whatever evil is reasonable.”
    Reasonable is a subjective term, as many despots can attest.

    “Ah, but that’s Christ talking about God’s property, not ours.”
    No, it’s talking about a wealthy vineyard owner and his property and saying, “This is what God’s kingdom is like.”

    “… doesn’t that seem weird?”
    I don’t know where you’re going with this.

  • $144948586

    First question remains:
    1) “they would be interested in the religious freedom of those Ben highlights”
    What religious freedom are they not interested in?

    2) Now that I see you mean “bash”, I’m unsure how this is in the context of Corey’s article about baking a cake.

  • Matthew Funke

    I was arguing what is necessarily assumed in the parable as it applies to what I was saying.

    Right, and more directly, that’s what I mean to argue against. A storytelling convenience shouldn’t be taken as the proper workings of the real world.

  • Matthew Funke

    Reasonable is a subjective term, as many despots can attest.

    Then what’s the point of discussing anything, if anything can be reasonable? Why should I believe that you even have a point worth presenting?

    The fact is that you’re engaging in a form of the slippery-slope fallacy. Just because people differ on what’s reasonable doesn’t mean that nothing is.

    No, it’s talking about a wealthy vineyard owner and his property and saying, “This is what God’s kingdom is like.”

    Point taken. But neither assertion is equivalent to saying, “This is what our attitudes toward private property ought to be like.” It’s a mistake to say that “This is what God’s kingdom is like” shares a context with “This is how we ought to behave with respect to concepts of ownership”. That’s a matter of interpretation, despite your unilateral statements about context.

    I don’t know where you’re going with this.

    It’s ludicrous to assert that directions or principles chosen by people amounts to an inherent evil. The description of it as inherent means that it’s a property of every difference of opinion that one person expects another to live by, including forcing the notion that the government should not intervene when businesses discriminate.

    Collective decisions and actions made by people to resist oppression of a minority are not inherently evil.

  • bill wald

    Should “old fashioned,” traditional Mormons be permitted to practice their religion in Utah?

    Should Islamic worshipers be permitted to announce the call to prayer 5 times a day from an amplified PS system?

    And then there are traditional religions that practiced temple prostitution in St Paul’s neghborhoods . . . .

  • I wonder what the chances are that the Right will want this guy prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law!

    Shane Claiborne has also faced prosecution for following Jesus in contravention of laws. One example was, back around, 2002, when he helped deliver food, medicine, and other necessities in a humanitarian mission to Iraq. He got fined for violating the sanctions that were in place. So, to protest the impact the sanctions had on Iraq, Claiborne and Co paid the sanctions in Iraqi dinars…at the pre-sanction exchange rate. (The fine was a few thousand dollars, but the dinar was so devalued that the pile of money that had been a few thousand dollars was only worth $6.)

    It is stories like these that make me cringe when liberals conplain that Right Wing Christians want to use their religion to avoid the law, and should just follow the law, gosh by darn it! The reason I don’t like “Just Follow Teh Law” is that it is a boomerang that hurts humanitarians like this. In addition, it commits an argument from authority fallacy.

  • Les Mayer

    I agree. Would we even know who MLK is if he had just followed the law?
    Let me be even more provocative, how much of an impact would Jesus have had if he had just followed the law?

  • Herm

    In the same vain as Josh said before me, what did Dr. Corey miss? Expound, please!

  • $144948586

    He closes out the parable with the rhetorical question affirming the wealthy vineyard owner’s right to do what he wants with his money.
    It’s not just a convenience; this is a direct affirmation of the workings of the real world.

    People understood having possessions. The rich young ruler owned many things to do what he wants. Lazarus and Martha and Mary owned oil to do what they wish with it. The three magi owned gold, frankincense, and myrrh to do what they want with it. The kid with 5 loaves and 2 fish did what he wanted with his. Joseph of Arimathea owned a tomb to do with what he pleased. No disciple chimed in saying, “But people don’t have the right to own property…”

    But fine, in the real world people do own stuff.

    How’s this for the conclusion that Jesus recognized property ownership:
    “If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that HOME…and shake the dust off your feet.”

  • Herm

    … it’s kinda’ the price one pays for carrying their own cross, expressly for their enemies, who know not what they do.

  • Matthew Funke

    He closes out the parable with the rhetorical question affirming the wealthy vineyard owner’s right to do what he wants with his money.

    Right. Because that element of the story was a convenience in making the point He was making through the story. That does not automatically mean that He was describing what our attitude towards property ought to be, and that that is the automatic context of the story.

    TL/DR: “Is too” is not a logical defense.

    But fine, in the real world people do own stuff.

    Yes, but God’s people are consistently asked to have radically different attitudes about ownership. A storytelling convenience does not change all that into “You guys — do whatever you want with your stuff.”

  • $144948586

    “Then what’s the point of discussing anything, if anything can be reasonable?”
    Because what’s reasonable to us is not necessarily reasonable to someone else. The only point I’m presenting is to not force what you deem reasonable on someone else–that’s it. One wonders why a Christian would do that.

    “Just because people differ on what’s reasonable doesn’t mean that nothing is.”
    To this, I can agree–there is an objective good. But far be it from man to determine what that is in government. The fact is, the imposition of what we deem the “objective good” is still an imposition on those who desire less than the “objective good”. We rob their freedoms to do what they desire so we can do what we desire–that’s not Christian.

    “Why should I believe that you even have a point worth presenting?”
    I don’t really give a crap about your belief; I just don’t want to be the oppressor and don’t want my Christian brethren to establish Christians as oppressors.

    “That’s a matter of interpretation, despite your unilateral statements about context.”
    I simply wanted to make the point that it’s the owner’s property to do with as he sees fit, and Jesus affirms this.
    We can easily extrapolate to anything we own (or, by transitivity, anything we’ve traded money for). And we can extrapolate money being owned by the fact that we traded our life for it.

    “It’s ludicrous to assert that directions or principles chosen by people amounts to an inherent evil.”
    Millions of South Africans believed in apartheid, but this was an inherent evil. The imposition of your will on another independent person is an inherent evil–and this is always what government does.

    “Collective decisions and actions made by people to resist oppression of a minority are not inherently evil.”
    But here, we’re not talking about government–we’re talking about a group of volunteers who are not forcing people’s participation.

  • $144948586

    “Yes, but God’s people are consistently asked to have radically different attitudes about ownership.”
    Agreed, I’m not arguing this. You can’t argue this when considering the rich young ruler.

    That being said, God’s people are NOT told to force other people to use their property as God’s people see fit. And that’s the case we have with the baker–that’s the case we have with government; the baker may have claimed to be Christian, but that doesn’t give us the license to say, “YOU’RE GONNA MAKE THAT CAKE DAMNIT”

    Suffice it to say, it’s not our place to begrudge God’s charity. It’s also not our place as Christians to tell others what to do with their stuff–they don’t have to welcome us or others in their home, or business, or whatever.
    We CAN say, “You know, it sucks they won’t make you a cake, but it is their business, their ingredients, their talent, their time. But hey, I’m willing to make you a cake.”

    But when you give the government power like this, you shouldn’t begrudge when that power is used for things you disagree with; it’s hypocritical.

  • Matthew Funke

    the baker may have claimed to be Christian, but that doesn’t give us the license to say, “YOU’RE GONNA MAKE THAT CAKE DAMNIT”

    I don’t think anyone is using that as a basis. You’re constructing a strawman.

    We CAN say, “You know, it sucks they won’t make you a cake, but it is their business, their ingredients, their talent, their time. But hey, I’m willing to make you a cake.”

    We can, except that we as a society have already had this discussion, and we determined otherwise about refusing people business.

  • Matthew Funke

    Because what’s reasonable to us is not necessarily reasonable to someone else.

    That’s true of some things. Again, it’s a mistake to then extrapolate this to the idea that nothing can be reasonable.

    The only point I’m presenting is to not force what you deem reasonable on someone else–that’s it. One wonders why a Christian would do that.

    Some things are reasonable whether you’re a Christian or not. I seek to make laws that are reasonable on that basis. It’s not forcing anyone to particularly Christian morality to insist that they should not discriminate based on sexuality.

    I don’t really give a crap about your belief; I just don’t want to be the oppressor and don’t want my Christian brethren to establish Christians as oppressors.

    Fine. But that doesn’t address the larger point at all.

    I simply wanted to make the point that it’s the owner’s property to do with as he sees fit, and Jesus affirms this.

    I know that’s the point you wanted to make. It’s bogus.

    Millions of South Africans believed in apartheid, but this was an inherent evil.

    “Apartheid was an inherent evil” does not even imply that everything a particular citizen might want, and which the society would use its collective will to impose, is automatically inherently evil.

    But here, we’re not talking about government–we’re talking about a group of volunteers who are not forcing people’s participation.

    Maybe you are. I wasn’t necessarily restricting it to that.

  • $144948586

    The illegality of discrimination is what Corey supports.
    But he can’t stand the illegality of illegal immigrants. Such is the nature of government robbing your freedoms to do what you want, which is oppressive.

  • Matthew Funke

    The illegality of discrimination is what Corey supports.
    But he can’t stand the illegality of illegal immigrants.

    Yes. Because morals are more important than laws, whether you’re a Christian or not. (Laws are made to attempt to enforce morals, not the other way around.) People are more important than principles, whether you’re a Christian or not.

  • Kiara

    This isn’t Christain prosecution.. I mean really. If it were then they’d be arrested for being Christain soley. They would have still been arrested no matter their religion or lack of. I agree they shouldn’t have been arrested at all for helping a life, but that doesn’t mean that their belief had anything to do with the arrest.

  • $144948586

    The larger point is that these problems wouldn’t be problems if one of us wasn’t supportive of a government who every four years can change its direction and who it chooses to oppress.
    It doesn’t matter that you like immigrants, some people don’t. And it doesn’t matter that you don’t like discrimination, some people do. But to force all those people who want discrimination and who don’t like immigrants to abide by your laws that you sent because you need that those are morally good that is oppressive. We as Christians can teach that this is the greater good thing, but forcing them to abide by it, that’s enslavement. Christians should have no part of that.

  • $144948586

    I agree wholeheartedly that people are more important than principles. That’s why I don’t want to impose my principal of non prejudice on people whom I love that are prejudiced. I will let them live the way that they desire, but I will hope to influence them and teach them that their prejudice is only a pathway to hell. But far be it from me to impose upon them a lot of that they don’t agree with and take part in casting them to hell in which they’ll probably never want to speak to me again. And that’s because they understand that my emphasis in of my will is their oppression.

  • Matthew Funke

    But to force all those people who want discrimination and who don’t like immigrants to abide by your laws that you sent because you need that those are morally good that is oppressive.

    I disagree, because people are more important than principle. Being forced to live by that guideline in specific areas I’d rather not is part of the price I pay for living among others — I expect their respect for my life above principle, and they should expect me to respect their lives above principle.

    Without basic considerations like these, society eventually whirls to self-destruction. Preventing a person from blind self-destruction is not oppression. In fact, idly allowing it to happen shows a certain sociopathy.

  • Matthew Funke

    I agree wholeheartedly that people are more important than principles. That’s why I don’t want to impose my principal of non prejudice on people whom I love that are prejudiced.

    You have it backwards. If people really are more important to you than principle, then you will make efforts to ensure that principle is never placed above people.

  • $144948586

    Exactly, so I will intercede from the discriminated behalf. If I can make them a cake, I will make them a cake. If I can’t, then I will help him find someone if they need me to. But that’s not backwards. And just because my principal is not in line with the person who discriminates, that doesn’t give me the right to stop them from discriminating, but I can tell them that I don’t think that their discrimination is a good thing.
    You see, I’m not just interested in having the oppressed at the table. I’m also interested in having the oppressor at the table.

  • $144948586

    Just because I’m forced to live among you, doesn’t mean I signed some contract in which you can dictate the guidelines that I have to live by. Thats enslavement.

    It’s a false belief that it would world into self-destruction. If you don’t like a baker who discriminates, then don’t buy from them. In this method, non-discriminatory businesses will arise.

  • Matthew Funke

    You see, I’m not just interested in having the oppressed at the table. I’m also interested in having the oppressor at the table.

    I’m not convinced that’s a good thing. The oppressor wants to treat a human as less than human. That is an evil. I no more want them “at the table” than, say, a slaveowner.

  • Matthew Funke

    Just because I’m forced to live among you, doesn’t mean I signed some contract in which you can dictate the guidelines that I have to live by. Thats enslavement.

    Not if they’re good guidelines; then it’s just enforcing being a decent person. If they’re not good guidelines, then you don’t follow them, and live with the consequences, and/or you work to change them.

    It’s not enslavement to tell people they can’t murder one another. If a law is bad, though, you work to change it — you don’t declare all laws bad and enslaving. That’s irresponsible (as rushes to judgment usually are).

    It’s a false belief that it would world into self-destruction.

    People acting in their own self-interest to the detriment of the society tend to cause the society to implode. The so-called “Tragedy of the Commons” is a way this frequently happens, though there are others.

    If you don’t like a baker who discriminates, then don’t buy from them.

    Or get together with a bunch of other people who place people above principles and explain that this behavior is unacceptable on the basis of simple human rights, and that punitive measures will be taken if it continues, as with any other unacceptable behavior that treats people as less than human.

    That’s what our system is, in a highly imperfect way.

  • Ron McPherson

    But Josh, what you’re advocating is placing the rights of the oppressor over the victim. Why do that? If the owner of a diner refuses service to a black person (you know, because it’s his business who he wants to sell a sandwich to; its his property), why are you more concerned about standing up for the rights of the racist in being allowed to discriminate rather than standing up for the right of the one being victimized? I can’t make that work no matter how many times I turn this over in my head.

  • $144948586

    People dont need government to not murder.
    Kids dont need law to become upstanding adults; they learn through community action and ostracism in that people don’t “play” or “do business” voluntarily with people they don’t like.

  • $144948586

    Then you dont care about people more than principles.
    An oppressor at the table (and I was implying God’s table) is no longer an oppressor but a new man. He didnt become that way by legislation but by repenting which also didnt comr by legislation or dictation.

  • hisxmark

    Actually doing what Jesus taught has never been a popular strategy with Christians. But then, Jesus was a Jew.

  • jimoppenheimer

    A powerful and on-target message.

  • Glandu

    Jesus is just a catalyzer. If you are a good person, he’ll help you to be even better. If you’re a bad person….. well, look at what they all do with Jesus’s teachings.

  • Bones

    Derp we have laws to protect people from other people….

    “Without basic Harm Principle laws, a society ultimately degenerates into despotism — the rule of the strong and violent over the weak and nonviolent. ”

    ergo Lord of the Flies…..

    You probably don’t like rules in football either.

  • Bones

    Josh also hates that football has rules.

    He wants everyone on the field to do whatever the f### they want.

  • Bones

    It’s ok.

    It’s only gay people and black people…..they don’t have rights….unlike white conservative males.

  • Bones

    Yeah whatever….

    Meanwhile we have laws to protect people while they ‘come around’……

    It’s weird how laws to enforce conservative morality were good isn’t it? Like locking up gay people.

    Now ll of a sudden conservatives have discovered their libertarian side.

    Is there a more hypocritical bunch?

  • Bones

    And the libertarian supports the government rounding brown people up…..

  • Bones

    Durrr Jesus wasn’t making a point about modern employment practices…It’s a parable about the pharisees (the first workers) and the sinners (the later workers).

    Btw the parable of the wicked landowner who tortures his servant for not investing his master’s money is more applicable. (Mark 12:1-12)

    People of Jesus’s day understood who those landowners were.

    The hero in that story is the tortured servant.

  • Bones

    Speaking of enslavement…..

    At least the evil government didn’t get involved……. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/89392642b03e94dd9513931fe5a4f703dc97704a716b39d84d7453b1c722ef4f.jpg

  • Bones

    Figurative language obviously confuses you.

    The whole parable is about God’s kingdom – not property rights.

    Property rights are a western creation.

  • gimpi1

    “While the Christian persecution complex has been harmful for the Church in that it’s made us look petty, whiny, and overall made the Gospel unattractive by how we live, the biggest tragedy of it all is that it’s caused us to completely miss the actual persecution of Christians in Trump’s America.”

    Thank you for this.

  • Bones

    Christians are being persecuted but its ok…its only the brown ones….

    ICE arrests of Iraqi Christians in US cause detainee families to feel betrayed
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/16/ice-arrests-iraqi-christians-in-us-cause-detainee-families-to-feel-betrayed.html

    Maybe they should’ve baked a cake.

  • Bones

    Yeah I wouldn’t be losing any sleep over any criticism from you.

    Especially when you can’t even interpret a basic parable.

  • Tim

    *Christian * Solely *Persecution.

    And you are incorrect. Being arrested for simply holding an ideology IS higher-level persecution, but that doesn’t mean that being arrested for practising your faith isn’t persecution.

  • Tim

    Really; Do tell…

  • Tim

    Matthew 5: 38-42 38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

    When it comes to being a Christian, we do not have the luxury of not baking that cake if we want to follow Jesus’ example here. We are not to force our ideology on others, true, however we have a responsibility to be above that when it goes the other way. You’re arguing out of both sides of your mouth here.

  • Ron McPherson

    And where would it all end? Answer? It wouldn’t. The Civil Rights Act, not capitalism, righted many of the wrongs of racism.

  • Matthew Funke

    Then you dont care about people more than principles.
    An oppressor at the table (and I was implying God’s table)

    Ah. Well, forgive me for not understanding your super-secret meaning. Kind of unfair that you’d make a judgment on my values based on that super-secret meaning, though, don’t you think?

    He didnt become that way by legislation

    You’re missing the point. I don’t expect that that’s what legislation is for. Please go back to my old synopsis about what government is for, paraphrased from Romans 13 (or go ahead and read Romans 13 for yourself; just remember that it can’t exist without Romans 12).

  • Matthew Funke

    People dont need government to not murder.

    Not the point. Government isn’t there to shape character. Enforcing being a decent person is not the same thing as making you into a decent person.

    Look, it’s been fun, but it’s a bit bewildering that you’d hold this “stance”. You have to make wholesale equivocations of things that should never be equivocated in order to do it, and even have to surrender concepts like “reasonable” and pretend that because they’re not uniform, they can serve absolutely no purpose anywhere in a rational discussion about sociological concerns. And you buttress it by making dogmatic claims about what must be the only context possible from an element in a story to pretend that it has validity and rationality.

    I’m not interested in dogmatic claims that reduce the dignity of a group of humans to make decisions about their collective direction. But take care of yourself.

  • Bones

    Will no one think of the rights of white, conservative males?

  • $144948586

    I didnt say we have that luxury.
    As persons with hate in there heart, they should have that right.
    It isn’t turning the other cheek whenever you are using police enforcement guns violence jail prison to force them to behave. That’s the antithesis of turn the other cheek.

  • $144948586

    Why do you resort to lying bones?

  • $144948586

    because Ryan that’s not oppression, that’s just Prejudice. And I also believe in the right to serve whoever you want. Thus I believe that prejudice bias ultimately destroys its own existence. So a business who refuses to serve black people will not compete against the business everybody. In fact this is the very basis of Jim Crow laws. Government tried to stop the serving of black people. This natural destruction not at the hands of another person except one’s own ultimately I believe will lead to Redemption. So I do care about the oppressed definitely, so I will serve them. But I do care about the oppressor, so I will let their own sins find them out. What I don’t want to be seen as a some kind of moral police force who tells them that they had to behave a certain way.
    What it doesn’t lead to though is a seat of power in which someone who actually has Wicked prejudices against another enough to kill them won’t utilize those same laws to end up throwing them in gas Chambers or refuse to leave water jugs.

  • Bones

    Its no lie.

    In fact the biggest liar here is you.

    The bloke who makes up his own definitions as he sees fit.

  • $144948586

    Matthew, I’m not objecting to an objective good or reasonableness. But I do object to your ability to know what the objective good is. We live in a world of nuance that’s a fact. Thus everything that I frrm as good is going to be slanted for the most part. I don’t trust in my ability to be able to judge what is good and wholesomely good; no offense, but nor do I trust in yours.
    The things I’ve argued stem from recognition of a person’s liberty, even to hate, and person’s right to do what they want with what belongs to them. This alone explains why such things as murder are wrong….you love your neighbor as yourself.
    If we take away the recognition of a person to be free to hate, then we don’t care about “person over principle”. And you’re no longer making a claim about objective good but of nuanced good in which you fail to consider their perspective and the reason for their hate. To be clear, I’m not justifying their hate–I’m saying it’s authoritarian to keep them from expressing it in what belongs to them. (and no, I’m not advocating them hurting another–as, again, this would be an infringement on a person’s endowed/natural rights).
    But as it stands, history is replete with examples of rulers who believed in different levels of reasonableness and goodness–for goodness sake, that’s the state of American politic. It is in this nuance that government is inherently evil, and it is this nuance that politicians exploit.
    Now I’m also not claiming that Christians aren’t called to have radically different views of property rights or their own natural rights; in fact, I believe we’re called to sacrifice those. But that doesn’t give me license to force others to sacrifice theirs, even if it is prejudiced. I can preach against it, but far be it from me to outlaw it in the name of the greater good expecting that I know what that is.

  • $144948586

    Mmmk

  • $144948586

    “Kind of unfair that you’d make a judgment on my values based on that super-secret meaning, though, don’t you think?”
    I did no such thing. I told you enforcing principle over person is inherently not respecting person over principle.

    I just wanted to clarify the table I was talking about, because I don’t want confusion: I don’t want an oppressor at my table, and I have that right because I own that table and the house it sits in.

    I don’t expect an oppressor to be at God’s table, because God’s table requires a radically different heart.

    “Please go back to my old synopsis about what government is for, paraphrased from Romans 13 (or go ahead and read Romans 13 for yourself; just remember that it can’t exist without Romans 12).”
    Please also read in Luke 4 and Matthew 4 about who owns all the kingdoms.

    Also read 1 Samuel 8 about God desiring Israel to not have government.

    Also read about which plant was willing to rule over the other plants told by Jotham in Judges 9.

    Yes, God uses governments (he uses sinners to), but that doesn’t make them good things.
    Nothing in Romans 12 says, “Lord over others if they persecute”–it says to bless them. You can’t dictate another’s life and expect to live peaceably.
    Be careful with how you use Romans 13–about 170+ million murdered people (in the last 100 years) could take offense.

  • Ron McPherson

    “Thus I believe that prejudice bias ultimately destroys its own existence.”

    Well you may believe that, and it sounds nice and all, but it’s just not reality. For decades on end, southern businesses did quite well in the deep south, all the while reveling in their prejudice. Their argument? The same you’re making here. It’s their goods and services; they can sell and not sell to whoever they wish. The government needed to keep their grimy hands off their stuff. And what’s more, their white patrons continued to frequent those same establishments, never hurting their profit margin one iota for refusing service to minorities. The outcome? Black folks had to stay in their own zones for decades and decades and decades, etc. Couldn’t eat at restaurants, couldn’t stay at hotels, etc. And prejudiced business owners didn’t close up shop due to all the other businesses clamoring for black folks money. Capitalism didn’t help the victims there; it didn’t fix it. I don’t get why you feel the greater wrong is being perpetrated upon the prejudiced business owner (by the government forcing him to not discriminate) than on the victim being refused service in the first place. Anyway, we’re just miles apart on this one.

  • $144948586

    “Well you may believe that, and it sounds nice and all, but it’s just not reality. ”
    Actually, it is reality.

    “For decades on end, southern businesses did quite well in the deep south, all the while reveling in their prejudice.”
    This depends on the decades we’re discussing; it’s not fair to talk about this when governments are preventing slaves from leaving plantations.

    “And what’s more, their white patrons continued to frequent those same establishments, never hurting their profit margin one iota for refusing service to minorities.”
    Again, this depends on the decades we’re talking.

    “Capitalism didn’t help the victims there”
    Actually it did, and then the governments instituted Jim Crow–a response to growing markets serving black people and threatening white’s-only businesses.

    “I don’t get why you feel the greater wrong is being perpetrated upon the prejudiced business owner”
    Because we’re imposing on a prejudiced business owner’s will–that is oppressive, by definition.
    You’re being willfully blind in ignoring the government’s role in instituting racial segregation.

    Who enforced Jim Crow?
    Who enforced Apartheid?
    Who enforced the Berlin Wall?
    Who enforced “separate but equal”?
    To the latter, you might say, “This was overturned.” But I say, “It should never have been law.”

  • ollie

    It is only persecution if the law is not applied to everyone equally.

    That said, Christians have a moral obligation to stand against unjust laws and sometimes that means being punished by the government of man.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Oh please! You’re either saved & a Christ follower, or you’re not! You obviously have NO clue what it means to be a Christian & only delight in making blanket condemning & accusatory statements.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Exactly! Apparently this misinformed writer believes that law enforcement asks the beliefs & faith of everyone before arresting them.
    What an absolutely bogus & ridiculous article! All under the guise of following Jesus…

  • Phil Teichroew

    Joke? Where’d you concoct that made up story from?

  • Phil Teichroew

    I do, Tim!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Are you interpreting a ‘basic’ parable?
    Maybe you should really get into the Word of God?

  • Matthew

    What about when it does eventually come out that these folks, because of their committment to the teachings of Jesus, were leaving water for
    thirsty people in the desert? What then?

  • Kiara

    Yes but they weren’t arrest for practicing their faith. If an athiest did the same thing they did the arrest would still have been made. Helping someone survive isn’t an act of Christianity. It’s an act of humanity.

  • Phil Teichroew

    This whole article is premised on works. Works are a fruit of the Spirit. God only calls us to belief in Him & obedience & submission to Him & His Word. Works & the desire to share the Good News with & minister to the physical & spiritual needs of our fellow mankind will only naturally follow. Being good will NEVER get anyone into Heaven! Too many people, including many ‘Christians’ put the emphasis in the wrong place, get it backwards & attempt to appease God through their good works. 1 Samuel 15:22…

    Jesus only came to die for the sins of the World & to rise again that we might have Eternal Life with Him! He came to seek & to save those who are lost (Luke 19:10). No. 1 & only reason!

    He did NOT come to minister to the physical needs of people! He came to change hearts & bring people into a saving knowledge of Him & obedience to His Word. Performing miracles & meeting the needs of those who came to Him during His short ministry on this Earth was only an extension of His ministry & a way to speak to & heal their real need, which was their lost & dying souls. As it is today.

    This is why the religious leaders of the day were enemies of Christ & why the Jews missed their Messiah. Their eyes were completely on themselves, their plight & solely their physical needs.

  • Tim

    In one sense this is true. I guess in that particular situation, we’d have to be able to assess if any other mitigating factors were involved in the arrest.

  • $144948586

    Don’t worry about Bones; he’s an authoritarian fascist who likes to call others authoritarians–even when they don’t even believe in the legitimacy of government.

    If you disagree, then he’ll just spout that you don’t like black people and want to ’round them up.

  • Tim

    Either you’re thick, or being intentionally evasive. You made a broad statement about this website, and my comment was in effect asking you to expound upon this, as Herm’s was.
    But if I have to, I’ll spell it out for you: What makes you think “they” know little about Jesus, and that they’ve missed the “only” reason that Jesus did those things? What is that “only” reason, in your opinion?

  • $144948586

    “But yes, some Christians in America are being persecuted for practicing their faith”
    Why do you not believe the bakers refusing to serve a gay couple’s wedding is practicing their faith?

  • Ron McPherson

    “(Well you may believe that, and it sounds nice and all, but it’s just not reality).
    Actually, it is reality.”

    Depends on who you are and where you live I guess.

    “(For decades on end, southern businesses did quite well in the deep south, all the while reveling in their prejudice).
    This depends on the decades we’re discussing; it’s not fair to talk about this when governments are preventing slaves from leaving plantations.”

    I’m not.

    “(I don’t get why you feel the greater wrong is being perpetrated upon the prejudiced business owner)
    Because we’re imposing on a prejudiced business owner’s will–that is oppressive, by definition.
    You’re being willfully blind in ignoring the government’s role in instituting racial segregation.”

    I’m not willfully blind. I’m just not of the opinion that a current government protecting the rights of an individual victimized by racism must somehow, by extension, be evil because of its past culpability in racism. And yet you feel it is somehow more Christian to support a society without gov’t interference which allows for the discrimination against minorities (or gays or whoever), than supporting a government prohibiting such actions in defense of the victims. I literally can’t get there. Sorry

  • Tim

    So, submission to Him and his word doesn’t involve all the instructions he gave us on how to treat others?
    We’re not talking about works based salvation here, we’re talking about what James said; “I will show you my faith by my works.”
    Too many people get hung up on the Luther’s extreme view and end up using this logic as a cop-out.
    And not enough Christians put the emphasis in the right place, which is actually imitating Christ. The parable of the sheep and goats is all over this. We are never judged on what we believe, but on what we do. The mechanism behind it is important to understand as far as that goes, but that should never be an excuse to not actually do it.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Thanks! You’re speaking to someone who was the only white child growing up surrounded by about 2 million black Africans in a very remote area, so playing the race card on me just won’t work.

  • Electoral Collagen

    It’s not illegal to give food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, take in a stranger, or clothe the naked. It’s illegal to help someone break the law. You are completely missing the point.

  • Tim

    If they want to act that way, they should have the right to break anti discrimination laws? You can have the hate in your heart of self righteousness and not follow Jesus, but they can’t do that and call themselves Christians.
    I’m only arguing from the perspective of a Christian’s responsibility.

  • $144948586

    “they should have the right to break anti discrimination laws?”
    Anti-discrimination laws shouldn’t exist.

    “You can have the hate in your heart of self righteousness and not follow Jesus”
    I know, that’s why Christians take on authoritarianism and outlaw discrimination.

    “I’m only arguing from the perspective of a Christian’s responsibility.”
    Which is to intercede on the part of the oppressed. But, not voluntarily selling your services is not oppression–it’s just prejudice. However forcing someone to sell their services, well that is oppression.

  • Phil Teichroew

    We are never judged on what we believe, but on what we do? You’re right back to the premise that it’s all about works again!
    I may agree with much of what you wrote, but it will still come down to our belief & obedience to God. Our works will NEVER save us! We may get an award for it, but we will NEVER see the Kingdom of Heaven because of it! Matthew 7:21-23…To God, ALL the good works in the World will only amount to dung & filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6)!

  • $144948586

    “I’m not willfully blind. I’m just not of the opinion that a current government protecting the rights of an individual victimized by racism must somehow”
    You’re not a victim of oppression if someone just says “no” to selling you their services. You’re just a victim of prejudice.

    BUT, if you’re not talking about those decades then YOU MUST be talking about Jim Crow South, which is a direct initiative by government power to protect discriminatory businesses when anti-discriminatory businesses were winning.

    “And yet you feel it is somehow more Christian to support a society without gov’t interference which allows for the discrimination against minorities (or gays or whoever)”
    Yes, because that’s what liberty is–not the liberty to discriminate, but the liberty to lose when others DON’T discriminate–which is naturally what happens when green is the only color that is seen.

    Whether you like it or not, you’re using government to discriminate against those who discriminate. You’re imposing your will upon them.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Read further, Timmy, & don’t feel so offended & angry!

  • Kiara

    Then nothing. The reason for leaving the water is irrelevant. They were arrested for leaving water. Not being commited to Jesus.

  • Phil Teichroew

    The matter comes down to whether they were violating the law, not their intent or reasons.
    There are some municipalities in my area that prohibit & levy a heavy fine for leaving food or salt blocks out for deer. That may not be a good example, but part of dealing with ILLEGAL immigration is the elimination of the facilitation of & being a magnet drawing these people (illegally) to this country.
    Many bleeding hearts fail to understand the term ILLEGAL. Many say they’re only coming here to better themselves. Can we not apply the same rationale to a bank robber, identity thief or other illegal activity?
    Should we not have compassion? Absolutely! But I highly doubt that law enforcement withholds any necessary care or fails to address real needs while in custody.

  • Ron McPherson

    “You’re not a victim of oppression if someone just says “no” to selling you their services. You’re just a victim of prejudice.”

    Way too broad of a statement there, though I suppose that’s easy to claim if you’re not the one being subjected to the harmful prejudicial treatment. Oppression against another can result from a prejudiced view when that view is manifested against another such that the victim is vulnerable to the actions of the other. We don’t get to define to the victims whether or not they feel oppressed. Pretty sure a black person being refused medical services in a walk-in clinic because of their race is being oppressed.

    “Whether you like it or not, you’re using government to discriminate against those who discriminate. You’re imposing your will upon them.”

    So, ‘discriminating’ against a racist doctor by requiring him to treat a black person is deemed by you to be a greater offense than what the black person would be subjected to were the doctor allowed to discriminate against him?

  • $144948586

    “Way too broad of a statement there, though I suppose that’s easy to claim if you’re not the one being subjected to the harmful prejudicial treatment.”
    Ron, we’re talking about folks walking in to someone else’s business and being denied service (time, money, ingredients, supplies, you name it)–not the other way around.

    “Oppression against another can result from a prejudiced view when that view is manifested against another such that the victim is vulnerable to the actions of the other.”
    Again, we’re not talking about a situation in which something is being manifested EXCEPT in the case that a prejudiced business owner is forced to put his feelings aside.

    “We don’t get to define to the victims whether or not they feel oppressed.”
    Yes you do, because oppression is not a feeling. Oppression is an action.
    Prejudice is a feeling.
    We don’t get to tell the victims whether or not they are oppressed because oppression is something happening–it is what it is, and we should work to alleviate it.
    But if it’s a prejudice, you can’t just eliminate that by passing some legislation. You just tell others they gotta “do it anyway.” That is oppression.
    For both of these things, Christians should seek to alleviate both. But, alleviating oppression isn’t solved by oppression. It is solve by shielding others from it (whether by getting them out of harm’s way or laying down your life for them or, dare I say, leaving out water jugs).
    BUT, alleviating prejudice is also not solved by oppression. It is easily solved, non violently, by you fulfilling the role the prejudice person wouldn’t: befriend, or, dare I say, baking a cake.

    “So, ‘discriminating’ against a racist doctor by requiring him to treat a black person is deemed by you to be a greater offense”
    If by discrimination you mean “the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people”, then that is an offense because it is oppression.

    “than what the black person would be subjected to were the doctor allowed to discriminate against him?””
    If you mean the above definition of discrimination, then why would the black person ever submit himself voluntarily to said doctor?
    If it were involuntary, then that is also oppression.

    What Christians should recognize is that both of these cases are cases for oppression. We don’t need to be choosing which one is the “greater offense”.
    This is why I can’t vote. You’re still choosing one evil in lieu of another–it doesn’t matter if you wrap your poop in gold.

  • $144948586

    “Pretty sure a black person being refused medical services in a walk-in clinic because of their race is being oppressed.”
    For the record, said medical clinic would “get a reputation” quickly.
    Second, the black person could go elsewhere. But you should recognize the rights of the doctor to own himself and his business and therefore his business’ supplies.

  • Ron McPherson

    “You’re right back to the premise that it’s all about works again! I may agree with much of what you wrote, but it will still come down to our belief & obedience to God.”

    You indicated that works do not gain entrance into the kingdom, but then go on to say that a component along with “belief” is “obedience.” How are you distinguishing between “works” and “obedience?”

  • Glandu

    from my life experience. And from other’s. In a christian setting, someone bad can stay forever, do a lot of damage, and always be forgiven.

  • Ron McPherson

    “For the record, said medical clinic would “get a reputation” quickly. Second, the black person could go elsewhere. But you should recognize the rights of the doctor to own himself and his business and therefore his business’ supplies.”

    This to me is astounding.

  • kcwookie

    Was Jesus not a Jew? Where in the Bible does it describe him as something other than the Son of God or a Jew? More importantly, where does it describe him as a Christian?

  • kcwookie

    So you agree that it was a violation of the law not to bake a cake for someone you disagree with? The anti-gay baker violated the law.

  • $144948586

    “This to me is astounding.”
    Please, continue. Let’s discuss.

  • kcwookie

    So you agree that it’s their food, their labor, their business and if they don’t want to serve Christians it’s okay?

  • $144948586

    Yes.
    I suppose I should say: It’s their right.
    I’m not saying it’s “good”.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Seriously?
    Your point is?
    Where do you think the name ‘Christian’ came from? Surely it didn’t come before Christ, did it?
    He was called other names also, such as a Nazarene & of course The Messiah.

  • ollie

    For the same reason that Christians hanging black people weren’t practicing Christianity.

  • Graham Nicholls

    I’m confused. When did Jesus break the law?

  • Phéna Proxima

    Despite not being Christian, or even religious, I donated to No More Deaths after reading this post. What an excellent idea. Thank you for sharing! (+1 this comment if you did the same!)

  • Graham Nicholls

    DNFTT

  • $144948586

    But it was their faith. And refusing [the service of what you own] is much different than taking [a life someone else owns].

  • kcwookie

    That’s the beauty of the situation, you are forced to live among us, you can go where you please. I wish you’d make yourself happy and move somewhere else.

  • Phil Teichroew

    No.
    But I’m not familiar with or an interpreter of that particular law. Are you? You seem to put yourself up as an expert on Oregon & Colorado law.
    BTW, the bakers were NOT anti gay! They were anti-SIN!

  • $144948586

    That’s not the beauty; it’s government overreach, and this arguments serves no purpose in the discussion of rights which transcend “the way things are”.

    For God’s sake, yeah I live in a nation that finds it pretty much “part of the day job” to drone people in the Middle East, but it hasn’t redefined murder as being correct so long as the State does it, because “we’re forced to live in a world where governments murder people.”

  • Phil Teichroew

    Someone bad can stay forever? Forever bad?
    Forgiveness is ALWAYS available to those who confess & REPENT! Only up until their last dying breath.
    True repentance is the key word!

  • kcwookie

    No, they were anti-gay. I’ve never heard about them refusing to bake a cake for a second marriage or other “sins” but you are free to spin things any way you like. Just remember, if you are anti-sin you don’t get to pick and choose which sins you want to be against.

  • Ron McPherson

    Ok, so you take your sick child to a clinic because he’s running a fever and the flu is raging. You walk thru the doors and sit in the waiting room. You get called back and the doctor takes a look at you and your child and says, “Sorry, I don’t treat black people. I used to but fortunately the gov’t lifted discrimination laws in these parts and so I’m at liberty to refuse service. I’ll see you out the door now.” So then you go to the other clinic down the street. Oops, this one won’t treat your kid either, but surely there’s one that will, probably in an adjacent county though. These clinics aren’t suffering financially in any way because all the white people go there, so capitalism and racism both co-exist in that area. Meanwhile your sick kid’s temperature keeps going up while you’re looking for a medical facility to treat him. So at this point, you call an ambulance. Ambulance driver shows up and says, “Well you’ll need to call another ambulance service because this one doesn’t transport black people. But there are plenty to pick from in the yellow pages. So keep looking.” So Josh, if you’re the father this is happening to, are you still advocating for no discrimination laws?

  • Ron McPherson

    “Forgiveness is ALWAYS available to those who confess & REPENT”

    So does repent involve works or is it just a mindset?

  • Ron McPherson

    “…the bakers were NOT anti gay! They were anti-SIN!”

    Does this mean they refused service to those marrying who had previously been divorced?

  • Questioning

    “Works & the desire to share the Good News with & minister to the physical & spiritual needs of our fellow mankind will only naturally follow.”

    This is precisely what these people were doing, leaving water in the desert, mercifully ministering to the needs of people. It seems you are equating ILLEGAL with unclean, similarly to the man who was robbed and left on the side of the road. Sounds like you would have passed him by. So leaving water in the desert for thirsty aliens will get you arrested but consider: it was, very similarly, this type of radical love and going against the powers of the day (the Jews and Romans), that got Christ crucified.

    Additionally, I have not seen anyone here say that Jesus came “only” to minister to the needs of people; however, that was a part of it. If I were you I would calm down a bit and be careful you do not put yourself in the same place as the enemies of Christ.

    *Edited to add:
    It seems you may be new here. Lots of others have come charging in here thinking they can rebuke and correct all this “heresy and false teaching”. Let me warn you, it will only be a very frustrating and a possibly demeaning experience for you. If you are open to give and take discussion then you can find it here. If you think you already know it all and are just here to preach and rant, it will not turn out well. Your choice….

  • $144948586

    Why wouldn’t someone setup an “everybody’s welcome” clinic? Seems much dinero could be made.

  • Glandu

    Well, it sometimes happen, but that’s not the most common scenario available, by far. criminals stay criminals, most of the time. A few ones may effectively repent, but this method is not efficient enough to be promoted as the only one to take care of them.

    And too often criminals are making false excuses to begin again other bad things. You know Patrick Henry? No, not that one, the french criminal with the same name. Who was famous for having kidnapped and killed a small kid, in especially nasty conditions. Out of prison after a few decades, and “repented”, he was still caught later trafficking dangerous narcotics.

    Things are not as simple as “yeah, you had a bad life, just repent, and everything will be OK”. This is too often used by untrue people to manipulate the system and get a permission slip to go on abusing the system.

    I can forgive people, but not just because they asked for forgiveness. I demand real acts and signs of real understanding of the harm that has been done. Which I didn’t see much in the recent waves of accused of sexual misbehaviours. I did more see a serie of excuses of people just trying to escape a bad situation, and who try to convince they are worth forgiveness. Whoever is convinced he is worth forgiveness, is not worth it, IMHO.

  • Ron McPherson

    Nope because there are only a few black folks in the area so their business wouldn’t really add to the clinic’s bottom line profit. Meanwhile, the kid’s fever is climbing.

  • $144948586

    I said, “everyone’s welcome” clinic.
    Why wouldn’t white people also go to it? After all, there appears to be substantial white’s only clinics, according to your hypothetical. Surely they’d have enough to cover there bottom line if they’re providing good service.

  • Xavier de la Torre

    It’s a sad day in this country when giving water to a thirsty person is ‘breaking the law’. Christian privilege my ass.

  • Al Cruise

    They thought they were practicing Christianity. Just like the bakers think they are practicing Christianity. This is what is totally misunderstood. These people truly believe they are pleasing God by their actions. Killing a black person was believed to be for the greater good and their reasons for doing it were approved by God. They truly believed that.

  • Xavier de la Torre

    What if the reason they were leaving water is due to their commitment to Christ?

  • Ron McPherson

    I gave you a scenario. Work with that one. The neighborhood I gave is mostly white, there are two clinics, both refused service. You indicated earlier that the black person could go to another clinic. So how far away does that clinic have to be before it becomes unacceptable to you? 5 miles, 10 miles, 50 miles?

  • ollie

    There is more then one way to destroy a life that (as you put it) someone else owns.

    Do some research on number of bullied teens that take their own lifes.

  • Phil Teichroew

    You tell me, Ron.
    If we refused service to everyone who has sinned I guess NO one would get service, right?
    Is homosexuality worse than any other sexual sin? No. But homosexuality is an especially grievous & learned sin that goes against everything that God intended & created. Those who wish to practice it are in an extreme minority (no more than 3 – 5% identified) & love to flaunt it & stick their fingers in the face of God. It goes against everything natural & the vast majority of people know it & it’s an affront to them. Romans 1:24-28…Does that mean that we don’t accept them as human beings & love them despite their sin? No. But we should also have the option to refuse service to those we wish not to affirm their purposeful sin.
    Likewise, I’m sure you’ve never seen a sign in an establishment proclaiming “No shirt, no shoes, no service”.
    You may wish to tolerate homosexuality & the oxymoronic so called “same-sex” marriage, but be assured God does not!

  • $144948586

    The reason for why a clinic who serves everyone has not been built is an important one.
    Because it proves that you’re comparing your hypothetical to non-reality. It’s called the Nirvana fallacy.

    You’re getting pissy over a hypothetical, but it betrays economic reasons for why businesses are built: incentive for profit.
    We can obviously see why a “blacks only” clinic isn’t built: not enough blacks.
    But why isn’t an “everyone’s welcome” clinic built? Surely, some whites would be sympathetic…or does this hypothetical also assume “THE WHOLE DAMN WORLD’S RACIST!”?

    So why isn’t there an “everyone’s welcome” clinic?

  • ollie

    What is being misunderstood?

    My belief on religion is the same as on rights. That is my rights end where you nose (ok on some of us stomach) begins.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Can you not read? She already said the reason was irrelevant!

  • $144948586

    You’re the one who talked about lynchings.
    Do the number of PEOPLE who take their own lives. We live in an age of greater acceptance of people and yet MORE people are killing themselves. Sorry, but the jury is still out on this being due to prejudice.

  • Phil Teichroew

    The Devil made you do it?

  • $144948586

    “That is my rights end where you nose (ok on some of us stomach) begins.”
    So, then, isn’t it my right to NOT sell my stuff to WHOMEVER I don’t want for WHATEVER reason? After all, my stuff is under my domain beginning with my, admittedly, stomach–by your definition.

  • Les Mayer

    By claiming to be the son of God before the Sanhedrin, what he did was considered blasphemy and broke Jewish law. That would be the obvious one.

