or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple, Inc. asks Arizona governor to veto state gay discrimination bill
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple, Inc. asks Arizona governor to veto state gay discrimination bill - Page 6

post #201 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0yvind View Post


If you had even bothered to read the Bible you'd know that Jesus didn't say One word against homosexuality.
You could be refering to the Old Testament - but according to that slavery is OK, so maybe you want Arizona to re-introduce that as well? Don't even start me on all the things the Bible calls an abomination: Eating shrimps and other kinds of shell fish, eating pork, letting women talk in congregations... If we were to live by the Bible word-by-word the society would return to the dark ages. No christian wants that (presumably), so why single out being gay?

 

There were Old Testament laws that specifically applied to Jews for various reasons, proselytes for other, and even the sacrifical system was done away with once the "lamb of God" made the ultimate sacrifice.

 

This was to do with sin. that's the "why" of the cross.

 

The Bible is called the Word of God. In John 1, it makes clear that Jesus is the Word.

 

After Jesus was crucified and resurrected, the Bible states this:

 

"

 

 

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.

 

 

Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

Romas 1:26-27

 

And if that riles you up, read the rest of the chapter.

 

 

The bible calls homosexuality sin.

 

But some people do struggle with it. 

 

where some "Christians" have gone wrong is to hate on and be abusive towards those who practice that particular sin in the same manner or worse than man are abusive toward Christians.

 

The difference is that Jesus commanded His people to love and to speak the truth in love. Telling someone that what they are doing isn't wrong. It's the loving thing to do. But you have to do it with love. Not some arrogant way or to be a jerk. Don't sacrifice truth and don't sacrifice love.

 

Jesus ATE WITH theiving tax collectors and prostitutes. How else is He going to save them and show them how much He loves them? Mere words?

 

He was willing to take the scorn of those who would point the finger at Him like he was wrong to do so. but He did because He loves them and wants to draw them to Himself. and He can change hearts and lives. No one comes to Jesus perfect. We come to Him broken. And He fixes and transforms our lives, HELPING us to live right. Not just spouting impossible commands.

 

I am a big-time Apple fanboy for a reason. they make the best stuff. And they make sound business decisions. they have a lot of wisdom. but this is overstepping things. Similar to ObamaCare. Everyone wants their way, but when the Christians have something to stand on, it's targeted. Abortion pill in the ObamaCare mandate that I have to fund? Really? Regardless of the fact that it's a huge moral dillemma? Before that, a "religious" institution in Marriage is violated because... well "nobody" cares where it came from? 

 

Now, this. A great company pushing morally dubious pressure on a STATE. Just because they are adding money to the state.

 

So that's how it is now huh? Want to do business? Check your freedoms, laws, and morals at the door...

 

Actually pretty horrific.

 

 

 

 

 

The thing that is compeltely missing here is that this bill DOES NOT discriminate against anyone. It simple PROTECTS those who have a right to be protected. If you run a ministry, you shouldn't be forced to hire someone who lives in complete opposition to what your ministry stands for. What's next? MENSA getting into trouble for discriminating against non-geniuses? The Senate getting in trouble for 

 

The Bible teaches that homosexuality is sin. Therefore, no church should have a homosexual pastor forced upon them. that's the kind of thing this bill is going for. 

 

Protection for religious freedoms does not equate discrimination against anyone - it is the homosexuals trying to it out to be so. meanwhile, they discriminate against the church that is being guarded here. And they wont' stop until the guard is torn down and they can run roughshod all over religious freedom.

 

They want legal protections but don't want Christians ot have them. so much for "tolerance." LOL

post #202 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

Oh wow.  That's nice of you.  So you agree that people weren't wandering around with T-Rexs?  Cool.

COME ON!  Go to Ars and read about the zircon.  Go ask any geologist.  You've got to be kidding me?

This earth went through many atmospheric changes, carbon dating can only accurately date things in the current atmospheric state that the earth is in.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #203 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


This earth went through many atmospheric changes, carbon dating can only accurately date things in the current atmospheric state that the earth is in.

 

*sigh*

 

Honestly, if that's what you think then no one is going to be able to dissuade you.  We only have physics, chemistry, geology, and pretty much every other science to say what you think is bunk.  But sure, believe what you want.  Because we all get to have our own facts, right?

post #204 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by rickwil61 View Post

That argument can be used to justify all sorts of behavior.  Check out this article from the LA Times saying that pedophilia may be something that is a natural orientation.  Really?

