How Christian Fundamentalism Is Making A Concerning Comeback In America

How Christian Fundamentalism Is Making A Concerning Comeback In America September 15, 2016

Angry priest doing a sermon

American culture is currently experiencing what some, and now I, am calling New Wave Fundamentalism. The original fundamentalists stem from the early 20th Century, and was rooted largely in fear– fear over this new concept of evolution, fear that culture was growing too liberal, fear that the nation was drifting from God, and fear that it would all come crashing down if they didn’t take culture back.

(Swap out evolution for gay marriage, and you’ll get an idea as to where this is heading.)

They gave it a good run for the rest of that era. In time, however, fundamentalism drifted to the margins as Evangelicalism grew in prevalence– a movement that was reactionary against the fundamentalists, who many thought were too rigid and belligerent. While Evangelicalism shared many of the same goals, they wanted to get there differently, and give culture a better impression. A “kinder, gentler” fundamentalism, perhaps.

Like their fundamentalists counterparts, Evangelicals gave it a good run for their season, too– but times are shifting again.

Today we’re seeing a surprise resurgence in Christian fundamentalism/extremism that not many expected. Our culture is ripe for such a movement– movements like this cannot give birth or grow without the right conditions. While we *thought* they were busy building replicas of Noah’s Ark, the soil of Christian extremism was being tilled over the last 8 years, to the point where a new wave of fundamentalism is emerging– one that should be concerning to people of all stripes and flavors.

As your explainer-in-chief for all things fundamentalism, let me quickly walk through what we’re seeing and need to really be aware of. There’s a lot happening, but today I’ll just cover 3 points:

1. There’s a large chunk of Christians who believe they are “losing,” and they’re panicked as to what that means.

Ever since President Obama was sworn in, talking heads within the religious right started barking about how we are “losing.” They painted him out to simultaneously be an socialist atheist and a radical Muslim, which was a win-win since the group of people in question are afraid of both. These flames of fear were fanned by 24/7/365 conservative commentary disguised as “fair and balanced” news, which gave legitimacy to their fears, and allowed them to grow and blossom.

While the new wave fundamentalists can’t actually point to a single right they have lost (the right to discriminate doesn’t count), they are absolutely convinced they are losing them. They’re sure that the feds are just one step away from confiscating their guns, shutting down all Christian churches, and that a massive loss of religious liberty is about to take place– it’s the lie that has been fed to them, and they finally believe it.

Why is this concerning? Because when people are afraid they will do desperate things.

2. Right-wing extremists who would otherwise have nothing to do with Christian fundamentalism (or Christianity) are joining their ranks, giving them critical mass to stage a social movement.

 The rise of new wave fundamentalism in America isn’t just religious, it’s massively political. However, this time it’s a little different. The Moral Majority led by Evangelicals in the last two decades was tailored specifically toward Evangelical interests, meaning the movement was largely comprised of Evangelicals. New wave fundamentalism, however, is more representative of secular, conservative extremism– they want guns on their hips, gays in the closet, Mexicans only south of Cancun, and to be separated from Muslims by no less than at least one ocean.

This isn’t grandma’s Moral Majority we’re talking about here.

Since this new movement is rooted in run-of-the-mill racism, homophobia, and xenophobia, it is drawing allies from groups of people who otherwise probably would not find enough commonality to join a “Christian” movement– essentially, they’ve now tapped into a new demographic who can help them get further in the game.

When the fundamentalists rallied around Ted Cruz, these two groups were still separated, but once they all came under the umbrella of Donald Trump, they joined ranks together, even if neither one wants to admit it. This gives them concerning numbers that they otherwise do not have on their own.

3. The leaders of new wave fundamentalism are telling the masses that they have to do something, right now.

The sense of urgency felt among the fundamentalists and secular extremists is the most concerning factor to watch. It’s one thing to have a bunch of people in society who are racist, homophobic, and xenophobic, as long as they’re just flying their confederate flag on their own porch so that the rest of us know to stay away. It’s a totally different ballgame when those people all come together to seize political power because they finally believe the “time is right” to grasp it.

Fundamentalist leaders are sounding the alarm bells like never before. You have Franklin Graham traveling to all 50 states, warning people that that America is on the verge of collapse because of things like gay wedding cakes, and that the solution is for like-minded Christians to seize more power. You have others, such as Mike Seaver from Growing Pains, broadcasting himself to the screens of local movie theaters in order to communicate an identical message: America might die if we don’t do something, right now.

So here’s the volatile concoction we have right now: we have a growing number of Christians who are convinced they are losing and that the world is closing in on them. They are gaining critical mass by coalescing with conservative extremists who don’t share their faith, but share their political goals. Finally, they have well-funded and well-broadcasted leadership, daily warning them that this is their last chance to seize power and take control of the nation.

When Christian fundamentalism faded into the shadows and focused on building arks and trying to debate scientists, there was little cause for concern and much cause for amusement.

But when those people get panicked? When they begin broadcasting their racism, xenophobia, and homophobia to the masses, and begin finding like-minded people to join them? When they have leaders traveling the country, fanning the flames of fear and warning them that this is their last chance to take control? When they’re no longer content to debate the legitimacy of the King James Version versus the NIV, but instead are focused on how to control the Supreme Court?

Yeah, that’s the kind of thing I’d keep my eye on.


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.

Keep up to date with BLC! Visit his NEW site!


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Brian Kellogg

    Can we hope that this is just the death throws of their atrophying grip on political power?

  • Fear not! Though an Il Duce might be on the rise rallying & raising support one must follow one’s conscience.

  • Yes! It’s the last hurrah! `€=-)

  • For the past couple of years, “evangelicalism” and “fundamentalism” have been pretty much the same to me, and that hasn’t always been the case.

    I think evangelicalism would be a lot healthier and have a much more pronounced and positive impact if they could come to grips with the fact that Christendom is gone and not coming back. There is nothing to save, and there is no amount of “fighting” that is going to bring back whatever they have in their heads as the golden days when Christians ruled the world.

    If they could just let it go, they could focus on how to be a good influence and a place of healing and refuge in a post-Christendom world. They are fighting for something that is long, long gone and possibly never existed in the first place. Just make your peace with it and get to the work of being Jesus’ followers in a world that might not look the way you like it.

  • Al Cruise

    “The rise of new wave fundamentalism in America isn’t just religious, it’s massively political.” It’s ironic they’re using a secular institution to try and convince themselves that they are still relevant .They lost all their credibility as representatives of Scripture through their own hypocrisy. As the old saying goes “birds of a feather, flock together.” You can hear them chirping , Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump.

  • RonnyTX

    Benjamin:
    Mike Seaver from Growing Pains

    Ronny to Benjamin:
    Oh my, I remember years ago now, when I had a big time crush, on that cute guy. :-)

  • RonnyTX

    Thinking of a nephew of mine, who is a fundamentalist Calvinistic preacher. He actually posted online, that there were infant children who had died, who were now in hell. :-( One of my sisters, posted back and really disagreed with him. After a short while, he took all of that off of his Facebook page. I found that strange, since he surely believes such or else, he would of never posted it.

    Thinking to check some more, on the Facebook pages of some of my kinfolk. Have been surprised that some who no doubt support Trump, have not been saying so. I think I know why. Probably because they know others will chime in, with some of the bad stuff about Trump and maybe ask them, how could a Christian support such a person?

    Full disclosure. I don’t plan to vote for Trump or Hillary.

  • Makes the sound of Jack booted thugs! =(

  • To claim it’s making a comeback assumes it ever went away. It just wasn’t on your radar, but I can assure you that it never went anywhere. What you are seeing right now is a lot of crazy that has take over a political party that did it’s best to keep that crowd away from the cameras. Now they’re front and center, but nothing you are seeing is the least bit new.

  • I’ve had Evangelical Trump supporters tell me that sexual morality doesn’t matter any more. It sure mattered to them in the past. Obviously it was just a weapon to use against Democrats they didn’t like anyway. When a Republican has multiple affairs and divorces like Trump, Gingrich and Giuliani (3 marriages each and all cheated on at least two of those wives) it’s okay because politics. I think it shows what hypocrites they always were. At least now they can’t pretend otherwise any more.

  • Thomas Kimbrell

    You are correct. It seems that the leaders of these groups only care about power. I don’t mean the power of God, but their own personal power over the scared, ignorant masses followers.

    Our founders of the constitution realized this could happen. This the major reason there is an electoral college. It was a bulwark against would be dictators from taking power and destroying government.

    There seems to no better reason to destroy this constitution than to use God to do it.

  • TheoLib

    Good post! Slight correction: 24/7 by itself covers all the bases. 365 is actually not good enough for large online companies likes Amazon, where those missing few hours (made up every leap year) would add up to a considerable chunk of change.

  • Realist1234

    I dont view evangelicalism and fundamentalism as the same. Fundamentalism insists on beliefs such as the ‘young earth’ view of creation. Im an evangelical and I dont hold such a belief. To me, evangelicalism has always been about attempting to understand the truth and reality – about God, us, creation etc. No bad thing in my opinion.

  • I think you represent the strain of people that I typically have defined evangelicalism by, but I think voices like yours are not heard as well as they used to be. Obviously, these definitions can be subjective, but at least when I think of popular evangelicalism, I’m hard pressed to define them much differently except for maybe tone. Literal interpretations of scripture, dispensationalism, young-earth creationism, etc. etc. are all things I associate with evangelicalism in general. Once again, that may not be fair, it’s just my experience.

  • Ruthitchka

    If what I’ve read is true, Gingrich’s behavior towards one of those three wives was especially egregious (the wife who was hospitalized for cancer).

  • I have never heard that story refuted except by right wing commenters quick to point out that the wife (I think it was the first one?) did not die from that round of cancer. The only exaggeration seems to be putting her on her deathbed rather than being gravely ill, which frankly doesn’t make Gingrich less of an ass.

    It has often perplexed me to see Gingrich with the women he was sleeping with while married to wife #2 accompany him to “family values” events. Of course #3 got him to convert to Catholicism so maybe the first to marriages don’t count since they weren’t in the RCC? We should then tell all those evangelicals that they aren’t really married. LOL

  • A fish with no hands

    I suspect that fundamentalists of all types are a separate species- homo-nonsapians-nonsapians. it all makes me want to volunteer to move to mars.

  • William Meyer (JrSage)

    To me, fundamentalism has always boiled-down to the need for cognitive closure (NFCC – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closure_(psychology) ).

    For some, any ambiguity about the meaning of life is so frightening they will rush towards anything that sounds like the truth, embrace it, and never let go.

    This is why fundamentalists of all stripes act like you’re trying to cut their lifelines when you challenge their beliefs; to them that’s exactly what it feels like.

  • guerillasurgeon

    To claim it’s making a comeback assumes it went away – you might like to edit that. And in fact you are correct, because those of us who are old enough remember years ago the claim that mainstream churches were losing members to more fundamentalist ones, but I think one of the main points of the article is that the nature of fundamentalism is changing to become more political.

  • Rose

    I think I agree with you completely. I am not fundamentalist–I’m orthodox, devout Catholic–but I feel some of the same fears they do. It’s easy to mock and criticize, but for many Christians a prominent place in culture is all they know, and the death of a “Christian” nation is hard to take. Their fears and upset make sense, really. But you’re right. Political and culture strength really are not part of Jesus’ priorities for Christians, and it shouldn’t rattle us so much. No matter what kind of culture we live in anywhere in the world, we are called to the same virtues and calls to service that He set in place 2000 years ago. The world will change, but these things don’t.

  • Oops. Thanks for the correction. I have made the edit.

    I was going to cite the late 70s as when fundamentalists became political with Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority as a starting point but as Falwell was an active anti-segregationist, that couldn’t have been the beginning. So when exactly were fundamentalists NOT political?

  • RonnyTX

    Houndentenor to Ronny:
    I’ve had Evangelical Trump supporters tell me that sexual morality doesn’t matter any more. It sure mattered to them in the past.

    Ronny to Houndentenor:
    Wow, that does surprise me some, that they would say sexual morality doesn’t matter anymore! But then, they are backing Trump. And I have to wonder what such Trump supporters would say about a person like myself, who is Christian and gay? And as I tell my oldest sister, a Hillary supporter, last fall I heard one thing for sure, that told me about Trumps morals. That was when a big shot, rich Republican from Nevada, invited all the presidental canidates to come to his place, where they could all meet and talk. But then, he took back his invitation to Trump. When asked why, he simply said he didn’t trust Trump, in the same room with his daughter! (ha) Well, that told me something about Trump, right there;

    Houndentenor to Ronny:
    Obviously it was just a weapon to use against Democrats they didn’t like anyway. When a Republican has multiple affairs and divorces like Trump, Gingrich and Giuliani (3 marriages each and all cheated on at least two of those wives) it’s okay because politics. I think it shows what hypocrites they always were. At least now they can’t pretend otherwise any more.

    Ronny to Houndentenor:
    You’re right, that such is hypocrisy. And it really surprised me in the last year, seeing several big time preachers, come out for Trump. Such as that, simply makes no sense to me. And not just on the marriage and women part; but what Trump has also said, like about those people from down south. Wasn’t he the one, who one time talked, as if they were all rapists and murderers?! Well, when someone insults some of my neighbors like that, I just don’t have no use for them.

  • One of the ironies is that Jesus and his followers had no political power and controlled nothing. It was through faithful witness that people joined Jesus’ movement and, in a few centuries, for better or worse, it ended up with Caesar bowing the knee to Jesus. This all happened without the early church starting in a position of power or waging a culture war.

  • Rose

    Yes, we forget that and get caught up with protecting a societal model–one I miss, myself, since I am old enough to remember a more Christian-friendly culture–that gives us the advantage of making it easier to live as a Christian but doesn’t really do much to make us holier and closer to God in a meaningful way. Maybe the way our culture has turned is a good thing for the Church. Maybe it will help to purify us and fix things in ourselves and in the Church that we didn’t know were broken.

  • Rose

    I have followed news on some of these leaders for years, such as the Grahams and Falwell and maybe others you’re thinking of, and the only ones I’ve felt wanted personal power more than anything else were the more extreme name-it-and-claim it types, like Benny Hinn and Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker (although I think Jim made a spirtual turnaround, the last I heard). And being one of those in the crowd you’re referring to (I used to be an evangelical, conservative Protestant), I was neither scared nor ignorant and neither were people I knew who were interested in such leaders. We were educated, aware, and simply wanted to draw near to God. Nor do I see anyone on the Christian side trying to become a dictator (or would even interested in such a thing).

    I think it’s important that we are very careful and moderate about how we interpret people’s motives, especially people we don’t like or trust. Personally, I think that rising cultural tides now are putting our constitution far more in danger than these leaders ever did/are doing, and the person I think will win in November scares me more than any of these Christian leaders ever could.

  • RonnyTX

    Phil, some of what you said, made me think of some things my Mom said, years ago. The preacher(s) would talk about how much better things used to be. Giving the impression that people in the 60’s and 70’s, were overall much more sinful. In so many words, my Mom said that was a bunch of BS. :-) She was born in 1920 and grew up in what some preachers preached as being the golden age of Christianity. But Mom wasn’t buying it, that people were less sinful back then. As she thought and talked about how many illegal whiskey stills were in our little part of the world. And all of these little small communities around here, nearly all of them had at least one place of prostitution. (ha) So as Mom would put it, some preachers sure didn’t talk and tell about somethings, as they used to be, while they went about criticizing the present time.

  • HamburgerHelper1

    It’s odd that many of these Fundamentalists (Both new and old) wish to use politics to gain control of America while at the same time believing that Jesus is due back any time soon to rapture the church away. I guess they want the best of both worlds

  • BT

    Question: Is this new fundamentalism included in what I (and others) would call American Civil Religion? I would think there’s at least a huge overlap, even if not everyone I know that fits the new fundamentalism is described perfectly by ACR.

  • BT

    Having been in many of those kinds of churches, I think you could easily brand today’s conservative evangelical church as the new fundamentalism. Strict inerrancy, inflexibility of issues of science etc – it all kind of fits.

  • silicon28

    A light bulb never burns brighter than when it is right on the cusp of burning out. At least we can hope that metaphor means something…

  • guerillasurgeon

    I don’t think they were ever not political, perhaps just a bit more discreet about it. Perhaps they should have said overtly political :).

  • And for that we can thank Jimmy Carter because the national media did not cover Evangelicals much until Carter’s now legendary Playboy interview.

  • kaydenpat

    And this is how we end up with Bigot-in-Chief Trump as President.

  • Agreed completely.

  • Rebecca W

    Watch the Ken Burns series #Prohibition if you want to see a parallel (post-Darwin effects?). Fascinating.

  • Rebecca W

    Truth

  • ashpenaz

    I honestly, simply don’t understand how they connect their belief system with Jesus. Jesus just doesn’t match their product–it’s like a poster “I’m Ghandi and I’m the NRA.” If you were to do a police artist sketch of their God based on his characteristics, he would look like Odin, the All-Father, protector of family and friends, wrathful to outsiders, giver of eternal life to warriors, etc. So why do they continue to paste a picture of Jesus over their god? Why is Jesus so important to them?

  • Pennybird

    I don’t get why they wouldn’t accept Obama as Christian when he has said he is and has proven himself to be more conversant in the Bible than the presidential hopeful they are presently rooting for. In other words, why can’t they just acknowledge that their world view is based in politics and not religion? It’s fine to be politically motivated, but they belittle Christianity when they harness it to ideas that run counter to the message of Jesus.

  • Charlie Johnson

    This is a very good book on that issue. It covers the migration of plains people to the West Coast, bringing their religious beliefs with them. A lot of evangelical networking came through the burgeoning radio and TV industries, which were controlled by West Coast evangelicals.

    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8849656-from-bible-belt-to-sunbelt

  • otrotierra

    Jesus is actually terribly offensive to them. I think you’re correct with identifying Odin. Mars and Ares are also fitting gods for them.

  • RonnyTX

    Guerillasurgeon, I’m 61 years old now and I remember the church I grew up in, from infancy. When I got up in my 40’s I described it as ultra-fundamentalist. They weren’t wrong on every thing; but were wrong, on a number of things. And I never got this from my parents; but from some other family and church members. That is, that I was only to vote Republican and for the most conservative Republican, running for a given office. Really, the whole problem, in the whole mess, is people being taught to listen to and follow some other people, rather than listening to and following God/Jesus Christ. And as much as I liked somethings about my home church, I am so glad God allowed me to escape such, when I was in my late 20’s. Then when I was 40 years old, God freed me mentally, from some wrong teachings I had been taught in church and or by church members. And I surely thank God for that! :-) And there are lots of churches, in my little small town/rural area; but I personally know of not one of them who would have me as a member, given the way I believe now, on somethings. Well, like my being gay being a good gift of God to me and the fact that I now believe that we have all been made right with God the Father, by way of Jesus Christ and the cross. So, we, everyone from Adam on down, will be spending eternity together. :-)

  • RonnyTX

    Houndentenor, I certainly don’t remember, when fundamentalists were not political. I’m 61 now and I knew when I first got to vote, that I was expected to vote for the most conservative Republican, in any given election.

  • guerillasurgeon

    LOL, I had completely forgotten about the Playboy interview. I wonder how many fundamentalists sneaked a peek.

  • Pennybird

    Off topic, but fun trivia:

    Word on the street back then was that the interview was calculated to dirty up his image just a tad. He was a little too clean for most of America.

  • Nixon is Lord

    You (we all do!) need to celebrate your diversity!
    Especially in the Mainline churches-which are at nearly 5% non-White now!

  • Nixon is Lord

    Cthulhu?

  • Nixon is Lord

    Burns, and Okrent, describe how Prohibition was originally at least as much of a “progressive” cause as a reactionary one.

  • Nixon is Lord

    There is no “meaning of life”.
    Even tripe like “the journey is the goal” are forms of cognitive closure with a pitifully thin veneer of psychobabble laid onto it.

  • Nixon is Lord

    Some have gone to independent churches-but more have simply disappeared into the ether composed of the NY Times, Sunday sports, sleeping in, gardening, travel, and hobbies. The cultural and psychological gulf between the average Unitarian and Quaker and Episcopalian and the typical mega-church is simply too wide for most to make the transition and stay for any length of time.
    Mainline Protestants leave not because they’re angry but because they’re bored.

  • Nixon is Lord

    Does this mean we’re not going to be giving churches tax breaks or the clergy housing allowances? Can we get rid of the Cold War relic “In God We Trust” from money? Maybe-and I know I’m going out on a limb here-not have politicians have to visit churches to ask for votes or even be open about not having a religion?

  • Nixon is Lord

    Jim Bakker’s “turnaround” now involves selling buckets of “survival food” to gullible people who think the world is going to end in the near future and that they can survive the Apocalypse eating industrial containers of his slop.
    Same hustler-slightly different hustle.

  • That all sounds fine with me.

  • otrotierra

    Well, what does one get when they mix Bush/Cheney’s “Shock & Awe” war crimes with Putin and Trump?

  • Tom Bombadil

    You bring up wedding cakes as if the issue is nothing. Apparently, you support a society where peaceful people can be prosecuted and financially ruined if they believe gay marriage is wrong and that preparing a cake for a gay marriage conflicts with their religion.

    Say this slowly three times: “I support a society where refusal to make a cake should be followed by financial ruin.”

  • This is not a new thing. The 1960s pretty strongly cemented the idea that you do not have the inalienable right to discriminate in this country. If you decide your restaurant is only going to serve white people, you will face financial ruin.

    You are proposing we repeal civil rights laws and grant anyone the right to discriminate. Say that three times slowly, “I want to live in a society where discrimination is just fine.”

  • Richard Worden Wilson

    The extent of comments for Benjamin’s posts always seems to outrun the amount of time I have to read such things. So, as a non-fundamentalist evangelical educated in the heart of a “kinder, gentler” evangelicalism around Fuller and Regent College (Vancouver, BC), but being a bit too radical an Anabaptist to fit easily there, not to mention being a non-Trinitarian (uh, oh, I’m in trouble now), I’m hoping Benjamin will follow through and do some reflection on what might appropriately be similarly called “New Wave Liberalism.”

    I’ve been re-engaging with a Mennonite/Anabaptist congregation that just this past Sunday approved a resolution to authorize the pastors to do marriage ceremonies for same sex couples. As a follower of Jesus committed to biblical teaching I’ve been trying my best to understand how people who say they believe in Jesus don’t actually know what he taught, and don’t actually seem to care if their beliefs diverge from those of the apostles. I take it as historical fact that all Jewish teaching around the time of second temple Judaism considered same sex sex to be forbidden by God, including that of Jesus and the apostles (prove me wrong if you can). For people who support same sex “marriage,” those who are committed to love and justice as principles that trump historical truth, they can without question assert that “I don’t think that is what the apostles taught” and believe their thinking makes it true. To me this is not too different from holocaust denial. It is a wholesale disregard for historical reality in light of their own subjective certainty. At best it becomes a “we know better now” argument fully paralleling the patterns of thinking that predominated in Liberal theological circles during the Fundamentalist-Modernist debates of last century. So, go ahead, swap out “gay marriage” for evolution, but recognize that the apostles said nothing about evolution but did say a lot about “sexual immorality” as defined by Old Covenant law and New Covenant sexual purity, and see if the argument holds water.

  • hoosier_bob

    I think you’ve written some variant of this same comment on several different progressive evangelical blogs. Are you some kind of “new wave fundamentalist” bot?

  • William Meyer (JrSage)

    Certainty of any kind about the meaning of life serves the NFCC, including the certainty that there is no meaning of life at all.

  • Ron McPherson

    “I take it as historical fact that all Jewish teaching around the time of second temple Judaism considered same sex sex to be forbidden by God, including that of Jesus and the apostles (prove me wrong if you can).”

    Since Jesus never addressed the topic wouldn’t the burden of proof be the other way around?

  • Obscurely

    I’m no fundie, but I do try (and often fail) to be intellectually honest — Jesus didn’t address a LOT of other things we all clearly DO find sinful — like drug addiction? as well, Jesus DID choose to criticize some aspects of Torah (like Sabbath practices), but never brought up the proscription against homosexuality …

  • Obscurely

    Ben, I’m a great friend of your blog but that affection compels me to object to the photo you chose for this post — a snarling bearded Bible-toting fundamentalist? that’s a caricature geared to burning bridges with our fundie brethren, when we should be building them instead …

  • Obscurely

    I share your concern about intellectual honesty and as a minister in a progressive denomination it bothers me when in our rush to answer Bonhoeffer’s perennial question, “Who is Jesus Christ for us TODAY?”, we willfully ignore the historical reality of Jesus’ profound respect for (and personal practice of) Torah as a faithful Jew — nevertheless, haven’t many (if not most) conservative Christians committed the same offense when it comes to divorce, which Jesus clearly DID condemn?

  • Nixon is Lord

    No idea.

  • Tom Bombadil

    False. This is a religious liberty issue. The bakers did not discriminate against the gay couple or any group as they had made cakes for them in the past. They simply did not agree with making a cake for an event. That is not Constitutionally protected. There is a right of conscience. The issue was the type of cake, not the customers. Completely different.

  • Nixon is Lord

    National Foundation for Credit Counseling?

  • William Meyer (JrSage)

    Yup. It’s all a part of the military-industrial credit score conspiracy! (All kidding aside: NFCC = Need For Cognitive Closure)

  • gimpi1

    That’s interesting. I’ve never been part of that (or any) religious group, so I’m looking from the outside in. If you don’t mind, I have a couple of questions:

    If people in these groups simply want to draw nearer to God, why is there so much political emphasis? Why so much concern about making it illegal for people to marry someone of the same gender? Why worrying about someone saying “Happy Holidays?” Why so much demand for a sort of cultural primacy, with their prayers said in city councils, their standards enforced in law and their monuments granted governmental recognition? That doesn’t look like drawing near to God to me. It looks like demanding privilege and power. Isn’t a relationship with God personal, not something you need state approval for?

    Why are so many things either not connected with Christianity or actively against much of Christian tradition actively identified with conservative Christianity? Currently, conservative fundamentalist Christianity is strongly linked with anti-immigration, anti-poverty-aid, pro-military and war, pro harsh punishments and pro extreme patriotism almost to the point of idol-worship.For example, the pseudo-libertarian economic and governmental ideology that some conservative religious leaders promote was created by several Atheist leaders like Ayn Rand. It seems there’s much more emphasis on “conservative” than “Christian.” This emphasis seems to have come to flower as conservative Christianity merged with the Republican party, and it speaks to a desire for power to me. Again, am I wrong?

    Any information appreciated.

  • Ron McPherson

    Yeah I get what you’re saying but drug addiction, for instance, is personally harmful to the individual. My point is that we cannot say with absolute certainty what Jesus thought about committed same sex couples (which would not be inherently harmful, in and of itself, to the individuals involved). So to me it is disingenuous to assert that he did address the topic by virtue of other things he said regarding sexual sin. There’s just so many other things he WAS clear about that the sin police just ignore. Peace

  • Rose

    Those are all good and very fair questions. I’ll try to answer them, but really good answers would probably be much longer than I have time for.

    1) Christianity isn’t supposed to be as political as it is. We are supposed to be good citizens and participate as much as our conscience will allow us. In pagan Rome, Christians had to rebel because they couldn’t worship the emperor, but in America part of our citizenship means voting, which is not against our religion. This naturally leads to all sorts of other involvement for those who are interested and feel that it’s important. We take its importance too far, in my opinion. No matter what government we have, our faith should not be swayed. But since we had a “Christian government” and “Christian nation” for centuries, and now we no longer do in any meaningful sense, activists still work for the things that seem right to them. All activists do that, religious or not, because it’s the American way of doing things.

    2) Homosexual unions are a big deal to us, but honestly it is a much bigger topic than I can or want to address here. I am Catholic but unite with conservative Protestants on this issue–that it is morally wrong before God to try to change the age-old definition of marriage and that we will be judged for supporting anything like that. I’ll have to leave that one there.

    3) People get upset about “Happy Holidays” when we are told that is what we should say. Nothing is wrong with that or “Season’s Greetings” until the PC-police try to tell us that Christmas greetings are offensive and that we shouldn’t say them. Common sense and etiquette demand some sensitivity, but that should be a personal, not dictated, matter. I’m not going to say “Merry Christmas” to my next-door neighbor, for example, because he’s an orthodox Jew. I’d say “Happy Hannukah” or something secular.

    4) Cultural primacy is what we’ve had for centuries. It is now almost completely a thing of the past. Put yourself in our shoes. It is a little scary and upsetting to see such a massive transition take place in our lifetimes. I am old enough to remember when we still qualified as a “Christian nation.” To see it transform into a completely secular one is a beautiful thing to non-Christians and a tragedy to Christians. But yes, a relationship with God should be personal, made public through example and careful evangelism, not force or guilt.

    5) “Why are so many things either not connected with Christianity or actively against much of Christian tradition actively identified with conservative Christianity?”

    I guess the shortest answer is that those things are more in line with our traditional American values and Christian moral code. But you have to be careful when you try to interpret what conservatives think about these things. For example, you said they are anti-poverty-aid, and that is absolutely not true. Jesus calls us to help the poor; in fact, he made it a very big deal. Conservative Christians are against too much public aid and want to see people helping themselves more, as Americans have traditionally done. It is important to learn the reasons and nuances behind their POV before condemning them as cruel and harsh.

    6) “It seems there’s much more emphasis on “conservative” than “Christian.” This emphasis seems to have come to flower as conservative Christianity merged with the Republican party, and it speaks to a desire for power to me.”

    You are right when it comes to some Christians, I guess. I wouldn’t lump all Christians in the same basket, though. Some think that Christian political power is necessary for preserving a free, moral nation and for protecting religious freedom (for all religions). They closely identify their faith and their politics more so than other Christians, who don’t let the political and cultural tides worry them so much. I am Catholic but used to be conservative Evangelical. After growing up with more political concerns, I am learning to focus on Jesus and what He has called me to do, remembering that the world will change all around me, but He and my beliefs do not.

  • Ron McPherson

    “This is a religious liberty issue.”

    Doesn’t matter. The Civil War south thought they had a biblical right to own slaves. Certain racists groups felt (and still do) that white Americans are God’s chosen race.

    Think of it this way. If every baker in the country used religious liberty to not bake a cake then the couple would be unable to buy one. How is that not discrimination?

  • Tom Bombadil

    Owning people is not in the same hemisphere as not making a same sex wedding cake due to conscience and religious liberty.
    Further, there are plenty of other bakers that will make such a cake.
    Further still, religious liberty is a Constitutional Right. Owning slaves is not. Having someone make you a specific cake is not. The gay couple was not being discriminated against. They had used the baker before. It was the event, not the people that tweaked the conscience of these bakers.

    I understand that Benjamin Corey supports gay marriage and the unsupportable view that the Bible does not teach against homosexuality. Basically, his viewpoint is Biblically anti-textual so anyone that has a belief supported in the Bible that isn’t progressive is a radical fundamentalist. So, I understand why he and his readers first reaction seems to be to find fault with someone that has a Biblically supported belief. Remember, the rights enumerated in the Constitution include the guarantees of free exercise of religion! A constitutional right takes priority over a legislated law. A constitutional right takes priority over an unprotected cake or event.

    Else, if someone wants to have a disgusting Nazi cake made and there are only Jewish bakers in the area and they all believe this compromises their religion to make such a cake. Then some would argue the bakers must be forced to make the cake. Abominable.

  • Ron McPherson

    Way to just totally miss the point lol

  • Tom Bombadil

    I got your point; it wasn’t difficult. It just isn’t correct. lol

  • Ron McPherson

    Lol you haven’t convinced me but whatever. Peace

  • Questioning

    He is not going to convince anyone who is using their brain for what it was intended. Lol…

  • Nixon is Lord

    But being certain that there IS a meaning of life isn’t closure?
    Do you hear yourself?

  • Markee B

    Bravo Gimpi1, wish I had queried that!

  • William Meyer (JrSage)

    It doesn’t matter what you’re certain about; certainty of any kind serves the NFCC.

  • “age-old definition of marriage”

    Marriage predates Judaism, much less Christianity, and the first thing Christianity did was change it. Our oldest surviving records refer to marriage as an ancient rite; we literally have no indication of where it originated, although Creationists may well ignore history and science to insist that the world began with proto-Judaism and there were never older societies with their own very different concept of marriage.

  • RonnyTX

    Tom:
    “This is a religious liberty issue.”

    Ron to Tom:
    Doesn’t matter. The Civil War south thought they had a biblical right to own slaves. Certain racists groups felt (and still do) that white Americans are God’s chosen race.

    Ronny to Ron:
    What’s so ironic to me, is that so many of the “white” people down here in the south, they are also part black. :-) Well, I’ve read that around a 1/3 of us are. Have always thought it would be fun, to have the KKK types be dna tested, to see how many of them, turn out to be part black? :-) And I knew at a young age, that I was part white and NA Indian. But I was 40 years old, before my Mom told me, that we were also part black. And I know she didn’t wait that long to tell me, because she and Dad were racist. Indeed, they were just the opposite of that. And sure she didn’t tell us about all of our background, when we were young, because she was afraid of how her children would be mistreated by some, if they knew about this. Interesting to me too, that a part of my makeup is Jewish. And long ago, Mom said one of her uncles talked family members into slightly changing the spelling of their last name. And he did this, because he knew how hard some people were, against anyone who was Jewish.

    Ron to Tom:
    Think of it this way. If every baker in the country used religious liberty to not bake a cake then the couple would be unable to buy one. How is that not discrimination?

    Ronny to Ron:
    It is discrimination, if any business owner making wedding cakes, refuses to make such, for a gay couple; but if it was me they refused such for, I would be much more inclined to let such go/pass. Why? Because I wouldn’t want to force them to do, that which they truly believed was morally wrong. And I say this, while at the same time, I fully celebrate gay marriages. :-) And yes, I know this way of thinking and believing, has its problems. And I wouldn’t give the same pass to some people, if they ran say a cafe and wanted to refuse service to black people. I think my basic like for all of us, is simply love others and treat other people, the way you wish to be treated.

  • RonnyTX

    Tom to Ron:
    Further still, religious liberty is a Constitutional Right. Owning slaves is not. Having someone make you a specific cake is not. The gay couple was not being discriminated against. They had used the baker before. It was the event, not the people that tweaked the conscience of these bakers.

    Ronny to Tom:
    I look white, even though there is more to me, than that. :-) But then, I guess my question is, what if my religion said it was just fine, for me to have slaves? And we all know, that at times in the history of the United States, it was perfectly fine and legal, for people to have some black people as slaves. So, if that was seen as morally right at one time, why not now? Why should such change? Why were my rights to have a black person, as my slave, took away?! :-)

    P.S.
    And for anyone reading this, who doesn’t really know me, no, I don’t want to have a slave, not of any color of skin! (ha)

  • Tom Bombadil

    You must subjugate a man to make him a slave. You must take away all of his inherent rights such that he has no right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. You must take away his personhood. So if someone incorrectly thought it was okay to have slaves Biblically, it was necessary that they destroy the inherent rights of a man to have a slave.

    Now, compare this to a cake for a same-sex wedding. Which inherent rights are being taken away from the gay couple? I would say none. Might it be inconveniencing or frustrating? sure, but we have no inherent right to not be inconvenienced or frustrated or to have a specific cake.

    It is only when the baker is forced to make a cake that rights are being taken away. The bakers religious liberty and right of conscience are infringed. They are being forced to do something that injures their personhood and severely punished for not doing so. This is forced labor.

    I hope that is clear. Both slavery and forcing a person to do something against their conscience removes inherent rights of others. Not baking a cake does not remove inherent rights, and if one wants to argue that it somehow does, whatever those rights are are subordinate to the rights of religious liberty and conscience and the wrong of forced labor.

  • Tom Bombadil

    To answer your question as to why slavery was taken away: Slavery was evil and the country could bear the evil no longer. We had a war based largely on that. Christians recognized that it was against our Constitution and that it took the humanity from men. Even slaveowners often knew it was wrong, but it was also a financial system and they didn’t want to give up their “assets”. Andrew Jackson owned slaves– about 2/3 of his net worth was in the “asset value” of his slaves. I wonder what people would be willing to allow if the alternative cut their net worth to 1/3.

  • gimpi1

    Thanks so much for the follow up. I always learn something in these exchanges, and I appreciate the time you took.

    I do understand how it must feel to lose your cultural dominance. However, if you’ll excuse a perhaps unwelcome comparison, that’s how many white people in the American south felt at being forced to accept desegregation. I get that it’s hard, I really do. I just feel it’s necessary, just as the south (and to a lesser extent, the rest of the country) had to end segregation and legally enforced discrimination. When we were a “Christian nation” we were also a white-supremacist nation. Both were, in my view, wrong.

    Christianity had a dominance it never should have held. The U.S. was founded as a secular republic. Our making many native religious practices illegal, the persecution of Mormons, the “blue” laws forcing businesses to close for Sunday, these things never should have ever happened. I realize that losing privilege held too long feels like the loss of rights. I just don’t have a solution for this. I feel that this just has to happen, for our country to grant the equality that our constitution promises.

    Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Pagan, gay, straight, trans or none of the above, we’re all Americans. We all have the same basic rights. I feel that includes the right to marry, follow our own beliefs, and be able to do basic business without overt discrimination. Does that make sense?

    I understand the idea of supporting private aid for the poor while disliking governmental aid. However, to my knowledge, nowhere in the world has private aid ever really changed much on a large scale. Governmental aid has. Public schooling, public health measures like sanitation, public pension programs like Social Security have made life much, much better. Cutting governmental aid often savages the poor. It leaves poor kids malnourished, lead pipes poisoning water, and treatable illness untreated. I’m all about outcomes, here.Do you know of private programs that have made as much difference?

    Again, thanks for your answers. I did learn something. I hope I’ve explained my views in a way that makes sense to you.

  • gimpi1

    I think in many cases it’s all about appearances. Hide the stills, keep the brothels out of the better parts of town, make sure everyone stays married “in name only” and make sure everyone dresses well and puts makeup over the bruises. As long as we can wash the dirty linen in private, it’s really not dirty at all.

    There’s also the problem with the view in the rear view mirror. We don’t remember the past clearly. Nostalgia is a powerful force,and we often forget the bad and enlarge the good.

  • Rose

    I don’t disagree with you, philosophically-speaking. That we had cultural primacy was perhaps a natural occurrence because Christianity was the dominant religion until only recently–heavily so, in fact. Thus cultural and political primacy is the only logical result, whether it was wrong or not. In our present times, where Christianity is no longer nearly as dominant as it once was and instead much more diverse, our government and culture will logically become more secular. Those who are not Christians naturally think this is a good thing; Christians see our traditional national values and moral code as rapidly eroding, which is not a good thing to them.

    I don’t know as I agree that one dominance is wrong and the other is right. Maybe so, but to me, it’s like democratic voting. The majority controls the situation, and it just is the way it is–not so much wrong or right. If another religion gained dominance, we would probably see our culture and government influenced. It’s just a natural result. It won’t ever end up being fair to non-dominant groups, though.

    I don’t expect things to go the “Christian” way in most situations in this country for the rest of my life. It is and will continue to be a difficult adjustment, considering how I grew up. But you’re right. It does have to change to reflect our new society. We are free to disagree or not like it, though. I am continually offended and dismayed by what I encounter in my daily life and in the news. I am sorry that other people felt that way during Christian dominance. It’s too bad that there’s no way around it. Then it was their “turn,” and now it is ours. So be it.

    Regarding public aid, I don’t think conservatives are against public services, generally speaking. Ideally, for conservatives, the government’s role would be far smaller than it is, and the poor would be aided privately and within communities where we care directly for our neighbors. However, I think most conservatives don’t have a problem with what you mention, because there are just too many people in need. The problem is the extent of it, which grows the government bigger and bigger, harms the middle class, and sets up aid in such a way that it has eroded the traditional American values of working hard for what we get and valuing the kind of dignity and pride that keeps us from taking more aid than we really need.

  • Ron McPherson

    “Now, compare this to a cake for a same-sex wedding. Which inherent rights are being taken away from the gay couple? I would say none. Might it be inconveniencing or frustrating? sure, but we have no inherent right to not be inconvenienced or frustrated or to have a specific cake…It is only when the baker is forced to make a cake that rights are being taken away.”

    To borrow from your analogy: A cook refuses to serve a sandwich at a lunch counter. Which inherent rights are being taken away from a minority? Might they be inconvenienced or frustrated not to be served a sandwich…It is only when the cook is forced to make a sandwich that rights are being taken away. See how that works? It doesn’t. It’s called discrimination.

  • The type of cake? What type of cake did they want? I seem to recall they just wanted to buy a wedding cake, from a shop that sells wedding cakes

  • Ficino

    A Muslim works in the cafeteria. Some of the customers order ham or pork. The worker refuses to serve it because his/her religion says not to touch parts of a pig.

    ???

  • Tom Bombadil

    Let’s not be cute with this. It isn’t a game. You recall more than you say. It is about freedom and right of conscience.

  • Tom Bombadil

    The only place the Muslim can work is in a cafeteria that has pork products? Not likely.