  • Ron McPherson

    Ok, so an entrepreneur gets a great idea to build an Everyone Welcome Clinic. Thinks he can make a lot of money that way because of all the racists in town are losing capital. But at the moment, the structure is currently under construction, so it’s not helping the child because the grand opening sign says it’s still a month away. Capitalism is coming to the rescue (well maybe, that’s still to be determined), but will take awhile. Meantime, the kid’s temp is still climbing. So as the father of the child, do you take comfort in knowing that, well, capitalism isn’t helping me at the moment, in fact I may lose my kid over it, but I know that someday it will exterminate racism. Ya know, life just doesn’t work that way. It’s lived in the moment, especially for the father of the sick child. Again I’ll ask. If the black folks can just go somewhere else, how far away is acceptable to you? How far away does this Everyone Welcome Clinic have to be to make it okay? 5 miles, 10 miles, 50 miles?

  • $144948586

    “So as the father of the child, do you take comfort in knowing that, well, capitalism isn’t helping me at the moment, in fact I may lose my kid over it, but I know that someday it will exterminate racism.”
    So why, as a father who has a kid on the way, continue to live as one of only a few black people in a town where no clinics (or hospitals) are going to help me–especially if they have a child?

    Side note:
    If no clinic or hospital will help them, then surely this would apply to many businesses in town–it’d be incredibly strange that a person would sell them an apple pie and yet frequent a doctor who won’t sell them medical services.—at the very least not hurt for them and may reason with Dr. Pepper to serve the black man that is a good customer of hers.

    Back on point why would a black man with child choose to be one of few black people in a town that would despise them so much as to not serve them medical care–especially if they have a child? Why wouldn’t they go live elsewhere?

  • Nick

    No, it isn’t your right. Businesses operate in the public sphere and anti discriminatory laws exist to make sure that the public sphere is equal to all who want to participate.

  • SamHamilton

    Yes, that sentence stuck out like a sore thumb to me as well. The government is taking action against both the baker and the “No More Deaths” group for practicing their faith.

  • $144948586

    “Businesses operate in the public sphere and anti discriminatory laws exist to make sure that the public sphere is equal to all who want to participate.”
    So basically the argument is, “It isn’t your right because government says so.”

    Side note:
    The public sphere is equal to all who want to participate: people who don’t want to discriminate are just as welcome to take the business of those who are being discriminated against.

  • $144948586

    Boom diggity. But author only affirms one of these as oppressive.

  • ollie

    If they lived totally outside of the confines of society then I would then to agree with you. But they don’t!

  • Al Cruise

    I am not saying they’re right, far from it. I am saying they really do believe they are practicing Christianity. I am speaking more about the nature of Christianity. Conservative Christianity to be specific.

  • Questioning

    “If we refused service to everyone who has sinned I guess NO one would get service, right? ”

    Thank you for supporting the relevant point being made, even though it contradicts your own. The bakers were obviously anti gay-sin. As far as all the other commentary about homosexuality, there is nothing you could say that has not been said here, ad nauseum.

    I will point out one real clanker: so it is not worse than any other sin, but it is “especially grievous & learned”. To quote someone you are very familiar with, “where did you concoct that made up story from?” Homosexuality is not learned, it occurs naturally. How? We do not yet know, but one day we will.

  • $144948586

    Well, we weren’t talking about “they”. We were talking about “me”.
    And thus, society has the ability to dictate, without my consent, that I have lost a right I’d have outside of said society. From where did they get this authority?

  • Ron McPherson

    “If no clinic or hospital will help them, then surely this would apply to many businesses in town–it’d be incredibly strange that a person would sell them an apple pie and yet frequent a doctor who won’t sell them medical services.”

    Not according to your premise, since people who can’t purchase an apple pie at the diner on main street can just go to Maple St. on the next block over and get one, no problem.

    “…why would a black man with child choose to be one of few black people in a town that would despise them so much as to not serve them medical care–especially if they have a child? Why wouldn’t they go live elsewhere?”

    Yeah, it’s really his fault that he stuck around town knowing all the racists and such. He shoulda just got another job in another county and bought another home (make sure the businesses there aren’t racist first though). Like really?

  • $144948586

    “Not according to your premise, since people who can’t purchase an apple pie at the diner on main street can just go to Maple St. on the next block over and get one, no problem.”
    Good point, then Mrs. Maple can influence Dr. Pepper. But, of course, if this were the case then I’m sure some doctor would be willing to see him. You’re the one dealing in limits of only racist persons.

    “Yeah, it’s really his fault that he stuck around town knowing all the racists and such.”
    Why would you stay in a town that hates you?

    “He shoulda just got another job in another county and bought another home (make sure the businesses there aren’t racist first though).”
    People do this all the time for certain schools. Especially in the city, they will have a child approaching school age and will move to get within a certain district–THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.
    I’d assume it’d be much more prudent for medical care for your child; what would keep him there?

    “make sure the businesses there aren’t racist first though”
    He’d already know this, because reputations precede them.

  • Ron McPherson

    “But we should also have the option to refuse service to those we wish not to affirm their purposeful sin.”

    Ok, so according to this statement, one should have the option to refuse service to married folks who were previously divorced. Like, they intentionally got married right?

    “I’m sure you’ve never seen a sign in an establishment proclaiming “No shirt, no shoes, no service”.”

    False equivalency. The no shirt, no shoes, no service applies to EVERYONE gay or straight.

  • ollie

    For the greater good of society everyone should have to play by the same set of rules.

    If one uses the roads, the sidewalks government protection services. Why should you get to pick which rules for the common good you don’t have to follow on the grounds of your beliefs?

  • $144948586

    “For the greater good of society everyone should have to play by the same set of rules.”
    Now, what was that stuff about “my rights end where your nose begins?”

    “If one uses the roads, the sidewalks government protection services.”
    Government doesn’t have to provide these.

    “Why should you get to pick which rules for the common good you don’t have to follow on the grounds of your beliefs?”
    See above. Why shouldn’t I get to pick what I think is most beneficial for me so long as I’m not imposing on someone else’s rights?

  • Phil Teichroew

    Obviously, in all those cases you mentioned, they never truly repented, did they?
    True repentance means you don’t return to repeat your crimes, misdeeds or sins or even have a desire to do so.
    God knows the heart of mankind.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Are you just trying to mess with me, Ron? Or you’re just naturally argumentative?
    Don’t cherry pick what I said. True repentance is the key.
    Repentance has absolutely NOTHING to do with works or a mindset!

  • kcwookie

    So move. I’m tired of all the so called Christian whining. If you don’t like what you consider government over reach…move.

  • $144948586

    I’d love to, but government has already claimed said land, because you’ve given the authority to do so.

  • Al Cruise

    Refusing to serve a gay couple is not an act of faith. It’s an act of fundamentalism. Conservative/fundamentalist Christian belief removes faith and allows for things like racism/slavery, misogyny, homophobia, violence of all kinds, justification of cultural genocide by missionaries, unbridled greed by televangelists, influencing/polarization of politics in ways to undermine the most vulnerable in society just to name a few. Faith produces fruit like leaving water so people don’t die.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Works are a result of obedience.
    Obedience to God , His Word & His will is prayer, worship & being in His Word. Becoming righteous & holy before Him.
    Having the mind of God involves having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Not a ‘religion’, ritual, sacrament or doing good works.

  • otrotierra

    The Greatest Commandment is indeed terribly offensive to White Evangelicals. This has already been well-documented.

  • $144948586

    What commandment?

  • otrotierra

    The Greatest one. It’s the one that is greater than your lustful, self-serving desire to justify discrimination against your neighbors.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Am I sensing that you only want to muddy the waters?
    Since when did illegal mean unclean? Where did that analogy come from?
    Also, are you threatening me?
    I didn’t “come charging in here” or was somehow hot & bothered & need to “calm down” as you put it.
    I will NEVER feel demeaned by you or anyone else on here!
    The only affirmation necessary is from God.
    The truth of the Word of God stands alone & by itself. Mankind has always been given the choice to accept or reject it & Him.
    God makes the final judgement & EVERY knee will bow!

  • Darth Jibbles

    “why would a black man with child choose to be one of few black people in a town that would despise them so much as to not serve them medical care–especially if they have a child? Why wouldn’t they go live elsewhere?”

    As a society, we in the US have decided that we prefer a public arena with regulated capitalism, not some kind of Laissez-faire anarchy. This started way back with the Sherman Anti trust act. One of the regulations we currently have is anti-discrimination law.
    Why doesn’t the “Christian” baker just move to a place without antidiscrimination laws? No one is forcing the baker to own a business in a country with these statutes.

  • $144948586

    You mean discrimination like forcing them to use their services where they choose not to use their services?

  • Phil Teichroew

    Clearly you are confused!

  • $144948586

    “As a society, we in the US have decided that we prefer a public arena with regulated capitalism”
    No, we didn’t. Some did, and I’m forced to go along with it.

    “Why doesn’t the “Christian” baker just move to a place without antidiscrimination laws?”
    Perhaps because they don’t want to. That being said, it still doesn’t change the fact that the “Christian” baker was born or forced to be under the domain of a government whose legitimacy is questionable–as if the government had the RIGHT to claim the land their house or business sits.

    That being said, from where does government derive its powers?

  • Bec

    Where in the Bible is baking turned into a holy sacrament? I see lots of passages saying that you should share your food, love your neighbours and not judge…but not a word about baking.

  • Bec

    So what happens when all businesses decide to discriminate? People starve. They go without necessities. And don’t say its never happened, America has already had segregation and its fundamentally evil.

  • $144948586

    Bec, that’d be worth conversation, if that were the actual issue.
    If you deny that it’s the same persecution by government, then you really don’t care about freedom of religion.

  • $144948586

    “So what happens when all businesses decide to discriminate? People starve.”
    Where does this happen?

  • otrotierra

    Yes, we already know that The Greatest Commandment is offensive to White Evangelicals following their self-serving, homophobic gospel. You don’t need to keep offering further evidence.

    And I’ll pass on your trolling sophistry. I’ll stick with Jesus, no matter how much it upsets you.

  • Phil Teichroew

    You can believe the LIE that homosexuality “occurs naturally”. Plenty of documented study, research & statistics to prove otherwise. You can also totally discount God’s Word. I choose not to. His Word is enough for me & all that I need, thank you!

  • Bec

    You think people make a long dangerous trip into the desert to get some free water?

  • $144948586

    So I see that when they asked, “Who is our neighbor?” Jesus replied, “Well, everyone except White Evangelicals.”

  • Bec

    Who is not a sinner? Do you know how many churches forgive child molesters and murderers but turn away gay people?

  • Ron McPherson

    Um, no lol, but you may be. The signs says no one admitted under that scenario. However if they allowed straights in without a shirt, but not gays, then that’s discrimination. But admitting no one under those terms is not discrimination. This shouldn’t be this hard

  • Phil Teichroew

    You tell me, Bec.
    Were their intentions not nefarious?

  • Darth Jibbles

    I think you missed the point of my comment. You question why the black father would live in a place that discriminates against him, but you never question the baker’s motives for living in a place that is apparently ruled by a government that is oppressing him.

    That being said, I’m going to count the fact that you suddenly started talking about the legitimacy of government out of nowhere as an admission that you don’t have any counterpoints.

    That being said, Government in the US derives its power from the people. Have you contacted your representative to tell them your thoughts on antidiscrimination laws? Have you started a petition? Have you made sure that you only vote for representatives you share your views on overturning antidiscrimination laws? Have you attempted to change this oppressive aspect of government through any means other than complaining in internet comment sections?

    Nut up or shut up.

  • $144948586

    “Government in the US derives its power from the people.”
    Correct, so do you, personally, have the power to tell me whom I can and can’t sell my services to?

  • Ron McPherson

    No I’m not trying to be argumentative. What I’m trying to point out is that it’s confusing to others when you declare works have no basis in salvation (I agree that entering God’s kingdom is on the basis of his grace) but then speak about repentance and obedience being a component. Actually, repentance comes from the Greek metanoia, which does connote a mindset.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Tell me about it, Bec.
    I didn’t know churches were in the business of forgiveness? Maybe the Catholic cult.
    As far as I know, ONLY God can forgive sins. 1 Timothy 2:5…
    When one commits a transgression against another human being, they’re sinning against God.

  • Phil Teichroew

    That warrants a legitimate reply?

  • Ron McPherson

    Who says he discounts God’s word? So anyone disagreeing with your interpretation of passages dealing with homosexuality must not take the Bible seriously? That’s like me suggesting you don’t take the Bible seriously unless you preach women should wear head coverings to church. Or you don’t take the Bible seriously unless you sell all your possessions as a requirement to become a disciple of Jesus. It’s all about context. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, contextualizes the Bible. It often just boils down to what I’ve been taught or what my presuppositions support. He may actually take the Bible quite seriously enough to treat it with care by understanding the authors in their original context, dealing with the subject matter arising to their writings, analyzing the original Greek or Hebrew, and giving due diligence to the hermeneutics applied in each passage. Just sayin

  • Phil Teichroew

    Duh!
    But you may need to examine the facts of the case again!
    Nevertheless, the SCOTUS will make a decision this Summer.

  • Ron McPherson

    No reply necessary. It’s clear enough that anyone should be able to understand

  • Phil Teichroew

    I do.
    Always trying to confuse the issues, Ron?
    God didn’t make it that hard to understand His Word. Never His intention to create confusion over His instruction manual to His creation!

  • Phil Teichroew

    I do.
    And my standard is God’s Holy Word.

  • Darth Jibbles

    Me, personally? No. However, I happen to agree with antidiscrimination laws, and I make sure to vote accordingly. That way, as much as possible, I try to make sure that government represents my views. Because the government does have the power to tell you that. That’s what the government does. It governs.

    Once again, I’m taking your quick subject change as admission that you recognize the hypocrisy of your viewpoint which I pointed to in my first reply.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Works do NOT have any basis in salvation! Just as baptism does NOT.

  • $144948586

    “Me, personally? No.”
    Then how can you divest those powers to a government?

    if you were to stop me from selling something that I own to somebody who I want to or if you forced me to sell something I own to somebody I didn’t want to, you would clearly see this as oppression. That’s because it is, and it doesn’t matter if it’s a government that does it or you.
    So, when you asked me why doesn’t a baker just moved to a place where there are no anti-discrimination laws, well the difference here is that it is the baker who has had their rights aggressed upon.
    Now I’m not making the claim that it is okay to discriminate. I’m just making the claim that people should have the right to do what they want with what they own.
    To make the issue even more particularly acute, the actual quote is that the government derives its power from the consent of the governed. Now I don’t know if a human being alive who wasn’t born under government.

  • Ron McPherson

    Salvation is all of God. No argument from me on that

  • Ron McPherson

    Instruction manual? If that’s the case then the early church was outta luck I guess. People didn’t own bibles back then. The NT had not been even been compiled nor assembled at that point. The early church had the Spirit. Are you saying that was not enough? I believe the Spirit can certainly speak to us through the scriptures but if the Bible is to be an instruction manual then we’re all failing miserably, namely because I know of no one who follows it with any efficacy. Claiming otherwise just makes us hypocrites.

  • ollie

    I was thinking that was your meaning but wanted to be sure.

  • Ron McPherson

    Your standard is YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Bible. And no, my intention is not to be argumentative. I’m pointing out that some parts you may adhere to, and other parts you don’t. That’s not a criticism. It’s merely a reflection of how you interpret it. Because someone may interpret other parts differently than you does not mean they ‘follow’ the Bible any less than you.

  • ollie

    As individuals when they agree to join a society also agree that the rights as given be the society may at times over rule individual rights.

    If I owned the only gas station within 300 mile of any other gas station (in the US) and I served everyone but Baptists with brown eyes would that be acceptable? My point is that equal treatment under the law needs to be fair to all and that may make some who has a dislike for a group of people upset.

    Last I was aware of the Government as and extension of the people pays for most of all roads and sidewalks. You I am sure don’t all ny yourself pay for all roads and sidewalks snd their upkeep that allow others to come to you?

    May I point out that society had said that same sex couples had the right to get married. So to allow the baker the right not to serve them (she had already shown her willingness to sell to them) would legally open the door to one not having to serve, say women. Where do we draw the line?

  • ollie

    It is definitely in as far as sexually non heterosexual teens are concerned. And also other bullied teens.

  • hisxmark

    I can be perfectly comfortable with the teachings of Jesus (or some of those attributed to him) without believing he performed miracles, was born of a virgin, rose from the dead, and is an immortal son of a deity. I have noted that Christians, are fond of public prayer, the acquisition of wealth, and passing judgment on the actions and omissions of others. They like to remind us how special they are, and parade humility before the crowd. Not all of them of course!

    And that, Mr. Teichroew, is the whole point of religion: It is a display of tribal solidarity, and the badge of that solidarity is the profession of utter nonsense.

  • hisxmark

    “Christos” (Gr. “χριςτοσ”)is just the Greek translation of “messiah” (Heb. “Mashiach”), and both mean “annointed”. So, the term “Christos” was used of those anointed (symbolically cleansed) in religious ceremonies, consecrations and coronations. It was, by extension, a term for “priest, “king” or “overlord”. Cyrus the Great, who allowed the Jews in Babylon to return home was referred to in the Bible as “messiah”.
    Perhaps you should inform yourself a bit more on the subject before you begin to pontificate.

  • You are confusing libertarian ideology with Christianity.

  • $144948586

    Only if Christianity refuses to respect the right to property–in which case, it’s an oppressive, offensive religion….and Jesus DEFINITELY did not teach that.

  • $144948586

    Listen, I’m not going to argue over the issue of sexuality in this discussion.
    I don’t deny that non-hetero teens commit suicide (and LGBTQ is plagued with a drug epidemic). I also don’t deny that 7% of teens now identify as LGBTQ, which is like twice the general average historically.
    https://truecolorsfund.org/our-issue/

    But the fact is, we do live in the most accepting culture ever and yet suicide and drug abuse is significantly higher than it’s ever been.

  • jaystriggle

    Maybe Warren was arrested , not for providing water , but encouraging illegal immigrants to break the law…?
    Jesus would be in favor of people following the law of the land.. even countries in the OT had borders…and laws…

  • $144948586

    “As individuals when they agree to join a society also agree that the rights as given be the society may at times over rule individual rights.”
    Don’t play dumb, Ollie. No individual ever agreed to join a society except when leaving another society…they were born in to it, given a number with which they’ll pay taxes later in life. That’s not freedom, and it’s not approval to say “society can usurp my rights”.

    “If I owned the only gas station within 300 mile of any other gas station (in the US) and I served everyone but Baptists with brown eyes would that be acceptable?”
    Why wouldn’t another person open up a gas station and serve everyone? Big profit making opportunity there.

    “My point is that equal treatment under the law needs to be fair to all and that may make some who has a dislike for a group of people upset.”
    But it’s not equal treatment–to some it treats more unfairly by forcing them to do something against their will.

    “Last I was aware of the Government as and extension of the people pays for most of all roads and sidewalks.”
    No, tax payers pay for overpriced, unkempt road. That’s also why the majority of municipalities are going bankrupt (because, curiously, they don’t handle other people’s money well. AND THEN, they have the balls to sell that land to a private company who builds a toll road (this is happening THROUGHOUT the US), and you don’t even get a tax deduction for it–and the municipalities has made several million for the deal–and they still don’t have enough to cover the pensions they’ve promised to hard working (albeit compensated) police officers and fire fighters.

    “May I point out that society had said that same sex couples had the right to get married.”
    The government should have never been involved in marriage in the first place. Adam and Eve didn’t need government to be married; sounds like someone is trying to play God.

    “So to allow the baker the right not to serve them (she had already shown her willingness to sell to them) would legally open the door to one not having to serve, say women.”
    This is correct.

    “Where do we draw the line?”
    Why should we draw a line? Just open a business that serves women and rake in all the mulah…particularly from dining couples and run the competitor out of business. Simple.

    EDIT:
    Lol, I just had to come back and laugh.
    YOU REALLY THINK a business person would not serve women? What guy (besides the obvious) would frequent an establishment in which there’s no chance to meet a potential hookup or wine and dine his wife for a hookup later?
    For those establishments that are frequented by guys who don’t want to see women, what business is that of yours anyway? Why would you want to meet those guys anyway–they’re probably ca-reepy. And no, that’s not a knock against gay mean, because I don’t know of any gay man disgusted by just being around women.

  • otrotierra

    Jesus, the dark-complected Middle Eastern refugee crossing borders, is indeed terribly offensive.

  • $144948586

    See, you can’t argue with “these people”. There’s only one right way to live: theirs. Everyone else is just a terrible offended White Evangelical. Their way only respects your right to person as long as you care about those people who “FEEL” oppressed–though they might be victims of non-aggressive prejudice, like not be served by someone (though, of course, someone else would be glad to serve them). But that doesn’t matter, because when it’s you, the “terribly offended white evangelical”, their vote in government has legitimate right over you as a person and therefore your property. Got a problem with that, you can kiss their ass, pay their tithe, and do what they’ve commanded you anyway.

  • ollie

    The way I understood you argument was that prejudices did not have a impact on deaths (esp suicide) the group of teens I brought up make up about 40 percent of teen suicides yet you gave stats that they only make up about 7 percent of teens. That should make you question your conclusions.

    Most accepting culture ever? Even by US American standards we live in an extremely brutal time.

  • $144948586

    “The way I understood you argument was that prejudices did not have a impact on deaths”
    I never made the claim; I said the jury is still out.

    “Even by US American standards we live in an extremely brutal time.”
    Even after 8 years of government-led acceptance; interesting.

    “I brought up make up about 40 percent of teen suicides yet you gave
    stats that they only make up about 7 percent of teens. That should make
    you question your conclusions.”
    It would, but I think an important question is also “why the increase?”

    7% of all societies haven’t been LGBTQ, sorry but they just haven’t been–and given that heteros are the primary procreators, one must wonder whats the deal with the substantial population if it has anything to do with genetics.

  • ollie

    Josh to use a conservative argument if you don’t like the current rules, you should leave. But seriously we accept the rules even if it is by default.

    Because I own the land and no body can buy it to put up a gas station. :)

    Well the roads are not kept basically because people over wanted. As to toll roads it is about the money.

    As to women? Really? How people forget only 60 years ago a woman’s place was in the home and to be bare foot and pregnant. Two hundred years ago most places women couldn’t own land or a business. Things change over time. If we are to change we need to become more loving of these that are different then us not more hateful. But that doesn’t seem to be happening. Christianity is losing not because of the gay issue or tje woman issue or one of her many other hates. But because it is in love with money, power and hating all that it is against. Instead of showing love.

    What is the Greatest Commandment? What is the second? When will the church start practicing them?

  • ollie

    Ok.

    Yup after 8 years of a Republican Congress doing all they could do stop a black (half white) president from getting anything done. Of Christians calling the president a baboon and worse. Where you been hiding your head?

    Ain’t ever been a gay person born to a gay relationship. Nope the fact that 1000 to 1500 or so other animals, other than human have gay members, must prove it isn’t genetics.

    Josh truthfully we can argue rights until we are blue on face and it likely won’t change anyones minds. But if we look at Jesus’ examples in living and try to follow him most of this stuff isn’t even worth being water under the bridge.

  • $144948586

    “Josh to use a conservative argument if you don’t like the current rules,

    you should leave. But seriously we accept the rules even if it is by
    default.”

    That’s not a conservative argument, that’s an argument resting on a notion that the progressive idea that rules are legitimately in place. But I understand what you’re saying, and don’t be a punk who puts me in a box because you assume I’m some Republican.

    “Because I own the land and no body can buy it to put up a gas station. :)”
    If you own the 300 miles of land, then nobody else lives there anyway–so to serve all the baptists would be to serve just you or, if your not Baptist, no one else, next.

    “Well the roads are not kept basically because people over wanted.”
    Did you give up on being sensical? Or are you really conceding to the tragedy of the commons, and thus socialism, and thus government’s ability to do anything well?

    “How people forget only 60 years ago a woman’s place was in the home and to be bare foot and pregnant.”
    They still went to eat. Single women also worked–hello, it was the post-ww2 world…women joined the workforce.

    “Things change over time.”
    And they didn’t need government.

    “Christianity is losing not because of the gay issue or tje woman issue
    or one of her many other hates. But because it is in love with money,
    power and hating all that it is against. Instead of showing love.”
    No, Christianity is losing because it’s assenting to government dominance–leftist Christianity isn’t any different in this regard.

    “What is the Greatest Commandment? What is the second? When will the church start practicing them?”
    1. Love the Lord you God….
    2. Love your neighbor as yourself AND RECOGNIZE that the prejudice business owner is your neighbor, too.

  • Al Cruise

    “but encouraging illegal immigrants to break the law” . How about all the businesses that encourage them to come? To work at jobs whites think are beneath them. In meat packing plants , dairies, produce farms, so you can have cheap food to eat. Hotels, and food service, so you have a clean room and dinner served to you. The shallowness of understanding the real reasons by conservative white Christians equals the blindness of the Pharisees that Jesus confronted.

  • $144948586

    “Yup after 8 years of a Republican Congress doing all they could do stop a
    black (half white) president from getting anything done.”
    He did a ton.

    “Ain’t ever been a gay person born to a gay relationship. Nope the fact
    that 1000 to 1500 or so other animals, other than human have gay
    members, must prove it isn’t genetics.”
    Totals don’t matter; percentages do.

    “Josh truthfully we can argue rights until we are blue on face and it likely won’t change anyones minds.”
    I know it won’t change yours, because you’re only interested in hypotheticals to prove a point because it has no basis in reality.

    If a preson refuses someone’s business, they can go elsewhere–it’s not oppressive to say “no”…it’s oppressive to prevent them from doing what they want–be it the customer or the store owner.

  • jaystriggle

    “beneath whites”, = racial statement, plenty of whites do labor intensive work, my grand father picked cotton, etc…
    “the shallowness of understanding by conservative whites” = racial and judgmental… try again…

  • Darth Jibbles

    1. A transaction between individuals is not the same as a business. That’s why we have different laws concerning them.

    2. Businesses do not have the legal right to discriminate. No one can violate a right that doesn’t exist.

    3. People do have a legal right to be treated fairly in public dealings, because of the law.

    Therefore, the person being denied service is having a right violated by the baker. The baker is the aggressor in this situation, not the victim.

    Also, because the baker is not being forced to stay in this country against his will, he is consenting to this system.

    (To make the issue completely acute, I was paraphrasing “we the people” from the constitution, not “consent of the governed” from the Declaration of Independence. The DoI has no bearing in a discussion of legal rights because it has no legal significance.)

  • ollie

    Josh, the US hasn’t even got a leg over the fence, it is far to early to say it is progressive.

    Well they could drive 600 miles or they can drive 1200.

    But seriously we both know this isn’t about alone gas station in a oasis in the middle of no where. It really is about people wanting their pie and eating it too. If or not you are Republican makes little difference, because as close as I can tell you seem to promote their hatred for others and their desire for world made after their beliefs.

    No government is successful without socialist programs. Nor can they remain successful unless they move to a truly socialist agenda. Sorry Capitalism won’t be practiced in Gods Kingdom and Socialism won’t be needed.

    And lot’s of men especially Christian men were mad about women’s new freedoms. My point as you said things change over time, welcome to an age where a male doesn’t have to inherit the property. Where a same sex partner can have the say over medical care or can inherit the property.

    I can love someone and still believe they are a bigot and tell them they are wrong.

  • Al Cruise

    You try again. The majority Illegals come here because businesses hire them. Or is your understanding and thought processes to shallow to address that.

  • ollie

    Simply we just have to disagree on this.

  • ollie

    Except when he wasn’t in favor of it.

  • jaystriggle

    ok, so once again it is the white mans fault, white rich evangelical business owners, who by the way with out them there would be no jobs or even America….

  • Al Cruise
  • Al Cruise

    Their ancestors where slave owners.

  • $144948586

    ” If or not you are Republican makes little difference, because as close
    as I can tell you seem to promote their hatred for others and their
    desire for world made after their beliefs.”
    This is nonsense, ollie. You’re smart enough to know better. Simply because I think people should be allowed to have their prejudices and use their property accordingly is not a promotion of hatred anymore than allowing a grown up alcoholic to have his beer is a promotion of alcoholism (particularly when they’ve not given me permission to stop them).

    “No government is successful without socialist programs.”
    Invalidated statement and thoroughly bunk when you look at the unfunded liability balances of the “small” social programs even we have in the U.S.

    “Nor can they remain successful unless they move to a truly socialist agenda.”
    Like Soviet Russia.

    “Sorry Capitalism won’t be practiced in Gods Kingdom and Socialism won’t be needed.”
    It won’t need to be practiced because resources won’t be limited and thus need economizing.

    “My point as you said things change over time, welcome to an age where a
    male doesn’t have to inherit the property. Where a same sex partner can
    have the say over medical care or can inherit the property.”
    Both of these things were a matter of government overturning government. Hysterical. Just like Separate but Equal overturned (during Eisenhower, no less).

    “I can love someone and still believe they are a bigot and tell them they are wrong.”
    I’ve not denied this; but you can’t love someone and force them to give what they don’t want to give. That’s oppression.

  • $144948586

    1. That’s exactly what business is. Laws didn’t birth business transactions.

    2. This, of course, is a statement by a government which you already conceded you have no ability to divest that power over a person’s property to…since you, of course, can not force a person to sell what he chooses not to sell.

    3. Again, it’s not a natural right that one must honor everyone. Natural rights, the ability to be prejudice, trump those the government “gives you”.

    You’re making up your framework in these three with the assumption that government legitimately has these rights–though you can’t get to this B) from the A) that you don’t have this right individually and thus can’t divest it. You recognize the imposition as oppression on the individual basis–you should try not being a hypocrite. It’s nice on the side of honesty.

    “The baker is the aggressor in this situation, not the victim.”
    Did the baker force him to come to his business?

    “Also, because the baker is not being forced to stay in this country against his will, he is consenting to this system.”
    The baker, like everyone, never chose to be in *this* country. That’s not consent, it’s enslavement.

    The Preamble says nothing of where government gets its rights.

  • $144948586

    That’s cool; I’ll rest easy having been honest.

  • jaystriggle

    some were , some were not, Slaves were not brought here by the pilgrims, but slave traders from Africa and The Middle East. Slaves were exposed to Christianity, endured great hardship and now live in the greatest country on the face of the earth, greatest that is as long as we can keep the socialist from taking over and loosing our Americanism identity….

  • ollie

    Name one country ever that didn’t have socialist programs?

    Alcohol? Really? Then why have laws that they can’t be drunk and drive? Police are a socialist program.

    The USSR, socialist? Economics were maybe somewhat, but the banking system was pure capitalism.

    Here is a really farout radical idea for you to consider.

    Capitalism,
    Socialism,
    Communism,

    In this world are only different ways to deal with the cattle!

    But so to see if I am understanding your argument. You say that people should have the right to serve whom they chose to with their goods? In the case of the baker and the gay couple, she was right in not serving them? Would you argue that the couple also has the right to get married with all tje perks that come with it?

  • $144948586

    “Name one country ever that didn’t have socialist programs?”
    I don’t need to; name on that isn’t issuing debts to afford them.

    “Then why have laws that they can’t be drunk and drive?”
    Obfuscation. It’s analogous to saying they can’t be prejudiced.

    “In this world are only different ways to deal with the cattle!”
    No, cattle don’t make choices–just like the latter two.
    The former allows cattle to judge what their pastures are worth and do what they want accordingly with no one commanding them.

    “In the case of the baker and the gay couple, she was right in not serving them?”
    No, they weren’t right to be bigoted. But it was their right to be bigoted and use their property accordingly.

    “Would you argue that the couple also has the right to get married with all tje perks that come with it?”
    Sure, but not because the State says so. Marriage shouldn’t be under the government’s authority. So yes, gay couples should have the right to be married by a minister willing to marry them in a venue whose owner is willing to rent it to them.

    Despite what you might think of me, I’m not a homophobe or racist. But I’m also not willing to suppress the prejudices of those who are; that doesn’t mean I won’t preach to them that that is the path that leads to destruction, but far be it from me to tell them to profit off of folks they don’t want anyway. As far as that goes, I would hope that someone else would take that profit and run the bigot out of business and bigoted-ness. Regardless of what suspicions you have concerning capitalism (which is, by definition, a non-coercive voluntary system), it was capitalism that gave rights to the oppressed through the use of transaction.
    It was government which instituted Jim Crow when free market entrepreneurs were providing services to blacks and outcompeting racist business.
    It was minimum wage law which was pursued to unemploy black who actually had higher rates of employment than whites of the same skill level during that period–minimum wage was expressly meant to increase the employment of whites at the expense of blacks.
    It was capitalism which decreased child labor LONG BEFORE government got involved in outlawing it.
    It was capitalism which made oil cheap enough for the poor man, before Anti-trust law.
    It was capitalism which brought sweatshops to South East and East Asia in 90’s so they didn’t have to die in fields and could earn twice the median income–and kept teens from turning to drug distribution and prostitution (which is what happened to many Bangladeshi teens once we eliminated sweatshops)–those nations are now developing quite large middle classes after two decades….in fact, India is about to have the largest middle class of any nation, thanks to non-coercive transactions.

    But no, I’m not saying it’s right to employ children. But, it’s also not my right to step in to their family affairs when the very real alternatives are dying in the field or turning to prostitution. What I’m certain of though is that where opportunity for profit exists, capitalism allows cattle to judge the green of that pasture and exploit it…both for the betterment of themselves and the betterment of the cattle who use it.

    You talked early about owning a bunch of land for 300 miles–there’s no way you got that land unless you were king or you transacted for it…and if one is willing to transact voluntarily for it, they must’ve done enough business to recognize that to them green is more important than melanin.

    For the record:
    ” but the [USSR] banking system was pure capitalism.”
    Actually the USSR had a central bank which determined what legal tender was allowed in the USSR. This is not capitalism anymore than our banking system is capitalism. It’s not. It’s the reason for our economic collapses, and the business cycle, because they only believe they didn’t do enough–they never believe that they’ve done something wrong like, say, confusing housing prices, student loan prices, savings and loans prices, mbs prices, STOCK MARKET PRICES.

    Steering markets through government policy is fundamentally not capitalistic; it’s fascism–it is a necessity in a socialist economy, AND these still run up debts and overburden its citizens with taxes and rationing….and eventually these economies ALWAYS collapse in to revolution.

  • ollie

    In any human economic system the system is used to control the cattle (the workers). Each system fails because of greed. And each system causes these on top to become more and more greedy until the cattle revolt. The Powers That Be use socialist ideas like roads, schools (when needed) public water and sewage systems to their advantage but they also use the government in powet to strengthen their hold on money. They create wars and other boogymen to bring terror to the cattle and keep them in line.

    As to child labor in the west that was ended to the most part by busybody middle class women with too much time on their hands.

    Really, dieing in a sweatshop was better then working in fields? I don’t believe more died in fields then in sweatshops.

    I doubt that prostitution numbers were any better either. Do you have proof of this?

    On the subject of cattle, western range cattle is a major socialist program. What is the defense department but a socialist program, though it helps mainly pariah capitalists get even richer while the young
    men and today women (cattle) buy this story of protecting their families, their god amd their country and go off to some country that has no chance of hurting the USA and get killed for a lie.

    If you really believe that about India you have had too much Koolaid!

    Seriously, the gas station story? The best you can come up with is that it can’t be true?

  • hisxmark

    I can respect at least some of the teachings of Jesus without believing in virgin birth, miracles, rising from the dead, or theistic fatherhood.
    And of course, some Christians, a few, do not engage in, for instances, public prayer, the acquisition of wealth, and condemnatory judgments of the deeds and omissions of others.
    Now, I realize that some folks like clear distinctions, and have to fit everyone into a classification, good or evil, Christian or non-Christian, … all sorts of tribal labels, to separate “us” (the good guys) from “them” (the bad guys), but I just see people acting like people and what “I do” is always, somehow, justified or forgiven, but what “he does” is reprehensible.
    Religion is a label and the different brands are distinguished by the different types of nonsense they profess. Whether the believers shout “Hallelujah” or “Hare Krishna”, it is religion that allows them to slip the bonds or strip the gears of reason and logic, and indulge in wishful thinking while polishing the self-image.

  • LastManOnEarth

    Then why are there 40,000 different denominations that can’t agree on what “His Word” actually is? That would seem to be evidence of massive confusion.

  • Bones

    You’re barking up the wrong tree here dude.

    I’m not the one reading their own shit into the parables of Jesus.

    Maybe you should grow a brain.

  • Bones

    Yawn……

    Tell us again how conservative governments aren’t Authoritarian.

  • LastManOnEarth

    Until someone smashes the windows and throws a flaming torch into the building.

    Tulsa Race Riot. Look it up sometime.

  • LastManOnEarth

    “Why wouldn’t white people also go to it?”

    Racism. Google “Jim Crow”.

    Seriously, it’s like you are somehow completely ignorant of this country’s history. Home schooled?

  • LastManOnEarth

    Good question. Why weren’t there lots of mixed-race businesses during the Jim Crow South?

  • LastManOnEarth

    – response moved to proper comment –

  • LastManOnEarth

    “Why wouldn’t they go live elsewhere?”

    Like Greenwood, Tulsa, OK circa 1921? A.K.A. “Black Wall Street”?

  • LastManOnEarth

    See also “Red Lining” and “Sundown Towns”

  • Phil Teichroew

    Good for you!
    Thanks for the gobbledygook anyway!
    Religion is just that. Ritualistic & man made. A follower of Jesus Christ is about a personal relationship!

  • Bones

    This is complete and utter fiction.

    This just on Child Labour Laws

    With the onset of the Industrial Revolution in Britain in the late 18th century, there was a rapid increase in the industrial exploitation of labour, including child labour. Industrial cities such as Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool rapidly grew from small villages into large cities and improving child mortality rates. These cities drew in the population that was rapidly growing due to increased agricultural output. This process was replicated in other industrialising counties.

    The Victorian era in particular became notorious for the conditions under which children were employed.[20] Children as young as four were employed in production factories and mines working long hours in dangerous, often fatal, working conditions.[21] In coal mines, children would crawl through tunnels too narrow and low for adults.[22] Children also worked as errand boys, crossing sweepers, shoe blacks, or selling matches, flowers and other cheap goods.[23] Some children undertook work as apprentices to respectable trades, such as building or as domestic servants (there were over 120,000 domestic servants in London in the mid-18th century). Working hours were long: builders worked 64 hours a week in summer and 52 in winter, while domestic servants worked 80-hour weeks.

    Child labour played an important role in the Industrial Revolution from its outset, often brought about by economic hardship. The children of the poor were expected to contribute to their family income.[23] In 19th-century Great Britain, one-third of poor families were without a breadwinner, as a result of death or abandonment, obliging many children to work from a young age. In England and Scotland in 1788, two-thirds of the workers in 143 water-powered cotton mills were described as children.[24] A high number of children also worked as prostitutes.[25] The author Charles Dickens worked at the age of 12 in a blacking factory, with his family in debtor’s prison.[26]

    Child wages were often low; as little as 10–20% of an adult male’s wage.[27] Karl Marx was an outspoken opponent of child labour,[28] saying British industries, “could but live by sucking blood, and children’s blood too,” and that U.S. capital was financed by the “capitalized blood of children”.[29][30]

    Throughout the second half of the 19th century, child labour began to decline in industrialised societies due to regulation and economic factors because of the Growth of Trade Unions . The regulation of child labour began from the earliest days of the Industrial revolution. The first act to regulate child labour in Britain was passed in 1803. As early as 1802 and 1819 Factory Acts were passed to regulate the working hours of workhouse children in factories and cotton mills to 12 hours per day. These acts were largely ineffective and after radical agitation, by for example the “Short Time Committees” in 1831, a Royal Commission recommended in 1833 that children aged 11–18 should work a maximum of 12 hours per day, children aged 9–11 a maximum of eight hours, and children under the age of nine were no longer permitted to work. This act however only applied to the textile industry, and further agitation led to another act in 1847 limiting both adults and children to 10-hour working days. Lord Shaftesbury was an outspoken advocate of regulating child labour.

    As technology improved and proliferated, there was a greater need for educated employees. This saw an increase in schooling, with the eventual introduction of compulsory schooling. Improved technology and automation also made child labour redundant.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_labour

  • LastManOnEarth

    There’s always Somalia, Libertarian Paradise.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Go for religion because you obviously display an affinity for tribal solidarity!
    NOT for me!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Pure hogwash!
    Pontificate yourself!

  • Bones

    Yes, you’re oppressed because you’re a white conservative male who suddenly found libertarianism (yet enjoyed conservative governments legislating morality).

  • Phil Teichroew

    All that is important is one’s relationship & fellowship with Jesus Christ, communion, obedience & surrender to His Word & will. All the right & holy things will follow if we get it right with Him first. No need to sweat or argue insignificant details.

  • Phil Teichroew

    40,000 different denominations, huh?
    Seriously?
    How many of those have the anointing & mind of God?

    BTW, since you’re the “Last Man On Earth”, how’s it looking?

  • Bones

    Jesus was crucified as an insurrectionist…that was the law of the land…..

    Did Jesus need a green card to live in Egypt?

  • Phil Teichroew

    Seriously? No one in the OT had instruction by God or had been given the Law?
    I’m certain mankind was given instruction from the very beginning, starting with Adam…

  • Bones

    Josh doesn’t believe in public education either….

    At least having little kids in the mines will give them something to do so they aren’t robbing Josh’s house.

  • Bones

    That would be a first.

  • LastManOnEarth

    Depends on how you count them. But how many do there need to be to demonstrate that the god’s words are anything but clear and the source of confusion?

    Anyhow, here’s a list of major denominational families, each of which is convinced all the others have got it wrong:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations

    “How many of those have the anointing & mind of God?”

    Who cares? Evidently the god doesn’t care what people believe or it would do a better job of communicating.

  • Bones

    “Totals don’t matter; percentages do.”

    Says who?

    But as a libertarian its none of your business what the two blokes next door get up to in their bedroom.

    “I know it won’t change yours, because you’re only interested in hypotheticals to prove a point because it has no basis in reality.”

    That’s hilarious. There’s only one person here not living in reality and engaging in hypotheticals and that’s you.

    And we’ve seen this argument before but now that gays have rights civil right s are bad.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a3df9e00a44c9038a80fc92cd08eb5ec98f213884cf95eb20efd077acd0487f4.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d511086c51cf1851fa2e569dced6cfb87bf7f632f9efe325a4f13854888f5bad.jpg

  • Phil Teichroew

    It appears you have none, only dry bones.
    But your vulgarity clearly shows your true character!

  • Bones

    Yeah because you don’t follow a religion.

  • Bones

    Yeah, you’re not religious…..

  • hisxmark

    So Greek and Hebrew are gobbledygook. They are not actually, although much of the Bible, which was written in those languages is.
    You have a relationship with Jesus? Then you must have his e-mail address? His phone number? His street address? Do you meet for coffee? Does he play chess? What’s his favorite food? What’s his favorite color?

  • hisxmark

    So, you have no argument, no evidence, no facts, no reasoning, just assertion, repeated claims backed by pejorative.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Maybe you should find out?
    Can I borrow your cellphone?
    But alas, prayer is much quicker, effective & reliable…

  • Bones

    It was the Romans that came up with the term Christian. Pliny ordered the arrest of ‘Christianoi’ in 112CE and that is the first recorded use of the term.

  • Phil Teichroew

    You’ve got that right, thank you!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Thanks for your self description!

  • Bones

    Yeah you just ignore those verses about helping the foreigner….because you take the Word of God as your instruction manual

    When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. (Leviticus 19:33-34)

    When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the foreigner. (Leviticus 19:9-10)

    He defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the foreigner residing among you, giving them food and clothing. And you are to love those who are foreigners, for you yourselves were foreigners in Egypt. (Deuteronomy 10:18-19)

    Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:49)

    Do not oppress a foreigner; you yourselves know how it feels to be foreigners, because you were foreigners in Egypt. (Exodus 23:9)

    “So I will come to put you on trial. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners among you of justice, but do not fear me,” says the Lord Almighty. (Malachi 3:5)

    “As for the foreigner who does not belong to your people Israel but has come from a distant land because of your name— for they will hear of your great name and your mighty hand and your outstretched arm—when they come and pray toward this temple, then hear from heaven, your dwelling place. Do whatever the foreigner asks of you, so that all the peoples of the earth may know your name and fear you, as do your own people Israel, and may know that this house I have built bears your Name. (1 Kings 8:41-44)

    No stranger had to spend the night in the street, for my door was always open to the traveler (Job, discussing his devotion to God) (Job 31:32)

  • Bones

    No they weren’t.

    They were cultural and tribal taboos like menstruating women being unclean which still exists in tribal societies.

  • Bones
  • Bones
  • Bones

    So when do you start?

    Sounds like your typical right wing fundie religious nutter to me.

  • Bones

    Poor Josh..Still barking about how bad socialism is.

  • Bones

    You’ll go well with Josh.

    You both hate gays and immigrants.

    Because that’s what YOUR religion says.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Reading the way you write, you definitely need someone’s help in translating & interpretation…

    But I’m somewhat confused though. Since God, His creation, His provision for Eternal Life, your disregard for your own Eternal destiny is of absolutely NO concern to you, why even bother to respond or comment? After all, you’ve already made it clear that none of this even matters. Since you will be the last man standing on this Earth, you are already admitting that you will be the ONLY immortal person to exist & will, presumably, live forever & even outlive God, your creator – even though that’s absolutely impossible.
    You’re above all this.
    You’re the greatest!
    Why even bother to convince any of us?