 

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/local/la-me-pedophiles-20130115

I don't think people are trying to use that to 'justify' pedophilia - they can certainly help acting on their desires. It's mainly used as an argument for some sort of support framework for these people - a hotline that they can call early on and say 'help, I think I like kids' and then get counselling or aversion therapy or something. Obviously you'd still drop a legal ton of bricks on anyone who does molest kids, but proponents of this idea argue that preventing these crimes from happening in the first place would also help. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post

 

The thing that is compeltely missing here is that this bill DOES NOT discriminate against anyone. It simple PROTECTS those who have a right to be protected. If you run a ministry, you shouldn't be forced to hire someone who lives in complete opposition to what your ministry stands for. What's next? MENSA getting into trouble for discriminating against non-geniuses? The Senate getting in trouble for 

 

The Bible teaches that homosexuality is sin. Therefore, no church should have a homosexual pastor forced upon them. that's the kind of thing this bill is going for. 

 

Protection for religious freedoms does not equate discrimination against anyone - it is the homosexuals trying to it out to be so. meanwhile, they discriminate against the church that is being guarded here. And they wont' stop until the guard is torn down and they can run roughshod all over religious freedom.

 

They want legal protections but don't want Christians ot have them. so much for "tolerance." LOL

 

Even if you support the idea of the bill, you should still oppose the bill itself. The chief requirement for these 'protections' to hold sway is that your religious beliefs must be 'sincerely held' - a virtually impossible criterion for a court to decide on. Any discrimination becomes fine, provided you can keep a straight face and say "Jesus told me so". The courts are going to err on the side of deciding your beliefs are sincerely held nine times out of ten, because of the gigantic poopstorm that would ensue if they did otherwise. 


Edited by DarkLite - 2/25/14 at 3:05pm
post #205 of 295
[/quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


But that is my point. It is not clear based on the passage you provided. My reading of what you provided is that God is only against homosexual perverts, not homosexuals.

As another person also pointed out, different versions of the bible are translated differently. Different versions of the translations can be read to mean different things. Moreover, some people who claim to embrace the bible text so literally, forget about teaching by Jesus such as those without sin cast the first stone, and that God is to be the only judge of our behaviours.

Moreover, even if one's religion follows the bible, the bible was written by people, not God. Moreover, the new testament was written hundreds of years after Jesus was around, and entire chapters were removed.

Yeah, I just provided that as context. I don't really feel like collecting all the other references, Greek textual analysis, etc. But I believe if you look into it, you will agree. And regarding not judging others, that doesn't mean abandoning strong principles of what is and isn't moral and good. It means loving others, and being humble, patient, and forgiving because you also are imperfect and need patience and forgiveness. So trying to convince a Christian otherwise is almost always futile.

Even so, the text is still vulnerable to all of your other criticisms. However, the formation of the current Biblical canon is a complex subject and beyond the mental scope of most to independently research and evaluate, so naturally few do.

Not to mention, there are a million other logical errors propagated by popular church teachings which help keep the worldview from unraveling, and there is enough logic to them that they can fool many intelligent people, especially if it supports everything else they already believe. Once these are evaluated and accepted as truth and used in constructing and supporting a worldview, it can make a pretty impenetrable fortress (as you may have noticed).

The only way to logically penetrate it is for the individual to consciously reexamine their belief system to find these flaws until it collapses, which most are not willing or even capable of doing, since it can be very intellectually, emotionally, and socially difficult. And likewise it often has strong positive emotional and social reinforcement, so it requires a large impetus to motivate change. So, often it is destroyed the same way it was created, by inconsistent reasoning and/or emotional and social influences.

My general observation is that it is only personality types that are much more strongly driven by intellect than emotions who will be able to follow the intellectual path out. Others will follow the social/emotional path, and will increasingly do this as the intellectual argument propagates, adding momentum and changing the emotional and social climate to allow those for whom that is important to finally make the switch. And of course those who are more strongly observant and independently evaluating what they observe will have an easier time, if they were ever fooled in the first place.
post #206 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

*sigh*

Honestly, if that's what you think then no one is going to be able to dissuade you.  We only have physics, chemistry, geology, and pretty much every other science to say what you think is bunk.  But sure, believe what you want.  Because we all get to have our own facts, right?