    Anyway, yours is an apples and oranges example, I believe. One is an employee that risks no crushing governmental fine, the other is a business owner that receives a crushing governmental fine.

    The Muslim in your example is an employee and owes the cafeteria owner adequate performance. If accommodations can be made then wonderful. If not then the Muslim worker is not suitable for the position and should be reassigned or released. The government will not fine the Muslim around $400k for his beliefs.

    The bakers, on the other hand, owned their business and made the decisions on what services they provided. It was their conscience that would be tweaked. They now must fear the government with financial ruin.

    You really do not want the government to control what is permissible freedom of speech/expression/religion. Perhaps, you will find yourself on the wrong end of that at some point. Our founding freedoms matter and were well thought out. Freedom of religion, thought, and speech are crucial and must not be infringed. These do not allow for slavery or unjust abuse.

  • gimpi1

    I think we’re both right, in that this is a period of transition. I don’t feel it was ever proper – in fact, our constitution was written specifically to prevent “tyranny of the majority,” but that “tyranny” will often find a way to develop – no matter how hard we work to prevent it. There’s very little we like better than creating in-groups and out-groups and privileges for those “in.” It may be just human nature.

    I actually don’t think a “large government” harms the middle-class. In fact, if you look around the world, things like really good infrastructure (Eurail, anyone?) and single-payer health insurance have helped secure the middle class around the world. Here in the States, our middle-class was much stronger with a higher tax-rate, stronger unions and a much more active government. Think 1950’s and 60’s. We built infrastructure such as the electricity grid and the interstate system that we now refuse to maintain.

    For some reason, people seem to assume there’s a huge amount of “wasted” poverty aid. Since we spend very little on that sort of aid (outside of Social Security, which isn’t means-tested) I really don’t know why. However, I’m sure I have my own biases. Both my parents were severely disabled. My mother was a polio survivor, and my father suffered traumatic brain injury in an industrial accident when I was an infant. Without things like worker’s compensation, Social Security disability and medical aid, my childhood would have been a Dickensonian horror. It was none too easy with aid.

    Thanks for your perspective. Good talk.

  • Tom Bombadil

    Well, I’m glad we see that religious liberty does not mean someone can be forced into slavery and we are using more similar examples.

    Again, refusing service to an individual based solely on his being a minority is not acceptable. But, what if this was a Muslim owned sandwich shop and the minority’s request was refused because the minority individual wanted a pork barbecue sandwich? Ah, see? It is the particular request at issue, not the individual. This was true for the baker as well. They were known to be Christians and served gay individuals, but they did not believe gay marriage was Biblical and did not want to endorse it by providing a wedding cake that was obviously for a gay wedding. That violated their religious beliefs. The Constitution recognizes the fundamental right of speech/religion/thought and does not permit this to be infringed.

    I’m not allowed to eat at some restaurants in flip flops. Do I have the right to force them to serve me? I don’t think so. And yet, that is discriminatory and not even based on something as important as freedom of religion.

  • Ron McPherson

    “But, what if this was a Muslim owned sandwich shop and the minority’s request was refused because the minority individual wanted a pork barbecue sandwich? ”

    This is a weak analogy. For one thing the Muslim owned sandwich shop refused the request because pork is not on the menu. At issue is whether they serve pork sandwiches to SOME customers but not to others. In this instance, NOBODY gets a pork sandwich so there is no discrimination. Can you seriously not see the difference?

  • Ron McPherson

    “I’m not allowed to eat at some restaurants in flip flops. Do I have the right to force them to serve me? I don’t think so. And yet, that is discriminatory and not even based on something as important as freedom of religion.”

    Nope, it’s only discrimination if they allow SOME to enter in flip flops but not ALL. This shouldn’t be this difficult lol

  • Tom Bombadil

    I see the logistics difference in pork availability. However, that is simply a premeditated decision which would obviously discriminate against those that want a pork sandwich. This is no different from a bakery stating (or not stating) beforehand that they only make cakes having a bride and groom figurine and do not stock groom/groom or bride/bride figurines. Both are based on religious freedom. Both discourage some customers. There will always be some form of discrimination–you did not respond to my question regarding the restaurant that does not serve me for wearing flip flops. Why is that okay?

  • Rose

    When I say that a large government harms the middle class, I’m thinking more intimately than that. For example, because my husband pays such a huge percentage of his paycheck in taxes (30-40%) on his salary (I only work part-time), we struggle to pay for anything beyond needs and minor wants. So we don’t qualify for reduced lunch at school, our federal aid for our daughter’s college was so minimal that we couldn’t afford even her in-state public school choice without more help, and we had to get family assistance to give two other daughters any kind of vacation this summer (a week at camp). Without that, they couldn’t have gone.

    Poorer kids seem to get all of those things and more because of public aid and special programs, leaving us to struggle to provide for our own. If our taxes weren’t going to help the poor and we could designate the 10% tithe that the Bible calls us to instead, we could gladly give to the poor and provide better for our kids in these and other ways.

    Don’t misunderstand me; I WANT to help the poor. I WANT poor children to have every good thing that richer children enjoy. My kids have a better life overall than poor children, and I am grateful for what we have. But we struggle more than we should as a member of the middle class with a salary like we have. We can’t even buy our kids clothes these days; my retired, fixed-income mother does out of sheer love for them, or they work and buy their own. I just don’t think our country has gone about this assistance in the right way. I don’t know what that right way is, exactly, but it is not what we’re doing now.

    Regarding the kind of aid you mentioned for your disabled parents, that is not what conservatives are upset about, I don’t think (as a rule). Having public programs in place to help those who are truly unable to care for themselves is one thing. I’d personally say it’s good and necessary. But a lot of money is being wasted (in the opinion of conservatives as a rule) on those who could help themselves with a little boost. For example, my husband and I had to be on WIC for a year or so when we went through a very bad time. It was humiliating and degrading for me to go get the food assistance and go to the food banks on occasion. That was a boost that we needed but left behind (with gratitude) as fast as we could. Not everyone uses such programs as a boost, though; they decide to simply mooch off the system. Yeah, I resent that. That is what conservatives protest, because we feel like such a large, wasteful government is leading us towards socialism, not a healthy version of capitalism. And conservatives are pretty committed capitalists, I think.

    Yes, good talk. It’s a breath of fresh air to talk to someone who can meet me halfway and disagree in a friendly way. Most people can’t.

  • Tom Bombadil

    I think you responded too quickly. By this logic/reasoning you are saying it is only wrong if they make gay themed wedding cakes for some, but not all. sincere lol

  • Ron McPherson

    No, it’s a bakery. They make cakes. Your analogy would be like forcing the baker to make the gay couple a pastrami sandwich

  • Ron McPherson

    I did respond. It would not be discrimination by prohibiting you to enter with flip flops, unless they allowed others to enter with them

  • gimpi1

    My experience is different. I don’t know if poor kids “get all of those things and more because of public aid and special programs,” I know I didn’t. I remember clearly struggling to get glasses when I was in my early teens and legally blind. However, I’m in my late 50’s, and things may be different now.

    However, your taxes aren’t the major issue. You see, we’ve been cutting taxes at the highest income levels since 1980. Middle-class taxation has stayed largely the same. Low-income taxation has actually gone up. So, your taxes may be about the same or higher as in the past, but Warren Buffett, the Koch brothers and Donald Trump’s most certainly aren’t.

    That’s one worry with the influence of money in politics. We see specific, careful and largely hidden rules written to benefit donors. They often hurt the rest of us.

    I really don’t believe that there is much “mooching.” I just don’t see any evidence for it. I know, when they have looked into such things as drug usage for people on aid or fraud in food-assistance program, they’ve found very little. In fact, I’m pretty sure there’s much more fraud in Banking right now. Wells-Fargo, anyone?

    In general, I prefer capitalistic solutions, except where they don’t work well. There are places where they don’t. For instance, few people would allow such classic capitalist “solutions” as debt-bondage or child-slavery. I feel that the evidence is that medical care is one of those places. Both evidence and outcomes have lead me to that conclusion. However, nothing feeds innovation and diversification of products like a free market.

    I also have a huge problem with our “for profit” prison system. As I’ve looked into it, I see that we’ve developed an incentive to imprison people, and it’s distorted law enforcement, the judicial system and our politics. It’s lead to injustice, and it hasn’t saved the tax money it claimed it would. It’s also made us less safe. The criminal-justice system is one example of something that shouldn’t be run under capitalist rules, in my view.

    I’m glad you appreciate being able to disagree without being disagreeable. So do I. I always learn things when I talk to people with different views. I hope you’ve found the conversation enlightening, too.

  • No I literally don’t remember the details, and I don’t know which baker you might be referring to. All I remember is a couple requesting a wedding cake from a bakery that makes wedding cakes.

  • Again, refusing service to an individual based solely on his being a minority is not acceptable. But, what if this was a Muslim owned sandwich shop and the minority’s request was refused because the minority individual wanted a pork barbecue sandwich?

    But you’re mis-describing what happened there. If you walked into this hypothetical Muslim sandwich shop and asked for a barbeque sandwich, your request would be refused whether or not you were a minority, because these Muslims don’t sell pork, right? Whether or not you are a minority doesn’t enter into it. They treat everyone the same–they just don’t sell pork to anyone.

    Now, if you went into a Muslim shop and they told you they won’t sell you pork because you are a Christian, even though they would gladly sell pork to other Muslims, now you might have a situation a little more like the bakery example, although they still aren’t quite alike.

    The bakery in question provides wedding cakes. The gay couple asked for a wedding cake. The bakery refused because the couple was gay–refusing service based solely on them being a minority, which you said was not acceptable.

    If the Christian bakery had been asked to make a cake celebrating divorce, for instance, or one celebrating stem cell research, or for a pagan solstice party, well then you could probably argue your case. A Christian bakery might refuse to make those kinds of cakes since it would go against their religious beliefs–but they would refuse for everyone, not just a minority.

    I bring up those specific examples because, in real life, the very same bakery that wouldn’t serve a wedding cake to a gay couple was perfectly willing to make all of those other kinds of cakes. A newspaper contacted Sweet Cakes by Melissa, in Oregon, and asked for a cake specifically celebrating a baby out of wedlock; two “clone” cakes to celebrate stem cell research; a cake that says “congratulations” for a divorce; and a cake for a “pagan solstice party” being thrown by a “coven”. The Christian bakery also seemed to have no problem with the request for a green pentagram drawn on that cake.

    http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-20698-the_cake_wars.html

  • Tom Bombadil

    The first thing is that they did not discriminate against the gay couple themselves. They simply did not agree with endorsing/supporting a gay wedding and making an obviously gay themed cake. However, they would make a birthday cake or other cake for the gay couple. So, it is not the couple themselves that is being discriminated against. They were then fined an exorbitant amount.

    I don’t know why any Christian is comfortable with some pagan celebrations. That’s between them and God, I suppose. Some might argue that divorce is “okay” due to the hardness of our hearts and that God divorced Israel. I would decline on all these cakes except maybe the baby out of wedlock because if they are committed they are actually married just without the ceremony. I don’t know them and I can’t make a judgment on that. However, by definition, a gay wedding is not Biblically supportable, so I would not need to make a judgment as the standard is already set in the Bible. I would simply comply with the Biblical teaching.

  • Tom Bombadil

    Good. You sound sincere. the detail I am referring to is simply that it was a gay wedding themed cake. It was the speech and expression of the cake that the bakers disagreed with and felt would betray their conscience.

  • Ron McPherson

    “However, by definition, a gay wedding is not Biblically supportable, so I would not need to make a judgment as the standard is already set in the Bible. I would simply comply with the Biblical teaching.”

    Well actually the Bible never talks about same sex weddings. Further, there is solid biblical exegesis and hermeneutical principles that would disagree with you that the bible is clear on this matter. Many gay Christians are not trying to convince you to change your convictions but rather to allow them to read the bible in context like the rest of all us straights do. It’s unfair, disingenuous, and hypocritical for us to contextualize passages (which we ALL do) but not afford gays the same privilege. This is why insinuating that a same sex wedding is a “pagan celebration” and can’t understand why “any Christian” would be comfortable with it is never helpful in these discussions. It presumes that anyone affirming same sex weddings must not be a bible believer or genuine Christ follower. That would be like me saying I don’t understand how any Christian can allow women to wear jewelry, or expensive clothes or talk in church because the bible is clear about that. Or I don’t know why any parent would not drag their unruly child to the city gates and have them executed. It’s in the bible. I’m not meaning to sound like a butt. Yet people see right thru the hypocrisy when we claim to live by the bible. No one lives by the bible in its entirety. We all must work thru it with guidance from the Spirit with the governing principle being love for God and others. Peace and blessings.

  • Snooterpoot

    I love you, Ron.

  • Snooterpoot

    When these poor, wounded Christians will place signs on the doors of their businesses specifying exactly which sinners are unworthy of their services, then I will feel sorry for them. Let the free market decide whether their businesses will survive.

    Businesses are licensed by the government. In receiving that license they are subject to all of the laws, not just the ones they agree with. If they cannot do that then they should find other ways to support themselves.

  • Ron McPherson

    Ah, love you too!

  • Tom Bombadil

    Again, the bakers did not discriminate against the gay couple. they simply could not in good conscience create a cake that endorses or supports gay marriage. They made other kinds of cakes for gay individuals.

  • Snooterpoot

    Well, you absolutely failed to address any point I made, didn’t you?

    If the law required the bakery to serve all people equally, including people who are LGBT, and they refused to bake a wedding cake, then they did, indeed, discriminate against that same-sex couple.

    I see our money is good enough for them until they get their panties in a wad.

    I’d truly love to see a law that says that businesses must post signs saying which people (sinners) are unworthy of their business.

    The the loathsome, so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act was passed in Indiana there was an effort to amend the bill with that requirement. Guess what Gov. Mike Pence said? He said it would be too burdensome for businesses!

    For me, these business owners, by taking our money except for when we make them uncomfortable, are engaging in the ultimate hypocrisy.

    Post the signs. Let the free market decide.

  • Bones

    Jesus didn’t bring up childbirth making women unclean either……

    And which drug addictions are sinful???

    I can’t get by with out a couple of shots of caffeine or even a guinness or 4.

  • Bones

    You might need to understand Jesus in the light of First century Judaism specifically the Hillel school.

  • Bones

    So now supporting same sex marriage is the same as holocaust denial.

    You’ve got to be fricking kidding.

  • Rose

    Well, now you’re going over my head and beyond my experience with a lot of that, so I’ll have to chew on it rather than comment. But we definitely are hearing/reading/seeing different things regarding mooching off the public aid system. That means, I suspect, that the truth is probably somewhere between the two perspectives. That makes sense, though, I think. Most of what we read/hear/watch is biased, and we probably tend towards one kind more than another.

    When it all comes down to it, I think that conservatives just want the “traditional America” back, minus the civil rights and other injustices. We certainly have come a long way in some areas, but in others–in the view of conservatives–we are on track to destruction. Or at least a very different America from the one we used to know! I sure don’t feel as patriotic as I used to, I know that.

  • Tom Bombadil

    It was not my intention to insinuate that gay marriage is related to pagan celebrations– I was referring to winter solstice celebrations. I don’t do much insinuating as our posts back and forth evidence. lol I agree with much you just said, though I don’t agree that if Jesus was silent about something that it suddenly has the green light. There are many things He didn’t speak on regarding sex, as the subject was understood at the time; He didn’t speak on: rape, incest, bestiality, sex trade, child porn. My ONLY point there is that He was a Jew and He spent His time preaching the Gospel and correcting Pharisaical traditions that needed correcting. Not addressing something is proof that it is as it was in the Old Testament except He introduced more mercy.

  • Proud Amelekite

    [I take it as historical fact that all Jewish teaching around the time of
    second temple Judaism considered same sex sex to be forbidden by God,
    including that of Jesus and the apostles (prove me wrong if you can).]

    There is a whole website dedicated to that: http://www.gaychristian101.com/

    See the leftmost side of the site, under “What the Bible says” in the yellow box. I don’t personally believe the Bible to be “God breathed” but it isn’t like there isn’t a precedent for this sort of thing.

  • Proud Amelekite

    If I can’t refuse to bake cakes for weddings and celebrations of the sons and daughters of Ham (black people) the modern version of these sorts can’t deny service to homosexuals because of their religion. The refusal to make a cake is theft, or at least that is the reasoning. A bakery uses infrastructure that blacks and gays pay for to make their profits they have to provide benefits to these people. See the 14th Amendment for details.

    A bakery that refused to bake for an interracial marriage on aforementioned religious grounds existed and lost. Being allowed to discriminate against interracial marriages is also a religious freedom issue. It is an apples to apples comparison.

  • Proud Amelekite

    Can you prove that black people are human? A common racist trope alive then and today is making the point that blacks are not actual humans and simply a similar species of animal and, thus, slavery was not evil.

  • Proud Amelekite

    Times are scary for the right leaning religious. Human progress, human rights, and science are succeeding more and more and accepted by the younger generations and these things are toxic to the fundamentalist. You can expect nationalism to increase as well in the near future. Hopefully we are witnessing the last dying twitches of this misbegotten movement but, sadly, I am not so optimistic.

  • Zev_disqus

    “They treat everyone the same–they just don’t sell pork to anyone.”

    Presumably, the bakery wouldn’t sell
    a gay-marriage-supporting cake to anyone, either.

  • Ron McPherson

    “I don’t agree that if Jesus was silent about something that it suddenly has the green light.”

    I never said that was the case. The point is that we may come to very different conclusions about any given matter that Jesus may not have addressed.

    “Not addressing something is proof that it is as it was in the Old Testament except He introduced more mercy.”

    I completely disagree with this. That premise suggests we should still be dragging disobedient sons to the city gate to be stoned. We should not be rounding the corners of our beards or wearing clothing of mixed fabric. Still observing the Sabbath.

    “He didn’t speak on: rape, incest, bestiality, sex trade, child porn.”

    He didn’t need to. Fulfilling the law of Christ is about love for others. Those items you listed are an oppression against others, a devaluing of their being.

    Also sorry if I misread the meaning of your term “pagan celebrations”.

    Peace

  • gimpi1

    You’ve given me things to think about as well. I’m sure you’re right in that our life-experience has led us to see different things. That’s why I like to engage with people I have some disagreements with. I always learn things. Just talking with people with the same views can turn into an echo-chamber, don’t you think?

    I don’t know if “traditional America” can exist without the injustices. Remember, a huge chunk of our traditional economy was founded on slave labor. The African trade was the worst example, but Native and Chinese slave labor was also common, more on the West Coast. Also, social-welfare programs are not new. The Homestead Act is the largest welfare program ever enacted; think of it, free farmland – the modern equivalent of venture capital – to anyone that could get there and file a claim. Of course, there was racial discrimination there as well and one of the points of the act was to strip territories from Natives… The point is that our traditional world was so unjust that I don’t know what it would look like without it. Just a thought

    A weird aside; I have no idea why my last post was all italic. I wanted to italicize the quotes, and I checked the code. It was fine. HTML tags usually work… sigh.

  • Obscurely

    Can you whet my appetite by summarizing that perspective for me please?

  • Obscurely

    The addictions that can kill you?

  • Tom Bombadil

    Well, Jesus showed mercy to the woman caught in adultery. Mercy was taught even in the Old Testament. At the time that Deuteronomy was written, many cultures believed in honor killings much as the Muslims do today. The instruction in Deuteronomy was actually counter to the impulsive practice of honor killings that a family might act on. Instead the rebellious son (note this is not a child as most children are not gluttons and drunkards), is brought before the elders at the gate and has the case judged. This requires two witnesses as well. It was designed that justice and mercy may be shown rather than the exasperated actions of a hurt and angry family.

    There are multiple laws/instruction that sound harsh, but that really were for the purpose of justice from the harsher societal laws of the cultures around them. Mercy was generally the result: David shown mercy for his sins, Absalom was shown mercy by David as well as David’s son who raped Tamar. The Bible does not even give an account of a hand or eye being removed or a rebellious son stoned. It probably occurred in extreme and rare cases though.

    Mixing fabrics was instruction regarding honesty in claiming you are selling a “pure fabric” when it is actually of a lesser quality due to be mixed with inferior material.

    But the real point is that God did define what was wrong and sin; the penalties aren’t the real issue in our discussion. God said if an ox known to be dangerous gores and kills a man, then the owner should be killed. Now generally people might believe the penalty is too severe, but what is not in doubt is that one should take responsibility to deal with an ox once it is shown to be dangerous. To not do so is wrong. That it is generally wrong to steal or to injure or to be extremely rebellious/hateful to one’s parents is of little doubt. So too are other actions that are taught against in the Old Testament. This would include gay marriage. It’s a bigger topic than I can get into now, but mercy is often shown such that penalties are not given–just as the Lord intervened and showed mercy to the woman caught in adultery. He told her He does not condemn her, but He also said “go and sin no more.”

  • Bones
  • Ron McPherson

    In other words, you read the Bible in CONTEXT. That’s my point. So we should respect the opinions of others who do the same but may arrive at different conclusions than we might (which includes passages presumably speaking to same sex relationships).

    Peace

  • Tom Bombadil

    I like your idea that the free market decide. It is wrong to believe the government simply has the right to prevent people from running a business simply because their religious beliefs do not line perfectly with the government’s current ideas. That is not freedom and is unconstitutional.

    I don’t have a problem with the sign either. I don’t care to waste my time going to a store that would not perform a service I want.

    By the way, do you really think what you mentioned as hypocrisy is really hypocrisy? I see it as showing respect for the individuals and not defining THEM as a group that IS “something I don’t agree with”. Does it really hurt you if someone shows you respect and provides a service for some things but does not believe they should for others?

    I know there are many places I could not receive a service because the owner does not agree with something I believe in, but will take my money for other things. There might be a time I find that inconveniencing enough to no longer go to that store, but until then…

    You sound like someone that would disagree with the government levying a huge fine on a business when the owner does not provide a particular service due to religious beliefs…provided they have a sign up to prevent people from wasting their time. I agree with that.

  • Tom Bombadil

    I can respect that while not agreeing with the individual’s conclusion. I believe it must be a two way street however. The government fining someone into oblivion for a strongly held religious belief that does not overtly injure someone must not be allowed and all Christians and citizens should protest that. Peace as well…

  • Ron McPherson

    “…all Christians and citizens should protest that.”

    Why would someone protest (including Christians) if they don’t feel the same as you? You see the owners as victims; others do not. The owners were engaged in a capitalist venture to make money. Period. And if you’re going to make money selling cakes, then dadgummit sell the cake. From a ‘religious’ perspective, it’s difficult for me to make that one work either. Many see the owners engaging in hypocrisy, though I have no doubt they think they were doing right. Never do we hear the owners refusing to make a wedding cake for a previously divorced couple (something that Jesus actually did talk about). We never read where the owners refuse to serve the obese because they don’t want to be a party to the gluttonously sinful act of shoving another pastry down one’s throat. Seriously, the easiest thing would be like Snoot suggested. Just require all businesses to place a sign in the window saying which ‘sinners’ or ‘sinful practices’ they won’t serve. Would save everyone a lot of anguish. The gay couple wouldn’t have wasted their time there, and the owners wouldn’t have been fined as they could go on selling to adulterers, gluttons, drunkards, gossips, prideful, idolaters, greedy, religious folk, etc. just not gay weddings lol

  • Tom Bombadil

    I agree with Snoot’s suggestion.

    Also, some conclusions require my making a judgment about a person. Maybe the obese person just lost 50 pounds and was celebrating and sharing a cake as a reward. Maybe the divorced person had been in an abusive marriage. Can I tell if someone is a drunkard without judging that person? Maybe they are, but it still requires a judgment and maybe I don’t have enough info. Maybe they were also on a medication that was affected by alcohol.

    But, some things like a gay wedding are contrary to the Bible to many and this does not require a judgment as the thing itself defines itself as wrong. The obese person might not be a glutton. Now, there are many things that don’t require a judgment: a cake with a racist image, an orgy, for me a Halloween cake would be off limits or other things like demonism or witchcraft. Those things define themselves as wrong to me without my making a judgment.

    I don’t really know if the guy that looked down his nose at me is prideful. I can make observations and maybe develop an opinion; but my judgment might be wrong. There are many things a Christian baker would not feel right working on other than a gay themed wedding cake. A Jewish baker may not want to make a Christening cake. There are many examples.

    I simply do not believe we want the government deciding what are acceptable beliefs if there is no overt injury. Hurt feelings is not enough, and we must base our laws on how a mature adult responds. Freedom of speech/conscience/religion are important as without them there really is no freedom.

  • Ron McPherson

    “Hurt feelings is not enough…”

    Try telling that to the black kid at a 1960s lunch counter. Oh well, we’re not really getting anywhere.

    Peace

  • Tom Bombadil

    You’re probably right, but don’t forget I draw a mighty distinction between 1)providing a service that conflicts the conscience and 2) treating anyone with disrespect. So, the “hurt feelings” comment would not apply to a black kid denied entry for the color of his skin, but it would apply to a specific service that tweaks the conscience.

  • Guy Norred

    And therefore I have faith that there is light in the future and that that light will over all get brighter, but I share Proud Amelekite’s pessimism for the immediate future.

  • Jeff Preuss

    “Hurt feelings is not enough, and we must base our laws on how a mature adult responds.”
    You know what? NO. This whole “hurt feelings” argument is a fat load of idiotic hogwash. As if the systemic squashing of the rights of a minority group amounts to nothing more than hurt feelings.

    And, even if it were ONLY “hurt feelings” we were experiencing, WHY is it acceptable to you as (I assume) a caring, thinking, feeling Christian being to be the cause of hurt feelings to your fellow human being? Are you not, as a follower of Christ, supposed to be able to exhibit the tiniest smidgen of empathy, even for those with whom you don’t agree?

    Because, I gotta say, your attitude is presenting as “I don’t care if it hurts their feelings, I think they’re sinners, and therefore I am justified in hurting them.”

    You’re awful.

  • Jeff Preuss

    “Presumably, the bakery wouldn’t sell
    a gay-marriage-supporting cake to anyone, either.”

    What they were asked to sell was a wedding cake, not whatever a “gay-marriage-supporting cake” is. And, since the bakery already sold wedding cakes, there shouldn’t have been a problem.

  • Bones

    Food?
    Sex?
    Caffeine?
    Alcohol?

    OA are you a puritan? ;-)

  • Bones

    There’s so much nonsense in this post, it’s hard to start.

    As for the antichrist – Pete Seeger died a couple of years ago…..

    It’s funny the way Fundies are lifting Putin as a paragon of Christian virtue….

    Russia’s Newest Law: No Evangelizing Outside of Church
    (UPDATE) Putin signs new restrictions that limit where and how Christians share the gospel.

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2016/june/no-evangelizing-outside-of-church-russia-proposes.html

    Christian Russia indeed!

    Edit:

    Of course fundies love Putin because he allows gay to be beaten up….

    In which case, Strongs119 would have LOVED Hitler….

  • Bones

    Maybe they wouldn’t like selling Arab-Jew wedding cakes to anyone either….

  • Rose

    No worries–I could read it all right.

    I certainly don’t want to return to slavery or segregation or the Trail of Tears or the Japanese internment camps or anything like that. Such injustices and cruelties horrify me. I am thinking more of traditional American values, grandma’s farm, and roast chicken on Sundays, of a culture where God and old-fashioned morals are normal and revered, where I don’t have to feel strangely guilty for being white or preferring my own “white American” culture to a “diverse American” one.

    I would not want our country–truly–to revert to a universal white culture where other races feel marginalized. Whites are no longer in such a strong majority, so that wouldn’t even make sense. And, while I don’t feel the same way about all civil rights issues (like gay marriage), I do believe very strongly that all races should have an equal place at the table of freedom and opportunity and live with each other in unity in the same neighborhoods and cross class lines the same as whites do.

    But that doesn’t mean that the way the tides have turned over the last 20-30 years are completely comfortable. The culture we have now is no longer one I really feel connected to in any emotional sense. I am not “proud to be an American” the way I used to be. I feel so disconnected from today’s America, in fact, that I sometimes fantasize about moving to my ancestral countries of England, Scotland, and Ireland or living in a commune in this country off the grid. My ancestors on three sides came here in the 17th century, so I’m about as American as you can get without being an American Indian, but I don’t feel much tie to our culture anymore. Too much has changed in a way that I find strange, troubling, and confusing. Maybe I’m just getting old!

    My patriotism is tied to the now in only a few ways–increased movements towards racial justice, movements towards better treatment of animals, better educational opportunities, the lifting of the glass ceiling for women, and probably a couple of other things that I can’t think of at the moment. When I stand for the flag or the anthem, though, my mind is more on the good things about America that we have lost than the good things about America we have now. I have to work to remind myself of the improvements we have made, which is too bad, because there are certainly many.

  • Al Cruise

    “sadly, I am not so optimistic.” I am optimistic. Secondly I don’t think fundamentalism is making a comeback, I think it is more that they have been drawn into the open by this current election cycle, expressing their real beliefs publicly and you can see the tribe in it’s entirety much more clearly. This was very evident when the thousand plus right-wing evangelical leaders met with Trump in New York. Once they are out in the open like this it becomes much easier for enlightenment to ensnare the group and send them down the path of rejection and into oblivion. History has proven this over and over again. It does seem hopeless at times , the violence and hate that we experience locally feels wholly encompassing. The young today are more enlightened and understand what it means to love your neighbor as yourself more than any generation before it. Religious fundamentalism will pass away, the current uprising by them today is just part of that process as history has shown us before.

  • Guy Norred

    What should a national boundary mean to us? The inhabitants of both sides are created in the image of God. Nothing can separate us from His love and nothing should stand in the way of us sharing the love we have received.

  • If you think the current state of the EU is encouraging more countries to form similar transnational currencies, then you don’t understand what is going on there. it’s not working very well and they would separate but for the countries on the common currency, there’s not really any way of leaving that doesn’t completely destroy their economy. (See the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after WWI for the only example of doing that. Not something anyone wants to repeat.)

  • If they want to repeal the laws that require everyone to serve gay customers, then they should repeal all the nondiscrimination laws so that gay business owners can also discriminate against Christians. Not that many would do that. People in business want more customers, not less. But since there are still 29 states where it’s still legal to discriminate against gay people but zero states where it’s legal to discriminate against people because of their religion, that does seem a bit lopsided. If you think it’s okay for you to discriminate, then you must accept that others should be able to discriminate against you. OR you can decide to live in a society where everyone has rights and is deserving of respect, even if you don’t agree with them about everything.

  • So business owners have rights, but workers do not? Is that your point? No, the Muslim in that scenario would not be fined, just fired which could also cause financial ruin. But we do not allow employees to decide which tasks they will or will not do. If they do not wish to sell alcohol then they have to avoid taking jobs where that would be required. if you bake wedding cakes, then you bake them for the customers that wish to buy.

    Also, back during the gay marriage debates, Texas Gov Rick Perry said that if gay people didn’t like that they didn’t have equal rights in Texas they could go live somewhere else. I didn’t hear anyone on the right object to that comment. So why doesn’t the same apply. There is no federal law barring discrimination against gay people, and there are 29 states (minus a few big cities in those) where such discrimination is legal. So maybe they should locate their business where they can discriminate against gay customers all they like?

  • Actually there was a more recent case in which a baker called back a customer who had ordered a birthday cake and after looking up that customer on facebook realized she was gay and called her back and said she wouldn’t fill the order. So it’s not just about marriage.

    Also, I can’t believe that the right has now shifted the lbgt rights discussion to baking. I tell you what. Why don’t you propose an exception for small businesses in exchange for a federal employment nondiscrimination bill. I would find that an acceptable compromise. (Maybe others wouldn’t, but I would.) Would that be acceptable to you? Oh, and dropping the promises to overturn Obergefell. Because it seems that your only objection is the bakers having to bake the cakes, not the marriages themselves, or am I misunderstanding?

  • No, it was not a “gay themed” wedding cake. It was a standard wedding cake just like the ones they bake for other weddings. The only difference was whose wedding it was for.

  • DNA is more than adequate to prove that.

  • In what way was the cake to be “obviously gay themed”? You added that part. If the request had been for a custom cake that they didn’t normally make, this case would have gone nowhere. The reality is that the couple ordered one of the bakery’s standard wedding cakes to be served at a reception for a same sex marriage. There was nothing special about the cake except who the customer was. I don’t know if you are ill-informed or just lying at this point. But it’s bad information either way.

  • What other types of events will this bakery not “participate in”? Are there others? Or just gay ones? What about the marriage of people who were previously divorced? A mixed-faith marriage? anything else?

  • There was also a racist element to prohibition as the saloon culture was predominantly one identified with Irish, Italian and German immigrants.

  • Pentacostals and Assemblies of God are not fundamentalist? Since when?

  • That is the interview in which he admitted to “lusting in his heart” after other women (besides his wife). Imagine a time when that was a scandal and not a presidential candidate with a rape trial that starts a month before the election.

  • It doesn’t matter because politics. They certainly would condemn all sorts of things Trump does if a Democrat were doing them.

  • You are right that there’s no clear distinction between Evangelicals and Fundamentalists. obviously we think of the latter as being more inflexible and extreme, but where exactly is the dividing line. It does seem to be subjective which of course is a problem when trying to have a discussion involving either group or both.

  • Jim Bakker is still on tv fearmongering and selling very expensive dehydrated food bins for people to survive the end times. He’s the same old fraud he always was and somehow people still give him money.

  • The US is still a majority Christian country. Slightly less so with increases in “Nones” but about 2/3 of the country is Christian. I don’t know how that doesn’t make it a majority. The difference is that other groups are visible now and not just in the major cities. They were always around. There have been Jews and Buddhists in the US for a long time but I guess most people weren’t aware of them.

  • Proud Amelekite

    Platitudes and empty threats, as always. If your God is as good at keeping promises to help you continue your hateful crusades against the innocent as he is at protecting the necks of the Arab Christians from ISIS machetes we have nothing to fear.

  • Proud Amelekite

    We share less than 5% difference in DNA between apes and our species or so the Stormfront boys will point out. The modern racist is adept at abusing statistics, science, and facts to paint blacks and latino folks as violent subhumans based on rates of crime and poverty in their communities. Same sort of arguments that ties all gays to being pedophiles.

    Anti-race mixing is another thing alive and well. One of the more common arguments from the more racist folks where I grew up in the 90’s Midwest was the use of IQ statistics based on race to prove that race mixing would simply dilute the intelligence of the white side of the relationship.

    That is the beauty of the Post Hoc Ergo Proctor Hoc Fallacy: I can misuse statistics and science to make correlations that appear strong to the layman.

  • Rose

    I remember when the words “Christian nation” had some meaning, and I don’t really believe the percentage you quoted. It sounds credible for 20-30 years ago, but it doesn’t anymore. If it is accurate, then I would bet money that most of that identification is solely cultural for many people, not actual practice of Christianity. Without practice, Christian identification means little. What I see today in our culture is only vestiges of a Christian nation. We are pretty much a secular nation, now, with some Christian cultural roots.

  • Yes but I can take blood from people of any “race” (I put it in quotes because I think the concept is bullshit.) so long as the type matches. That means that I may be able to take a transfusion from someone whose ancestors are from Africa or Asia but perhaps not from a cousin.

    As for “race-mixing” and intelligence, have you ever met a white supremacist who wasn’t an idiot? Please. Yes, I know you’re just showing the stupidity of their arguments, but people who have looked at the findings of the genome project learned that we are not nearly as diverse a genetic population as we used to think.

  • What do you think the words “Christian nation” meant? It certainly didn’t prevent us from having slavery, or segregation, or lynchings. Is the KKK part of that Christian nation? they say they were.

    Yes, a lot of people say they are Christian (or Jewish or anything else) but don’t often go to church (or temple or anything else). Are they not Christians? What is your cutoff for that?

    The reality is that people have never been treated more fairly or decently in the US than they are right now. That’s not to say that things are perfect now but if your idea of an ideal society is the 1950s or earlier you’re either in denial as about what that society was really like or worse you actually think that the sexist, racist culture of that time was acceptable.

  • Zev_disqus

    Call it gay-marriage cake if you like. You’ll have trouble proving that the bakery didn’t have an honest conscience problem with it. Are you comfortable with forcing such people out of business?

  • Rose

    I fully agree we have come a very long way in regards to justice. Justice is a Christian virtue, but having a more just society does not make our society “Christian.” All we really have are vestiges of a society that once embraced Christian ideas and morals more than we did those of any other religion. It really means little.

  • DrewTwoFish

    A gay marriage supporting cake? Jesus, that’s a lot to ask of a cake. I thought all it had to do was look pretty and taste good.

  • If Christian ideas and morals gave us Jim Crow and slavery, I think we’re better off with the secular morals today. If justice had been a Christian virtue, why do we have more of it as our society becomes more secular? That doesn’t even makes sense.

    I think you’re just mad that people don’t pretend they aren’t having sex any more. People aren’t doing anything now they weren’t always doing. They’re just less likely to be hypocrites about it now. Is that what you’re upset about because honestly the world you think was so great was awful for most people.

  • Zev_disqus

    The clients and the bakery owners thought differently.

  • Rose

    But they didn’t give us those laws, because neither of those things are what Christians today recognize as Christian. Jesus never promoted such things, and neither did the early Church before politics began their terrible influence. Slavery like we had in the earlier centuries was pure evil and a misinterpretation of some parts of the Bible. Both evil and good men were duped by arguments supporting slavery. Justice is a virtue, plain and simple, and it is valued in other religions besides Christianity. Plus, the civil rights corrections for non-white races began long before our country progressed far towards secularism. Your argument doesn’t make sense to me.

    If you are arguing that the current movement towards sexual civil rights (gay marriage, transgender, etc.) is progress, then you are right that this is happening as we become more secular, because such ideas are not part of either orthodox Christianity or a couple of other religions (Mormonism, Islam, etc.)–another signal that we are no longer a Christian nation. (Yea for you!) It wasn’t that long ago–the late ’90s, I think– that most people still voted against gay marriage because they felt it was wrong.

    I also agree that people are less hypocritical about their Christian faith, now, and this is definitely a good thing. What is the point of such hypocrisy? That isn’t authentic Christianity, so why pretend? But I resent you trying to interpret what I am upset about about and that I think the world was “so great” (which it very obviously wasn’t in many ways) You really don’t get it.

    I don’t know what color you are are or how old you are, but the world is very different in some major ways from what I grew up with. Things have changed so rapidly that I have hardly been able to keep up. Some things are much better and some things are much worse, and if I have a little trouble finding my way, you will be so kind as to excuse me as I try figure out where I fit and how to adjust without losing my soul. As long as I don’t play the activist against the new American values and morality that you may hold dear and as long as I am a good girl who keeps her mouth shut against the many things that shock and offend me on a daily basis, people like you can stop criticizing and mocking Christians, because most of us are pretty harmless. Except for forums like this, most of us mind our own business as we move through society.

  • If Christians kept their mouths shut and minded their own business we wouldn’t be facing anti-gay and anti-trans bills constantly. I’m gay. I have the same rights you do, except that I respect yours and you don’t respect mine.

    Secularism is good for most of us, including Christians who don’t belong to the majority denomination in their area. Some of the complaints about prayer in school came from protestant and catholic parents who got tired of the Baptists preaching their theology to their kids at school. It is possible for us to all get along and mind our own business so let me know when Christians decide to do that because I’m sick of fighting an anti-gay nutjob or bill or ballot referendum every time I turn around. Yes, most people once thought gay marriage was wrong. Most people also used to think interracial marriage was wrong (and it was illegal in most places until the 1970s). That’s part of the move towards more freedom for more people. You don’t seem to like it that people are free to do things you don’t like, but that’s just too bad.

    And to claim that it wasn’t Christian when Christians like Jerry Falwell fought desegregation is laughable. Those people weren’t Christians? I realize there’s a wide spectrum inside Christianity from very liberal to very conservative and everything in between and not everyone was on the wrong side of those issues just as not all Christians are on the wrong side of them now.

    One final thing, lately I see the word orthodox used to describe fundamentalist Christian ideas. I wish you would pick another word because when I see that word I think Greek Orthodox or Russian Orthodox, not hardshell baptists.

  • Jeff Preuss

    “Call it gay-marriage cake if you like.”

    Again. This sounds different from a wedding cake, which is what the business sold. Can you enlighten us as to exactly what a gay-marriage cake is?

    In states where it is illegal to discriminate against gay people in public accommodations, wedding cakes for gay couples and wedding cakes for straight couples are legally the same product, without a fundamental difference between the two. They made wedding cakes. They refused to sell a wedding cake to the couple because they were gay.

    “Are you comfortable with forcing such people out of business?” If anyone is forcing bakeries out of business in states where their discriminatory actions are clearly illegal (such as Sweet Cakes in Oregon), it is the bakeries themselves, choosing to violate their states’ laws about treating gay customers like they would straight customers. If I were forced to close my business because I refuse to serve black people, in clear violation of civil rights laws, it would be no one’s fault by my own. (And before you say it isn’t the same thing: of course the parallel isn’t precisely the same, but there were and ARE plenty of people who maintain separation by skin color to be a moral thing, supportable by Scripture, so refusal based on “conscience” is a common thread between the two.)