    Or…
    Maybe it’s ALL a dream & delusion?

  • Phil Teichroew

    You just admitted they were!

  • Phil Teichroew

    You just contradicted yourself. You said previously that there was NO instruction.
    Can’t have it both ways, Dry Bones!
    Time to get some sleep, old man!
    ‘Night…

  • Bones

    Fun fact: cultural and tribal taboos are not given by god. So no, it wasn’t god who saw bleeding women as unclean but the people who wrote it.

  • Bones

    I was showing how ‘seriously’ you take the Bible.

    You don’t.

    You’re just your typical conservative religious nutter.

    And a massive hypocrite who uses the Bible to justify your own hate.

  • Bones

    And your hate of others reveals yours.

  • Bones

    Religion……

    the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
    “ideas about the relationship between science and religion”
    synonyms: faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology; More
    a particular system of faith and worship.
    plural noun: religions
    “the world’s great religions”
    a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
    “consumerism is the new religion”

    As usual the conservative fundy nutter makes up his own bs.

  • Bones

    Nope, that’s you.

    When you actually have something intelligent to say instead of puffing yourself up, let us know.

    But we won’t hold our breath.

  • Bones

    Or here’s a thought….

    Maybe you’re wrong.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Clearly NOT your “god” & clearly you haven’t read the OT!

  • Bones

    Yeah I don’t believe in a god who is ignorant of women’s anatomy unlike you.

    Clearly you haven’t read the OT.

    Or even the NT.

  • Phil Teichroew

    You conveniently changed the subject & there goes that ‘hate’ word again & the ‘hypocrite’ one too!
    Very easy to slander when one is comfortably clueless & in denial & rejection of God, his Creator…

  • Bones

    Derp, the subject is how you interpret the Bible and leave out inconvenient bits. that is the subject.

    and you’re the clown who’s puffed themselves up as Mr Superchristian whose better than everyone else.

    And yeah you hate others…just admit it. so does your god….because you’ve made that god in your image.

    Lol, and who’s the clown who came on here slandering everyone in the website.

    Massive hypocritical softcock.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Clearly YOU haven’t!
    Otherwise you would’ve found God!
    What’s your hang-up & enamor over the female anatomy?
    You don’t think that God, Who created ALL things & designed All things knows EVERY intricacy of the female body that He created & designed?
    Clearly you’re delusional & in denial & you’ve NEVER even read Genesis!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Thanks for the thought from a man who is clearly WRONG!
    On EVERY count!

  • Bones

    Lol….he doesn’t believe what I believe so he hasn’t found god….

    derpaderp YOUR god isn’t worth finding. It’s inside your head.

    No one believes that bleeding women are unclean (apart from traditional cultures in Asia and Africa)…not even you, idiot.

    Jesus and Mark had a problem with it too.

    That’s why the story of the bleeding woman was included.

    Maybe you can rail against them how they don’t know the Bible.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Ah, now the Dry Bones have been totally exposed. The skin is off, the dander is up & now He’s completely lost his cool!
    His vulgarity & anger is now on full display & the made up words are flying everywhere!
    His guilt & conviction is now oozing from those very tired out dry bones…
    He’s left with nothing but to throw a volcanic fit.
    Hope you feel better by tomorrow, dude!
    I’ll be praying for you!
    Sorry, nothing you can do about that!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Methinks you’ve been drinking way too much because you’re really slurring your words, dude. Maybe watching too much porn too since you’re exhibiting quite an affinity for the female anatomy?
    I don’t even know when or why you even brought that subject up?
    Is she your ‘god’? A menstruating woman?
    That’s a bit alarming & disgusting, don’t you think, Dry Bones?

  • Phil Teichroew

    More self description, Dry Bones?

  • Phil Teichroew

    Your religion is yourself!
    As is everyone else who’s selfish & has freely chosen (because of God’s immense LOVE for them) to reject God, their Creator & His free gift & provision of salvation & Eternal Life with Him through Jesus Christ, His Son.
    But thanks for your self description anyway!
    Sleep well!

  • LastManOnEarth

    Hey, it’s just a moniker. Relax.

    Why do I bother? Religious beliefs are being used to justify some incredibly harmful and hateful behavior in this country (anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-trans, racism (traditionally), anti-science) which is negatively effecting both public policy and public behavior.

    If religious beliefs were just harmless curiosities I might be more inclined to ignore it.

    Anyhow, that has little to do with how muddled the bible is.

  • Phil Teichroew

    He said to Dry Bones!

  • Phil Teichroew

    No it isn’t, Dry Bones!
    Sorry ’bout that!

    Is this from one of your fantasies?

  • Phil Teichroew

    Meaning you’re a typical LEFT wing fundie religious nutter?

  • Phil Teichroew

    Just the anger & hate that you display here!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Ah, you’re a socialist too?
    The picture is becoming much clearer…

  • Phil Teichroew

    Sorry dude, that’s what your ‘religion’ teaches!
    I learned long ago that those who call names & try to define what others are, are really defining themselves & are the true bad actors that they attempt to put on everyone else.
    Shows a real insecurity…
    Too bad most of the time they never grow up!

  • hisxmark

    You are the one who claims a relationship with Jesus. Yet you do not seem able to provide contact information. Don’t you even have a selfie with him? Folks who claim relationships with famous people are quite common. Those who have actually met such people not so common. Of course when I was in kindergarten I met Santa Claus, but even at five years old I recognized the cafeteria lady in a fake beard. There was no fake physical Jesus provided, but I still realized he was a fantasy by the second grade. I mean, vicarious atonement, just so the omnipotent God could forgive the evils we were condemned to by Adam’s disobedience?
    I’m pretty sure that my cellphone, which is non-existent, is just as effective as your prayers as a means of communication, except, of course, that your prayers communicate your piety to friends and neighbors.

  • Phil Teichroew

    With ALL your anti’s, you show your own propensity for anti-God & anti-religion. No bias there?
    For the most part I think ‘religion’ is the least of your worries.
    Selfish mankind & the rejection of God is the real culprit!

  • hisxmark

    I have heard the same attempt at wit from first-graders on the playground,… the ones who weren’t very bright. I have to wonder, does religion,… and it is religion even if you call it a relationship,… does religion cause dementia or is it only a symptom. I suspect it is a positive feedback reinforcing itself.

  • Phil Teichroew

    You met Santa Claus? Good for you! I never had the pleasure.
    I’m sorry that you clearly don’t understand the concept of prayer!
    You want contact information? Start by reading God’s Word.

    Since both you & I have no cellphone, we must be much better off without one?
    God has NO need for one either.

  • Ron McPherson

    So he demonstrates how your claim that the Bible is your instruction manual are invalid, so instead of honestly grappling with it you respond this way. And you should know that the menstruating women bit is in the Bible, the book you claim as your instruction manual. This is just one of the many parts you don’t follow. That’s the point. Not sure how that led your mind to porn in your earlier post but whatever. It’s responses like yours that actually do damage to the faith.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Do you always hang out with the ones that are not “very bright”? Now that explains a lot about your thought process. Thanks for that info!
    ‘Religion’ to you, dementia to you, you believe whatever you want. That IS your ‘religion’.
    Romans 1:18-32…

  • Phil Teichroew

    The dude was going off the deep end & he kept contradicting himself & kept bringing up menstruating women, yet also saying there wasn’t any instruction addressing it.
    Time to put the Dry Bones to rest!

  • Ron McPherson

    I guess you missed his point

  • Bones

    So a bit like the Pharisees then…..

  • Bones

    Nah…the real insecurity are those who have to go on websites and gloat over others about how good they are.

    That’s you dude.

    And yes, all you fundy religious nutters are the same.

    You’ve never grown up and are still mentally and spiritually at a Sunday School level.

  • Bones

    Fun fact:

    Jesus was not a white American conservative fundy…..

    He was a liberal Jew.

    And yeah the kingdom of God is a socialist kingdom.

    No wonder you don’t want to be a part of it.

  • Tim

    Ah, didn’t realise. Thanks for the heads-up.

  • Bones

    That’s the anger and hate which you brought here derp.

    Because you had to come and tell us how good a christian you were and how baaaaaaaaaaad we all are.

    Get in f***ing line, dude.

    You type are a dime a fricking dozen.

  • Tim

    Actually, I did. Sorry, I can’t help being offended by ignorance.

  • Bones

    Only if you have to redefine every single word.

    But your hypocrisy has been proven and you’re no different to any other conservative fundy who has come on telling everyone how much they hate them. And that includes Muslims.

    What’s really funny is the religion you type display.

    It’s utterly detestable.

    And thankfully most of us are no longer part of it.

  • Bones

    That fantasy would be your understanding of the Bible and reality.

  • Tim

    You need to read a bit further in Matthew and not pick verses out of context.
    Matthew 25: 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

    34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

    37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

    40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

    41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

    44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

    45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

    This is a judgment scene. And it is based entirely on what these people did and did not do. What they believed had nothing to do with it.

    Both parties were surprised to learn that they were sheep or goats.

    You want to argue with what the scripture states plainly here? That’s fine, but don’t pretend you’ve won the argument or have any clue what you’re talking about when you clearly don’t.

    Now go away, troll.

  • Bones

    Alas we weren’t hopeful of anything approaching a meaningful conversation seeing you’ve been such a condescending prick since you’ve been here.

  • Bones

    As I said you make up bs definitions to suit your own ideology.

    And we’ve heard all your bs before.

    I will sleep well knowing I don’t belong to such an ignorant hatefilled self righteous group.

  • Bones

    I’d be embarrassed too with what you’ve displayed on here.

    Amazing how these fundies no absolutely nothing about the Bible.

  • Tim

    Why shouldn’t anti discrimination laws exist? That makes no sense.

    I’m not even sure what point you’re making with the second statement.

    The third is just confused logic. Prejudice is a form of oppression, or an expression of it.
    Christians aren’t forcing someone to sell their services, although the government might be. We are to act consistently in spite of the presence or absence of oppression. That’s what’s behind the “being forced to walk one mile” with someone bit.

  • Bones

    I’d be embarrassed worshipping a god who thinks menstruating women are unclean too.

    Lol menstruating women aren’t disgusting.

    As I said that’s you and the idol you have in your own mind.

    Let is know when you join the modern age.

    Maybe your god will too.

    It’s so sad that people are so ignorant and believe ancient tribal beliefs in human anatomy.

  • Bones

    Your lives have been exposed.

    F*** what the Bible says about foreigner….give me those verses about hating gays those.

    What a pathetic individual you are.

    And you think you’re so clever and better than everyone else.

    What a complete and utter moron.

    But thanks for affirming yet again like you type do, why your religion is so poisonous.

  • Bones

    Yeah I’ve been really stung by a guy who doesn’t even know the Bible.

    Ow…that hurt so much.

    This hasn’t gone the way you planned.

  • Phil Teichroew

    He couldn’t make a point if he tried!
    Exactly what part am I supposed to follow about menstruating women? And what does that even have to do with my or your relationship with Jesus Christ?
    You guys are ALL acting like real crazies! I couldn’t care less about ALL that stupidity!
    No wonder so many people are completely blinded by Satan & their eyes never focused on Jesus, which is the ONLY important thing as far as I’m concerned! Period!
    If there is ever any damage to the ‘faith’, it’s people’s own unbelief & lack of faith!
    One can only preach it so much. Billions die in their own unbelief. Free will, free choice! Yet billions perish into Eternal Damnation…
    Noah preached for 120 years! Yet NO one listened, turned from their hardened hearts or even made an attempt to accept God’s salvation – except Noah’s own family. Everyone else was destroyed & wiped off the face of the Earth because of their wickedness, blindness & rejection of God, their Creator!
    Psalm 14:1; Hebrews 9:27; 2 Corinthians 6:2; 2 Peter 3:9…..

  • Phil Teichroew

    You’re obviously getting way too tired or drunk to write!
    Put those Dry Bones to rest!

  • Bones

    Most of us are happy to be long gone from your religion.

    And your behaviour confirms it.

    Well done.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Your slurred speech is really getting old & embarrassing, Dry Bones…
    Put your anger & animosity to rest, dude!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Clearly it hasn’t gone your way.
    But for those without God, it NEVER does!
    I promised to pray for you & I will!

  • Bones

    Yep….that’s right ignore what the Bible says about foreigners.

    You’ve been exposed as a complete and utter ignorant clown.

  • Bones

    I understand why you have to attack me, given you’ve been exposed as a hypocritical fraud.

    That’s what you people are like.

  • Phil Teichroew

    You definitely don’t look like a happy camper, Dry Bones!
    If you were, you wouldn’t keep coming back to learn more about Jesus & His saving power & your need for Him.
    But that’s what He does. He keeps drawing mankind back to Himself. John 12:32…

  • Bones

    Save your prayers for yourself dude. You need it.

    I have no interest in the pleas of sanctimonious religious nutters who attack others then claim to pray for them.

    Get f***ed and take your ignorant right wing religion with you.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Not making any sense with your gobbledygook, Dry Bones!
    Give it a rest & get over yourself!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Sleep well with all the delusion you’ve filled your mind & soul with!

  • marie

    The condescending & derisive tone in this arrogantly sanctimonious person’s ie Phil T’s replies on this thread is a good demonstration why people are rapidly leaving behind christian fanaticism. His faith may be strong, but the Dunning_Kruger is even stronger…

  • Phil Teichroew

    I see nothing & ‘NO’ nothing, Dry Bones!
    Except your blindness & ignorance…

  • Ron McPherson

    Then if your focus is on Jesus, then stop making blanket statements about the Bible being your instruction manual. It’s not. His point is that you, like the rest of us, may follow bits and pieces of the Bible, but not the whole thing. Exhibit A: many conservatives accept at face value any passage that appears to prohibit homosexuality without regard to culture or context, yet have no problem whatsoever utterly disregarding those passages that clearly instruct tobwelcome the foreigner. Exhibit B: many conservatives make claims to following the Bible as an instruction manual yet casually dismiss voluminous numbers of instruction in other matters (that was the point about the menstruation bit, not touching an unclean woman). We could literally do this ad nauseum. Now if you instead want to claim Jesus as your focus, rather than a superficial reading of the Bible, then I would suggest focusing squarely on his greatest commandment of which he was abundantly clear: Love God and neighbor. This does not mean coming onto a site spouting evangelical platitudes that everyone on here has heard like 10 zillion times, all while failing to genuinely acknowledge very valid counter arguments to your claims. And also failing to even defend your assertions other than to just basically tell people their crazy for not believing your way. That tactic literally has zero positive effect. In fact, you lose credibility in what you say because people see your tactics as either hateful or just disingenuous. Neither are good. You came on this site basically telling folks they know nothing about Jesus but then won’t (or can’t) defend your own assertions other than just saying it’s because you believe the Bible and they don’t (which you’ve been unable to really defend as well).

  • Phil Teichroew

    And all we ever get is drivel & blather & vulgarity & name calling from the great conversationalist, Dry Bones!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Well, no offense taken here.
    Let us know when you’ve matured!

  • Phil Teichroew

    You posted it.
    Now own it!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Your hatred, anger, ignorance, hypocrisy & just plain pitifulness is only embarrassing yourself, Dry Bones!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Why do you continually insist on showing us how bad you can be?

  • Bones

    Yeah discrimination is the same as a dress code.

    That only makes sense to conservative idiots.

    Oh nad Romans 1 is about idolatry….

    In fact Paul begins Romans 2 with….

    “2 Therefore you have no excuse, everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.”

    Was the Roman congregation having gay sex?

  • Bones

    Phil is one of many charlatans……

    And he’ll attack you if you find that out.

  • Bones

    Phil discounts god’s word when it comes to foreigners.

    The gay thing’s more important.

  • Bones

    I’ll sleep very well…….

  • Bones

    Why do you continually insist on showing us how bad your religion is?

  • Bones

    Speaking about yourself again dude.

    Look how you behave when you’ve been exposed as an utter complete fraud.

    At least everyone can see how appalling your religion is.

  • Bones

    Yes you agree that women who menstruate are disgusting and unclean.

    The Bronze Age called They want their beliefs back.

  • Bones

    People like you have no shame.

    You are so locked into your cult of a religion that you are blind to your own hypocrisy and bs.

    True to form, you get found out and turn into the rabid attack dog you are.

    It’s ok, we see people like you a lot.

  • Bones

    Hands up all those who follow Bronze Age religions.

    We see that hand, Phil.

    Dickhead.

  • Bones

    The great thing about him is it shows how disgusting and condescending his religion is.

    It’s a turn off to everyone.

  • Ron McPherson

    For some reason the gay thing always seems to be the most important, which is kinda weird cause Jesus said nothing about it

  • $144948586

    You’re making a lot of blanket statements about something that you clearly don’t know about. Socialism failed because of the failure of economic calculation by the government. This is why people had to resort to cannibalism in Soviet Russia because the wheat crop didn’t come in after the first year of The Five-Year Plan. Name a capitalist country whose ever killed a hundred twenty million people. Nobody is making the claim that capitalism is perfect, but capitalism allows for the rise of entrepreneurs to pick up where others have failed. But you can’t do that with governments, because they protect themselves with bombs and guns.

  • Bones

    Someone forgot to tell the author of Proverbs 6

    16 There are six things which the Lord hates,
    Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him:
    17 Haughty eyes, a lying tongue,
    And hands that shed innocent blood,
    18 A heart that devises wicked plans,
    Feet that run rapidly to evil,
    19 A false witness who utters lies,
    And one who [j]spreads strife among brothers.

    None of those people should have a cake.

    Or these people….

    ““So I will come to put you on trial. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners among you of justice, but do not fear me,” says the Lord Almighty. (Malachi 3:5)”

    Hey, that’s Trump…..the Evangelical messiah….

  • $144948586

    Because the government never used water hoses to spray people who are sitting in the diners? I can promise you that the number of atrocities of government far outweigh the number of atrocities among voluntary transaction.
    And of course from Wikipedia that tells us that a group of national Guardsmen IE government employees fired a machine gun into a black crowd of 10,000 people. It also tells me that the police arrested 6000 black men. It also tells me that one black person accused of rape was arrested and at risk of being lynched which started the riots. So don’t pretend like the government had nothing to do with this.

  • $144948586

    And how did it get that way? A poor government. Regardless though life expectancy has gone up over 10 years since obliterating their government.

  • $144948586

    It’s still a legitimate question. It was freezing move to a non Jim Crow South. But I do note that Jim Crow was actually a government intervention.

  • $144948586

    Because Jim Crow is a government intervention. Blacks were being served threatening white only businesses, so they pushed for legislation in the South that protected white only businesses.

  • $144948586

    Again, Jim Crow was a government intervention. Businesses were successful and serving both white people and black people. But why it’s only businesses did not like that, so they pushed for legislation. It is almost like you’re being purposefully deceitful. why does a Christian have to lie to make his case?

  • hisxmark

    One of the corollaries of Poe’s Law is that it can be difficult to tell the charlatans from the deluded. Over the net, I would not even try. I just try to respond honestly and civilly.
    And I have seen a sample of his “attack” and find no real threat.

  • Ron McPherson

    It’s mind boggling

  • $144948586

    Prejudice is an opinion or if you hold of a certain group that doesn’t really have much basis and rationality. I mean you can Google it yourself. But I never realized that having an opinion is a measure of force violating another person’s being or rights. I think that you might be a little hysterical. I mean for goodness sake, the majority of people on this forum sin to have oppressive by your definition views of white evangelicals. The vast majority of them are not as racist as portrayed on here. But as a white Evangelical, I don’t believe this forum is oppressive. If you vote for people to abide by certain laws such a serving customers I’d rather not serve, then that is a forcing of another person’s will. That is oppressive.
    I don’t deny that a Christian is supposed to go the extra mile. But I do deny that the Christian is supposed to make the Samaritan go an extra mile.

  • otrotierra

    Josh and SamHamilton are helpful in that their comments reveal what theology looks like when Jesus is absent.

  • Tim

    Prejudice may not technically be oppression per se, but it goes hand in hand with it.
    I think you misunderstand what racism is. You are conflating it with prejudice. Racism is systemic more than it is individual. Most white evangelicals I know are not (at least overtly) prejudiced against people of colour, but they (we) are part of a racist system that they unconsciously participate in to varying degrees whether they think they do or not.
    I honestly don’t understand why Christians who buy into the concept of original sin can’t grasp this, but whatever.

    “If you vote for people to abide by certain laws such a serving customers I’d rather not serve, then that is a forcing of another person’s will. That is oppressive.”
    If I’m understanding your point here, what you’re trying to say is that voting for anti-discrimination laws is oppressive. But by that same logic, any law that restricts human freedom to do what they think is right (however misguided) is also oppressive.
    That just doesn’t wash.

  • Questioning

    Lie? Every reputable medical and psychological organization I could name now agrees that homosexuality occurs naturally and is immutable. Every gay reparative therapy organization I know of has closed down in recognition of this fact. There are no currently accepted studies, research or statistics that prove otherwise. It’s ok to be ignorant; to stubbornly remain ignorant is a choice, albeit an ignorant one. The only thing I am discounting is your interpretation of God’s Word. Big difference there.

  • otrotierra

    Josh has been consistent in his effort to deny Jesus by any means available. In the future, if we ever want to know more about the rejection of Jesus, we can ask Josh.

  • ollie

    And you know nothing about politics and economics. To put it very simply these that control the money, Capitalists (normally) control the Government. Figure who controls most of the worlds banking systems. Pure unadulterated capitalism at its finest!

    The most people in the US had their highest standard of living when the unions were the strongest.

    When your beloved capitalism in the US collapses because of crop failures a lot more then a 120 million will die and your belief in capitalists being able to save the world will be shown as fallacy.

  • otrotierra

    It is indeed deeply offensive that Jesus chose to remain silent on homosexual subjectivity. Who will dare tell U.S. Evangelicals? And do they have ears to hear?

  • ollie

    Of course the capitalist argument that Josh believes is that as long as they are called Capitalists any type of abuse of workers is ok and often necessary to bring the Golden Age of trickle down to the world!

    Thanks Bones.

  • $144948586

    “And you know nothing about politics and economics.”
    I’ve got a master in economics and bachelor in mathematic.

    “To put it very simply these that control the money, Capitalists (normally) control the Government.”
    That’s not capitalism–it’s been tagged as “crony-capitalism”, but it’s really fascism. And those that control the money revolve between Washington, the New York Fed, and Goldman Sachs–and these people WERE NOTABLY ALL Hillary supporters.

    “The most people in the US had their highest standard of living when the unions were the strongest.”
    You don’t think your standard of living is higher than the union era?
    You don’t have a microwave? You don’t have a TV? You don’t have internet? You don’t have a cell phone?
    Give me a break.
    And really here, btw, you’re not loving you neighbor in the third world country who produces these things for a lower wage than Americans BUT a higher wage than their countrymen whose only alternative is to work in fields and make half the salary–thus implying their children must also work.

    “When your beloved capitalism in the US collapses because of crop failures a lot more then a 120 million will die and your belief in capitalists being able to save the world will be shown as fallacy.”
    Lol, when that day comes you’ll be justified. Until then, this has only occurred–hell rationing has only occurred–due to governments failure of economic calculation.

  • Questioning

    “Am I sensing that you only want to muddy the waters?”
    How am I supposed to know what you are sensing? You probably are just experiencing some gas pains.

    “Since when did illegal mean unclean? Where did that analogy come from?”
    It seems you are against ministering to the ILLEGALS, just like the priests were against helping the unclean man who was robbed, laying in the ditch. Come on its not that hard.

    “Also, are you threatening me? ”
    Threatening you? Be serious. I was just trying to prevent you from suffering embarrassment. Alas, it is way too late now.

    “I didn’t “come charging in here” or was somehow hot & bothered & need to “calm down” as you put it.”
    Look at the preponderance of your posts here. Consider the content. Then try to convince anyone here you did not charge in all hot and bothered. It is obvious Ben’s blog chapped your lips, pinched your thin skin, and you set to step on everyone’s toes here who disagrees with you.

    “I will NEVER feel demeaned by you or anyone else on here!”
    Likewise

    “The only affirmation necessary is from God. ”
    Sure. Let us know when you receive that affirmation…. I won’t hold my breath.

    “The truth of the Word of God stands alone & by itself. Mankind has always been given the choice to accept or reject it & Him. ”
    “God makes the final judgement & EVERY knee will bow!”
    Ok. And your point, as it relates to this discussion is what again? Rhetorical question only.

  • $144948586

    “Prejudice may not technically be oppression per se”
    Thank you.

    “but it goes hand in hand with it.”
    Well, duh. Most people don’t oppress in love.

    “I think you misunderstand what racism is. You are conflating it with prejudice. Racism is systemic more than it is individual.”
    No no, racism is both of these things independently…one need not have a system of racism to be racist–nor does a racist person imply a racist system.

    “Most white evangelicals I know are not (at least overtly) prejudiced against people of colour, but they (we) are part of a racist system that they unconsciously participate in to varying degrees whether they think they do or not.”
    Show me examples, don’t talk about racism being “in the ether”.
    For the record, Trump was right: black unemployment is at a record low.
    https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-essential-washington-updates-hold-fact-check-black-unemployment-rate-1517364943-htmlstory.html
    Some racism.

    “If I’m understanding your point here, what you’re trying to say is that voting for anti-discrimination laws is oppressive.”
    It is.

    “But by that same logic, any law that restricts human freedom to do what they think is right (however misguided) is also oppressive.”
    It is, that’s definitional.

    But this latter statement doesn’t give them a right to impede another person and their property.
    Just because a person doesn’t sell their services to another doesn’t imply that the customer has been wronged–that invalidates an owner’s right to their property.
    IT IS WRONG to not allow that customer to not buy from someone who is willing to sell to them–that is a violation of both person’s right to property…and both seller and buyer could move to a new region (or do business in a new region)…and the only time this has been enforced was DUE to government, such as Jim Crow.

  • $144948586

    If children didn’t work in “industrial labour”, they’d just be working on farms.

    But, we don’t hear complaints about that–but industry was already working children out of labor force naturally by 1900–farming with children lasted for thousands of years.

    Poor kids.

  • ollie

    Cool so you are educated. The unfortunate part of it was that whoever taught you left out the skills for critical thinking.

    These that control the money care little for who is in power. Look at who Trump appointed to the Cabinet.

    Democrats or Republicans most miss the point that they are all the same coin only different poisons.

    Only tagged as crony-capitalism because people with your mindset can bring themselves to accept that they have broughten a lie lock, stock and barrel.

    No my life is not as good as my parants life was and many others arn’t either. And the children growing up today will not have as good as life as my age group did.

    Your America is dying, the only question that remains is how much of the world will remain after the USA fades into History?

  • $144948586

    “The unfortunate part of it was that whoever taught you left out the skills for critical thinking.”
    Lol, ok ok…I think we’re done.

    “Only tagged as crony-capitalism because people with your mindset can bring themselves to accept that they have broughten a lie lock, stock and barrel.”
    It was coined by leftist, neo-marxists.

    “No my life is not as good as my parents life was and many others aren’t either.”
    Liar; you just don’t like what you have…but you have much more than they ever did.
    We can discuss why things seem more expensive and the jobs you’d like to do are not available, but you’ll have to understand: these are the fault of government.

    “Your America is dying”
    A funny statement considering that the welfare state is the only thing that’s growing. God forbid we ask if this is the cause.

    “the only question that remains is how much of the world will remain after the USA fades into History?”
    What’s funny is that the nations with the largest welfare states are also the ones with the slowest of economic growth. God forbid we ask if this is the cause.

    Ollie, you’re choosing to not wake up. You recognize, from these discussions, that you’re living in an allusion and have assumptions that are completely backwards.

    Awake o’ sleeper.

    You can keep running to your tract defenses and be miserable as an oppressor, but I encourage you to accept that now is the moment of your revelation. You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free.

  • Darth Jibbles

    1. I can’t tell if you’re being intentionally dense or you truly don’t understand how laws work. Laws don’t birth anything. Laws regulate. They set the boundaries for certain interactions within a society. You can’t say that’s what a business is. Businesses are different from me selling something to someone. They are similar, but not the same. Therefore we have different rules governing them. This like playing chess but insisting that the rules of checkers should apply. “Knight to A1; King me!” They games look similar, but have different rules.

    2. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with this point. I personally have no power to unilaterally enact and enforce laws concerning others in this society. But those laws are enacted and enforced by our government. My personal responsibility is to make sure, to the extent that I can, the people in the government actually represent my views.

    3. From a legal stand point, there are no “natural rights”. I hate to burst your bubble, but under the law, there are only legal rights. Before you can discuss whether legal rights can or can not trump natural rights, you have to prove the existence of these natural rights. What are the natural rights? How are they determined? What authority protects them?

    I’m not making up a framework. I’m describing what the law says, and then concluding who is at fault under our current legal system.

    “The baker, like everyone, never chose to be in *this* country. That’s not consent, it’s enslavement.”
    Every time the baker wakes up and does not leave, he is choosing to stay. It would be different if he were being forced to stay against his will. If he has the right to either stay or leave, choosing not to leave is the same as choosing to stay. No one is born here by choice, but staying here is absolutely a choice. No one is forced to stay. But if someone stays in a society, they are consenting to the rules and regulations of that society. Fortunately in the US, you have the option to influence those rules. But so does everyone else. So we work toward those rules and regulations that allow for the greatest amount of personal freedom while also protecting those not in the majority who traditionally don’t have a lot of power. It’s not a perfect system, but none are, and I think it’s the best one so far.

    Can you really claim the side of honesty when you call such a system enslavement? How can someone be enslaved to a system that they can opt out of?

  • $144948586

    1. Businesses are different from me selling something to someone.
    No, it’s not.

    2. “But those laws are enacted and enforced by our government. ”
    Who derives it’s powers from the people (as you said). Yet you have “no power to unilaterally enact and enforce laws concerning others in this society. “, thus a government from the people (i.e. you) can’t derive that power from you.

    3. “From a legal stand point, there are no “natural rights”.”
    Then there are no “civil rights” which are derived from the idea that “natural right” exists–that’s John Locke, the foundation of modern governance.
    You’re being circular at this point.

    But if you concede these rights don’t exist, then what are your qualms with not selling a cake to a gay man? If they don’t exist, oppression can’t exist–unless you are saying that government defines them, in which case government is your god. It also has to be the case that government didn’t derive its power from the people but exists outside of people because “natural rights don’t exist”, therefore the right to tell others how to live doesn’t exist. Since government has said power, according to you, then this power transcends humanity–therefore, GOVERNMENT IS YOUR GOD.

    “Every time the baker wakes up and does not leave, he is choosing to stay.”
    I could easily say that to plantation slaves–we understand this is wrong though, because it is oppressive.

    “Can you really claim the side of honesty when you call such a system enslavement?”
    I could easily have said this of Frederick Douglass.

    “So we work toward those rules and regulations that allow for the greatest amount of personal freedom while also protecting those not in the majority who traditionally don’t have a lot of power.”
    With anti-discrimination laws, you actually work against freedom because you conflate withholding one’s property with oppression.

    “How can someone be enslaved to a system that they can opt out of?”
    Why can’t I just own the land I purchased with my money without having to pay property-tax-rent on it each year? Who gave the government authority over my domicile?

  • $144948586

    Why is it not abuse of children when they were forced to be farming in the fields instead?

  • $144948586

    “If you really believe that about India you have had too much Koolaid!”
    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/6-surprising-facts-about-india-s-exploding-middle-class/
    UNITED NATIONS REPORT confirms it!

    “What is the defense department but a socialist program”
    I agree.

    “though it helps mainly pariah capitalists get even richer”
    No, these are fascists who use government for gain–one wonders why this isn’t a mark against government for you.

    “Seriously, the gas station story? The best you can come up with is that it can’t be true?”
    You’re the one who came up with an absurd hypothetical.

  • JD

    If that is the case then you should have no problem if I put up ‘No Christians Allowed’ sign in my place of business.

  • $144948586

    I never said I wouldn’t have a problem. But I wouldn’t make government come in with guns and force you to sell to them.

  • Darth Jibbles

    “Every time the baker wakes up and does not leave, he is choosing to stay.”
    I could easily say that to plantation slaves–we understand this is wrong though, because it is oppressive.

    This is the worst form of false equivalency I have ever seen. If the baker decides to expatriate, the government will not send armed men to drag him back or kill him. The two situations absolutely don’t compare. We, except you apparently, recognize the loss of choice as wrong. That’s why no one is outraged when someone chooses to work for farm owner. That’s their choice.

    I’m done with this conversation. I hope your life of hate-filled bigotry brings you some measure of joy. I’m gonna stay over here with people who advocate for the powerless.

    toodles

  • ollie

    Yes the welfare state is growing mainly in defense spending. And making sure wallstreet and company are protected.

    I am not the one that advocates for oppression of the of means of production (the worker bees, the cattle).

    I personally hope you are right about the US going on but all signs point against that.

  • Matthew

    “Just as uninformed readers will mistake Gulliver´s Travels for a mere children´s tale (rather than the political and intellectual work it also is), so uninformed readers will tend to misunderstand the Bible.” — Kenton L. Sparks from his book “Sacred Word, Broken Word — Biblical Authority and the Dark Side of Scripture”

  • ollie

    Slave wages anyone?

  • ollie

    Sometimes it is.

  • ollie

    AMEN!

    As SamHamilton and I have discussed farther down I really should pointed out that the hearty amen was in agreement with the statement about Josh as Sam was pretty much an unknown to me.

  • $144948586

    “This is the worst form of false equivalency I have ever seen.”
    Just because you want it to be doesn’t mean it is.

    “We, except you apparently, recognize the loss of choice as wrong.”
    Unless that choice is to do what you want with your own property.

    “If the baker decides to expatriate, the government will not send armed men to drag him back or kill him.”
    If a baker becomes an expatriate, they’re no longer allowed to buy land that the government take illegitimate claim of to sell their product.
    Not to mention, nowhere in the world is one allowed to live as a non-citizen–it’s impossible to be a man with no country.
    If you tried to buy sell or trade with citizens of the nation you are not, then men with guns will come in and arrest you.

    But, go on Darth. Be slant.

  • LastManOnEarth

    I’m not being deceitful. Look at our actual history, not some white-washed version of it.

    I ask this in all sincerity: where did you learn about the pre-Civil Rights era South? Because you clearly have some very strange and naive ideas about it. Who teaches that it was all racial harmony except for the government (voted in and empowered by…?)?

    Also, I’m not a Christian, thank you very much.

  • LastManOnEarth

    Who pushed for white only business? (Hint: white people)

  • $144948586

    “Yes the welfare state is growing mainly in defense spending.”
    Actually this has been declining along with the economy.

    Ollie, I’m not a fan of the defense state; quit trying to flame me.

    “And making sure wallstreet and company are protected.”
    Again though, these are people heavily involved in the same government you believe is so good to use for your purposes. Once again, you are not upset with government though–just the people who use it (and who are elected to it).

    “I personally hope you are right about the US going on”
    I never said it was going to go on.
    It will have to contract if free market principles are implemented, but, if not, it will collapse because of fascism and an unsustainable welfare state.

  • $144948586

    Lol, “sometimes”. But it’s always abuse for them to work industrial jobs.
    Hypocrite.

  • LastManOnEarth

    Many moved out of the South but poor people don’t have the mobility to just up and move.

    And enough of the “government intervention” nonsense. Jim Crow was systemic, and white people had full control of the government at all levels.

  • $144948586

    “Look at our actual history, not some white-washed version of it.”
    I did, and failure to acknowledge the government’s role while complaining about Jim Crow in the south is hypocritical–and since you now know that Jim Crow was a government action, it makes you dishonest.

    “where did you learn about the pre-Civil Rights era South?”
    Do you mean the slavery era, because we weren’t even talking about this period–we we’re talking about Jim Crow.

    “Who teaches that it was all racial harmony except for the government (voted in and empowered by…?)?”
    And this is what being deceitful looks like. I never said there was racial harmony.

    “I’m not a Christian, thank you very much.”
    Are you an atheist?

  • $144948586

    Ok? Means nothing without government and their guns.
    Who pushed for everyone business? White and black people.
    Who pushed for abolition? White and black people.

  • ollie

    I am sorry but a tv and motorcycle does not make one middle class. Plus much of India’s growth has come not as a result of reasonable capitalist growth but out of the need to exploit others to produce higher profits be removing income from then western 1st world countries.

    So your saying if I could actually pull the gas station story off you would find that morally acceptable?

  • $144948586

    What bs.
    Many poor people left the South.

    “Jim Crow was systemic”
    What you mean is “racism was pretty widespread”, agreed.
    What you mean is “white supremacy used government”, agreed.

    What you aren’t acknowledging is “non-racism was also pretty widespread”–hence businesses served black people.

    Since it was system (meaning that it enforced itself by using government), then I say get rid of the system (government).

  • LastManOnEarth

    Yes, the white populous used the power of the government to enforce white supremacy in the South in addition to citizen mobs, the Klan, etc.

    Who do you think ran the government back then? Voted for them? Joined the National Guard and police? Supported it? Hint: white people.

    Calling it “the government” doesn’t absolve the people behind it.

  • $144948586

    “I am sorry but a tv and motorcycle does not make one middle class.”
    Actually, it does.

    “Plus much of India’s growth has come not as a result of reasonable capitalist growth but out of the need to exploit others to produce higher profits be removing income from then western 1st world countries.”
    Who’d be working in fields with their children hoping their crops come in.
    Now here’s a person who doesn’t care about their foreign neighbors, ” ‘Merica first! ”
    You don’t need that production income anyway, because it’s probably going to be made so much cheaper there that American’s collectively actually gain income by paying a lower price–that’s called price deflation…it’s a good, natural thing!

    “So your saying if I could actually pull the gas station story off you would find that morally acceptable?”
    Just because I find something morally unacceptable doesn’t mean I should ban you from doing it.
    I find using another person’s tap water from their sink without explicit permission to be morally unacceptable, but I wouldn’t stop people from doing it–unless it was my water and therefore my right.
    If some idiot wants to by 300 miles worth of land so that no one but Baptists can sell on it, then so be it. If someone in the east needs oil that can only come from the west, then I’ll buy a few 18 wheelers and haul it across….and if you won’t let me, then I’ll just buy the land above yours, build a pipeline, and reap in the profits they could have had.

  • $144948586

    And yet, you see no problem with the fact that it was government that was used. Obliterate government, and you obliterate the power of white people to control the armies the government has.

  • ollie

    I do not support what the government is doing. But it is people in the US and elsewhere that believe that Capitalism outside of government control is the Savior of the world. Capitalists (I use the word here to define anyone regardless of titles that believe in an unregulated free market system) have always used the government to make themselves richer.

    As to a government why should I be upset with it? It is after all just the sum of the people that control it. But of course the PTB want us mad at the government and not at them.

  • LastManOnEarth

    If you associate the god and religion as anti-gay, anti-woman etc. then to hell with them, figuratively speaking.

    Of course not all theists or Christians are anti-science, racist, etc. so please don’t lump all Christians in with the bigots.

  • $144948586

    Phil, this is the wrong way to go about this topic brother.
    God may not tolerate, but here, in this life He certainly is and here in this life we’re called to love.

    If we find it an abomination, then that’s fine. Don’t want to do business with them, that’s fine. But what Ron, nor I, would prefer at this moment is to discuss God’s view on homosexuality.

    You don’t have to affirm that homosexuality is a sin to affirm that you want no part in communion with them.

    I disagree with Ron profoundly, but I try to at least talk with him as a person even in heated argument. Jesus didn’t go around calling people sinners, but instead affirmed anyone who is in sin is already dead.

    Now, I’m not taking a stance on God’s judgment of homosexuality; but as it stands, I want to live peacefully with any who will let me–hopefully some of my grace can rub off on them–or maybe I find that I’m the one in need and thankful for a little of their grace.

  • $144948586

    “But it is people in the US and elsewhere that believe that Capitalism outside of government control is the Savior of the world.”
    Stop that, no they don’t.
    They believe that capitalism is the best system to allocate resources–and it is, as every other system involves systemic control and economic calculation that is to centralized to perceive information and act accordingly in efficient manner: that is bureaucracy for ya.

    In capitalism, nobody becomes Too Big To Fail, because if they did then it’s there fault–and someone will rise from the ashes.

    “It is after all just the sum of the people that control it.”
    The people elected Hitler; do you want to recant that statement?

    “As to a government why should I be upset with it?”
    Because it’s the fact that government exists that plutocrats seek to control it, which is what you have a problem with.
    You can stare at the sun all you want, but eventually you’ll go blind, because it’s dangerous.
    Same too with government. You can keep griping about those that run it, but eventually it will run you over.
    The problem isn’t the sun; it’s the staring.
    The problem isn’t the people running it; it’s the looking to them to solve your woes.

  • ollie

    No it is an abuse for them to work in the type of business ownership jobs you were defending.

    I have no issues with children doing the kind of job they are able to do and in the amount of time that is reasonable for them, in either an agricultural of factory setting if it is family owned.

    That said I don’t believe that large businesses (either agricultural or factory) as you seem to like is capable of such discretion. I believe history worldwide bears widness to this.

  • $144948586

    “No it is an abuse for them to work in the type of business ownership jobs you were defending.”
    That’s arbitrary.

    “That said I don’t believe that large businesses (either agricultural or factory) as you seem to like is capable of such discretion. ”
    Then this is your problem; you can always tell them no and instead force the kids to go back to the fields, take in fewer calories, and live much poorer lives as adults.

  • LastManOnEarth

    Ever heard of the Klan? Lynch mobs?

  • $144948586

    Ever heard of the DOJ, the IRS?

  • LastManOnEarth

    Get rid of the government and the bigots will have free reign. No thanks. That’s not the kind of society I want to live in.

  • $144948586

    “Get rid of the government and the bigots will have free reign.”
    And they’ll implement JIM CROW!!!!! D: D: D: D:

  • LastManOnEarth

    Mostly outside of the South. In the South, the white supremacists outnumbered the non-supremacist whites by far. You can actually look up the data on this!

    Fortunately, the federal government helped end some of those systems. Its worth standing up for our better values.

  • $144948586

    “In the South, the white supremacists outnumbered the non-supremacist whites by far. You can actually look up the data on this!”
    It didn’t stop people from serving black people.
    But government did.

    “Fortunately, the federal government helped end some of those systems.”
    Government fighting itself; hilarious.

  • Ron McPherson

    My point is that why place so much emphasis on the things Jesus did not, while not placing emphasis on the things he did.

  • ollie

    And historically they have used physical force to stop failing.

    As to Hitler: A wonderful use of the freemarket system. The big banks got richer, big business got richer (esp Standard Oil and Ford. US banks did very well).

    People elected Hitler? Yeah they did. Why recant my statement? Unrestrained Capitalism created the man and his actions in more ways then just one. Some people call it Karma. The Abrahamic religions would say they reaped what they sowed.

  • LastManOnEarth

    There were nearly 100 years between the end of the Civil War and the start of the Civil Rights era. A.k.a. the Jim Crow erw. Are you really this confused?

    Deflecting the blame on “the government” doesn’t absolve those who empowered and implemented that government.

    You’re the one who keeps returning to the idea that mixed race business would have been the norm if it weren’t for that nasty government (supported and run by those self-same white businesspeople and customers). Do you have a better term for this fantasy?

    Yes, I am an atheist and, more importantly, a Humanist. Are you preparing to make ad hominem or poisoning the well fallacies?

  • $144948586

    “There were nearly 100 years between the end of the Civil War and the start of the Civil Rights era. ”
    And black people were working freely, before minimum wage (a racist move by government), and markets were selling to them.

    “Deflecting the blame on “the government” doesn’t absolve those who empowered and implemented that government.”
    You’re empowering government.
    I didn’t say they’re clean, but they’d never have the power to do such things if not for government.

    “You’re the one who keeps returning to the idea that mixed race business would have been the norm ”
    That’s because it was becoming the norm till government stopped it.

    “Yes, I am an atheist and, more importantly, a Humanist.”
    Then I guess you have no moral reason to not lie to make your case.

  • ollie

    Calories? How do you come up with that? Less calorie intake by itself means neither too light nor malnutrition.

    But realistically we will not go back to an agricultural based society until the world system collapses.

    Of course you are ignoring the fact that my problem is using children in any unreasonable commercial setting including farming. It doesn’t hurt a six years old to spend a couple hours a day feeding the animals nor does it hurt them to spend the same amount of time carrying boards or whatever in a factory type setting. It is a problem if it becomes very much more then that.

  • Ron McPherson

    So are you saying that any mention by Jesus of sexual immorality must somehow be interpreted in light of Moses’ instructions to the Israelites? That’s a very slippery slope in light of Jesus’ other references to OT law. Or are you saying Paul’s instructions to Greco-Roman churches in dealing with their culture at that time must, by default, be overlaid over everything Jesus said with regards to sexual immorality? This is the problem (I should know, I spent years trying) of attempting to somehow systematize 66 different books into a unified cohesive whole so that they all say the same thing. It creates the need to somehow make Jesus say things he never said (or assume things he may never have meant). Ultimately, he never addressed homosexuality, like he also never addressed the topic of women wearing head coverings in church.

  • $144948586

    “Less calorie intake by itself means neither too light nor malnutrition.”
    For the third world, it always does.