Do you think science is infallible? How many things that we once believed was later proven wrong. The fact is that science doesn't have all the answers and even when they think they do it has on occasion been proven otherwise, and there is still plenty that science cannot explain.

Do you have any idea the precious balance there is for this world to sustain life? The size of the Earth is perfect, our orbit to the sun is perfect, the sun's size is perfect, as is the moon and its orbit, change any one of those things and life on earth is not possible. It's as everything was finely tuned.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #207 of 295

1 Corinthians 6:9 is worth reading. What god has said in the old testament still stands in the new testaments  Isaiah 40:8.

post #208 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Do you think science is infallible? How many things that we once believed was later proven wrong. The fact is that science doesn't have all the answers and even when they think they do it has on occasion been proven otherwise, and there is still plenty that science cannot explain.
Being infallible is not part of science. The beauty of pure science is that if something is deemed incorrect it's dropped in favour of something more accurate. There is no "This was written eons ago so we should never question it" mentality when talking about science.
Quote:
Do you have any idea the precious balance there is for this world to sustain life? The size of the Earth is perfect, our orbit to the sun is perfect, the sun's size is perfect, as is the moon and its orbit, change any one of those things and life on earth is not possible. It's as everything was finely tuned.

1) There is quite of change that can and does happen within all these bodies constantly.

2) I agree that everything is finely tuned but in the opposite in which you describe it. All those factors appear to have come before life was present on Earth, not because of life on Earth. We are, at least in part, a result of our environment.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #209 of 295

If Apple was truly concerned about gay discrimination, why don't they let their CEO admit he's gay?

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD and HDX than any iPad

Reply

No matter what type of media...movies, music, books, photos and web pages

look better and sound better on the Kindle Fire HD and HDX than any iPad

Reply
post #210 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post

If Apple was truly concerned about gay discrimination, why don't they let their CEO admit he's gay?

1) You have proof that Tim Cook is gay?

2) You have proof that Apple is preventing Tim Cook from stating he's gay?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #211 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post

If Apple was truly concerned about gay discrimination, why don't they let their CEO admit he's gay?

Because no one gives a shit?

And perhaps because he has no interest in making a big deal of it (assuming he's gay), and some people have the decency to respect a person's privacy that has no bearing on the business?

(Corrected typo).
post #212 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post
 
They want legal protections but don't want Christians to have them. so much for "tolerance." LOL

The proposed bill wants to allow discrimination against homosexuals. It doesn't say anything about non-religious people discriminating against Christians. I don't understand where you get that the cancelation of the bill discriminates against Christians. Homosexuals don't care if you have a church or a faith or your own laws, so long as those laws do not conflict with the laws of the government. Arizona is subject to US law and homosexuals can enjoy the pursuit of happiness there just like non-homosexuals. 

 

A store owner can put up a sign that says they have the right to refuse service to anyone, but they don't actually have that right according to the law unless there is a health or safety issue such as no shirt, no shoes, drunk or belligerent crazy person. The part that is hypocritical is that Christians who own restaurants, dry cleaning, and grocery stores are all fine with selling to homosexuals. It is just wedding cake bakers who object because that threatens their views of the sanctity of marriage between one man and one woman, which is not actually supported by any Biblical doctrine I'm aware of. If homosexuality is the abomination then all of the Christian store owners should be equal in denying service to them, but they are not. 

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #213 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by randallking View Post

The liberty of which you speak is not the liberty we are granted by the constitution. We are granted the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty doesn't give me the right to the goods or services of others, or the guaranteed right that they must sell me their goods and services. That would be giving me the right to the labor of others. When the government begins forcing such things, we've gone into socialism and fascism territory.

Spoken like only a person who has never known real discrimination could.

Think about this pragmatically. In what cases would it cause harm to a business or it's owner to serve gay customers? Wedding cake maker? No, that's being quite petty. Wedding photographer? I can empathize I suppose. I don't share the sentiment, but I understand that a photographer is often participating on a very personal level. However, for that same reason, how many gay couples do you think are going to be interested in paying someone a large amount of money to capture their very important occasion in an artistic way, and would prefer someone who is fundamentally sickened by what they are celebrating? This is a self-resolving problem.

On the other hand, think about how much real discrimination gay people have experienced and still do. Eventually I believe people will come around, but in the meantime I support limiting the damage as soon as possible. Don't worry, even with anti-discrimination laws, there are still plenty of gray areas for people to exercise their discriminatory preferences.
post #214 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by randallking View Post

AppleInsider, I would have preferred that you speak with a less biased voice in your writing. Please just report the facts instead of taking sides.