    “You’ll have trouble proving that the bakery didn’t have an honest conscience problem with it.” Since neither of us lives in the bakers’ minds, you’ll have trouble proving they weren’t refusing to service them out of cruel spite.

  • Jeff Preuss

    I am thankful that I had close Jewish friends when I was in elementary school almost 40 years ago, and those from several other religions from about 12 and older, so I’ve been aware of valuable cultural differences since my formative years. It helps me to see our country through their eyes, especially recognizing many of them still feel like outsiders for not being the majority religion (or color.)

  • Jeff Preuss

    You might want to look at Jim Bakker again – his ministry is largely hooked into doomsday preparation businesses, selling large stores of food to folks on the assumption the end of the world is coming soon, and their Christian duty is to be prepared with enough food to live comfortable sheltered away for years while the world burns.

    Sounds like playing into scared folks’ fears to me. In fact his website proclaims itself: “prophecy and end times news.”

  • Bones

    I have some tins of Bones”s Endtimes Jesus Beans which you could have for $100 per bean.

    Anyone interested???????

    I also have a Jesus rapture suit @ $10 000 per suit….don’t wait for the fire sale….

    Time is running out…..

    Edit: For Catholics I have Bones’s fire resistant suit including full face covering @$15 000 a steal.

  • Questioning

    Ah yes.. the Purge…. atory suit. Just in time for those big fall bonfires.

  • DrewTwoFish

    I think you’re wrong about the clients.

  • Snooterpoot

    Mrs. Snooterpoot and I are married, not “married.” Those of you who wish to belittle us by using quotation marks don’t reflect the love of God; you just reflect petty assholery.

  • Bones

    Communism was a type of religion…..see also stalinism, maoism…..

  • Bones

    This was the same time Christians were buying slaves.

    What is your point?

  • Bones

    Europeans are dying out hey…Maybe Putin should stop killing them then….

    Putin – the fundy Christians new darling….no matter how many countries he invades, but hey he hates gays….

    “The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of national life….”
    Adolf Hitler, 1933

    As I said you would have loved Hitler….

  • Proud Amelekite

    I could care less about your foul history – my crusades crack was a reference to the modern crusade against the LGBT people. No shortage of voices calling for the reinstating in my country of the death penalty for homosexuals and the re-criminalization of sodomy. You want my pity? Tough. My empathy is for my fellow human beings – not the human-shaped malignancies that seek to bully and myself, kill my brethren, and consistently hold human progress back. Anything that harms your side is good for my side because we are enemies and this is war.

  • Bones

    Apparently the Russian Orthodox Church needs protection from other Christians……..

  • Proud Amelekite

    Yes, your fundamentalist Islamic brothers across the sea are an unfortunate reminder of what happens when God and his most fervent followers aren’t muzzled by the enlightenment and secular society. If fundamentalist Christians ran America, it would look identical to Saudi Arabia. The Muslim over there is a mad dog. Your side are also mad dogs but we have you on a leash where you belong over here.

  • Proud Amelekite

    God is so impotent he needs a monopoly and can’t stand up to scrutiny or science. I am amazed anyone fears and worships such an idiot.

  • Proud Amelekite

    Why bother? Fundamentalists offer nothing of value to the other side. If anything, lying down with the dogs is only likely to get you fleas. Certainly no insight, as the intellectual capacity of all fundamentalists shows them to be subhuman and only barely sentient.

  • Snooterpoot

    Off topic:

    Ron, I’m going to be back home next month. I’ll probably be in Maryville for coffee with an old friend. If you’d like to meet in person please send me an email message to the address that’s in my profile.

  • Zev_disqus

    “Can you enlighten us as to exactly what a gay-marriage cake is?”

    No, but exact definitions are not the issue here. There is no argument between the clients and the business about this particular cake.

    “because they were gay”

    More likely it’s because of the sin which the cake represented,
    in the minds of the bakery owners.

    “the parallel isn’t precisely the same”

    It isn’t at all the same. I challenge you to support that view by scripture (as a devil’s advocate, of course), or any other authoritative, religious document.

    “cruel spite”.

    Sounds silly, and why not believe what they say?

  • Bones

    Seems the court disagrees with you…..

    “I challenge you to support that view by scripture (as a devil’s advocate, of course), or any other authoritative, religious document.”

    Yeah good point. The torah says gay people should be put to death. What other laws should we put aside because of what someone’s holy book says as opposed to living in a secular society.

    Maybe they won’t make Jewish marriage cakes either…..because of their honest conscience….

  • Bones

    So that’s why the Crusaders slaughtered the Jews in Jerusalem.

    Of course, on their way they slaughtered Jews to satisfy their bloodlust

    “At a local level, the preaching of the First Crusade ignited violence against Jews, which some historians have deemed “the first Holocaust”.[66] At the end of 1095 and beginning of 1096, months before the departure of the official crusade in August, there were attacks on Jewish communities in France and Germany. In May 1096, Emicho of Flonheim (sometimes incorrectly known as Emicho of Leiningen) attacked the Jews at Speyer and Worms. Other unofficial crusaders from Swabia, led by Hartmann of Dillingen, along with French, English, Lotharingian and Flemish volunteers, led by Drogo of Nesle and William the Carpenter, as well as many locals, joined Emicho in the destruction of the Jewish community of Mainz at the end of May.[67] In Mainz, one Jewish woman killed her children rather than see them killed; the chief rabbi, Kalonymus Ben Meshullam, committed suicide in anticipation of being killed.[68]

    Emicho’s company then went on to Cologne, and others continued on to Trier, Metz, and other cities.[69] Peter the Hermit may have been involved in violence against the Jews, and an army led by a priest named Folkmar also attacked Jews further east in Bohemia.[70] Emicho’s army eventually continued into Hungary but was defeated by the army of Coloman of Hungary. His followers dispersed; some eventually joined the main armies, although Emicho himself went home.[69]

    Many of the attackers seem to have wanted to force the Jews to convert, although they were also interested in acquiring money from them. Physical violence against Jews was never part of the church hierarchy’s official policy for crusading, and the Christian bishops, especially the Archbishop of Cologne, did their best to protect the Jews. A decade before, the Bishop of Speyer had taken the step of providing the Jews of that city with a walled ghetto to protect them from Christian violence and given their chief Rabbis the control of judicial matters in the quarter. Nevertheless, some also took money in return for their protection. The attacks may have originated in the belief that Jews and Muslims were equally enemies of Christ, and enemies were to be fought or converted to Christianity. Godfrey of Bouillon was rumoured to have extorted money from the Jews of Cologne and Mainz, and many of the Crusaders wondered why they should travel thousands of miles to fight non-believers when there were already non-believers closer to home.[71] The attacks on the Jews were witnessed by Ekkehard of Aura and Albert of Aix; among the Jewish communities, the main contemporary witnesses were the Mainz Anonymous, Eliezer ben Nathan, and Solomon bar Simson.”

    Wonderful people those crusaders….

    I especially liked the Albigensian Crusade which exterminated the Christian Cathars deemed as heretics.

    The Fourth Crusade was wonderful as well. Instead of going to Jerusalem the Christian Crusaders burned and looted Byzantine churches, killed Byzantine civilians and sacked Byzantine….

  • Zev_disqus

    Why didn’t the clients order a more “neutral” cake?
    My guess is because it was a symbol of the kind of wedding they were having and that’s what the bakery owners didn’t want to be part of.

  • Zev_disqus

    “The torah says gay people…”

    The challenge was to support the parallel.
    If you can’t do that, please don’t interrupt.

  • Bones

    Your ‘guess’ means nothing.

    The law has decided….

    Actually it turned out pretty well for them as people like yourself have turned their discrimination into a financial windfall.

    “The couple scored a bonanza of more than $500,000 via an online fundraiser established by the religious right to pay the couple’s fees. Yet in a court filing, the Kleins argued that the fine of $135,000 levied July 2 is excessive and would lead to “financial ruin,” according to Oregon newspaper Willamette Week.

    BOLI commissioner Brad Avakian denied the request, pointing out the money the couple raised via crowdfunding sites and ordering that the money they owed be held in escrow, as the Kleins appeal the decision to the Oregon Court of Appeals.

    LGBT people gained legal protections in employment, housing and public accommodations with the passing of a 2007 Oregon law which also bars private businesses from discriminating against potential customers.”

    http://www.advocate.com/marriage-equality/2015/12/29/bakers-who-refused-make-wedding-cake-gay-couple-pay-fine

    Bahaha

    They wanted to keep the $500 000 given to them by bigots…..

  • Bones

    I’ll darn well do what I want….

    As I pointed out we live in a secular society….the law of the land takes precedence over your holy books.

    Maybe you need to go check out the laws of Oregon…..

    “LGBT people gained legal protections in employment, housing and public accommodations with the passing of a 2007 Oregon law which also bars private businesses from discriminating against potential customers.”

    They broke the law…..

    No matter what their honest conscience or holy book says.

  • Bones

    Watch out PA….remember what happened to the Amelekites…….supposedly…..

  • DrewTwoFish

    Imagine that! A couple ordering a wedding cake for a, um, wedding. The effrontery! A protest cake, no less. I can see it now: that declicious rotund icing covered scamp marching with sign in hand in front of the local Baptist church.

  • Snooterpoot

    Hi, Drew! How are you?

  • DrewTwoFish

    Snooterpoot is back!

  • rationalobservations?

    The American “Church Leaders” organisation reveals that fewer than 17% of Americans are now actively involved within any of the 200+ cults, sects and businesses of religion still surviving in the USA.

    Religion is in steep and accelerating decline all across the free, democratic and increasingly secular developed western world and the rise of democratic movements within the developing world is still embryonic by significant.

    Perhaps the rise in religious totalitarianism (aka “fundamentalism”) is a last ditch attempt to terrify the third largest and fastest growing cohort of non-believing humanity into a return to enslavement to (and by) religion? It’s a shame for the near extinct religionists that their nonsense is merely laughed at and ignored by most of us these days..

  • Bones

    I have to say it’s not often that we have people defending genocide…..but nothing surprises me about you types.

    You are stupid and antisemitic.

    The pharisees represented ONE branch of Judaism….in fact the pharisees were divided into different schools of thought at Jesus’s time. The shammaites were the pharisees who were ultra Orthodox fundamentalists who had Jesus killed and died out after the Roman -Jewish War.

    The Hillel school was very much in line with Jesus and in fact Hillel’s words are written in the gospels as those of Jesus. In fact Gamaliel who defended the apostles in Acts, was Hillel’s grandson.

    It is the Hillel school which dominated Judaism after the first century….

    Btw Matthew and John are antisemitic writings and propaganda aimed at the Jews….

  • Jeff Preuss

    “There is no argument between the clients and the business about this particular cake.”
    If you cannot define the term you are introducing into the discussion in a failed attempt to distinguish between wedding cakes for straight people and wedding cakes for gay people, that’s not my problem.

    [EDIT to add: It’s not your problem? You’re the one who introduced the distinction, yet cannot define how it’s different. So, yeah. Yeah, apparently it IS your problem.]

    “More likely it’s because of the sin which the cake represented,
    in the minds of the bakery owners.”
    What a patently ridiculous argument. It still cycles back to discriminating against them because they were gay. Doesn’t matter if the Kleins thought it a sin, when legally they were not allowed to use that as a reason to deny service.

    “It isn’t at all the same.”
    Oh, it has a LOT of similarities. Perhaps if you want to pretend some Christians have not been using the Bible to support racist practices, your statement could stand, but you’d be lying to yourself. As a result, it’s clear you are ignoring the strong parallels because you’d like to pretend unfair discrimination doesn’t occur, using the Bible as an excuse. Does “turn the other cheek” mean “look the other way” to you?

    “I challenge you to support that view by scripture (as a devil’s advocate, of course), or any other authoritative, religious document.”
    Seems to me there are a number of Scriptures in which Jesus instructs Christians to treat other humans with kindness and charity. Not what the bakers did here. Why should the authority of religious documents matter here, when the bakers ignored clear guidelines from such?

    Support what view? That racists will use the Bible to say it’s okay to discriminate? Google racism and mark of Cain and curse of Ham, and you’ll find that “support” that gets used for racism.

    “Sounds silly, and why not believe what they say?”
    Because their actions belie what they say. They treated the lesbian couple quite poorly, and were awful examples of Christianity.

    But, sure, why not believe the person who says, “I love you” while stabbing you? After all, it’s what they say, right?

  • Rose

    Your hate and disgust are duly noted. I am not going to get in a discussion of gay rights, and I am not going to apologize for my religious stance on LGBTQ issues, which is in line with the Catholic Church. I will remain opposed to gay marriage and changing genders (which I don’t believe is truly possible, anyway). But I will also keep my mouth shut as this country continues its moral decline, and you can continue to advance your cause as far as I am concerned. When it comes to activism, I am not your enemy. If pushed, I’ll take a stand, but otherwise I do mind my own business outside of these forums.

    But I won’t join you in your cause on gay marriage, because it’s morally wrong. You can hate and deride me for it, but I have to follow my conscience, just as you have to follow yours. Marriage is only marriage when it’s between a man and a woman, and though I am the kind of person who likes everyone to feel good and be happy, this is not one of times when I can pretend that isn’t the truth just for the sake of being nice. God did not create marriage to be single-gender. I wish He did, so that everyone could have what they want–but He didn’t.

    I have not claimed anything like you said in your second paragraph, so it made no sense to me because it didn’t really relate to what I said in my previous post. I merely pointed out that secularism did not pave the way for desegregation and racial civil rights; the country was still what we might call a Christian nation.

    Regarding the word “orthodox,” I don’t know what other word to use to describe Christians across all denominational lines who adhere to their denomination/sect’s doctrine as laid out in their creeds, catechisms, doctrinal statements, and so forth. I am using it in lower-case, which is the best I can do. “Fundamentalist,” “conservative,” and “traditional” all have shades of meaning that don’t express the same thing as “orthodox.”

  • Rose

    The last thing I heard about Bakker was many years ago when he was in prison and having a spiritual turnaround. I have not been following him since then and haven’t known whether he was alive or dead.

    Regarding survival preparation, I have no idea how he is going about it, but lots of places are designed to help people prepare for disasters. I stockpile some things myself, because it’s prudent. Christians and non-Christians alike make such preparations. In the ’50s people had bomb shelters and made some preparations, too. I don’t see anything wrong with having a survival prep business. Maybe you’re saying he’s going beyond a level-headed, practical business to doom-and-gloom sensationalism?

  • Jeff Preuss

    That’s precisely what I am saying.

  • Bones

    You’re kidding me….you stole that quote from the Nazi StormFront site….and are using that as evidence as to why Jews should be slaughtered!!!!

    None of that is verified…

    F*ck me, you’re a disgusting grub.

    No wonder you want to get in bed with Putin.

    As for the accusation that Jews caused the persecution of Christians there simply isn’t a skerrick of evidence and is built on the usual Jewish conspiracies.

    Scholarship tells us

    “A summary of the opinions expressed and defended by the majority of twentieth-century specialists would lead to the following conclusions: First, Nero blamed the Christians for the fire whether or not he himself ordered the burning of the city; second, there was a persecution of the Christians, although it is not entirely clear that it was connected with the fire; and third, the Jews played no role in the persecution.

    Were the Jews instrumental in the launching of the first general persecution of the Christian church?

    Some scholars deny that there is any credible evidence for such a conclusion.

    See, for example, Robert Wilde, The Treatment of the Jews in the Greek and Christian Writers of the First Three Centuries (Washington: Catholic University of America Press, 1949) 144; Henry J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1960) 28.

    Others do not even deal with the issue, as if it were thoroughly unworthy of any serious scientific investigation.

    See, for example, Michael Grant, Nero: Emperor in Revolt (New York: American Heritage Press, 1970) 159-61; Gerard Walter, Nero (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1957) 144–74.

    The number of contemporary historians who give it some consideration is exceedingly small. One of them, E. Mary Smallwood, does not rule out the possibility of a Jewish connection between the fire and the persecution. W. H. C. Frend goes so far as to assert that the persecution represents the triumph of those members of the Jewish community who sought to stamp out the hated new faith.

    The Gospel of John is an antisemitic text written after John’s community were expelled from the synagogue.

    It is in fact Christian propaganda against the Jews who are of their father, the devil.

    And yeah the early church hated Jews…..

    Like I said, you’d love Hitler…..

  • Rose

    Well, in that case, it does sound like not much has changed. Different record, same tune.

  • Bones

    Nope….

    He’s still scamming people…

    Jim Bakker’s newest scam

    ogether, the new Mrs and Mr Bakker have begun their own television program and ensuing product line.

    Among his books is Prosperity And The Coming Apocalypse, in which he touts his belief in the undetermined return of Jesus, and urges his followers to be prepared.

    In that vein, he and his wife are selling a number of apocalypse-themed products aimed at helping their fans prepare, while undoubtedly helping earn back some of the money he still owes the government.

    Emergency room and board kits- that cost $500 or $1,000 a pop- are for sale, along with foldable fuel-less generators for $1,700 and packages of long-lasting food supplies.

    The Jerry Jones Special is an unusual $2,000 grouping of 37 buckets of corn, green beans, tomato flakes and raspberries that are said to provide enough ingredients for 480 meals.

    He even has an entire section dedicated to health products, including a variety of vitamins, protein shakes and exercise equipment.

    The strangest by far is the so-called ‘Silver Solution’ enema kits, selling for $100.

    ‘He appears to have no shame. He’s milking his worshippers for “end of the world” products and enemas too, which is bizarre,’ a source told The National Enquirer.”

    https://groupsects.wordpress.com/2012/05/19/jim-bakkers-newest-scam/

    These shysters only exist because gullible fools like you send them money.

  • Rose

    That’s pretty disgusting, but I’m Catholic and have never sent him a dime. I grew up Protestant, but I never followed him, except in the news. I didn’t even know if he was alive or dead until yesterday. Might want to watch those assumptions there.

  • Nixon is Lord

    And the hard liquor industry with Jews.

  • Bones

    Messianic Jews are Christians, like Peter and the apostles…

    Idiot….

  • Bones

    The reliable Jewish source which can’t be found anywhere…..

    Of course I did find an article on Diejiidischen Speisegesetze nach ihren verschiedenen Gesichlspunkten zum ersten Malewissenschaftlich-methodischgeordnet und kritisch beleuchtet, von Dr. A.Wiener (Breslau, 1895). (It’s proper name)

    http://www.jstor.org/stable/1450075?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    And it mentions nothing about Jews conspiring with Nero…..

    There isn’t a skerrick of evidence that the Jews blamed the Christians….once again it’s more about the evil Joooos.

    Fmd you people are sick.

    All because your precious crusaders were bloodthirsty barbarians who slaughtered Jewish children in front of their parents….

    There’s plenty of evidence on that…..

  • Bones

    We all know the early church was anti-semitic….they hated the Jews.

    Matthew and John didn’t write the gospels – neither are they eye-witness accounts.

    They are Christian propaganda written primarily against the Jews….there is no way that Jewish children should have the death of Jesus on their heads….

    What sick perverted mind believes that?

    John is writing about a local incident in his community where his community had been expelled from his synagogue….

    There was no widespread Jewish persecution of Christians…just like there was no widespread Jewish persecution of other Jewish heretic groups like the Essenes.

    Once again you’re writing this to justify the slaughter of Jews which the church has been complicit in for two millenia.

    You are disgusting.

  • Bones

    Actually Revelation was written by a Messianic Jew.

    Neither am I interested in racial theories.

    You are an antisemitic disgusting troll who have caused all types of misery to Jews.

    Keep posting so you can reveal more about the kind of subhuman you are.

  • Ron McPherson

    Cool. I’ll zoom an email to you next day or so.

  • Bones

    None of this has anything to do with anything apart from showing you know f#ck all about Judaism which contained all sorts of different schools of thought.

    The synagogue of Satan (those who say they are Jews and are not) is of course Pauling Christianity – the False Prophet – that’s you.

    All this to justify the holocaust and your love of Hitler.

    At least you show you hate Jews as much as gays.

  • Ron McPherson

    “Now, that most homosexuals have come out of the closet, and are openly living as gay couples, they are no longer breeding, so homosexual genes will simply (to a large extent) vanish in a few more decades, and homosexuals will become an even tinier and politically irrelevant minority.”

    I take it that gay people don’t fit your definition of the master race.

  • Zev_disqus

    “… that’s not my problem.”

    It’s not my problem either until it becomes an issue.

    “…legally they were not allowed…”

    They say that morally, they were required to.
    That’s the conundrum.

    “…Jesus instructs Christians to treat…”

    “Hate the sin, not the sinner” means, at the very least, avoid participation in his sin.

    “…curse of Ham…”

    That curse justifies racism?
    It appears that Moses himself married a black woman.

    “…their actions belie…”

    I missed the “lesbian” detail you mention here. The Bible has no reference to that. Did this issue come up in court? Did anyone tell the owners that their own beliefs don’t support their refusal to serve?

  • Ron McPherson

    “Putin – the fundy Christians new darling….no matter how many countries he invades, but hey he hates gays….”

    Ain’t it the truth lol. It’s the old motif that ‘the enemy of my enemy is now my friend.’ They hate gays like Jesus hated hypocrisy. Oh, the irony of it all. It absolutely boggles my mind how some people who claim to be Christian seem utterly oblivious to Jesus’ core teaching. Christ was all about love and mercy for the ‘outcasts’, for those oppressed by religion. Jesus told the bigoted religious elite that the tax collectors and prostitutes would enter the kingdom before them. Two thousand years later the religionists still haven’t figured this out.

  • Proud Amelekite

    Homosexuality likely comes from epigenetic factors but even if it didn’t, I myself am a gay man and have donated sperm on a few occasions. Science finds a way, despite God and his many idiots. It must be embarrassing for you to be so easily rebutted but it is your own fault, really. Your tiny, simpleton brain is too addled with God to argue on the merits of science so do yourself a favor and stick to what you know: pushing a broom and parroting your preacher.

    That isn’t me insulting you, mind you, just making an unbiased observation of your intellectual capabilities based upon your commentary here and elsewhere. You were born to serve your betters. You only embarrass yourself when you pretend to be one of them. Like a monkey in a little lab coat banging flasks together.

    “Arguing with a Christian is like playing chess with a pigeon.
    You could be the greatest player in the world, but the pigeon will
    still knock over all the pieces, shit on the board and strut around
    triumphantly.” – Unknown Source. Have heard it attributed to Dawkins, Harris, Ken Day, and many others but still truth.

  • Proud Amelekite

    Strongs is a Neo-Nazi antisemite as well as homophobic fool.

    There is a shocker.

    How many times did you have to edit before submitting? I imagine your original history revisionist shpeal included the word ‘kike’ to many times and you had to try and control your irrational, white supremist anger long enough to to make it presentable.

  • Proud Amelekite

    I for one fully support the anti-Christ in his crusade to help humanity flourish in spite of your God and his endless, spiteful war against us.

  • Proud Amelekite

    Made all the more poignantly ironic by the anti-Semitic Strongs in this same comment section. If there is anyone denying the holocaust it is Christians.

    Gott mit uns, as they say.

  • Really boring to see you call people you do not know racist, xenophobic and homophobic.

    Racism is not on the rise in this country; it exists in the minds of a liberal as a way to shut down dissent they don’t like. People who like borders and border control are not xenophobic; they just detest lawlessness. Americans are not homophobic either. We have not seen one Christian stab a gay or lesbian because they exercised their right to marry.

    This great country elected President Obama twice; they still like him – just not his policies. That’s why 70% of this country thinks we are on the wrong track.

    Most people do not know a Muslim but certainly don’t bear them any ill will; they just prefer their families to be safe from the terrorists attempting to hide behind the Muslim religion while they kill women and children. They also expect their country to protect them and are bewildered when it won’t act rationally regarding this real threat to their safety.

  • Snooterpoot

    One more thing. The Kleins were not actually fined $135,000. This money was awarded as damages to the couple after their names, addresses and phone numbers were deliberately posted on Facebook.

    Their property was vandalized, their children were bullied and, worse yet, they received death threats.

    I agree with you. The Kleins did not behave in a Christian manner. They brought shame to us instead.

  • Bones

    And the Kleins raised 500 000 which they want to keep and not pay up..

    Discrimination pays…….

    And they cried poor…..

  • Snooterpoot

    Bazinga!

  • Sophie B

    Please. The Founding Fathers felt everyone should have freedom of conscience to make their own choices. Otherwise we have no true freedom.

    The couple running the bakery was not discriminating against individuals. They had happily served gay customers for years. They also said they would be happy to provide a birthday cake. They were simply opting out of one activity they disagreed with. Your conclusion is misleading.

  • Sophie B

    Yet Muslim cabdrivers can refuse to pick up customers with seeing eye dogs. Orthodox Jews & Muslims can opt out of activities they disagree with, Jehovah’s Witnesses can opt out of singing “Happy Birthday” in restaurants which provide such services, etc. These people are not disrespecting people; they are just opting out of activities they disagree with.

  • Snooterpoot

    The law required treating all customers equally, and sexual orientation is specified as a protected class.

    The owners apparently thought that their religious beliefs exempted them from a law they disagreed with. They most certainly affirmatively and deliberately discriminated against this couple.

    Then, to add insult to injury after this unChristian behavior occurred, they deliberately put the couples’ names, address and phone number on their Facebook page. These two women, who only wanted to purchase a wedding cake, had their property vandalized. Their children were bullied. And, worst of all, they received death threats.

    Religious beliefs do not exempt people from the law. People cannot take their disobedient child outside the city limit and stone him to death. Neither can they take an unrepentant sinner in their church out to the public square to be flogged.

    How in the world do you not understand this?

    The Kleins were not acting in accordance with Jesus’s example of love and inclusiveness. Instead, they discriminated against these two women and made their lives hell.

    That, Sophie, whether or not you accept it, is the awful truth.

  • Snooterpoot

    Seriously? You equate opting out of singing happy birthday to flaunting the law and deliberately discriminating against people?

    And you really don’t understand the difference between simply being present at a business and owning one?

    I think our conversation is finished. You have gone to a ridiculous extreme to try to justify the Kleins having deliberately violating the law and stripping these women of their dignity. We Christians are not supposed to do that.

    Have a nice life. I hope you learn empathy during your journey.

  • Sophie B

    So you stereotype all fundamentalists. Scary.

  • Sophie B

    Tribe???? Are they all alike or do you refuse to see they are all individuals? Stereotyping people is a first step in groupthink. I think you suffer from some sort of fundamentalist phobia. People who think intellectually can rise above that.

  • Sophie B

    How hateful can you be?

  • Sophie B

    No one but nutcases are calling for the death penalty against gays. Your last two sentences are nothing but hate spewing.

  • Sophie B

    Saudi Arabia only outlawed slavery fifty years ago.

  • Sophie B

    Hatred run amok. Your side apparently knows nothing about the Enlightenment. Lockean ideas were built upon reason; not feelings which you are exhibiting in such a grand fashion.

  • Sophie B

    The Crusades, which were originally a defensive action, were soon co opted by joy riders, adventurers, all sorts of less desirable persons who stifled its original intent.

  • Sophie B

    Once again, no one is deliberately discriminating against gay people. They are merely opting out of one activity. This used to be allowed under the First Amendment. I personally would never be offended if I went to a Jewish or Muslim bakery & was refused a service due to their religious inclinations. I would simply go on down the street somewhere else. Perhaps we should be more like India in that regard. India has a huge amount of religious diversity. No one cares if some people follow a different path. Instead the LBGT crowd seems to feel we should all march in lockstep, like good little totalitarians.

    Stripping these women of their dignity? These women could have gone to any number of bakeries which would have served them yet they deliberately chose the Kleins. For that, the Kleins have been nearly deprived of their livelihood. If the Kleins were so hateful; why did they elect to send “I love you” cakes to LGBT groups?

  • Sophie B

    The awful truth is that the Kleins were bullied. They were fined $175,000 which they could not repay. They nearly lost their livelihoods. I am sure their children were harassed too. In fact, I am certain they were deliberately targeted by this couple who stood to make a lot of money. The Kleins meant no ill will. They opted to send “I Love You” cakes to several LBGT groups.

    The intolerant Left brooks no dissent from their prescribed narratives. In the case of the pizza owners in Indiana, the owners simply answered a hypothetical question. For a simple hypothetical, they were harassed, someone threatened to burn their pizza parlor down, etc. No act such as what befell the Kleins had ever taken place. I think the reporter just walked around, asking restaurant owners questions until she got the one she wanted.

  • Bones

    You mean like the Crusader leaders who led slaughters against Jews on the way to the Holy Land.

    “The call for the First Crusade touched off the Rhineland massacres also known as the German Crusade of 1096,[1] the persecutions of 1096 or Gzerot Tatenu[2] גזרות תתנ”ו – Hebrew for the edicts of 856, which occurred during the year of 4856 according to the Jewish calendar. Prominent leaders of crusaders involved in the massacres included Peter the Hermit and especially Count Emicho.[3] As part of this persecution, the destruction of Jewish communities in Speyer, Worms and Mainz were noted as the “Hurban Shum” (Destruction of Shum).[4] These were new persecutions of the Jews in which peasant crusaders from France and Germany attacked Jewish communities. A number of historians refer to the antisemitic events as “pogroms”.[5]”

    “The extent of the era’s antisemitism is apparent in Godfrey of Bouillon, who swore

    “to go on this journey only after avenging the blood of the crucified one by shedding Jewish blood and completely eradicating any trace of those bearing the name ‘Jew,’ thus assuaging his own burning wrath.”[11]”

    F#ck off with your defence of genocide.

  • Bones

    Rubbish…

    They are denying a service based on a person’ s sexuality….

    Which is against Oregon law.

    And the Klein’s have raised 500 000 by people like you who support discrimination and want to keep it.

    So much for being deprived of their livelihood…..they’ve been rewarded for their discrimination.

  • Bones

    They refused a service – that’s discrimination and against Oregon law….

    Just like it would be against the law to not have gay tenants because they were gay….

    Oregon law “does not allow private businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot legally deny service based on race, sex, age, disability or religion.”

  • Jeff Preuss

    “Perhaps we should be more like India in that regard. India has a huge amount of religious diversity. No one cares if some people follow a different path.”
    Wow. Even though religious freedom is an essential part of India’s constitution, violence among the various beliefs is fairly common, including the ethnic cleansing of Kashmiri Hindus in 1989. So, it’s not quite that “no one cares.”

    “If the Kleins were so hateful; why did they elect to send “I love you” cakes to LGBT groups?”
    You mean, along with copies of Ray Comfort’s anti-gay film Audacity? Yeah, why would this “loving” couple do that?
    http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/08/sweet_cakes_bakers_send_cakes.html
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/oregon-bakery-cakes-lgbt-groups_us_55d880a1e4b0a40aa3ab25a4

    “Stripping these women of their dignity?” They made the couple’s info public by sharing their legal complaint on Facebook, and subjected them to scores of harassing phone calls and threats. The KLEINS made the whole thing public, so YES it stripped the lesbian couple of their dignity and made them targets.

    “For that, the Kleins have been nearly deprived of their livelihood.”
    For breaking the discrimination law, and also publicizing personal information about the lesbian couple, the Kleins have been ordered to pay out a bunch of money — the blame for this falls squarely on THEIR shoulders, not the couple who wanted a wedding cake.

  • Jeff Preuss

    “The awful truth is that the Kleins were bullied. They were fined $175,000 which they could not repay.”
    The awful truth is the Kleins made this a public spectacle first,not the lesbian couple.

    Any monies they owe is on THEM. Truth.

  • Ron McPherson

    “They are merely opting out of one activity.”

    Uh, wasn’t that what racist lunch counters did in 1960s South? They just merely opted out of serving lunch to black folks. Fortunately, laws were passed that no longer allow such things.

    “These women could have gone to any number of bakeries which would have served them…”

    And so that makes it ok? If everyone felt like these owners then there would be NO cakes available for this couple, right? I mean, that’s kinda the point.

  • Sophie B

    No, the people in the South opted out of serving certain people entirely. This is not the case here. The Kleins were happy to serve their gay customers over the years. They opted out of one activity only. Read my comments agai.

  • Ivan T. Errible

    No-there would be no ban on pork products and the chances of a ban on alcohol are virtually nil.
    Plus women would be able to drive.

  • Ivan T. Errible

    I think Provincetown and Ogunquit and other “progressive” havens are at least as segregated by race and income as any gated community.

  • Sophie B

    Why did the lesbian couple pick them out first? There were many bakeries in the area which would have served them. One would think perhaps they wanted money. Besides this couple had everyone behind them in this area, while the Kleins had very little support. Who were the real gleeful bullies?

  • Ron McPherson

    Ok let’s try it this way. The Kleins sold wedding cakes. The couple walked into the bakery to buy one. The Kleins refused to sell them one. The couple walked out of the bakery without one. If every baker in America treated the couple like the Kleins did then the couple would have nary a place to buy a wedding cake. Does that help?

  • Sophie B

    There are many areas in India where no one cares. A halal business can exist happily in many neighborhoods next to some place who serves haram.

    People interpret the world differently. What some people see as kindness other people interpret differently. If a Christian person believes sincerely that someone is going in the wrong direction, they feel it is a kindness to point this out. They may have no animus at all. You may sharply disagree with them but to say they are motivated by hatred is to assume you have access to their minds that you don’t have. It is a form of thought control.

    No, the Kleins made the thing public for legal reasons. They felt they were being unfairly treated & wanted to bring it to the attention of the public. They are being harassed.

  • Bones

    Yes, I knew Hitler was your hero….

    It was easy to tell…

  • Nimblewill

    Progressive Christianity is doing the same thing that Fundamentalist have done. Playing the blame game. Attaching itself to a political ideology. Focusing on the bad, instead of the good. We are all screwed up and the sooner we admit it the better off we will be.

  • Bones

    Bahaha, it’s now kindness to discriminate against homosexuals.

    You people have no sense of shame nor even a conscience.

    The Kleins broke the law…..and have been rewarded for it.

  • Sophie B

    They were not refusing service to gays as they had always been happy to serve their gay customers. They were opting out of one activity only due to their religious beliefs. We have always allowed people to do this in America. Pacifists don’t have to serve in the military, etc. A pacifist bakery may want to opt out of baking a cake for an Air Force activity or a World War II commemoration, or a vegan restaurant may decline to cater a hunters’ banquet, etc.

    Perhaps a better compromise would have been if the couple had bought a plain cake & decorated it themselves.

  • Sophie B

    Must we go over these same points over & over? Once again, they did not discriminate against the gay couple because they were gay. They were willing to serve them in any other capacity. They were opting out of one activity only.

  • Sophie B

    See my other comment.

  • Sophie B

    Opting out of an activity is not discrimination. It is merely opting out of something you disagree with. Tattoo artists have long refused to do certain kinds of tattoos. That is freedom.

  • gimpi1

    I’m glad my coding problems weren’t confusing. Sometimes Disqus’s HTML tags go south….

    The idea I was trying to suggest is that the American society you remember fondly wouldn’t have existed without the atrocities and injustices you rightly despise. For instance, the “grandma’s farm and roast chicken on Sunday” small farm culture of the American Midwest wouldn’t have existed without the Homestead Act, which wouldn’t have been possible without many, many variations on the trail of tears. Our culture incorporated many things, some of them manifestly unjust or wrong. They shaped many aspects of our world.

    There’s no need to feel “strangely guilty” about your heritage or preferences, as long as those preferences don’t lead you to hurt others. For instance, refusing to rent to someone who didn’t look or worship like you would be a problem for me, but not choosing who to pal around with.

    However, I live in a very diverse area (Seattle, in the Pacific Northwest) and I love it. Seattle’s a port-city, and we get lots of Pacific Rim immigration. The culture and the food (oh, the food!) has been greatly enriched by immigrants from Asia and South and Central America. (Did I mention the food?) Perhaps, growing up here, I simply didn’t develop as strong an identity as a white American as people do in other region. I’ve never felt a loss as the culture changes.

    I can relate to getting older, I’m turning 60. I still have no use for some technology. It’s getting harder and harder to adapt to ever-changing systems that I have to keep learning. (My husband used the “wrong” remote to turn down the volume on the TV, and I couldn’t get anything to work until he got home!) I think it simply gets harder to adapt to change as we age. I might have a sightly easier time with cultural changes due to where and how I’ve lived, but change can weary us all.

  • Sophie B

    They are not denying a service based upon someone’s sexuality. Or are you deliberately ignoring the fact that they had served gay customers for years? Perhaps you need a course in reading comprehension.

    So you think you can read my mind now? I support discrimination???? I knew the Left was really into mind control but you are scary.

  • Ron McPherson

    “They were opting out of one activity only due to their religious beliefs.”

    You are aware that many racists believe, erroneously, that the bible condemns multi racial marriage right? So you would have no problem if a bakery refused a cake for such a marriage on the grounds “of their religious beliefs?” You would have no problem if a bakery refused to sell a cake to a mixed faith marriage (say Christian marrying a Jew)? Where does this all end?

  • Bones

    Well we can because you have a twisted view of opting out….

    No, they refused a service based on their sexuality. That is discrimination and they broke the law, no matter how you want to dress it up.

  • gimpi1

    Jumping in with a question, when you refer to “Christian ideas and morals” what do you mean?

    Since you laud the more just society we have now, is justice and fairness a Christian moral idea? What other Christian morals (besides the obvious sexual one) are you seeing made weaker?

    I set the sexual issues aside because sometimes they come across as a bit of an obsession with some groups. As an outsider, I don’t get that. I simply don’t regard relationships between consenting adults as any of my business. I think any religious group that wants people to follow their sexual ethics should be perfectly free to make their pitch – to try to persuade others that their ways are better – but if they can’t make their case to the point where people follow their rules voluntarily, they have no right to use force of law. I doubt you’d want to wear a veil, for instance, because some cultures think married women ought to cover their hair or faces.

  • Bones

    No, you’re just being dishonest.

    You can’t opt out of providing a service based on a person’s sexuality – that is Oregon law.

    They discriminated and broke the law. They pay the consequence (actually they‘ve benefited from it)

    Get over it.

  • Bones

    Nope

  • Bones

    Stop being dishonest。
    They refused a service – that’s discrimination and against Oregon law….

  • Sophie B

    Very few people believe such today. Mixed marriages? Come on. They are all over the place. Such a small percentage of people might believe this that it would make little difference.

    The greater danger is mind control by the government. It is better to let silly ideas rise or fall due to the open market than to submit the entire country to some sort of groupthink.

  • Sophie B

    You are being dishonest. They opted out of an activity due to conscience.

  • Sophie B

    Your choice to remain narrow minded.

  • Sophie B

    You get over it. Practice some reading comprehension.

  • Bones

    BOLI issues Final Order on Sweet Cakes discrimination case

    Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion

    The Oregon Equality Act of 2007 includes an exemption for religious organizations and schools, but does not allow private business owners to deny service and unlawfully discriminate against potential customers.

    From the Final Order:

    “This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve
    someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.

    Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every
    person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The
    ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.”

    The BOLI Final Order awards $60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for emotional suffering stemming directly from unlawful discrimination. The amounts are damages related to the harm suffered by the Complainants, not fines or civil penalties which are punitive in nature.

    The Final Order notes that the non-economic damages are consistent with the agency’s previous orders, such as an earlier ruling against a Bend dentist In the Matter of Andrew W. Engle. In that case, BOLI awarded a Christian employee $325,000 in damages for physical, mental and emotion suffering due to religious discrimination and harassment.
    In public accommodation cases, “the duration of the discrimination does not determine either the degree or duration of the effects of discrimination”, as seen In the Matter of Westwind Group of Oregon, a 1998 case in which a southeast Portland Burger King denied service to a customer based on race.

    https://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/7_2_15%20BOLI%20rules%20on%20Sweet%20Cakes%20discrimination%20case.pdf

  • Bones

    You need to get over it.

    The court has decided.

    Stop being dishonest.

  • Bones

    I don’t even know which reply you’re referring to….but if I’d be surprised if it’s anything apart from the dishonest revisionism you’ve been spruiking.

  • Bones

    You are being deliberately dishonest….

    From the court case

    From the Final Order:
    “This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve
    someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.

    Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every
    person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The
    ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.”

  • Sophie B

    They refused an activity; not people. They said they would be happy to bake the couple a birthday cake. How many times must I repeat this?

    Don’t be so binary.

  • Bones

    No, they refused people…..

    Tell it to the court….

    Your dishonesty won’t wash.

  • Sophie B

    Well, I obviously disagree with that interpretation. People keep ignoring the fact that they had served gay customers for years.

  • Sophie B

    How dishonest? You keep refusing to acknowledge that they had many gay customers over the years. That is dishonest.

  • Sophie B

    The court was wrong as it often is. Would you say that in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson?

  • Sophie B

    There was no discrimination based on discrimination. The Final Order is wrong.

  • Sophie B

    No, they opted out of an activity.

  • Tom Bombadil

    You hurt my feelings. Maybe I can get the government to fine you.