    “we will not go back to an agricultural based society until the world system collapses.”
    We still won’t unless socialism drives us there.

    “It is a problem if it becomes very much more then that.”
    Well that’s not the debate. The parents can determine whether or not it’s worth it; that’s why child labor was on its way out by 1900, before it was outlawed: the family determined the child wasn’t needed to work.

    You’re concern is with mandatory labor of a child–this can only be had in a governmental system. It has no lasting precedent in free markets.

  • SamHamilton

    I have a hard time saying that either Jack Phillips or Scott Warren is being persecuted for his faith. Both of them are (presumably) breaking laws of the land that apply to everyone, not just Christians. Laws that prohibit discrimination in retail or prohibit aiding people crossing the border illegally aren’t singling out Christians for particularly harsh treatment.

    American Christians aren’t being persecuted. We should save words like that for Christians who are intentionally singled out for harsher treatment like they are in some other countries.

  • Ron McPherson

    Isn’t he the guy (ya know the one claiming that he didn’t charge in here) whose opening salvo was claiming that nobody here knew the real Jesus?

  • Ron McPherson

    Well, Paul his follower also mentioned that women should keep silent in church, should not wear costly garments, and wear a head covering in church. So if you don’t adhere to these, I’m assuming it’s because you read them in context, no?

  • SamHamilton

    Yeah, there’s a definite lack of logic.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Religion? Ritualistic, man made & devoid of any true connection, intimacy & personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
    Only Jesus Christ truly changes lives & makes life meaningful!
    Following Jesus? Read His Word & seek Him. Revelation 3:20…
    God loves us (His creation) so much that He is not willing that ANY should perish! 2 Peter 3:9…
    God was not willing to give up on His creation, though He had already once wiped it out during the Great Flood because mankind had become exceedingly wicked & God even grieved that he had ever made man (Genesis 6:5-8).
    So God provided one more way for His creation to connect with Him when He provided a Savior through His Son, Jesus Christ (John 3:16-17) that we might find favor with Him & have Eternal Life fellowshipping with Him.
    Jesus Christ is our ONLY salvation & connection to God! John 14:6; 1 Timothy 2:5; 2 Corinthians 5:17…among many. He is our propitiation, our advocate, our lawyer so to speak – but only if we hire Him. He is our atonement & took all of the World’s sins – past, present & future – upon Himself when He went to the Cross.
    What must we do to be saved? Romans 10:9-13…
    Rules? A simple acceptance & belief in Jesus Christ, a true repentance & sincere desire to turn from our sinful ways & live accordingly.
    Prayer with others? Absolutely! Just did that last night with a special praise, worship & prayer time with a great group of believers. Hebrews 10:24,25…

  • Phil Teichroew

    You are one confused & sad individual!

  • Ron McPherson

    Right. So any passage (including those dealing with homosexuality) must be treated accordingly as well. So while there are varying interpretations on what Paul may have been addressing, it should not be a foregone conclusion by any stretch. In other words, proper exegesis demands we treat these verses with no less care than we would with those addressing the head covering thing. That’s not to say that one must agree with my interpretation of them, but it does mean that one holding a different view cannot defiantly declare their interpretation to be absolutely the right one any more than I can. Not saying you’re doing that, just saying that it’s frustrating when others come on here and assert that the bible is clear about this.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Jesus a liberal Jew?
    He was & is the Son of God. Period! The very ‘religious’ Jewish leaders of His time hated & despised Him.
    Heaven is a socialistic society?
    Uh, huh…
    One thing is for sure. Hell definitely is NOT!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Go away troll? You just refuted EVERYTHING you quoted!
    What a waste of your time!
    And all that scripture was lost & wasted on you!
    Very sad indeed!

  • Questioning

    One and the same.

  • Phil Teichroew

    And you missed the point too?
    Everyone in Jesus’ time, except His disciples – which took them some time, did too!

  • Phil Teichroew

    The exposure has been on your end, thank you!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Very sad!
    James 5:16; 2 Corinthians 4:4;…2 Timothy 2:23-26…..

  • Phil Teichroew

    Rapidly leaving for the ‘fanaticism’ & illusion of the damnation of Hell?
    Very sad because FOREVER is a very long time to be wrong!
    2 Corinthians 4:1-6…

  • jaystriggle

    when countries make law, they are legislating morality. There have to be laws to prevent lawlessness. Even legislating stop signs is a moral issues. Who goes first ? Yield the right of way….other wise selfish people would run over others at every intersection. So yes making laws is all about legislating morality…

  • Phil Teichroew

    God richly bless you, Eva!

  • JD

    Now you’re just being paranoid.

  • ollie

    Calorie intake even in 3rd world countries is not that simple.

    Your right in free market systems it is always ok.

  • Ron McPherson

    “Everyone in Jesus’ time, except His disciples – which took them some time, did too!”

    Did too, what? Made blanket statements about the bible, or only followed bits and pieces of the bible all while claiming it was their instruction manual, or failed to defend their assertions, or told people they were crazy for not believing the way they did, or were hateful and disingenuous? Not sure which part of my post you’re responding to.

  • $144948586

    Wooo, scales! They just fell from my eyes! All it took was being called paranoid! Woooo Wooooo.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Well said & thank you!

    2 Timothy 2:23-26…

    One thing I know for sure though is that God never has, does not & never will pull punches. Oftentimes, Jesus was very forward & offending & many times, such as in John 6, all those who were following Him, deserted Him. Should we share our faith in love? Absolutely! But the Gospel is not to be taken lightly & the Cross & Christ’s shed blood is an offense to many. I love John 3:17 as much as the verse before it because it is not God condemning us, but we ourselves that bring the condemnation, guilt & conviction upon our own selves. That is what being under the Law does.

    I’m not particularly interested in discussing homosexuality because that’s an endless circle. People will believe what they want & if they are unbelievers or bound & enslaved to that sin, they will remain chained until they allow God to open their eyes. As you already stated, they are already dead in their trespasses & sin.

    I would only say that I find it interesting that those who would say that those choosing to make a faith based decision to not serve a same-sex couple (clearly an oxymoron) are being discriminatory would likewise call God discriminatory in His creation of, dealings with & expectations of mankind.

  • JD

    Then post proof of having to sell your wares to people you don’t like at gunpoint.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Most of Jesus’ own disciples missed the point – right up & to His Death & Resurrection.

    You know, Ron, I see that all you want to be is argumentative & I really question your sincerity or any true desire for the things of God or the truth? Going in circles is meaningless! You either believe, accept, trust in, are obedient to & seek to follow, serve, worship & commune with God & live your life accordingly – or you don’t? – God really never made it that complicated & He’s Hebrews 13:8…

    I’ll leave it at that…

  • Ron McPherson

    It was a serious question. But it’s very obvious your reason for coming to this site was not to engage in dialogue. You charged on here declaring that people on this site didn’t know the real Jesus without so much as a reason. And you don’t like the pushback when you’re called to account for the inconsistency of your own beliefs. You do not win people to Jesus with your tactics. Folks on here have legitimately grappled with their faith, with the Bible. But you didn’t bother to engage them about why they believe the way they do. People have seen this type of tactics from others who come here thinking they’re gonna witness to ya heathens. It’s spiritual arrogance at its worst and they’ve seen it a thousand and one times. If you truly desire to engage, then stick around. But expect pushback when you declare you have truth while others don’t.

    Peace

  • Phil Teichroew

    Not sure how God could EVER be anti-women since He created, designed & loves EVERY one of them?

    God never created homosexuality, they created themselves.

    Science is totally compatible with God because He also created that & says ‘bring it on’ because it only proves His existence.

    Sin created racism, hatred & bigotry, NOT God!

  • Phil Teichroew

    So, you fall into that category?

  • $144948586

    What do you think happened to the baker?

  • Phil Teichroew

    Are you done?
    Your cluelessness knows no bounds!

  • Phil Teichroew

    You are free to believe every LIE this World perpetrates, as this is one of the biggest! As were all those living in Sodom & Gomorrah & the surrounding 3 cities that were annihilated & exterminated.
    God NEVER created homosexuality because it was never a desire for His Creation! Romans 1:18-32…

  • Phil Teichroew

    Thoroughly stoned, Dry Bones is!

  • Phil Teichroew

    The Dry Bones are disintegrating extremely quickly!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Not much that anyone can do for an absolute FOOL, Dry Bones!

  • Phil Teichroew

    You’re NOT a serious person, Ron.
    If you’re even a believer, you’re hurting & in much turmoil. For that I’m very sorry!
    People are on here sincerely looking for Jesus? I think not! They’re solely trying to disprove & reject Him because they’re constantly fighting themselves & dealing with their conscience, guilt, addictions & hurts, yet deep down, secretly acknowledge Him.
    Yes, I do NOT grapple with my faith, my relationship with Christ, His Word or any kind of guilt. Does that make me some kind of perfect person? Absolutely not! Romans 3:23…
    Jesus is the ONLY one who brings true peace – the Prince of Peace!

  • Phil Teichroew

    ???
    What are you smoking?

  • Phil Teichroew

    I have a ‘religion’?

  • ChevalBlanc

    Yes. That is such a good point, and it is very sad that decent Christians have to deal with these people degrading their faith. Nobody in the US hated Christians until these people caused many of us to view Christians as unkind, immoral hypocrites. It is very unfortunate & quite unfair to the many wonderful people that are also Christians.

  • ChevalBlanc

    Whining because people find whiners annoying is not persecution. If they want to act like petulant children, they are free to do so. The rest of us are free to think anyone that acts like that is an equine behind.

  • Ron McPherson

    See this is why it’s difficult to take you seriously. You judge me as “hurting and in much turmoil” even though you don’t even know me. I’m not hurting or in turmoil lol, so that’s just one reason how I know God did not direct your words. You do nothing but preach at those you do not know, and when confronted you smugly play the spiritual superiority card. Maybe you believe you’re actually being God’s spokesman here. I can’t judge your heart or sincerity. But your credibility suffers when you either will not (or cannot) rationally debate points. You spout Scripture to others, yet when others reply with scripture you flippantly just say they’re confused or whatever, all while being unable to articulate why. And I just gotta be honest here. People see through this. You’ll probably just dismiss my words here as coming from someone who is hurting or something lol, but your rebuttals (if you can call them that) have no real substance to them. Nobody buy is buying it. Ya wanna know why? Because they’ve seen it a thousand times. All you do is perpetuate a stereotype of someone who comes onto a site preaching from a book you seem to know less about than your audience. While we both can agree Jesus is the Son of the living God, the resurrected Savior and Messiah, we obviously do not agree on the methods used to proclaim his gospel.

  • ChevalBlanc

    So you are saying Matthew 25 has nothing at all to do with Christianity? Am I just not getting Jesus’s offbeat sense of humor?

  • ChevalBlanc

    These faith group had an understanding with the border patrol for years. Now they are being arrested, mostly on trumped up charges (no pun intended). For the most part they aren’t breaking the law. Littering? Seriously? A jug of water is not trash. These people are not helping immigrants evade capture by border patrol. They are simply just helping them not die. Anyone that doesn’t admire what this group does is heartless. Shouldn’t Christians be happy these people are giving their faith some positive press?

  • ChevalBlanc

    It is dubious whether or not they are doing anything illegal & they had a good relationship with border patrol for years prior to 2017. You don’t have to be a bleeding heart to admire what this group does. Anyone with just a boring old regular heart usually views saving humans from a horrible death as a positive thing.

  • ChevalBlanc

    A jug of water is NOT littering. At least border patrol didn’t think so prior to 2017.

  • ChevalBlanc

    So trying to get a free pass to heaven is the only motive you can imagine for trying to save human lives? Wow.

    It must be a relief for you that acts of compassionate aren’t how one gets into heaven.

  • ChevalBlanc

    And the Good Samaritan said “I’d love to help you out dude, but I’m in a hurry to get back to my shop & sell straight people some cakes. A mans gotta have priorities, right?”

  • Phil Teichroew

    Exactly where did this come from & what is the rationale?
    A free pass to Heaven? How skewed is that? Liberals always find a way to twist the truth, as Satan always has from the very Beginning.
    “Acts of compassionate”? What exactly is that? If you’re trying to say compassion, works of compassion & meeting the needs of our fellow mankind are a natural desire & result of one’s proper obedience to & relationship with Jesus Christ. Also a part of the gifts & fruits of the Holy Spirit.
    If you even had a small clue of how much food that my church gives out & serves in my community (including stocking 100 food pantries this Souper Bowl weekend), you wouldn’t be so quick to criticize or show your hypocritical bias! My church serves more food yearly than ANY other entity in this entire state! Not only that, but my parents spent 30 years ministering to the physical & health needs of thousands of Africans. ALL freely given!
    Know who you’re attacking!
    Really tired of all the hypocrites & negativity here!
    People need to grow up & find Jesus!

  • Phil Teichroew

    I think most people would do everything necessary to prevent the horrible death of any human being…
    Unless they’re a radical jihadist bent on mayhem & killing as many people as possible, most often in the most horrific manner possible.

    What I question is the biased slant & validity of this story because with all the FAKE news out there, there’s a lot of false reporting going on anymore…

  • JD

    Was somebody holding a gun to their heads?

  • Phil Teichroew

    Jesus has an offbeat sense of humor?

    I think in Matthew 25, Jesus is mostly addressing through parables the necessity to be prepared for His return. As ALL of us are born into Eternity, we are ALL in our last days, because no one knows when their life will end. Hebrews 9:27 & 2 Corinthians 6:2…And yes, He talks a lot about the necessity to love & care for our fellow humankind.

  • Phil Teichroew

    I’m preaching, but you are not?
    As for scripture, most people do not accept God’s Word if it doesn’t fit their lifestyle. Few turn it the other way around. That’s why they will always encounter problems & never have a truly happy & joyful life.
    Many on here also take offense to any & everything said. I don’t. I just usually turn it around for their benefit – good or bad. I think we can both agree that writing or texting carries an unreliable way of exhibiting tone, feeling & mood. I would also guess that some would take offense to some of the strong words & tone spoken by Jesus.
    I don’t get offended because that oftentimes shows selfishness & immaturity & most of all is not what Christ calls us to. That is also a part of service, which if we are truly Christians, what our lives should become all about.
    In all honesty, I don’t care to spend a lot of time on here. I just put it out there & don’t plan on a lot of rebuttal or discussion. Takes me far too long to type & I’m better suited to an in person discussion forum anyway. Jesus just put it out there too & most times He was rejected & walked away from. That’s the reality of His ministry & it’s just as relevant today. I’m a black & white personality, take it or leave it. To some degree I think God is too – but with a whole lot more grace & mercy & especially love. But everything always comes down to 2 things & the decision between them. Good or bad, left or right, myself or God, accept or reject, Heaven or Hell, etc., etc.
    Now you can tell me about your preferred method of proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

  • Chuck Johnson

    “Why do you not believe the bakers refusing to serve a gay couple’s wedding is practicing their faith?”

    The refusal actually is practicing their faith, but in an unacceptable way.
    The Crusades, the Inquisition, publicly burning people alive or disemboweling them, are all examples of Christians practicing their faith.
    Also, note some of the ways that ISIS practices their faith.

    Practicing one’s faith is not a magic wand to be able to perpetrate anything that is desired.
    If that would be true, people would be inventing new religions just to benefit by evading the law.

  • Chuck Johnson

    The law of the land allows government legal action to be taken in both cases.
    Then, the deciding factor is personal preference.
    Personal preference explains why some legal actions are taken, and other potential law violations are ignored.

  • otrotierra

    Thank you for exposing SamHamilton and Josh to simple truth. They are proud of their moral ignorance, as their comment histories reveal, though some day they might develop ears to hear and eyes to see.

    Will SamHamilton listen, or just hide behind more of his denials and clownish insults? Let’s observe:

  • Bones

    “As for scripture, most people do not accept God’s Word if it doesn’t fit their lifestyle.”

    And as we’ve seen you don’t accept if it doesn’t fit your lifestyle/ideology.

    “but with a whole lot more grace & mercy & especially love. ”

    Maybe one day some of that will rub off on you….but I won’t hold my breath.

    “I just put it out there & don’t plan on a lot of rebuttal or discussion.”

    Yeah we get that.

    You came on here to prove how great a Christian you were and how bad we all are.

    FAIL!

  • Bones

    But Ron, you must be hurting and in turmoil because you don’t believe the same as Phil.

    Btw what a great way to treat people who are hurting and in turmoil.

    Compassion and mercy are not part of their vocabulary.

    Let mercy triumph over judgement?

    Obviously written by a leftie.

  • ChevalBlanc

    You insinuated that the guy that got arrested must think good works will get him into heaven. To me it sounded like you were saying expectation of a reward is the only reason anyone would do something kind. If so, that seems rather cynical.

  • ChevalBlanc

    Biased news doesn’t make it fake news. Another blogger posted a picture of border control removing the water. That is pretty darn close to attempted murder.

  • Phil Teichroew

    You’re so delusional & off base you don’t have a clue what you’re even talking about!
    Your GARBAGE isn’t even worth a reply!
    Your intent here is only a sad one full of EVIL, wickedness & strictly only to antagonize…
    If I didn’t know better, I would say you’re the face of the Devil himself & you epitomize his very persona.
    What a silly, sad sack & sullen individual!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Apparently very few people on here have the capability of reading!

  • ChevalBlanc

    Now you are talking about the necessity to love & care for our fellow humankind. It is nice to hear you talk about kindness. Earlier you came off as if you felt that kind of stuff wasn’t important. Glad that isn’t how you really feel. Not being sarcastic.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Many times it is.

    And every picture on the net is absolutely truthful & never photo-shopped? Could very well be conjecture? Your charge of attempted murder would never hold up in court!

  • ChevalBlanc

    Here is the part I am referring to: “This whole article is premised on works. Works are a fruit of the Spirit. God only calls us to belief in Him & obedience & submission to Him & His Word. Works & the desire to share the Good News with & minister to the physical & spiritual needs of our fellow mankind will only naturally follow. Being good will NEVER get anyone into Heaven! Too many people, including many ‘Christians’ put the emphasis in the wrong place, get it backwards & attempt to appease God through their good works. 1 Samuel 15:22…

    You really don’t get why this seemed as if you thought this group was doing good works to get into Heaven?

  • Phil Teichroew

    It would be helpful if more people would learn about the true Jesus & what Christianity is truly all about. Not what they think or what others tell them it should or shouldn’t be.
    That only starts by studying, learning, meditating & memorizing His Word. Making Him their Lord & Savior is the next step – & then all the good stuff happens, including service to Him by reaching out to the World around us & sharing the Everlasting love of Jesus Christ.

  • ChevalBlanc

    Nor does it need to. It is a soul issue, not a court issue. If he is removing life-saving water, in spirit that is a bit like wishing those people dead.

  • ChevalBlanc

    Jesus was pretty specific about loving your neighbor, even the one with the Trump bumper sticker on his truck. Well, he didn’t actually say that last bit, but he would have.

  • Phil Teichroew

    I do not know their hearts so I can’t speak to their intentions.
    Doing good, helping our fellow mankind & saving lives if necessary is always a good & noble thing. Jesus would fully endorse & expect that from all of us.
    The point I was (trying) to make was that despite all of our good works, the heart of man is of most importance. Many good people do good things, give huge amounts of money to humanitarian efforts – such as Bill Gates & his foundation which has donated billions I think to eradicate disease & help impoverished people worldwide – but if his heart is not first & foremost, right with God, in the end it will all be in vain. Mark 8:36 asks the question, what profiteth a man if he gain the whole World, yet lose his own soul?
    Many people erroneously think they need to work their way into Heaven when God is only asking for their heart & soul. Nothing else will save us except through the shed blood of Jesus Christ & acceptance of His free gift of salvation & Eternal Life with Him in Heaven.
    Salvation ALWAYS comes before good works, comes before baptism & trumps being good! Never the other way around, despite all those things being good.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Well, I would have to assess the entire issue & situation in order to form a valid opinion.
    He may just be trying to remove the magnet? IDK…There would be a lot of questions to be answered first. Like are there other areas these people are receiving help & sustenance? How many are there & who is leading them? Are they traveling way beyond their ability to keep themselves alive? Assuming they are not trafficking in contraband or other nefarious activities, what are their ultimate plans? There would probably be a whole slew of other questions to be answered before I would feel qualified to make any comment..
    I would assume & hope that if there was an individual in serious need of a life saving rescue that the BP would be able to identify & facilitate that.

  • Phil Teichroew

    LOL!
    Affirmative & well said!

  • ChevalBlanc

    I see where you are coming from. It is very true that some people are motivated to do good things for the wrong reasons. Some people may like that they have made a difference, but their main motive is being admired by society. That doesn’t make them a terrible person, but it is a bit self-centered. In the case of the article, it sounds like that is a faith-based group that is acting from real compassion, but it is impossible to know for certain. Whether or not they have the right motive, I’m glad they do what they do. Normally I respect the law (if in fact they broke the law), but this is literally a matter of life or death.

  • ChevalBlanc

    In general, the people that have been dying in that desert for years are the poorest of the poor. Big time cartel criminals probably steal the identity of someone that has dual citizenship & send their people by plane. Regardless of whatever else they do, I think we can all agree that the providing life-saving water part is a very positive thing.

  • ChevalBlanc

    ; )

  • Phil Teichroew

    Your perspective is right on & I couldn’t agree more!

  • Phil Teichroew

    I would agree. I just don’t know all the facts & details in order to make an informed opinion. Sometimes people use a bad situation to further their own selfish agenda. I’m not saying any of that is the case in this situation though.
    Bottom line is, too many people down there are taken advantage of, abused & deceived & it can be a very sad situation.
    Many times for most of us here, prayer may be our only recourse & help.

  • Bones

    Poor phil.

    Came on a website to show how much of a super christian he is and just exposes himself as a complete and utter fraud.

    But then you’ve got nothing better to do with your sad existence.

  • Bones

    Yep.

    You let that hate out.

    Show everyone here your utter contempt for them.

    Good witness that.

  • Bones

    Oh dear….

    Has nothing now but personal attacks when his false equivalence bs is called.

    No surprise there.

  • Bones

    You would have to be to follow your bs.

  • ChevalBlanc

    Glad we cleared up our communication glitch & realized we actually agree about some things!

  • Bones

    Morality is a subjective term eg divorce. We do not have laws to legislate morality.

    Stop signs are not moral issues. Thats frankly ridiculous.

    We have laws to protect people from others and for safety.

  • Ron McPherson

    “As for scripture, most people do not accept God’s Word if it doesn’t fit their lifestyle. Few turn it the other way around. That’s why they will always encounter problems & never have a truly happy & joyful life. “

    You’re still missing the point. You’re elevating your own views of the Bible to such a high degree that it must mean that anyone holding a different view of a passage must, by default, not be accepting it. You even think I’m in “turmoil” and now apparently insinuating that I must not be living a “happy & joyful life”, I guess because of my “lifestyle”. Btw, I’m not gay

  • ChevalBlanc

    The fact that none of us heard of this group until they had legal trouble suggests that they aren’t show-boating, but who knows?

  • Bones

    Yes you are very sad…..

    Wow you finally found a bible verse.

    Find the one about not being a pompous sanctimonious self righteous arse. (Hint: check out the pharisees)

    Because that’s you pal.

  • Ron McPherson

    “I would also guess that some would take offense to some of the strong words & tone spoken by Jesus. “

    Wanna know the group Jesus directed his “strong words & tone” to? The Pharisees who looked down their noses at the outcasts.

  • Bones

    Lol…i’ve exposed you for what you are and shown your religion for the filthy rubbish it is to all on here to see.

    Thanks for that.

    You people are so easy to reel in

  • Bones

    Yep, Jesus was of the Hillel school.

    In fact some of Hillel’s words are uttered by Jesus himself.

    I kmow for someone like yourself who sees jesus as a conservative american thats a bit of a shock.

    Maybe one day you will become better educated instead of being enslaved to dogma and blindness.

  • Bones

    Yeah..its the same as the pharisees.

    Just a different creed.

  • Bones

    Dude you’d have to have a lobotomy to believe and behave the way you do.

    Der I follow the Word of god except the bits i dont like.

    Wanker!

  • Matthew

    Not anymore I don´t think :-)

  • Ron McPherson

    Looks like Phil needs to review his instruction manual.
    “…and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.” Matthew‬ ‭5:22‬ ‭ESV

  • Matthew

    I have no idea really how to deal with this story the more I think about it. You make good points SamHamilton, but these people are humans and they
    probably are very thirsty too.

  • marie

    His comments are so outrageous I’m starting to think he must be a Poe.If he’s genuine, how does he expect to get converts on this thread with his rabidly hateful biblical rantings? I commend the few individuals who are patiently attempting to engage with him, but unfortunately I have little tolerance for such conceit. He will most likely respond in his usual pompous & sarcastic manner; all fire & brimstone. He’s already damned me to hell implying that he’s going to heaven. If that’s his way of frightening me, he really needs to work on his threats!… Btw – I LOVE your avatar

  • ollie

    Before I say anything more would you give not more then a 10 point short summary of just what it is you believe?

  • Bones

    They got rich and received awards from conservatives.

    Discrimination pays.

  • Bones

    1900?

    Western countries had introduced child labour laws in the early 1800s.

    You’re talking complete fiction as usual.

  • Bones

    Yes, Josh has made Jesus in his own image…that of a right wing conservative.

  • Bones

    Phil doesn’t bother with that bit.

    It’s all about the gays.

  • Bones

    You mean like Corrie Ten boom was arrested for hiding Jews had nothing to do with Christianity.

    You people are as duplicitous as those who informed on them.

  • Bones

    And she was wrong.

  • Matthew

    “The author of 2 Peter 3:16 pointed out that Paul´s letters “contain some things that are hard to understand.” The same is implied of Isaiah´s words when the Ethiopian eunuch declared that he could not understand the prophet “unless someone guides me” (Acts 8:31). If this is true of Isaiah´s prophecies and Paul´s letters, how much more of the profundity of Jesus´parables or of the culturally remote rituals in Leviticus. The idea that Scripture´s meaning is everywhere perspicuous (clear and obvious) to the average reader does not seem to be a biblical idea. And even if the Bible were perspicuous in principle, this would hardly have helped its original audiences, who in many cases were illiterate and, at any rate, did not have personal copies of the Bible on hand.” — Kenton L. Sparks … again. Good stuff really :-)

  • Bones

    There would be an America….a brown one…..

  • Kiara

    Lol that was 1983 Europe during the Holocaust. Different country, different time period. Also yeah she was arrested for saving Jews. Which hopefully she would have done no matter her religion .

  • otrotierra

    And Josh has SamHamilton to keep him company in this comment section.

    By the way, thank you for recently calling SamHamilton to answer for his slothful lies, deception, and obfuscations. I’ll never understand why U.S. Evangelicals imagine they can continue to bear false witness without consequence.

  • otrotierra

    Thank you for calling Josh to account for his stream of lies, deception, and obfuscation. I’ll never understand why U.S. Evangelicals think they can continue to bear false witness without consequence.

  • Ron McPherson

    great points!

  • Matthew

    Check out the book if and when you have time Ron. It probably covers a lot of what you already have discovered, but it might be a worthwhile read for you nevertheless.

    Have a great weekend!

  • Ron McPherson

    And we’re the ones not accepting the bible

  • Ron McPherson

    definitely will. thanks

  • Bones

    “Both of them are (presumably) breaking laws of the land that apply to everyone,”

    So was Corrie Ten Boom……

    Amazing how all of a sudden saving lives is unimportant for the pro-lifers.

  • Bones

    It is a laughing matter for you types.

    1983? Wtf!!!

    Try 1944…..

    Corrie Ten Boom

    “A devoted reader of the Old Testament, he believed that the Jews were the ‘chosen people’, and he told the woman, “In this household, God’s people are always welcome.”[4] The family then became very active in the Dutch underground hiding refugees; they honored the Jewish Sabbath.[5] The family never sought to convert any of the Jews who stayed with them.[6]”

    Yeah , saving people’s lives had nothing to do with the Ten Boom’s faith….

    And they weren’t Mexicans after all.

    Wtf is wrong with you people?

    As I said you’d be the one who informed on those who broke the ‘law of the land’ just like the ten Booms were..

    We sure as f*** know saving lives has nothing to do with your faith.

  • Bones

    No, people who lie and post lies are liars.

    Like the above idiot claiming child labour was eradicated through capitalism which is patently false and a deliberate lie.

    But hey you’re here to defend their lies.

    You even post your own.

  • Bones

    I think the writings were clear to a first century Palestinian audience (let the reader understand).

    That audience faded rapidly from the scene.

  • Chuck Johnson

    Publicly congratulating yourself for being a follower of Jesus Christ is a type of religion that is ritualistic and man made.

  • $144948586

    From BLS.gov
    “An 1836 National Trades’ Union convention was the first body to call for a minimum age for factory workers.16 In response to the increasing call for legislative intervention, Massachusetts in 1842 limited the workday for children under age 12 to 10 hours.”

    “By the end of the 1840s, every New England state had a child labor law.18 These states included age limits ranging from 9 to 14. These regulations, however, were fairly limited.19”
    Some laws.

    From Wiki:
    “The National Child Labor Committee, an organization dedicated to the abolition of all child labor, was formed in 1904.”

    “In response to these setbacks, Congress, on June 2, 1924, approved an amendment to the United States Constitution that would authorize Congress to regulate “labor of persons under eighteen years of age”

    “However, while the 1938 labor law placed limits on many forms of child labor, agricultural labor was excluded”
    Mmm, hypocrites.

    From Mises.org
    “Of the 2 million child laborers counted in the 1910 census, 72 percent were farm kids, about 85 percent of whom worked on the family acres.”
    Mmm, hypocrites.

    Children’s thoughs on labor:
    “Inspector Helen Todd asked 500 children in twenty Chicago factories, “If your father had a good job, and you didn’t have to work, which would you rather do — go to school or work in a fac­tory?” To her horror, 412 chose the factory.”

    “By the early 1920s, discouraged reformers had turned to their last resort: a constitutional amendment…
    The number of working minors had fallen from 1. 99 million (18 .4 percent of all children) in 1910 to 1.06 million (8.5 percent) in 1920. Far and away the majority of this million (647,000) labored on farms — 90 percent of them on their parents’ land. The percentage of children aged ten to fifteen who worked at non-agricultural jobs had slipped from 7.1 in 1900 to 5.2 in 1910 and 3.3 in 1920. Barely 20,000 youngsters were employed as cotton mill operatives in 1920; fewer than 6,000 worked in the coal mines…
    The South — the godforsaken South, as it was known in Northeastern salons — was still considered the Evilest Place. Alabama and South Carolina led the country in child workers (24 percent), but the vast majority of these were farm kids. Discounting agricultural labor, the South had proportionately fewer young toilers than the Middle Atlantic, the East North Central, or even the New England states.”

    And that’s how you destroy an argument. Note, of coures, that Otro likes the comment with reckless abandon.

  • $144948586

    “The refusal actually is practicing their faith, but in an unacceptable way.”
    Ahaha, it’s unacceptable to let a man NOT LET another person use his property. Unbelievable.

    “The Crusades, the Inquisition, publicly burning people alive or disemboweling them, are all examples of Christians practicing their faith.”
    To conflate these things is simply dishonesty. If I demanded you let me binge on your Netflix in your home, but don’t worry, I’ll give you $5, it’s not a crusade to say, “No.”

  • $144948586

    No one was holding a gun to Scott Warren’s head. But people with guns, like the baker, hauled him to jail to stand trial in front of a judge. It is violence, JD.

  • $144948586

    I’m sure that’s what the other two travelers said. But, they didn’t get issued prison time, now did they?

  • Tim

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/teachingnonviolentatonement/2017/12/racism-responsibility-lens-mimetic-theory/

    This is a post talking about how racism got started in the US, and why it’s different from prejudice.
    I am very suspicious of the idea that one could be racist in a non-racist society. The power structure has to be there. An individual can be both prejudiced and consciously racist, but they can also be prejudiced and unconsciously racist.

    While it’s true that black unemployment is at a record low, that isn’t saying much in the scheme of things. Employment across the board has been going down since before Trump took office, so 1) Black unemployment was going down anyway and 2) Trump didn’t have anything to do with it.
    Racism goes far beyond employment levels as well, so this is a logically weak analogy in support of anti-racism.

    Just a couple of articles on the evidence for racism you seem to be attempting to imply doesn’t exist: https://www.voanews.com/a/hate-crimes-rising-in-us/4034719.html
    https://www.vox.com/cards/police-brutality-shootings-us/us-police-racism

  • $144948586

    “Just a couple of articles on the evidence for racism you seem to be attempting to imply doesn’t exist”
    Where the hell did I ever imply racism doesn’t exist?

  • Bones

    Yes, it was unions who campaigned to bring regulations to capitalism.

    Well done for proving my point.

    The Factory Act was passed in 1833 in England claiming NO CHILD UNDER 9 COULD WORK.

    The US followed suit.

    This did not stop companies from breaking that regulation hence why inspectors were needed to enforce regulations.

    As the Industrial Revolution gathered pace thousands of factories sprang up all over the country. There were no laws relating to the running of factories as there had been no need for them before. As a result, dangerous machinery was used that could, and frequently did, cause serious injuries to workers. To add to these dangers, people were required to work incredibly long hours – often through the night.

    Perhaps one of the worst features of this new industrial age was the use of child labour. Very young children worked extremely long hours and could be severely punished for any mistakes. Arriving late for work could lead to a large fine and possibly a beating. Dozing at a machine could result in the accidental loss of a limb.

    People began to realise how bad these conditions were in many factories and started to campaign for improvements. There was a lot of resistance from factory owners who felt it would slow down the running of their factories and make their products more expensive. Many people also did not like the government interfering in their lives. Some parents, for instance, needed their children to go out to work from a young age, as they needed the money to help feed the family.

    Not all factory owners kept their workers in bad conditions however. Robert Owen, who owned a cotton mill in Lanark, Scotland, built the village of New Lanark for his workers. Here they had access to schools, doctors and there was a house for each family who worked in his
    mills.

    By 1833, the Government passed what was to be the first of many acts dealing with working conditions and hours. At first, there was limited power to enforce these acts but as the century progressed the rules were enforced more strictly. Nonetheless, the hours and working conditions were still very tough by today’s standards, and no rules were in place to protect adult male workers.

    Listed below are details of the legislation (laws) that was introduced to improve working conditions in factories.

    Date Industry Details of law
    1833 Textiles No child workers under nine years
    Reduced hours for children 9-13 years
    Two hours schooling each day for children
    Four factory inspectors appointed
    1844 Textiles Children 8-13 years could work six half-hours a day
    Reduced hours for women (12) and no night work
    1847 Textiles Women and children under 18 years of age could not work more than ten hours a day
    1867 All Industries Previous rules applied to workhouses if more than five workers employed
    1901 All Industries Minimum age raised to 12 years

    https://nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/education/factory-actdoc.pdf

    As usual you speak with forked tongue.

  • $144948586

    “At first, there was limited power to enforce these acts but as the century progressed the rules were enforced more strictly.”
    You’re quote.
    The stuff wasn’t enforced, particularly on farms where the VAST majority of children worked. Regardless, THEY WORKED.

    The US followed England, because the industrial revolution came to the US AFTER England.
    And the US transitioned faster than England, because that is the natural way it works: capital and technology flows faster than it is created–it was created in England and flowed to the US…thus children spent fewer amounts of time in factories, because the productivity curve was steeper–the same with countries that followed…that’s why South Asia didn’t need 100 years to develop a middle class–nor did East Asia.

    And now, child labor is much less important there than it was two – three decades ago.

    Points to me. Thanks.

  • Questioning

    “God NEVER created homosexuality because it was never a desire for His Creation!”
    You left something out….

    “In my opinion, God NEVER created homosexuality because it was never a desire for His Creation!”
    I would think someone like you would be careful about putting yourself in the place of God and speaking for God. If you do not want to talk about homosexuality, as you mentioned above, then stop talking about it.

  • Ron McPherson

    Yeah, I would say both groups (all of us, especially me) could use a dose of grace. But here’s the thing that strikes me (just being honest here, not argumentative). American Christian conservative types (not every single person who holds conservative beliefs; I hate broad-brushing groups) often come off as folks who allow themselves the right to interpret scripture in certain ways which conform to their belief system, yet do not afford that same right to those holding different views (I probably fell into this camp for years, hate to admit it). As an example (because this one comes up a lot), when someone has an opposing view of say, homosexual passages, then by default it just has to mean they don’t believe the bible (that’s what we get here constantly from others). Like there is some sort of disconnect with them. They can’t wrap their arms around the fact that one disagreeing with them about this can also be a believer, or even take the bible seriously. Ordinarily, this might be relatively harmless, until they start condemning others for it. Then when ‘progressives’ (again, I hate broad-brushing groups but just for the sake of discussion) call them to account for it, the progressives are viewed as oppressive because they call out the oppressors. To be honest, it’s like somebody calling out Jesus for being a hypocrite because he called out the hypocrites. Just my two cents. I think I can speak to this because in some ways I’ve been on both sides of the fence. And would rather die than go back to what I once believed.

  • Questioning

    It is painfully obvious all you have now in your quiver are ad hominems. You have short circuited your entire Christian witness here with childish name calling, false witness, sowing discord, and accusation. But of course, you probably will refuse to acknowledge this. You are in a hole, you should stop digging.

  • Bones

    Derp these were FACTORY laws dude.

    Can you not read?

    These laws were enforced…in England anyway.

    And your entire argument about capitalism introducing child labour laws is laughable and shredded in the face of abundant evidence around the world.

    Btw mill owners helped defeat a bill in 1905 in North Carolina that would increase the working age of girls from 12 to 14.

    In 1842 the Mines and Collieries Act was passed.

    Guess who opposed that?

    You lose….AGAIN.

  • Chuck Johnson

    Ahaha, it’s unacceptable to let a man NOT LET another person use his property. Unbelievable.-Josh

    Your thinking is compartmentalized and simpleminded.
    Every time that a mass murderer uses bombs or guns, etc. to kill, he is using his property.

    Your property argument is worthless.
    Your thinking on this topic is worthless.

    Decades ago, Southern states used “their property” to create public schools which were “whites only” and “colored only”.

    That is until Brown v Board of Education reminded everyone that such schools are not just the property of the states.
    They are also the property of the Unites States of America.

    Those cakes and those bake shops are, to some degree, the property of the United States of America.
    As such, they are required to follow the law of the land.

  • $144948586

    “Derp these were FACTORY laws dude.”
    Oh ok, so you only care about child labor in factories.

    I got it.

    The fact is, the numbers still went up, the laws were weak, and enforcement was even weaker.
    BUT, by the time a constitutional amendment was created, the numbers were already dwindling because they weren’t needed.

    But all through this time, the vast majority of children worked on farm–and the government didn’t appear to care about these kids.

    “And your entire argument about capitalism introducing child labour laws”
    I never said capitalism introduced child labor laws.

  • Nick

    Our government does the will of the people. The majority of Americans want anti discriminatory laws.

    I cannot understand your side note. Can you clarify for me? Does the people you refer to mean customers or businesses?

  • Bones

    Jesus’s whole conflict with the Pharisees was because their religion was oppressive.

    It was oppressive to the poor, to women, to foreigners and the sick. The incidents recorded in Mark eg the woman who had been bleeding for 12 years and subsequently ostracised, Jesus’s sending the healed lepers to the priests (only a priest could heal a leper) were all comments on Jewish religion and social practices.

    The Pharisees were actually conservative fundamentalists following the Word of God to the letter. They were in fact not hypocrites at all in that sense. The very nature and essence of their religion was to exclude others see the Torah.

    And why did they kill Jesus.

    Because he threatened their power and conservative religion.

  • $144948586

    “Every time that a mass murderer uses bombs or guns, etc. to kill, he is using his property.”
    We’re not talking about a man using his own property, we’re talking about a man forcing another man to use that same man’s property.
    This is compartmentalization and simpleminded.
    He’s not killing another person or destroying another person’s property; he’s simply not using his property the way another person wants him to.

    “That is until Brown v Board of Education reminded everyone that such schools are not just the property of the states.”
    Again, you’re griping about government overturning government.

    “Those cakes and those bake shops are, to some degree, the property of the United States of America.”
    No, they’re not. There’s no legitimate claim the U.S. has over the land that these businesses are built upon. You didn’t have claim of that land, thus you can’t divest that power to government to have claim on that land.
    Regardless, you didn’t voluntarily consent to government owning your property–it’s just the life we’re born in to….that still doesn’t change the fact that it’s enslavement.

  • Kiara

    Oh my bad, 1983 was the year she died. But 1944 even further proves my point that it was a different time. Saving lives should have nothing to do with faith. If you have to have religion to save someone then damn. I would have tried to help someone anyway but whatever. I’m the bad guy here. And I never once said that they should have been arrested for helping someone. I simply said that they weren’t arrested for being Christain. Their religious affiliation was irrelevant. And so was the religion of Corrie, unless she was the type of person to only save a life for the sake of her religion, and not the sake or saving a life. Which if she were then I guess they were lucky she happened to be religious. I personally wouldn’t trust someone who was only willing to help me for brownie points with God.

  • Bones

    There’s no revelation in your ramblings nor truth.

    Yet again you have too high an opinion of yourself.

  • Bones

    Hey everyone look at da white conservative man-slave….

    Some people have gone apeshit since gay people have been given rights.

  • $144948586

    There ya go, Bones. Obfuscate like a good sheep.

  • Bones

    Your usual dishonesty is noted.

    The first child labour laws applied to factories then mines and collieries….because they were dangerous.

    In fact 26 kids died in one disaster which led to the Mines and Collieries Act.

    Guess who opposed that?

    And the fact that companies abused these laws is supposed to be a defence of how good capitalism is?

    Huh…well done for defeating your own argument yet again.

  • $144948586

    “Our government does the will of the people.”
    Like smoke a bunch of Native Americans?
    Like intern Japanese?

    What about other governments?
    “The will” was enough to kill 6 million Jews.

    The will of the people is a terrible measure of good policy.

    Rephrase:
    “[The businesses] who don’t want to discriminate are just as welcome to take the business of those [customers] who are being discriminated against.”

  • Nick

    “If you deny that it’s the same persecution by government, then you really don’t care about freedom of religion.” What evidence do you have for this argument?

  • Nick

    “we’re talking about a man forcing another man to use that same man’s property” Very simple way of looking at the argument, but seems plausible.. The discussion hinges on businesses operating in the public sphere. When you enter the public sphere you are saying to the government that you will submit to its rules for behavior in the public sphere. We can easily think of examples where we think this is OK,the classic rat poison in meat. What makes this different?

  • $144948586

    “And the fact that companies abused these laws is supposed to be a defence of how good capitalism is?”
    No, it’s the fact that parents would allow their kids to work in factories because they think it’s a better alternative to farming that shows government is a nuisance.

    “In fact 26 kids died in one disaster which led to the Mines and Collieries Act.”
    So you’ll stand on the graves of these 26 souls, to decry the decisions of their parents to have them in factories because they think it’s a better life for them ultimately. Shameful. No capitalist forced them to work, let alone work there.

  • $144948586

    “Very simple way of looking at the argument”
    That’s the purest form of the argument.

    “When you enter the public sphere you are saying to the government that you will submit to its rules for behavior in the public sphere.”
    Businesses are private enterprises established on private premises own by a landlord who is a private individual.

    “the classic rat poison in meat. What makes this different?”
    That alternatives to this will arise and this person will be out of business.

  • $144948586

    Because it was a response to my response to the original premise by the author:
    “But yes, some Christians in America are being persecuted for practicing their faith”
    Why do you not believe the bakers refusing to serve a gay couple’s wedding is practicing their faith?

  • Nick

    “Like smoke a bunch of Native Americans?
    Like intern Japanese?” Yes

    I don’t know if Germany was structured to do the will of the people. They did allow Hitler to rise to power and certainly they know what was happening to their Jewish neighbors. So, probably for this example.

    “The will of the people is a terrible measure of good policy.” Certainly at times it is. I think it is a hard argument to make that all people being free to purchase wedding cakes is on par with genocide and racist policies.

    Thanks for the rephrase. While that is true it is still against the law because a business is discriminating. I am sure the non discriminating business appreciates the extra business, but that isn’t a compelling argument to me.

  • Bones

    Well obviously it has nothing to do with YOUR faith. And many many Christians thought as you did and that arresting and killing Jews was the law of the land.

    See you’re the classic example of those whose faith is just a collection of words as opposed to deeds.

    To the Ten Booms and those who support the oppressed it is the very essence of their faith and their being while others who supported the law of the land turned them in.

    In fact it is the essence of the gospel to set the captives free…..regardless of creed or skin colour….

    And your hideous worldview is exposed….a religion which values human beings as opposed to an impersonal collection of dogmatic platitudes which cares nothing for people.

    It’s gotten to the stage where conservatives will disparage heroes of the faith to promote their own political ideology.

    The Ten Booms sacrificed their safety and family to earn brownie points with God? What sort of a hideous creature are you?

  • Chuck Johnson

    “No, they’re not. There’s no legitimate claim the U.S. has over the land that these businesses are built upon.”

    That’s false.
    Your understanding of the law is guided by your politics.
    You can convince yourself of anything because your politics rule your mind.