That said, I stand with the Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Word of God, who calls homosexuality an abomination in his holy scriptures.

Nevertheless, I expect a news site to report facts and not lace it with personal feelings, either toward the side I hold or to the other.

The reporting on here can be a bit preachy, but I don't think that matters here. There are people of many different religions within the US. There are also many atheists, some of which still attend various churches for social reasons. It's not fair to legislate the beliefs of any one of them, because they are not up for debate. They also can't be altered with reason. For devout religious individuals the words in their scripture are more important than any reasoning anyone on here could provide. In the case of laws like this, the religious individuals cannot prove direct harm in the way others can. They can merely state that others live in contradiction to their beliefs as a reason for imposing hardships on others. I hope you take some time to think on that.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell View Post
 

If Apple was truly concerned about gay discrimination, why don't they let their CEO admit he's gay?


Even as the CEO of a publicly traded company, he's entitled to his own discretion regarding his personal life where it doesn't have a direct impact on the company.

post #215 of 295

I think there is a fundamental problem where one man's or woman's morality is not another's. Whether straight or gay we all have morals or standards by which we live. In some communities marrying ones 1st cousin is acceptable where others would be appalled. Many people fear the slippery slope. If we let 2nd cousins marry than 1st cousins are next and then brother marrying sister and so on. This already exists and is not anything new, but how can we allow a 65 year old cult leader to have sex with teenage followers by using the standard what consenting people do in the bedroom is no ones business. Religious people have morals and atheists have standards, are they the same? I don't know the answer. 

Is cannibalism wrong or right. Clearly in modern society we would say its wrong but how can we tell some lost tribe that's practiced this for generations that it doesn't meet our societal standards and force them to quit. To the religious it is morally wrong but is it not also wrong to atheists too? Do atheists feel compelled to protect the teenage follower from her abuser even though she not only doesn't want to leave but feels if she marry's the leader she will achieve salvation. Yes she is brainwashed but I could make that claim about most churches and atheists that may worship liberty, capitalism or communism. There is no black and white here only dark gray, let's search for peace in the meantime.

post #216 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Do you think science is infallible? How many things that we once believed was later proven wrong. The fact is that science doesn't have all the answers and even when they think they do it has on occasion been proven otherwise, and there is still plenty that science cannot explain.

Do you have any idea the precious balance there is for this world to sustain life? The size of the Earth is perfect, our orbit to the sun is perfect, the sun's size is perfect, as is the moon and its orbit, change any one of those things and life on earth is not possible. It's as everything was finely tuned.

 

The entire point of science -- or of any hypothesis anyways -- is that it IS fallible.  That's the entire point.  If I say, "These diamonds will melt at 300 degrees F."  I can do an experiment.  If the diamonds are in a proven oven at 300 deg., and don't melt ...

 

Try disproving something based on "faith."

 

"Taylor Swift fantasizes about me every night, dreaming of me having insane sex with her."

 

Prove it isn't true.

 

See the problem?

post #217 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metrix View Post
 

I think there is a fundamental problem where one man's or woman's morality is not another's. Whether straight or gay we all have morals or standards by which we live. In some communities marrying ones 1st cousin is acceptable where others would be appalled. Many people fear the slippery slope. If we let 2nd cousins marry than 1st cousins are next and then brother marrying sister and so on. This already exists and is not anything new, but how can we allow a 65 year old cult leader to have sex with teenage followers by using the standard what consenting people do in the bedroom is no ones business. Religious people have morals and atheists have standards, are they the same? I don't know the answer. 

Is cannibalism wrong or right. Clearly in modern society we would say its wrong but how can we tell some lost tribe that's practiced this for generations that it doesn't meet our societal standards and force them to quit. To the religious it is morally wrong but is it not also wrong to atheists too? Do atheists feel compelled to protect the teenage follower from her abuser even though she not only doesn't want to leave but feels if she marry's the leader she will achieve salvation. Yes she is brainwashed but I could make that claim about most churches and atheists that may worship liberty, capitalism or communism. There is no black and white here only dark gray, let's search for peace in the meantime.

 

Actually, I'm fairly sure that any genetic harm that could happen with offspring from first cousins is extremely minimal, and no larger than that of two strangers.