  • Sophie B

    You are dishonest. You refuse to acknowledge the fact that they had happily served gay customers before.

  • Ron McPherson

    “Very few people believe such today…it would make little difference.”

    Ok I don’t follow your reasoning. Are you saying that the merit of any action is ok provided that there are many others who don’t subscribe to those same actions (that it’s ok for some not to sell cakes for a mixed wedding since most have no problem with it and they could just go somewhere else)? That it’s ok for some to discriminate provided there are a bunch of others that do not?

  • Sophie B

    Humankind has always been a mixed bag. There are all sorts of people with all sorts of crazy ideas. That’s the way it happens in a healthy open society. The free market sinks many of the more ridiculous ideas. This is still preferable to smiling rows of robots mouthing bromides. The government is the greater danger when it tries to control our minds. Read some Orwell.

  • Sophie B

    The court was wrong as it is quite often.

  • Ron McPherson

    Ah Orwell. Ok I get it now. Big Brother. Evil government and all that jazz

  • Ron McPherson

    Scary ain’t it

  • Snowflake_Resistance_Fighter

    I guess if we don’t “die off willingly, then those of his ilk will seize our assets and property, prevent us from earning livelihoods and finally round us up into death camps.

  • Ron McPherson

    “People keep ignoring the fact that they had served gay customers for years.”

    Well yeah. That can happen just by accident based on odds alone. I’m assuming the owners didn’t poll each customer by saying, “Excuse me, are you gay? If so, just know that I’ll still sell you a pastry lol.”

  • Jeff Preuss

    Funny how some find Big Brother and nosey government okay when it’s to police and shut down LGBT existence, but governmental regulation to ensure equal rights for people is seen as onerous and intrusive.

  • Jeff Preuss

    Someone hasn’t got her facts quite lined up to support her argument, has she?

  • Ron McPherson

    I continue to be amazed.

  • Sophie B

    Then that could also illustrate that they did not really care. They must have known some were gay by the law of averages. Lots of gays are not silent about their identity. If they don’t express themselves vocally, they do so by the way they dress, style their hair, etc.

    In the old South, the problem of separate lunch counters might have solved itself by market principles if there had not been state government laws against the so called mixing of the races. We might have solved things a lot sooner if merchants had been allowed some freedom to make their own choices. The free market takes care of a lot actually.

  • Sophie B

    No, the larger danger is the coercion of thought. People should be allowed their own private thoughts even if they are wrong or idiotic.

  • Ron McPherson

    People ARE allowed their own private thoughts. Fortunately though there are regulations which prohibit improper actions.

  • Al Cruise

    “Tribe”. Merrian-Webster dictionary definition- A social group comprising numerous families, clans, or generations together with slaves, dependents,or adopted strangers. People who think intellectually can easily see this definition fits in the past as well as today to describe the fundamentalist religious right .

  • Paul Schlitz Jr.

    Evangelical Americans had a good chance to kill the heathen and feel good about it in Iraq and Afghanistan. Very few of them took advantage of it. Imagine, both fundamentalist Christians and jihad Muslims both convinced they are going to heaven fighting each other over oil. It seems both sides deserve each other.

  • Ron McPherson

    I give up

    Peace

  • Sophie B

    You do not have to give up. Just remember life is more complex than you could possibly imagine.

  • Sophie B

    Yet you use the classification of tribe to define a person’s existence. It is as though someone has no identity apart from the tribe. They only exist because of the group. That smacks very much of German idealism. It is very condescending of you.

  • Sophie B

    Sorry. People are not allowed their own private thoughts. Political correctness defines the world now. There is only one way to think or act, & it determines a person’s existence. Jobs are lost over it.

    There is no way to discuss alternating opinions today. Some of the most closed minded areas are college campuses, where indoctrination, instead of the free flow of ideas reigns supreme.

  • Bones

    Nope.

    You are being dishonest and disingenuous.

    It clearly was discrimination under the definition.

  • Bones

    You mean like what you used to do to gay people?

  • Sophie B

    You are being deliberately obtuse. Perhaps you don’t mean to be. You are perhaps in love with your narrative & can’t help yourself.

    Nevertheless try to refine your thinking a little. Not everything is discrimination; except to the perpetually aggrieved.

  • Bones

    So what?

    It would be like taking money from blacks or Jews until they have to make them a wedding cake.

    Your refusal to accept reality is pathetic.

  • Bones

    Lol.

    You’really being deliberately obtuse, deceptive and dishonest

    I have quoted the definition of discrim nation and the findings of the case.

    You continue to lie based on some narrative you’ve made up in your head.

    It doesn’the matter if they had gay customer before.

    It would be like having black or Jewish customers and refusing a cake for them.

    It”s illegal.

    Your point has been made.

    You are wrong.

    You lost.

    Move on.

  • Bones

    Don’t be stupid.

    You can hate blacks and gays as much as you want.

    You cannot break the law.

  • Bones

    One part of the fundamentalist tribe is denying established facts.

    Something which you clearly do.

  • Bones

    He gave up because you refuse to face facts…..nothing to do with complexity.

    It”s like banging your head against a wall with you types who refuse to accept established facts.

  • Sophie B

    You display a naked lack of understanding of what should be simple definitions. Opting out does not nor will it ever equal discrimination.

  • Sophie B

    Wow. Just wow. Have you no sense of irony? You have just proven my point. You think all fundamentalists think alike apparently. They have no identity beyond their tribe according to you. You seem to also stereotype me as a fundamentalist which I am not.

  • Rose

    I don’t think it’s right to vilify the traditional white culture we used to have as roundly as so many people do. There was a lot of good, and we just can’t look at “grandma’s farm” or “mom’s apple pie” or even “traditional values” and see them categorically as bad because of their subtext. This is the kind of thing I keep hearing, and I emphatically reject it. What’s good is good, and those things were and are good in and of themselves. There’s plenty of bad to go around without white Americans–especially white Americans who have lived a few decades–having to feel badly for things they love and hold dear–values, traditions, customs, nostalgia. In another 20 years are we all going to look back at the good things we have now and see with fresh eyes (in a way we can’t do now because we are too close to it) how badly we did things? Are we going to vilify those good things because we screwed up how we handled them? I hope not. I can’t handle that kind of negativity, and that’s what I keep hearing about the America of the past. We need to note our mistakes and sins and fix them, but to roundly condemn the good because of their problematic subtext–no, I can’t do that.

    I think that what I want back is not so much the specific things that hurt other people behind the scenes–though I do want those things in themselves minus the price tag–but a culture that felt unified and cohesive. That is white culture, I guess, and it made sense and was comfortable to me. I realize it wasn’t to minority groups and I realize that America is a country that has always been changeable and fluctuating, but it was to me in my little corner of the world, and it’s what I knew and embraced as “mine.” I understood it and felt a sense of belonging.

    While in principle I want everyone to feel a sense of belonging, I am not going to pretend that I don’t personally feel a sense of profound loss. I guess this is why I fantasize about retracing my ancestor’s footsteps to countries where some traditional unity still exists. If I moved to my ancestral nation of Ireland, for example (a place I’ve visited), I would have to adjust to a new culture, but there is a sense in which it it “mine” and being white (very white in my case) is the norm and Irish culture is something to be proud of. I’m not allowed to be proud of my traditional American past in this country anymore, unless I celebrate every other race’s subculture a little more than my own. Mine, apparently, is tainted in every way, and, it seems, is nothing to be proud of. I don’t know about you, but I have to reject that.

  • Rose

    I guess by Christian ideas and morals, I mean our general moral code. What, exactly, is too big a question for me to answer; that would be a long list. Yes, justice and fairness are moral ideas, but that doesn’t mean that all claims to injustice and unfairness are right and moral. For example, claiming that laws against same-sex marriage are unjust is not right to the Christian way of thinking, because such a union is morally and profoundly wrong before God. This used to be universally accepted in society but not anymore. I am doing my best to adjust without compromising my beliefs, though.

    As for what is being made weaker, all kind of things have changed over the past couple of decades. I am offended and disturbed all the time, although I’m not allowed to say anything anymore. To list everything that bothers me would take me a lot of pondering and thinking, though. Sexual morals, pro-life morals, the decline of modesty, and the protection of children from mature ideas and materials are a few things that have declined a lot (from the Christian point of view, of course).

  • Bones

    Complete and absolute drivel….

    It is discrimination under Oregon Law.

    You lose.

  • Bones

    Yep….you disregard the facts to fit your own ideology.

    You’ve tried to excuse the genocide of Christian crusaders and now you are justifying the discrimination of gay people.

    I mean …wow….how can anyone be so dishonest…

    Opting out has to be one of the most stupid arguments I’ve heard….Like maybe cake owners can just opt out of interracial weddings…ffs

    Is that the best you can come up with????

    Because it’s pretty pathetic.

  • Bones

    Yeah things were more moral in the past when Christians put gay people in mental institutions, killed Indians and segregated blacks…..

    As usual it’s all about penises….

  • Sophie B

    That was a perfectly good descriptive description of what the Crusaders became. It was descriptive; not an excuse. The Crusades were a defensive move against the very brutal Islamists.

    You are dishonest if you don’t recognize the right to opt out of activities per the First Amendment.

  • Bones

    A defensive move which was wholesale slaughter by the leaders of the crusades themselves against the European Jewish community.

    That’s the truth.

    Your whitewashing of their barbarity has already been noted.

  • Snooterpoot

    The awful truth is that the Kleins were bullied.

    That is utter nonsense.

    They were fined $175,000 which they could not repay. They nearly lost their livelihoods.

    That is patently untrue. The Kleins were not fined at all. They were ordered to pay damages in the amount of $135,000 to the couple after they intentionally posted their names, address and phone numbers , along with the couple’s legal complaint on Facebook.

    Their property was vandalized, their children were bullied and they received death threats! Additionally, $500,000 was raised for this couple because of this evil same-sex couple who only wanted to buy a wedding cake.

    So, Sophie, to say this couple was ruined financially is a flat out lie.

    Go ahead and deceive yourself about who is intolerant. I’ll give you a hint: it isn’t the left.

  • Snooterpoot

    Once again, no one is deliberately discriminating against gay people. They are merely opting out of one activity. This used to be allowed under the First Amendment.

    Nonsense. They are deliberately discriminating against people who are homosexual. There is simply no way you can spin this and make it come out differently.

    The First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion does not allow violating the law. When I was growing up there were people who refused to sell their goods or services to people who were African American, and many said their religious beliefs did not permit them to.

    Your comment shows a lack of knowledge of history, at the very least.

    Stripping these women of their dignity? These women could have gone to any number of bakeries which would have served them yet they deliberately chose the Kleins.

    Apparently you do not know the complete chain of events. They “deliberately chose the Kleins” when one of the women went to the bakery with her mother, who had recently attended a wedding and reception. The Kleins had baked the cake for the wedding she attended, and she was so impressed that she took her daughter there when she and her fiance were planning their wedding.

    Everything was fine until the Kleins asked for the names of the bride and groom. That’s when the Kleins started this entire incident, and, yes, stripped this couple of their dignity, by saying they would not bake the cake.

    So, Sophie, it’s not like this couple started this. They didn’t seek out a Christian baker so they could cause trouble. It was the Kleins who caused their own trouble, then blamed this couple, who only wanted to buy a cake!

    They are not the innocent, picked upon people who you make them out to be.

  • Snooterpoot

    Having been on the receiving end of being told I am “going in the wrong direction” simply because I am a lesbian more times than I can count, I can affirmatively tell you that it is neither kind nor loving.

    If the Kleins are being harassed it is because when people learned about what they had done they were appalled. They brought it on themselves as a result of trying to make martyrs of themselves for standing up to people whom they believe are unworthy of their product.

    No one is forcing them to run a business. If they cannot or will not comply with the law then they should find another way to support themselves.

  • Snooterpoot

    Sophie, that is irrelevant. The facts are simple. The Kleins operate a business that is licensed by the government. The Legislature enacted a law that says people who are LGBT must be treated the same as people who are heterosexual.

    The Kleins sell wedding cakes to opposite sex couples, but refuse to sell them to same sex couples. Those are the only pertinent facts.

    You obviously disagree with the law. The Kleins obviously disagree with the law, too, but they are required by law to sell all of their products to everyone equally.

    The fact that they sell other baked goods to people who are LGBT does not negate their illegal refusal to bake wedding cakes for us.

  • Ron McPherson

    “Opting out does not nor will it ever equal discrimination.”

    Serious question here. I’ve tried this once and will try one last time.

    Suppose a mixed race couple enter a bakery to buy a wedding cake. The owner says “Sorry, I’ll sell you each a doughnut because I have nothing against you personally. However, I am ‘opting out’ of providing you a wedding cake because mixed marriages go against my conscience and religious beliefs.”

    Now please don’t rationalize here by saying that most don’t have a problem with mixed race marriages. That’s not the issue here. What matters is when just one does. I’ve set this scenario up according to your own terms in every respect. The baker is “opting out” of an event. By your own words, ‘opting out’ never equals discrimination. How about this case?

  • Tom Bombadil

    That bakery would have a far more difficult time with their case. The case we have been discussing regards a bakery that has said they would make a birthday cake for a gay or straight person, but felt making one for a gay wedding violated their inherent and Constitutional right to freedom of religion.

  • Tom Bombadil

    As I looked at this particular baker, they actually did not get into the details of the cake decorations. Yet, their names were Rachel and Laurel which if placed on the cake makes it obviously between two women and thus at least minimally gay themed. But, perhaps not. Perhaps, the cake would have just been generic, though I doubt it.

    Calling it a gay-themed cake may well have been premature, though the owners know that most wedding cakes are more elaborate and this one would have likely been more than generic.

    It is judgmental on your part to disregard the bakers’ assertion that it was the particular event that violated their conscience; instead you assert that it was the customers themselves. They have readily stated that they would make other kinds of cakes for the gay couple, but did not want to be involved in something that violated their Christian beliefs (a Constitutionally protected right). The Court got this case wrong and I believe it is currently in appeal.

  • Tom Bombadil

    Not exactly accurate. Employees have a specific employment contract with the owner for performance. If they cannot do that which is required for that performance then they should not apply for the job or should expect a change to occur in their job if they refuse the requirements.

    A business owner makes a contract with the customer he agrees to contract with. There is no agreement until there is one. This is simple Contracts 101. Offer, then acceptance. 500 years of jurisprudence supports this.

  • Tom Bombadil

    I certainly believe the government should stay out of daily business. The government enacted Jim Crow laws. there were many businesses that did not want “separate but equal”, but that was the law. I myself do not believe the government should dictate who a business serves. If someone wants to limit their client base, too bad for them. If anyone wants to limit their business to non-Christians, then again, too bad for them. Many businesses do this by choosing a business, decorations, and/or themes that naturally repel Christians. Generally, I don’t care, but sometimes it is inconveniencing.

  • Tom Bombadil

    Don’t you see that “hurt feelings” are far less concerning than “the hurt feelings and violation of religion/conscience” that Christians may feel. Why don’t their feelings matter? Why should they be forced into labor that violates their conscience?

    I get my feelings hurt too though as I grow in maturity it happens less and is less acute. You call me names. But, I suppose I have to live with it. Yet, what I don’t have to live with is being forced to do work that would violated my religious liberties. The government forcing someone to do so violates the Constitution and human decency. The fact that some people disagree on what is and what is not personally acceptable can produce hurt feelings. This very weekend I experienced such. But, it did not produce a violation of a Constitutionally protected right.

  • gimpi1

    I’m so sorry you feel that sort of loss. I simply don’t. We share a heritage – I’m also Irish on my dad’s side and German on my mom’s. The thing is, I feel no compulsion to regard that culture as somehow less because other cultures are getting more notice than they used to.

    To use another food metaphor, I can still make my grandma Tierney’s Steak and Mushroom pie and my Grandma Koenig’s Kronenberg-style Meatballs, and I can also learn how to make Hum Bao and Pad Thai. They all taste darn good, and none of them are diminished by the others. Put together, they make a dynamite buffet. Does that make sense to you?

    I don’t know why I see this so differently. It might be geographic. As I mentioned, I live in Seattle. I don’t know where you are, but if it’s a less traditionally diverse place, perhaps the changes came as a bit of a shock. Or it might just be that I’ve never felt really a “part” of anything – a religious group, an ethnic group, a community. Since I’ve never really identified with any group, perhaps I don’t feel the loss. I’ve always been both a bit of a loner and a consummate outsider, and I’ve mostly been OK with that.

    I hope, as the natural transitions happen in society, it gets more comfortable for you. You may never feel quite as “at home” as you did, but you might come to enjoy a slightly larger world. Best of luck.

  • Bones

    They broke the anti-discrimination laws of Oregon…..which overrides your personal beliefs about blacks, Jews, gay people…..

  • gimpi1

    OK, I can see that. I don’t share your views, but I can understand some of them. The thing is, I can’t support giving many of them force of law. We’re a secular republic with freedom of religion a guaranteed right, and allowing one religious group to write laws that affect non-believers infringes on the religious freedom of those non-believers. Can you see that at all?

    I know we used to do that. We used to do many things that I feel were driven mostly by a lack of either respect or empathy for folks not in the majority. However, that’s no reason to continue to do them, once we either grow enough to recognize the basic rights of people not in the majority or because demographics shift. Both things have been going on for several decades in the U.S.

    One exception, there’s a fair amount of evidence that, outside of the Catholic faith, the “pro-life morals” were not traditional. Many conservative Protestants jumped on the bandwagon after their other big cause -segregation – became culturally radioactive. That happened mostly in the 1970’s-1980’s.

    I wish you the best of luck. You can and should be comfortable in your own skin, and your own beliefs. I hope you can get to a place where you don’t find the rest of the world offensive and disturbing, and perhaps have some fun with the aspects of our increasingly diverse world. I suggest the food!

    (I really like to cook and eat. Would you have guessed?)

  • Rose

    I live in south metro Denver, where we have a quite a lot of diversity–especially Latinos and Indians (as in from India)–although I grew up mostly around white, Protestant Americans. That gave me a kind of bubble that I never really got out of, though I transitioned to Catholic eventually. I don’t have an issue with diversity in itself, though. I actually love encountering different cultures and ethnicities. I think it’s so cool when I see someone of a certain ethnicity embracing their ancestral culture in some way–whether it’s their name, hairstyle, clothes, or whatever. In fact, I focus on color and ethnicity a lot, because I think they are all so interesting. If I meet someone from another culture, I want to ask invasive questions just because I’m interested. But I like mine, too, except I don’t feel the freedom to celebrate or enjoy it in our wider society unless it’s confined to some festival. I can see why you would be more at ease with change and the blending of cultures in this country if you’ve never felt part of one yourself. That is a good thing these days!

  • Sophie B

    Not opting out. He is refusing to serve customers in that instance. Can’t you see the difference?

  • I find it odd that according to social conservatives no one has a conscience but them. The rest of us have never had to do things that violated or ethics or morality at our jobs. No, that never happens to anyone else. It’s just you.

    Moreover, your idea of a human rights violation is having to write two names in icing on a cake? Really? I might find this line of thinking valid if it ever came up regarding any issue besides gay marriage and abortion. I understand your objection to those but surely there are other “sins” as well. So where are the Catholic bakers refusing to bake cakes for a couple who have been previously married to other people? Where is the grocery store clerk refusing to sell tabloids because gossip is a sin?

    Personally I’d have just gone to another baker for my wedding cake. And if no one in town would make it I’d have done without. I wouldn’t want to bespoil their business with my dirty gay money. And I would also take all my business elsewhere and encourage others to do the same. (I also would not go to the store run by sexists or racists either.) But that’s just me. We have decided that we don’t like discrimination, at least in some states. If you want to make a case that businesses should be able to refuse any customer for any reason, then work for repealing those laws. Just be aware that you might be a member of one of those groups that people might rather not have as customers if it were up to them.

  • Tom Bombadil

    No, they did not. They would not provide a cake for a gay wedding to straight, gay, black, or white customer.

    They did not support the particular event. They did not treat the customer themselves any differently. they simply said it was against their religious beliefs to support a particular event.

    By the way, these “personal beliefs” are Constitutionally protected rights of conscience and religion inherent to mankind.

    The liberal Oregon court got it wrong.

  • This has been an interesting year politically. The right which has always made a big deal of being pro-Israel has finally taken the mask off to reveal how many of them are deeply anti-semitic. What an ugly display but at least now everyone can see just how revolting that crowd really is.

  • Sophie B

    No, they are refusing an activity; not people. If an opposite sex couple had ordered a wedding cake for some gay friends, they would have refused them too.

    Perhaps for a compromise, the Kleins could have baked a rather plain cake without writing, etc. The couple could have purchased their two bride figurines or whatever they wanted to decorate it with elsewhere.

  • gimpi1

    I don’t know if you’d call it stockpiling, but I do that, too. I love to garden, and grow a big vegetable garden. I can and freeze produce and make pickles, jams and sauces for us to use all year. It’s a hobby that pays off a bit, in good food, a bit of savings on grocery bills and a ready supply of Christmas and hostess gifts.

    Does it count as a stockpile to have a big cupboard full of marinara, creole, plum, apple and pear sauces, sweet and garlic dill pickles, brandied pears, dilly beans, sweet and sour carrots, raspberry and strawberry jam and apple pie filling? How about a freezer with quart bags of green and yellow beans, spinach, peas and broccoli? What about braids of garlic and shallots hanging in the kitchen? What about the spice racks full of homegrown herbs? The new fermenting-crock working a batch of homemade sauerkraut? (Yes, I’m bragging a bit about my gardening and preserving prowess… what you can produce in a suburban garden can be awesome.)

    People who produce food – either farmers or hobbyists like me – often produce a year’s worth of some things, because that’s the way the growing-year works. It’s not doomsday prepping, it’s just how things grow. I’ve had people see my pantry, and ask if I’m expecting the zombie apocalypse.

    However, as I understand it, Mr. Baker has kind of jumped the shark on this. He’s selling bad freeze-dried food with sales-tactics that border on paranoia. In that, he’s feeding fears that diminish people’s lives, and can lead people down the rabbit-hole to groups that can turn violent. It’s both a con and very irresponsible.

  • In the late 90s while losing the rest of the culture wars, the religious right decided to retreat back to the one line they thought our culture wouldn’t cross: marriage for gay couples. It worked for awhile. See: the 2004 election. But in doing so they got nasty and showed just how mean-spirited their agenda really was and public opinion turned on that issue. They weren’t prepared for this loss so now their only issue seems to be bakers baking wedding cakes. Seriously. I would propose a special carve-out in the law for small businesses but it’s not like they are going to compromise so why bother? You’re losing. And the reason you are losing is that most people are smart enough to realize that if you are allowed to discriminate against gay people you could discriminate against anyone else too and all of us belong to an age group, ethnicity, gender, religion or something that is a minority in at least some part of the country. So keep it up, but this is a loser for you. And the only win you could get is overturning all nondiscrimination laws (because all those other kinds of discrimination were once associated with religious beliefs as well). If that happens you’d better hope that you really aren’t facing religious persecution because of your faith because without nondiscrimination laws you’d be the one that no one would hire or provide services for.

  • Rose

    If pushed, I would not give Christian morals the force of law, either. That makes no sense to me, since Christianity isn’t supposed to operate by force. I actually do not believe we were founded as a “secular republic” at all, but I also believe the founding fathers intended for freedom of religion to be just that. Otherwise, we’d be a theocracy, and I definitely don’t believe in that. I don’t agree that the way we ran this country “before” was based on a lack of empathy or disrespect (exceptions notwithstanding), though; It was just an organic thing that developed like any country develops. If I become a citizen of another country that doesn’t honor my beliefs, I’m not going to assume disrespect or a lack of empathy. It developed independently of me based on a number of factors, just as America did.

    Regarding pro-life morals, I know that many Protestants (and Catholics, too; don’t know about the Orthodox) have jumped ship on many aspects of traditional Christian morality–contraception, abortion, marriage, divorce, etc. I am talking about orthodoxy, though. Those who remain committed to Christian orthodoxy–meaning faithfulness to creeds, catechisms, historical longevity, etc–cannot accept abortion as a moral choice.

  • Is there a court case saying Jehovah’s Witnesses can opt out of singing Happy Birthday or was that just a store policy. If the owners want to allow that, then that’s their right. Can you provide any court cases where such arguments were made and won?

    The reality is that employers don’t even have to let Jews off for Yom Kippur (the most holy day of the year for them in which they are prohibited from working). (Most employers went to a bank of personal days from which people can chose to take off Good Friday or other religious or personal days, but they are not required to give you the day off just because of your religion.) I don’t think you really understand how these laws work. Actually I know you don’t.

  • Rose

    That is something I’ve been wishing I could do. It is not only a traditional, beautiful practice, it is also practical and wise. I don’t have a garden because we rent and I don’t have the know-how, yet, but this year I tried to get started learning. I also stockpile some and I gathered crabapples off my trees this year to make butter. It’s smart to look ahead and prepare for the worst. But yeah, Bakker sounds like he’s gone to a ridiculous extreme.

  • You’re talking about store hours. No one is required to be open 24/7. That’s not the least bit relevant. and this isn’t about being in lockstep. Your hyperbole is laughable. This is about being required as a public accommodation to treat all customers the same. If you’d like to repeal such laws, then go and make that case to your state legislature. There is no federal law banning discrimination against lbgt people, only some state and municipal laws and ordinances. Just remember that repealing those laws would allow people to discriminate against you as well.

  • Are you saying that you want to repeal or overturn ALL nondiscrimination laws?

  • gimpi1

    I don’t know if it’s good or bad. Like many things, it probably has its ups and downs. Since I’m comfortable without group identification, I’ve never felt the loss, but I know others have. That lack in me may have cost me something that I don’t know to miss.

    If I may ask, why don’t you feel free to celebrate your own culture? I’ve never had problems with that – I’ve felt free to enjoy Irish, German and European culture at will. A few years ago my cousin visited County Mayo where our family is from, and established some on-line links. I’ve enjoyed corresponding with them, and it’s never raised an eyebrow. How do people treat you that makes you feel you can’t celebrate your heritage?

  • 100 years ago it was common to see signs in store windows saying things like “Help Wanted. Irish Need Not Apply.” That was legal. We decided that we didn’t like that and passed laws against it. You are welcome to make your case to the American people that we were better off back then. Feel free. I think most people are smart enough to realize that they belong to at least one group that would be “inconvenienced” by having to go to business after business to find one that wasn’t prejudiced against them.

    I find this argument particularly funny coming from religious conservatives. To hear the religious right talk they are under constant attack for their beliefs. And yet they would repeal the law that makes it illegal to discriminate against them? One of your lines of thinking is clearly bs. If you really thought that you were being discriminated against for your beliefs, you wouldn’t be so eager to get rid of legal protections that prevent hiring and other discrimination against you. So basically you all know that’s a load of crap.

  • Sophie B

    There you go; trying to intuit what goes on in other people’s minds. That is frightening.

    It doesn’t matter if you think other people have been unkind. They may still think they are doing you a kindness. I have been targeted at various times by people who belonged to different religious denominations from my own. They thought I was a lost soul apparently. It is always frustrating to deal with them; sometimes it can leave me spluttering & angry for the rest of the day. Yet I assume they may mean well; I do not think it is hatred that is guiding them. Also, I am sure, I will encounter such types in the future. I, in no way, would want to curtail their activities. I would not want to live in such a country.

  • gimpi1

    As I said, I’m turning 60. I remember many of the things that white folks – both Southern and Northern – said about black people, about Jewish people, about oriental people when I was young. If that’s not a lack of respect and empathy, I don’t know what is.

    In my read of history, most groups simply didn’t have a concept of “humanity” as most of us see it today. Most groups regarded their group as “superior” and saw nothing wrong with taking advantage of people not in their “superior” group. They also invented elaborate rationalizations for this – see the nonsense that was used to prop up both slavery and Jim Crow.

    If you don’t see the U.S. as a secular republic, but you don’t want a state religion, how does that work? As I use the words, a secular republic is a republic that does not recognize any state religion and gives no privilege to any religious group. Do those words mean something different to you?

  • Bones

    Yes they did ….

    It’s no different to taking money from black folk and then refusing to bake a cake for a black wedding.

    The court’s finding was that it was discrimination.

    Your personal beliefs do not give you the right to discriminate against others….

    As usual, the right winged clowns want to twist it.

    This is the same liberal court which awarded damages to a Christian btw….

    The facts:

    Under Oregon law, businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion

    The Oregon Equality Act of 2007 includes an exemption for religious organizations and schools, but does not allow private business owners to deny service and unlawfully discriminate against potential customers.

    From the Final Order:
    “This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve
    someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.
    Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every
    person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The
    ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.”

    The BOLI Final Order awards $60,000 in damages to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for emotional suffering stemming directly from unlawful discrimination. The amounts are damages related to the harm suffered by the Complainants, not fines or civil penalties which are punitive in nature.

    The Final Order notes that the non-economic damages are consistent with the agency’s previous orders, such as an earlier ruling against a Bend dentist In the Matter of Andrew W. Engle. In that case, BOLI awarded a Christian employee $325,000 in damages for physical, mental and emotion suffering due to religious discrimination and harassment.

    In public accommodation cases, “the duration of the discrimination does not determine either the degree or duration of the effects of discrimination”, as seen In the Matter of Westwind Group of Oregon, a 1998 case in which a southeast Portland Burger King denied service to a customer based on race.

    https://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/7_2_15%20BOLI%20rules%20on%20Sweet%20Cakes%20discrimination%20case.pdf

    Do people over there not even know their own laws?

    Now you can whinge all you want about the law itself…..but they broke it….end of….

  • Sophie B

    Evil???? You are very judgmental. I would never ever call someone evil just because I disagreed with them. That is cruel.

  • Bones

    Funny how all of a sudden anti-discrimination laws have become an inconvenience to some…..

    I suppose it doesn’t matter if you’re white….those who are discriminated against should just suck it up….

    I think you guys should just be more honest and put signs up like the old days – no ni##ers, no gays, no Catholics….

  • Bones

    Complete bs…..if a black customer is refused a contract on the basis of their race, the business owner has broken the law…..

    In Oregon, that includes gay people…..

    That’s simple Civil Rights 101.

  • Bones

    Are you still peddling your falsehoods even after being presented with the findings of the Oregon case??

    Bloody hell, you should’ve been on their legal team…..

    I wonder if they ever thought “but we were only opting out”

    No…it was considered and rejected….

    Just like your continual nonsense about opting out is dishonest and disingenuous….

    The Commissioner thought so too.

  • Bones

    Lol, what complete and utter stupidity….There’s just no point discussing this because this is some mantra the right has no picked up and gone with regardless o the facts.

    It’s exactly the same.

    And illegal.

    It’s hard to believe that these people come on thsi site to spout such complete crap….

    Go away to your right wing sites and comfort each other with your lies….

  • Sophie B

    No one is whitewashing anything. This is all part of history. It is a well acknowledged fact that the Crusades accumulated plenty of undesirables who were out for adventure as they wound their way toward Jerusalem. Drinking, carousing, looting, etc. marked their behavior. It was completely out of character with what the Catholic church had intended when they had conceived of the idea. That is not denying they were gruesome & these rowdies committed atrocities. Eventually, the Catholic church became disillusioned with the Crusades as a course of action & dropped them. In condemning the Crusades exclusively, people forget how truly cruel the Muslims were themselves. Their conquering of India was deplorable. It was a very cruel time; blame humankind.

  • Sophie B

    Well, that is a truly intellectual response. Complete crap? I shall have to remember that as a brilliant rebuttal technique.

  • Ron McPherson

    LOLOLOLOL!!!!

  • Sophie B

    Wipe your mouth. I hope you don’t dribble.

  • Questioning

    There is no difference. Obviously, you refuse to see that.

  • Bones

    You still here….

    You just said that the exact same scenario but with a black person was denial of service….

    Honestly, you people are so dumb.

    Still trying to pass your crap of on a gay-friendly site….

    Nah – better go with your right wing friends and complain about how bad gay people are….

    On the bright side for you, the Klein’s have been going around the country advocating the repeal of LGBT anti-discrimination laws such as in North Carolina where you can now legally discriminate against gay people.

    That’ll make you happy.

  • Sophie B

    What are you even talking about? I never said that.

    More crap again. I never once insulted you the way you are insulting me.

    Your stereotyping is frightening. You assume plenty about me without even knowing me. You assume I have only right wing friends & for some unfathomable reason we hate gays & sit around talking about them. For your information I have a gay person in my family. He is certainly more reasonable than you. All of my relationships with gay people have always been positive. I once nearly lost a job because I defended gays.

    The problem in North Carolina is more complex; but people who oppose it do it for a variety of reasons; not because they for some reason hate gays. Please try to not stereotype.

  • Tom Bombadil

    Most conservatives of any variety do not think in the progressive vein of “there ought to be a law”. Most conservatives would prefer that the free market be the general rule. Within the free market is lack of coercion so abuses are at least ostensibly diminished, but never perfect. Our Christianity should diminish the more egregious just as it was Christians who ended slavery in the U.S. and England.

    Regarding the Irish, there was no law that removed the prejudice against them or that outlawed discrimination. It still exists for some, but increased knowledge of the Irish abilities within the market provided more than any law ever could or did. We currently have laws that do, but these came after the signs were removed.

    I’m not sure which law you believe the “religious right” believes protects them. The Constitution lists the inherent right to freedom of religion FROM the government. That is right and is a right. The government should not infringe the right of conscience or religion. I assume you agree. But, yet, you would support the government imposing huge fines against those that believe their religious freedom is violated when forced to labor in supporting something they believe is contrary to the Bible. While you readily insult with claims that my argument is BS, I believe it is because you have not fully thought it through.

    The government is not the one to decide business and markets and who can or cannot be discriminated against. I say this, because the government is only as good as the leaders of that government. Some governments have decided to rid themselves of Jews, gypsies, gays, Christians, Turks, mongols, Armenians, non-Zulu, etc. You don’t want the government to say which people are more protected and which are less protected. You want equal protection wherein all are protected from aggression (your rights end at my nose–you can’t hit someone and they can’t force you to do something).

    We live in a society where discrimination already exists. If I’m poor I can’t go to that spendy restaurant. If I’m not on the private guest list I can’t get into that club. These seem to be more discriminatory than not making a cake for an event.

    I saw one of your other comments and that you are gay. I’m aware of the difficulties and the wrongs that have occurred. So much occurs most often in the teens and early twenties where often your peers are maturing and still abusive. In light of that I doubt you can accept my opinion on this, but, I do not accept disrespect towards an individual. If someone respectfully disagrees with gay marriage I also believe they should not be disrespected into being forced to “support” something they have religious disagreement with. It is a two way street and the government should not be involved to the point that a constitutional right is ignored. That is the greater principle and that is my point. The minority is under greater risk of insult in such an instance, but religious freedom that does not actively injure cannot take a backseat as that is our most important rights of speech, conscience, and expression. I ask that you receive God’s rich blessings.

  • Tom Bombadil

    What an ugly response…

  • Tom Bombadil

    “This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve
    someone because of their sexual orientation.”

    This is a judgment that the court made. I disagree with it. When someone is willing to provide cakes to someone but not willing to provide a particular cake for a particular event, it is most certainly about the wedding cake and the event.

  • Tom Bombadil

    Again, it was the event, not the individuals objected to. That makes the difference! I think a Christian would be hard pressed to form any argument showing that supporting a black marriage is non-Biblical.

  • Bones

    These ‘undesirables’ were the leaders of the Crusades themselves.

    Those are the facts and why ‘undesirables’ followed them.

    And not all crusades were defensive. In fact I would argue most of them weren’t.. They were about invading and destroying perceived threats including other Christians.

    ” It was completely out of character with what the Catholic church had intended when they had conceived of the idea.”

    You mean like the Fourth Crusade where the crusaders attacked and looted Constantinople?

    Or the extermination and slaughter of the Christian Cathars.

    Let’s look at the Albigensian Crusade which was ordered by the laughably named Pope Innocent III.

    Here we have one of the first instances of ideological genocide where a population (who were Christian btw) were either forcibly converted or burned alive.

    “The crusaders captured the small village of Servian and then headed for Béziers, arriving on 21 July 1209. Under the command of the papal legate, Arnaud-Amaury,[17] they started to besiege the city, calling on the Catholics within to come out, and demanding that the Cathars surrender.[18] Both groups refused. The city fell the following day when an abortive sortie was pursued back through the open gates.[19] The entire population was slaughtered and the city burned to the ground. Contemporary sources give estimates of the number of dead ranging between 15,000 and 20,000. The latter figure appears in Arnaud-Amaury’s report to the pope.[20] The news of the disaster quickly spread and afterwards many settlements surrendered without a fight.”

    See also the Bosnian Crusade against the Bosnian Church which was saved by Muslim invasion which slaughtered the crusaders and the Hussite Crusade which led to the burning at the stake of Jan Huss.

  • Bones

    Huh….interracial ones certainly were……

    It’s no different to a landholder refusing tenancies because the couple are gay or mixed….

    You’ll be happy to know the Kleins are spreading their message around the country and that anti-discrimination laws against lgbt people are being repealed…..

    So in some states you can now legally discriminate against lgbt people….

    That should make you happy – (although businesses in North Carolina are jacking up because they’re losing investment)….

  • Ron McPherson

    Honestly, they were the EXACT same scenarios. Your response that refusing a cake for the gay couple was ‘opting out’ but to the mixed marriage couple it was instead refusing a service literally defies belief.

  • Bones

    Well maybe you should be on their legal team, seeing you know so much about Oregon Law…..

    Your argument was tried …..and failed…..

  • Bones

    Which was appropriate for an ugly comment…..anti-discrimination laws don’t matter much to those they don’t discriminate against ie ….they’re an inconvenience to the privileged and powerful….

  • Ron McPherson

    She wasn’t calling you evil. Read it again.

  • Bones

    “What are you even talking about? I never said that.”

    Ron:

    “Suppose a mixed race couple enter a bakery to buy a wedding cake. The owner says “Sorry, I’ll sell you each a doughnut because I have nothing against you personally. However, I am ‘opting out’ of providing you a wedding cake because mixed marriages go against my conscience and religious beliefs.””

    Sophie:

    “Not opting out. He is refusing to serve customers in that instance. Can’t you see the difference?”

    So you lie.

    Actually I’m judging you on the content of your words and responses which are incredibly poor and really just continually in denial of the court proceedings and established facts …

    Your opting out’ argument was tried….and failed….and to everyone here who isn’t an antigay religious fanatic we can see the incredible lengths you’re trying to go to to justify discrimination against gay people.

    It’s amazing how discrimination, like Kim Davis who refused to do her job and give out marriage certificates to gay people, makes people heroes among the right.

    The Klein’s have become heroes now, being used by the right to repeal anti-gay discrimination laws and being well paid.

    You should be happy about that.

    Then gay people can be banned from being in a house, or a room together…because it upsets someone’s religious beliefs…..

    Maybe ask your gay friends about that.

  • Ron McPherson

    “We live in a society where discrimination already exists. If I’m poor I can’t go to that spendy restaurant.”

    That’s not discrimination. That’s called not being able to pay the bill.

  • Jeff Preuss

    Oh, wow. How was that even supposed to be a reasoned argument from him? How is that even close to the same thing? (Rhetorical -it’s not.)

    Wow.

  • Ron McPherson

    “Do people over there not even know their own laws?”

    As an American I can unequivocally answer that one…
    we sorta kinda do some of them, but not all of them, well ok maybe only a few of them

    It’s a bit like a friend of mine once joked, “We Baptists may not really know what we believe, but we’ll sure fight you over it.”

  • Tom Bombadil

    Ah. So it is not the poor person they are discriminating against. They simply will not serve me because they have a belief, a belief that their services are so valuable that it puts their service out of my reach. Hmmm. I’ll view it like the judge viewed it for the bakers: we KNOW and Judge that it has nothing to do with what you claim to believe, you just hate poor people.

    Of course, though, I could have listed any number of discrimination examples. Who people date, marry, etc. Allow in their clubs (e.g. Mensa). And yes, monetary expense does discriminate.

  • Ron McPherson

    “They simply will not serve me because they have a belief, a belief that their services are so valuable that it puts their service out of my reach.”

    Ok, you got me. Where’s the camera?

  • apoxbeonyou

    That’s right. And I read the transcripts and chain of events. The Kleins went as far as to post the names of the women on Facebook in order to try to make themselves some sort of virtual martyrs. It was then that the state department (I can’t remember the name) took them to court.

  • apoxbeonyou

    I’m sorry, but they did not share the *personal* information about the couple on Facebook for legal reasons. What good would come out of sharing someone’s PII on the internet?

  • Sophie B

    No, read again what I wrote. In that case the shopkeeper was wrong because he was discriminating against the people; not an activity.

  • Ron McPherson

    not in the scenario I presented before you. Exact same thing. Kleins served gay people but not gay wedding. You say opted out of activity. The scenario I gave you had a baker serving minorities but not the mixed marriage wedding. You say that is refusing a service and not opting out. Literally no difference

  • Sophie B

    There is still a minute difference. The one is discrimination against skin color which is against the law. Yet the wedding is still traditional. The second is about a non traditional wedding. Small difference but still a difference. In the second case the objection is still the non traditional ceremony rather than the people involved. He could object to doing a Hindu or Jehovah’s Witness wedding if he chose.