    Try looking for the truth for a change.
    Your politics keep leading you in the wrong direction.

  • JD

    I think we’re talking about two different things. In the case of the cake bakers who violated the law to discriminate deserved the fine. Scott Warren broke the law as well.

  • $144948586

    “I think we’re talking about two different things.”
    I proved that the baker was forced to “sell his wares.”

  • $144948586

    “That’s false.”
    Prove it. When did I concede authority to government over my property?

  • jadegarden7

    >>”But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou
    shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I
    am the Lord your God.” Lev. 19:34. *Or even if some of them are our personal enemies…
    >>“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But
    I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to
    those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and
    persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on
    the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” Mat. 5:43-45

  • $144948586

    “I don’t know if Germany was structured to do the will of the people. ”
    Germany ELECTED Hitler freely!

    “I think it is a hard argument to make that all people being free to purchase wedding cakes”
    Whoa whoa, who isn’t free to purchase a wedding cake?

  • Nick

    “Businesses are private enterprises” is a common but incorrect view held by Americans.

    I don’t understand your response to my question. Are you advocating for removing all laws that govern how businesses operate?

  • Nick

    I read your statement incorrectly. My fault.

    To answer your question, because making cakes is amoral as far as the bible is concerned.

  • Nick

    Charlie Craig and David Mullins were not free to purchase a wedding cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop.

    Hitler didn’t win election freely. Life is rarely so black and white and lacking of nuance. He used many underhanded tactics that put the will of the German people in question. The argument you make is the one that Saddam used to justify his reign.

  • $144948586

    “”Businesses are private enterprises” is a common but incorrect view held by Americans.”
    No, that they are not private is an incorrect view held by government. Nobody forces customers to use their services.

    “Are you advocating for removing all laws that govern how businesses operate?”
    I’m saying if someone sucks at providing service, then there business should be outcompeted and that we shouldn’t make it harder to compete and simultaneously prop up a sucky, racist business owner.

  • $144948586

    “To answer your question, because making cakes is amoral as far as the bible is concerned.”
    That doesn’t float to an atheist, or a cake worshiper.
    Therefore, it’s not freedom of religion.

    To some people, there craft is an art that they only want certain people to enjoy. They should have this right–even if it is selfish or based on prejudice.

  • $144948586

    “Charlie Craig and David Mullins were not free to purchase a wedding cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop.”
    That’s a different argument.

    Charlie Craig and David Mullins were free to buy a cake from whomever would sell to them. That is freedom.
    The owner of Masterpiecer Cakeshop WAS NOT FREE to use his talents, his property, as he saw fit. THAT is the issue.

    “Hitler didn’t win election freely.”
    Yes he did, in a landslide!

    “The argument you make is the one that Saddam used to justify his reign.”
    You’re punching at government, again.

  • Ron McPherson

    Right, it was JESUS who gave the instruction, the one who was WITHOUT sin. The ones doing the accusing (that would be other sinners) walked away when confronted with that fact. The problem when one telling another they are in sin is when it is done in a condescending, arrogant, you don’t accept the bible, you’re going to hell tone, I know what I’m talking about sort of way. If however, a ‘conservative’ came onto the site and said something like,
    “Well, it’s my personal conviction, based on my interpretation of the bible, that a same sex relationship is sin. But hey, I realize that’s just my interpretation, and that there are valid alternative interpretations, and that, you know, I could be wrong. And seeing how I personally fall short in so many areas myself, who am I to judge the speck in the eye of another when I have logs in my own.”
    Instead, we get crap like, “well, you’re going to hell; you don’t believe the bible; hey it’s not me you have a problem with it’s God; the bible is clear, yada, yada, yada.” So yeah, that’s going to get people’s dander up. But the rebuttal is like, well the progressives are oppressing the oppressors by calling them on the carpet for oppressing others. Again, you’re talking to a guy once on that side of the fence. Once your eyes become opened though to that type of mentality, you never want to go back to it.

  • D.M.S.

    Dry Bones ( lol ).
    Well said.

  • D.M.S.

    Not to me,he isn’t.

  • Ron McPherson

    It’s true that folks from both ‘sides’may have trouble accepting alternative viewpoints. But seriously, what I’ve found is that many ‘progressives’ are ok with alternative viewpoints provided the opposing ‘side’ doesn’t use their viewpoint to condemn them. As an example, I’ve spoken with LGBTs who are absolutely ok with others who believe homosexuality is a sin. They get it’s a matter of interpretation. But where they draw the line (and I don’t blame them) is when they’re told they cannot be Christian, or that they don’t take faith seriously, or that they’re in open rebellion against God, or that they don’t believe the bible. See the thing is this. Many conservatives have no problem whatsoever doing life with someone who interprets other things differently (e.g. eschatological matters just as an example) because, sure, we just hold different viewpoints. But the gay thing? Oh wait, that’s another story. It just comes across so hypocritical. It’s like they (like everybody else) contextualizes 4 billion things in the bible written in black and white. But go try and contextualize anything related to homosexuality and suddenly you’re an apostate who doesn’t believe the scriptures. I’ve see it on here time after time after time after time…..

  • JD

    If he was breaking the law to discriminate then he deserved the punishment.

  • $144948586

    Alright. Only if you’re OK with that in Scott Warren’s case.
    Neither of these gives freedom to one’s practice of religion.

  • Chuck Johnson

    Pay your income taxes.
    And quit babbling.

  • otrotierra

    It is indeed outrageously offensive that Jesus was undeniably clear on his stance against hypocrisy. Who will dare tell U.S. Evangelicals? Will they have ears to listen? Let’s observe.

  • JD

    In the case of the baker’s they discriminated thus breaking the law and we’re rightly fined for it.

    As for the Warren case that is a sticky one. I believe the current policies regarding humanitarian aid for illegal immigrants needs revisiting. But under our current administration that’s probably only going to get worse long before anything gets better.

  • $144948586

    “As for the Warren case that is a sticky one. I believe the current policies regarding humanitarian aid for illegal immigrants needs revisiting.”
    Oh ok, so Scott’s faith is more important than Masterpiece Cakeshop Owner’s faith?

  • $144948586

    When did I concede to working for the government for free?

  • Ron McPherson

    So if there was one big table on this earth (or in heaven, either way) and EVERYONE was invited (this would mean both gays and straights), with the only stipulation being that you couldn’t preach or condemn anyone else at the table, who do you think would have the biggest problem with that? Conservatives or progressives?

  • JD

    If your relgion demands you to discriminate against others -and thus break the law- then you need a new religion.

  • $144948586

    “If your relgion demands you to discriminate against others -and thus break the law- then you need a new religion.”
    Alright, first:
    Did Jack Phillips deny them some right (endowed by creator, or natural) to Charlie Craig and David Mullins?

  • JD

    Would you like me to deny you service just because I think your Christianity is evil and I refuse you service that would promote your religion?

  • $144948586

    “Would you like me to deny you service just because I think your Christianity is evil and I refuse you service that would promote your religion?”
    It would be your right; just like it would be your right not to let me in your house just because I’m a Christian.

    I, as not being you, have no natural right over you or your property/services.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Such a fraudulent sad sack!

  • Phil Teichroew

    The good witness of hate, anger & spite from Dry Bones only continues…

  • Phil Teichroew

    Sad!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Very sad!

  • Chuck Johnson

    Very good.
    Now you see how this works.
    The Government has its ownerships, and you have your ownerships.

  • Ron McPherson

    I understand there will be individual outliers. But we’re talking as a collective group (i.e. conservatives vs progressives). I absolutely without any reservations can say that I strongly believe conservatives to be far more exclusive than progressives (again, as a group, not saying this holds for all individuals). I’ve just seen way too many examples of this in my lifetime. In fact, conservatives actually criticize progressives FOR their inclusive theology. That’s no secret. And that ought to tell you something right there. That starts the divide. I’m not claiming that all conservatives are evil (I have family and close friends who would be described as adamantly conservative), nor am I saying all progressives are as pure as the driven snow. Again, I’m speaking to a conservative theology actually bent toward divisiveness though. And when that happens, it’s difficult for me to lay the majority, or even half, of the blame on the progressive side. Just my 2 cents.

  • $144948586

    Government derives its power from the “consent of the governed”.
    I have my ownership, government has legitimate ownership of only what I give consent to give it.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Apparently there is NOTHING that can be said that won’t offend you, Ron? I can’t even say that so many here come off as weak, overly sensitive & extremely immature.
    You also can’t read! Did ANYTHING in that last statement in any way point a direct finger at you, Ron? I was speaking in generalities…
    Obviously EVERYTHING that Jesus said is so extremely hard to understand that it can be spun a thousand ways? Sad!
    No use in even trying to have an honest conversation anymore because you, Ron & so many of your buddies, are so weak spirited & take everything very personal.
    Sorry, I will NOT walk around like I’m on egg shells!
    There, I said it! Take offense to it, like it or not!

  • Phil Teichroew

    I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, so without knowing their true motive & intent, I assume they’re fully sincere & genuine.
    No one can be or go wrong with the intent to help & save another human being though!

  • Chuck Johnson

    You said “I” when you should have said “we”.
    Your influence on the law of the land is tiny.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Self describing again?
    Yes, you sound like a Pharisee.
    But you are not even ‘religious’!

  • Phil Teichroew

    The only one exposed is you!
    Your rants, vulgarities, vileness, immaturity, insecurity & just plain craziness…

  • Phil Teichroew

    The only one enslaved & blind is you! Enslaved to your impulses & immaturity…
    And obviously totally uneducated about Jesus Christ!

  • Nick

    “if someone sucks at providing service, then there business should be outcompeted”
    Wholehearted agreement.

    Thanks for the discussion. I enjoyed it and learning your point of view.

  • Phil Teichroew

    So, you’re Dry Bones from the Pharisee clan?

  • SamHamilton

    Hi Matthew,
    Do you mean the immigrants are thirsty? If so, of course. I don’t begrudge anyone leaving food and water for people trying to cross the desert. I don’t think they should be prosecuted for this at all.

  • Nick

    “That doesn’t float to an atheist, or a cake worshiper.” How so? Neither a cake worshiper or an atheist can find a bible verse about cake making and public businesses.

    The art argument is an intriguing one. I don’t think there is legal precedence to cakes as art, but I am looking forward to the SC’s decision on it.

  • Phil Teichroew

    You’ve already had one, thus the Dry Bones.
    Despite it though, the mental derangement still remains!

  • SamHamilton

    Hi Chuck, I’m not quite certain what you mean by “personal preference.” Do you mean that the government has a choice whether to enforce certain laws? I would assume that there is some prosecutorial discretion, but I don’t know enough about the laws involved in the immigration matter to know what laws people like Scott Warren were breaking and how badly they were broken.

  • Phil Teichroew

    She couldn’t be anymore right!

  • $144948586

    It doesn’t matter; my influence of my domain is “yuge”.

  • Chuck Johnson

    It’s personal preference all the way from law enforcement officer right on through the legal systems and the prison systems.

    The laws merely outline a framework.
    Individuals decide how or if that framework results in a legal action.

    No law, rule or moral principle can define what is right and what is wrong, they merely suggest guidance.

    Every legal case is individual.

  • SamHamilton

    Absolutely true. The government has some discretion how strictly to enforce particular laws and how aggressively to prosecute offenders. If I were running things, I’d let things slide when it comes to merely giving water to thirsty people (assuming that’s all they were doing) or refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. These minor violations are not worth the effort. And you’re right that just because something is illegal doesn’t make it immoral. I don’t think I’ve said anything to the contrary in my other comments on this blog post.

  • SamHamilton

    What are you talking about? What “truths” did Chuck expose me to (the implication being that I’m not already aware of things that Chuck has said)? Why do you continue to make passive-aggressive comments about me to other people?
    What is wrong with you? Shame on you.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Publicly congratulating, huh?
    Does anyone on here even know how to read?
    Either they’ve totally blinded themselves or their ability for comprehension is non-existent…

  • Phil Teichroew

    God NEVER did or would create homosexuality!
    Man did. Out of their own rebellion, wickedness, evilness & depravity!
    Enough said!

  • $144948586

    Well it doesn’t have to be an argument from art: the simple fact is that the cake maker owns his business, he own his ingredients, and most privately he owns his talents–can anything else be so private?

    Just because someone sets up an LLC, it doesn’t naturally follow that he only owns it with government approval. We accept this as de facto, but it’s not a natural right–and we can see this when we look honestly at the situation: Both of these stories are an infringement on one’s faith. To take sides on the matter is to determine that, IN THE EYES OF THE STATE, one religion is supreme. Thus, we’ve violated freedom of religion and have persecuted two different people who have called themselves “Christian”.

    I don’t have much faith in the Supreme Court; they are a progressivist bunch, and we can now see how corrupted the government (particularly under Obama) has become: IRS targeted Tea Party members, the DOJ decided on Hillary’s innocence before they knew the details of the case, and now today there is proof that the FBI sought AND GOT a FISA warrant based on a phony research piece BOUGHT AND PAID FOR by Trump’s political opponent party.

    I don’t say this because I’m a Republican; I’m not. I’m anarcho-capitalist, libertarian in philosophy, because this is TRULY the only non-aggressive way to approach a life in which people don’t believe in giving up (literally) everything to follow Jesus. Capitalism natural incentivizes people to do what they judge best for themselves (though it may not be). Any crimes committed against one another are violations of natural law that can be accepted as endowed by creator OR deduced from exists if one’s an atheist. Private property is fundamental to this.

    What you must realize is that the government is an onion. Peel back enough layers and it will make you cry–but worse, you’ll see that it’s built upon violence. It’s laws are built upon violence.
    Don’t pay your taxes(tithe)? Men with guns will take you to jail (enslaving your life).
    Don’t want to make a cake for a certain group? Men will fine you.
    Don’t want to pay the fine? Men with guns will take you to jail (enslaving your life).
    The list goes on and on…
    could there be anything more anti-Jesus?

    You’ve asked great questions, Nick.

    Might I suggest Mises.org?

    One more, do you know what the law of the land in the U.S. is?

  • Phil Teichroew

    Clearly you’ve described your own self!
    No digging here! Quite to the contrary.
    Is there a Christian witness here? All I’ve seen so far is mostly a Satanic worship, delusion, confusion, blindness & self-aggrandizement!
    Sorry for your pain! You’ll get over it…

  • Ron McPherson

    Phil, no one is asking you to walk around on egg shells, so don’t expect others to do it either when challenging some of your assertions. As for me taking everything personal, in a post prior, you subtly questioned me as a believer (“if you’re even a believer”), for some reason said I was “hurting and in much turmoil” (I guess for not letting some of your assertions go unchallenged I suppose, who knows), only to follow that up in your next post by saying those that do not “accept God’s word” do not have a “joyful or happy life.” Um, so how was I not supposed to think that was directed at me lol? I’m seriously not offended, but admittedly frustrated that you come on here swinging by opening up with something like people on this site don’t know the real Jesus without offering a reason why. And then continued to swing away when challenged. So did you just think you could use this site as a forum to preach at the heathens and apostates without being held accountable for your words? It does call into question about whether or not you genuinely desired to “have an honest conversation” with anyone. Dare I even say it, it comes across to others as, well, immature.

  • Ron McPherson

    LOLOL!!!!

  • $144948586

    Sorry I just saw this:
    “How so? Neither a cake worshiper or an atheist can find a bible verse about cake making and public businesses.”
    Since when was the bible the soul source of all religions?

    People have “experiences” and convert to certain faiths:
    They stop eating meat, they start worshiping the sun, they become pacifists, perhaps they start making cakes for only certain groups of people. Maybe it’s even ALL groups of people except one. Sure, we can call it bigoted, but it doesn’t change their conviction….they’re not infringing on someone’s rights though–they’re just utilizing their right to use their property the way they see fit. They’re not stopping the couple from going elsewhere.

  • SamHamilton

    Why should you get to pick which rules for the common good you don’t have to follow on the grounds of your beliefs?

    Hi ollie,
    The government sometimes gives exceptions from various laws to certain groups based on their religious beliefs. We’ve long-provided exceptions to the military draft to pacifists. There are exceptions to various laws going back decades for people of faith who object to participating in abortions, in vitro fertilization, and sterilizations. And other people of faith have successfully brought cases through the courts to get laws struck down or get exceptions from laws that they claim force them to violate their faith. So the idea that someone can assert his or her first amendment religious freedom rights to avoid compliance with a law is not a new idea.

    Obviously, “first amendment religious freedom” is not a blank check to get exempt from any law. I can’t claim that a law against theft violates my religious belief that private property is unlawful and I’m entitled to steal my neighbor’s stuff. Each case must be weighed on its own merits.

    This is a long-winded way of saying that no one can just “pick and choose” which rules to follow, but a person of faith gaining an exemption from “rules for the common good” can take place either through the passage of a law providing an exemption or through a case brought through the courts. This is not some new precedent that’s being created.

  • jaystriggle

    Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not run a stop sign or you might killeth someone….
    The law is that which keeps the moral guide in front of us… Romans 7.

  • JD

    So, you essential feel you’re entitled to break the law to discriminate when you see fit. And when you are punished for breaking the law you want to scream ‘religious discrimination’.

    Thanks for clearing that up.

  • Nick

    “Charlie Craig and David Mullins were free to buy a cake from whomever would sell to them” We are chasing our tails. Under US law they were free to buy from whomever sells wedding cakes meaning that in this case they were not free to buy a cake.

    “The owner of Masterpiecer Cakeshop WAS NOT FREE to use his talents, his property, as he saw fit. THAT is the issue.” This is true. When you open a business you agree to play by the rules. When you choose not to you suffer the consequences.

    “”Hitler didn’t win election freely.”
    Yes he did, in a landslide!

    “The argument you make is the one that Saddam used to justify his reign.”
    You’re punching at government, again.”

    I don’t know what you mean by punching at government again. And Hitler won through underhanded tactics. The same that Saddam used and Putin uses today. Not free elections by a long shot.

  • $144948586

    “So, you essential feel you’re entitled to break the law”
    No, I feel like I’m entitled to say, “No” when someone requests the use of me or my stuff.

  • JD

    Yet you dont mind it when saying no means breaking the law.

  • ollie

    Yes, but in almost very case these exceptions have to with an individuals relationship with the state. A few could be looked at as a relationship between and individual and a outside corporation. None that I am aware in have been about individual discrimination against another individual.

  • Nick

    While I have enjoyed this thread as well, I think we have reached a point where it cannot progress. This happens from time to time.
    People who believe the ideas that you listed in your third paragraph cannot be expected to make decisions based on facts and evidence and it is hard for me to discuss topics with people who don’t rely on them.

  • $144948586

    “When you open a business you agree to play by the rules.”
    In that case, “When you agree to help illegal immigrants, then you agree to help by the rules.”
    What Scott Warren did was illegal, er go this is not religious persecution. Per your agreement with law.

    “I don’t know what you mean by punching at government again.”
    It means the vast majority of problems people have with their fears of freedom being imposed upon REALLY boils down to the fact that government is the one who imposed upon freedom. Like people complaining about blacks not being served in the South–well that’s because Jim Crow banned the serving of blacks, which was happening prior to Jim Crow. People punch at a government (legislation) when complaining about the anti-black South.

    The same is true for workplace. People complain “not enough blacks working, and we can’t afford to live on minimum wage”.
    When really it was racism that created minimum wage in the first place because black people were willing to work for lower wages than whites (AND WERE ACTUALLY MORE LIKELY TO BE EMPLOYED than comparable whites).

    No, Hitler won 41% of the vote against 6 primary people.
    Saddam was instituted BY the US.
    https://www.globalpolicy.org/iraq-conflict-the-historical-background-/us-and-british-support-for-huss-regime.html
    Putin is a dirty guy, but he is INCREDIBLY popular with Russians.

  • $144948586

    I think that’s called authoritarianism, but I could be wrong.

  • $144948586

    “People who believe the ideas that you listed in your third paragraph cannot be expected to make decisions based on facts and evidence and it is hard for me to discuss topics with people who don’t rely on them.”
    Alright Nick, this is your prejudice coming through. These institutions were, CONFIRMED, to have used government power to intimidate political opponents.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy
    “In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) revealed that it had selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status for intensive scrutiny based on their names or political themes.”
    That’s called fascism.

  • Chuck Johnson

    “Publicly congratulating, huh?”

    Yes, that is what you are up to.
    Boasting is another way to put it.

  • Bones

    Every society including pre-christian has laws against murder.

    Laws are for protecting people not enforcing morality.

  • Bones

    Civil rights wasnt an issue until the gays were given them.

    Now you’ve gone all antigovernment apeshit.

  • Bones

    No. Like you, shes wrong.

    Interesting how not baking a cake is a sign of your christianity but saving lives isnt.

  • $144948586

    I’ll take that as an admission that we didn’t need civil rights law, thanks.

  • Bones

    Thanks for proving why we hate your religion.

  • Bones

    What was that caiaphas.

    Srill puffing yourself up?

    2000 years later and you type are still playingvthe game.

  • Bones

    Actually because you say you can see, your sin remains.

    Someone said that about you types.

  • Bones

    Your behaviour and religion is the most vulfar thing on this site.

  • Bones

    How sad that you dont have a life but have ro seek people out to attack them for not having your religion.

    Do something useful with your life.

  • Bones

    Yes you types are.

  • Bones

    Yes, you are.

    Are you happy now that you’ve confirmed your religion is a hateful piece of sanctimonious bs by your own behaviour.

    You do great work for atheists.

    Well done!

  • Bones

    Lol…keep posting so we can see how hateful your religion is.

  • Bones

    Yes you are.

    You really are pathetic.

  • Bones

    Apparently we don’t now because the gays have civil rights.

    Your denial of the history of persecution by white conservative males of others is duly noted and unsurprising.

    Maybe you should get a job.

  • Bones

    Lol…we you’ve presented such a wonderful witness to your religion that most on here have blockef upu.

    I havent.

    I like the laughs.

  • $144948586

    I haven’t denied any kind of History such as that, but I do know that you called them conservatives which they weren’t. They were Dixie Democrats. That is, they voted Democrat.

    Besides, cruel treatment doesn’t need to be defined by governments. You can have Law and Order without governments. In fact, governments are often the cause of cruel punishment and persecution. You know, like that whole South thing that you keep saying was conservative.

  • Bones

    Democrats were male white conservatives derp.

    Your denial of the need for civil rights (to protect people from other people) is a result of civil rights being granted to gay people.

  • Bones

    Actually they were forced to work.

    Some mills were surrounded by barbed wire to stop kids escaping. And kids who escaped factories were beaten, sent back to their master and shackled and in some cases imprisoned. Potential runaways were placed in irons.

    Parish apprentices which made up one third of the cotton work force in england werent even paid and as parents stopped letting their kids work in dangerous textiles, owners bought whole orphanages. These children were bought and sold as property of the owner.

    Not only were they working in disgraceful conditions but sent to war as well. It was the Factory Act which improved working conditions.

    We fixed all this with public schooling and welfare which you hate.

    You have to be pretty sick today to defend the use of child labour.

    You’re the one who pisses on dead kids graves in the name of capitalism.

    You are utterly shameful.

    Your whole argument has been showed to be based on fallacy.

    Not only did capitalists fight every child labour law, they couldnt be bothered following them when introduced.

    Thats your own argument.

  • Bones

    Conservative logic – not baking a gay person a cake = Christianity…..giving someone water to save their life – nothing to do with Christianity

  • kaydenpat

    Giving the wrong people water is a crime punishable by a prison sentence. Yet you have people arguing that this is a Christian country. Doesn’t sound Christ-like to me.

  • Questioning

    Yes, you have said quite enough. Move along now….

  • JD

    Is that what you want? To be able to discriminate based on mythologies even if it breaks the law?

  • Bones

    Lol….amazing how the biggest snowflake here had to come on to this site to have a sook about how bad everyone here is and resorts to childish insults when his bs is called out.

  • Questioning

    Glad you agree. There is not much Christian witness to be found anywhere in these comments, especially your own. You fit right in. Aren’t you glad you started all this childish babble just because you happen to disagree with this author. I suspect you will not be satisfied until you have one more last word, hysterical, devoid of substance, petty, childish comeback comment. Go ahead try and prove me wrong.

  • Bones

    If you break the law in your domain such as neglect or abuse your kids, the influence of the government will be ‘yuge’.

  • $144948586

    No I dont want people to discriminate, but i do want people to have the right.
    This by the way is a much different topic than persecution; in the baker case the only one being persecuted is the baker for the exercise of his faith who took no ones freedom….same with Scot Warren, but youve got a forked tongue to call one persecution and the other not…probably because you are the persecutor of the baker.

  • $144948586

    I dont need the government to tell me what child abuse is and that it is wrong.

  • $144948586

    They used governmeny to enforce Jim crow, not a conservative act. Derp.

  • Bones

    You do it and the government will take your kids away and put you in jail.

    Their influence will be ‘ yuge’…..and then you can sook about your rights.

  • D.M.S.

    You’ll like this. I don’t beleave in religion

  • $144948586

    Again, I already know it’s wrong. I love my children, and I try to love the world. So I don’t need them to define it.

    Regardless, this argument doesn’t prove anything. I also recognize my kids have a right to pursue happiness as well, abuse would definitely get in the way of that. Next.

  • Bones

    Jim Crow was conservative law derp….

    The Democrat South were conservatives.

    “The American South had a long tradition of electing conservative Democrats to office, including in Presidential elections until they broke from the Democrats in 1964 to vote for Barry Goldwater, the Republican nominee. From 1948 to the 1970s an even more conservative wing of the party, mostly from the South, was called “Dixiecrats”. This Dixiecrat wing of the party has been essentially defunct since the 1970s, when the House contingent was led by the late Joe Waggonner of Louisiana. A few former Dixiecrats, including Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms, were early converts to the Republican Party, foreshadowing a long trend of conservatives leaving the Democrats and joining the Republicans that continued through the 1980s and 1990s.”

    “The republicans were a new party in Lincoln’s day. They were a conglomeration of various northern former Whig constituencies and people that wanted to develop the west that coalesced due to issues surrounding slavery. Generally speaking, they retained a lot of the older Whig economic views that the government should be involved in the economy. It should promote policies that promote growth, they thought. That meant financing infrastructure, education, protecting native industries, policies that promoted commerce and rapid job growth. They did believe in more federal involvement in all these things, and it cost money. They were the forward looking, innovative party, and also vaguely speaking they were the “big government” party and had policies that promoted big banks, big industry, big business.”

    “The democrats were the more tradition-minded party. They were also the party focused on keeping taxes low and when it came to promoting commerce, etc… wanted to leave it to the states. Generally speaking, they were the “states’ rights” party.”

    “The shift started after the Civil War and continued for over 135 years. After the civil war, the republicans started to split into factions generally divided between how deep “in bed” you got with big business, so they developed a conservative business wing often at odds with with the more progressive wing. The democrats pretty much stayed the states rights party and were marginalized at the national level for several decades.”

  • $144948586

    “These children were bought and sold as property of the owner.”

    For the record, governments have done this with people for millenia. That’s not a capitalist problem. Next.

    “You have to be pretty sick today to defend the use of child labour.”
    You have to be pretty sick to desire children born in poverty to be lifelong poor and spend their teens years in prostitution or drug distribution–which is quite common in third world nation’s, because farming isn’t a viable alternative.

    I’m guessing your data is this.
    https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/articles/teaching-content/history-child-labor/
    Again, the vast majority of the kids described here were on family farms–the VAST majority.
    That being said, governments have still put many more kids in to forced labor, and particularly poor oppressive governments have given rise to factional armies that employ child soldiers and horribly disfigure them.

    Again, it took less than 100 years in the U.S. for children to be unnecessary in the workforce–but after millenia, governments STILL enslave children.

    Of course, you know I don’t defend such actions, and selling kids to work is infringement upon a child’s rights.

    But, again, governments do this in much larger scale.

  • $144948586

    “Jim Crow was conservative law derp….”
    By definition it isn’t.

  • JD

    If they broke the law then they deserve the punishment. Why is that so difficult to comprehend?

  • Matthew

    Yes … I meant the thirst of the people trying to cross the border.

  • Matthew

    Conservatives is the answer Ron :-)

  • otrotierra

    Bones, thank you again for educating Josh, SamHamilton, and Eva. Simple facts are deeply troubling to them, as their comment histories reveal. Truth will always be preferable to their self-serving intellectual and spiritual sloth:

  • Why do you not believe the bakers refusing to serve a gay couple’s wedding is practicing their faith?

    Because the Bible is nothing if not clear. If a man lays with another man as with a woman, you’re not supposed to deny them a wedding cake. You’re supposed to throw large rocks at their heads until they die. Where is it written that God appreciates half measures? If he wanted cakes to be denied, he’d have said so.

  • It’s almost like ‘conservative’ meant something different then than it does now.

    I guarantee you if you sat Edmund Burke down with any self-labeling American conservative today, he would recognize approximately nothing from his theories in evidence.

  • Ron McPherson

    Maybe you don’t need it but others clearly do. So do you feel govt has no right to intervene when a parent abuses their own kid on their own property?

  • Ron McPherson

    My grandfather and great grandfather (God rest their souls) were southern democrats. If alive today, they wouldn’t recognize the Democratic Party and would be horrified to be associated with its platform lol. In other words, the Dems and GOPs (in the south) in many ways have switched places.

  • $144948586

    Ron the natural laws of a child are a legitimate thing too. Abuse is wrong.
    Law and order can exist eithout government.

  • $144948586

    Cake shop owner labels himself as Christian, but Corey wouldnt clap it that. Thats why he says scott warren was “practicing his faith.”

  • $144948586

    Fine. Warren deserved jail then.

  • Ron McPherson

    Check out the Nasser abuse scandal. The Penn St abuses. Numbers of people knew about the rampant abuses in those instances and did nothing. People who know of abuses going on in the homes of their neighbors but ‘don’t want to butt in or get involved.’ People in authority in churches who abuse, or churches that blame the female victims rather than their male perpetrators. I say thank God for govt intervention in these instances. If left up to certain ‘communities’ to cure their own ills, the abuse may never stop.

  • Phil Teichroew

    No thanks for “publicly congratulating” me or boasting about me!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Your hypocrisy & foolishness is too funny!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Your self description is most likely correct!

  • Phil Teichroew

    How hateful your atheism is?
    Typical Godless & liberal jargon!

  • D.M.S.

    That’s because you’re lost to the world. You’re just to intellectual to realize it.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Never met an ‘atheist’ who didn’t acknowledge God & you’re NO exception!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Stoned?

  • Phil Teichroew

    What ‘religion’ is that?
    My life does NOT revolve around this (as it does for you) or exist here, that’s for sure!

  • D.M.S.

    You’re doing a fine job representing our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus amongst most of these heathens.
    Blessings.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Vulfar?
    From your ‘Atheist’ dictionary?

  • Phil Teichroew

    ???
    I really think you drink very heavily or you’re still in junior high…

  • Phil Teichroew

    Is a drunkard worthy of a reply?

  • Phil Teichroew

    What ‘religion’ is that?
    I thought ‘atheists’ try to convince themselves that there is no God or ‘religion’?

  • Phil Teichroew

    Thank you for your affirmation & moving along!

  • Phil Teichroew

    You finally came to your senses & admitted it?
    You might work on your writing before commenting further though?

  • Phil Teichroew

    Sorry you have chosen to ALWAYS respond with childhood babble!
    Proving you right…
    Delighted? Hope so.

  • D.M.S.

    What is the church?

  • D.M.S.

    Christians are NOT to celebrate others peoples sins.
    Are you aware of that fact,dry bones?

  • Ron McPherson

    Aren’t you the one who is supposed to be showing everybody here the “real Jesus?”

  • Phil Teichroew

    You show them, Ron!
    They’re much more in tune with & appeased by you.

  • Matthew

    zzzzzzzzzzzzz …

  • Ron McPherson

    You were the one, friend, not me, claiming those on here don’t know the real Jesus

  • Bones

    Masterpiece Cakeshop, Colorado Bakery, Agrees To ‘Dog Wedding’ Cake Despite Turning Away Gays

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/05/masterpiece-cakeshop-gay-dog-experiment-_n_3392013.html

  • Bones

    They were conservatives, derp, a lot like you.

  • Bones

    Yes, in Josh’s world the turpins and Nasser’s can keep doing it forever.

  • Adrienne Doyle

    There’s also those 13 children who were basically tortured by their sperm donor and incubator, as I refuse to call them parents. As they were “homeschoolers” who called themselves “Christian,” they were allowed to continue the abuse until one of the children managed to escape.

  • Bones

    Thankfully the government didn’t get involved to deny these parents the right to abuse their children.

  • Bones

    Poor Phil is having a meltdown because no one believes his super Christian act.

    Someone get me a mop to wipe him up.

  • Bones

    Lol sure you do….

    That’s why your opening salvo on here was to condemn most of the posters.

    Derpaderpaderpa derp.

  • Bones

    For the record, they were bought and sold by capitalists.

    That was a capitalist problem.

    Children don’t have to work because of government welfare which you hate spending your tax dollars on.

    Much better for you if children are slaves to corporate interests to feed their impoverished parents.

    It is you who pisses and dances on the graves of dead children to defend capitalist behaviour.

    And many children were employed in dangerous occupations in mills, mines and factories.

    And yes they were beaten and many escaped.

    No wonder you want to ignore that and concentrate on farms.

  • Bones

    Every parent says that.

    You wouldn’t be the first to think their right to gratification overrrules your children’s.

    Next: is the parent being tried and children removed.

  • Bones

    Yeah we’ve been over this bs before. Yourbeleifs are just a fundamentalist extremist version of Christianity….like ISIS is of Islam.

    ie a religion

  • D.M.S.

    Yes, I’m born again….Christ Jesus comes before my mother and dad, before my siblings, before my son and daughter, before my spouse and Christ Jesus comes before me.
    Peace.

  • Bones

    Btw most of those ‘illegals’ are Christians…..

    But they’re Mexican…..

  • Bones

    No.

    Your religion is entirely in your head.

    Let’s see….

    “Allah comes before my mother and dad, before my siblings, before my son and daughter, before my spouse and Allah comes before me.”

    All of a sudden your religion isn’t so special.

  • Bones

    Giving thirsty people a drink of water has nothing to do with Christianity….but denying gay people a cake is Christianity.

    I wonder why people like myself leave Christianity…..

  • $144948586

    “You wouldn’t be the first to think their right to gratification overrrules your children’s.”
    I never made such a sick claim.

  • $144948586

    Bones, to what system are you comparing?

    I’d say it was pretty abusive that kids had to turn toward cannibalism in Stalinist Russia; that children were gassed in Germany; that kids come out of high school and suffer the highest suicide rates ever, in the most accepting and greatest welfare state that’s ever existed; that foreign kids are victims of western foreign policy in places such as the Middle East.

    “And many children were employed in dangerous occupations in mills, mines and factories.”
    Now you’re no longer speaking in totals. I already gave you the sources that can show you: the vast majority of those reported were employed on FAMILY farms. Comparatively smaller are those who worked in mills. And even more small were those beaten and interned at labor camps as you describe. And in less than 100 years, children laborers were leaving the workforce. The catch: they weren’t returning to farms, but instead were becoming some of the first children to have what one might describe as childhood because they didn’t have to.

    I gave you all of those links. Please, continue being dishonest in the name of millions (way more than the number of kids you’re talking about) that were the victims of government. That is quite abusive.

    “That was a capitalist problem.”
    You can call it what you want, but it isn’t capitalism. Capitalism is a voluntary system of exchange, by definition.
    It was a greed problem, absolutely. But that system is not described by capitalism. As explained, one of the central characteristics of capitalism is “private property”. By definition, one’s self, even as a child, is private property. The abuse of this is, then not a respecting of private property and is thus not private property.

    This is the problem with the way you argue, Bones. You like to call capitalism what it isn’t, and you like to call conservatism what it isn’t, just because you have heard people use those terms pejoratively to describe those who they deem responsible for other person’s sufferings. So when some profit-seeker uses government, you call it “capitalism”–but it’s not. It’s “crony-capitalism”, which is a progressive pejorative that really means “fascist”–it’s also ironic, because it’s progressives who use government, and the richest men in the world thoroughly use government funds for their R&D–think Facebook, Microsoft, Koch–jury is still out Amazon, though I suspect they do too. the irony: the majority of the top billionaires are leftist in politic–they are progressive.
    In addition, conservatism is definitionally not a grower of government–generally favors shrinking it. Republicanism is not the same as conservatism, and I grant this. But, when you denounce me as a conservative and call me “Trump supporter” in various derogation, all you’re doing is continuing in your dishonesty. It’s not Christian; it’s certainly not a person loving truth.

    Here. Here is the Mises article:
    https://mises.org/library/child-labor-amendment-debate-1920s-0

  • $144948586

    So, I take it you believe Scott Warren’s faith is more legitimate than Masterpiece Cakeshop Owner’s faith.
    Way to be a supremacist; fortunately, we have a government whose built on the principle of showing no favoritism. Unfortunately, this government fails to abides by it’s own laws, because they believe like you and Corey:
    One faith is more important than another’s faith.

    Congratulations.

  • $144948586

    3lemonope, if people saw the Bible as “nothing if not clear”, then there wouldn’t be multiple denominations, Protestants, Catholics, Messianic Jews, great apostasy-denominations, etc.

    Any other discussion of who is right is your judgment on whose faith is “more legitimate” in the sight of the law.
    Talk about supremacy, and talk about the failure to uphold freedom of religion.

  • $144948586

    “Check out the Nasser abuse scandal. The Penn St abuses.”
    Lol, number 1 is an UNITED STATES competition.
    Number 2 is a PUBLIC UNIVERSITY.

    ” People in authority in churches who abuse, or churches that blame the female victims rather than their male perpetrators.”
    This is fair.

    “I say thank God for govt intervention in these instances. If left up to certain ‘communities’ to cure their own ills, the abuse may never stop.”
    Oh yeah, you thank God for this kind of intervention?
    https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/07/in-a-year-child-protective-services-conducted-32-million-investigations/374809/

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=biggest+failures+of+cps

  • I didn’t say the whole text was clear. I said that that provision was. And I’m right. It is basically impossible to read a rule that says “throw rocks at someone till they die” and get out of it “refuse them service in certain commercial situations”. What you are arguing for is not religious freedom, but an infinitely flexible shield for defending bigotry in the guise of religion. People who use religion as a tool to indulge their personal foibles are thoroughly pathetic.

  • Phil Teichroew

    And they do?
    And they’re truly saved, daily repentant, living accordingly & headed to Heaven?

  • Phil Teichroew

    Never poor, Dry Bones! Fully rich in Spirit!
    Living for Eternity, which will be the greatest, richest, blessed experience EVER!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Sorry I don’t speak your language!

    John 3:17…

  • $144948586

    I’ll put it back at you:
    It is basically impossible to read a rule that says “Obey the government, for God is the one who has put it there. ” and get out of it “aid illegal immigrants even when the government calls it illegal” or “litter on public lands when it’s illegal”–which is the least of which Scott Warren was doing, which he is doing..

  • Does the rule say “Obey the government, no matter what they order you to do or refrain from doing”?

    No. No it does not.

  • $144948586

    “Does the rule say “Obey the government, no matter what they order you to do or refrain from doing”?”

    It says to obey the government, 3lemenope.

    I’m open to discussion on this issue, BUT you’ve got to be open to discussing your former statement. We might be defending bigotry, but it should be one’s right to be bigoted, even if it’s idiotic–which it is.

    Being bigoted ISN’T the same as persecuting or oppressing someone. Cakeshop didn’t violate anyone’s rights EXCEPT in the sight of government. But really, government did not uphold Cakeshop owners freedom of religion to do what he feels right with his skills. You might say, “Well, it’s illegal to discriminate.” I say, “Yes, that’s what the law says, BUT the law also says not to help illegal immigrants [EVEN in the name of religion].”

    You see, anti-discrimination laws in this case fail to protect Cakeshop’s freedom of religion to use HIS services as HE sees fit.
    But, immigration laws should, thusly, fail to protect Scott Warren’s freedom of religion to us HIS services as HE sees fit.

    It’s that simple. They’re both clearly persecution of religion….your the one believing one is holier than the other and actually worthy of state protection–you’re a persecutor, ironic ain’t it?

  • They’re both clearly persecution of religion

    No. Neither are anything of the sort. Corey had a nice flight of rhetorical fancy where he turned the ol’ conservative “I’m oppressed because I can’t discriminate against the gays!” saw inside out, but the reality is that neither is an example of oppression, just examples of laws that conflict with actions that individuals feel they should take because of their understanding of their religion that their religion, nonetheless, does not command.

    Cakeshop didn’t violate anyone’s rights EXCEPT in the sight of government.

    Because gay people aren’t people? Because two gay men filed the complaint, so at least two people disagree with your armchair assessment that nothing was violated except some government regulation of no human consequence. In reality that number is far higher; it’s easy to see being denied publicly offered services due to prejudice is wrong and laws exist to that end because legislative majorities were convinced that the law can provide a remedy, unless you are desperate not to see it.

    your the one believing one is holier than the other

    I’m an atheist, so I laugh at claims to “holiness”. But one is leaning on their religion to be vicious to customers, while the other is doing so to justify saving lives. You have to be very morally confused to put them on the same ethical level. Your only recourse in this argument is to note, correctly, that both acts are *illegal* and so the law should treat them similarly. But one is, indeed, obviously wrong and the other is at least arguably right.

  • $144948586

    Oh hey Bones, about those children working dangerous jobs at mills, mines and factories:

    You wrote this earlier:
    “Parish apprentices which made up one third of the cotton work force in
    england werent even paid and as parents stopped letting their kids work
    in dangerous textiles, owners bought whole orphanages. ”

    Who do you think owned the orphanages? The government. Therefore, IT WAS THE GOVERNMENT AGAIN who endangered these children.

    From Mises.org,
    “Parish children were under the direct authority of government officials.”
    “Fortunately for businessmen willing to use the State to their advantage,
    government had no qualms about sending parish children to work under
    running machines”
    https://mises.org/library/legal-child-abuse

    Once again, your punching at government.

    “The Poor Law replaced outdoor relief (subsidies and handouts) with “poor
    houses” in which pauper children were virtually imprisoned. There, the
    conditions were made purposely harsh to discourage people from applying.
    Virtually every parish in Britain had abandoned workhouse children who,
    being bought and sold to factories, experienced the deepest horrors of
    child labor. In this, the workhouses were merely continuing a practice
    common before the Poor Laws. ”

    “It is no coincidence that the first industrial novel published in Britain was Michael Armstrong: Factory Boy by
    Frances Trollope. Michael was apprenticed to an agency for pauper
    children. Nor is it coincidence that “Oliver Twist” was not abused by
    his parents, but by brutal workhouse officials”

    “Thus, in advocating the regulation of child labor, social reformers
    asked government to remedy abuses for which it was largely responsible.
    Once more, government was “a disease masquerading as its own cure.””

    “The only real protections children can enjoy are the family structure
    and their ability to be self-sufficient.”
    https://mises.org/library/legal-child-abuse

    Once again, that’s how you destroy an argument.

  • $144948586

    “does not command.”
    Then obviously the cakeshop owner’s faith is not the same as that of the Christian faith you have in mind though it shares the same name….thus you are not in a place to judge his religion…you supremacist, you.

    “the reality is that neither is an example of oppression”
    Then why are you arguing with me? Corey argued that one of these is and the other isn’t. I’ve merely pointed at him saying you can’t call one oppressive without calling the other one oppressive. Next.

    In response to not violating rights: “Because gay people aren’t people?”
    No, because Cakeshop owner wasn’t preventing them from buying a cake elsewhere. He was merely denying what should be his right (because it’s his ingredients, his skills, HIS BUSINESS–do I need to draw you a map?)

    “You have to be very morally confused to put them on the same ethical level.”
    Whoa whoa, I’ve never said I’m putting them on the same ethical level. I’m saying that they are both freedom’s of religion are being violated–any extra we have to say about what is right and wrong is a value judgment that constitutes our faith/belief/religion in the matter. It’s just as valid as theirs IN THE EYES OF THE LAW.

    As an atheist, you should, because it’s the only viable option, adopt libertarianism (the belief that one has, at a minimum, the right to one’s self). If your some kind of socialist/marxist, then I can tell you: you’re not an atheist. You might worship humanity, but you’re not an atheist.

    At a minimum, people must be respected as individuals–there’s no “collective” that has meaning in atheism. Thus, you should be able to see that the gay couple ought have no right to purchase a cake from someone who doesn’t want to sell a cake to them….after all, it is that person’s talent and can anything else be so private?

  • Matthew

    Come back Bones …

  • Then obviously the cakeshop owner’s faith is not the same as that of the Christian faith you have in mind though it shares the same name.

    Words mean things. Christian, if it means anything, at least means “following the example of Christ as revealed in the OT/NT”, wherein cakes and the not-making-them-for-certain-people never comes up, nor any analogous rule. Modern conservative Christians made up this “religious conviction” to discriminate in public accommodations from whole cloth, and nobody is obligated to respect their assertion as meritorious or worthy of consideration.

    thus you are not in a place to judge his religion

    You clearly don’t think people should judge the merits of the claims of other people’s religion, but that’s just your opinion. And I would argue, a problematic one, since you’re backing yourself into the corner of requiring that people automatically be treated as they claim to be; a mass murderer who kills in the name of God would be a Christian in good standing if they claimed that their Christian faith led them to kill, according to the rule you are proposing here. I think human beings can use a modicum of reasoning and compare the purported beliefs and acts of a believer and the texts and teachings of the believer’s religion to see if there are any similarities, and if there are not, to laugh at the claim of belief.