 

Of course, people have sex for lots of reasons other than procreation.

post #218 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metrix View Post

I think there is a fundamental problem where one man's or woman's morality is not another's. Whether straight or gay we all have morals or standards by which we live. In some communities marrying ones 1st cousin is acceptable where others would be appalled. Many people fear the slippery slope. If we let 2nd cousins marry than 1st cousins are next and then brother marrying sister and so on. This already exists and is not anything new, but how can we allow a 65 year old cult leader to have sex with teenage followers by using the standard what consenting people do in the bedroom is no ones business. Religious people have morals and atheists have standards, are they the same? I don't know the answer.
Is cannibalism wrong or right. Clearly in modern society we would say its wrong but how can we tell some lost tribe that's practiced this for generations that it doesn't meet our societal standards and force them to quit. To the religious it is morally wrong but is it not also wrong to atheists too? Do atheists feel compelled to protect the teenage follower from her abuser even though she not only doesn't want to leave but feels if she marry's the leader she will achieve salvation. Yes she is brainwashed but I could make that claim about most churches and atheists that may worship liberty, capitalism or communism. There is no black and white here only dark gray, let's search for peace in the meantime.

Law does not equal Moral Code. Just because something isn't illegal, doesn't mean it can't be shameful. And just because something is shameful, doesn't mean it should be illegal (with associated punishment).

Hypothetically, if one were given the chance to rewrite the entire legal code, it shouldn't exactly match their personal moral code. That is, everything they think isn't good should not be made illegal (and punishable). Not only would it be entirely impractical to enforce in many cases, it would very likely infringe substantially on the liberties of many without much or any benefit to others. Ideally, it should be written to maximize liberty for everyone to the extent it doesn't reduce anyone else's liberty. Those who believe they should legislate moral issues when there is no clear victim are misguided.

And by the way, I may not believe cannibalism is inherently "evil", but I tend to value the other freedoms we enjoy and don't think it would mesh very well with them. So no, no cannibalism in the first draft of my legal code. But hey I'm open to reasonable arguments if someone has one. 1smile.gif
post #219 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

The entire point of science -- or of any hypothesis anyways -- is that it IS fallible.  That's the entire point.  If I say, "These diamonds will melt at 300 degrees F."  I can do an experiment.  If the diamonds are in a proven oven at 300 deg., and don't melt ...

Try disproving something based on "faith."

"Taylor Swift fantasizes about me every night, dreaming of me having insane sex with her."

Prove it isn't true.

See the problem?

The problem with that is I could run into Taylor Swift and ask her lol.gif, but yes you're right faith is something that is very hard to have.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #220 of 295
I hope the governor stays strong and doesn't bow to political BS. And I'd love it it Apple would stick to what it does best and not get involved in politics. They've gotten more political under Cook and I don't like it.
post #221 of 295

Your ignorance is astonishing. Should I be surprised that you are located in Forth Worth? (that's a rhetorical question)

 

You small-minded and backwards bible-thumper types seem also to be completely unaware of the fact that the bible - both Old and New Testaments - have been translated hundreds of times over; and that the passage to which you refer in actuality had nothing to do with sex. This was added at a later date.

 

In any case - and regardless - the United States of America is a NON-theocratic country. Our laws were devised to ensure the separation of Church and State. Which seems to be something which you fundamental-nutjob religious types cannot seem to accept or understand. Your own congregation is probably ignorant enough to believe that the USA was founded as a Christian state - it was not. Again... it is very simple: Church and State are separate.

 

I know that arguing with your type is a lost cause, as the stupid don't realize to what degree they misapprehend even the most basic realities.

post #222 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by brulltyme View Post

Your ignorance is astonishing. Should I be surprised that you are located in Forth Worth? (that's a rhetorical question)

You small-minded and backwards bible-thumper types seem also to be completely unaware of the fact that the bible - both Old and New Testaments - have been translated hundreds of times over; and that the passage to which you refer in actuality had nothing to do with sex. This was added at a later date.

In any case - and regardless - the United States of America is a NON-theocratic country. Our laws were devised to ensure the separation of Church and State. Which seems to be something which you fundamental-nutjob religious types cannot seem to accept or understand. Your own congregation is probably ignorant enough to believe that the USA was founded as a Christian state - it was not. Again... it is very simple: Church and State are separate.

I know that arguing with your type is a lost cause, as the stupid don't realize to what degree they misapprehend even the most basic realities.