  • Guy Norred

    Please explain what difference there is? In both instances a couple comes in and asks for a wedding cake. In both instances the baker says he will sell them something else, but not a wedding cake because to sell the wedding cake would go against his beliefs.

  • Sophie B

    Read my response. There are small differences.

  • Tom Bombadil

    It was just a matter of time… j/k

  • Guy Norred

    No there aren’t. Both amount to the same thing–the couple doesn’t get the requested cake because of who they are.

  • Ron McPherson

    Talk about stretching the bounds of incredulity. Whew

  • Bones

    So now a mixed race wedding is not an activity.

    Your deliberate deception is duly noted.

  • Sophie B

    No, it is the activity. The Kleins could also refuse to sell an opposite sex couple a same sex wedding cake. Use your imagination as to why they might wish to purchase one.

    I mentioned a compromise could be selling the couple a mostly plain cake in which they supplied their own same sex decorations.

    This may sound a little strange, but there might be analogies elsewhere. I am thinking of Orthodox or conservative Judaism. Judaism, due to Talmudic traditions, has long parsed out their interpretations to rules. For instance, I believe, in some parts of the Talmud, it is forbidden for men to shave their facial hair. So these Jewish men are forbidden to shave. Yet many are clean shaven. How do they do it & remain faithful Jews? The answer is that they don’t use razor blades but the law does permit them to use electric razors. This is because electric razors actually function as scissors since they have tiny little scissors in them.

    I like to find compromises rather than using coercion.

  • Guy Norred

    In the instances that have gone to court, the discrimination against sexual orientation was against the law. As to the how traditional or not the wedding itself is, this has nothing to do with the baker.

  • Bones

    It”s hard to believe people come on gay affirming sites to post this crap.

    Hey gay people, discrimination is no big thing because I say so.

  • Guy Norred

    And it is also against the law in most of the country to discriminate because of religion.

  • Guy Norred

    What is a same sex wedding cake?

  • Bones

    Your response is a complete joke – you’re now claiming an interracial wedding is not an activity.

    Our gay friends can see you for exactly what you are.

    A right wing shrill who wants to see anti-discrimination laws against gay people repealed.

  • Sophie B

    I suppose it could have the two names on it. Some people like the bride & groom decorations, etc.

    Then of course you have the bakeries who specialize in baking obscene cakes but that is another topic.

  • Sophie B

    I have used the utmost courtesy in responding to you. Yet you have insulted me at every turn. Now who is the hateful one? Not to mention you think you can read my mind which I find highly insulting.

  • Sophie B

    More tricky. You can’t force people to act against their religion. Therefore you can’t force the Amish to join the Army or a Jehovah’s Witness to salute the flag. The Founding Fathers did not want the federal government to make any laws about religion.

  • Sophie B

    It has to do with the baker following his own conscience as he sees it. That means he doesn’t have to serve a wedding which takes place in the hills with a nude wedding party if he doesn’t believe in it. It is his choice.

    BTW, since the newest fashion is gender fluidity, people can now change their gender every few days. So now we can all sue each other all the time.

  • Sophie B

    Thank you for your continued kindness.

  • Ron McPherson

    There are no differences. Let’s take the Kleins then. Suppose 5 min. after the lesbian couple leave, a mixed racial couple come in and request a cake. Kleins say “we will sell you anything in the store but can’t sell a wedding cake because we don’t agree with the wedding activity. We told a Lesbian couple the exact same thing 5 min earlier regarding their wedding. We sell to gays and minorities but don’t do same sex or mixed race weddings. ”

    Now tell me why its ok to refuse the same sex couple’s wedding cake but not the mixed race couple. according to you they are opting out of one but refusing the service of the other. You say they sell to gays for other things so not discrimination to opt out of wedding cake. And yet they sell to minorities for other things and yet opt out of wedding cake. I hope you can see there is a resistless logic that each scenario is identical.

  • Bones

    No probs… you let those gay friends of yours know that you’re all ok with them being discriminated against….

  • Jeff Preuss

    She can’t. The only actual difference is that one she actually finds no moral objection to, and therefore uses it to continue to justify bigotry.

  • Bones

    There is no difference; both were an ‘activity’. An interracial wedding is an “activity”.

    So stop lying….

    You are just embarrassing yourself….

  • Bones

    And you can’t use your religious beliefs to discriminate against Jews, blacks…..

    How are we even having this discussion?

    Didn’t you people have a civil rights movement which had the exact same arguments against it?

  • Questioning

    One not so minute point…. discrimination against gay people having a “non traditional” wedding is also against the law in Oregon, as evidenced by the court’s decision. These are the people who write and interpret the law, not some forum commenter who happens to have a different opinion.

    Moreover you keep harping about the activity or the “event”. That is nothing more than an attempted distraction. The “event”, as you keep calling it, would not even exist were it not for gay people. Gay people who just happen to want to marry. The fulcrum of this issue is clearly gay people, not an event, as the court rightly discerned. Finally, since these cake bakers are so concerned about their conscience, I am sure they query every opposite sex couple that walks thru the door, to make sure they are not baking a cake for an adulterous re-marriage. I suspect these “violating of their conscience” parameters are etched in jello, unless of course you happen to be gay.

  • Sophie B

    I deeply resent the hateful stereotype you have drawn of evangelicals or other conservative Christians. You seem to assume they are all racists. I used to attend an evangelical church. I attended a mixed race wedding there; they also had for a time, a black pastor with a white wife. I have never been in a church where anyone made a big deal about race. Very few people care any more.

  • Bones

    Except you cannot discriminate against gay people in Oregon because you don’t like their ‘lifestyle’..

    The same goes for denying accomodation to gay people because your ‘conscience’ can’t handle that they might have gay sex….

    There have also been cases where health care professionals have denied services to gay couples because of ‘conscience’ and been found guilty of discrimination eg California.

    In Employment Division v. Smith (1990), they point out, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the clause of the First Amendment protecting the “free exercise of religion” does not entitle individuals with religious objections to exemptions from generally applicable laws.

    And further on that case which involved Native Americans who were sacked for using a banned drug but was part of their religion….

    “The Court held that the First Amendment’s protection of the “free exercise” of religion does not allow a person to use a religious motivation as a reason not to obey such generally applicable laws. Citing the Reynolds v. United States (1878) decision: “To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.”[3] Thus, the Court had held that religious beliefs did not excuse people from complying with laws forbidding polygamy, child labor laws, Sunday closing laws, laws requiring citizens to register for Selective Service, and laws requiring the payment of Social Security taxes.”

    Nope, your conscience doesn’t trump the laws of the land……even under the First Amendment….

    I thought that would be pretty well known after the civil rights gains against people who used the same arguments against black people.

  • Bones

    Yes Q…I’ve repeatedly point that out….

    But this person has their own version of events and her thinking is incredibly addled.

  • Bones

    There are small differences in that Sophie doesn’t have a problem with mixed races getting married…..

    ie it’s in her head….

  • Bones

    But Jeff, she has friends like you…….

  • Ron McPherson

    This is not a stereotype and you have suggested something patently untrue. I have presented a hypothetical to make a point to show the fallacy of your reasoning. Instead of honestly owning up to it you instead turn it into something else. I’ve never said nor even insinuated anything about attaching racism to evangelicalism. Why you have introduced such a thing is totally beyond me. That is truly regrettable. And it’s deflection on your part.

  • Jeff Preuss

    Who likely roll their eyes…

  • Sophie B

    I suppose you could make a small case out of that. However, one is clearly discrimination based on race which is illegal. Perhaps he should have to prove that he belongs to a church that teaches such a thing. Very few churches do anymore. Anyway, the free market usually takes care of such nonsense.

  • Sophie B

    Very misleading. People are not discriminating again. But then I can’t stop you from using inflammatory language.

  • Sophie B

    Very angry aren’t you?

  • Sophie B

    Can they then discriminate against Christians then? According to your definition, that would be discrimination.

    I would not mind if a Muslim or Orthodox Jew refused me a service because of his religion. I would not even consider it discrimination. I would just go somewhere else as I don’t want to coerce people.

  • Bones

    You’re incredibly misleading and deceitful……

    Your argument about opting out has been refuted even by yourself because racists can’t opt out of providing for a wedding ‘áctivity’ because their conscience doesn’t allow blacks to mix with whites..

    And now your kind have used the Kleins to repeal protective laws for gay people….to allow discrimination based on one’s conscience…

    You people are manipulative and incredibly dishonest.

  • Snooterpoot

    Yes, well, Sophie, when the Kleins start selling only plain cakes to opposite-sex couples then you’ll have a point.

    You are going to continue to try, in vain I might add, to justify the actions of these people who violated the law and stripped these two women of their dignity. I am going to continue to contest this, because they were wrong, and not Christ-like, and you are wrong to defend them.

  • Bones

    A small case ffs….

    Try the civil rights acts…..

    Many people don’t give a f*ck about the free market when it comes to ideology.

    As we can see the Kleins have been handsomely rewarded for discriminating against gay people….

    Just like Kim Davis is now the hero for the Right for denying marriage licences which were part of her job.

  • Snooterpoot

    Here’s the deal, Sophie. Kindness and love are in the eyes of the person who is being told their life isn’t pleasing to God. Saying that is not kind, nor is it loving. People who do this should just stop; they are chasing more people away from God than they could ever convince to accept him.

  • Snooterpoot

    You totally missed the sarcasm in my comment, but that doesn’t surprise me.

  • Sophie B

    The Court has often been wrong.

    I personally think we should have legal partnerships registered at the courthouse for everyone, should choose. Churches should be kept separate.

  • Sophie B

    Judging from your past anger, how was I to assume otherwise?

    More judgment I see.

  • Sophie B

    Others are convinced they are being kind. It is not up to you or anyone else to define the parameters of someone’s mind. I know there have been those who thought I was a depraved soul; but I never believed they intended to be unkind.

  • Snooterpoot

    Oh, please Sophie. You’re really getting tiresome.

  • Sophie B

    Believe it or not that is also the free market at work. People would not be so hostile if they did not feel coerced. The ones coerced get a lot of sympathy.

  • Snooterpoot

    There wouldn’t be any problem if people stopped telling complete strangers that they’re going to hell because God doesn’t approve of something or another about them.

    Our time as Christians is better spent helping the poor, the sick, the hungry, the homeless and those in prison.

    Matthew 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
    36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
    37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
    38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
    39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
    40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

  • Guy Norred

    In any instance of which I have any knowledge, the couples were denied before any discussion of decoration. The cake requested was a wedding cake. That is all. If the baker did not want to decorate it in a particular manner, that is another topic entirely. Besides, in the last twenty years, I can only think of one wedding I have attended with a couple on the cake, and that one was a family heirloom that had been on the bride’s parent’s and grandparent’s wedding cakes. At my wedding, the cake was decorated with leaves; at my sister’s, lilies. I remember seeing wedding cakes decorated with numerous types of flowers (real and sugar), fruit (ditto), any number of graphic designs, ribbon, lace, gold leaf, and one in the form of Boullee’s monument to Isaac Newton. None of these suggest anything about the genders of the couple getting married to me. Do they to you?

    What any of this has to do with obscene cakes, I haven’t a clue, so in that I agree–it is not germane.

  • Guy Norred

    And that has nothing to do with this discussion. What is illegal is discriminating against a person because of that person’s religion.

  • Sophie B

    Stripped them of their dignity? Such an exaggeration. Should I have felt stripped of my dignity when I was snubbed for my religion? I did not; I took it all in stride. People will always disagree. However it seems as though there are only some acceptable groups that are allowed victim status.

    After that hyperbole I wonder why you would even wonder why I failed to catch your sarcasm.

  • Sophie B

    My kind????? What does even mean? Hate speech for sure.

  • Sophie B

    Not a stereotype???? Please tell me what churches preach against mixed marriages. I have been in churches all my life; I have never heard such a sermon.

    I have also stated that perhaps someone needed to provide proof that they did, in fact, belong to such a church. Otherwise it is pure discrimination.

  • Snooterpoot

    We’ve been over this before, Sophie. Yes, the Kleins stripped them of their dignity. The first time was when they treated them like outcasts and decided they weren’t worthy of their product.

    The second was when they intentionally subjected these women to abuse by putting their names, address and phone numbers onto Facebook.

    Why in the world can you not understand that? Unless you have never faced such a situation yourself.

  • Guy Norred

    Again, this is not the topic at hand. The baker is selling a cake–end of story. This comment has stepped so far over the line into the disingenuous that I can no longer suspend my suspicion that you are anything but a troll. As I bid you good night I will leave you with my prayer, borrowed from Paul:

    “I pray that, according to the riches of his glory, he may grant that you may be strengthened in your inner being with power through his Spirit, and that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, as you are being rooted and grounded in love. I pray that you may have the power to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.” Ephesians 3:16-19

  • Sophie B

    Silly.

  • Sophie B

    Same to you. Beware also of spiritual pride. The Bible speaks of it often.

  • Sophie B

    Why can you not understand that anyone can be humiliated by anyone else? Yet most of us do not scream about it nor do we declare that we have been stripped of our dignity. Once again only a few groups are allowed to feel this way.

  • Sophie B

    Apparently not. Many people discriminate against Christians daily. The First Amendment states that the federal government shall make no laws regarding religion …….

  • Ron McPherson

    “Please tell me what churches preach against mixed marriages.”

    What on earth does this discussion have to do with identifying churches that might “preach against mixed marriages?” I presented a hypothetical scenario. I’m telling you that there are people who literally believe, erroneously, that the bible condemns mixed race marriages. I’ve heard it multiple times here in the south. They’ve misunderstood the unequally yoked passage. They crazily believe that if God was ok with mixed race marriages he would have made everyone the same color. But aside from that it shouldn’t matter to you based on your own contention that ‘opting out’ is never discrimination (your words) if it goes against one’s conscience. So under your view, these same people would have no less of a right to ‘opt out’ of selling a wedding cake for a mixed marriage as the Kleins did for refusing one for a lesbian couple’s wedding. Under either scenario, it’s against the law for a reason.

  • Ron McPherson

    You may want to read Ben’s latest article

  • Sophie B

    That was only a hypothetical I used as a possible compromise. I prefer compromises over coercion. True, there is a much wider selection of decoration used now.

    There has to be some sort of compromise available in a free country.

  • Ron McPherson

    You really don’t get it do you?

  • Sophie B

    You really think only gay people are the ones who feel humiliated or embarrassed don’t you? Yet the rest of us are not complaining.

  • Sophie B

    You just told me it was not a stereotype which means you must think it is true. The fact that you tacked it onto the Kleins is telling.

  • Rose

    For years I have felt bombarded with messages from various reaches of society–mostly various media–that white Americans have more to be guilty about than to be proud of. It’s PC to post positive messages and draw special recognition to any race but white. The message I frequently receive is that multiculturalism and diversity is to be celebrated, but whites need to take a backseat in any such celebration. We can enjoy it at annual ethnic festivals (like Irish festivals) and in your own home, of course, but white pride is not an acceptable thing in society like it is for other races.

    I don’t know how you escaped such messages; they are everywhere. Maybe living where you do helps, but I’ve lived in both the Midwest and the West, and I have gotten this kind of thing for many years. The most recent slap in the face is the bombardment of messages that I have “white privilege”–no matter what my family circumstances, where I came from, or how I got to where I am. And I had better recognize and mitigate it somehow or I am incredibly insensitive. I’m so tired of these messages that anything insensitive in myself that I would notice and try to correct on my own is becoming something about which I just want to shrug my shoulders.

  • Bones

    A Christian won a case in Oregon where his employer threatened to sack him if he didn’t attend a Scientology conference……

    Can you reference where Christians are denied service based on their religion????

    It’s really disconcerting how all of a sudden discrimination is seen as no big deal….

    You obviously aren’t black.

    I also wasn’t ware that the free market worked by bigots raising hundreds of thousands of dollars to support those who discriminate against others.

    That is not the free market.

    It’s economic support for a form of apartheid.

  • Bones

    The free market does not work when businesses are financed by right wing pressure groups….

    The Klein’s have been handsomely rewarded for their discrimination….so they can keep doing it knowing that right wing anti-gay supporters will pick up their tab….and they become heroes

    Btw North Carolina has lost a stack of businesses over its decision to allow discrimination of lgbt people and many businesses are complaining over the loss of investment. But the Right will just see that as persecution.

  • Bones

    No, hate speech is what you kind are good at….

    It’s not even hate speech…it’s just hate in actions as well…

    Just look at the way you support the repeal of anti-discrimination laws in other states, after the campaign led by the Klein’s.

  • Rose

    I remember some of these things, too, especially “Pollock” jokes. I remember my mother and her friend singing a shocking little ditty about Jews that I can’t even repeat here. It was just in fun, and they would have never wanted to hurt or offend any Jews with that song, because we considered Jews people of honor due to being God’s chosen people. It was just something dumb that they sang because it was silly.

    I agree that this and things like this are not okay and never really were. At the same time, I don’t remember people being so offended and sensitive about everything all the time as they are now, either. When I really think back (I’m 45) to the ’70s-90s and try to remember how it was, as far as my experience went, things we criticize today about the past don’t always ring true in my memory. For example, what we think of today as “white culture” was just “American culture,” and people just went along doing their thing, whatever race they were, at least if they were not in an oppressive area like the South. Maybe at its roots it was “white,” but it wasn’t a big issue. “American culture” was accessible to all where I live, and it was just everyone’s way of life, as far as I could tell, with some subcultures doing some things their own way. My own stepmother was Hawaiian and kept to some of her cultural habits. I don’t remember such battles to assert one’s racial identity that much here in Colorado, and I don’t remember people crying “racist” every time someone said something they didn’t like. Maybe Colorado was different or I just didn’t see enough?

    Regarding the republic, what I meant was that our founding fathers were not godless people as a bunch. They weren’t trying to create a nation where religion was absent in public spaces, and they even called upon God for guidance. They were instead trying to prevent a state religion like they had left behind in England.

  • Sophie B

    The case you are talking about was, I believe, sent back to the state to be dealt with by the legislature. I do believe Oregon changed some of its laws about peyote use because of it. It also led to RFRA which was signed by President Clinton. I have great sympathy with Justice Blackmun’s opinion in that particular case.

  • Seabeacon

    They won’t give up until they get a theocracy. Iran is already one. They should go there.

  • Seabeacon

    Fundamentalism all stems from the same set of beliefs. It is just evidenced differently, depending on the religion. It’s always bad though.

  • Sophie B

    I have not been unkind in my remarks as many have here to me. I just want to present alternate opinions in a rational way.

    It is not hatred in actions either. It is rather amusing how you can practice hate against me by assuming all sorts of things about me. Great way to shut down an argument! Just call your opponent a hater. Argument over.

  • Sophie B

    You are looking at a stereotype. I have never been a fundamentalist. I also disagree with many of their beliefs.However, I have been kindly treated & helped by many to whom I am very grateful. Others have been maddening. We are all mixed bags; part of our own Venn diagrams. Please don’t assume there are no individuals but simply a big pudding marked “Fundamentalist”.

  • Sophie B

    BTW, North Carolina is too complex for me to discuss right now. There are several points to be made however.

  • Seabeacon

    I was one for 22 years. I understand the attitude and I had it as well. I knew I wasn’t being Christ-like, so I left it for Christianity. Of course they are not all the same, but do they refute the bad ones? Once I left fundamentalism for Christianity, I refuted them. Now that I am no longer Christian, I still do. Christians are great people. Fundamentalists are generally not.

  • Bones

    The argument was over quite some time ago….

    You’ve just been thrashing around trying to excuse discrimination while flat out embarrassing and contradicting yourself.

    You minimise the effects of discrimination against the most vulnerable in your own community, just to excuse your own ideology.

    It’s pretty hateful (you brought the hate up btw) and is the antithesis to everything the Christ stood for.

    You have been anything but rational….

    And the consequences of the Klein’s crusade against gay people is there for all to see….

    That you support them, and the repealing of anti-gay discrimination laws, says much about you.

  • Bob Blaylock

      But you’re not thinking like a liberal.  To those on the left wrong, desiring that this country be kept safe from foreign invaders is “xenophobic”.  Desiring that family and marriage be protected and upheld is “homophobic”.  Thinking that the Obama has taken our country in the wrong direction is “racist”.  Thinking that women and girls should be protected in their locker rooms, dressing rooms, restrooms, and such, from the predations of mentally-unstable male perverts, is “transphobic”.  Preferring good over evil, reason over madness, decency over perversion, order over lawlessness, is “hateful”and “bigoted”.

      Modern liberalism has devolved from what might once have been a legitimate ideology, into what can now only be honestly described as a mental and moral disease, that infects, weakens, and threatens to destroy our society.  It puts forth positions that are overtly immoral, insane, and just plain evil; which cannot be defended in any honest, rational manner.  It has successfully harnessed, to great effect, the very phenomenon which Hans Christian Andersen described centuries ago, in his classic tale of The Emperor’s New Clothes, wherein a community was almost unanimously deceived and intimidated into accepting a bold, blatant lie as truth, by making them fear how they might be adversely judged if they dared to speak against that lie.  Just as the foolish people in that story were afraid to be called “unpardonably stupid” of “unfit for their post”; so today are far too many of us afraid of being called “racist” or “homophobic” or “hateful” or any other variant on “bigoted”.

  • Bob Blaylock

      Psalms 53:1:  “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.”

  • Bob Blaylock

      Isn’t it funny how those who most loudly proclaim their opposition to “bigotry”, and who boast the most loudly of “tolerance” as their virtue, so often reveal themselves to be the very worst and most intolerant bigots of all; engaging in the very fallacies, arguments, and behaviors of which they are so fond of falsely accusing others?

      So deeply steeped are they, in Orwellian doublethink, that they cannot even see the irony and inconsistency in their own positions.

  • Sophie B

    I don’t know but they could very well be. I am sure there are cases where they have been harassed at work. It is possible many groups could refuse service if they chose to do so; although the profit motive might prove larger.

    Everything depends on your definition of discrimination. I would never feel discriminated against if I was refused service by some religious group due to some rule in their religion. I would just go somewhere else.

    To suggest everyone is a bigot who contributes money is very telling. So you do define people as parts of stereotypes instead of seeing them as individuals.

  • Sophie B

    I have never encountered a church that preached such a thing even when we lived in Oklahoma. I did meet some ignorant people who assumed such. That belief has long been debunked by scholars.

  • Bones

    A cake shop is not a religious group….

    You’re still try to minimise discrimination —- black people if someone doesn’t want to serve you, just go somewhere else…

    It is telling that people seek to finance discrimination….obviously big business in the USA. Aren’t there laws about profiteering through crime?

    Btw why did the Klein’s post the lesbian couples address and phone number online??????

    That was obviously a loving thing to do.

  • Sophie B

    I agree completely. That is what I have been trying to point out here but I have been constantly called a hateful bigot.

  • Sophie B

    No, the couple running it was practicing their religion however. People running halal stores are too as are shops selling naqibs. How about church affiliated insurance companies or architects who specialize in church architecture? How about the Billy Graham headquarters in Minneapolis?

  • Jeff Preuss

    Oh, I’ll call it. Sophie’s actions, from willful obliteration of facts to blatant pretense that sincerely held beliefs haven’t been (and are not) used to excuse racism, are evil.

  • Bones

    Huh…a halal store doesn’t serve bacon….to anyone…..so they’re not discriminating…..but I don’t have a problem being served there and I love their kebabs….

    As fro niqab shops are you saying they wouldn’t sell you a niqab?

    You’re being stupid now.

    You’re getting more and more absurd……and religious groups are exempt from Oregon’s laws, so yes you can still preach about how much you hate gay people on Sundays to your heart’s content.

  • Sophie B

    There is always a fine line there. Someone in a niqab shop should object to selling me one if she thought I was going to use it for a Halloween costume. Silly, I know. However, there are businesses who only deal with one religion. Jewish law firms for instance who only have Jewish clients. There was also a gay hair salon who only served gay men if I am not mistaken.

    Again, I resent the inference that I hate gays. That in itself is a form of hate.

  • Sophie B

    Most religions in the U.S. are very glad there is no theocracy. There are literally hundreds of denominations here. No one wants one favored over another.

  • Sophie B

    Come on. I have met many nice ones. Neighbors who have gone out of their way to be helpful, etc. I am sorry your experience was so negative.

  • Which is why the Southern Baptist Convention is the perfect solution to that annoying problem: one united religion when it benefits them, separate tiny little religions when it doesn’t.

  • rationalobservations?

    Only gullible, ignorant fools buy into the lies of religions about all the many thousands of ridiculous and non-existent god’s, goddesses and god-men men/”messiahs”.

  • rationalobservations?

    All religion and belief in super-spooks and magic is…

  • Bones

    I would like sources to back up claims that Jewish shops serve only Jews and gay hair salons serve only gays….that sounds suspiciously like right wing propaganda like the person who said there was a gay only cake shop catering only for gay wedding (must be a big business)..

    As for the niqab, it’s no different to buying religious vestments…anyone can walk off the street and buy a chasuble or a priestly stole…I’ve seen Islamophobes wearing them while insulting the Islamic religion – they must have bought them somewhere…..

  • Bones

    You forgot stupid…which is what most of your post is.

  • Bones

    Yes we hear that you can’t stand gay people…..because baby Jesus cries and sends them to hell….

    And yes we tolerate you and your Islamic brothers as well.

    Of course you can hate others……no one’s stopping you….

    But you can’t deny the rights of individuals based on your ideology.

    You people were better when you were honest and openly hated gays instead of trying to be all nice and cowardly about it now.

    It’s funny how all of a sudden rights are important after Christians spent centuries denying gay people theirs….

    But hey if the shoe fits, wear the f*cking thing..

  • Bones

    Shoosh, don’t tell the toilet police but I used the Ladies the other day…….

  • Bones

    Btw this one’s for you Bob….

    Archbishop Desmond Tutu: Oppression of gays is ‘new Apartheid’

    http://www.tutufoundationusa.org/2016/05/17/archbishop-desmond-tutu-oppression-of-gays-is-new-apartheid/

  • Bones

    “Hans Christian Andersen described centuries ago, in his classic tale of The Emperor’s New Clothes, wherein a community was almost unanimously deceived and intimidated into accepting a bold, blatant lie as truth, by making them fear how they might be adversely judged if they dared to speak against that lie. ”

    I was thinking the same thing Bob….

    Just look at how Christianity threatened gay people for years and how society would collapse because of them…..

    But we woke up to your lies…..

  • Bones

    What does quoting verses at atheists actually achieve???

    Is it magic? Or like warding off vampires or evil spirits?

    You may as well quote the Quran.

  • Bones

    Excusing discrimination against people is a hateful act – no?

  • Ron McPherson

    “You really think only gay people are the ones who feel humiliated or embarrassed don’t you?”

    Uh…what? How do you arrive at some of these conclusions? So because I think it important to protect the rights of gay people, you somehow think that makes me insensitive to others?

    “Yet the rest of us are not complaining.”

    And this really gets to the heart of the matter. Apparently you view this as “us” vs “them.” And for the record, I’m not gay, so I don’t know where you classify me. The sad thing about all this is that gays are often oppressed because they’re just asking for all to be “us.” They don’t want it to be “us” vs “them”. They want to be a part of “us”. For those of us who claim to follow the Savior this should not be this difficult. Yet somehow those who still want to keep an “us” vs “them” mentality feel oppressed themselves because they are prohibited by law to practice exclusivism.

  • Very well stated. Refreshing to see someone else on this site that can read, write and think….

  • Ron McPherson

    I guess that response was meant for me though you responded to yourself. And no it was not “telling.” You’re dreaming this up in your own imagination, wrongfully judging my intentions, doing the very thing you have accused others of doing to you.

  • Ron McPherson

    The merit of the belief is not the issue. Why do you keep going back to what a church preaches? You stated its about ones personal beliefs and conscience, not about what the church tells them.

  • Sophie B

    Then why did you use it?

  • Sophie B

    No one is excusing if you would read my comments.

  • Sophie B

    Is that hate speech?

  • Bones

    Yes….you’ve conceded that it is the same as denying an interracial marriage…

  • Sophie B

    Most denominations would be very upset with the Southern Baptists in such ascendancy.

  • Sophie B

    There are law firms that only service Jews, etc., which is fine with me. I watched a program on T.V. about a gay owned salon who only served gay males. They didn’t like lesbians either. They were finally convinced to open their services to women. It made much more sense from a profit motive which is fine with me also.

  • Seabeacon

    Yes, there are, but I guess with the news catching every little crazy thing they do makes people hate them. When I was one, the charities I gave to were there to stop people from living their lives. When I walked away from it to mainline Christianity, I started giving to charities that helped people do what they were not able to. The focus was different and was so much more Christ-like and positive. I think it’s easy to get in the mindset that it’s a good thing to be the moral police, but it is not very fulfilling and positive. I tend to make people hateful and because of those things, people think all Christians are bigoted, homophobic, judgmental, and out of touch with reality. It is sad to me that Christianity is waning based on a minority of people who do not act Christ-like.

  • Seabeacon

    True, but there are people like Pat Robertson and others that think Christians are to institute a theocracy before Jesus comes back. They are not doing Christianity any favors.

  • Sophie B

    Because people on this thread keep linking the two.

  • Matthew

    Tell that to the global south. They seem to be listening. Latin America as well. Even Asia … but we´ve crossed this river already :-). I just thought if you can continue to post things without real numbers … so can I :-) :-).

    Truth be told … BOTH religion and democratic secularization are on the rise.

  • Ron McPherson

    Because I first used it in another scenario but apparently it didn’t click for you. So since you were so focused on the Kleins I thought it would be easier for you to grasp if I put the hypothetical corresponding with the actual event in question. Apparent that didn’t click for you either

  • Sophie B

    I don’t think they believe that since most are familiar with the Constitution. They are also familiar with the Bible where Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world. The churches who do interpret the Book of Revelations in a particular way (there are many interpretations) stress that there is nothing people can do to bring about the Last Days. “We do not know the time or place” etc.

    Once again, in reference to religion, Christianity is a very general term. Countries who have had theocracies have had very specific denominations. Lutheran, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Church of England, Roman Catholic, etc. That was why the U.S. was a magnet for religious people; they had been discriminated against in their own countries. They wished to worship as they chose.

    The experience in Europe led the Founding Fathers to choose hands off with regards to the federal government’s involvement with religion which is a very good thing.

  • gimpi1

    Thanks for the response. I’m sorry you feel this way. I honestly don’t. I do think white privilege is real. I know that I simply don’t get the kind of scrutiny out in public that black people, especially black men, do. In fact, I get almost none. I’m a dumpy middle-aged white woman, so no one is afraid of me. We used to joke about it when a chess group played at our house – that I should set up in business as a hit-woman, because I can walk into courthouses, legislature chambers, governmental offices, anywhere and be unnoticed. The privilege of invisibility, as it were…

    One comment one fellow who played in this club made that gave me some thought is that, as a white person, I’m not held accountable for what others do. No one looks at me as a possible serial killer because Ted Bundy and Jeffery Dahlmer were white. No one thinks I’m a likely terrorist because Terry Nichols was white. No one looks regards me as a possible thief because Leona Helmsy was white.

    Perhaps part of what you’re feeling is being lumped in a group, when white people, as the majority, never were regarded as a group? Perhaps, I don’t register it because I’ve never really felt part of white (or any other) society?

    As white people are less of a majority, as plurality becomes the norm, perhaps we’re being jammed in a stereotypical box the way others generally have been. That may be part of the potential lesson here – not that you should get jammed in a box the way others have, but that the answer is no boxes for everyone. No stereotypes. We’re all just individuals… can the human mind do that? I don’t really know. Food for thought…

    Well, I don’t think you come off as insensitive. I’ve enjoyed our talk. Best of wishes.

  • Paul Schlitz Jr.

    Sophie and Seabacon most varieties of fundamentalism tend to promote bloodshed. It seems that only non Christians are aware of Jesus’ teachings about non violence

  • Rose

    Well, I am actually a pretty teachable person. That is one of my strengths and I do care about offending people. I think that if the messages weren’t so constant and pervasive and anti-white i would be much more likely to help instead of shrugging my shoulders. Take care.

  • Sophie B

    It is your side who keep bringing up the differences. I think gays are just people like the rest of us.

  • Going by the numbers other Christian sects besides SBC & Catholicism are drops in a bucket.

  • Questioning

    I have no problem agreeing that the courts sometimes get
    things wrong. Often? I don’t think so, but this case is really pretty cut and dried. Allow me to explain….

    In a comment above you stated that “they were not denied service because of their sexuality” and throughout your argument has been they “opted out of an event.” Frankly, I find this comment baffling. Why and what was the event? A wedding. Who were the participants? A gay couple. What is one of the defining characteristics of a gay person? Who they are attracted to, i.e. their sexuality. Ask almost any person who is against same sex marriage and they will likely tell you that having homosexual attraction is not a sin. It is when you act on those attractions, it becomes sin. A same sex wedding will beget same sex sex. So you see, sexuality is not just part of this issue, it is at the heart of the issue; and this is what the cake bakers are reacting to. They believe gay sex is a sin and therefore a same sex marriage cannot be approved by God and violates their conscience. It’s not the “event”, it is what the “event” represents. Strip away all the trappings of the event, the cake, the ceremony, etc and the argument really has no clothes, when clearly the real reason this couple was denied service was because of their sexuality, or more broadly stated, they were a sexually active gay
    couple. So no, they are not “opting out of an event “, they are refusing service to a gay couple because they disagree with their sexuality. The state of Oregon has said that this is discrimination, and I totally agree. To see it any other way is denial or ignorance or both.

  • Sophie B

    Thank you for assuming I am stupid. That will immediately make me change my mind, I am sure. Oops, is that some kind of hate targeting? I am so humiliated. Where can I complain?

  • Sophie B

    Once again, I have encountered many who were very kind; who have offered to help in difficult circumstances. To be kind, one does not need to contribute to charities alone. It also involves the acts of random kindness. The Good Samaritan was not contributing to some charity but was acting individually.

  • Sophie B

    I did not say it was. I conceded it could be interpreted that way in certain circumstances.

  • Sophie B

    I was being sarcastic.

  • Ron McPherson

    You absurdly judged that my motive was to link racism with evangelicalism. That clearly was not the case and I stated as such. You then asked why I used the hypothetical that I chose. I answered the question. I assumed you had failed to grasp the point else why ask me to clarify. So now you’re playing victim as if I assume you’re stupid. Only to then act as if you’re above it by saying “Where do I complain?”
    Apparently on this site, that’s where you currently are doing it. Was it not you who so casually dismissed the lesbian couple’s feelings by suggesting oh well, everybody gets their feelings hurt, what’s the big deal? But you’re moaning over much less ill treatment over something occurring in cyberspace here on this very site for crying out loud. Look, sorry if you’ve gotten your feelings hurt, please forgive me if I’ve belittled your character in any way. We probably all need to take a chill pill.

  • Ron McPherson

    “It is your side who keep bringing up the differences.”

    Well you keep framing this as a “side.” There is no “side” unless you subscribe to tribalism.

    “I think gays are just people like the rest of us.”

    Good for you. Hopefully the Kleins can someday feel the same way.

    Peace

  • Sophie B

    I think they already do.

  • Sophie B

    There are a huge range of mainline Protestants of which I was one. Big churches all of them. In fact, I don’t think I ever met a Southern Baptist until we moved to Oklahoma.

  • Ron McPherson

    Glad they changed their mind then

  • Sophie B

    No, I was using sarcasm. I hate playing the victim.

    Many of us have had problems & embarrassments in life much worse than being turned down in a bakery. The best thing to do is to not play the victim. It makes one weak. Of course perhaps that is what the elite desire; to turn us all into helpless vassals.

  • gimpi1

    You, too. Good talk.

  • Sophie B

    Which varieties? I have never known one to do so. In fact, I have many times been humbled by their kindness.

    Jesus did not preach non violence. If He had, He would have been just like any number of preachers or writers over the years who preached causes.

    No, Jesus went far deeper. He recognized people as individual souls who need to come to God on their own. He cared not for defining people as parts of groups but as individuals. He had friends from many different groups; both rich & poor; establishment & anti establishment. Simon the Zealot & Matthew the tax collector were opposites.
    We all need to search our own hearts for our own sins because they are all different & unique to each one of us.

    Because we live in a fallen world, violence is sometimes required. Or would you prefer we had not resisted the Nazis? “There is a time to rend & a time to sew” …..

    Our true home lies elsewhere. It is full of everlasting peace because it is not part of this fallen physical world …… However, in this world there will always be wars & rumors of wars.

  • Paul Schlitz Jr.

    Sophie Jesus certainly preached nonviolence. I’m just reading Luke 6 and He certainly says to turn the other cheek, love your enemies pray for those who persecute you and that there is no credit in loving only people who are nice to you. This is a reason why I read the Bible seriously and daily. To show that the fundies and evangelicals the religious right and even yourself are not only wrong but haven’t bothered to read the Bible.

  • Paul Schlitz Jr.

    Also your history is a little off. We didn’t resist the Nazis until their allies the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor well over 2 years into the war. Churchill said he got his best night’s sleep ever after this because he knew that with the US entry into the war against the Axis powers that the outcome was no longer in doubt. But Churchill also said wryly that the US could always be counted on to do the right thing as soon as it became apparent that no other possible alternative existed.

  • Mr. G.

    re:” So now we can all sue each other all the time.” – only if the defendant insists on discriminating in a manner forbidden by law.

  • Sophie B

    With gender fluidity, one can change genders all the time. How to keep up? You need a scorecard.

  • Bones

    So you can provide no sources – only what you’ve seen….

    Btw

    The Klein’s aren’t the only one.

    This baker would bake a cake to marry two dogs but not two gay people….

    Court Rules Bakery Illegally Discriminated Against Gay Couple

    A Colorado judge today determined that a Lakewood bakery unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake.

    David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop last year, with Craig’s mother, to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. Mullins and Craig planned to marry in Massachusetts and then celebrate with family and friends back home in Colorado. Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips informed them that because of his religious beliefs the store’s policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods to celebrate a same-sex couple’s wedding.

    “Being denied service by Masterpiece Cakeshop was offensive and dehumanizing especially in the midst of arranging what should be a joyful family celebration,” said Mullins. “No one should fear being turned away from a public business because of who they are. We are grateful to have the support of our community and our state, and we hope that today’s decision will help ensure that no one else will experience this kind of discrimination again in Colorado.”

    Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. Mullins and Craig filed complaints with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) contending that Masterpiece had violated this law. Earlier this year, the CCRD ruled that Phillips illegally discriminated against Mullins and Craig. Today’s decision from Judge Robert N. Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts affirms that finding.

    “While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” said Amanda C. Goad, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. “No one is asking Masterpiece’s owner to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple.”

    Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”

    “Masterpiece Cakeshop has willfully and repeatedly considered itself above the law when it comes to discriminating against customers, and the state has rightly determined otherwise,” said Sara R. Neel, staff attorney with the ACLU of Colorado. “It’s important for all Coloradans to be treated fairly by every business that is open to the public – that’s good for business and good for the community.”

    http://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/

    How come this guy didn’t get an award for discriminating against gay people like the Kleins and Kim Davis?

    If you want to discriminate against gay people, set yourself up as a religious group….not a private business which is subject to the laws of the land.

  • Bones

    Yes you excuse and now openly admit it would be better to have no discrimination laws because it’s inconvenient for you….

    Thereby destroying the gains of the civil rights movement….

  • Mr. G.

    What’s to keep up with? Do you have boxes with labels where you put people? Does it cause anxiety in you if they want to move to another box?

  • Jeff Preuss

    “For example, claiming that laws against same-sex marriage are unjust is not right to the Christian way of thinking, because such a union is morally and profoundly wrong before God.”
    Except, that isn’t THE Christian way of thinking, it’s your interpretation of what Christian thinking on the topic is. Many Christians would disagree with you.

  • Sophie B

    No, but someone who says he is one gender one day, then two days later becomes another gender, then a third gender the day after, then back again to the original gender is very hard to follow. There are over seventy two genders you know.

  • Rose

    There is such a thing as Christian orthodoxy, and that isn’t it. That’s cafeteria Christianity, where people believe what they want to believe and call it authentically Christian. Which it isn’t.

  • Sophie B

    Of course He said that. We are to pray constantly for our enemies. My own church that I was attending in Oklahoma prayed for Saddam Hussein during the start of the Iraqi war. That does not mean violence is not sometimes required. Jesus overturned the tables of the moneychangers, didn’t He? If we did not use violence during World War II for instance, the Nazis would have gone on to kill more people. There has never been a pacifist country that existed on its own that wasn’t either protected by another country or high up in the mountains somewhere like Nepal. Pacifist groups of people like the Quakers can only exist inside militarily strong countries which protect them. There is a time to sew & a time to rend….

    Yes, if you only love people who love you. you are no different than the rest of the world. That means praying for people you don’t like. Perhaps fundamentalists?