    Then why are you arguing with me?

    Because you’re wrong about everything else.

    For example:

    No, because Cakeshop owner wasn’t preventing them from buying a cake elsewhere. He was merely denying what should be his right (because it’s his ingredients, his skills, HIS BUSINESS–do I need to draw you a map?)

    Yeah, draw me a map. On this map, put the hotel and restaurant owners who refused to serve black people during segregation. Then, draw a straight line from that to this situation. See? A map of how your position is clearly unsupportable. Those hotel and restaurant owners weren’t preventing black people from staying or eating elsewhere either, “merely” denying their facilities and resources and labor. I just can’t figure how a person will defend the legal AND moral equivalent of segregation as soon as the victims change. What drives you to do so?

    As an atheist, you should, because it’s the only viable option, adopt libertarianism (the belief that one has, at a minimum, the right to one’s self). If your some kind of socialist/marxist, then I can tell you: you’re not an atheist. You might worship humanity, but you’re not an atheist.

    At a minimum, people must be respected as individuals–there’s no “collective” that has meaning in atheism.

    I don’t even know where to start with how wrong this paragraph is. As both an atheist and a political scientist by training, I find it difficult to conceive of a way to be more wrong on a topic than you are here. Suffice to say that when all your assumptions are wrong, your conclusion being wrong is practically a fait accompli.

  • $144948586

    “wherein cakes and the not-making-them-for-certain-people never comes up”
    Actually, it does come up in the personal convictions of a man who claims his faith informs it. It does come up.
    If people agreed on the Christ that is the same OT/NT, there’d be no Jews or Christian–there’d be Judeo Christian, there’d be no Messianic Jew, nor Catholic, nor Protestant etc etc.
    You just refuse to accept that this man believes his craft and use of it is an affirmation of things he believes are “OK with his faith”. It matters not if you think it is.

    “Modern conservative Christians made up this “religious conviction” to discriminate in public accommodations”
    Paranoia? Nobody sat around saying, “Let’s just teach our followers to claim ‘religious conviction’….” I’ve got family members who believe accepting a gift of other religion’s religious texts as tacit approval…there was no “ecumenical council” that determined this.

    “And I would argue, a problematic one, since you’re backing yourself into the corner of requiring that people automatically be treated as they claim to be; a mass murderer who kills in the name of God would be a Christian in good standing if they claimed that their Christian faith led them to kill,”
    This just isn’t true. Murder is a universal taboo throughout all cultures (except of course when government says it’s “OK”).

    I note also that you called me wrong but haven’t rejected my basic premise of the right to own one’s self.

    “put the hotel and restaurant owners who refused to serve black people during segregation.”
    Lol you mean government-enforced Jim Crow?

    The problem here is that restaurants WERE serving black people (no, not all of them, but enough of them)…in fact, BUSINESSES were serving black people AND PEOPLE WERE HIRING BLACK PEOPLE. This threatened white democrats, so they used their voting power to enforce Jim Crow as a government-sponsored tool for segregation!
    This is NOT the same as Cakeshop, one bakery in a cornucopia of bakeries, refusing to do a cake. It would only be that case you mention if the government began using the police to make sure gay folks couldn’t buy from anyone, ironic enough.

    Same story with racist minimum wage laws:

    “Before the ever-increasing minimum wage laws took effect, a black
    teenager was slightly more likely to be employed than a white teenager. Economist Walter Williams writes: “In the 1940s and 1950s … teenage unemployment among blacks was slightly lower than among whites, and black teens were more active in the labor force as well. All of my classmates, friends, and acquaintances who wanted to work found jobs of one sort or another.””
    https://www.creators.com/read/larry-elder/06/15/15-minimum-wage-women-blacks-hurt-most-

    “I just can’t figure how a person will defend the legal AND moral equivalent of segregation as soon as the victims change.”
    Because it’s dishonest to say that it is the moral equivalent, or to talk as though segregation was not DUE to government.
    It’s also immoral to force a man to do that which he doesn’t want to do.

    “As both an atheist and a political scientist by training, I find it
    difficult to conceive of a way to be more wrong on a topic than you are here”
    And yet nothing is provided in defense.
    How about you prove to me that you have the right to determine my actions, or that the collective has supremacy right over my actions which are not robbing another person of their liberties from an atheist perspective.
    As an atheist, I’d expect more than a pathetic “meh, you’re just so wrong that you’re wrong” defense. You sound like the friends I knew in my late teens-early 20’s who, for a moment, dabbled in light atheism: it sounds cool in a small town when you’re 19, but eventually you either gotta refine it, drop it, or wallow in a pathetic version of it that thinks Richard Dawkins actually provides a strong defense from biology.
    If I were to judge on your final retort: I probably dabbled further in atheism than you did, and I still believed in God. I at least gave it a viable chance AND STILL prefer to defend myself off of the basic premise that it must begin with. “I exist.” followed by “There are no consequences beyond this life.”
    From here, you can not get any collective good worth arguing for at the extent of your own–not anything that is definably imperative and incumbent upon any single human being to be done “for the collective”.
    Hence you can still argue things such as murder are wrong because naturally if you attack someone THEY ATTACK YOU BACK.

    One thing is for damn sure: that kind of response ain’t worth dying in.

  • Actually, it does come up in the personal convictions of a man who claims his faith informs it. It does come up.

    Right, their personal convictions. But personal convictions are not religious convictions unless they actually manage to align with a religious instruction. These don’t. By all means, chapter and verse if you have the super secret Bible that instructs shop owners to refuse service to gay people when/where they aren’t allowed to kill them.

    People can claim any damn thing they like. Nobody is required to take any claim on say-so alone.

    If people agreed on the Christ that is the same OT/NT, there’d be no Jews or Christian–there’d be Judeo Christian, there’d be no Messianic Jew, nor Catholic, nor Protestant etc etc.

    I never said there weren’t lots of areas in which believers could plausibly disagree given the ambiguities of the texts and the history of the religion. Heck, one of the most vicious and historically consequential arguments in the faith was almost literally over one iota. It’s just, this isn’t one of them, unless you are willing to argue that laws against killing gay people are themselves religious oppression. Actually, now that it comes to it, I ask: Do you believe that laws preventing the stoning of gay people are oppressive against Jews and Christians?

    No, this is simply a case of some modern Christians not knowing what to go do with themselves when told they can’t kill who their book tells them they ought to kill; not one jot nor tittle of that law passed away, right? And yet, being uncomfortable with a command to kill, Christians seem to want to head-fake in the direction of being mean to gay people without actually following any religious command whatsoever. If it weren’t for the fact that their desperation is to be inhumane to others, it would almost be pitiable.

    This just isn’t true. Murder is a universal taboo throughout all cultures (except of course when government says it’s “OK”).

    Or a deity, or a deity’s priests. Much like, um, I dunno, you are commanded to throw rocks at gay people’s heads till they die. The Bible commands murder as we moderns define it, quite a lot. Christians who find themselves in the unfortunate position of living in the modern world that has come to a consensus on murder being bad are stuck not being able to follow a whole bunch of commands, much like Jews being stuck not being able to follow any of the laws that pertain to the Jerusalem Temple simply because there isn’t one any more.

    Lol you mean government-enforced Jim Crow?

    So just to be clear, your objection to segregation is merely that some segregation was government-assisted? I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so you tell me. If a business owner wants to refuse to serve a black person because they are black, and if there is no Jim Crow government nexus, you would be in the business owner’s corner, defending his “right” to discriminate?

    If you answer yes, then at least you’re consistent. An evil person, but consistent.
    If you answer no, you need to carefully reexamine the position you’ve been defending thus far.

    Because it’s dishonest to say that it is the moral equivalent, or to talk as though segregation was not DUE to government.

    No, it is quite literally the moral equivalent. Your objection seems to be that racial segregation had an additional legal component. So, take that component away. Here you are, still defending the moral equivalent of segregation. And, BTW, the segregation may have been assisted by the government, but it was due to the hateful beliefs of bigoted individuals. Without a large number of people wanting it, it wouldn’t have existed.

    It’s also immoral to force a man to do that which he doesn’t want to do.

    Now, that’s a load of hooey. You deny that people can have duties or obligations? Can a person be obligated to pay their taxes? Show up for jury duty? Register for the Selective Service? Refrain from assaulting those that vex him? Drive on the correct side of the road? Obey the speed limit? Comply with a police officer’s instructions? Give truthful answers to official inquiries?

    It is not immoral to force a person to do what they don’t want, and in many cases it would be immoral not to. Since that is a dangerous power, most modern forms of government constrain the ability to force behaviors to certain types of action and certain circumstances, and carve out specific areas in which obligations may not be lain. It is a singular truth that societies are based on shared duties and mutual obligations amongst members, and all societies have mechanisms to enforce those duties and obligations. Your rhetoric has run away from reality.

    Now, the American plan of government carved out an exception for religious exercise. So, you evidently believe that as soon as someone takes a personal conviction and calls it religious it automatically places that conviction beyond the realm of the law to restrict insofar as that conviction leads to action. That’s a deeply silly approach that no less a conservative figure than Scalia gutted like a fish in EEOC v. Smith.

    How about you prove to me that you have the right to determine my actions, or that the collective has supremacy right over my actions which are not robbing another person of their liberties from an atheist perspective.

    The most basic problem is it’s a nonsense question, since atheism doesn’t entail any political beliefs whatsoever. Everything else you’ve said on that particular subject follows from your initial error in assuming that there are political entailments to atheism. I can’t *cure* you of errors that deep and basic in a blog comment section, as you are not likely to accept the correction from a hostile interlocutor, and honestly it is not my duty to do so; the error is so basic you could remedy it yourself with a bit of google and an open mind, and at some point a person should take responsibility for the accuracy of their basic assumptions.

  • Ron McPherson

    I don’t get how govt with you must somehow be a zero sum game. If certain parts fail, that must mean the whole institution is evil and demonic (even the functions that rescue).

  • Ron McPherson

    Well that’s between them and God, right? YOU were the one charging on here claiming “they” knew little about Jesus as if you were going to show everybody here the real thing.

  • Bones

    Why?

    When not giving a cake to gay people is christianity whereas saving lives isnt, christianity can f### off.

  • Matthew

    Good point, but then again not all Christians, or forms of Christianity, are the same. I know you already know this, though.

  • Bones

    Most orphanages were run by charities, churches and volunteers.

    Thats your our utopia.

    And well done for pointing out how capitalism abyses regulations.

    Your right.

    You destroyed your own argument.

    Well done.

    But we have welfare now so little kids dont have to work.
    Isnt that great?

    Btw the Poor Law Amendment was a reaction to conservatives complaining they were being taxed too much.

  • Bones

    Of course not.

    You have your own cult.

  • Bones

    Living for eternity with you would be hell.

    I’d rather not exist.

  • Bones

    Wtf are you going on about?

    Its the hypocrisy of someone who would bake a cake for a dog wedding and not gays.

    And he broke the law.

    Get the f### over it.

    You cant discriminate against people no matter how much you rant and rave.

    The only supremacists are yourself and the bigots you defend.

  • Bones

    Yes you’ve made up your own definitions of basically everything.

    Conservatism is a political and social philosophy promoting traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization. The central tenets of conservatism include tradition, human imperfection, organic society, hierarchy and authority and property rights.

    Hence the name to conserve.

    The very first conservatives were monarchists.

    This must be the US type of bs.

    And yeah it was capitalists who defied child labour laws at every turn.

    Capitalism is an economic system based upon private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets.

    You need to go and brush up on your political and evonomic understandings because youve been shown to not have a clue.

    Let alone about history

  • Bones

    Im sure the turpins and nassers said the same.

    What would you do if your children were abused ny someome else?

    Call your church?

  • Ron McPherson

    Pastor at our church won’t even use the term “Christian” anymore. He says “Christ followers” now. ‘Christianity’ has such a negative perception. Much of it here in America looks nothing like authentic Christianity was in the first century. Many just think it means going to church, standing for the national anthem, voting Republican, believing a certain doctrine, looking at LGBT as less than human, claiming pro “life” and keeping Muslims out of the country. It looks almost nothing like Jesus and the gospel he preached.

  • Ron McPherson

    You beautifully articulated the issue here! By the way, I’m a Christian lol, but you nailed it.

  • D.M.S.

    No they are not….

  • D.M.S.

    No they are not.

  • Ron McPherson

    I can’t understand what’s so hard to understand about human decency lol

  • $144948586

    Because evil is the definition of being imperfect Ron. Its full of compromise, something Christians are not called to do especially with regards to the rights of others.
    Government is just imperfect on a particularly large scale as many despot victims can attest, including Middle Easterners and immigrants.

    The functions that rescue can exist outside of government, and, eithout armies and policemen, they dont force compulsion. Therefore the people involved are merely voluntary; this, unlole government, does basically guarantees the need to be a beneficial entity to society and to cut programs that fail.

    Its not a zero sum game, Ron. Government fails at everything. If you dont except growing debts for welfare systems as a sign of failure (though it certainly is for any household), then it’s only a matter of time until th witness the horrific suffering that will occur when defaults come in wake of rising interest rates…and at that point the failed welfare systems that seek to do good will cease to be able to.

    In a voluntary system these failured would’ve already been replaced and would have never failed on so grand a scale.

  • $144948586

    “Most orphanages were run by charities, churches and volunteers.”
    Doubtful. And these aren’t the ones forcing paupers into factories. It was businesses contracting for chold labor with State representatives.
    Again, being dishonest.

  • $144948586

    Probably what anyone would do: kill them in rage.

    But again, my kids would preferably only be under those whom I’d know and desire for them. Not those theyre forced to see 8 to 3 each day fall to spring.

  • D.M.S.

    Christians are ‘ NOT ‘ to celebrate people’s sins…..

  • $144948586

    “The very first conservatives were monarchists.”
    The very first conservatives were anarchists as this was more traditional than monarchy.

    “And yeah it was capitalists who defied child labour laws at every turn.”
    No it was capitalists who first relied upon family agreement in voluntary exchange to use child labor (so these kids who wouldve been working in fields for dirt poor income would not have to die in those fields when they were old).
    Then governments sold orphans to the most horrid of working conditions because parents would rarely voluntarily allow there kids to work those jobs. Capitalists which you admit is based upon voluntarism would not consent to the involuntary slave labor of children; these werr exploiters who, lo and behold, lined the pockets of the government officials who sold the children.

    You can call them what you want, but thats not capitalism; its enslavement and courtesy of government.

  • $144948586

    “But personal convictions are not religious convictions unless they actually manage to align with a religious instruction. These don’t.”
    Some Christians were conscientious objectors in Vietnam. Some not. Only one stance in Christianity is actually true and aligns with religious instruction. The US honored both.
    My mother-in-law is Messianic Jew. She feels so strongly against pork that she thought it worthy of judgement that she refused to add canadian bacon to my son’s pizza. I think it’s ridiculous, but is it her right to do something (or not do) that she thinks is important? Absolutely.
    A significant portion of “white evangelicals”, as otro likes to call it, believe that to serve in the purpose of a gay wedding is giving approval to gays getting married–something they’d deem gravely sinful.

    “I never said there weren’t lots of areas in which believers could
    plausibly disagree given the ambiguities of the texts and the history of
    the religion.”
    Easy fella, you also said, “Christian, if it means anything, at least means “following the example of Christ as revealed in the OT/NT””
    Each of the protestant groups, anglicans, episcopalians, eastern orthodox, roman catholic, mormon and jw are all considered by most to be Christian groups, BUT they believe in significantly (maybe not to you but to them at least) different “examples of Christ as revealed in the OT/NT” and in some case, apocrypha (jewish and catholic) and New NT in the case of mormons.

    That being said:
    “It’s just, this isn’t one of them”
    If this were true, we’d not be disagreeing on this very topic. Significant numbers of “white evangelicals” believe this.

    “Do you believe that laws preventing the stoning of gay people are oppressive against Jews and Christians?”
    No, because I believe that Jews and Christians (even under “command” of God) don’t have any more legitimate right to murder, BECAUSE each human owns himself–in this vain, one only, justly, deserves murder IF they have murdered…and even then this is only justly at the judgment of the victim’s closest family.

    “The Bible commands murder as we moderns define it, quite a lot.”
    Yet, as Corey would argue (and has), the genocidal statements in the OT don’t seem to have factual basis (at least not discovered) in history.

    “So just to be clear, your objection to segregation is merely that some segregation was government-assisted?”
    No, I’m saying segregation was dissolving naturally until government stepped in to violently reinforce it.

    “If a business owner wants to refuse to serve a black person because they
    are black, and if there is no Jim Crow government nexus, you would be
    in the business owner’s corner, defending his “right” to discriminate?”
    That depends. Lawfully, yes I’d be in there corner. Any man can go to hell the way they want to.

    Since my answer in this case is “yes”, you continue:

    “then at least you’re consistent. An evil person, but consistent.”
    It doesn’t make me evil to say a person doesn’t have to serve anyone he doesn’t want any more than than it does me saying that the Hatfield’s have to have the McCoy’s over for a family potluck.
    It’s their food, their gathering, their effort. They don’t have to have anyone over whom they deem “the enemy”.

    “Your objection seems to be that racial segregation had an additional legal component.”
    Racial segregation was dissolving without the legal component. This is fact, and this was the impetus for Jim Crow and minimum wage.

    “Here you are, still defending the moral equivalent of segregation.”
    No I’m not. It’s no more the moral equivalent of segregation (to defend a man’s right to discriminate) any more than:
    A person’s right to color with any color he wants AND the right to not color with any color he doesn’t want. It’s only the moral equivalent of segregation if this person’s refusal to color with brown means that no one can color with brown. The right to refuse brown is not the same as exclusion of brown.

    “And, BTW, the segregation may have been assisted by the government, but
    it was due to the hateful beliefs of bigoted individuals.”
    Get back on topic. I’ve not said bigotry doesn’t exist. It does exist, and to the extent that I can utilize my rights to stop it, I will preach that we should extend inclusion (even of the excluders at the table, another hypocritical Corey article) to every one. BUT my rights stop at forcing other people to include people they’d rather exclude.

    “Without a large number of people wanting it, it wouldn’t have existed.”
    Fun fact: without government neither would have Jim Crow or minimum wage.

    To my statement:
    “It’s also immoral to force a man to do that which he doesn’t want to do.”
    You say, “Now, that’s a load of hooey.”
    And this is called authoritarianism. How ironic.

    “You deny that people can have duties or obligations? Can a person be
    obligated to pay their taxes? Show up for jury duty? Register for the
    Selective Service? Refrain from assaulting those that vex him? Drive on
    the correct side of the road? Obey the speed limit? Comply with a police
    officer’s instructions? Give truthful answers to official inquiries?”
    Here’s more irony: we are COERCED by force to do the things you’ve listed.

    “It is not immoral to force a person to do what they don’t want”
    Authoritarianism.

    “most modern forms of government constrain the ability to force behaviors to certain types of action and certain circumstances”
    Lol through violence. Authoritarianism.

    “It is a singular truth that societies are based on shared duties and
    mutual obligations amongst members, and all societies have mechanisms to
    enforce those duties and obligations.”
    Not one person has agreed to these through voluntary contract. Authoritarianism.

    “So, you evidently believe that as soon as someone takes a personal
    conviction and calls it religious it automatically places that
    conviction beyond the realm of the law to restrict insofar as that
    conviction leads to action.”
    Insofar as it doesn’t violate the natural rights of a person, absolutely. (And no, their natural rights to buy a cake weren’t violated).

    “The most basic problem is it’s a nonsense question, since atheism doesn’t entail any political beliefs whatsoever.”
    I didn’t make a political argument.

    “as you are not likely to accept the correction from a hostile interlocutor”
    Actually, I accepted the correction of a “hostile interlocutor” in this very forum when I hoped in minarchism, and he was an anarchist. Changed my life; His name was JD. I wrote a prayer for him that I keep in my phone and look at and recite from time to time. Governments have failed us, and their support will fail Christianity.
    I gave you are golden opportunity to make your case, and you resign to “you wouldn’t accept it.”
    Talk about sincerity.

    “the error is so basic you could remedy it yourself with a bit of google
    and an open mind, and at some point a person should take responsibility
    for the accuracy of their basic assumptions.”
    It is statements like this that make me question you’re sincerity. It also makes me think you’re not an atheist but a worshiper of humanity. I’m willing to bet that you *think* you’re a Marxist, and I’m willing to bet that you *think* you’re some hotshot atheist at your community college sitting with 10 or so atheists discussing “philosophy” at your local starbucks or bookstore. Or else that’s who you used to be and are now a 50 year old atheist-hack who, in the early 2000’s when atheism had it’s re-emergent heyday, spouted non-sense to those 20-somethings at the starbucks or bookstore. I know this, because these are the communities I conversed with in my days at bookstores wrestling with my fundamentalist friend’s and their lite deism and the lite atheism from one who prided himself on sounding like a hotshot and became nothing more than the barista who hates Christians simple theology because he never left that small pond to engage those intellectually more robust than they’ve ever seen. In both cases, their faiths (or lackof) were full of nothing. The same, can easily be said with you. You don’t question, and refuse to admit you’ve been wrong, because “you’re too cool for that.”

    It’s not worth dying with an unexamined self.
    You don’t have to be bigot when expounding on the bigotry of others. But that’s exactly what you are doing when you determine that their faith is not worth honoring. That’s called supremacy, and Corey, Bones, Ron, you, Otro are all guilty of it, and it’s authoritarianism to use the State to determine whose faiths are more valid. Even worse is that it concedes this power to the State, and that should terrify everyone.

  • Al Cruise

    Your right however white conservative evangelicals do not believe Catholics are Christian.

  • Since when is selling someone something celebrating anything?

  • Bones

    You mean like remarriage?

    Sin is in the eye of the beholder.

  • Bones

    Yes they are.

  • Bones

    Yes tbey are.

  • Bones

    It seems that the conservative form of christianity has fully blown into pharisaism.

    When saving lives is not seen as an essential part of christianity(by pro lifers no less) as opposed to not baking a cake then it is f###ed as a religion and utterly condemned.

  • Bones

    No…they were monarchists who wanted to conserve the House of Bourbon.

    It was capitalism which enslaved kids, chained them, beat them and imprisoned them so they could not run away.

    It was capitalism which fought against every child labour law.

    These are all facts that you cannot deny.

  • Bones

    And then their family will kill you and yours in rage.

    Fun fact: most kids are abused by someone they know and trust like a family or church member.

  • Bones

    Not doubtful.

    Thats the fact.

    Businesses contacted boards of orphanages.

    And you have posted yourself that capitalists had contempt for government laws on child labour as some sort of virtue.

    Once again it is you who lies.

  • Bones

    You mean like remarriage?

    You are aware of that derpie.

  • Bones

    The resident conservative catholic probably doesnt either.

  • Tim

    “No no, racism is both of these things independently…one need not have a system of racism to be racist–nor does a racist person imply a racist system.”

    “Show me examples, don’t talk about racism being “in the ether”.
    For the record, Trump was right: black unemployment is at a record low.
    https://www.latimes.com/pol
    Some racism.”

    You’re basically saying that ‘passive’ or systemic racism doesn’t exist in the first bit, and you’re throwing in a red herring in the second quote which is effectively saying, look; black employment rates are improving so America must not be a racist nation (or under a racist president).

    You appear to be saying that racism is an individual thing that is separate (independent) from a system that encourages it. That is an implied denial of a systemic form of racism.

  • $144948586

    Your the one talking about conservatism is the traditional view….nothing is more traditional than no government.

    “It was capitalism which enslaved kids, chained them, beat them and imprisoned them so they could not run away.”
    That greedy folks bought from the government. It’s unbelievable you stick to this argument Bones.
    Call them what you want, but it wasn’t voluntary.

  • $144948586

    “And then their family will kill you and yours in rage.”
    If this were true, then all the Hattfields and McCoys would be dead.

    That being said, law and order can easily exist in free markets.

    “Fun fact: most kids are abused by someone they know and trust like a family or church member.”
    This is true before and after government. Government hasn’t done anything to stop it before its too late, AND abuse has taken place in government schools.

  • $144948586

    “Businesses contacted boards of orphanages.”
    I agree, who were run by governments. Again, “Parish children were under the direct authority of government officials.”
    https://mises.org/library/legal-child-abuse

    T’was government that sold these kids into being scavengers.

  • $144948586

    “You’re basically saying that ‘passive’ or systemic racism doesn’t exist in the first bit”
    Show me some examples of systemic racism that we can talk about.

    “You appear to be saying that racism is an individual thing that is separate (independent) from a system that encourages it.”
    Show me a system that encourages it.

    “That is an implied denial of a systemic form of racism.”
    Show me a system that we can discuss.

  • $144948586

    Since not allowing a person to buy from you is a form of oppression.

  • Matthew

    It truly saddens me to think that the Body of Christ (the church) has so often driven people, like you Bones, away. I´m truly sorry for the things I have been responsible for.

    Lord have mercy

    [Edited]

  • D.M.S.

    That’s true most of the time.
    Unless it’s because of infidelity.

  • $144948586

    “Amazing how all of a sudden saving lives is unimportant for the pro-lifers.”
    What is the primary reason they’re crossing the border? Is there some mass genocide occurring below my state that I don’t know about?

  • D.M.S.

    There’s nothing wrong with baking them a birthday cake, or a graduation cake. But, baking a cake for their marriage, and or photographing their marriage , making flower arrangements for their marriage or marrying them in a chapel,to celebrate their sins we true Christians will NOT do.
    Amazing you don’t even know what the water represents.
    You think it’s just water?

  • D.M.S.

    Jesus said that we Christian followers would be
    ‘ hated ‘ for believing in Him.
    We true Christians expect the world’s hatred.

  • SamHamilton

    I’m not sure I see the distinction you’re making. What’s the difference between the government allowing someone to be exempt from having to provide an abortion to someone who wants one and the government allowing someone to be exempt from having to provide a wedding cake to someone who wants one?

  • ollie

    The refuses to do all (maybe with the exception of saving the mother’s life) abortions. The other wants to pick and chose how they serve others.

  • SamHamilton

    Couldn’t you say that the medical provider wants to pick and choose which medical procedures he or she wants to participate in (yes to some things, no to others…i.e. how to serve others) just like the baker? Isn’t it all about how large you draw the circle to generalize about what type of “services” are being offered?

    But leaving the distinction you’re making above aside for the moment, you are conceding that not everyone has to play by the same set of rules, right? The argument you seem to be making now is that exceptions from the rules can be made, but what matters is how the exceptions are structured.

  • SamHamilton

    This is/was a great conversation between you and Eva. Thanks for conversing pleasantly. It’s helpful to think through these things.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Yeah, people like him are in need of a lot of TLC. They like to aggravate & be obnoxious – like a little child seeking attention – because deep down they’re seeking just one person to show them the love they’ve been missing most of their life.
    As Christians though, we just need to love them into Heaven. Not easy, humanly speaking…
    Thanks for the info!

  • Phil Teichroew

    I think my statement stands!
    No evidence to the contrary!
    I charged on here?
    You & your buddies are shinning their lights? Matthew 5:16…
    Or just lighting up the board with dissent, discord & dismay?
    So, being (truly) saved & living for the Lord is something to be kept secret? Matthew 10:32,33…
    Exhibiting the fruits of the Spirit? Galatians 5:22-26…

  • Phil Teichroew

    The Kingdom of Heaven…

  • Phil Teichroew

    I fully understand that Hell is your desire & destiny.
    I also understand that you’re acting out.
    Very sad nevertheless!

  • Ron McPherson

    much appreciated, thanks

  • Ron McPherson

    “Exhibiting the fruits of the Spirit? Galatians 5:22-26…”

    The fruits of the Spirit, in the passage you referenced, include among other things: love, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self-control, right? So you’re showing Jesus to the rest of us by exhibiting these qualities?

  • ollie

    Well I personally do not believe that medical establishments should be allowed to make that choice. But then I am not the one that makes that decision.

    That said: This is basically the way it has been decided to use the system.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Have you ALWAYS been a naysayer, sceptic & scoffer, Ron?
    Or are you just naturally negative about everything?
    Or is it because you really don’t like people, or maybe even yourself?
    Don’t really think or believe that God does or could love you? Well, He really does!
    You know better than me that tone is always lost in this type of communication. If you’re not feeling any of those fruits of the Spirit maybe you need to examine yourself before the Lord instead of always deflecting your hurts & angst on others?

  • SamHamilton

    Why would you say “amen” to that ollie? What have I said that makes you think Jesus is absent from my theology?

  • Ron McPherson

    Oh, the irony of your comments. You really don’t see it, do you?

  • ollie

    Sam I really didn’t notice much from you at that point in time. And still don’t know much about your thought process. But was referencing the conversation with Joshin that thread. And as close as I can read of Josh from his comments, I have hard time believing that he is very concerned about these that he thinks are not living up to his ideal of the Bible. Jesus took us where we are at not where he wants us at. Should we show less love?

  • Phil Teichroew

    No, I really can’t see or understand your blindness & why you allow so much to come between you & the Lord.
    I’m truly sorry also, Ron, that you’ve had such a hard time living with yourself!
    Obviously submission to the Lord is not in your vocabulary of understanding?

  • Ron McPherson

    So anybody who calls you to account for your words and actions throughout this thread (especially after you came on here to tell everybody how un-Jesus they are) just has to be hurting and a miserable person. Obviously, they’re just not right with God for turning a mirror on you, and in utter disobedience, can’t live with themselves and all that. Do you really think people are buying this? : )

  • Phil Teichroew

    And you have become God Almighty now?
    Why are you so sad, Ron?
    Why have you turned your back on God?
    And want to argue your way endlessly into despair?
    I pray you get your life right with God!

  • ollie

    When they brought the land it was conveyed to them by the government at some point in time. Read the abstract!

  • Ron McPherson

    You keep digging yourself deeper and deeper here

  • Phil Teichroew

    No digging here, Ron.
    You’re just making more of a fool of yourself…
    And pushing yourself further & further away from God.
    Sad!

  • $144948586

    1. My home is is sitting on land owned by the government. Can I not choose who is allowed to use its facilities?

    2. When did government get the authority to own my land?

  • Ron McPherson

    Says the guy who claims I’m the one playing God here lol. You literally can’t see you’re guilty of doing the very same things you accuse of others. Honestly, people don’t have to take my word for it. The evidence exists in practically every post of yours throughout this thread. I’m baffled you can’t see this. Yeah yeah yeah, i know, I’m miserable and all that, apart from God, hurting, in disobedience,…did I forget any? You used so many against me I’m losing count.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Truly sorry you fail to have the true peace of God in your life, Ron!
    That you’re beset by constant arguing, turmoil, dissension & despair.
    Clearly evident!

  • Ron McPherson

    smh

  • ollie

    You can choose as long as the original grantor of the land does not see a reason legitimate or otherwise to infringe upon your right to oversee the usage of the facilities.

    As to when? If you wamt an exact date read the abstract to the property.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Sorry that it’s non-stop arguing, frustrating you & feeling sorry for yourself!
    1 Peter 5:7; Philippians 4:7; Hebrews 12:14…

  • Ron McPherson

    Sure Phil

  • So, since 1964, with the Civil Rights Act of that year establishing protected access to public accommodations, and Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) which established that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is constitutional.

    So, your beef is really with the Civil Rights Movement. Why is it, every time, you keep coming back to segregation?

  • Bones

    You’re very sad thinking that your religion is anything worthwhile.

    There’s no virtue in being a dickhead.

  • Bones

    Nope…..

    The kingdom of Phil Tightrope……

  • Bones

    Except when you act act like a dickhead you aren’t being hated for Christ.

    You’re just being a dickhead.

    You are no follower of Christ.

    Neither would the christ you display be worth following.

  • Matthew

    Well … I come from a Roman Catholic background myself. I was raised working class Roman Catholic in the U.S., though my family (mother´s side) comes from Italy and my father´s side from Ireland.

    Then I had that born again experience in university … what some would call accepting the “evangelical” Gospel. I now know that Gospel to be very narrow and not altogether biblical, but nevertheless it was then when I finally took adult responsiblity for my faith and said yes to Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. I was also re-baptized via full immersion in water then — August 1996 (for those of you out there who want to know when I “was saved”).

    I now believe that if someone responds to the Gospel (the proclamation that Jesus is the completion of Israel´s story and is the true, waited for Messiah), believes this proclamation, repents (meaning turning toward the kingdom of God/heaven and truly pressing into it), and is baptized — they are Christian, but better to say believers in and followers of Jesus Christ rather than “Christian” I think (thanks for this insight Ron :-)). Salvation has come to them in this scenario I think.

    I will admit I still struggle with the need for water baptism part since I come from a background where water baptism is so closely linked to belief and repentance. The Book of Acts also seems to link water baptism to belief and repentance, but what if no water is available at the time of belief and repentance? Also … the early apostles
    were dealing with mainly adults, but were baptizing whole households which I am nearly certain had children and even infants … how does all that work out?? Anyone??

    All that said, I believe there are many people who exist in all denominations (or non-denominations) who fall into the category I just described, and many who do not. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Mainline Protestants, Anabaptists, etc. are no exception.

    Here come the counter arguments (and the trolls :-)!), but that´s what I currently believe. Overall, though, I no longer want to have a lot of conversation about who is “in” and who is “out”, but I thought I would share where, personally, I am right now regarding questions like these.

    Most of all peace …

    Matthew

    [Edited]

  • Bones

    Yeah it’s water to save people’s lives….which you don’t give a toss about because your christianity is about not baking cakes for gay people.

    And it can f*** off.

  • Bones

    So now saving lives is dependent on motive….Nice conservative logic by the guy who’s all for rights.

    Why the f*** would it bother you when you don’t believe in government or states?

  • Bones

    Derpie, christian bakers have no problem baking a cake for a remarriage….

    How much do these Christian bakers have to pry on people’s relationships?

    Should there be a questionnaire or maybe a public display of the wife to be’s virginity like in the OT.

    Heck if the woman has slept around the good Christian wouldn’t want to participate in an adulterous marriage by baking a cake would they?

    If you’re so upset by other people’s sins, you shouldn’t be serving them.

  • Bones

    Matt the future of Christianity is in the hands of people like you…..

    Conservatives represent the death of Christianity.

    In 50 years time their generations will be ashamed of them just as we are ashamed of the white supremacists of last century.

    It’s bizarre these prolifer fundies see nothing Christian about saving a person’s life. That’s the same attitude in WW2 Germany.

  • Bones

    Twas government which passed laws banning child labour….but that didn’t stop the capitalists.

  • Bones

    Do you really need a lesson on cycles of violence and revenge? And what if you kill them and find out you’re wrong. FFs the Wild West has ended.

    But law is established by governments which you detest.

    You are far more likely to be abused by a member of your church than a government school.

  • Bones

    Derp….government in all its guises is a tradition whether monarchical, theocratic or representative.

    There is no tradition of anarchy.

    Yet again you make complete bs up.

    These greedy folks were capitalists.

    Now we’re getting somewhere.

  • Bones

    “They like to aggravate & be obnoxious”

    Lol that’s you moron…..

    But hey we’ve seen what youTLC is like and you and your religion can f*** off.

  • Bones

    We’re bored with your lies.

    Good to see you found another hateful friend.

  • Bones

    Lol….the moron who charged on here claiming to be God’s chosen favourite and all round Super Christian has filled the threads with discord, dismay and dissent.

    Thanks for exposing your religion on here so we can YET AGAIN (you guys can’t help yourselves that’ s how arrogant you are) confirm why we hate it so much.

    Fun fact: You ain’t living for god.

    Neither do you represent any fruits of the Spirit.

    but your heads so far up your own arse that you can’t see that.

  • Bones

    Christianity is dead as far as I am concerned.

    It’s been hijacked by right wing nationalism and conservative politics.

  • Matthew

    Even in Australia, Bones? I thought this was relatively a U.S. evangelical phenomenon …

  • Bones

    That’s not fascism.

    Intimidating political opponents has been going on forever.

    Btw what do you call it when capitalists intimidate people and other businesses.

  • Bones

    Nah, you and Phil can hold hands about how much you hate everyone on here.

    Better not tell him you’re Catholic though.

  • Bones

    Christianity is on the decline here. The fundy churches are heavily influenced by the US.

    The last fundy church I was involved in had sermons railing against unions, gays, Muslims and political correctness.

  • SamHamilton

    Okay, but if you don’t know much about my thought process it seems strange that you would give a hearty “Amen!” to a statement that Jesus is absent from my theology. That’s a pretty serious charge to make about a brother in Christ about whom you don’t know much.

    Perhaps an edit or amendment to your original comment would be appropriate. Just my thoughts…

  • Ron McPherson

    I’m both ashamed and sickened for how I once believed. I was immersed in conservative Christian culture for over 4 decades. I can say without reservation that folks in that culture truly believe such a mindset is not only of God, but actually what God requires. In many cases, you have to physically separate yourself from it, the mental escape will gradually follow. You have to walk away, like literally, because the culture of it reinforces itself through what’s preached and taught in its churches each week. I have close friends and family who would be described as uber conservative. And they’re what we would call down here in the south, good people. They actually want to do what’s right. This is why it’s so difficult, because they believe it’s somehow righteous to have a conservative Christian mindset. A Christian system (rather than kingdom living) is often taught in these churches. When you force yourself to walk away (not from Jesus, but from this system), you then begin to see that the system itself is not representative of Jesus’ message of the kingdom.

  • Bones

    Baptism has nothing to do with salvation….

    Haven’t we got past that yet?

    It’s a rite or a sign….

    Btw I can remember when nurses used to baptise dying babies so they can go to heaven. Probably still happens.

  • Matthew

    I suppose you are correct. I know here in Germany it becomes abundantly clear rather fast when a “frei kirche” has been influnced by American, conservative evangelicalism :-(.

  • Matthew

    Why did the boys so much emphasize it then (Book of Acts)?? It seems so intimately married to belief and repentance …

  • Phil Teichroew

    I “charged on here” (must be the logo of all the apostates, degenerates, reprobates & iniquitous gang on here) & ruffled the poor feathers of the morally bankrupt crybabies who are now whining & howling inordinately because they will NEVER be able to handle the truth & are reduced to spewing their vulgar insults…
    Sorry, won’t work!
    Your foolishness is monumentous!

  • Tim

    I did (or rather, evidence of it), yet you continue to deny its existence. So we’re at a stalemate it would seem.

  • Phil Teichroew

    NO thanks for the moronic, aggravating & obnoxious insight!
    But NO amount of your trying will stop Jesus from loving you though!!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Clueless again?

  • Ron McPherson

    If salvation depended on water baptism the thief on the cross was outta luck. I once made that point to another and was told that the thief was under the old covenant, which did not require water baptism. Like what? That would then mean that the old covenant was of grace whereas the new covenant required works lol.

  • Phil Teichroew

    And there’s virtue in your non-stop vulgarity & obnoxiousness?
    My relationship with Jesus Christ will NOT be fazed!

  • Ron McPherson

    That church would have fit in perfectly here in the states

  • Ron McPherson

    My brother in law was baptized (fully immersed) in a Methodist church. So when he married my sister and wanted to join her church (Baptist), the pastor required him to be baptized again. You know it doesn’t really count unless you’re dunked in that good ole baptist water. I heard a guy jokingly say that if water baptism actually washed away sins, then he wasn’t getting in the same water after anybody else.

  • Ron McPherson

    Didn’t Phil in an earlier post refer to it as the Catholic cult?

  • Ron McPherson

    He needs to google Psychological Projection

  • Matthew

    Good point. I suppose, though, that if baptism with water is possible then it shouldn’t be refused. I also think that (possibly) an argument for baptismal (water) regeneration can be both made and implied via Scripture.

    My main point is simply that the boys seem to make a rather big deal of it, going so far as even baptizing entire households. Must have been important, if not altogether regenerative.

  • Matthew

    Also … do you think the main point of Jonah’s story is that grace was available in the OT before Jesus is even on the scene???

  • Ron McPherson

    I think it’s important as an identifier with the faith. Just my 2 cents

  • Ron McPherson

    I think it’s always been of grace. Salvation is God’s to give. Jesus refers to the Jonah story to draw a comparison on several things it seems (e.g. Jonah’s ‘resurrection’ from the whale/ Jesus’ resurrection from the tomb; God using Jonah for his redemptive work to Ninevah/ Jesus’ redemptive work to Israel/the church; etc.). We see glimpses of grace throughout OT writings.

  • Matthew

    Thanks Ron.

  • D.M.S.

    The resident conservative Catholic probably isn’t a Christian.

  • D.M.S.

    Derpie, All lgbt marriages are a sin.
    We’re not sure of heterosexual remarriages.

  • D.M.S.

    Christianity is on the decline everywhere, derpie.
    It’s supposed to be by what scripture states.

  • D.M.S.

    How would you know.
    You said it yourself that to you Christianity is dead.
    All saved lesbians and gays are either celibate or married to their opposite sex, if they are Christians.
    All homosexual marriages are condemned by God/Jesus.

  • $144948586

    So since my land is “legitimately” owned by government, then it is public property. Therefore, how do I have legitimate right to choose who uses my facilities?

  • $144948586

    You’re the one making the claim that it’s about saving lives. Would they not be alive south of the border? Is there someone looking to exterminate Mexicans?

    “Why the f*** would it bother you when you don’t believe in government or states?”
    It doesn’t bother me that people are crossing border (except when they’re crossing private property); it bothers me when we see this as the only persecution of Christians–and that we see this as the only violation of a person’s natural rights because we question not the sincerity but the actual legitimacy of the baker’s faith. For one, we should be terrified to give government authority to determine what is “state-approved” religion. For two, it’s very anti-Christian to stop a man from doing what he wants (so long as he’s not robbing a person of their natural freedoms–which the baker is not).

  • Matthew

    Does the Scripture talk about any of the 12 being baptized either by Jesus or John, or even by someone else? I cannot remember even thinking about this issue previously.

    [Edited]

  • Ron McPherson

    I don’t believe so, though some of the 12 may have been disciples under John (e.g. Andrew), so I’m guessing they were (especially since Jesus himself was). It really seems (at least to me, though I could be wrong) that John’s baptism was more messianic in nature than Christian baptism today (i.e. the kingdom of heaven is at hand, the Jewish people need to repent and get on board with God, escape the coming judgment, etc.). Also, I don’t think baptism has always been a distinctly Christian thing. Jews did it for purification rituals (for one who had somehow become ‘unclean’); and for one proselytized into the Jewish religion.

  • $144948586

    Oh I had to go up a bit to find them.

    Let’s talk about this:
    https://www.vox.com/cards/police-brutality-shootings-us/us-police-racism
    What’s ironic is that the sheer number of encounters with policy is also racially segmented (this is FBI 2015 data, because that’s the most recent data we have, it’s the source of Vox’s data too):
    Blacks commit 26.6% of crimes, BUT they also commit 36.4% of VIOLENT crimes.
    Whites commit (and this assumes and removes Hispanics are identified as whites–that’s what the census considers them): 51.3% of crimes, BUT they also commit 36.2% of VIOLENT crimes.
    Hispanics commits 18.4% of crimes, BUT they also commit 23.9% of VIOLENT crimes.

    What do we have comparing your VOX article and this data?
    Blacks are 13% of the population but commit 26% of the crimes.
    Blacks are 1/8 of the population but are 3/8 of the violent crime population.
    Whites are 63% of the population but commit 51% of the crimes.
    Whites are 5/8 of the population but are 3/8 of the violent crime population.
    Hispanics are 17% of the population but commit 23% of the crimes.
    Hispanics are 2/8 of the population and are 2/8 of the violent crime population.

    This alone tells us that, if police shootings are based on incidence of crime (that is practically to say random), we’d expect non-whites to be killed 49-50% of the time–which is actually higher than the reported incidence of 47%. This is directly from the Vox source (the Guardian chart 2):
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/01/black-americans-killed-by-police-analysis

    But that’s not enough, because the vast majority of police shootings are not at the incidence of “minor crimes”. They’re at the occurrence of violent crims. Looking at this, 5/8 of violent crimes are carried out by non-whites. This is roughly 63-64%, which happens to be IN STEP with the statistics of unarmed victims of police shootings. In fact, it’s slightly smaller than would be expected if police are fair in shooting and non-whites are no more likely to be armed than whites.
    This, of course, is from the Vox source (Guardian, chart 3).

    In both of these stats, it show that whites are slightly MORE LIKELY to be killed by police for similar crimes than non-whites.
    This was also confirmed by a non-white researcher who was paid to find evidence of systemic racism in police brutality:
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/07/14/ignorance_of_facts_fuels_the_anti-cop_movement_131188.html

    Sorry, but if you want to discuss systemic racism you’ll need to do better than this article. I’ll review the other one when I can, BUT we at least need more data than what is being presented here.