Yet every piece of legal tender you have has 'IN GOD WE TRUST' written on it.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #223 of 295

Why is it that whenever I ask for blatantly political threads to just be immediately moved to PO they aren’t? Sets a double standard on what kind of behavior is acceptable when the thread is outside PO, as infringers can simply say, “the topic of this thread is political” and assume some form of ‘immunity’. Sort of like the “I own Apple products” ‘defense’.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #224 of 295

This was ADDED to money at a LATER date. It was added in...1956.

post #225 of 295

Further exploration at the US Treasury history page indicates that it was added during the Civil War (1861) and later only periodically present on currency.

post #226 of 295

6 pages of horseshit. Cool.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #227 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


The problem with that is I could run into Taylor Swift and ask her lol.gif, but yes you're right faith is something that is very hard to have.

 

1) If you DO run into T-Swizzle, please ask her. (And tell her that, despite her net personal value being about 8 billion times mine, I'm totally willing to buy her dinner!) :)

 

2) What someone tells you about how he or she feels is not necessarily how he or she feels.  Remember high school, anyone?

post #228 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

I hope the governor stays strong and doesn't bow to political BS. And I'd love it it Apple would stick to what it does best and not get involved in politics. They've gotten more political under Cook and I don't like it.

 

If you're talking about Brewer, then you would make a TERRIBLE politician.

 

Marriot, the NFL, Apple, American Airlines, and numerous other major corporations -- not to mention the two senators from AZ, both Republicans -- have asked her to veto the bill.  Arizona would lose hundreds of millions of dollars by losing the Super Bowl, just as they did when they refused to accept MLK Day in '93, and lost the Super Bowl to Pasedena.

post #229 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post
 
Yet every piece of legal tender you have has 'IN GOD WE TRUST' written on it.

The ones made of silver or gold are just as valuable when melted down, unless they are collectors items that is, but the paper ones, they may say in God we trust but I wouldn't count on them being any more valuable because of it. It is, after all, just paper. It is really more like hope rather than trust. The whole thing could collapse at any time and God isn't going to intervene.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #230 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

Do you have any thoughts on the words "God Created" in 1:1? Someone told me it was the same word used as in 'created a wooden chair' for example, the chair was created from material that previously existed.

 

Like the same word being "made" as in you made me mad. Or I "made" lemonade.

 

It's not only the word used in ANY language. It's also the context in which it's used.

post #231 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkLite View Post
 

I don't think people are trying to use that to 'justify' pedophilia - they can certainly help acting on their desires. It's mainly used as an argument for some sort of support framework for these people - a hotline that they can call early on and say 'help, I think I like kids' and then get counselling or aversion therapy or something. Obviously you'd still drop a legal ton of bricks on anyone who does molest kids, but proponents of this idea argue that preventing these crimes from happening in the first place would also help. 

 

Even if you support the idea of the bill, you should still oppose the bill itself. The chief requirement for these 'protections' to hold sway is that your religious beliefs must be 'sincerely held' - a virtually impossible criterion for a court to decide on. Any discrimination becomes fine, provided you can keep a straight face and say "Jesus told me so". The courts are going to err on the side of deciding your beliefs are sincerely held nine times out of ten, because of the gigantic poopstorm that would ensue if they did otherwise. 

I do think that religious freedoms need to be vigorously defended. I don't oppose the bill, because it simply offers protections. Homosexuality is a sin. If run a ministry, I should not be forced to hire people to serve there just to appease some false "non-discriminatory" jive, when the hire goes against the Bible. 

 

"Rights" are getting to be funny things these days. Everyone is in support of "rights" when the base part of humanity is spoken for. But when it comes to honorable things being protected, there is an outcry from those who want to push their weight around and shove their (im)morality down everyone else's throat. The bill harms no one, but protects one of the freedoms that has been a staple of this great country.

 

And if I say "Jesus told me so" and the Bible supports it (in other words Jesus really did tell me so and here is where He did just that...), then you bet the courts had best decide my beliefs are firmly held.


Edited by 9secondko - 2/25/14 at 6:05pm
post #232 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

The ones made of silver or gold are just as valuable when melted down, unless they are collectors items that is, but the paper ones, they may say in God we trust but I wouldn't count on them being any more valuable because of it. It is, after all, just paper. It is really more like hope rather than trust. The whole thing could collapse at any time and God isn't going to intervene.

That's actually what the Bible says is going to happen.

 

And every day you see the evidence. Like opposition to a bill that simply provides protections for religious freedoms.