  • Sophie B

    I never said that. Stop exaggerating.

  • Jeff Preuss

    No, Rose, it’s Christianity. Period. Just because you don’t agree with it doesn’t make it invalid.

    Orthodoxy doesn’t make a faith valid.

    MY Christianity is authentic. You saying it’s not…well, doesn’t make it not. That would hold as much water as me saying your faith is completely bunk because I disagree with you on a theological point.

    But I wouldn’t say that to you. It isn’t my place.

    And it isn’t YOURS.

  • Sophie B

    The Courts & the ACLU are often wrong. I suppose then that you feel that sanctuary cities should not break the law either.

    Try forcing a Muslim restaurant to do something against their beliefs. Baking a cake for dogs is fine, it is a novelty item only. Someone could bake a cake for turtles or porcupines if he wanted to.

    Should a Christian bakery be forced to bake a cake for Satan ordered by a Satanist church?

    As for having one’s feelings hurt; you can’t run a country on feelings. Most of us have been embarrassed or humiliated at different times; some much more than others. However, we don’t all play the victim for several reasons. One is that playing the victim never makes one stronger, but weaker. Besides most of us don’t have fashionable victim status. Our problems may be discounted because they are not the correct problem du jour. How do you know that others don’t have problems that are just as debilitating? You never know if you aren’t prepared to walk a mile in another’s shoes.

  • Paul Schlitz Jr.

    By participation in a war you are killing people who might be deprived of eternal life. When Jesus said to love your enemies he probably meant not to kill them. You think ill of Quakers but when I was in 5th grade a man from our Friends meeting immolated himself in front of the Pentagon to protest the Vietnam War. He ( Norman Morrison) had more guts than all the draft age noncombatants singing worship and praise music with their comfortable just war theology during the debacle in Iraq.

    Where were the Christians who believe in just war when the US military experienced their lowest recruiting year since 1967 in 2005 and had to give away 20 K signing bonuses and recruit people who would ordinarily not be considered for military service (I.e. White supremacists people with criminal records high school dropouts)

    That’s when I soured on evangelicalism because it seems with their sort of soteriology they should be the first ones doing the fighting

  • Bones

    Who should be discriminated against.

  • Sophie B

    That man was a total deranged idiot. He originally took his infant daughter with him. He was planning to immolate her as well. He had poured gasoline over both himself & her when someone talked him into handing the baby over. Some courage. God does not honor this.

    May I remind you that many evangelicals signed up including a large amount from Bob Jones University?

  • Bones

    So it’s OK to bake a wedding cake for dogs but not gay people.

    But you’re not hateful at all.

    You are showing your true colours.

    Not only do you minimise discriminalizing agains gay people as something they should just suck up, but you justify it.

    The courts were correct.

    You can sook about it all you want.

    Once again, it’s only been since gay marriage was legalised that people suddenly have a problem with anti-discriminationation laws.

  • Sophie B

    Your interpretation.

  • Bones

    Yes you have.

    You equate going to a Muslim restaurant and ordering a bacon sandwich with being refused service by a health professional because you live an evil lifestyle as happened to the Klein victims.

  • Bones

    And out comes the justification of violence.

    I’ve already smashed your justification for the crusades.

    Of course you can justify violence for anything really….over here we’re debating whether it’s a crime to kill gay people if someone thinks they’ve come onto them (‘gay panic’ defence)

  • Sophie B

    Where did I ever say bacon sandwich?

  • Sophie B

    Baking a cake for dogs is a novelty item as I stated before. No one should have any religious objections to it except, perhaps, Muslims.

    Opting out of an activity is not hating but we have been over this too many times. Seriously, collect yourself. What are my true colors anyway? You can’t see into my mind. BTW, are you British?

  • Sophie B

    Ho Hum.

  • rationalobservations?

    It appears that you fail to see the irony and inconsistency in your own position, Bobbie.

    Christians are often baffled how atheists could deny the existence of their (originally Canaanite) god, “Jehovah/Yahweh” and their (Roman) god-man/”messiah” “Yeshua/Jesus”, but they shouldn’t be. Christians deny thousands of the same gods that atheists deny. Atheists just deny one more unconvincing god and one more mythical god-man (among many hundreds of thousands of very similar undetectable and imaginary gods, goddesses and god-men) than Christians.

    Some fail to justify their enthrallment to their specific brand of religion by pointing out that the non-existence of any of the gods cannot be proved. If inability to prove the non-existence of deities is enough for some to believe in them., they must be very busy worshipping Amun-Ra, Apollo/Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Pratibhanapratisamvit, Buddhist goddess of context analysis.and Acat, Mayan god of tattoo artists. and Tsa’qamae, north american god of salmon migration – and many thousands of other undetectable hypothetical entities among which “Yahweh” and “Jesus” remain merely mythical and of which no one ever provides proof or reason of (or for) existence and therefore non-existence may be assumed by default.

    Atheists don’t exclusively dismiss the possible existence of christian’s hypothetical, imaginary and undetectable Canaanite “god” and Roman “god-man”, they dismiss the possibility of all the many thousands of gods, goddesses and god-men/messiahs – and that merely includes the particular mythical Canaanite deity and legendary Roman god-man of the remaining – but rapidly dwindling – christian cults and sects.

    The existence of the oldest/first christer bible (Codex Sinaiticus) that was written by a small team of scribes in the late 4th century proves that the all bibles since then are the work of men, not the work of any of the gods.

    The “scriptures” have zero historical evidence based support.

    If you can contradict that statement you may find that you need to present evidence supported answers to these evidence based questions:

    1) Can you refer to any 1st century originated historical (non biblical / mythological!) evidence of the existence, life and times of a legendary god-man/”messiah” named “Jesus”..?

    2) Can you name a complete NT bible text that dates prior to the oldest/first 4th century Roman Codex Sinaiticus and new testament” bibles and that matches any complete text within the oldest/first 4th century originated Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus?

    3) Are you aware of – and can you explain – the almost endless differences between the oldest/first 4th century handwritten Roman Codex Sinaiticus bible and those many diverse and significantly different versions of NT bibles that followed it?

    4) Can you explain the confusion and internal contradiction, historical inaccuracies and scientific absurdity that is contained within all the many,many diverse and different versions of christian NT/OT bibles today?

    5) Can you explain the absence from Jewish literature of the Jewish prophesies that the god-man “Jesus” is claimed to have fulfilled exclusively within christian authored texts that only appear for the first time in the 4th century CE?

    6) Can you explain why “Jesus” (according to the legends within all versions of christian NT/OT bibles) fails to meet the specification of messiah that actually exists within any authentic pre-christianity Jewish literature, mythology and/or tradition?

    Please note:

    No book can be validated exclusively from within it’s content.
    Opinion is not evidence,
    Denial is not rebuttal or refutation.
    Diversion never works.
    Answering your own straw man instead of the specific question is often seen as a tacit admission of defeat.

    Kind regards and I look forward to reading your evidence supported responses.

  • rationalobservations?

    Nope.

  • Paul Schlitz Jr.

    Sophie you are talking about something you know nothing about. Norman Morrison was not deranged. My father knew him well at that time and spoke to him several days before. He was absolutely sane. Nothing about him augered of the need for mental health. He loved to play hockey. His wife was my First Day School teacher that year. Another person involved in the events that day was the Secretary of Defense Robert S McNamara one of the policy architects of the Vietnam fiasco. He conceded years later that Morrison was no idiot.

    What was absolutely insane and deranged was the Vietnam War. The BJ students who signed up to fight in Iraq I respect. They did the right thing based on their theology. But I never heard an evangelical sermon or radio preacher during the Iraq debacle who urged American Christians to go to war so someone else without eternal security would not have to.

    The other people who never forgot about Morrison were the Vietnamese who honor Morrison.

  • Bones

    “Baking a cake for dogs is a novelty item as I stated before. ”

    So in other words, gay people are less than dogs….that is exactly what you and the clown from Colordo was saying.

    The Court saw right through his bigoted bullshit.

    Piss off with your ‘opting out’.

    That is not what it is.

    Your true colours are revealed in your posts – an enabler and excuser of discrimination to anyone.

  • Bones

    No, that is what you believe through all the bullshit.

  • Bones

    Yes, discriminating gay people bore you.

  • Bones

    You keep bringing up Muslim restaurants…..

  • Bones

    Like in court….

  • Mr. G.

    My recommendation is that you stop trying to “follow” the tiny (if it exists at all) minority that “becomes” other genders so frequently. After all, where’s the need to/what’s the point of “following” them so intently? The vast majority of people pretty much stick with one gender almost all the time.

  • Bones

    Bahaha

    Just f#ck off.

  • Bones

    The mother of one of the girls worked there that’s why.
    The couple also said that Mrs Klein had already said that she would do the cake at a previous meeting.

    The couple were known to the Kelins.

  • Bones

    Now you’re just being an arsehole.

    I hope that hurt your feelings.

  • Tom Bombadil

    Someone says to me, “You’re awful.” You like their post and you also say I’m being an “arsehole”. You then say you hope that hurt my feelings.

    I truly hope you and others are listening to yourselves.

  • Sophie B

    Hate speech?

  • Sophie B

    What makes you think I am thinking of bacon? Do you think you are inside my mind? How rude.

  • Sophie B

    Another case of presumed mind control. Should I be afraid or merely insulted?

  • Paul Schlitz Jr.

    Sophie your analysis of pacifism and nation states is a bit off. Costa Rica has no military. They are the only nation state that I am aware of that got rid of their military. They have thrived as a result in a fairly unstable part of the world. They are the most prosperous country in Central America and stable enough so that American retirees are moving there. Also they the fewest political extremes of right and left in Central America.

    Germany and Japan had pacifist constitutions imposed upon them after WWII. They both thrived economically. I don’t think anybody wants to see German or Japanese soldiers ever again.

    I hope the bill authorizing U.S. citizens to sue Saudi Arabia does not become law. If Iraqi and Afghani citizens were allowed to sue us we’d be bankrupt in no time.

    The cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have almost bankrupted us already. The tab is almost 5 trillion dollars so far and going up. That is more $ than all of the oil that has ever been imported to the US. And what did we get out of it?

  • Sophie B

    I never said there was a gay only cake shop. I mentioned the gay hair salon that was on “Tabatha’s Salon Takeover”.

    Right wing propaganda? Is that hate speech? Where do I go to find my safe space?

    Do you know what phobia even means? It refers to an irrational fear; a fear so strong you can barely function in your daily activities. I doubt this is what people who target Islam have. In fact, we all sound like silly adolescents when we throw such an inappropriate term around. Even the word, “haters” while equally adolescent, would be more appropriate in such circumstances. Whatever.

    However, how do you live comfortably with the fact that many Muslim countries prescribe the death penalty for homosexuals? No concerns over creeping sharia law in other parts of the world? In the UK, I believe the Archbishop of Canterbury seems to believe sharia law could exist in certain areas there. Perhaps a second court system alongside the regular British laws.

  • Sophie B

    Costa Rica is surrounded by many other countries. It may be protected to an extent from where it is located. However, if a true war did break out, they would be in trouble.

    Germany & Japan benefited greatly from being under U.S. protection. No one would dare bother them. The U.S., then, was basically footing all their military bills. Likewise Canada has also benefited from sharing a common border with us. Europe has benefited from our protection in NATO. This allowed them the luxury of spending far less on their military. Then they could pursue their socialistic goals while looking down on the U.S. who was footing most of their military bills while also protecting them.

  • Sophie B

    Nothing could be farther from the truth. You are using silly adolescent arguments. I am not getting through apparently. It is almost impossible to discuss something objectively with someone who is so subjectively oriented.

  • Sophie B

    Sounds like it.

  • Sophie B

    Your stale arguments are becoming repetitious.

  • Sophie B

    Where do you draw such irrational conclusions? Bizarre. I love dogs. I would do almost anything for them. That does not mean I hate cats.

  • Sophie B

    I am speaking of defensive actions. These can actually quell true violence.

  • Sophie B

    Dogs & many gays like me.

  • Rose

    Your faith may be authentic, and your relationship with God may be real. That is between you and God. However, Christianity also is something outside of ourselves, bearing doctrinal truths that we are obligated to believe if we want to be authentically Christian. We cannot pick and choose “our truth” or interpret the Bible however we like. That is cafeteria Christianity, and that is not authentic.

    You go back to every single Reformation-rooted denomination, the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox Church and look at their creeds, catechisms, and scholarly works by orthodox scholars that were written before all hell broke loose in the ’60s. See what they say about some of the issues that some Christians uphold today, like gay marriage. You won’t find what you are looking for. They will all tell you generally the same thing on these issues. That some Protestant denominations have changed course on them (the Orthodox and Catholic Churches have not) doesn’t mean much. Where the Church agreed for centuries should not be ignored or cast away as if we know better.

  • Paul Schlitz Jr.

    Sophie again your history is really off. Germany was not under U.S. protection. As a matter of fact there was this nation called East Germany that existed until 1989 that was under the control of the Soviets ( if you could ask Gerald Ford about this he’d tell you) You seem to have the same problem with socialism as with Quakerism, thinly veiled contempt which is the Christian politically correct party line. Not all government functions and expenditures are accomplished with equal ease. Soft socialism, simply providing health care for all, food for all, shelter and education for anyone who wants it is a fairly simple governmental function that most governments know how to do. It isn’t rocket science. Even Saddam Hussein had a food stamp program that probably kept him in power ( it lasted until 2006 when the Shiite government ran out of money looting the treasury for oil revenues and couldn’t afford it anymore). The Brits started their national health in 1948 when they were flat on their back economically. They hadn’t paid off their appalling debts from WWI when they tallied more debts for WWII. Britain had food rationing until the mid 1950s. They had one day in 1953 when the Labour government decreed that every child should have a banana. They had never seen one before. The architect of British socialism, Clement Attlee was found in 2002 to have been the best PM ever in the UK ( even Churchill whom he replaced)

    In contrast spending 5 trillion dollars on Middle Eastern wars is trickier than a 10 foot snake. Even with the best of intentions and the stream of unlimited revenue nothing worked out. It costs a lot and there is never any guarantee of success. What that 5 trillion could have paid for here in the U.S. . . . . .

    Costa Rica had wars break out all around them. Nicaragua was in a state of turmoil ( remember the CIAs plan to arm the contras, another military intervention that didn’t go well). We interfered with Guatemala in the 60s and El Salvador in the 80s. The Honduras had a revolution about 10 years ago ( I had friends who were there at the time). And then there was the infamy of the soccer war between El Salvador and Honduras in 1969 . . . .

  • Jeff Preuss

    Would you like me to adhere to the orthodoxy of Christianity that tells us that you — as a woman — haven’t the authority to speak over me or teach me since I am a man? I mean, clearly, if you want me to consider your words to have merit in a theological discussion, you hold fast to a cafeteria Christianity that values the theological opinions of women.

    But, that’s not orthodox, so definitively not Christian…

    So, which is it, Rose? Do you accept and acknowledge that Christianity carries within it some valid variety that reflects varied sincere attempts at discerning the meaning of Scriptures, and therefore rescind your crack about inauthentic Christianity? Or, do you hold fast to the orthodoxy being of paramount importance, and therefore stating your intent to back out of trying to instruct me since you’re a woman?

  • DrewTwoFish

    And the colours of said penises.

  • DrewTwoFish

    Are you really surprised that there is push back from queer people after centuries of being treated poorly? And for what reasons? “It makes me feel a little icky” or “The Bible tells me so.” No evidence of harm. Clear evidence of happiness for queer people themselves. I didn’t get “hate” and “disgust” from Houndentenor’s response though they may be there but anger certainly. Do you not get it? Christians historically have not stopped at simply signalling their disapproval now have they?

  • Rose

    Actually, I do not believe in women taking a pastoral role in the Church, where I have authority over a man. Me telling you that you are in theological error in a casual discussion is quite a different thing. We are not operating in roles within the Church but as equal participants under authority that neither of us have, and you are in error. I did not make a crack; I presented a true statement. And I don’t rescind it.

  • DrewTwoFish

    It seems pretty clear (a word a lot of “Bible believing” Christians like to use) that in while God is not OK with homosexuality he was cool with misogyny, genocide, and slavery. Or at least looked the other way for a time. What I find interesting is how Christians eventually managed to contexualize their way past those things (and others) eventually but seem stuck on homosexuality. Mind you, in the grand scheme of things maybe it hasn’t been that long.

    Really, I think it’s impossible to adhere to every syllable in the Bible. There are too many contradictions in spirit and/or letter. I don’t think that necessarily means chucking the whole thing out (as I did) but it does make things messier.

  • DrewTwoFish

    I don’t like to make it into a “hurt” contest but it’s pretty easy to go there. At worst in the West Xians are being made to feel a little uncomfortable these days.

  • Jeff Preuss

    You presented a crack. It was not true; it was your opinion. Your interpretation of Scripture. You attempt to elevate your position on this topic to a doctrinal essential for Christianity. Which it is not. You haven’t the authority to make it so, and no human does.

    Now, since you have finally trotted out the (predictable) “true Christian” argument fallacy, it proves your lack of understanding and sincerity. There is no point in further discussion with you, since you cannot see Christianity outside your bubble.

    Signed, a true authentic Christian. Just like you.

  • Rose

    You reacted by chucking it. I reacted by converting from Protestant to Catholic. So I think I get what you’re saying . Way too confusing to interpret and figure out on one’s own, which is what Protestants are left to do, Why would God leave us with so little authority? I believe that Christ left us human authority in the successors to the apostles, and perhaps you think it’s all just myth. Assuming Christianity is true, though, unless we recognize the creed or catechism of a particular denomination, the Bible alone is not enough of an anchor because we can rationalize everything the way we want to. I have never believed that God sanctioned misogyny, genocide, or slavery, although I don’t pretend to fully understand why the OT is so much different from the NT. I believe we humans have made the problems, not God.

  • DrewTwoFish

    To be honest I do think it’s all a myth. I don’t see how human authorities have made things any better than Protestantism. Whether they be expert or amateur interpreters of the Bible Xians have changed their minds on a lot of things.

  • Rose

    You are in error, and it is not my opinion, and it is not a crack. It is the teaching of the Church for centuries upon centuries. I accept its authority, and you believe you have an authority that God did not give you to interpret the Bible as you see fit. But you’re right about one thing. There is no further point to discuss it. We have marked our lines in sand and clearly will not cross.

  • Rose

    If Christ placed human authorities and promised to lead them through the Holy Spirit, then we have the God-given authority of the Church. This is what I believe happened, which is why I trust the Church to lead me in matters of doctrine. Regarding changes, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are still teaching the same things.

  • Jeff Preuss

    Rose, you’re arrogant and should be ashamed of your hubris. Denying a fellow Christian is heartless and not of Christ. Peace be to you, but you’re blocked now. You hold no authority over my faith.

    Go back to your bubble.

  • Bones

    Dogs maybe…..

    The gay people here may have a different opinion.

  • Ron McPherson

    Well so much for using the excuse of discriminating against gay marriage because it not meeting “biblical standards”, unless I missed the part about canine nuptials

  • Bones

    The bizarre conclusion is that you have no problem b a king a cake for dogs but not gay people.

    Of course that was noted in the Colorado bakery case.

    Which implies that gay people are lower than dogs.

  • Bones

    Pot kettle black.

    Your level of stupidity on this board continues to rise.

    There”s no doubt now that you are merely a troll.

  • apoxbeonyou
  • Ron McPherson

    ironic ain’t it. If there was no discrimination then there’s no side to begin with. I’m convinced it’s not gay people who want sides. Geez, that’s what they’re wanting to eliminate for crying out loud. Weird how some are accused of creating sides because they want to be included.

  • Bones

    No.

    If a person bakes a cake for the marriage of dogs but not gay people that means they place dogs over gay people.

    There are gay people on this thread watching you bury yourself as you defend this.

  • Bones

    For starters, there’s many states in the US where you can discriminate against gay people.

    Do you not know that?

    And now the perennial right wing comparison….but look at how bad the Muslims are..

    Homosexuality is still banned in many countries and until those countries become enlightened will continue to be. Of course they are mainly banned for religious and cultural reasons. Islam being one of them…

    Not much people can do about it bUT get gay people out if those shitholes and put pressure on them to change. But we all know how hard it is to change minds based on religion where you will burn forever because gay people make god angry.

    But hey Putin has become the new darling of the right for dropping anti-discrimination laws against hay people.

    You can go to Russia and veat up as many gays as you want,

    Of course they think killing gay people is following their conscience and a good and noble act.

    And no there is no ‘creeping sharia law’ which BTW only applies to Muslims.

    More right wing bs.

    Which Archbishop?

    Rowan Williams said that certain provisions of sharia are already recognised under UK law.

    Also the Jewish Civil Court works along side the British one as it does here in the US where it can rule on and moderate civil cases.

    So no there won’t be head chopping sentences happening in the UK.

    http://rowanwilliams.archbishopofcanterbury.org

    Justin Welty says people are being hysterical – like you.

  • Bones

    Mind control?

    Oh I’m controlling your mind.

    Yes it’s me who’s making you right this bs.

  • Sophie B

    Ho hum. Then of course it should be O.K. if some businesses refuse certain services to straights. I am perfectly fine with some gay person refusing to cut my hair.

    Very few Christians are as obsessed with gays as you seem to assume. I told you that I never heard such sermons growing up. We never heard any fiery sermons at all. Please don’t stereotype.

    I know sharia law is only for Muslims. However, setting aside a separate legal system for one group is very problematic. They should learn to adapt to the laws in the countries in which they settle. We would have to if we settled in their countries. Do you really want honor killings reserved for the sharia courts instead of having the people meet justice in western courts? That will only encourage more honor killings. Let them learn to be adaptable to our laws. You mentioned they will have to change. Well they won’t if they are allowed to remain in their little sharia bubbles. The Jews are still answerable to the civil laws. It is not a parallel system in the way the sharia system would be.

    Oh, you used the word “shitholes”. Are you being Islamophobic? Or just practicing hate speech?

  • Sophie B

    It doesn’t mean anything since no church that I know of has banned people making birthday cakes for dogs. Why would they? It has never been considered a sin. Perhaps for Muslims …….

    They can watch all they want. If they are friendly, I might like to go out for coffee with them. (Although I am no longer allowed to drink coffee. Perhaps soft drinks.)

  • Sophie B

    Sorry. Not mainline so I am not paying much attention.

  • Sophie B

    It implies no such thing. Only that I love dogs.

  • Sophie B

    I said many.

  • Sophie B

    You assume to be able to read my thoughts. That is what all mind controllers do.

  • Bones

    Nope.

    You don’t understand mind control.

    I infer from your comments.

  • Bones

    Yes and you would celebrate a dog marriage ovet a gay one…..

    What a f#cking stupid conversation this has degenerated into.

  • Bones

    Wwwwwhhhhaaaatttt?

    You are now being completely and utterly moronic.

    Time for you to leave.

  • Bones

    You are incredibly stupid.

    Christians are obsessed with gays and now gay marriage. It used to be just the gays and the gay agenda but the Right have now retreated to fight over gay marriage….which they will lose.

    In fact it’s what makes you a Christian. I know because I’ve lost friends over it. So don’t give me your mealy mouthed gays aren’t a big issue for Christians.

    Civil laws are laws with regard to marriage, divorce etc and of course cannot be against state laws….

    So Jews and Muslims can get their marriages annulled through their own courts instead of secular…Some people prefer that.

    Bit like the fact that Catholics couldn’t remarry in a Catholic church unless the Vatican approved the annulment regardless of secular law.

    They can of course go to the secular courts if they do not like the rulings.

    So your creeping sharia nonsense is completely ridiculous and shows you don’t even understand what sharia is.

    And honor killings?

    Are you f#cking stupid?

    In case you haven’t heard that is against the law and as I ‘ve pointed out, CRIMINAL cases must go before the state. (Hence why we have The State vs Perps) in crimes.

    So no, Islamic courts can’t order honor killings neither can Jewish courts order that unruly children be stoned.

    It’s also ironic that you wish to implement Christian sharia in your own country.

    And no calling homophobic countries like Christian Uganda and Christian Russia shitholes isn’t Islamophobic……

    Like how thick are you…..

  • Bones

    Most people accept that discrimination is not acceptable in modern western societies.

    Normal ones that is….

  • Bones

    Yes apparently she loves dogs so dogs getting married isn’t an issue….

    Unlike gay people….

    And maybe gay dogs….

  • Bones

    I love you Paul…

  • Sophie B

    Once again, I never insulted you or called you stupid.

    Christians are obsessed with gays? Not the ones I know. In fact, it is rarely discussed. Once again, you pretend to know what is in everyone’s minds.

    I do know that in the UK, officials are often looking the other way in regard to honor killings. So yes, they are increasing. Besides it is not the courts that are ordering them. You should know that. It is an ancient custom.

    Christian sharia? What even is that? It would be totally against the Constitution. I am a very great respecter of the Constitution. Like many Christians, I am grateful for the freedom of religion we have in this country. It is unique. Most of us, particularly the Catholic church, are also glad we have the separation of church & state.

    Why do you persist in trying to know what is in everyone’s minds? You are wrong.

  • Sophie B

    No church that I know of would disapprove of baking a wedding cake for dogs; so no one would be going against his conscience to bake one.

  • Sophie B

    How do you know what I would do? A dog wedding might be fun.

  • Paul Schlitz Jr.

    Bones I always enjoy seeing your by line

  • Jeff Preuss

    No, no. That’s a “novelty” so it’s not meant to be serious, while gay marriage is bad because it…doesn’t take the sanctity of marriage seriously.

    Or something.

  • Jeff Preuss

    I’m not watching her. I couldn’t take her lying anymore.

  • Snooterpoot

    The Kleins broke the law! I don’t know this couple, but I think it’s safe to guess that they filed the complaint so that other people who are LGBT would not have to face the intolerance that they were subjected to.

    The Kleins were not the victims here, Sophie, and I am very, very weary of the Christians as victims game that some of us are playing.

    Again, they deliberately posted the couple’s names, address and phone numbers on their Facebook page, along with a copy of the petition, in what I believe was a deliberate and hate filled action to bring misery to the lives of these women and their children. They wildly succeeded, and if you cannot see how this stripped the couple of their dignity then I have to question if you have one ounce of empathy in you.

    The Kleins were not acting in the way that Jesus instructed us to act, and showed us by his example.

    I am quite frustrated with you, and I have banged my head on my desk too many times, so I have nothing more to say to you regarding the Kleins and their deplorable behavior.

  • Bones

    You’re insane.

  • Ron McPherson

    It’s all so confusing

  • Ron McPherson

    I’m thinking that there would be disapproval if say two male German Shepherds wanted to tie the knot, but if for instance a male German Shepherd wanted to wed a female beagle (i.e. a mixed marriage), then that would be ok (good to be open minded ya know).

  • Sophie B

    Thank you.

  • Sophie B

    The Kleins were fined for their refusal of service, not for revealing addresses of the lesbian couple. The state order referenced such.

    Then, Aaron Klein posted a copy of the original complaint, which was a matter of public record, on his Facebook page. He states he did not realize that the couple’s names & addresses were included. The complaint was only up for a few hours before it was removed; presumably by Facebook. Mr. Klein offered a full apology.

    Later, some supporter of the couple posted the private address & phone number of the Kleins online. This was clear malicious harassment.

    The Kleins have also lost most of their income. The donations coming in are probably temporary & can’t replace regular income.

  • rationalobservations?

    I am always sorry if I touch raw nerves or prick the pomposity of “the faithful” with my evidence supported observations and evidence based questions. I recognise the discomfort and embarrassment of many who come to recognise the fraudulent nature of the religion into which they have been indoctrinated from personal experience.

    Please try to toughen up and take a more objective view of the evidence that condemns your religion and all religion.

    Best wishes and sincere sympathy to you and all religionists.

  • Sophie B

    If you have any insight at all, you would realize that argument holds little sway with many of us. Christianity does not rely on physical proof. It never has. It deals with another reality beyond the constraints of the physical. Paul has told us people will think followers of Christ are crazy.

    Touched raw nerves? Hardly. Indoctrination? Some Christians have come to the faith after a lifetime of disbelief. They find delight. So, rant on, dear one, if you must. Just remember that for many of us you are beating your wings foolishly. Try to be more accepting of diversity. It will calm your nerves.

  • Bob Blaylock

      Romans 1:21-22…

    21  Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

    22  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…

      How clearly this can be seen, today, by those who know for what to look.  Men who have turned away from God, who have embraced folly and madness and evil, and who proclaim themselves to be somehow more wise, more enlightened, than those who do otherwise.

  • Bones

    Paul’s talking about idolatry, fool……..

  • Bones

    This is for you, Bob….

    Archbishop Tutu ‘would not worship a homophobic God’

    In Africa, homosexual acts are still a crime in 38 countries, according to the rights group Amnesty International.

    “I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place,” Archbishop Tutu said at the launch of the Free and Equal campaign in Cape Town.

    “I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this.”

    Archbishop Tutu said the campaign against homophobia was similar to the campaign waged against racism in South Africa.

    “I am as passionate about this campaign as I ever was about apartheid. For me, it is at the same level,” he added.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-23464694

  • Bob Blaylock

      It’s clear enough what Paul was addressing.  Idolatry may or may not have been part of it, but what he was addressing was a broader problem, of men rejecting the wisdom of God, and embracing, in its place, the folly of mortal men; of the resulting hubris and deception, leading men into madness and sin; proclaiming themselves to be wise, while being drawn down into folly.  Almost exactly what @rationalobservations:disqus is demonstrating.

  • Bob Blaylock

      I suppose the next step for Mr. Tutu is to declare that he knows better than God concerning adultery, murder, stealing, idolatry, and all manner of other things that God has clearly condemned.

      I see no reason why anyone should take seriously, what someone has to say about God, who is in a state of open and willful rebellion against God, while at the same time fraudulently pretending to represent God.

      Lucifer also thought that he knew better than God, and Lucifer also rebelled against God; just as Mr. Tutu has now done.

  • Bones

    It’s clear what Paul was addressing….idolatry and the practices associated with it…

    You are being exceedingly dishonest.

    If anyone is practising hubris and deception – it’s you.

  • Bones

    Yeah, I wanted you to say that Tutu wasn’t a true Christian…..

    I mean he’s done f#ck all compared to you who apparently we should take seriously.

    God is neither homophobic nor racist….unlike your idol.

  • Bob Blaylock

      Who do you think my “idol” is?

      The Bible is absolutely clear regarding God’s standards concerning sexual morality.  Homosexuality cannot be reconciled with these standards.

  • Bob Blaylock

      I’m going by the actual words written in the Bible—by what they clearly say, and by what they clearly mean.  You’re trying to force some external meaning on these words, that they do not support.  It is you that is being dishonest.

  • Bones

    What they clearly say is that homosexuality in this instance was associated with idolatry….

    “21 For even though they knew God, they did not [n]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [o]crawling creatures.

    24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for [p]a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed [q]forever. Amen.

    26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is [r]unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing [s]indecent acts and receiving in [t]their own persons the due penalty of their error.

    28 And just as they did not see fit [u]to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, [v]haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”

    It’s absolutely clear and you have to be dishonest or stupid to not understand that.

    It’s interesting that according to those verses God gives people over to their desires when they seek other things…..like the way you seek to hate gay people and the idol you have made of that….so God has given you over to your hate…..

    What do you think of that Paul…

    “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.” (2:1)

    So you condemn yourself either way….

    You see its called reading the whole book…in context….

  • Bones

    Your idol is the same god as the pharisees….it’s the one in your head…

    The Bible is anything BUT clear on sexual morality…..It’s only your idea of god which cannot be reconciled with anything….

  • Bob Blaylock

      Taking the Bible as a whole, it is quite clear.  Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, and sexual intimacy is acceptable only within this marriage, between husband and wife.

      There is no context given anywhere in the Bible, in which sexual behavior between two people of the same sex is acceptable.  Everywhere that any mention is made of it, it is condemned, along with adultery, incest, bestiality, and other enumerated forms of sexual immorality.

  • Bob Blaylock

      You’re using some other lesser translation of the Bible, that seems to be skewed toward a way of thinking that supports your position better than the KJV does.  I’m suspicious of such translations,not knowing what biases may have influenced the way it was translated.

      I’ll grant you that verse 23 can be taken as referring specifically to idolatry, rather than to a more general turning away from God.  For the sake of this discussion, I do not need to dispute this interpretation, so I will accept it, for now.

      That said, we still have verses 21 and 22 coming before it, which clearly describe, as I said, a turning away from God, and a substitution of man’s folly in place of God’s wisdom.  Whatever verse 23 describes, is a result of verses 21 and 22, and not the other way around.  Taking verse 23 as being about ideology,it is not saying that people turned away from God, darkening their hearts ,that they professed themselves wise and became fools, because they practiced idolatry; but that they practiced idolatry as a result of turning away from God, having their hearts darkened, and becoming fools while professing themselves to be wise.

      And what follows afterward, in verses 24 and on, is a result of what happened in verses 21 through 23.  A descent into evil and madness.  Vile affections, and lusts, all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful.

      And homosexuality is clearly described as leading among these evils.  There is no spin that you can put on this verse, even in the degenerate translation that you are using, to depict homosexuality as a virtue.  It is clearly described here as an evil, among other evils.

    ———

      In any event, we’ve gone somewhat astray from my point, in bringing up Romans 1:21-22 in the first place.  I merely meant to comment on the folly of those who turn away from God, who darken their hearts, who embrace mortal folly in place of God’s wisdom, and claim to be somehow wiser or more enlightened for so doing.  I wasn’t commenting so much, at that point, on where this folly leads, just pointing out the folly itself.  But yes, to read the remainder of that chapter clearly shows that this folly only leads one deeper into evil, madness, and degradation.

  • Bones

    The NASB is not a ‘lesser translation’ or whatever the crap that means.

    ” and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and [o]crawling creatures.”

    It’s clear what the context is – homosexuality within the context of idolatry in a pagan world for which God GIVES them over to homosexuality as a result of their idolatry…..

    We haven’t gone astray from it at all….becuause you’re the one thinking their wise who’s actually the fool.

  • Bones

    Taking the Bible as a whole – marriage was whatever culture defined it as……..

    From incest to polygamous to levirite to sex slave to concubinage……

    Actually adultery isn’t condemned for married men who have sex with single women…..certainly not in the Old Testament……hence concubinage

  • Bones

    According to Paul you have anal sex as well,Bob….

    ” Therefore you have no excuse, [a]everyone of you who passes judgment, for in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.” Roman 2:1

  • Bob Blaylock

      The Bible offers a wider array of arrangements, than is recognized in modern societies, as to which women were married to which men; but one thing is constant, and that is that marriage is always between a man and a woman.  The purpose of marriage is fairly clear, and it can only be fulfilled in the pairing between male and female.  Nothing anywhere in the Bible suggests any possibility of any such thing as “marriage” between two people of the ame sex; in fact, the concept is nonsensical and meaningless.

      And in many instances, a man was allowed to be in more than one marriage.  You’re simply wrong in stating that “…adultery isn’t condemned for married men who have sex with single women…”.  A married man, in many instances, was allowed to take another wife.  A woman thus claimed, was not a single woman, at that point; she was married to the man who had thus claimed her.

      Everywhere that marriage is mentioned in the Bible, it is clear that it is between a man and a woman.  And the bible is also clear that it is only within marriage, between a husband and his wife, that sexual intimacy is acceptable.

  • Bob Blaylock

      Assuming, still, that verse 23 is referring to idolatry, it is still just a step, between the turning away from God that takes place in verses 21 and 22, and the descent into total madness and evil that takes place from verses 24 onward.  And no matter how you try to spin it, homosexuality is clearly described here as part of this descent into madness and evil.

  • Bones

    Marriage isn’t a divine institution.

    It’s a cultural and societal one.

    That”s what comes out from the Bible.

    The torah didn’t create marriage.

    God has nothing to do with 2 people who commit their lives to each other.

    They are married whether you like it or not.

    I don’t see the difference between a wedding ceremony and people living in DE facto relationships.

    They are for all intensive purposes married…..if they are committed to each other. …marriage is just a formal recognition and declaration of that commitment.

    There is no magic that happens when you put that ring on.

  • Ron McPherson

    “You’re using some other lesser translation of the Bible, that seems to be skewed toward a way of thinking that supports your position better than the KJV does. I’m suspicious of such translations,not knowing what biases may have influenced the way it was translated.”

    Seriously?

  • Ron McPherson

    “And homosexuality is clearly described as leading among these evils.”

    Gosh, one would think it being the most egregious of sins that Jesus would have at least thought to mention it. Oh well.

  • Ron McPherson

    “And no matter how you try to spin it, homosexuality is clearly described here as part of this descent into madness and evil.”

    Bob,
    I’m curious. Do you know anyone who is gay? Or have you ever just sat down and conversed with someone who is in order to hear their story?

  • fiona64

    Germany & Japan benefited greatly from being under U.S. protection.

    I think someone missed a day or two of history class …

  • fiona64

    You’re using some other lesser translation of the Bible, that seems to
    be skewed toward a way of thinking that supports your position better
    than the KJV does.

    How about the original? You can check that out at http://unbound.biola.edu

    It amuses me that you think the KJV is the most accurate translation, though — because it isn’t. What it *is,* is a highly politicized translation commissioned by a paranoid monarch.

    You might want to grab yourself a copy of the Douay-Rheims if you want something closer to the original.

  • fiona64

    And no matter how you try to spin it, homosexuality is clearly described here as part of this descent into madness and evil.

    Given that sexual orientation was not even understood then as it is now, I’m keen to know from where you got this nonsense.

  • Sophie B

    That must have been you. Both countries had their new governments & constitutions practically drawn up by them by their conquerors. Japan’s was almost totally an American enterprise. Of course they were going to renounce militarism; at America’s insistence. We had fought these people & we did not want to ever have to fight them again. Would any country in their right mind have left them alone? Both countries also benefited by having American military bases located there for their own protection. Thus they both experienced boons to their economies while still being protected by important military powers.

  • fiona64

    You can look up the Marshall Plan, and the Civil Liberties Act, on your own time. Clue-by-four: reparations are not “running the country” or “protecting it.” Neither are status-of-forces agreements, which (guess what) do not include US (or, for that matter, any other nation) military forces protecting the host nation. I know, what a shock, right?

    Hell, since you’re clearly lazy, I’ll provide you links so you don’t have to hurt your brain using Google.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Liberties_Act_of_1988
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_forces_agreement

    No love, someone who has forgotten more military history than you’ll ever learn

  • Sophie B

    Just what can be your point here? The Marshall Plan gave the U.S. lots of influence over much of Europe’s policies. This is why the Soviet Union declined to participate.

    Yes, we did control & protect much of Europe & Japan at that time. We also protected Japan from further military aggression by China & the Soviets. We kept military bases there.

  • fiona64

    If you had bothered to read the materials, you would know what my point was.

    Look, sweetie. I spent 16 years working for the Department of Defense. I have literally written books on military history. Our SOFAs do not mean we are protecting countries where we are based. In fact, they are very clear that we do no such thing. Cheese and crackers almighty, woman; you just plain don’t know what you’re talking about … and I’m out of patience. I can explain it to you all day, but I cannot understand it for you.

    You need to get off your xenophobic horse and join Planet Reality. Start by cracking a frickin’ book yourself.

  • fiona64

    Wow. Someone “no true Scotsman’d” Archbishop Tutu? Seriously?

    And people wonder why folks walk away from Christianity in droves …

  • fiona64

    Here’s a clue for you before I block you, sweetie: calling out intolerance is not in itself intolerance. Quite the contrary. It’s speaking truth to power.

    If you don’t want to be called out as a bigot, stop acting like one. Easy-peasy.

  • fiona64

    You’re funny.

  • fiona64

    Um, sweetie? I hate to break it to you, but Jesus wasn’t Christian …

  • Sophie B

    Hey sweetie bunch. Try to collect your wits.

    Yes, we are most certainly protecting those countries. Why do you think Japan was never attacked? China wanted to seriously punish them. The Soviets had wanted to control Japan for a long time.

    BTW, I think you sound like you are a big pretender living in Mom’s basement.

    Xenophobic? I have never been xenophobic in my life. Your assumptions that you can see into my mind is very telling. Orwellian.

  • Bob Blaylock

      “Tolerance” only of that which you find agreeable misses the point of genuine tolerance; and reveals as hypocritical, those who proclaim “tolerance” among their defining virtues.

  • Bob Blaylock

      I’m not claiming any authority, here, to say who is or is not a Christian; but you have to admit that when one who claims to be a Christian openly despises Christian teachings, and overtly defends and embraces perverse and immoral behavior that is clearly condemned by the Bible, that this has to cast serious doubt on that person’s status as a Christian.

  • JD

    Rose: “If Christ placed human authorities and promised to lead them through the Holy Spirit, then we have the God-given authority of the Church.”

    What you are saying is that you believe that you have the authority to force others to abide by your religious taboos.

    And you wonder why folks wont take that anymore…?

  • Rose

    That’s not what I meant. He gave authority through the apostles and their successors (apostolic successors). I certainly have no authority to make doctrines, interpret the Bible according to my wishes, or make rules about how things should be.