  • Kiara

    I’m not a hideous creature, thanks. I honestly have no idea what their motives were. I’ve never met them. I’m simply stating you faith is not a requirement to be a good person and save someone. In fact I genuinely hope you would be a good person and save someone whether you were religious or not. And I’m not a classic example if anything. I’m just being me. And for your information I’m not religious at all. Anyway this has gotten sidtracked. This is irrelevant to the issue at hand which is the event in question was not religious prosecution and if it were then it would be illegal and the officers would be liable .

  • ollie

    Edit done. Reasonable statement?

  • $144948586

    “Intimidating political opponents has been going on forever.”
    It sure is telling that you’d apologize for using government for personal vendetta.

  • Matthew

    Thanks Ron. I think what has really been on my mind today is just how baptism is related to the rite of confirmation that is practiced in many churches. I mean, I was confirmed in the Roman Catholic church but at the time (14 years old I think) all I wanted was to get as far away as possible from the church, yet this confirmation apparently sealed me not only with the Holy Spirit, but also as a full member of the RCC. Somehow this confirmation was a “sealing” of the grace I received in my infant baptism.

    Strange really …

    I think this is where the evangelical in me comes out of the closet. I don´t think confirmation seems to make sense, as the Holy Spirit can and does come whenever the HS is ready to come, but I certainly wouldn´t want the issue to divide Christians. Maybe someone with more understanding about the topic will chime in.

    [Edited]

  • ollie

    Edited. Fair statement?

  • $144948586

    Once again, government correcting for its own unintended consequences.
    Government sold the pauper kids in to harsh conditions that were later used to fight to ban child labor.

    This, of course, wasn’t outright banned until child labor was already dying off naturally–regardless, the vast majority of the children were working on farms and those working in factories were PRIMARILY voluntarily contracted by parents. They preferred work to education, and they are not the ones whose images are plastered as scavenger children…those come courtesy of government overseen orphanages who sold those children.

    The unintended consequence now that we don’t see in the first world: poor farming families whose kids will never gain skills to alleviate this poverty and will be lifelong impoverished. Many of these kids will turn to drug distribution and prostitution as happened in Bangladesh while their families will be out in fields for longer hours making at most half the factory wage.

    Thank God for capitalism so that men WHO DON’T SEE FIT to provide more than what their workers demand–keep in mind, they don’t have to be Christian–can at least provide a better alternative (according to those who work in the fields) than permanent impoverishment. It was because of these very mechanisms that South and East Asia have gone from impoverished economies to emerging middle classes in 30 years. God forbid we believe that these items should be produced in first world nations and send them back to the fields OR produced in first world conditions at the expense of higher wages which these workers prefer over AC and child labor.
    http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2008/Powellsweatshops.html

    So interesting that your problem is with capitalism with not one word deriding the government role in selling kids and putting impoverished farmers back in fields.

  • $144948586

    I said nothing of segregation here.
    I note that you didn’t respond to my other post, however.

  • ollie

    Because the Government allows you do unless they feel their need is greater.

  • SamHamilton

    Very fair, thank you ollie.

  • ollie

    Salvation is always been about faith.

  • ollie

    Your welcome.

  • $144948586

    So what’s greater, civil rights or natural rights?

  • ollie

    Baptism as I understand it, is a public act of showing acceptance of Christ. And represents the burial of the old (sins, warts and all) and the rebirth of oneself into a new life though Christ.

    I really believe that we have a problem understanding that because we make the mistake of tying baptism into fellowship within a church body and not just a fellowship with Christ and all fellow believers.

  • Ron McPherson

    Apparently Paul didn’t see it as essential to receiving God’s grace (or so it seems) based on I Corinthians 1:17, “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power.” Though, I suppose one could maybe argue that Paul always had an assistant standing by his side to perform the ritual lol.

    If Paul believed it essential to salvation, it looks like he would be dunking everybody in sight. I still keep going back to the thief on the cross. Like, why would we consider God’s work alone to somehow be insufficient until man did something about it (i.e. water baptism)? A friend knew someone who was told (by their youth minister at the time) that even though they were saved, they would still go to hell if they were to die before being baptized, of which they were scheduled to be in a couple of weeks from that. It’s amazing how some people believe.

  • Matthew

    Thanks Ron. What do you think about 1 Peter 3:21?

  • Ron McPherson

    totally agree. Well said

  • Ron McPherson

    Assuming the author is the apostle Peter (scholars debate this because of its style), it seems odd that he would be saying here that baptism was necessary for regeneration, given that Peter himself was an eyewitness to Cornelius and his family receiving the Spirit prior to their water baptism (according to Acts 10). But aside from that, it seems like the author may be making a point, even here, that the act of baptism itself is not what saves (e.g. “not as a removal of dirt from the body”), but rather as a sign of what’s happened inwardly (e.g. “an appeal to God for a good conscience”). I just find it difficult to accept that the Father would say to someone after they drew their last breath, something like, yes you followed my Son and I even gave you my Spirit, but I’ll cease the relationship now and forever because you never let another sinful man dip you into earthly water. I do believe baptism is important as an identifier into the body of Christ, but have trouble believing the act itself has any salvific quality in a literal sense.

  • ollie

    Define what you mean by civil and natural rights?

  • $144948586

    Civil: “the rights of citizens to political and social freedom and equality.”
    Natural: ” all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain “inalienable” natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are ‘life, liberty, and property.'”

    In regards to natural, I’ll grant you that one doesn’t have a right to property, since government, as you argue, owns “your” property.

  • ollie

    As a Follower of Christ, my belief is that civil rights are
    fundamentally a natural right.

  • $144948586

    “civil rights are fundamentally a natural right.”
    So how can a civil right be a natural right when:
    1) In my home (government property, per you), I can discriminate on who I let use my facilities.
    –In this case you affirm my right to discrimination is a natural right AND thus a civil right.
    So both civil and natural rights INCLUDE the right to discriminate.
    2) In my business (government property, per you), I can NOT discriminate on who I let use my facilities.
    –In this case you deny my right which you’ve conceded is a natural AND civil right.

    Paradoxically, civil and natural rights must diverge on point 2.
    What about these situations has warranted this?

  • Mr. James Parson

    Hear, hear!

  • Mr. James Parson

    Last I checked, laws concerning people tend to be very different from laws concerning animals.

  • Mr. James Parson

    Are you guys done yet? Just wondering.

  • Mr. James Parson

    Atheists have a moral obligation to stand up against unjust laws of Christians and sometimes that means being pushed by the government have has laws made by Christians.

  • Mr. James Parson

    They want a better life. Opportunities to work in a productive job. They want to say way from the Mexican drug war.

    23,000 Mexicans died in 2016. I don’t know if that is enough to be called a genocide or not.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War#Casualties

  • Mr. James Parson

    If only there was someway to figure out what Christianity is or isn’t. Maybe some objective standard that was clearly written down somewhere.

  • ollie

    Every person has a moral obligation to stand up to unjust laws regardless of who made them.

    It shouldn’t be Christians, atheists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists or whatever against each other. It should simply be right against wrong.

  • $144948586

    “They want a better life. Opportunities to work in a productive job.”
    So their primary concern IS NOT about staying alive.

    “They want to say way from the Mexican drug war.”
    This is a good point; you know how to stop a black market? Legalization. It’s amazing how so few intentional deaths occur at the hands of a free market.

    I do also note, the primary reason for a crappy living in Mexico is due to, once again, governance–including a government north of the border waging an unending, disastrous drug war.

  • Ron McPherson

    “…it’s very anti-Christian to stop a man from doing what he wants (so long as he’s not robbing a person of their natural freedoms–which the baker is not).”

    Jesus turned tables over in the temple keeping those men from ‘doing what they wanted’ (i.e. making money off of religion). No one forced common Jews to do business with them, so it doesn’t seem like they were being robbed of “their natural freedoms” as you put it. Yet, there was Jesus, forcefully stopping those men from making money, at least for the rest of that day presumably. Can’t imagine Jesus doing something ‘anti-Christian.’

  • ollie

    If your looking for an excuse to be a jerk don’t look to me.
    Because using your logic I would argue that it was within someones civil right if you were on their property to kill and eat you. As I pointed out one’s rights end where anothers begins.

    But we originally were talking about the rights of a business. If you own the whole of the country that you are in and doing business in then you can obviously discriminate against whom you want. But that doesn’t necessarily make you right. It may just prove that your the south end of jack headed north.

  • ollie

    And you have Biblical texts to prove that?

  • $144948586

    First: “No one forced common Jews to do business with them”.
    This is true. But then again, he didn’t get mad at them for merely “doing business”.

    Second: Buying, selling, and trading doesn’t warrant the title of “robbing” or “thievery”.
    To this end, yes they were being robbed of “their natural freedoms”.
    To that end:
    http://www.anthonyflood.com/jesusanarchist12.htm

  • Mr. James Parson

    So being against wrong things and being for right things is more important than being a Christian?

    I want to know where your “should” is coming from.

    This is an important thing, because I find that religious people tend to externalize their morality as opposed to atheists who tend to internalize it is. And then it turns out that we are talking with the same word, but are talking about two separate things.

    I define right and wrong in terms of well-being. Where as many religious people define in terms of obedience.

  • Mr. James Parson

    The population of the US is about 3x that of Mexico. If they had a policy that had a consequence of killing 60,000 American a year, we would be furious. The only debate we would be having is doing we do a land invasion, or do we just nuke them

    But Mexico is a weak country compared to the US. So they keep dying, because they have so little international political power. The lawlessness continues. I am ashamed of all this.

  • Ron McPherson

    I didn’t say he got “mad at them for merely ‘doing business.'” He toppled the tables because they were profiting off the backs of the Jewish people, capitalizing on corrupt temple practices. And yes, he stopped them from ‘doing what they wanted’ which in no way was ‘anti-Christian.’ I’m using your own reasoning here. You of all people would surely agree that a business owner has the right to charge $100 for a cheeseburger, and anybody buying that cheeseburger at such an inflated price is in no way being robbed of ‘their natural freedoms’ because they chose to do business with them. Likewise, common Jews were being taken advantage of by these religious capitalists, and nobody forced these poor Jews to do business with them. And yet, even at that, Jesus turned the tables over.

  • Ron McPherson

    Phil and DMS must go to the same church.

  • $144948586

    So, my revelation to you of your logical paradox leads to:
    “If your looking for an excuse to be a jerk don’t look to me.”

    “But we originally were talking about the rights of a business.”
    We still are talking about the rights of a business. A business is nothing more than a property owned by the business owner(s). Thus, it’s rights, as part of their property, derive their rights from their property owners.
    Now, you call that property’s land owner (everyone’s land owner according to you) “government”. But you can see the paradox when it comes to rights, natural or civil.

  • ollie

    Being against the bad is in my belief a requirement of being fully human. There are things that most humans know are inherently wrong. Like murder, rape, discrimination. Though they will go to gymnastically extraordinary lengths to prove them acceptable in some cases.

    I guess to you question where does “should ” come from? I fall into the ballpark of right and wrong being an internalized condition.

    God internalized right and wrong but it gave us the ability to chose how we want to live.

  • Mr. James Parson

    Thanks for your reply

  • ollie

    Your welcome.

  • $144948586

    You know what, I’ll gives this one Ron. Good points. I’ll give an upvote for it too, because it’s really caused me to think.

    You are right, they did have the right to charge whatever they wanted.
    But then again, it isn’t their house or their business–it’s not their property on which to charge “whatever they wanted.”

    So, can you show me where Jesus cleared the Jerusalem market place–or any besides that that wasn’t on his “Father’s property”?

    But yes, “common Jews were being taken advantage of by these religious capitalists, and nobody forced these poor Jews to do business with them.”
    This is correct, partly. Part of this was forced, because they were practically selling indulgences. In this sense the Jewish sellers had an artificial monopoly granted by the Temple.
    Where have I seen such things before?
    https://mises.org/blog/yet-another-way-government-drives-pharmaceutical-prices

    God forbid the oppressive systems which governed the Jewish life that allow birds to cost so much that “women began lying or aborting their babies to avoid the required and punitive fees.”
    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/stan-duncan/jesus-and-the-international-currency-exchange-trade_b_6785168.html

    Of course, the situation is easily understood in the context that we, as Christians, wouldn’t, most of us, price gouge. I come from a small town, and my wife has such a caring heart (almost to a fault), that she will make cakes for folks often for just at cost, even sometimes below–hours long cakes that she sells for barely the cost of ingredients.
    It’s one thing to go to another’s store and tell them about price; it’s another to do it in the fellowship hall of your local FBC.

  • Ron McPherson

    Good points! Can we call this one a draw lol?

  • $144948586

    In the name of sportsmanship, I’ll lay my weapon down….this time lol.
    I started wrong on this particularly argument and lost my queen.

    That being said, I would draw a hard line between:
    1. This scenario vs. a free market–this is artificially created.
    2. Outsider behavior (of owners) vs. Christian behavior (of owners)

    I will still stand by capitalism, but I should’ve caveat-ed that this wasn’t a free market.

    Good play, Ron. Good play.

  • Matthew

    See my personal story which is on this thread. It contains what a lot of people consider the Gospel. The Gospel is the objective standard, jamesparson, not some local church or denomination.

  • Matthew

    Thanks as always Ron :-)

  • Ron McPherson

    I can be wrong a lot too ; )

  • Matthew

    Maybe just sometimes, but not a lot :-).

  • Mr. James Parson

    TY for pointing that out. Let me read it.

  • Ron McPherson

    Ha

  • Yeah, when you complain about public accommodations law, you are talking about segregation whether you intend to or not.

    There was nothing in your other post that was either already answered or coherent enough to bother with.

  • xstaticprocess

    I’ve said this before but it merits saying again — arguing with religious zealots & fanatics is the equivalent of bashing one’s head against a concrete wall over and over and over again. Kudos to you for engaging with them at all.

  • $144948586

    Fine, let’s talk about public accommodation law.
    To begin, do I have the right to determine who can NOT use the stuff within my house?

  • Cake

    Where does the bible say you shouldn’t bake specific kinds of cakes?

  • D.M.S.

    Please present me with the scripture that states that marriage is other than one woman only being married to one man only?

  • D.M.S.

    I hope so….

  • Is your house a public accommodation?

  • Bones

    Lol…….

  • Bones

    Yeah I know.But someone has to stand up to them.

  • Bones

    No, it was government legislating unfair practices.

    Amazing that capitalists employing child labour is apparently the government’s fault not the capitalists.

    Capitalists fought against ALL child labour laws.

    Let’s go over that again….

    Capitalists fought against ALL child labour laws….

  • Bones

    It’s called politics….What do you think people were doing when they were killing each other in the Middle Ages twerp?

  • Bones

    I’m well aware of what you are saying….

    This on a thread where not baking a cake for a gay person is Christianity and people go apeshit about government persecution whereas saving someone’s life isn’t.

    Says a lot about your understanding of Christianity.

    I wouldn’t bother following it either.

  • Bones

    Because it was a sign…just because John the baptist didn’t baptise you didn’t mean you hadn’t repented.

    Otherwise you’re giving the ritual magical powers.

  • Bones

    “If Paul believed it essential to salvation, it looks like he would be dunking everybody in sight.”

    If that was true, you’d get in a crop sprayer and do the whole country.

    Btw Baptism in Judaism

    “A religious ablution signifying purification or consecration. The natural method of cleansing the body by washing and bathing in water was always customary in Israel (see Ablution, Bathing). The washing of their clothes was an important means of sanctification enjoined on the Israelites before the Revelation on Mt. Sinai (Ex. xix. 10). The Rabbis connect with this the duty of bathing by complete immersion (“ṭebilah,” Yeb. 46b; Mek., Baḥodesh, iii.); and since sprinkling with blood was always accompanied by immersion, tradition connects with this immersion the blood lustration mentioned as having also taken place immediately before the Revelation (Ex. xxiv. 8), these three acts being the initiatory rites always performed upon proselytes, “to bring them under the wings of the Shekinah” (Yeb. l.c.).

    With reference to Ezek. xxxvi. 25, “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean.”R. Akiba, in the second century, made the utterance: “Blessed art thou, O Israel! Before whom dost thou cleanse thyself? and who cleanses thee? Thy Father in heaven!” (Yoma viii. 9). Accordingly, Baptism is not merely for the purpose of expiating a special transgression, as is the case chiefly in the violation of the so-called Levitical laws of purity; but it is to form a part of holy living and to prepare for the attainment of a closer communion with God. This thought is expressed in the well-known passage in Josephus in which he speaks of John the Baptist (“Ant.” xviii. 5, § 2): “The washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.” John symbolized the call to repentance by Baptism in the Jordan (Matt. iii. 6 and parallel passages); and the same measure for attaining to holiness was employed by the Essenes, whose ways of life John also observed in all other respects. Josephus says of his instructor Banus, an Essene, that he “bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day” (“Vita,” § 2), and that the same practise was observed by all the Essenes (“B. J.” ii. 8, § 5).

    The only conception of Baptism at variance with Jewish ideas is displayed in the declaration of John, that the one who would come after him would not baptize with water, but with the Holy Ghost (Mark i. 8; John i. 27). Yet a faint resemblance to the notion is displayed in the belief expressed in the Talmud that the Holy Spirit could be drawn upon as water is drawn from a well (based upon Isa. xii. 3; Yer. Suk. v. 1, 55a of Joshua b. Levi). And there is a somewhat Jewish tinge even to the prophecy of the evangelists Matthew (iii. 11) and Luke (iii. 16), who declare that Jesus will baptize with fire as well as with the Holy Ghost; for, according to Abbahu, true Baptism is performed with fire (Sanh. 39a). Both the statement of Abbahu and of the Evangelists must of course be taken metaphorically. The expression that the person baptized is illuminated (φωτισθείς, Justin, “Apologiæ,” i. 65) has the same significance as is implied in telling a proselyte to Judaism, after his bath, that he now belongs to Israel, the people beloved of God (Yeb. 47a; Gerim i.).

    According to rabbinical teachings, which dominated even during the existence of the Temple (Pes. viii. 8), Baptism, next to circumcision and sacrifice, was an absolutely necessary condition to be fulfilled by a proselyte to Judaism (Yeb. 46b, 47b; Ker. 9a; ‘Ab. Zarah 57a; Shab. 135a; Yer. Kid. iii. 14, 64d). Circumcision, however, was much more important, and, like baptism, was called a “seal” (Schlatter, “Die Kirche Jerusalems,” 1898, p. 70). But as circumcision was discarded by Christianity, and the sacrifices had ceased, Baptism remained the sole condition for initiation into religious life. The next ceremony, adopted shortly after the others, was the imposition of hands, which, it is known, was the usage of the Jews at the ordination of a rabbi. Anointing with oil, which at first also accompanied the act of Baptism, and was analogous to the anointment of priests among the Jews, was not a necessary condition.

    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2456-baptism

  • Bones

    Baptism in Judaism

    “A religious ablution signifying purification or consecration. The natural method of cleansing the body by washing and bathing in water was always customary in Israel (see Ablution, Bathing). The washing of their clothes was an important means of sanctification enjoined on the Israelites before the Revelation on Mt. Sinai (Ex. xix. 10). The Rabbis connect with this the duty of bathing by complete immersion (“ṭebilah,” Yeb. 46b; Mek., Baḥodesh, iii.); and since sprinkling with blood was always accompanied by immersion, tradition connects with this immersion the blood lustration mentioned as having also taken place immediately before the Revelation (Ex. xxiv. 8), these three acts being the initiatory rites always performed upon proselytes, “to bring them under the wings of the Shekinah” (Yeb. l.c.).

    With reference to Ezek. xxxvi. 25, “Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean.”R. Akiba, in the second century, made the utterance: “Blessed art thou, O Israel! Before whom dost thou cleanse thyself? and who cleanses thee? Thy Father in heaven!” (Yoma viii. 9). Accordingly, Baptism is not merely for the purpose of expiating a special transgression, as is the case chiefly in the violation of the so-called Levitical laws of purity; but it is to form a part of holy living and to prepare for the attainment of a closer communion with God. This thought is expressed in the well-known passage in Josephus in which he speaks of John the Baptist (“Ant.” xviii. 5, § 2): “The washing would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away of some sins, but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness.” John symbolized the call to repentance by Baptism in the Jordan (Matt. iii. 6 and parallel passages); and the same measure for attaining to holiness was employed by the Essenes, whose ways of life John also observed in all other respects. Josephus says of his instructor Banus, an Essene, that he “bathed himself in cold water frequently, both by night and by day” (“Vita,” § 2), and that the same practise was observed by all the Essenes (“B. J.” ii. 8, § 5).

    The only conception of Baptism at variance with Jewish ideas is displayed in the declaration of John, that the one who would come after him would not baptize with water, but with the Holy Ghost (Mark i. 8; John i. 27). Yet a faint resemblance to the notion is displayed in the belief expressed in the Talmud that the Holy Spirit could be drawn upon as water is drawn from a well (based upon Isa. xii. 3; Yer. Suk. v. 1, 55a of Joshua b. Levi). And there is a somewhat Jewish tinge even to the prophecy of the evangelists Matthew (iii. 11) and Luke (iii. 16), who declare that Jesus will baptize with fire as well as with the Holy Ghost; for, according to Abbahu, true Baptism is performed with fire (Sanh. 39a). Both the statement of Abbahu and of the Evangelists must of course be taken metaphorically. The expression that the person baptized is illuminated (φωτισθείς, Justin, “Apologiæ,” i. 65) has the same significance as is implied in telling a proselyte to Judaism, after his bath, that he now belongs to Israel, the people beloved of God (Yeb. 47a; Gerim i.).

    According to rabbinical teachings, which dominated even during the existence of the Temple (Pes. viii. 8), Baptism, next to circumcision and sacrifice, was an absolutely necessary condition to be fulfilled by a proselyte to Judaism (Yeb. 46b, 47b; Ker. 9a; ‘Ab. Zarah 57a; Shab. 135a; Yer. Kid. iii. 14, 64d). Circumcision, however, was much more important, and, like baptism, was called a “seal” (Schlatter, “Die Kirche Jerusalems,” 1898, p. 70). But as circumcision was discarded by Christianity, and the sacrifices had ceased, Baptism remained the sole condition for initiation into religious life. The next ceremony, adopted shortly after the others, was the imposition of hands, which, it is known, was the usage of the Jews at the ordination of a rabbi. Anointing with oil, which at first also accompanied the act of Baptism, and was analogous to the anointment of priests among the Jews, was not a necessary condition.

    http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2456-baptism

  • Bones

    Not from what I’ve read.

    You’ve nailed it brother.

  • Bones

    Your type of Christianity will be dead in 50 years.

  • Bones

    Why didn’t Peter simply write about his experiences with Jesus instead of a general treatise on theology?

    You’d have thought he could pass on some of Jesus’s wisdom after being with him for 3 years.

    Something like I remember when Jesus said…or did…..

  • Bones

    Put it this way.

    God would be happier if you placed cyanide in the wedding cake than participate in a gay wedding.

    That’s the sort of Christianity these people believe.

  • Ron McPherson

    Great info. Thanks for sharing!

  • Ron McPherson

    Yes. And if the author of Matthew was the apostle, why did he rely on Mark and Q?

  • Ron McPherson

    LOLOLOL!!!!!

  • Tim

    “There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.” -Mark Twain

    You can fiddle the numbers all you want (from one article) to attempt to prove your point, but the fact is that blacks are far more likely to be shot (or otherwise killed) in non-violent situations (whether a crime has been committed or not) , even in ones where no crime had been committed and the black person was complying with police instruction.

    And this is only addressing one of many areas in which racism plays out in American society every day.

  • $144948586

    I pay property taxes, which implies I rent my property from government. So yes.

  • $144948586

    Surr they fought against them, and families whose voluntary contract with these companies allowed the children to work were better off than their alternative. So were the kids who learned trades for future industries.

  • $144948586

    And it’s sick you’d play politics when you realize this.

  • D.M.S.

    Lol. Our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus reign will start before that happens.
    You’re very funny person, dry Bones.

  • D.M.S.

    We’re not talking about cake.
    We’re talking about celebrating someones sin.

  • ollie

    Lets see: Moses, David, Solomon.

    You really should know more about the history of your religion.

    And by the way you still owe me an answer.

  • Matthew

    Thanks for this Bones,

  • D.M.S.

    Exactly’ NO ‘ marriages of men to men or women to women.
    PS: I owe you nothing.
    And I don’t believe in man made religions.

  • D.M.S.

    You are one sick puke.
    Nowhere in my reading of scripture does it state that I’m to ‘ kill ‘ anyone for commiting sin and or celebrating sin.
    We are to have nothing to do with the lgbt other than to help bring them to our Lord Christ Jesus.
    If the lgbt refuses to turn away from their sinful chosen lifestyle. Then we are to have nothing to do with them
    I don’t know any Christians like that. And I hope I never do.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Not always true. In our warped World many places give preference to animals over humans.
    Where did you check & exactly what does that have to do with anything?

  • ollie

    The thing is that I don’t have a paradox in my thinking.

    While libertarian in my beliefs, I also understand that there are people out there that will use their beliefs to hurt others. So that societies have to say how we must deal with others.

    So yes you can be a bigot at home but in the public square (where we are right now) while you have the right to express what I consider bigoted views. I have the right to tell you, that you are a bigot. And as in the case of same sex marriage if I have enough support that believes that for the good of society as a whole it is good. We have the right to tell you that your business must serve them as happened with the required serving of black people, Mexicans and Jews. All within the last one hundred years.

    Now I must address the issue I see with your libertarian and free enterprise beliefs. If everyone had the same belief on how they should work and the same moral systems there is a chance they might work. But not everyone is on the same page.

    Your first, basic premise is that everyone should be able to decide what their beliefs are and how they should live (libertarianism). And the second, basic premise is that the person that is smarter and has the better business plan will and should come out on top. Now if everyone had the same standards of right and wrong it might work (provided that the standards were high enough).

    The system that you believe in and promote is a failure either because you don’t understand that people have different value systems or because you don’t apply it evenly to everyone.

    Why do I blame these that are the capitalists (free enterprise) that are in control? Because the decisions they make are morally wrong for society. If I brought into your belief system, then I would put them on a pedestal as the captains of the world.

    The gist matter is that these people that you call crony capitalists or whatever got to the point where they are today by following the rules you agree with.

    So as I see it, the problem is likely one of these things:

    1: One is clearly clueless about human nature.

    2: One does not understand the rules of the game they say they believe in.

    3: One is mad because they are not top dog.

    4: Unlikely but possible; a combination of any or all of the above.

  • Cake

    Leviticus isn’t part of your Bible? That’s very strange. It’s usually the go-to for people trying to cloak their festering bigotry with the supposed mantle of divine will.

  • $144948586

    “The thing is that I don’t have a paradox in my thinking.”
    So then: is it my natural right to discriminate at my home?

  • ollie

    Yes it is hard to tell people what they can do in your home. But, I would hope that your family and possibly friends would have the courage to call you out.

    If you believe that the most important thing is to be able to discriminate at home, you really have your priorities messed up. And being you seem to be a Christian (your words) I really think you need reevaluate what being a Follower of Christ means.

    Seriously that is all you got from the response?

  • $144948586

    “If you believe that the most important thing is to be able to discriminate at home, you really have your priorities messed up.”
    It’s not a matter of priorities, Ollie. It’s about the preservation of an individual’s most fundamental rights.

    So then: do I have the right to discriminate in my business?

  • ollie

    Sure but if I have the backing I have the right to force you not to discriminate. Or couldn’t you get that from the post?

  • $144948586

    “Sure but if I have the backing I have the right to force you not to discriminate.”
    Then we’re at a fork. Do I have the NATURAL right to discriminate or not?

  • D.M.S.

    We Christians are NOT under the law.
    But then I doubt that you have any understanding of Old and New Testament scripture.
    Herm, Ron and dry Bones doesn’t.

  • D.M.S.

    I agree with your concept of parent and children in this situation.
    But my child would NOT flaunt his or her sin in my home, no matter what it is.
    Mathew10:32-39.
    But I was referring to strangers.

  • ollie

    Well lets say this: Everyone has the natural right to be the south end of a jack headed north.

    But the true question is: Should one be the south end of a jack headed north?

    That is only a question that you can answer for yourself.

    And a side question is: How does discriminating help your cause, whatever that may be?

  • $144948586

    Ollie, you say “Everyone has the natural right to be the south end of a jack headed north.”

    I’m going to assume that you agree that it is a natural right to discriminate. So then, how is it, if it’s a natural right to discriminate, that a MOB OF SUFFICIENT SIZE is able to take away that natural right?

    Note: I will gladly answer your questions once we get where we’re going. At issue though isn’t how it helps my cause but if it’s MY NATURAL RIGHT to discriminate.

  • ollie

    A society (a mob as you believe they are) has the natural right and I would say the moral obligation to protect itself. If a member or non member uses their natural right to hurt others or the group then the group has the natural right to step in and stop that person.

  • WrongVerb

    I’m sorry but I can’t get worked up just because one version of invisible sky daddy conflicts with another version of invisible sky daddy. To me this is just more evidence that it’s all made up by human beings. When you can essentially think “I imagine it to be so and therefore it is so” (which is what you’re doing by being “faithful”), anything from the worst atrocities to the greatest human achievements are possible. (And the joke is that the perpetrators don’t put the credit where it belongs: on themselves.)

  • $144948586

    So then, does my personal discrimination in my home hurt anyone else in the sense were talking (taking another person’s natural rights away)?

  • ollie

    That’s a question that has to be answered on a case by case basis. Though I would say that if your personal discrimination was hurting someone in your family (as in living in the household related or not), unless physically, my reaction instead of tying to force a compromise with you would be to try to find them a safe place outside of the household.

  • ollie

    Good then what nights of the week is your wife available for sex?

  • ollie

    Josh I heard basically the same arguments growing up about leaving “negro’s” (the nicer name) marrying a white person. It was against the Bible. And God would punish America. Well it didn’t happen.

  • ollie

    It was likely the only place many of them could buy the needed products.

    They were making way too much not off these that could afford to spend the money but off these that could not afford it.

    These capitalists were cheating these that could least afford it. Remember this was a required trip for them.

  • $144948586

    It doesn’t have to be answered on a case by case basis. Its either infringing on someones natural right or not. Being discriminatory about who uses your homes stuff is up to the home owner or it isn’t. Which is it?
    We’re not talking about oppressing someone, because how can it be oppressive when you’re talking about your home and the stuff inside it?
    Does my discrimination as to who comes in MY HOME and/or use MY STUFF infringe on the natural rights of another person or not?

  • ollie

    Lol of course you believe in a manmade religion. I can find no injunctions against same sex relationships. There is enough to know that the Bible had problems with sex for religious ceremonies and a problem with men using young male slaves as a sexual object. But it is silent about same sex love relationships.

    Your religious ranting against same sex marriage. And one man, one woman as Biblical is signs of a man made religion.

    The sad thing is your ignorance and refusal to really study it out gives Jesus a black eye!

  • D.M.S.

    I truly feel sorry for people like you. That their chosen sin is more important to them, than the Lord Christ Jesus.

  • D.M.S.

    That’s sad. I was right.

  • ollie

    Ok if you rant all the time in your home about how bad homosexuals and how you wouldn’t leave them use your house. You are certainly teaching hate in your house (which may be a form of infringement on others natural rights, I haven’t really gave that much thought).

    On the other hand you find out your 12 yo son or daughter is gay and you kick them out you are most definitely infringing on their natural rights to be sheltered. And to have a safe place to grow.

    Most of life isn’t as black or white as much as you may want it to be.

    Perhaps we should not treat anyone who gets sick or hurt and leave God decide who lives and dies.

  • ollie

    I don’t know what you think my chosen sin is.

    But I want to assure you that you don’t have to feel sorry for me. As my chosen sin is to despise the south end of a jack headed north ignoramuses.

  • ollie

    Is there something wrong with me having sex with your wife?

  • D.M.S.

    Thank you for confirming what I stated.
    I’ll be praying for your salvation.
    Peace.

  • $144948586

    Since you’re looking for caveats, let me refine my argument: should a single man with no familial obligation (either no children, or children who are now adults) have the right to discriminate on who he lets in and use his facilities? Is this a natural right or not?

  • ollie

    If your hatred of others is symbolic of the true God I will gladly take whatever hell you believe your god does to people like you believe I will get because your god is an unjust tyrant!

  • Ron McPherson

    Just a heads up about DMS. You’ll get nowhere with him. If you use logic and objective research to dispute his claims, he’ll probably claim it’s all a massive lie. If you appeal to the Bible to dispute his claims, he’ll probably say you’re confused. If you call him to account in providing evidence as to why you’re wrong, he’ll probably say something like you worship Satan. If you refer to a NT passage, he’ll likely counter with OT. But if you then counter with OT, he’ll likely then just say OT doesn’t apply lol. I finally just blocked him (I’ve only done that with one other poster), not because we merely disagree, but because you can’t reason with him, can’t have any semblance of an intelligent discussion with him, plus his comments come across as cruel. I spent time going back and forth with him for awhile, mainly for fear others would see his comments and mistakenly think all Christians think like he does. I finally gave up. I wouldn’t waste my time with him.

  • ollie

    Sure he has that right.

    Though it might cause issues with his wife. Though her natural rights if she is in disagreement with him is to leave him and divorce him and ask for her share of the property according to the government they are living under.

    There can be consequences.

  • $144948586

    So then, if this man owns a bakery, does he have the natural right to discriminate on who uses those facilities or those services? Keep in mind, he’s not stopping discriminated customers from going elsewhere.

  • D.M.S.

    Maybe you have heard of Him.
    GOD/JESUS/HOLYSPIRIT.
    Peace.

  • D.M.S.

    Yes there is. It’s sinful.

  • ollie

    No because at that point he is in the public square. Can I state that my gas tax cannot go to provide him with a road and likely a sidewalk to get to his business. Can I require that my taxes do not go to his business in the form of cheaper flour and sugar? Can you guarantee that one will not have to go farther to get that product?

    Is there an real health risk to you by providing the service?

    Marriage is about a state related function of rights and financial benefits.

    It is with in society’s natural rights to overrule some discrimination rights.

  • Al Cruise

    You could have bet money on what his answer would be. LoL…

  • ollie

    I know of then name but we are surely referring to different people. The one I have heard of doesn’t work to spread hate and misery.

  • ollie

    I don’t understand why is it sinful? You said Christians weren’t under the law?

  • D.M.S.

    What hate and misery would that be?
    GOD/JESUS/HOLYSPIRIT Condemns all forms of sexual sin, including homosexuality, lgbt.

  • ollie

    yet you can’t tell me where to find that!

  • $144948586

    “No because at that point he is in the public square.”
    Ah, so at this point, natural rights are not the same as civil rights. Do you agree with this?

  • ollie

    I guess I don’t. Civil rights are natural rights.

    People have the right to be treated justly and with respect.

    What is expected behavior in an public settings may not be the expected behavior in a home setting. Though one would expect them to be close. Not always true.

    I really am not sure what you are looking for? Just because we have the natural right to be a prick (and may actually be one), doesn’t give us the right to take away others natural rights by treating them like s–t!

  • $144948586

    You are still calling civil rights natural rights but clearly deny natural rights in the public square. This is called a paradox.

    So you argue: “It is with in society’s natural rights to overrule some discrimination rights.”

    Let me ask you: Do you personally have the natural right to supersede my natural right to be discriminatory in my home?

  • ollie

    No it is not a paradox to me because I am contented with my definitions and how the world should fit together I’m my view of things.

    On the other hand you find it paradoxical because apparently we define the way the world should work differently.

    Do I have the natural right to supersede your natural right to discriminate in your home?
    First off in most cases, if people want to be pricks in their homes and for some reason I have to be there, I try to ignore them. That said, if there is a need to protect someone because of you discrimination policy in your home, I not only have the natural right but I have a moral directive to supersede your natural right.

    Is that clear enough?

  • $144948586

    “No it is not a paradox to me because I am contented with my definitions
    and how the world should fit together I’m my view of things.”
    There’s 7 billion people in the world, and I certainly don’t share your views on the matter…don’t you think that your view (in that society has the right to dominate the individual) is a bit oppressive?

    It’s not a definition which serves any purpose; the natural right that can be denied a person without what should be defined as coercion is no natural right at all.

    “Do I have the natural right to supersede your natural right”
    I asked you this question: “Do you personally have the natural right to supersede my natural right to be discriminatory in my home?”

  • D.M.S.

    Romans 1.

  • ollie

    Well sorry but the world isn’t fair. If it was when the World Trade Center went down instead of being angry at just the supposed country that did it. Citizens of the US would have been just as angry at the US for the 10’s of thousands the US had already killed in the Mideast.

    As you mentioned there are 7 billion people in the world. Do you believe that there should be any rules that can only be enforced by coercion? Or should it be a free for all?

    Just because we believe we have a natural right (and yes maybe we do have that right) doesn’t mean we should use it.

    Back again to the Government control by the PTB. They believe they have the natural right to control the government for their benefit. Why do you have a problem with that? It should fit in with your belief system.

  • $144948586

    Please Ollie, answer the question:
    “Do you personally have the natural right to supersede my natural right to be discriminatory in my home?”

  • ollie

    Translated it might not be so simple: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibc3.htm

  • ollie

    Ok I thought I had. But to state it really simple: If for some reason I am in your home and your being a prick is actually endangering other people’s lifes, I not only have the natural right to, but I have a moral obligation to supersede your natural rights.

    Understand?

  • Robert Ivey

    Actually Jesus would be the first person in line to bake them a cake and marry them in a Chapel.
    Or did you forget his whole washing the feet of really really bad people for his time and its meaning.
    The fundamental point of Christianity lies in Do onto others as you would have them do onto you followed shortly by
    Judge not lest ye be judged. Its not your job to judge people for thier sins that is Gods job its your job to treat them like you would want to be treated.
    Sorry dude you be going to hell if you fail to bake them a cake for thier wedding if asked to do it. Its a sin and your lack of repentence for such hateful behavior leads you to one place…

  • Robert Ivey

    Then why did Jesus hang out with Tax Collectors, Lepers and Prostitutes?
    Why did he wash thier feet and treat them like they were just other people?
    Oh right because everyone is a sinner.

  • Robert Ivey

    Its also very clear you aren’t allowed to throw rocks unless you are with out sin.
    Its also very clear you are supposed to treat your neighbors as you would want to be treated.
    Its extremely clear that anyone who preaches hatred is not a christian.

  • To this day I cannot understand why so many people need a “God” to tell them to essentially “be cool to each other” when that is something that any decent person knows instinctually.

  • COMALite J

    No, property taxes ≠ rent. no matter what silly Libertarians think. Taxes aren’t theft, either. Romans 13:1–7.

  • COMALite J

    Even with that “objective standard … written down” there are ~33,800 different variants (denominations, sects, etc.) of Christianity, according to the World Encyclopedia of Christianity.

  • COMALite J

    According to Paul, that’s true that Christians aren’t under the Law. According to Jesus Christ, they are (“Verily I say unto thee, that until Heaven and earth shall pass, not one jot nor one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law, til all is fulfilled.”). So, who do you believe on this matter? Paul, or Jesus the Christ? If you believe Paul over Jesus Christ, then by definition you aren’t a Christian. You’re a Paulian.

  • COMALite J

    Nice backpedaling of your goalpost-moving machine. To refresh your memory, your original challenge to @OllieHoover:disqus wasn’t, “Please present me with the scripture that states that marriage is other than men to men or women to women?“ It was:

    Please present me with the scripture that states that marriage is other than →⇒one⇐← woman only being married to →⇒one⇐← man only?

    Abraham née Abram, Isræl née Jacob, Moses, David, and Solomon, are all examples of men who had more than one wife at the same time. David had many wives and concubines, but that in and of itself wasn’t considered a sin until, after having had so many, he lusted after the wife of another man then had that man (a faithful subject of his) killed in battle just so that he could have that woman (Bathsheeba — for the record, Joseph the step-father of Jesus would not have existed had that not happened, since she was the mother of Solomon and thus all of the post-David Kings of United Israel and of Judah after the Jeroboam rebellion and secession, and according to Matthew, Joseph was of that lineage).

    Speaking of David, no less than the Lᴏʀᴅ God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the Lᴏʀᴅ God of Israel, the Lᴏʀᴅ Sabaoth of Hosts, point-blank told David (through His prophet Nathan) that He personally gave David the →⇒wives⇐← (plural!) of his master Saul unto his bosom (II Samuel 12:7–8):

    7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith the Lᴏʀᴅ God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;
    8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

  • $144948586

    Mmk, so am I infringing on a person’s natural rightsin my home if I’m merely saying “No, you can’t have my cake. This is for other guests.”?

  • $144948586

    What happens if you don’t pay?

  • D.M.S.

    Jesus was trying to turn them away from their sins. He wasn’t celebrating their sins.
    Huge difference.

  • D.M.S.

    Our Lord Jesus would not of celebrated anyones sins, ever.

  • apoxbeonyou

    Socialist like Jesus?

  • D.M.S.

    Not at all. He presented me with what man has done through biblical history.
    He did not present what God/Jesus presents to us in Christian scripture.

  • $144948586

    “You can fiddle the numbers all you want”
    These were SIMPLE uses of statistics.

    I do note that your response, instead of saying “how did he get those numbers”, was, practically, “BS. He’s not VOX or Guardian so he can’t be telling the truth.”

    That’s unfortunate, Tim. And here, I thought you were willing to have a conversation.

    Talk about Christian. When you’re ready, I’m willing to discuss more systematic racism.

    For the record:
    ” the fact is that blacks are far more likely to be shot (or otherwise killed) in non-violent situations (whether a crime has been committed or not) ”
    This is a stretch to say.
    1) The stats do not report whether or not a crime has been committed.
    2) There is no state in the report about the situations being non-violent.
    3) I presume you mean because the chart shows “unarmed victims by race.” BUT, just because someone is unarmed does not imply the situation was not violent.

    We just don’t have that data…I tried to find “The Counted” paper to see what methods were used.

    Let’s talk about that statement:
    I revisited the Guardian to get back to the data:
    In 2015 totals:
    Unarmed killed by police: 235 people
    White: 106 people
    Black: 79
    Hispanic: 39
    (Non-whites): (235 – 106) = 129.

    Now, the Guardian article says blacks make up 32% of those unarmed victims. And, the final numbers show 34%, even higher.

    HOWEVER, let’s look at 2016:
    Unarmed killed by police: 170 people
    White: 95 people
    Black: 42
    Hispanic: 28
    (Non-whites): (170- 95) = 75.

    This total, and why you didn’t hear anything about 2016 data, is only 25%. That is, only 25% of unarmed victims were black.
    Whites: 55%
    Hispanic: 16%
    Given what was said above, black committed 26% of crimes in 2015, so this number is about average.
    Granted, black unarmed death percentage is 7% higher than their percentage of crimes.
    BUT, in 2016 whites unarmed death percentage is 4% higher than their percentage of crimes.
    –But we don’t consider this an example of systemic racism in the police force. And we don’t consider this as an argument against systemic racism in the police when the number of deaths practically match the percentage of crimes by rice in general—keep in mind that these death are between the numbers of (percentage of crime by race) and (percentage of VIOLENT crime by race).

  • ollie

    Are you giving it to all your other guests? Is it because something is in it that they are allergic to? Or is it something, like, you just won’t allow a black person to eat in your house? Need more information.

    If it is about being discriminatory. Yeah in a case like that you have the right to do that. But I would give that person the advise to stay as far away of you as possible.

  • $144948586

    “Are you giving it to all your other guests?”
    What business is it of yours if I am?

    “Need more information.”
    No you don’t. It’s my stuff, can I not do with it what I want?

  • COMALite J

    Last thing first: are you really saying that II Samuel is not part of “Christian scripture”? Really!? The Books of Samuel are where the story of King David is told. Jesus owes His claim to Messiahship because of Joseph’s being descended from David. Without the Books of Samuel (and the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah, but those are considered lesser histories written during or after the Babylonian Exile and largely just copy the four Books of Samuel, which include the two Books of the Kings), we don’t have David for the Messiah to be descended from!

    Secondly, your firsr assertion: you are the one I called out for backpedaling and goalpost-moving. You demanded Biblical examples of marriage other than of one man to one woman, then after @OllieHoover:disqus named three examples of such, you then came back claiming that he hadn’t shown you examples of marriages of men to men (plural!) nor of women to women. When that challenge was met, you then moved your goalpost from being “anything other than monogamous opposite-sex marriage” to merely being, “anything other than opposite-sex marriage, regardless of whether monogamous or polygamous.” Sorry, but them’s against the millennia-old rules of debate. You cannot issue a challenge, then after the challenge is successfully met, change the rules of the challenge after the fact and claim that it was that way all along. We can all see your words here, and I’ve made screenshots and web archive that can’t be altered by either of us just in case you try to edit your post.

    Besides, in all of the examples given, God approved those marriages. All of those people were called highly blessed by God even after they had multiple simultaneous wives. And in the case of David, as I both described and quoted for you straight from the King James Version (I’ll gladly use whatever version you prefer), the Lᴏʀᴅ God of Israel Hisownself outright told David that He personally gave David the →⇒wives⇐← (plural!) of his master Saul unto his bosom. Go look it up for yourself and read with your own eyeballs the physical ink on physical paper of any Bible translation of II Samuel 12:7–8 if you don’t believe me.