 

Everyone is OK with the idea of religious freedom until the "religious people" actually want to make good on those freedoms.

 

Talk about hypocrisy.

post #233 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post
 

 The whole thing could collapse at any time and God isn't going to intervene.

That's actually what the Bible says is going to happen.

 

So God doesn't care that the money has his name on it? It's all going to burn. Exactly my point. "In God We Trust" has no value whatsoever in the context of being printed on a piece of paper, including the pages of your Bible.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #234 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Yet every piece of legal tender you have has 'IN GOD WE TRUST' written on it.

 

It didn't previously appear on all money. It's very silly, but the implementations of those words always came out of desperate times. The first was either during or post Civil War. It was added to all money as a piece of Cold War propaganda. Beyond that just mentioning this doesn't really add to the discussion of anything. It's merely pandering to the emotions of a subset of individuals. I don't even understand why religious individuals like it. Printing that seems patronizing and as nonsensical as the race to purchase a flag pin in the early 2000s. In case you're interested, here's a reference for it. I knew it was added universally in the 1950s. I was previously unaware of its use during the Civil War.

post #235 of 295

I just sent a tweet to the Pope he will be weighing in on this thread shortly. 

post #236 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post
 
Like the same word being "made" as in you made me mad. Or I "made" lemonade.

 

It's not only the word used in ANY language. It's also the context in which it's used.

No I think that in most languages other than English, words are not as ambiguous and have clear singular meanings with extended implications. Not in all cases but if in fact there were more than one word in Paleo-Hebrew for "create" and it was definitive that one of those words meant create from thin air and the other meant create from materials that preexisted and were on hand, that would make a substantial difference in the meaning.

 

I'm not saying that is the case but I've been told that may be the basis for a possible mistranslation.

 

And please let me add that there is no proof that a God didn't create the universe, which wouldn't surprise me at all if that were the case, as it is a rather spectacular creation. I just don't think such a powerful entity would bother to write such childish fairy tales as are found in the Bible.


Edited by mstone - 2/25/14 at 7:13pm

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #237 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post
 

 

It didn't previously appear on all money. It's very silly, but the implementations of those words always came out of desperate times. The first was either during or post Civil War. It was added to all money as a piece of Cold War propaganda. Beyond that just mentioning this doesn't really add to the discussion of anything. It's merely pandering to the emotions of a subset of individuals. I don't even understand why religious individuals like it. Printing that seems patronizing and as nonsensical as the race to purchase a flag pin in the early 2000s. In case you're interested, here's a reference for it. I knew it was added universally in the 1950s. I was previously unaware of its use during the Civil War.

 

Exactly.  All one need do is look at bills from the 1850s, say, to see that it is a modern invention.

post #238 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by 9secondko View Post
 

I do think that religious freedoms need to be vigorously defended. I don't oppose the bill, because it simply offers protections. Homosexuality is a sin. If run a ministry, I should not be forced to hire people to serve there just to appease some false "non-discriminatory" jive, when the hire goes against the Bible. 

 

"Rights" are getting to be funny things these days. Everyone is in support of "rights" when the base part of humanity is spoken for. But when it comes to honorable things being protected, there is an outcry from those who want to push their weight around and shove their (im)morality down everyone else's throat. The bill harms no one, but protects one of the freedoms that has been a staple of this great country.

 

And if I say "Jesus told me so" and the Bible supports it (in other words Jesus really did tell me so and here is where He did just that...), then you bet the courts had best decide my beliefs are firmly held.

 

LOL

 

I ask this with all due respect: Are you stoned?  No, seriously, are you high right now?  Meth, maybe?  I'm very curious.

post #239 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

LOL

I ask this with all due respect: Are you stoned?  No, seriously, are you high right now?  Meth, maybe?  I'm very curious.

I stopped reading after "Homosexuality is a sin."

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #240 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post
 

 

LOL

 

I ask this with all due respect: Are you stoned?  No, seriously, are you high right now?  Meth, maybe?  I'm very curious.


I wouldn't bother arguing with him, because it's not really reason against reason. It's whatever you say vs whatever translation of the Bible or whatever other religious book. They absolutely deserve the right to congregate, but there are other relics that should have disappeared long ago. For example we offer tax exempt status to discriminatory organizations. Like a lot of other problems, that is one that specific lobbyists have fought to continue.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple, Inc. asks Arizona governor to veto state gay discrimination bill