  • Don Roberts

    IMHO, this is nothing more than a last gasp of a group knowing they are doomed to the annals of forgotten history. Yes, they may seem to having a heyday now, but their message is not new and has been repeated ad infinitum, to the point of being cliched. Will they ever go away? Probably not, but their numbers are dwindling even as their leaders become more vociferous. I would even venture to say that a majority of those supporting Trump may identify with fundamentalism, this is only because it’s human nature to want to identify with a group. I would even further venture to say that most don’t even attend church, let alone know what the Bible truly says. This movement is not, or should it ever be considered, Christian. It’s idolatry that’s replaced a living God with a man-made idol, the Bible. It’s a cult and like all cults they have their moment and ultimately die.

  • Snooterpoot

    Hi, Bones.

    Every time I read or hear, “the Bible is perfectly clear,” I know that people who are LGBT are about to get slammed.

    I don’t think I have ever read or heard one of these haters refer to 1 John 4:8

    The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.

  • Snooterpoot

    The Biblical canon as we know it today was compiled at the Council of Nicea. The Council was assembled by the Emperor Constantine, and the Biblical content reflects his own theology and political ideology.

    Any books or writings that differed from his beliefs were omitted.

    These Biblical “scholars” don’t know diddly squat.

  • Snooterpoot

    Thank you for your 16 years of service, fiona. Civilian service is as important as military service, but lots of people never thank the federal workers.

    I recently retired after 31 years of service to my country as a federal civil servant. I know how much a lot of people hate us.

  • Snooterpoot

    I wish you didn’t have your profile blocked. I would so totally follow you.

  • JD

    And yet you would take steps to have others abide by your religion.

  • Rose

    I would? What would I do? Enlighten me, since you know me so well.

  • fiona64

    That’s very kind of you to say.z

    The reason it’s locked is that I acquired a whackadoodle religious fanatic stalker … and I wish I were making that up.

  • Dave-n-TN

    Hi Snoot! I wish to also thank you for your Civil Service as you did for Fiona.

    My mother retired from Civil Service many years ago, I remember how much she enjoyed the work and the people she worked with. At her funeral many surviving coworkers were there and shared with me stories I had not known of their time working at the National Guard with mom.

    I have a question for you: why do people (like below) frequently use the phrase “go back to living in your mom’s basement” as a put-down? I have seen it several times and even had it used towards me in on-line discussions – which always makes me laugh out loud since they have no knowledge of my life, who I am, what I do for a living, that my parents home never had a basement, that I have not lived in my parents’ home for many decades, and that my parents are now deceased.

    Do those folks use some common small pamphlet entitled ‘What Put-downs to Use When You Have Nothing Else Intelligent to Say’ ?

  • otrotierra

    Evangelical trolls and bullies are quite common, as their own digital footprint clearly shows. So I understand your boundaries.

  • Proud Amelekite

    You accuse me of hate but I don’t feel hate. I feel no more hate for the evangelical tumor than I feel for the cockroach crushed under my boot heel. Feelings are for humans – not them. I feel nothing for them. Pure apathy. I am just making unbiased observations based on evidence from history and personal experience. Nothing more.

  • Proud Amelekite

    Unbiased observations based on evidence aren’t stereotypes.

  • Sophie B

    Just wait until a kind fundamentalist helps you in some situation. Sad if you think these people are not individuals.

  • Sophie B

    That is not hate? Looks like it.

  • rationalobservations?

    I recognise the degree of brain-washing and indoctrination many among the rump of religionists in the western world have been subjected to, Sophie.

    Christians are often baffled how atheists could deny the existence of their (originally Canaanite) god, “Jehovah/Yahweh” and their (Roman) god-man/”messiah” “Yeshua/Jesus”, but they shouldn’t be. Christians deny thousands of the same gods that atheists deny. Atheists just deny one more unconvincing god and one more mythical god-man (among many hundreds of thousands of very similar undetectable and imaginary gods, goddesses and god-men) than Christians.

    Some fail to justify their enthrallment to their specific brand of religion by pointing out that the non-existence of any of the gods cannot be proved.

    If inability to prove the non-existence of deities is enough for some to believe in them., they must be very busy worshipping Amun-Ra, Apollo/Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Pratibhanapratisamvit, Buddhist goddess of context analysis.and Acat, Mayan god of tattoo artists. and Tsa’qamae, north american god of salmon migration – and many thousands of other undetectable hypothetical entities among which “Yahweh” and “Jesus” remain merely mythical and of which no one ever provides proof or reason of (or for) existence and therefore non-existence may be assumed by default.

    Atheists don’t exclusively dismiss the possible existence of christian’s hypothetical, imaginary and undetectable Canaanite “god” and Roman “god-man”, they dismiss the possibility of all the many thousands of gods, goddesses and god-men/messiahs – and that merely includes the particular mythical Canaanite deity and legendary Roman god-man of the remaining – but in the developed world – rapidly dwindling – christian cults and sects.

    The existence of the oldest/first christer bible (Codex Sinaiticus) that was written by a small team of scribes in the late 4th century proves that the all bibles since then are the work of men, not the work of any of the gods.
    The “scriptures” have zero historical evidence based support.

    If you can contradict that statement you may find that you need to present evidence supported answers to these evidence based questions:

    1) Can you refer to any 1st century originated historical (non biblical / mythological!) evidence of the existence, life and times of a legendary god-man/”messiah” named “Jesus”..?

    2) Can you name a complete NT bible text that dates prior to the oldest/first 4th century Roman Codex Sinaiticus and new testament” bibles and that matches any complete text within the oldest/first 4th century originated Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus?

    3) Are you aware of – and can you explain – the almost endless differences between the oldest/first 4th century handwritten Roman Codex Sinaiticus bible and those many diverse and significantly different versions of NT bibles that followed it?

    4) Can you explain the confusion and internal contradiction, historical inaccuracies and scientific absurdity that is contained within all the many,many diverse and different versions of christian NT/OT bibles today?

    5) Can you explain the absence from Jewish literature of the Jewish prophesies that the god-man “Jesus” is claimed to have fulfilled exclusively within christian authored texts that only appear for the first time in the 4th century CE?

    6) Can you explain why “Jesus” (according to the legends within all versions of christian NT/OT bibles) fails to meet the specification of messiah that actually exists within any authentic pre-christianity Jewish literature, mythology and/or tradition?

    Please note:
    No book can be validated exclusively from within it’s content.
    Opinion is not evidence,
    Denial is not rebuttal or refutation.
    Diversion never works.
    Answering your own straw man instead of the specific question is often seen as a tacit admission of defeat.

    Kind regards and I look forward to reading your evidence supported responses, princess.

  • rationalobservations?

    Christians are often baffled how atheists could deny the existence of their (originally Canaanite) god, “Jehovah/Yahweh” and their (Roman) god-man/”messiah” “Yeshua/Jesus”, but they shouldn’t be. Christians deny thousands of the same gods that atheists deny. Atheists just deny one more unconvincing god and one more mythical god-man (among many hundreds of thousands of very similar undetectable and imaginary gods, goddesses and god-men) than Christians.

    Some fail to justify their enthrallment to their specific brand of religion by pointing out that the non-existence of any of the gods cannot be proved.

    If inability to prove the non-existence of deities is enough for some to believe in them., they must be very busy worshipping Amun-Ra, Apollo/Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Pratibhanapratisamvit, Buddhist goddess of context analysis.and Acat, Mayan god of tattoo artists. and Tsa’qamae, north american god of salmon migration – and many thousands of other undetectable hypothetical entities among which “Yahweh” and “Jesus” remain merely mythical and of which no one ever provides proof or reason of (or for) existence and therefore non-existence may be assumed by default.

    Are you “vehemently against” Amun-Ra, Apollo/Zeus etc et al?

    Atheists don’t exclusively dismiss the possible existence of christian’s hypothetical, imaginary and undetectable Canaanite “god” and Roman “god-man”, they dismiss the possibility of all the many thousands of gods, goddesses and god-men/messiahs – and that merely includes the particular mythical Canaanite deity and legendary Roman god-man of the remaining – but in the developed world – rapidly dwindling – christian cults and sects.

    The existence of the oldest/first christer bible (Codex Sinaiticus) that was written by a small team of scribes in the late 4th century proves that the all bibles since then are the work of men, not the work of any of the gods.
    The “scriptures” have zero historical evidence based support.

    If you can contradict that statement you may find that you need to present evidence supported answers to these evidence based questions:

    1) Can you refer to any 1st century originated historical (non biblical / mythological!) evidence of the existence, life and times of a legendary god-man/”messiah” named “Jesus”..?

    2) Can you name a complete NT bible text that dates prior to the oldest/first 4th century Roman Codex Sinaiticus and new testament” bibles and that matches any complete text within the oldest/first 4th century originated Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus?

    3) Are you aware of – and can you explain – the almost endless differences between the oldest/first 4th century handwritten Roman Codex Sinaiticus bible and those many diverse and significantly different versions of NT bibles that followed it?

    4) Can you explain the confusion and internal contradiction, historical inaccuracies and scientific absurdity that is contained within all the many,many diverse and different versions of christian NT/OT bibles today?

    5) Can you explain the absence from Jewish literature of the Jewish prophesies that the god-man “Jesus” is claimed to have fulfilled exclusively within christian authored texts that only appear for the first time in the 4th century CE?

    6) Can you explain why “Jesus” (according to the legends within all versions of christian NT/OT bibles) fails to meet the specification of messiah that actually exists within any authentic pre-christianity Jewish literature, mythology and/or tradition?

    Please note:
    No book can be validated exclusively from within it’s content.
    Opinion is not evidence,
    Denial is not rebuttal or refutation.
    Diversion never works.
    Answering your own straw man instead of the specific question is often seen as a tacit admission of defeat.

    Kind regards and I look forward to reading your evidence supported responses, Bob.

  • rationalobservations?

    Ofcourse you can play. Even if you have nothing relevant to write or link to, Sarah.

    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/972WKKno15E/maxresdefault.jpg

  • Proud Amelekite

    For the fundie Christian, the Bible is absolute, as written, God-breathed truth from beginning to end. To believe that Adam and Eve were real people in a real garden and that all of humanity spawned from them without dying within three generations of lethal inbreeding, you have to deny biological science, evolutionary science, and the realities of medicine. You also have to deny the reality of archaeology. To believe in the story of Noah’s ark as something which actually happened you have to deny architectural science, the mathematical impossibility of fitting so many animals on a ship that is 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits tall (for reference, the modern Carnival Cruise Dream Class ship is 1004 feet long, putting it at around 669.333 cubits in length), and anthropological science in the form of their being Aztecs, Inuits, and Native Americans who appeared to survive this flood without an ark.

    Those are old canards but we see it today and over the past ten years with the science of LGBT people. The World Health Organization concludes one thing and the fundamentalist Muslim and Evangelical cherry pick facts to support an opposing view that isn’t based on sound logic. You have to eventually choose one as the truth: verifiable fact or the Bible. You cannot have both without apologetic and apologetic is just making excuses and filling in holes for a text handed down by an omniscient, omnipresent being who shouldn’t need such lawyering to make his supposed truth palatable.

  • Sophie B

    Ho hum. It is too early in the day to be given a homework assignment.

    No theist needs to rely upon physical evidence because God, who created the physical, resides outside of it. Theism is poetry to your hard scrabble little proofs.

    Run along now little one. Catch me later for the rest of it.

  • Sophie B

    Ooooo. I guess you told us, huh?

  • rationalobservations?

    No. I don’t feel “better”. I feel good all the time.

    Meanwhile: Have you anything relevant and evidence based to contribute?

  • rationalobservations?

    Yawn…

  • rationalobservations?

    Oh yes…

  • Sophie B

    Yawn back at you. I have more interesting things to do.

  • Bob Blaylock

      That’s an awful lot of words, just to prove the point that I made in much fewer words; while trying in vain to refute my point.

  • rationalobservations?

    Thank you for agreeing with and endorsing my comments and indicating that my questions once again confound any who remain in thrall to the fraudulent businesses of christianity.

    BTW: Why do you think that you have made any valid, logic and evidence supported “point”?

    The evidence suggests that the majority of “godless” citizens have turned away from all the self serving businesses of religion and all the many thousands of imaginary supernatural entities in favour of peace and humanitarianism.

    The third largest and fastest growing human cohort are now called the “nones” and we predominate in the increasingly peaceful and law abiding developed world. Even in the backward regions of the USA, ever fewer folk bother with religion and overall the attendance of religious rituals in the USA is down to fewer than 17% of the population. That number is fewer than 6% in the more civilised and advanced regions of Europe.

    (Meanwhile: Maybe take another look at the questions you ignore and try to gain some semblance of credibility by attempting to answer them, Bob?)

  • Proud Amelekite

    The fundamentalist is below my hate and my empathy. Their death would not even inspire joy in me because are that low in my eyes. They are a disease to be cured. A thousand christian evangelicals die in Burma spreading the word of God or dying at the hands of ISIS is the exact same to me as a thousand disease causing bacteria dying on a towel covered in rubbing alcohol. They. Are. Nothing.

  • Proud Amelekite

    There are no such things as a kind fundamentalist. That is an oxymoron. They are narcissistic tumors incapable of human-level reason or empathy. If one helps you it is only in the hopes of turning you to their kind. You humanize them too much. A fatal mistake.

  • Sophie B

    Sad that you would have such a jaded attitude. I have been helped by some very kind ones. It is quite humbling. They never did try to convert me either.

  • Sophie B

    Charming. Christian evangelicals neither behead people, burn them alive, nor crucify them.

  • Martin

    correct

  • Martin

    right again. ignore the idiots.

  • Paul O.

    Everyone lives forever. The question is where you will spend eternity? In the spirit of love, Christians want you to spend that eternity in heaven with God and not alone in hell. We are required to speak against lying, corruption and the false religion of sexual promiscuity. Those who have not repented and put their trust in Jesus Christ cannot see the kingdom of God. He is the exclusive way, truth and life. You may not like the message but we all need to hear it. Peace to you in Jesus’ name.

  • Frank Turk

    The whole article is not at all surprising until you get to the author bio at the bottom: Dr. Corey allegedly belongs to “a collective of Anabaptist/Mennonite voices.”

    I’m looking forward to his scholarly research into the success of LGBT acceptance historically in the Anabaptist/Mennonite tradition.

  • Sophie B

    If you are a productive civil servant, then fine. You are to be respected. However, we probably have way too many civil servants than we need. They are often redundant. Studies have indicated they spend a great deal of time online on their own personal business, including pornography.

  • Sean Cantellay

    Great, thanks we have heard it. Over and over and over again and we reject it, all of it. You tried, you really did but have lost out in the battle of ideas. Time to pack it up and go home. Spend your time in prayer if you like but please stop with constantly bashing the rest of us over the head with your beliefs.

  • Paul O.

    It’s natural to be offended by the Gospel. You don’t want to hear the message and definitely want it to go away. I get what you’re saying but can’t comply with your request. “Bashing…over the head” seems a little strong for just sharing the words of eternal life. You are free to reject the Gospel at your own peril. But don’t think that Christians will ever be silenced. The battle isn’t cultural, it’s spiritual. That’s one battle that God will never lose.

  • JD

    You mean spend eternity with this god?

    No thanks. I have no need, want or desire to spend eternity with such a megalomanical deity.

    Btw, I am no more “offended” by the gospel as I would be of ‘The Iliad’ or other works of mythology.

  • JD

    If Jesus is worth his salt then he would know that 1 in every 1200-2000 are born intersex; that gender and gender orientation was never set in stone.

    Thus Jesus has no problem with gay folks.

  • Paul O.

    Megalomaniacal: A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
    By definition God is omnipotent. Therefore, He has no delusions of grandeur…He is grandeur. Your application of this term makes no sense in this context.

    Funny how your link is coming up with a body count by using the Scriptures as authoritative. In other words, it assumes the Bible is true to show how many people were killed by God. Yet you also state you believe the Gospel to be a work of mythology. You can’t have it both ways, there’s a logic disconnect there.

    In any case, the Bible has stood the test of time, rigorous textual criticism, is confirmed by archeology, science and other historical works. In other words, an honest investigation into the Bible shows its truth.

  • Paul O.

    JD, that’s a bit off topic (possible rabbit trail alert ;-) To address your assertion I would need to know what your view of Jesus is.

  • JD

    I stand by my statement.

  • JD

    You dont want my assertion, trust me.

    My statement is not off topic; if Jesus is the all wise deity he is portrayed as then he will know that gender and gender orientation was never set in stone. Thus he would have no issue with LGBTI folks whatsoever. Which means all anti-LGBTI rhetoric is nonsense.

  • Paul O.

    Your view on Jesus Christ is critical to your eternal fate. Nothing is more important. Go ahead, you can’t offend me.

  • JD

    “Your view on Jesus Christ is critical to your eternal fate.”

    If you believe such. I dont.

    As for the rest, re-read my prior statements.

  • JD

    The bible is the #1 reason I am not Christian.

    The behavior of many a Christian is #2.

  • Paul O.

    Since you’re familiar with the Bible, can I ask you a question? You say that Christian behavior is an issue. How do you know who is a real Christian versus a person who claims to be a Christian but isn’t? In short, how does someone become a Christian according to the Bible?

  • Paul O.

    Your initial assertion was that Jesus would believe a certain way about homosexuals. In order to make that claim you would need knowledge of the teachings of Jesus, His status and some understanding of Christian scripture. My question remains, who do you believe Jesus is?

  • JD

    My assertion is simple: any supposed all powerful deity would also understand biology and science. Thus Jesus would know that 1 in every 1200-2000 are born intersex. And he would also know that gender and gender orientation was never set in stone.

    As for myself; I believe he was a myth.

  • JD

    Compassion.

  • Paul O.

    Certainly compassion is a characteristic of a Christian. Also, as the Bible states, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. All Christians will have these characteristics but, of course, not all people who exhibit them are Christians.

    Jesus is very clear that no person has the ability to make themselves a Christian. No amount of effort or striving will make them a child of God. Only God, through His sovereign power can make someone a Christian. Unfortunately, many people who call themselves Christians, aren’t. So it’s best to be careful in condemning the behavior of Christians without knowing if they are actually true.

  • Bones

    Except there are atheists who exhibit those fruit as well and people from other religions….

    Actually one of the most Christian people I know was an atheist.

  • JD

    Compassion born of ignorance is not compassion.

  • Paul O.

    Reading in between the lines, I don’t believe you have any appreciable knowledge of Jesus Christ or Christianity. Most people who believe something to be a myth aren’t going to put much effort into understanding it.

    God’s Word teaches that we live in a fallen world. What was perfect is now corrupted. This corruption has introduced sickness, birth defects (such as intersex persons), and the consequences of depraved minds such as lying, thievery, adultery and homosexuality. We are all affected by this fall. No one is exempted. Christians aren’t better than anyone else, but they are saved by God by His devine election. Since Christians never merit God’s grace we are to never look down upon unbelievers. We simply seek to spread the message that God can renew our minds and offers us eternal life if we seek him with humility.

  • Paul O.

    Bones, If you read my statement I actually state that.

  • Paul O.

    I believe a person can have compassion without fully knowing another person’s circumstances. It’s how God made us.

  • Bones

    Where?

    So it’s not just Christians who have the fruits of the spirit or are childen of God.

  • JD

    That’s called ignorance.

  • JD

    There’s that Christian behavior I was talking about.

  • Paul O.

    Its there for you to read, “Christians will have these characteristics but, of course, not all people who exhibit them are Christians.”

    Only Christians have the Holy Spirit indwelling within. And as God’s Word states, only Christians are children of God, all others are children of wrath. That’s not to say that other people can’t show signs of worldly morality. God gave us all a conscience. We all inherently know murder, lying, theft and sexual immorality is wrong. But to one degree or another people suppress this truth because they love their sin.

    Christians have an objective moral standard that never changes. Non-Christians merely have preferences. They may prefer something over another but they can’t state that anything is absolutely right or absolutely wrong. Not without borrowing from the Christian worldview.

  • Paul O.

    That sounds hard-hearted. You wouldn’t show a person compassion without knowing their circumstances?

  • Snooterpoot

    Christians have an objective moral standard that never change.

    That is demonstrably false.

    Christians supported slavery. They supported the genocide of Native Americans. They supported Jim Crow laws.

    I think that’s enough to prove my point. And, frankly, I want nothing to do with your vengeful, angry, sadistic god.

    My god is a God of love.

  • JD

    Ignorance is not compassion.

    Any belief system that cannot accept facts and science is ignorance.

    It isnt compassion when Christians tell LGBTI folks that they are aboninations, damaged, damned, of the devil, going to hell, etc just for being how they are. It is ignorant and hurtful.

  • Bones

    So now you’ve just contradicted yourself.

    You are better than gandhI because of your religion.

    As for your objective morality, the very claim itself is subjective.

  • Paul O.

    There is a saying that goes like this, “God created man in His own image, and man has been returning the favor ever since.” You have created a god that doesn’t exist. God describes Himself as both a god of love and justice. If you leave out the justice side you have created a god to suit yourself. One of the oldest forms of idolatry in history.

    A righteous god must punish sin. Just as we demand earthly judges do so, so must God punish the wicked. That means we’re in trouble since we’ve broken God’s law and sinned against Him. Fortunately, because God is merciful He sent His son Jesus to pay the price for our sins on the cross. If you humble yourself, repent and confess Jesus as Lord your sins can be forgiven too.

    Christians have been on the forefront of the fight against slavery. Search the name William Wilberforce as a start. There are over 27 million people today that are in the bondage of slavery. Nearly all of them in countries that have little to no Christian influence.

  • Paul O.

    The word objective can be defined as not being influenced by personal feelings or opinions. Since Christian morality is defined by God, then by definition it is not subjective. Other moralities are a sorry mess of personal feelings and preferences that constantly change.

    So, Bones, does absolute truth exist?

  • Paul O.

    “Any belief system that cannot accept facts and science is ignorance.” ~ I agree, but the statement doesn’t describe Christianity. Christians are very open to facts and science.

    If a blind man was walking towards a cliff would you warn him of the danger? Or would you just reason that it’s his life to live how he wants? Christians must warn of the danger of sin. If we don’t warn the sexually immoral of the wrath to come then we would be unloving.

  • Bones

    Christian morality is subjective to your own interpretation..

    If it wasn’t for secularism, you’d still be like Islam, killing each other and hunting heretics and gays.

    Actually my understanding of the gospels is that Jesus was the total opposite to puritanistic and moralistic Christians who rage against abortion and gays.

    As for Absolute Truth it doesn’t exist in religion. It exists in the sciences as facts.

  • JD

    There’s that ignorance I was talking about.

  • JD

    “wrath to come.”

    How many millions, billions is your deity going to kill this time?

  • Bones

    Christians have fought against every civil right for gay people…….every single one….and would still be killing them if not for our secular laws.

    “A righteous god must punish sin.”

    Says who?

    This is bs you’ve made up in your head….

    Sin is a term made up to explain why we do bad things.

    It has nothing to do with God at all. He created us as sinners and imperfect. Original sin is the biggest load of nonsense Christianity has foisted onto the world.

    What sort of a God creates people knowing they are evil and is going to torture them for it.

    That blame rests squarely on that god.

    Who did Jesus punish?

    No one, derp…

    It’s funny that you have the same beliefs as the Pharisees.

    Enjoy your idol together.

    As for slavery, it was part of the historic Church – so get over it….so was hating Jews….and gays…..

  • Paul O.

    Ok, here’s some Christian morality…see if I interpret it well:

    You shall not murder. That means you shouldn’t murder people.

    You shall not lie. That means you shouldn’t lie.

    You shall not steal. That means you shouldn’t steal people’s stuff.

    So you assertion that Christian morality is subjective is false. But you would be correct concerning secular morality.

    You shouldn’t murder. Except when the state says it’s OK. Got pregnant due to sexual immorality, then it’s fine to murder a baby in the womb. Or certain people groups sometimes need to die. Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and Christians are all people groups that have been murdered by secular atheistic governments.

    Christianity is the only source of absolute moral truth. For something to be true in science it requires verifiable, repeatable experiments. Water freezes at 32F. That can be verified. We can agree on that fact. Science can’t provide you with morality. If you get your morality from secular sources then you end up with just following an ever changing set of human preferences. And since mankind is fallen and evil by nature this morality will not be pretty. Human history is the history of warfare and mayhem.

    Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Jesus also said that hating someone was equivelent to murdering them. His standards were very high. Might want to re-read the Gospels for a truer picture of Christ Jesus.

  • Bones

    What a shame that you can’t think for yourself and have to be told what to believe.

    Because if you’re wrong, God will buuuuurrrrrrnnnn you forever.

  • Paul O.

    The wages of sin is death. Everyone dies. You and me, our lives on this earth are but a vapor. But there is life after death. Jesus has the words of eternal life. Read the Gospel of John. It doesn’t take that long. Decide for yourself.

  • Bones

    Those aren’t Christian moralities.

    Those are the moralities of every civilisation predating Judaism and since….

    “Christianity is the only source of absolute moral truth.” – WRONG! How stupid is that…this is the religion that has given birth to some of the great evils eg anti-semitism, gay persecution, imperialism and genocide….

    You might want to re-read the Gospels for a truer picture of Christ Jesus eg Mark 10

    2 things you need to know about that passage
    1) Married men could have sex with single women and not commit adultery – that was in the Torah
    2) Married women could not divorce AT ALL according to the Torah.

    So what Jesus is arguing against here is not some puritanical moral code that every person must follow but a patriarchal unfair system which treats women unequally.

    You’re really no different to the puritanical Pharisees.

    In fact your god is exactly the same….

  • JD

    You didn’t answer the question.

    Try again.

  • Snooterpoot

    The Southern Baptist Convention was created because of a disagreement about slavery (they favored it). The members of the Southern Baptist Convention also strongly supported Jim Crow laws. A Deacon in the church I grew up in was a member of the KKK. Every adult in the church knew it. But, since Deacons in that denominations are appointed by votes of the members, it seems to me that either they didn’t care, or they supported his racism.

    The statement I responded to said that Christians have an objective moral standard that never changes. I just proved that to be false.

  • JD

    And folks wonder why I’m not Christian…. *sigh*

  • JD

    “Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and Christians are all people groups that have been murdered by secular atheistic governments.”

    *cough* Crusades *cough*

  • Paul O.

    No you didn’t. Although I do like your sharing a personal experience in the church you grew up in. Let me try to explain why your reasoning leads to a false conclusion.

    The question is should a belief system be judged by the behavior of its claimed adherents? Your argument goes like this: I know of some people who claim to be followers of (insert a belief system). These people are doing bad things in the name of that belief system. Therefore, the belief system is morally bankrupt and therefore is false.

    Take Islam as an example. Some claimed adherents to Islam strap bomb vests on and murder innocent people. Therefore, Islam is morally bankrupt and is a false belief system. The liberal left would never accept this argument because they would say the bomb vest wearers aren’t true Muslims and don’t represent Islam. I would actually agree that you can’t properly evaluate Islam based on the behavior of a minority of its followers. Rather evaluations should be based on its prophet and its writings. Seem a whole lot fairer? I believe so.

  • JD

    All of the following say that homosexuality is perfectly normal:

    American Medical Association
    American Psychiatric Association
    American Psychological Association
    American Counseling Association
    National Association of Social Workers
    American Academy of Pediatrics
    American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
    Child Welfare League of America
    American Association of School Administrators
    American Federation of Teachers
    National Association of School Psychologists
    American Academy of Physician Assistants
    National Education Association
    Royal College of Physicians
    Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (SSSS)
    American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT)
    World Health Organization
    Chinese Society of Psychiatry
    American Psychoanalytic Association
    British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy
    UK Council for Psychotherapy
    Australian Medical Association
    Australian Psychological Society

    I’ll take their research over your deity having issues with the LGBTI community,

  • JD

    “In other words, it assumes the Bible is true to show how many people were killed by God.”

    It no more makes it ‘true’ than someone dissecting Lord or the Rings or Harry Potter.

    Your mythology and the deity it portrays has a lot of blood on its hands.

  • Snooterpoot

    You said that Christians have an objective moral standard that never changes. There are many moral standards that have changed over the millennia that our religion has existed; support for slavery and Jim Crow laws is but one example.

    Churches and denominations that welcome people who are LGBT, after centuries of oppression and persecution of us, is another.

    The Southern Baptist Convention is the largest protestant denomination in the USA. While they have made progress ( they finally got around to apologizing for their support of slavery about 150 years after the War Between the States ended ) I think that they still have a long way to go before they can honestly proclaim inclusiveness for all of God’s children.

    So, Paul, your claim that Christians have an objective moral standard that never changes cannot be supported.

  • Paul O.

    Snooter, you pretty much missed my point. I think the issue is that we have different views of scripture. The Bible is the inerrant, infallible and inspired word of God. Every single word is true and comes from God.

    I have little knowledge of and no experience with the Southern Baptist Convention. I’ll take your word for it that they supported slavery at one time. Of course, the Bible tells us that all men are equal before God. So any support of slavery was by this group was a sin. It was a sin and not a different moral standard, but a false and abhorrent moral standard that violated God’s Word. Apparently, unlike the Bereans, they didn’t search the Scriptures.

    Regarding homosexuality, the Bible is quite clear. It is a sin and no Christian can be a sexually active homosexual. To say that homosexual acts are acceptable is to lie and is in fact a cruel misrepresentation of Christianity. No homosexual will be in heaven with God. That’s not to say there isn’t forgiveness for that sin. Repentance for sin and turning away from that sin is required.

    God’s word doesn’t change and one must take in its totality and not adapt it to the culture. Culture changes, but God’s word never will.

  • JD

    “No homosexual will be in heaven with God. “

    Nice way of saying all gays can just go to hell.

    As a parent to an adult intersex and transgender child I have no need of your homophobic deity, religion or bible.

  • Herm

    Paul O. your point is so humanly flawed. The Word is the only begotten Son of God. It says so clearly in the Bible you now idolize blind to the Word. No where in your Bible is Jesus ever witnessed to judge homosexuality as violating His word. Look up all that Jesus has ever said about what it takes to inherit eternal life and see where that condemns any consensual adult homosexual relationship. The Levite law yes, Jesus Christ’s and our heavenly Father’s law no. All the law and the prophets (the Levites were not prophets) is summed up in everything do to others as you would have others do to you.

    You want to know about repentance to become a disciple (little brother, sister, mother) of Jesus then you have to hate the vile traditions of allegiance to your carnal church and your family of Man, yes even your own common sense. The prerequisites are clearly spelled out here:

    If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

    Luke 14:26-27

    Then and only then can you know the Word in you and you in the Word:

    “If you love me, keep my commands. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

    John 14:15-21

    If you seriously wish to learn from the Messiah directly you first have to stop making judgments from the authority of your religion that does not know the Word personally. By your fruit it is easy to know that your church authorities only know of Christ from interpretive studies but are not in Christ and our heavenly Father and Christ and our heavenly Father is not in them, and as your religion’s disciple you are not Christ’s disciple. Today you are blind and lost. Today God is reaching out to you to repent from usurping Their authority to judge who and who does not inherit eternal life.

    Love is a bond and to love the Lord your God, who is only spirit, with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, with all your mind (the spiritual you in the image of God) means you have to be bound through the Holy Spirit (the Dove) filling (baptizing) all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind as the Spirit of truth fills all hearts, souls, strengths, and minds of all of God … not the least of which are Jesus Christ’s and our heavenly Father’s. There is no other Way but the Advocate of God to love with all your spirit, that you alone are responsible to, the Lord your God.

    The only way you can possibly believe in the Bible as inerrant and infallible is when you are not in Christ, the Word risen and alive today, as His little sibling student (disciple). I am in Him and He is in me and you are not.

    God is right here and in heaven right now. Who in the hell gave you the authority to determine “No homosexual will be in heaven with God“? There is only one perfectly living Judge with all authority over heaven and on earth who can make that judgment definitively and without your help. Your spirit of judgment is no less a sin (not in relationship with God) than was Caiaphas’ who judged to crucify the only begotten Son of Man by God in God’s name.

    Stay and learn but leave your ignorant judgments at the door.

  • RonnyTX

    PaulO to JD:
    The wages of sin is death. Everyone dies. You and me, our lives on this earth are but a vapor. But there is life after death. Jesus has the words of eternal life. Read the Gospel of John. It doesn’t take that long. Decide for yourself.

    Ronny to PaulO:
    True, the wages of sin is death. And what the wages of sin is not, is a Jesus Christ created hell of eternal torment. Now lets look at a scripture, about death and life.

    “20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
    22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
    24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” 1 Corinthians 15:20,28

  • RonnyTX

    PaulO to Snooterpoot:
    Snooter, you pretty much missed my point. I think the issue is that we have different views of scripture. The Bible is the inerrant, infallible and inspired word of God. Every single word is true and comes from God.

    Ronny to PaulO
    Paul, there is not one bible; but instead, there are many translations of the bible. Now are you saying all of those translations and everything in them, are inerrant, infallible, inspired words of God and all, 100% true?

    PaulO to Snooterpoot:
    I have little knowledge of and no experience with the Southern Baptist Convention. I’ll take your word for it that they supported slavery at one time. Of course, the Bible tells us that all men are equal before God. So any support of slavery was by this group was a sin. It was a sin and not a different moral standard, but a false and abhorrent moral standard that violated God’s Word. Apparently, unlike the Bereans, they didn’t search the Scriptures.

    Ronny to PaulO:
    I haven’t read up on this; but I have read that the Southern Baptist Convention formed, over a disagreement about slavery. Seems the SBC leaders approved of it. So, they broke off from the Baptist denomination they were in, that did not approve of it. They broke off and formed their own denomination, the SBC.

    PaulO to Snooterpoot:
    Regarding homosexuality, the Bible is quite clear. It is a sin and no Christian can be a sexually active homosexual. To say that homosexual acts are acceptable is to lie and is in fact a cruel misrepresentation of Christianity. No homosexual will be in heaven with God. That’s not to say there isn’t forgiveness for that sin. Repentance for sin and turning away from that sin is required.

    Ronny to PaulO:
    Then you would have a hard time explaining, how it is that I am a Christian, one who has been born of God and is gay/homosexual.

    PaulO to Snooterpoot:
    God’s word doesn’t change and one must take in its totality and not adapt it to the culture. Culture changes, but God’s word never will.

    Ronny to PaulO:
    True, God’s Word does not change. And that Word, is Jesus Christ. the Living Word of God. But the written word, what we call the bible, that has been changed in places by some people/bible translators. For example and as best I understand it now, it was in Jeromes Latin Vulgate translation of the bible, where a hell of eternal torment, was first added to the written scripture. But such was not in the scripture, as it was written in Hebrew and Greek.

  • RonnyTX

    JD to PaulO:
    “No homosexual will be in heaven with God. ”

    Nice way of saying all gays can just go to hell.

    As a parent to an adult intersex and transgender child I have no need of your homophobic deity, religion or bible.

    Ronny to JD:
    The best news is, that Jesus is the Saviour of every person and there is no hell, for anyone to go to. In fact, the only “hell” we will all catch, will be in this lifetime; but then this lifetime, does come to an end. So, we will all be spending eternity together. :-)

    A really good short article, on the link below, as to how I believe now, on somethings. And that webpage, it also has lots and lots of other good articles. :-)

    http://www.tentmaker.org/FAQ/DoesJesusREALLYLoveLittleChildren.html

  • Paul O.

    Gee Herm, I think I hit a nerve there. After reading your lengthy post you sound like a Red Letter Christian. Their assertion is that if Jesus didn’t say it then we don’t have to follow anything else in the Bible. This is a false belief and a heresy.

    “All
    Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for
    reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” 2 Tim 3:16-17 Get it? That means ALL scripture, not just the scripture that you personally like.

    You also deny the inerrancy of Scripture. Which means you cherry pick verses and subvert God’s Word. You have created your own religion to suit yourself. You are worshiping a god that doesn’t exist.

    “Or do you not know that the unrighteous
    will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the
    sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice
    homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Cor 6:9-11 What could be clearer?

    Since you swore at me by the powers of hell, “Who in the hell gave you the authority to determine…” I know that you are not a child of God, but rather a child of wrath. Repent, my friend. Do not have these words apply to you,

    “I never knew you; depart from me…” Matt 7:23

  • Snooterpoot

    I see. So, slavery was widely practiced in the Bible. Paul even told masters how they should treat their slaves. Ephesians 6:5-9.

    Slavery, then, must be an objective moral standard for Christians.

    Polygamy, requiring women who have been raped to marry their rapist; keeping concubines (men can have sex with as many women as they wish, but a woman who has sex outside of marriage is to be stoned, according to the Old Testament).

    Obviously you think hatred of people who are LGBT is an objective moral standard. But that’s your interpretation of scripture. Why is yours the only correct one?

    Does your denomination allow women to speak in church? Can they cut their hair? After all, it’s in the Bible, so it must be a moral standard.

    You can declare objective moral standards for yourself, and use the Bible as justification for them, but you, sir, are in no position to declare that your objective moral standards must apply to all believers, nor to anyone else on the planet.

  • Herm

    Thanks Paul, for reading through my lengthy post I sincerely hope you do this one better to actually comprehend your flawed authority.

    The Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy is not considered written by Paul because of the distinctly different character of prose. The author by most scholars today is referred to as the “Pastor”. When it was written there was no compilation of writing that we know today as the New Testament so the “All Scripture” referred to within is not the New Testament.

    Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

    Genesis 1:26-27

    Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

    Genesis 2:7

    Now read your quote in context:

    In fact, everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evildoers and impostors will go from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

    2 Timothy 3:12-17

    All of the spirit contained within the carnal species Man, in the spiritual image of God, is God breathed. God was only spirit, not any way carnal, until the birth of our Messiah. Jesus and our Father are spirit today. Does that make all of Man inerrant and infallible, because their spirit was God breathed? That’s rhetorical.

    This is the only Word who is inerrant and infallible:

    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

    There was a man sent from God whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him.

    He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ ”) Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

    John 1:1-18

    This is the will of our heavenly Father:

    Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty. But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe. All those the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away. For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

    John 6:35-40

    Now read Luke 14:26-27 and John 14:15-21 I shared with you above.

    Has Jesus shown himself to you or are you dependent only upon debates in interpretive theology (the study of the nature of God and religious belief) to know of Him?

    Be honest with yourself, please: Do you actually see and know the Spirit of truth today or is it only your faith that He must be because the Bible says so? Are you actually in Jesus and Jesus in you without pause as a little child of God, sibling of Christ or is it only your faith that He must be remotely active in your life because the Bible says so? Do you have only one Teacher as your only Lord God or do you serve many masters?

    Now let’s get back to your last parting gesture to me taken from the Bible out of context:

    “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

    Matthew 7:21-23

    Who in the hell gave you the authority to determine “No homosexual will be in heaven with God“?

    It was not my Lord God in heaven who gave you authority to do so. It certainly was not by the will of my heavenly Father that you usurped the authority of Jesus to condemn another when you do not know Jesus and He has never known you. You are a evildoer.

    So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

    Matthew 7:12

    “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

    Matthew 22:36-40

    “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.

    Matthew 23:15

    Paul, you have certainly hit a nerve. You took it upon yourself to come into this house and attack my friends and siblings of and in God founded on your phony authority. If the Bible does not serve you to find and be filled by the Holy Spirit to know the Word personally then throw it away for that was all it was meant to do. If and when you get to know the Teacher in you and you in Him then you will see the difference between Levitical law compared to God’s law as was first written on stone and lastly eternally written on the hearts and minds of Man who accepted the Spirit of truth fully. Today you are blind to the Spirit of truth trying desperately to make your converts twice as much a child of hell than you.

    Stay and learn but leave your ignorant judgments at the door.

  • Snooterpoot

    I was going to ask him if he thought John 1:1 referred to the Bible, but you addressed that more elegantly than I could have.

    Love you, brother.

  • JD

    So god is a homophobic.

    Who knew.

  • Herm

    Thank you Snooterpoot. Addressing the truth elegantly actually takes more time than probably even Paul O. is willing to spend in one sitting, or one carnal lifetime for that matter. The covers of our Bible can contain no more, with any more authority than I have, than to serve to point to the entirety of the truth in the Word filled by the Spirit of truth from, in and with all of God. That is the true value eternity offers for those concerned with the truth rather than their truth.

    Until we take the “i are” out of their we cannot come out of Man and into God to learn in peace and joy from the Teacher. Then we know exactly who He is.

    Love you!

  • Paul O.

    The Bible contains many pronouncements, commands and doctrines that offend our human sensibilities. Either you swallow your pride and accept them as from God Almighty or you must attack the Bible’s authority, as you have done. You really have no other choice.

    In your case, you have chosen to defend the sin of homosexuality. I could be wrong but I suspect your motivation actually starts with a soft heart. Probably someone you know, that you care about is practicing homosexuality and you desperately don’t want them to spend an eternity separated from God and suffer in hell. I empathize. Sexual immorality is a terrible temptation and God condemns it. We must obey God even when we don’t always agree with His commands. or definition of sin.