    (Edited to fix number [I had this confused with something else in my memory]:) As it turns out, there are thirteen eight different kinds of marriage commanded by the Lᴏʀᴅ God of Israel in the Bible. None of them are the “traditional Christian” marriage of one man marrying one woman for life, for reasons of love and nothing else. That was never the Biblical reason for marriage.

  • COMALite J

    Heck, His Apostles were downright proto-Marxist Communists and actually established a bona-fide proto-Marxist socioeconomic system in the early Church community (pre-Paul)!

    • Acts 2:44–45 — expresses Marx’s famous synopsis of Marxism.
    • Acts 4:31–37 (last verse of the chapter) — Marx’s synopsis again, with more detail, including an actual example of this system working as intended.
    (Continuing across the chapter boundary without a break into)
    • Acts 5:1–11 — in which Peter, empowered by Almighty God Himself (who presumably therefore endorsed this system), divinely (and fatally!) enforced honesty in participation in this proto-Marxist socioeconomic system.

  • COMALite J

    See my Reply to @disqus_cP7jnQ45Dr:disqus.

  • Ron McPherson

    Yep, I tried the same with him months ago. Good luck ; )

  • Ron McPherson

    I see you’re in discussions with DMS (I can’t see his replies, I blocked him). But months ago when I would counter his claims using scripture he would often just respond that Satan was my master. So get ready
    : )

  • D.M.S.

    I could care less about the opinions of mankind. Mankind will do anything to soothe their itching ears.
    God loves every creature that He has created.
    But God/Jesus will have no qualms of sending all the people that He loves to hell for their disobedience.
    Peace.

  • D.M.S.

    1st question. Yes.
    Your last statement is a manmade LIE.

  • Ron McPherson

    Get ready to be told that Satan is your master LOL!

  • D.M.S.

    LOL…

  • $144948586

    “• Acts 2:44–45 — expresses Marx’s famous synopsis of Marxism.”
    What about those who didn’t believe?

    “• Acts 4:31–37”
    Again, what about those who didn’t believe?
    What about those that did call their possession their own?
    It also says, “For from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales”
    It doesn’t say they sold all the land/houses they owned. It doesn’t even say all the believers sold their land/houses.
    Nor is it imperative that they sold the land; it’d be asinine to sell if no one had want and the land were appreciating significantly–and significantly is dependent entirely upon the immediacy of the need.

    “• Acts 5:1–11”
    Notice they didn’t die for selling only “a piece of the land”. He died for his dishonesty. But check this out:
    “While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal?”
    If that isn’t a recognition of property rights, then you’re just a liar.

    You rightly admit:
    “Peter…enforced honesty in participation in this proto-Marxist socioeconomic system.”
    But I ask you: did he force participation?

  • apoxbeonyou

    Nice. You are a ‘god’ among men. :)

  • Wow, This is horrible but not surprising.

  • D.M.S.

    Polygamy forbidden.
    Deu.17:17- Mal.2:15 – Mat. 19:4.
    1 Tim.3:2, 3:12, 5:9. Titus 1:6.

  • D.M.S.

    Who trained Paul?

  • D.M.S.

    Amen..

  • jaystriggle

    amen brother…oh wait you meant that as a negative…I see….

  • COMALite J

    How about you argue against what I actually posted, instead of your assumptions of my intent before you accuse me (however obliquely) of lying? I never claimed nor implied that the early Christians were against property rights, nor that Peter and God compelled participation. I didn’t just admit, I outright stated up front as a key point, that it was honesty in participation that was compelled (or, rather, dishonesty in participation that was punished). I chose my words carefully, as I usually do.

    I never claimed that the early Christians were like unto Soviets or Chinese Communists nor any other modern attempt to implement Marxism. Of course, the predated Marx himself by some 1¾ millennia, so they never heard of Marxism either, which is why I used the term “proto-Marxist” to describe their system. It had a lot more in common with Marx’s ideal than it does with American capitalism, though, and that was my point.

    As you pointed out and as I’ve often said in similar discussions on Disqus and other forums, Peter himself said that Ananias and Sapphira’s property was theirs to do with as they wished, to sell or not sell as they saw fit, and on selling it, the proceeds were theirs to do with as they wished, to donate all, part, or none as they saw fit.

    Their sin which cost them their lives was in lying about donating all of the proceeds when in fact they’d only donated part, wanting to keep back some for themselves. Keeping back some for themselves was their right, but lying about it was not.

    Though not outright stated, it’s rather strongly implied that there was some sort of social status or stature or reputation or whatever in the community of believers (there were apparently only believers in this particular community and subject to this system, answering your first two questions) that accrued to those who donated all, greater than that which accrued to those who donated only part, which in turn was greater than that which accrued to those who donated none despite having property or wealth to donate. Ananias and Sapphira coveted this greater social status or stature or reputation or whatever, but didn’t want to do what was required to obtain it. They wanted to have their cake and eat it, too, and so lied about donating all when they donated only part, and that is why they were struck dead on the spot.

  • COMALite J

    L.O.L.ing at the Word of God? I hope you don’t think that you’re a Christian.

  • COMALite J

    Are you a Latter-Day Saint (aka “Mormon”)?

  • $144948586

    I am not; I can’t handle two testaments, let alone a third.
    Why do you ask?

  • Phil Teichroew

    Maybe “a” God installed those “instincts” & “decency” in human beings when He created them? After all, when mankind first sinned by eating from the Tree of Knowledge of GOOD & EVIL, their eyes were opened to the difference between the two. Just sayin’…

  • D.M.S.

    I could say the same to you calling the word of God Marxism.

  • Ahh, so what you are saying is that before that whole “tree of knowledge” stuff, there was no difference between good and evil, as far as humans knew. Interesting concept, if a bit Lovecraftian.

  • COMALite J

    Most of Dominionism is a form of Dispensationalism, and Dispensationalism is not Christianity, by definition.

  • COMALite J

    Paul may well have been an imposter. The man couldn’t even keep his own origin story straight. There are at least four different accounts of his supposed conversion on the Road to Damascus and its aftermath, and they contradict each other on key points.

  • COMALite J

    Deuteronomy 17:14–20 (which includes verse 17) is part of a prophecy about the future kings that the Lᴏʀᴅ God of Israel would establish once they reached the Holy Land (as stated outright in verse 14 — actually, that didn’t happen for quite some time, as there was the period of the Judges first), and not commandments applicable even to the Israelites as a whole, let alone to everyone. And this is why you shouldn’t take individual verses out of context. Context matters. Otherwise, King David was an atheist, because he wrote in Psalm 14:1 & 53:1, “… there is no God.”

    Malachi 2:15 doesn’t even mention marriage at all, let alone polygamy. It does forbid to “deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.” The paragraph starting with verse 11 and running through verse 13 refers to marrying women of other religions (“daughter of a strange god,”) but even that is a metaphor because it’s referring to Judah, who was an individual human being centuries previously, but at that time “Judah” represented the whole tribe of Judah and also the (then-defunct) Kingdom of Judah.

    Verse 14 is said to start a new paragraph, but there are no actual paragraphs in written ancient Hebrew, Assuming it continues the same thought starting from verse 11 (the beginning of verse 14, “Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because…” implies that it is a continuation of that metaphor), then “the wife of thy youth” mentioned therein isn’t an actual woman, but a righteous tribe or nation that had allied with the tribe or kingdom of Judah and was betrayed. But even were this not part of the previous metaphor and were literally referring to a literal man dealing treacherously with the wife of his youth, that’s still not forbidding polygamy. It’s forbidding adultery.

    Matthew 19:4 can be seen as forbidding same-sex marriage, but not polygamy. Maybe you meant to include the following verse?

    I Timothy 3:2 applies to bishops (and verse 12 to deacons), not people in general, and besides, the Koine Greek there can be translated as, “married only once,” which was a slang at the time for “married but never divorced.” The injunctions there were for those who would head a congregation of the Church of God to first demonstrate that they can successfully head a family and household (this is outright stated in verse 5).

    5:9 is part of a passage dealing with widows. It says not to take widows into the care of the church until they are at least sixty years old and have no male relatives who can provide for them, have only had one husband (it says nothing here about how many wives the husband may have had), had raised children and lodged strangers and done other good works (waitaminnit, I thought Paul said that works don’t count?), and so on.

    Titus 1:6 is again applying only to leaders of the Church (in this case, elders and bishops).

    And none of those undo the Lᴏʀᴅ God of Israel’s own words to King David (through Nathan) in which He stated that He personally gave David the wives (plural!) of Saul.

    And now, answer according to the words of your Lord and Savior: “But let thine communication be Yea,Yea (yes), or Nay, Nay (no), for more than this cometh of evil.” Also according to Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18–19 which both forbid adding or taking away even one word to or from what is actually written:

    Did the Lᴏʀᴅ God of Israel through His prophet Nathan tell King David that in II Samuel 12:7–8? Yes or No?

  • COMALite J

    Eight (I’d originally typed “thirteen” but had confused that with something else) Types of Biblical Marriage:

  • COMALite J

    Your use of the term “great apostasy.” While others do refer to that, it’s a pretty big deal in Mormonism.

  • D.M.S.

    Romans 1, describes your kind very,very well.

  • D.M.S.

    Like I just stated Romans 1, describes your kind of people very,very well.

  • D.M.S.

    Recent manmade manure, I see.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Not saying that. After they were created, Adam & Eve lived in perfect communion with God. God never intended for them to acquire the knowledge of right & wrong, but rather to live above that & above the law, which was necessary after they sinned.
    Lovecraftian? Guess I don’t deal in fantasy or game playing…whatever that is.

  • Tim

    Why is it a stretch to say that blacks are more likely to be killed in non-violent situations?

    No, we don’t consider that last example to be one of systemic racism in the police, because it’s what we call an outlier. An exception to the rule.

    But also, keep in mind that we’re not just talking about systemic racism in violent encounters with police, but systemic racism across the board. To confine it to just that one aspect of society is misleading.

  • $144948586

    Why do you consiser it an outlier?

  • $144948586

    While I’d probably take issue with this last paragraph on the point that “there was some sort of social status or stature or reputation or whatever in the community of believers”, I can recognize that, yes, I’m sure they desired adulation, I’d also caveat that with I don’t think it was meant to be taught.

    I just take issue with the introduction of Karl Marx and the comparison of his ideas with the early church. After all, this is the guy who said, “The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.” But I wouldn’t say that the early church believed in this even on a voluntary basis. If I’m misunderstanding, I have ears to hear.

    I appreciate the convo ComaLite J!

  • Bones

    Polygamy was not forbidden in the Old Testament. None of those verses condemn polygamy.

    At least show some honesty.

  • Bones

    Yeah God created the tree and told the woman not to eat from it.

    Like that was going to work.

    and God is the hero in this story?

    Seems like fantasy to me.

  • Bones

    ” Lol. Our Lord and Savior Christ Jesus reign will start before that happens.”
    Nope. Another wet dream built on fantasy.

  • ollie

    Part I

    Sorry I was extremely busy yesterday later in the day when I finally decided how to answer you, so here goes.

    I believe that God gave us freewill. For those that do not believe in a god but believe in the idea of freewill, I believe that this concept still holds.

    Having freewill allows you do do what you so desperately believe you have the right to do. So yes you have that right,

    But freewill also gives you the right to own and rape all the women and or men you want to. And the right to do whatever you want with any offspring. Rape. Butcher and cook them in their mothers milk. Pick the best looking ones keep them as virgins and sacrifice them to your god(s) on their 13 birthday.

    Freewill gives you lots of options!

  • Bones

    Well we don’t care about your opinions.

    So you can just f*** off.

  • ollie

    Part II

    Be warned there are consequences to all actions?

  • Bones

    Yeah it was.

    Bet you aren’t selling your assets and pooling your income with your church.

  • ollie

    Well if his version of God is right! Satan’s company is exactly the side, a person of good conscience needs to be on!

  • COMALite J

    The Mormons at least have an answer for that, and use the immediately preceding verses in I Peter 3 (18–20 as well as 21) and 4:6 as well to support their doctrine that the Gospel is preached in “prison” (Hades) to those who had passed on without a decent chance to accept it and/or be baptized, and that once this is done, a living person can be baptized as a proxy in an LDS temple for the dead person. There is much I disagree with on Mormonism, but this belief that the way to salvation doesn’t slam shut forever once someone kicks the bucket is a positive one, I think.

  • Bones

    I remember when Steven Curtis Chapman came over here and was asked if he was going to preach Christianity or the American version.

  • Bones

    Romans 1 is about idolatry.

    This is what happens when people have to use their own intelligence to understand ancient texts.

    Idiots like you read it and don’t have clue.

  • COMALite J

    I didn’t know John deLancie wrote a Gospel!

    Seriously, though. I’ve heard a hypothesis that the book known today as The Shepherd of Hermas is the real Gospel According to Saint Matthew, and that the canonical Gospel by that name is a forgery.

    Matthew’s Gospel contradicts Luke’s almost completely on the story of Christ’s birth and infancy, just for starters. Also, Matthew is the main Gospel that attempts to show that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah by claiming that every detail of His life was “that it might be fulfilled that which was spoken of by the prophet[s]” over forty times — though in almost every case, the “prophecy” Matthew cites is either misinterpreted, misquoted, deliberately altered, not a prophecy to begin with, or just plain doesn’t exist (“He shall be called a Nazarene” is an example of the latter — the only word in the entire Old Testament that begins with “Nazar–” is “Nazarite,” which refers to a person who has been especially dedicated to the Lᴏʀᴅ God of Israel by a special ritual performed by the priests and who must during this period of Nazaritehood eat a very restrictive diet of mostly locusts and wild honey, and not cut his hair [Samson, Samuel, and John the Baptist were all Nazarites], not to a person from a city called “Nazareth” [which isn’t mentioned outside of the Gospels]).

  • Bones

    Derp I’m not the one promoting myself as God’s favourite pet.

    It’s not uncommon for you types t not be able to see your own obnoxiousness and vulgarity.

    And you don’t have a relationship with anyone except yourself.

  • Bones

    That’s you…..

  • Bones

    ” the moronic, aggravating & obnoxious insight! ”

    That’s you again.

    If Jesus is a hate-filled wanker like you present he isn’t worth following.

  • Bones

    Yep, you charged on here claiming to be the morally superior self righteous wanker we get all the time.

    You made yourself and your religion look like a dickhead.

    Well done!

    Keep doing it so you can turn more people away.

  • Bones

    Lol….that’s you dipstick.

    Seeking people out to tell them how good you are and how bad they are obviously gives you a bit of an erection.

    Maybe you should find yourself a woman or a man if you need attention and to get your jollies.

  • Bones

    “And you have become God Almighty now?”

    ROFL……….

    You are so blind aren’t you.

    Pot meet kettle

  • COMALite J

    Yep. “Miscegenation” was considered the Really Big Sin back in the 1960s, just as same-sex marriage is today (actually, there still is a lot of anti-miscegenation fervor among the “alt-right” — and it’s been growing lately). And with the same “reasonings” used.

  • Bones

    No, that’s where you’d like to send me.

    Calling you out as a wanker will not send me to a fictitious hell.

  • Bones

    So not a self righteous prick like you then?

  • Ron McPherson

    Hey, watch that bit with that Q reference. That next generation Trek stuff is outright heresy. I’m a conservative fundamentalist when it comes to Star Trek. Kirk all the way!!

  • D.M.S.

    Yes, I see that in you. You haven’t got a clue about God/Jesus whatsoever.
    And neither does your buddies Herm and Ron.

  • D.M.S.

    Like I said you haven’t got a clue about God/Jesus.

  • D.M.S.

    I love you too, dry Bones.

  • $144948586

    I’m thoroughly confused as to what kind of argument we’re talking about here that you’re accusing me of making.

  • $144948586

    Would you please enlighten me on what “reasoning” ollie’s talking about here?

  • $144948586

    “But freewill also gives you the right to own and rape all the women and or men you want to.”
    No it doesn’t. Because free will doesn’t give you rights; it gives you the ability to act. BUT it is still a violation of rights to rape (definitionally) and it is a violation of another’s rights to own them (without voluntary contract). But, the infringement of those rights also gives the right to retaliation for the sake of justice.
    And this is the basis of ALL legal systems.
    Notice: it’s the natural right to own your person and not be aggressed upon that is the basic of the legal system.

    The primary difference here is that we’re not talking about aggression. We’re talking about an owner voluntarily having people over and, voluntarily, choosing whether or not the owner will do something with their stuff for their guests.

    I’m not arguing against a legal system; these can exist outside of government…government doesn’t define our natural rights as government isn’t natural. Instead, government defines our civil rights–of which these two diverge when we talk about “public accommodations”–per you: I have a right to discriminate with my property, EXCEPT when government has deemed that property a “public accommodation”.
    You can’t have a natural right to discriminate in one stance and NOT have that right in another. It’s not a right, but a privilege.

    But the question is, again, “Can I not do what I want with my stuff?”
    (Providing, of course, I’m not hurting others–except maybe their feelings, because that can’t be expected to be anyone else’s problem)–I’m not forbidding them from doing what they want EXCEPT in the instance that it is my stuff.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Your continued foolishness deserves a reply?
    I notice you quote from the Bible & use it ALL of the time.
    NO credibility whatsoever!

  • Phil Teichroew

    A very lost, sick, desperate & disturbed old man!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Your insanity only continues…Sad!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Sad that you intentionally remain clueless about God & Jesus!

    Your heavy addictions clearly affect your writing…

  • Phil Teichroew

    This from the FOOL who ‘charged’ on here spouting his ignorance, hate, anger & vulgarities at everyone else who will listen to his feeble & impotent flailing.
    Dry Bones is continuing to disintegrate…

  • Phil Teichroew

    Sad display of more FAKE news from the disintegrating Dry Bones!

  • Phil Teichroew

    You worship the WRONG God, Dry Bones!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Always full of the untruth!
    Are you really that ignorant?

  • Phil Teichroew

    Self righteous, apostate & reprobate Dry Bones…

  • ollie

    You asked if you could discriminate at home is the way I understood your line of questioning.

    Simple my argument is that while I likely cannot stop you. It doesn’t make it right. And if you do, YOU ARE A PRICK! (Not my first choice of a words but they would really be unhappy if I used them).

    Can you not serve cake that you have? Of course you can do that. Can you invite a number of people over and serve cake to everyone except the black guy or the Asian woman? In your home, (a private residence) I must argue that, that is your right. But you are a prick for doing that! You lose that right if you are providing a service to the public.

    If it starts storming and there are 45 mile an hour winds it is 35 degrees out and you can’t see 6 inches in front of you. And you leave everyone stay except that black man or Asian woman. I believe that if I am there, I have a Natural Right, in fact a moral obligation to do everything I can to stop you from doing that.

    Yes, I know you have a problem with that belief of mine.

    Why did you start distinguishing between right and privilege? Or why?

    Your argument that you can not own others is a lie. Man has practiced ownership of others for all of written history. And quite truthfully they tend to use your arguments. And as to raping and murdering? I would suggest that you need to read a little more American history.

    I grew up in an America where many were still upset not only that they had to serve blacks in their businesses but it was socially in acceptable to kill a black that didn’t know their place.
    An America where you couldn’t rape a black woman, or an Asian woman or a Native American woman because you can’t rape something that wasn’t human!

    How can there be a legal system outside the boundaries of a government system? By definition a legal system shows that a group of people have agreed to being governed.

    Again I will say that you have every right to be a prick. But that there are cases that a society has a right to force you to comply to other standards.

    Also you contend that it is your Natural Right to be a prick. I am just pointing out that others can have different ideas of what is ok. And if we buy your idea of rights being not being able infringed upon. What right do we have to infringe on anyones rights as they see them?

    60 years ago many seen killing a black person not as wrong but as an improvement upon the world.

    If we don’t keep improving on everyones rights we will lose rights.

    I know that you like to be in control of the conversation. But you keep bringing up the government and you seem not to like it. So I ask again: In a capitalist (free market) system why are you so angry that some have been good planners and smart and so have worked the system to their advantage?

  • $144948586

    ollie, I don’t need lectures on the matter.

    It doesn’t matter if you think the person who is discriminatory is a prick. What is the difference between discriminating at home and discriminating in my business? Why can’t I keep my natural right to discriminate in my business? It is my natural right, after all.

    I said privilege over right, because rights cannot be usurped by others EXCEPT in that the person usurping your right is the aggressor.
    And no, just because I say it’s a natural right to not be owned DOES NOT MEAN that people can’t enslave others. Or else, you’re whole “use the government” mantra would be equally fallacious.

    Just because one believes in the right to discriminate, it doesn’t make that person a discriminator. I’ve not said that I do discriminate (and I don’t, because it would be stupid for a number of reasons: for my faith and economically for my business). BUT, if discrimination is a right, then, PLEASE IN 5 SENTENCES OR LESS, tell me why I can’t I have my natural right to discriminate in my business.

  • ollie

    Because it is bad for society.

  • $144948586

    So me, the individual, deciding I don’t want to share my stuff with certain people (or groups of people) is bad enough for society that the society has the right to usurp my natural right to discriminate?

  • ollie

    Yes!

  • $144948586

    But I’ve not aggressed upon the person I’m discriminating against. I’ve merely not shared the stuff I have with them, and I’m not forbidding them from “going elsewhere”.

    But where does society get this power from?

  • ollie

    No God didn’t. Adam did. And if the story is to be believed he is guilty of embellishment.

  • ollie

    If you believe in Christian theology then they get it from God.

    Otherwise they get it from a collective power of the group.

    Neither of which means that they always get it right.

  • Bones

    Self righteous, boring, charlatan, sanctimonious & complete and utter wanker, Phil….

  • Bones

    Yeah you are.

    Why do you lie so much?

    Does it make you feel good?

  • Bones

    I couldnt be half arsed going any where near the spiteful Prick you represent.

  • Bones

    You are a sad pathetic example of a human being.

    But you’ve been exposed as being no different to the extremist charlatans seeking to destroy us.

  • Bones

    Thats you again Phool.

    I mean look at the wonderful example you’ve displayed on here.

    Yhe pharisees couldnt have fone it better.

    No wonder you type killed jesus.

    You bring death, ignorance and hatred.

  • Bones

    Yes it is sad that you see that your self righteousness reprehensible and narcissist behaviour is how your god wants you to be.

    Well thanks for showing us that but that little idol you’ve made can f### off.

  • Bones

    Thats your ramblings, Phool.

    People like you have nothing else to do because you’re good for no one so you’re left to findibg people on the internet you can beat up.

  • $144948586

    “If you believe in Christian theology then they get it from God.”
    Where did God grant society the right to suppress the individual in regards to “harmless” discrimination?
    Again, no one is being forbidden from doing what they want–certain groups can’t use “my stuff.”

  • Bones

    You are very lost, sick, desperate and disturbed Phool.

    Thats why you’ve been reduced to seeking out people on the internet to attack.

    Poor Phool has no friends, no job, rejected his family and anyone who isnt like him now has to find people to vindicate himself and make himself feel better..

  • Bones

    I understand the bible Phool.

    Unlike charlatans like you who use it spread hate.

  • Bones

    No, those are just words

    You are a sanctimonious lying little prick. That is what your words reveal.

    You probably even hate yourself.

    Thats why you hang around here

  • Bones

    And i dont care what dickheads like you think.

    You have no idea what christianity is about.

  • Bones

    No…its all in you.

    Your hateful idol that you’ve made in your haed which hates anyone not like you.

    You are no different to the extremists in isis.

    Same god…..

  • Phil Teichroew

    Sorry for your anguish & pain!
    God is your only answer!

  • Bones

    Your god is no one’s answer.

    You love inflicting anguish and pain on others dont you Phool?

    Why dont you get a job?

  • Phil Teichroew

    Sorry you’re so blinded & deluded!
    God is your only answer!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Very sorry for all the hurt & pain that you & your lapdog have incurred!
    God is your ONLY answer!

  • ollie

    Arn’t leaders appointed by God?

  • Phil Teichroew

    When you & your puppy dog sober up maybe you’ll eventually be able to think clearly…
    Still, God is your only answer!

  • Phil Teichroew

    How can either of you write when you’re both so very soused?
    Only God can help you with your pain & anguish!

  • Bones

    Whats that Phool.

    You love ceating pain and anguish.

    Muslims do too.

    Your hateful brand of religion isnt anything special.

  • Bones

    Phool you have to be completely pissed and high to believe theres a god behind your shit.

  • Bones

    Lol you arent sorry.

    You enjoy causing pain nd spreading hate.

    Thats how you get your high..

    Thats what psychopaths enjoy.

    Its religion like yours which makes good people do bad things.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Is that what has happened to you & your lapdog, Dry Bones?
    Very sorry for your anguish, pain & self-delusion!
    God is your only answer!

  • Bones

    Lol the blind and deluded one is the sel righteous Phool who came on here to show everyone how much better he was and has been exposed as a shallow vindictive moron who has no life.

  • Bones

    The school of greek philosophy and the sanhedrin.

  • $144948586

    Was Hitler appointed by God?

  • Phil Teichroew

    Sorry you remain clueless about the Bible & reject God & His Word!
    Open your eyes, mind & heart to God, Who is your ONLY answer!

  • D.M.S.

    My veiws on catholics are the same for all Christians.
    I doubt that 1% of them makes it into the kingdom of heaven.

  • D.M.S.

    I still love you, dry bones.
    I will keep praying for your salvation.
    Peace.

  • ollie

    Oh I am sorry! Christians never ever let their theology get in the way of what they want. If someone doesn’t like their leader then it’s; “don’t you know all leaders are appointed by God.” Example: President Trump

    If they don’t like the leader then that leader somehow cheated and took the leadership role wrongfully. Example: President Obama

    Either all leaders as said are appointed by God or they are not. There is no middle ground on this!

    I know what I believe. What do you believe?

  • D.M.S.

    Please enlighten me on what Christianity is about?
    Dry Bones.

  • D.M.S.

    What is the church?
    Do you even know?

  • D.M.S.

    Are you telling us that scripture is lying to us, Christians?

  • D.M.S.

    There’s only one kind of marriages that God/Jesus ordains. One woman only married to one man only, for life.
    Peace.

  • ollie

    Of course not he just requested and drank a drink of water from a low down dirty female dog half breed Samaritan, that had been married many times and was living currently with a man that was not her husband.

    Socially, politically and religiously this encounter was wrong on so many levels. And yet Jesus celebrated life with this woman!

  • Bones

    I’m saying you’re lying.

    Which is par for the course.

  • Bones

    Dont care.

    If its anything like you count me right out.

    Id rather do something useful with my life.

  • Bones

    Following Jesus Christ.

    Which is the opposite of conservatives like you who follow the pharisees.

  • Bones

    And still you lie.

    Your sanctimonious prayers mean nothing to anyone.

  • D.M.S.

    You call what our Lord Jesus was doing with that woman at the the well, celebrating her sins.
    You’re NUTS!
    What kind of drugs are you on these days.

  • COMALite J

    In addition to what I said before, Rabbi Gamaliel (a Pharisee) trained Saul of Tarsus. He was the Sanhedrin member who named a couple of other Messiah claimants of the time whose claims and followings came to naught, and advised his fellow Pharisees to wait and see about the then-new Christianity movement in Acts 5:34–40, and Paul himself (according to his physician and historian Luke) states (at the time of his arrest in Jerusalem) that he learned at the feet of Gamaliel in Acts 22:3,

  • Bones

    You are still clueless Phool.

    I reject you and your whole hateful self righteous ideology.

    You arent god.

    One day you’ll work that out.

  • COMALite J

    You’re the one who brought up Q. ;-)

  • COMALite J

    God created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, not Adam (unless you’re a fundamentalist Brighamite Mormon that still believes in the Adam–God thing). God commanded Adam and Eve not to partake of it.

  • COMALite J

    Are you saying that God didn’t know in advance, with 100% certainty, ∞ eons before He ever said, “Let there be light,” that Adam & Eve would partake of the Fruit of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? If so, then He’s not omniscient, and therefore not truly God (at least not the God that most Christians claim to believe in).

  • ollie

    NUTS? I said he celebrated life with her. Yes it was a sinful life according to their society. But he did not shun her.

    When a baker bakes a wedding cake for someone they are no more celebrating their wedding then they are celebrating a persons birthday when they bake a cake for their birthday.

    How many bakers turn down making wedding cakes for second and even third marriages because they would be celebrating sin?

    You might try just a pinch of intellectual honest sometime. It might make you a better person and it would definitely help you in your religious growth department.

  • COMALite J

    Then you’re calling the Lᴏʀᴅ God of Israel a bald-faced liar for His words clearly recorded in II Samuel 12:7–8. Not all of your protestations to the contrary will cause even one letter of that passage to change shape to some other letter on that page of any of the brazillions of printed copies in existence. It says what it says, and you’re denying the Word of God and calling at the very least His Prophet Nathan (who, by the way, in that very passage, prophesied the death of David’s firstborn son by Bathsheeba, which did happen according to that passage, so he was a true prophet of the Lᴏʀᴅ) a liar.

  • ollie

    There is no evidence in the Bible that God told Eve anything about the tree.

    I must assume that Eve’s knowledge of the tree was second hand.

    Read what God told Adam. Then read the conversation between Eve and the serpent.

  • COMALite J

    Adulation would be included in the “social status” I was alluding to. At the very least, people who donated all appear to have been seen as more righteous than those who could do so, yet did not. I don’t think it was any official greater status, but there was at least some sort of benefit to reputation or status or whatever. If there weren’t, then there would’ve been no incentive for Ananias and Sapphira to lie about donating all when they donated only a part of the proceeds of the sale of their property.

  • Give it up. DMS is “special.” I blocked quite a while back.

  • ollie

    :( but I’m not yet bored of him. ;)

    Do I have to be good?

  • D.M.S.

    Paul was trained by our Lord Christ Jesus.

  • D.M.S.

    We both agree on something.
    Following Christ Jesus as our Lord and Savior.

  • Bones

    Unfortunately you have no idea what that means.

  • Bones

    If that’s the case why not baptise people in the name of every person who ever died?

    Once again it’s giving a ritual magical powers.

    No wonder it’s called Moronism.

  • Bones

    The ridiculousness of the Creation myth wrapped up.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGASvVqzOa0

  • D.M.S.

    I don’t know about you, dry Bones.
    But I’ll be a learning Christian for the rest of my life.
    Peace.

  • Bones

    No Dead Moronic Sadduccee you aren’t.

    You are a blind, ignorant and arrogant liar.

  • Bones

    Well they’ll get there before you…but then paedophiles will too…..

  • $144948586

    If you want my honest answer, no. God did not appoint Hitler.

    But do you think it was OK to revolt (or attack) Hitler’s Germany?

  • Bones

    Yes Matthew’s agenda was to show that Jesus and Christianity had surpassed Judaism hence the infinite number of ‘prophecies’ from the Old Testament.

    To most Jews the messianic prophecies were laughable and is why Christianity had a hard time spreading among Jews.

  • Bones

    Yes Classic Star Trek was the best.

    Never ever bring up that latest abortion of a Star Wars movie.

  • Bones

    Lol….you’re like the kid in Year One telling the Maths Professor he doesn’t understand Maths.

  • Bones

    There seems to be prostitutes to the parties where Jesus went.

    That’s why the Pharisees hated him.

    Interesting as to which camp you are in.

  • Bones

    Ollie is a legend……

  • D.M.S.

    He, Jesus went there to turn them away from their sins.
    Not to celebrate them.

  • D.M.S.

    Having fun, lol. It won’t do you a bit of good, but keep trying, if it makes you feel good :-)

  • D.M.S.

    Thank you, you’re so kind.
    I’ll be praying for you.

  • D.M.S.

    The cake for a wedding, is usually celebrated, by most couples.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Charlatan Dry Bones is living in fear of himself?
    That explains everything…
    But God is your only answer to all those maladies that you’re experiencing!

  • Phil Teichroew

    You reject God because you’re hateful, self righteous & dead in your sins & trespasses.
    But ONLY God can remedy that & give you true peace!

  • Phil Teichroew

    You & your puppy dog look like you have nothing better to do.
    Four fingers pointing back at you!
    But God can & will remedy ALL of your shortcomings & insecurities!

  • Phil Teichroew

    YOU are my job! You & your lapdog…
    God still loves you & eventually you will have to answer to Him.

  • Phil Teichroew

    You are still loved, despite your inability to love & accept yourself!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Psalm 14:1 & 53:1!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Truly sorry your insecurities & addictions have overcome you!
    Your guilt & anger has truly overtaken your ability to write or make any sense whatsoever.
    But God’s love remains & He is the answer to ALL of your hurts, addictions & shortcomings!

  • Phil Teichroew

    When you & your lapdog become sober, God is still waiting to forgive & to save…

  • Phil Teichroew

    God has ALWAYS known.
    ALWAYS does.
    ALWAYS will.

  • D.M.S.

    I love you, too, dry Bones.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Dave who? Another crazy Brit who’s absolutely clueless about God, His Word & Creation & ignorantly rejects God?
    Sorry, I only watched about 15 seconds of his foolishness.
    I already know what the lost, unbelievers, skeptics & scoffers believe.
    Who’s fooling who? Psalm 14:1…

  • Bones

    Lol..dave allen is Irish, Phool.

    And he has a better understanding of the Bible than charlatans like you.

    If adam and eve didnt sin…..

    https://youtu.be/gAITI0ULFxg

    Gee you people are phools.

  • Bones

    Lies…lies…lies….

    The same love that isis has.

  • Bones

    If this is your god than it can f### off.

    Its no different from the muslim god.

  • Bones

    Lol…the anger coming from the teisted self righteous prickneho thinks hes better than everyone else because he hates gays.

    Isis called.

    They want their god back.

  • Bones

    Like a dog that returns to its vomit is a phool who repeats his folly.

    Proverbs 26:11

  • Bones

    I know.

    I have an amazing wife and kids.

    Unlike you, you poor pathetic individual.

    You’d be better off watching porn.

  • Bones

    As i thought.

    Totally and utterly useless to everyone.

    I dont have to answer to YOUR god.

    And your actions reflect YOUR god.

    Since ehen is hate, love

    Only in the hypocritical minds of extremists.

  • Bones

    Yeah there’s a lot of fingers pointing back at you phool.

    Remember who the dickhead was who came on here pointing out everyone’s sin.

    Not so clever now are you Mr Superchristian.

    Not liking having YOUR sins pointed out now are you?

    Your god loves no one other than phool.

    It is incapable of love because it is the god of the pharisees.

    It doesnt exist….

  • D.M.S.

    I love you too…

  • D.M.S.

    Are you sure?

  • D.M.S.

    God/Jesus loves you, Bones.

  • Bones

    I reject you and your hateful cultic self righteous attitude and ideology.

    Your god is the god of the pharisee…

    You are like whitewashed tombs, beautiful on the outside, but full of dead men’s bones and filth..

    You lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. You won’t go in yourself, and you keep others from going in.

    Your god is incapable of love ad it is a narcissist made in your own image.

  • Bones

    No problem.

    How about you pray for people who need your god, like the thousands dying today instead of trying to come across as a sanctimonious dickhead?

  • Bones

    Poor phool has no life but has to harass strangers on the internet and somehow he thinks thats his gods work.

    In reality it’d be more useful if he got himself off on porn.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Said the true & established FOOL!
    Sorry, I don’t watch garbage, so I don’t know if that’s a real picture of yourself or not.
    Still, God loves you!

  • Bones

    Yep i’m having fun.

    Everyone else has blocked you and its only the appearance of other retards that has fired you up.

    You even try to copy them

    Such is how pathetic you are.

    You dont have a brain in your head.

  • Bones

    He went there to party with them.

    He hung around whoresand not people like you.

    People like you hated him.

  • Phil Teichroew

    You reject Almighty God & lock yourself out of Heaven & any reconciliation & communion with Him.
    Very sad!
    But God STILL loves you!

  • Bones

    Interesting how these deadbeat conservatives get attracted by any criticism of their messiah trump.

    They just come out of the closet.

  • Phil Teichroew

    Islam has NO god.
    But the One True God will always love you!

  • Phil Teichroew

    God will not harass you, but I can definitely see that the Holy Spirit is working on you…
    Romans 8:28 can work for you!

  • Phil Teichroew

    LOL!
    I get off knowing that someday you may come to know Jesus Christ as your Savior & become a part of the Kingdom of God in Heaven!

  • Phil Teichroew

    God loves you & He is the ONLY answer to your distress!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Sorry you have to continually lie to yourself & everyone else, but God still loves you & will forgive you if you repent. He will right all your wrongs, hurts, inferiorities, insecurities & vulgarities – if only you ask!

  • Phil Teichroew

    You read God’s Word?
    Yet you reject Jesus Christ?
    Why do you & your lapdog continually insist on returning to your vomit?
    Remember, God loves you!

  • Phil Teichroew

    “teisted”? “prickneho”?
    Isis your wife, or did you mean to say Iris is calling?
    When will you stop with the drugs & alcohol? Definitely contributes to your delusion & really makes you look very bad. Sorry that it’s that hard for you to construct sentences & correctly spell.
    Please sober up & find Jesus!

  • Bones

    It’s called a phone dickhead. you would have to high or pissed to believe your bs.

  • Bones

    I reject you and your self righteous Phoolishness and idolatry.

    Fun fact: You aren’t Jesus Christ.

    Your god hates everyone.

    Like you.

  • Bones

    Yes it’s so sad you have to live out your insecurities on the internet.

    I see it with you types all the time.

    Your life is so useless you have to create a false persona to create attention and your own self importance.

    It’s pathetic really.

    But at least you’re leaving real people alone.

    I’m quite happy to counsel you.

  • Bones

    More empty platitudes.

    Why talk about god when you are a complete jerk.

    Physician, heal thyself!

  • Bones

    The only way someone would join your disgraceful religion is by force.

    Paedophiles and porn stars will enter the kingdom of god before you.

  • Bones

    Poor Phool still thinking he is god.

    What’s hilarious is you think your setting a good example and that your childish dickheadish behaviour is the work of the Holy Spirit

    Here’s news. It isn’t.

    I’d sooner die then join your cult.

    Because your cult is death.

    Fmd you are a real arrogant prick.

  • Bones

    Your god is the same hateful god as the muslims.

  • Bones

    I reject you.

    You don’t get it do you?

    And your god is a hateful merkin.

    Like you.

  • Bones

    Lol…..

    The picture you’ve made of yourself is a complete and utter jerk.

    You can say God love you a million times but your behaviour shows that is a complete and utter lie.

    No matter how many times you type it.

  • Bones

    Is this the new tactic by you dickheads?

    Oh we’ll type God loves you while acting like dickheads to show how good we are.

    You people really are pathetic.

    Your god is like you.

    A hateful merkin.

  • Bones

    Absolutely.

    You’re no different to ISIS.

  • Bones

    Nice dude.

    But I’m not gay.

    And I wouldn’t date dickheads.

  • Bones

    Love the new evangelical tactic by the self righteous conservative morons.

    Apparently you act like a jerk and just say ‘god loves you’.

    Like really? How f***ing infantile.

    These people have no idea and think they’re dealing with infants .

    They don’t see that their ideology is despicable and dangerous and we won’t be distracted by empty platitudes which are just a distraction to excuse their own disgraceful behaviour towards other people on this thread…

  • Bones

    Yeah that answered nothing.

    I’m sure it sounded good to you though.

  • Bones

    Lol….you mean you don’t know what the Earth would be like if Adam and Eve hadn’t sinned…..

    Apparently over 100 billion people would be living on the Earth………

    Thank Christ, Adam and Eve did sin.

  • Bones

    Apparently the new tactic is to act like a jerk and say I love you or god loves you.

    I remember that sort of thinking from youth group.

  • Phil Teichroew

    God still loves a “hateful merkin” like you, Dry Bones!

  • Phil Teichroew

    It’s TRUE!
    But scoffers & skeptics like you ALWAYS reject the truth!
    Sorry you live with such guilt & conviction!
    But only God can remedy that for you!
    When will you ever come to grips with the salvation message of Jesus Christ? On your dying bed? He will still be there with open arms!
    You really don’t have to put yourself through so much distress!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Who cares? It’s a moot point.
    God already eliminated that many Godless & (always) wicked people during the Great Flood…
    2 Corinthians 6:2.

  • Phil Teichroew

    God loves you, Dry Bones! He NEVER changes! Despite your attempt at an obnoxious, disgusting & unlovable character!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Islam has NO god, only a despicable prophet!
    Islam is all about HATE & DEATH, Christ is ALL about LIFE & LOVE!
    Including you!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Are you continually that ignorant & naïve?
    Somehow mistaking me for Jesus Christ & God, your Creator?
    NEVER made that claim & never would!
    God & His Word stand alone!

    Jesus is still calling you, Dry Bones!

  • Phil Teichroew

    God has NEVER forced anyone!
    He loved ALL of us so much that He gave us all free will!
    Accept or reject His way of salvation!
    NO one will EVER enter the Kingdom of Heaven, except through Jesus Christ!!
    Period!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Only Christ can save a jerk like you, Dry Bones!
    You’re trying to hide all that hurts & troubles your soul by acting out & ranting. Not fooling me. You’re a very troubled man & only the Great Physician can truly heal you!
    I pray you accept & receive Christ’s love, salvation & forgiveness TODAY!

  • Phil Teichroew

    You see it in yourself & you’re crying out.
    God is there for you!

  • Phil Teichroew

    I am definitely NOT Jesus Christ & I would NEVER claim to be!
    What part of that have you NEVER understood?
    My ONLY God IS Jesus Christ!
    And he loves you, Dry Bones, very much!

  • Phil Teichroew

    Still not sober?
    Obviously you’ve never felt loved & are incapable of loving. Thus you can’t accept the immense love of Jesus Christ.
    I’ll pray for you TODAY!

  • ollie

    My point was that either as they say all leaders are appointed by God or none are. Christianity has an identity crises because they are always changing stories to fit their need.

    As to Hitler’s Germany, there were structural problems caused to a large degree from actions after WWI. Hitler was played and it accomplished what was wanted, namely the establishment of the modern day state of Israel. Plus it make alot of US companies alot of money. And the world banking circle. It also allowed the West to see how a full scale eugenics program would work out on a huge scale.

    Had it not been for outside forces Hitler would have been a nonentity.

    The question I will answer is this Germany was a tool that was used and destroyed to meet outside foeces needs. That was wrong.

  • Bones

    Save your prayers for yourself.

    You need it …

    Your god has no love…it is the hater of humanity….like you.

  • Bones

    Word of advice…if you think people rejecting you is rejecting Jesus Christ, then you think you are Jesus Christ.

    You aren’t.

    And no, your god doesn’t love anyone except Phool.

  • ollie

    Please explain where am I sulking? I am being conservative?

  • Phil Teichroew

    Obviously you have NEVER read the Bible, have absolutely NO knowledge of the character & nature of the One True God & your Creator…
    But I will continue to pray for you nevertheless!

  • Bones

    Your god is there for no one.

    Once again you display your insecurities by thinking you can behave however you want and then think you can then tell us about this god of love by the hate you display.

    The train left on that a long time ago dude.

    No one is interested in your hateful god. we know its hateful because of how you behave.

  • Bones

    No…the troubled person is the one who has to go onto other internet sites and boast about how much of a good Christian he is by tearing others down.

    It is in fact by tearing others down that you lift up yourself.

    There’s much psychology on that.

    You need help.

    I hope you find enlightenment out of the darkness of your cult.

  • Bones

    Phool you don’t get that your religion has nothing to do with God. You’ve created your own hateful version.

    You hate gays, you hate other posters on here, you hate refugees and immigrants..it’s all over the thread.

    And you think your hate is a virtue which will convince us your god is loving.

    F*** off!

  • Bones

    You think rejecting you, is rejecting God.

    Therefore you think you are God.

    Word of advice, when you act like a dickhead, you don’t convince anyone of anything about god other than you are a dickhead.

  • Phil Teichroew

    No one is rejecting me & even if they were it would mean absolutely nothing to me!
    Rejecting Christ, as you do, is an entirely different matter & has dire Eternal consequences!
    I pray someday you’ll learn about God, His Son Jesus Christ & come to a saving knowledge of Him!
    Without that & rejection of Him will only lead to Eternal Damnation!

  • ollie

    Here I thought a cake for a wedding was to be eaten in celebration of a commitment to each other. I have never seen a cake celebrated.

    Though I suppose some bakers do everytime they hear that Cha-Ching.

  • Bones

    Your god is the same as Islam’s.

    It wants to kill everyone who doesn’t believe it.

    Heck dude you’ve already condemned me to hell because I don’t follow your hateful religion.

    That sort of bs can f*** off.

  • Phil Teichroew

    My God can be your God!

    You need to stop drinking first!

  • Phil Teichroew

    You keep talking about yourself, Dry Bones, but you just can’t seem to see it because you have so much pent up hate & anger against yourself.
    Still , God loves you & has prepared a way out for you!

  • Bones

    Here’s the thing you don’t get and I’m saying this after decades of being a Christian and a minister.

    You telling me God loves me means absolutely nothing…not a dime….when you act like a complete and utter prick.

    It’s amazing that you don’t get that and shows how deluded and blind that you cannot see the log in your own eye.

    That’s what all this is about.

    It’s about YOU, Phool, and how YOU treat others and the hideous message YOU send others.

    You can waffle on about me all you want….but this is really about YOU.

  • Bones

    Lol….thinking’s too ha