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
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?
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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 , but yes you're right faith is something that is very hard to have.
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.
Comments
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:
"
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
This earth went through many atmospheric changes, carbon dating can only accurately date things in the current atmospheric state that the earth is in.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
1 Corinthians 6:9 is worth reading. What god has said in the old testament still stands in the new testaments Isaiah 40:8.
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.
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?
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
The problem with that is I could run into Taylor Swift and ask her