    So you attack the authority of Scripture because you don’t like what it says. Don’t like what 2 Timothy says? Claim it’s not inspired. Ignore its almost two thousand years of acceptance. Bring up the tired false objections of “most scholars” that are based on vocabulary and syntax differences that are overstated and circular.

    Jesus is the Word. The Word was given to men via the indwelling Holy Spirit and they wrote it down so that two thousand years later we can read the very Word of God. To deny the authority of Scripture is to deny Christianity itself. And that’s what liberal theology does.

  • Paul O.

    So by reading your last comments is it safe to say that while you grew up in a church, you are not a Christian.

  • Herm

    Paul O., is Jesus dead to you today. Did He, with all authority over heaven and on earth, leave you orphaned nearly two thousand years ago?

    “If you love me, keep my commands. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever— the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

    John 14:15-21

    Yes, “To deny the authority of Scripture is to deny Christianity itself.” You are coming ever closer by opening your vulnerable mouth to illustrate the blindness of your vision. “Christianity” is a religion solely based on theology (the study of the nature of God and religious belief) while being a disciple (student) of Christ is solely based on a relationship where He is the only Teacher.

    Do you see and know the Spirit of truth to accept him
    —or—
    do you know of him only by what you read in the Bible?

    How much of Jesus’ teaching, for those three years of ministry, can possibly be contained in the New Testament?

    You can’t possibly know how painful it is to watch you grabbing for 6,000 year old straws, first planted as “civilized” in the Fertile Crescent, on an earth that has known modern mankind for 200,000 years. Jesus knows real chronicles of history as He was the Word in the beginning. The real Good News (the real Gospel) is that Jesus lives to teach today all that we little children of God, siblings of His, exactly as we are ready to learn. It is superfluous for us children of God, by any name, to have faith that the Bible is pointing to the real Father and Son of God because they are in us and we are in Them.

    Why would you validate the Bible because you think it has been accepted for 2,000 years. Moses began writing the Old Testament 1,200 years before Jesus was crucified by authoritative justification supported by interpretations of scripture in the name of God. Were the religious authorities validating the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture based on its longevity?

    You simply don’t know God but, through the chronicled scraps of the Bible, you know of God.

    Answer the pointed questions I asked by telling us here how you read John 14:15-21. Use your concordance and look up all references to the Spirit of truth.

    We weren’t left orphaned by God.

  • Snooterpoot

    How dare you! You don’t get to judge the validity of another person’s faith. Only God gets to do that.

    You, sir, are a waste of good air.

  • Paul O.

    Wow Snooter, I was just asking a question. And you’ll know them by their fruits.

  • Paul O.

    Herm, you wouldn’t, per chance, have an autographed copy of the Da Vinci Code would you?

  • Herm

    Nope, don’t, but what I do have that you do not is a relationship in and with God devoid of religious and political conspiracy theories.

  • Paul O.

    I was just wondering since your writings reveal you to be a Gnostic.

  • Herm

    No, my knowledge is not mystical and is available for anyone who has the faith to to ask, seek and knock with a heart and mind open to God while fully cleansed of the traditions of Man.

    Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

    Luke 14:25-27

    If you knew my past scholarship and service credentials in the christian religion you would, also, feel that my writings reveal me as a “backslider” or more true and flattering a “progressive”.

    Your writings reveal that you are afraid to go to God directly for protection, providing and teaching without your family and your church. There is only one way to worship the God you are aware of from scriptures:

    Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.”

    John 4:23-24

    Answer the pointed questions I asked and asked by telling us here how you read John 14:15-21 from the Bible you hold so sacred.

  • JD

    Snooter has valid points. Care to address them, Paul?

  • Paul O.

    Yes.

  • JD

    So gays are doomed to live a life alone, never allowed to fall in love, marry, have a family.

    Your deity and religion sure is heartless.

  • JD

    “So you attack the authority of Scripture because you don’t like what it says.”

    That’s what happens when you justify hatred, discrimination and just plain ignorance.

    I’ve yet to see you post anything that would have me wanting to become Christian.

  • OhSoGood

    “You may not like the message but we all need to hear it. ”

    We do… every time one of our cousins screams “Allahu Akbar!”.

  • OhSoGood

    How is that any different from this?

    “It’s natural to be offended by the Koran. You don’t want to hear the message and definitely want it to go away. I get what you’re saying but can’t comply with your request. “Bashing…over the head” seems a little strong for just sharing the words of eternal life. You are free to reject the Koran at your own peril. But don’t think that Muslims will ever be silenced. The battle isn’t cultural, it’s spiritual. That’s one battle that Allah will never lose.

    Allahu Akbar.”

  • OhSoGood

    “confirmed by archeology, science and other historical works”

    The Standpipe as spoken of in Stephen King’s book It is real, ergo, all of It must be true.

    Logical fallacy.

  • OhSoGood

    Because the bible or koran says something is “absolutely right or absolutely wrong” does not make it so.

    Those books are followed by those who choose to do so… there is nothing absolute to any of it.

  • Paul O.

    Because it’s a different message, friend. Every other religion besides true Christianity involves earning your way to heaven. That’s why the Jehovahs and LDS show up at people’s doors. That’s why Catholics have to confess to a priest and do penance. That’s why Muslims wage jihad. In contrast, Christianity teaches that there is nothing YOU can do to earn your salvation, it is truly a free gift of God. But there’s one catch: you must be born again.

  • OhSoGood

    No, it’s the exact same thing. The only difference is the level of violence: and I honestly believe that if backed into a corner, christians are just as capable.

  • Paul O.

    I’m sorry, but your comment doesn’t make sense. Rather obviously all religions are not the same.

  • Paul O.

    I have no familiarity with the book you mention. In any case, you need to specify your logical fallacy you are asserting. Hope it’s not circular reasoning, because that’s not my argument.

  • OhSoGood

    A book containing accurate historical facts is not necessarily “true”.

  • Snooterpoot

    Every other religion besides true Christianity involves earning your way to heaven.

    I wondered if you’d try the No True Scotsman logical fallacy.

    Who are you to determine what True Christianity™ really is? You’re saying that Jehovahs, LDS and Catholics are not True Christians™ because you don’t agree with their theology. What makes you right and millions of other people wrong?

  • Paul O.

    Who am I? Just a sinner and a Christian. In order to be a Christian one has to have a right view of Christ. That view of Christ is contained in the Holy Bible. Mormons believe that Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer. That’s not the Jesus of the Bible. Jehovahs believe that Jesus is Michael, the archangel. That’s not the Jesus of the Bible. Catholics don’t believe that atonement is achieved through Jesus alone. That’s not the Jesus of the Bible. That’s why these groups have to add to or subtract from the Bible.

    I, and millions of other faithful Christians, believe and follow the Word of God. We are born again believers in the only God of heaven. All other religions are from Satan and will condemn their adherents to hell. Because of that, we truly pray they will come to know the truth and that the truth will set them free.

  • Snooterpoot

    So, you and the millions of Christians who agree with your theology are correct? Your interpretation of the Bible is the only one that is correct? How arrogant is that?

    The only thing we are commanded to do is to love God and love our neighbors. The problem that I have with your theology and those similar to it is that I don’t see much love. I see judgment, condemnation (from you, not from God), and, yes, a lot of hatred.

    Millions of other faithful Christians do not believe in your theology, but we don’t tell you that you aren’t True Christians™. Essentially, we just don’t see eye to eye about the Bible.

  • Paul O.

    It’s not arrogant to speak the truth. It’s not unloving to point out error. Where you see hatred I see a love for those caught up in cults and false religion.

    So, Snooter, what is your view of Christ?

  • Snooterpoot

    You speak what you believe to be the truth. Again, why are you right and millions of other Christians wrong? Also, Paul, it is not your place to judge others. Your job is to attend to your own shortcomings and be an example of God’s amazing love.

    When you’ve seriously answered my question then we can have a continuing conversation. If you don’t do that, then we are finished.

  • Paul O.

    Snooter, it is possible (indeed, critical) to be able to determine truth. From the way you write, one could conclude that the truth about Jesus and Christianity cannot be known. That isn’t true. For example, Muslims deny the divinity of Jesus. That is incorrect according to scripture. This error condemns all Muslims to hell. They follow the Quran (and other sources) that have error in them. These sources are not from God. The Bible is. It contains no error.

    You said, “Paul, it is not your place to judge others.” Is that your judgment of me? You see, don’t live by your own rules which makes you a hypocrite. Jesus said not to judge as the hypocrites do, but to judge with righteous judgment. That is what I am doing. To be unloving is to ignore error that has eternal consequences.

  • Snooterpoot

    We’re done.

  • Bones

    Except your version of truth is not factual but based on highly subjective interpretations of a Bronze age text.

    the claim that the Bible contains no error is undeniably not a truthful statement.

    It is a highly subjective one which Jesus himself disagreed with.

  • Bones

    God loves gay sex.
    that’s why he created the prostate.

  • WEs

    funny thing is this guy doesn’t even realize most of his views on “jesus” are really “Sol Invictus” insert pagan ritual Sun worship by Constantine and his cult buddies.

  • Snooterpoot

    Beautifully stated, Angel. Thank you. I find it quite disturbing that some Christians are gleeful in their belief that people like me will suffer eternal torment. That’s not the God I know; they haven’t learned the lesson and rich blessing of simply loving.

  • Paul O.

    You are completely missing the message of Christianity. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. That includes Christians. There is no one good, no not one. That includes Christians. Christians are saved by the work of Jesus Christ and through no efforts of themselves. Only God saves. Humble yourself and seek Him.

  • Paul O.

    And….your point is….?

  • Paul O.

    And…you’re point is?

  • Paul O.

    You completely misunderstand Christianity.

  • Paul O.

    And…you’re point is…?

  • Paul O.

    You’re welcome. What’s reason for picking your screen name?

  • Jennifer A. Nolan

    “Etched in jello’! I love that remark; it’s so true!!

  • Nixon is Lord

    You mean the Fundiegelicals are stuck in the same “Oh no, what happens when people start drifting away from our idiocy?”
    In other words, the Fundiegelicals are in roughly the same place the “Progressive” churches were 25 years ago: Denial.

  • Nixon is Lord

    So you want to dissolve this people and replace them with others?
    Interesting point of view.

  • Nixon is Lord

    Being gay is a gift, in other words?
    What about people who are born blind/deaf/predisposed to Type One diabetes?
    He’s either not paying attention or he’s got a sick sense of humor when handing out “gifts”.
    I’m not straight and even I know that it wasn’t a gift, anymore than being left or right handed.

  • Nixon is Lord

    There is no god.

  • Nixon is Lord

    You don’t?
    You and the Fundiegelicals have been fighting over who’s got the better imaginary friend for over 100 years.

  • JD

    Being gay is perfectly normal.

  • Ivan T. Errible

    It should be nearly as popular as Gay/Lesbian/Trans rights in the Orthodox countries!

  • Ivan T. Errible

    How about blind?

  • JD

    Are you trying to say being gay is a defect?

  • Ivan T. Errible

    No. Just against the facile identification of something that’s not obviously useful with a gift/blessing.

  • Snooterpoot

    I have nothing against atheists. Most of Mrs. Snooterpoot’s family members are atheists and so are many of our friends.

    I do, however, have something against petty rudeness. So, Nixon, begone.

  • Ivan T. Errible

    No. But would you choose it for your child, the way people abort fetuses with Down’s Syndrome?

  • JD

    I’ve and adult intersex and trans kid who is one of the most amazing people I know. So I have no problem with LGBTIQ folks whatsoever.

    Btw, fyi: all of the following say that homosexuality is perfectly normal:

    American Medical Association
    American Psychiatric Association
    American Psychological Association
    American Counseling Association
    National Association of Social Workers
    American Academy of Pediatrics
    American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
    Child Welfare League of America
    American Association of School Administrators
    American Federation of Teachers
    National Association of School Psychologists
    American Academy of Physician Assistants
    National Education Association
    Royal College of Physicians
    Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (SSSS)
    American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT)
    World Health Organization
    Chinese Society of Psychiatry
    American Psychoanalytic Association
    British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy 
    UK Council for Psychotherapy
    Australian Medical Association 
    Australian Psychological Society

    Are you saying LGBTIQ kids don’t even have the right to be born?

  • D.M.S.

    Yes it is….
    But God/Jesus can correct it.

  • D.M.S.

    No it is Not.

  • JD

    Yes. It is.

    All of the following say that homosexuality is perfectly normal:

    American Medical Association
    American Psychiatric Association
    American Psychological Association
    American Counseling Association
    National Association of Social Workers
    American Academy of Pediatrics
    American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
    Child Welfare League of America
    American Association of School Administrators
    American Federation of Teachers
    National Association of School Psychologists
    American Academy of Physician Assistants
    National Education Association
    Royal College of Physicians
    Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (SSSS)
    American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT)
    World Health Organization
    Chinese Society of Psychiatry
    American Psychoanalytic Association
    British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy
    UK Council for Psychotherapy
    Australian Medical Association
    Australian Psychological Society

    Science, facts and reality trumps primitive homophobic mythologies anyday.

  • JD

    Yet it can’t seem to heal being born intersex.

    Face it, your deity is a homophobe.

  • D.M.S.

    And all of them are wrong….

  • JD

    And you couldn’t be more wrong. And that is why you fail.

  • JD
  • D.M.S.

    And Satan has you right where he wants you.
    But with your reprobate mind you will never see the truth.

  • JD

    You are also a coward.

    You cant handle reality. It terrifies you. You can’t cope. So you hide behind a paranoid and pathetic mythology that demonizes everybody that you don’t like to justify your fears. A classic example of mental illness.

    Seek help.

  • D.M.S.

    I fail to how mankind believes. I strive for God/Jesus literal word to live by in my life.
    I’m a learning Christian.

  • JD

    ‘Learning’ suggest continuing education and changing viewpoints as you groe. But you are not learning. You are not growing. Not in the least.

    You have put your mind in a box and sealed off from the rest of the world because you’re terrified of it.

    You’ve been repeatedly shown evidence, facts, science and reality that contradicts you’re pathetic paranoid homophobic mythology. And still you cling to it like a lifeline. All of which suggests that you have serious mental issues and are incapable of living in the real world. Instead you hide in your mythology pointing fingers at everybody else claiming they are your problem thus giving you the excuse to not deal with your own illness.

    So, no, DMS, you’re not in any sense of the word a learning Christian. In fact you have demonstrated repeatedly that you have mental issues.

    Seek help. Now.

  • D.M.S.

    I seek help a few times everyday through the reading of Christian scripture.
    The HolySpirit helps me to understand what I’m reading.
    So I can pass it on to help others to know Christ Jesus.

  • JD

    That’s not learning.

    That’s applying more duct tape to your closed mind.

  • D.M.S.

    Opinions vary….:-)

  • D.M.S.

    Who is the ruler of this earth?
    Hint: John 16:11.

  • D.M.S.

    You’re the one of many on this forum that can’t accept the reality that we live in a fallen world. You’re all to frightened to accept that reality.
    You’re all to frightened to accept the real Christ Jesus into your lives.
    Because you’re to much in love with your chosen sin(s) that all of you don’t want to give up.
    Repent soon, all of you, before its to late to do so.

  • JD

    Thosr who belive in hell and demoms are confined by them.

    Free your mind.

  • JD

    No wonder you’re so paranoid; you see demons around every corner. Another symptom of a delusional mind.

    Seek help.

  • JD

    Only in your very paranoid and homophobic mythology. One of gazillions on this planet.

  • TS (unami)

    There’s a very big difference in sharing the gospel in kindness and love verses trying to actively restrict and deny the civil rights of other citizens.

    Fundamentalists have missed the plot: Jesus never said to push people down but to lift them up, to treat all with dignity, kindness and respect. To love our neighbor even as we love ourselves, even as Christ loves us all.

    Until Fundamentalists realize that the ones they hate so much (LGBT, immigrants, races unlike their own, Muslims, Jews and other religions, and women) are ALL *also* made in God’s image, then they will continue to fail in communicating one iota of Grace, of Mercy or Love to anyone.

  • TS (unami)

    Not for you.

  • TS (unami)

    Look who’s acting as Pope now…

  • TS (unami)

    Not a blessing to you. So don’t presume to judge the life given to another — you’re not God.

  • TS (unami)

    Logic fail: Catholics actually, really, truly *are* Christians.

  • TS (unami)

    Nope. You don’t understand Catholics at all. There is benefit in many traditions because they *reinforce* our faith, not replace it. I’m not Catholic, but even I see that.

  • TS (unami)

    We lovingly pointed out how you have been wrong to misjudge other Christians.

  • D.M.S.

    And not to God/Jesus, either…

  • TS (unami)

    Sorry, but you’re not God, not Jesus.

  • D.M.S.

    Where’s the Christian scripture that states that God/Jesus condone homosexuality?
    I’ve never read it anywhere in my bibles.

  • TS (unami)

    Excuse me, Anonymous person suddenly entering the conversation?

    I disagree with him and said so. That’s hardly trolling.

    Your “fly-by” accusation, on the other hand, qualifies as a trolling comment… Do you have anything constructive to say?

  • TS (unami)

    This has been *repeatedly* explained to you by many people on multiple threads, DMS. The references you love to trot out all refer to pagan idol worship — not a committed, loving and faithful monogamous same sex marriage.

    Furthermore, Jesus healed the Roman Centurion’s Pais lover and didn’t tell him to go and sin no more. In fact, Jesus *never* said anything against LGBT people — ever! He had far more to say about greed, divorce and the self-righteousness of religious leaders… Why don’t you focus on those things that He DID mention?

  • D.M.S.

    Nowhere in scripture does it state that the Centurions friend and him were lovers. It’s the sick minds of the lgbtq people that read things into Christian scripture that isn’t there.
    Yeshua stated in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 that homosexuality was an abomination unto Him.
    Romans 1:18-32 states the same. With John 10:30.
    How many times does scripture have to tell you people what sins are sins before you believe them?
    This proves with out a doubt that all of the lgbtq are mentally ill ( reprobate minds ).

  • JD

    A deity created a male proto-human out of clay. Then it took a male to female genetic clone of it so the two could breed. Thus whole human race was born.

    As creation myths go I’ve always found this one to be one of the most silliest. And yet that myth suggests that the human body is malleable and that gender is not static and is in fact fluid.

    Curiously though there’s the second creation myth that says god made humanity in its image; male and female. Which suggests that the god of the bible is both genders thus making it intersex and/ or transgender. Both myths support the reality that 1 in every 1200-2000 are born intersex and that gender and gender orientation was never set in stone.

    Also, just fyi:

    All of the following say that homosexuality is perfectly normal:

    American Medical Association
    American Psychiatric Association
    American Psychological Association
    American Counseling Association
    National Association of Social Workers
    American Academy of Pediatrics
    American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
    Child Welfare League of America
    American Association of School Administrators
    American Federation of Teachers
    National Association of School Psychologists
    American Academy of Physician Assistants
    National Education Association
    Royal College of Physicians
    Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (SSSS)
    American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT)
    World Health Organization
    Chinese Society of Psychiatry
    American Psychoanalytic Association
    British Association for Counseling and Psychotherapy
    UK Council for Psychotherapy
    Australian Medical Association
    Australian Psychological Society

    So, in reality those who believe in a highly paranoid and homophobic belief system demonstrate signs of mental illness and thus should seek help.

  • TS (unami)

    You continue to refuse to study the Bible in light of historical fact — a Roman soldier’s Pais was his homosexual lover.

    You’re furthermore not qualified to declare *anyone*mentally ill. Beware judging others.

  • Paul O.

    If you’re not Catholic what’s your motivation? How do you characterize yourself?

  • TS (unami)

    I was Orthodox for most of my life. The Catholic church split with the Eastern churches in 1054, long after the Canon of scripture was settled.

    I’m Anglican now and our faith and traditions are remarkably similar. For all the ancient churches, we adhere to the truth contained in the Nicene Creed which summarizes the Christian faith, for both believers and those who are seeking Christ.

  • Paul O.

    This is a first, I’ve never talked with an Anglican before. Here’s a statement I found after a brief search. Could you comment on it?

    The doctrine of the Anglican Church is an interesting mix of Catholicism and Protestant Reformation theology. The Apostles’ Creed and Nicene Creed are authoritative declarations of belief for the Anglican Church and are typically recited in worship services. Interestingly, the church does not require individuals to agree with or accept all the statements of those creeds but encourages its members to join in the process of discovery. The 39 Articles, developed in the reign of Elizabeth I, laid out the Protestant doctrine and practice of the Anglican Church, but were deliberately written to be so vague that they were open to various interpretations by Protestants and Catholics. As in the Catholic Church, the celebration of the Eucharist is central to the worship service, along with the communal offering of prayer and praise through the recitation of the liturgy. In all liturgical churches, there is a danger of allowing the form of religious ceremony (Isaiah 29:13) to replace the personal application of faith (Psalm 51:16-17). This was a key point of contention by the Puritans and others who ultimately left the Anglican Church.

  • TS (unami)

    What source did you use? Anglicans and Episcopalians don’t think of themselves as Protestant.

  • TS (unami)

    Unfortunately, all you’ve copy-pasted appeared to have come from a Southern Baptist web site called “got questions” — they’re not exactly known for being free of bias or even accurate on many points.

    Why don’t you check out the official Anglican and Episcopal web sites instead?

  • D.M.S.

    Please present the Christian scripture that backs up your statement. Unless you can present it in the Christian bible, NKJV or KJV only, then no Christian should believe it to be true. Mankind’s history is mainly lies.

  • D.M.S.

    if anyone tells anyone, that God/Jesus/HolySpirit condones a committed, loving and faithful monogamous same sex marriage. Then that person who is telling them that’ HATES ‘ all of you with a passion and wants to make sure that all of you burn in hell for eternity.

  • TS (unami)

    Oh please. God doesn’t want us to turn off our brains; ignorance of history does nothing to aid a true understanding of the people, the culture and the text of the Bible.

  • TS (unami)

    Umm. Nope.
    You know, Jesus never said that only heterosexuals go to heaven. He didn’t say anything, in fact, against LGBT people.

    Perhaps your hostility is entirely misguided. I hope you learn to love your neighbor as Christ taught us to.

  • D.M.S.

    I have no hostility towards anyone.
    I just hope that all of us can see our error and repent.
    And give our best to serve our Lord Christ Jesus.

  • D.M.S.

    I hope someday soon you can forgive yourself for all the sins that you have committed against God/Jesus.
    And repent ( Metanoia) of all of your sins against Him.

  • TS (unami)

    You further than I’m also a Christian, DMS — of course I ask God for forgiveness whenever I sin. But one thing you fail to understand is that God *made* me as He did and that’s not a sin. It’s not a sin to have blue eyes, be left-handed, have red hair or be a lesbian. Your orientation wasn’t chosen and neither was mine — because that’s how God was pleased to make each of us.

    I wish you well.
    Goodbye.

  • D.M.S.

    Oh please, take off your rose colored glasses.
    Our historians basically told us nothing of the accomplishments of the black race in America for the last 200+ years. We have just found out some of their accomplishments in the last 30+ years.
    And you expect the historians of today to know what happened 1900+ years ago. We depict Christ Jesus in almost all pictures of being a white man.
    But if you actually look into history yourself. Most of the tribes of Israel in the 1st century were dark skinned. Which means more than likely that our Lord Christ Jesus was dark skinned.
    The Romans were light skinned people. Isn’t that where the RCC is from? Wake up read history for yourself, without the glasses.

  • TS (unami)

    Nowhere did I mention skin color and I’m sorry that you have a problem with Jesus being brown — He was Jewish man, so of course He had brown skin.

    I mentioned *culture*, not race.

    Look, DMS, I’m not going to go around in circles here. If you think you can’t learn anything from history and let that information help you to understand the scripture by the guidance of that knowledge in light of the Holy Spirit, then I can’t help you.

    I’ll pray for you.
    Have a good day.

  • Ron McPherson

    “Unless you can present it in the Christian bible, NKJV or KJV only, then no Christian should believe it to be true.”

    Well now that is an astounding claim. So Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek don’t count (the original languages of the actual biblical authors), but only a specific English version does. First it was the medical industry being paid off to lie for four decades, now this. If only the KJV and NKJV counts, that sure doesn’t help the non/English speaking world. Like, I’m sorry to all you Spanish speaking people, or Russian, or Chinese, or French, or whatever, you can’t read the Bible until you learn English, cause you know, the only real bible is the KJV/NKJV.

  • D.M.S.

    I was trying to relate the fallacies of history.
    Historians lie.
    I have no problem with Our Lord being dark skinned.
    But I gaurantee there will be some people that do.
    You can’t talk to people who don’t believe that they’re sinning.
    Goodbye.

  • D.M.S.

    They are the only language that I read. I don’t read Greek or Hebrew. I don’t trust man’s interpretation of our Christian scripture, unless he can back it up with more Christian scripture.

  • Paul O.

    I’m mearly asking for your comments on the statement. The statement comes from, The Complete Guide to Christian Denominations: Understanding the History, Beliefs, and Differences, Updated and Expanded By: Ron Rhodes

    It doesn’t actually matter the source of the statement. It’s either valid, partially valid or false. That’s what I’m asking you. Tell me about the Anglican Church and what it believes.

  • Ron McPherson

    But you realize the KJV/NKJV was based on man’s interpretation of the original languages right? I mean, it didn’t fall out of the sky

  • TS (unami)

    We attend a local Episcopal Church, which is part of the Anglican Communion. Here’s more info about our basic beliefs:
    https://www.episcopalchurch.org/what-we-believe

  • D.M.S.

    By biblical scholars….right wolf.

  • Ron McPherson

    LOL! Ok, wait. So tell me on what evidence you believe the biblical scholars in the 17th century got everything right with the KJV, but biblical scholars in the 20th and 21st centuries got it wrong with the 52 or so other main English translations since then. By the way, with the continuous name calling, are you an adult?

  • D.M.S.

    Mathew 7:15.
    15. Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
    16. You will know them by their fruits.
    That’s what you and Herm are ravenous wolves. Out to devour anyone that doesn’t believe the way that you do. You all believe your sins are alright with God/Jesus. None of you give any glory to God/Jesus in any way, shape or form.
    I’ve tried for the past 6+ weeks to show all of you the errors of your ways and none of you listen to anything.
    It didn’t hit me until yesterday.
    How are people going ask forgiveness for their sins from God/Jesus.
    If they don’t believe that they’re sinning.
    You were right the other day.
    You people are completely
    ‘ blind as a bat ‘ to your sins.
    Goodbye, wolves.

  • Ron McPherson

    “That’s what you and Herm are ravenous wolves. Out to devour anyone that doesn’t believe the way that you do.”

    This is beyond unbelievable. It is YOU who is attempting to “devour” with your endless name calling and inability to engage in honest discussion. You come on here with your absurd claims and have the audacity to make such a claim. Physician, heel thyself.

    “You all believe your sins are alright with God/Jesus. None of you give any glory to God/Jesus in any way, shape or form.”

    You are either delusional or lying. In no way do I believe that my sins are alright with God. For some inexplicable reason, you believe I casually dismiss sin merely because I don’t rail against others like you do.

    “I’ve tried for the past 6+ weeks to show all of you the errors of your ways and none of you listen to anything.”

    Uh huh. To show the rest of us “the errors” of our ways. None of us listen because you don’t know how to engage in any type of meaningful discussion. Instead, you come on here ranting over the ‘sins’ of others, and when you get called on the carpet for it you resort to name calling. Just what on earth gives you the idea that you have authority here to speak for God?

    “How are people going ask forgiveness for their sins from God/Jesus. If they don’t believe that they’re sinning.”

    It boggles my mind that you think people will “ask for forgiveness” only when you tell them to. Dear God in heaven, do you put this much authority into your own hands? God through the Spirit is perfectly capable of dealing with people and conforming them without you messing it all up for them.

    You just spout off apparently what you’ve been told and when anyone challenges you on your failed logic or clarification on why you believe what you believe, you just resort to name calling. Just in the last couple weeks you have called people wolf, fools, and nuts, and asserted (or at the very least strongly insinuated) that:
    1) the KJV/NKJV are the only valid biblical translations (I guess non-English speaking people are just outta luck)
    2) “every LGBT person on this earth is mentally ill” (your exact quote), unless they’ve turned from it (which I suppose makes them suddenly sane)
    3) the medical community has been paid off (by unnamed people, with unnamed sources of money, for unnamed reasons) over the last four decades to lie about homosexuality
    4) the medical and scientific communities “are just as mentally ill as the LBGTQ communities” (another direct quote)
    5) I don’t love my own son because I haven’t told him that he is mentally ill (based on this alone, I feel I’ve been rather restrained in my responses to you)
    6) Gay people should not be afforded equal rights in our society
    7) Gay people are actually hated by those who do NOT rail against their “sins” like you do
    8) Gay people actually CHOOSE to leave heterosexuality (like they were once attracted to those of the opposite sex but just decided to start liking those of their same gender, apparently just so they can be marginalized and ostracized by people like you; oh, and abandoned by their family and churches too; yeah, who wouldn’t want in on all that utopia)
    9) People who perpetually overeat won’t be allowed into heaven (I guess that means the other 326 people in your church, who according to you think like you do, are slim and trim)
    10) “99% of mankind is absolutely disgusting” (again, your exact quote)
    11) Believers in science are “barbarians”
    12) gay people in a relationship with another are no different than pedophiles, those who engage in bestiality or have relations with the dead (like you apparently can’t tell the difference between two loving adults and child abusers)
    13) The “liberal nazi media” blames Trump for everything
    14) “less than 1%” of Catholics will make it into heaven (like God must have given you a precise number I suppose)
    15) Science is only about 50% true (ok, I suppose you’ll have to concede they at least got the eclipse right)
    16) The bible is the “100% literal word of God” (but just the Protestant version written in KJV or NKJV)
    17) This forum is a satanic cult (which kinda makes you wonder why you spend so much time on it)
    And this is just over the last two weeks or so. Oh, and you describe yourself on your profile as “a learning Christian.”

    Ok, now that I got all that off my chest….

  • D.M.S.

    You are right every last one of you are ‘ blind as a bat ‘ to your sins.
    And you haven’t learned a thing.
    I truly hope some day soon that all of you leave that wide gate and enter the narrow gate of probably less than 1%.

  • Paul O.

    Thanks for the link. It appears to me that gotquestions and the book by Ron Rhodes accurately characterizes the Episcopal and Anglican Church. I’ll have to pick up a copy of his book. Should be an interesting read.

  • Ron McPherson

    Does D.M.S. stand for “Disregard MY Sins”?

  • D.M.S.

    I ask repentance for my sins everyday.

  • Ron McPherson

    And I do as well

  • JD

    No one in their right mind wants to worship your homophobic demi-god, DMS.

  • D.M.S.

    Then I hope that you can turn your son back to God/Jesus as well.

  • Ron McPherson

    Your lack of both discernment and sensitivity knows no bounds

  • Ivan T. Errible

    How about blindness? Could that be a blessing?

  • TS (unami)

    Pardon? Care to elaborate?

  • D.M.S.

    I’m not completely insensitive.
    I can tell by our conversations over the past few days that you love and care about your son a great deal.
    I can see that most everyone on this forum considers me to be some kind of ‘ arse ‘ to put it mildly.
    But I can’t figure out for the life of me, for a people who claim that they know God/Jesus.
    That’s they believe that hell doesn’t exist.
    Take care…..

  • JD

    For if hell exists than the love of god fails.

  • JD

    “I’m not completely insensitive.”

    Oh, you’re much worse. You’re calloused.

    Calling people Satan is callous.
    Calling people who are gay mentally ill is callous.
    Telling people they’re only worthy of hell is callous.

    And you know what is worse? You don’t give a damn about the hurt and damage you do.

    Imagine a young gay child. All their life all they heard is how being gay is an abomination. How being gay is a mental illness. How god hates gays. How gays are only deserve to be in hell. Much of this abuse is from their own family members. Do you know that up to 40% or more of homeless teens are LGBTIQ? Many were thrown out by their own families. Or are threatened to the point where they feared for thier life and run away just for being born LGBTIQ.

    Then you come along and call them of Satan. You call them wolves. You call them mentally ill. You want them ripped away and confined. Is it any wonder that way too many gay children can no longer take the hatred and pain from people like you and kill themselves?

    Your words are hateful.
    Your words are ugly.
    Your words are callous.

    Your words kill.

    I pray to god you don’t have any children. And I pray to god that none of your children is gay. For all they’re hearing from you is how damaged they are, how unworthy they are, how they’re only worthy of hell, how they are Satan. I pray to god you never experience the pain and trauma of finding your child dead by their own hand.

    So next time you get ready to tell someone that they are ‘Satan’ or ‘mentally ill’ because you think they’re gay just remember: a gay child somewhere may be reading your words. Words that for them are the last straw and they end the pain.

    Permanently.

    Your words kill, DMS.

    Your. Words. Kill.

    And you will be held accountable for them.

    Instead of worrying about a mythological hell try worrying about the literal hell you are creating for gay children right here, right now.

  • Paul O.

    Thanks for the link. After reviewing it I would say the Ron Rhodes book and gotquestions accurately represented the Anglican Church. I’m going to have to pick up a full copy. Should be an interesting read.

  • Ron McPherson

    Is there a capability on Disqus where I can upvote this a thousand times! Thank you!

    A couple of years ago the new youth minister at the church where my son was actively involved invited him to lunch. My son thought they were going to talk about a particular ministry he had signed up to help with. Instead, the youth minister blindsided him by telling him there were ‘rumors’ that he was attracted to the same sex. It came out of the blue, my son was not even ‘out’ (his grandparents and many of my own friends still do not know). The youth minister told him that if he felt he needed to leave the church he understood. Like, if you want to leave go ahead. It’s ok.

    My son was even in the assistant youth minister’s own wedding, but the new guy (the lead youth minister) did the dirty work. And to this day, not one youth leader (and he was even close with them) has EVER reached out to my son since then. Nothing. Nary a word. Basically just kicked his a$$ out the door. Now he occasionally goes to the church my wife and I attend, that is far more accepting. But his zeal for church has been shot.

    People just don’t get it. They just don’t. It blows my mind how Jesus spent practically his whole ministry loving the ‘outcasts’, preaching the spirit of scripture over the letter of it, literally declaring that the world would know who his followers were by the LOVE they have, and going so far as to say that the greatest commandment is to love God and neighbor. He also spent his whole ministry being attacked by the religionists. It’s like it’s the same old crap, only now it’s being done in HIS name. Like, how many ways can people just literally screw up the gospel?

  • TS (unami)

    Umm, no.
    I think the Anglicans *themselves* can define who they are and what they believe better than a Southern Baptist author or web site.

  • Paul O.

    Actually, a church can define itself but then that definition must be compared to the Biblical standard to see if its own self definition is true. The same applies to people. I could define myself as a potted plant and truly believe I’m a fern. But that doesn’t make it so. Here, the scientific standard is used. My self definition would be wrong.

    In any case, you seem to have an issue with Southern Baptists. Care to elucidate?

  • TS (unami)

    Yep, I take issue with their presumptions. I hardly think a Protestant denomination has any authority to speak for the ancient church (Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican).

    Southern Baptists tried to use the Bible to keep people enslaved. Their track record for their *own* denomination is not so pure.

    I don’t think they have the sole authority to parse scripture for the rest of Christendom.

  • Paul O.

    When judging a religion or demonination one has to go to the sources. For instance, does ISIS truly represent Islam? To judge that I would have to go to the Islamic sources such as the Quran, the Hadiths and the Relience of the Traveler. From there I can make an educated judgment. Note I don’t have to be either a member of ISIS (yikes!) or a Muslim to have a valid opinion on this subject.

    Same applies for a scholar evaluating the so-called ancient church.

  • Phil McCarthy

    Can I chip in? I’m a 60-something y.o. New Zealand Anglican. I made the switch from Catholicism 20 years ago. Originally this was driven by relative conditions in the two parishes. For may years I described myself as ‘a Catholic worshipping in an Anglican church’ but for at least the last 10 years I have proudly called myself Anglican. I am a little unsure what T Sawsome is objecting to in the characterisations above, which look to me relatively accurate, though I am not a church historian. I am determinedly Anglican these days precisely because it strives to live in the spirit of Romans 14. I am in a parish where beliefs and theologies vary widely; everything from atonement theology to Eucharist to baptism of infants and of course marriage equality – in fact we are turning ourselves inside out at the moment trying to come up with a practical approach on that subject that recognises diversity. As an ex Catholic, with a strongly Catholic approach to Eucharist and Revelation, and generally with more liberal views than many of my friends, I feel at home but I rejoice that no-one is trying to make me wrong and also in the opportunity to celebrate rather than repudiate differences with my brothers and sisters in Christ. As I say, that is why I now call myself an Anglican.

  • Phil McCarthy

    Because God is Truth and those who abide in truth abide in God ?

  • TS (unami)

    There’s nothing “so-called” about the verifiable historicity of the Orthodox, Catholic and Anglican churches. The bible wasn’t even canonized until the fourth century — when *only* the Orthodox church was the sole Christian church.

  • TS (unami)

    Hi Phil. Thanks for joining in. :-)

    I’m a relatively new Episcopalian after many years as an Orthodox christian. I sometimes feel a bit defensive for my new church when I see references such as the gotquetions site, which is pointedly biased IMO against liturgical churches such as ours. I welcome your input here.

    Like your experience, the mass reminds me of much that I loved about Orthodoxy, and the pattern of the liturgy is very similar. Of course, the creeds and sacraments make the Anglican church a place where I knew that our family could find a welcoming home.

  • Paul O.

    So since you didn’t comment on my main points I assume you agree with them (see two previous posts).

    You seem fairly defensive about your demonination. I used the term “so called” because the age of a church has no validity to its faithfulness to Christ. According to scripture, Christ is the head of the church. It’s His church, no one else’s.

  • TS (unami)

    I agree that Christ is the head of His church.

    I’m just more than a bit tired of Evangelicals saying that the RCC, Orthodox and Anglican/Episcopal Church are “apostate” because the Fundamentalists are scared of liturgy and tradition.

    I’m not going to agree about every little point of scripture and neither will you. That’s why we have 51,000 denominations today. And all of them think that *only they* have the “correct” interpretation.

    Look, the basics of the faith may be found in the churches that *gave* you the Bible, the Nicene Creed and the holy sacraments. I’m holding to those because they hold me to Christ.

    Peace.

  • Paul O.

    Thank you for your sentiment of peace.

    I don’t get wrapped up in denominations. If one professes Jesus as Lord and Saviour, repents and turn from one’s sins and confesses that the Bible is the Word of God then a church that affirms that is faithful.

  • D.M.S.

    And all of you that tell that child that he or she is good to be gay. You’re helping to send that child and probably many other children to a hell that they will never be able to repent from.
    Your viseral hatred of these children thru your misplaced love sicken me and many other True Christians, also.
    If there are any children out there reading these words of mine. Find a bible believing church for your salvation.
    Don’t trust this world
    1 John 2:15-17.

  • JD

    Your hell is a fantasy. A sick, perverted, insane fantasy.

    The literal hell you create for gays is beyond callous and hateful. You refuse to listen to reality and except the fact that people are born gay. When you tell a gay child are going to hell for being gay the only thing left for them to do is to die. For they cannot change how they were born. All they hear is how god hates them and there’s only one way out of that and that is death.

    That is the message you bring to gay children: that they are better off dead.

    YOUR WORDS KILL.

    It is you that needs help for your homophobic, bigoted, racist beliefs. You have no empathy or heart. You refuse to see the damage you do. You hide behind your book of mythology to defend your hatred and ignorance.

    You are nothing more than a bully. A sick homophobic, racist, bigoted bully.

    It is you that needs to be kept away from children less you drive them to suicide.

  • Ivan T. Errible

    There is no god. Hate to break it to you.

  • TS (unami)

    Hmmm. Well, then why do you attempt to speak for God?
    (Maybe my reply earlier was meant for another; sorry)

  • sanctusivo

    I’d suggest this is Third Wave Fundamentalism:
    1. 1st wave: 19th c. to 1925 (Scopes trial)
    2. 2nd wave: 1947-2008 (beginning of Fuller Theo. Sem. to election of Barack Obama)
    3. 3rd wave: 1/20/2009 (Obama inauguration) to present.
    This form of American Christian reaction looks a lot more like 1st wave fundamentalism but now with an increasingly fragile and aggressive projection.

  • That is only the case if one equates number of people in the pews with “success.” Progressivism in its religious expression is not about getting people into the mainline churches pews or proselytizing others to “save them.” There is no denial, sorry. Instead, what we have seen is a steady progressive trend in America starting with Teddy Roosevelt (progressive Republican), then his cousin, FDR and through a number of other progressive democratic presidents. Alongside that political movement we have seen mainline churches reaching out to the poor, the civil rights movement and the woman’s movement. We could care less about pew statistics. We care about results. People’s lives enriched and the marginalized given equal opportunities. In that regard I’d say progressives have been pretty successful despite the resistance of conservativism, politically and religiously.

  • No dissolving involved. They get to go to heaven, lol. And the sooner the better! :)