Brilliant! Just casually dismiss hundreds of years of political philosophy thinking and theory....much of which is the basis of the US founding principles and documents.
The only natural right is might makes right, which has been substantially lessened by common sense laws. That is why we have laws. Otherwise people would go around killing, plundering, and enslaving others. The US is a nation of laws. If you decline to live by the law you can move somewhere else or face the consequences.
Sounds like you really ought to read up on a topic before commenting on it. Then again, that’s par for the course for you.
Oh no, I know all about it. Leviticus 20:13 "A man who lies with a man as one lies with a woman, they have both done an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon themselves."
But in the previous chapter is says you should observe the Sabbath, you can't get a tattoo, you can't cut off your sideburns, you can't trim your beard, you can't wear clothes with wool and linen, you can't breed plants or animals etc. etc.
My question is not where does it say it in the bible, but where does it say it in Christianity, since you guys clearly don't keep any of the commandments mentioned above
It was a bogus yes or no question, prosecutor. The government, the instrument of our collective will, has evolved to the point to where slavery is prohibited, to where our former slaves have full rights to all the benefits of our society, to where women have equal standing with men, and to where people of any sexual or gender identity have equal rights to all others.
If you are part of a gay couple and you want my pizzaria to cater your wedding, then I follow the law, run my business properly, and cater the wedding. I also do it if you are an Aryan Nation couple, or fundamentalist pagans.
"You" are not forcing me to do anything. "You" are not the issue. That you want to make yourself the issue "speaks volumes."
Yes my use of "you" does speak volumes, as does your deference to the state. Routing the action through the state may appease your conscience and assuage your guilt but it doesn't change the fundamental nature of what's going on. It was not a "bogus question" but one that lays bare what is trying to be accomplished. I understand that doing say makes some people feel uncomfortable with the fact that they endorse such compulsion. But, oh well.
I do find it ironic (though I suspect you have overlooked the irony) of talking about the government (which originally allowed and sanctioned slavery) and now (rightly, in alignment with basic, natural rights) prohibits it, while suggesting that a new kind of slavery should be enforced by same government.
Wow.
Wow yourself. Laws and government evolve as people evolve.
Every individual human being is born with the basic, foundational, core, natural rights to life, liberty and property.
But in it's unrestricted form it runs amuck.
1. Life : Don't kill anyone 2. Liberty : I can do whatever the hell I want 3. Property : Pursuit of happiness
So working from the bottom to the top:
I think I would be much happier if I had all your property, so since I can do whatever the hell I want, I believe I will threaten to beat you within an inch of your life if you don't give it to me. What? I didn't say I would kill you. You still have life.
That is why we have laws to prevent that sort of behavior.
Indeed, because the Bible is not a legal document. You only have the rights spelled out in the Constitution, Bill of Rights and in this case, the Civil Rights Act.
Not even remotely close. The Constitution does not grant you any rights. The Constitution states the rights that the state may not infringe. You always have the right to free expression, no matter what the state says. The Constitution is a document restricting the actions of the state, not the actions of the people.
My question is not where does it say it in the bible, but where does it say it in Christianity...
That seems like an odd way to phrase that. What does "in Christianity" mean exactly. The Christian faith has its basis in the Bible (new and old testament) and most specifically the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ as to (at least in part) distinguish the Christian faith from the Jewish faith.
it means that by definition you can't just pick and choose commandments from the old testament. so where are the Christians wearing tzitzit? where are the Christians keeping kosher? why do they ignore all that but then when it comes to gay people all of a sudden they say 'oh the bible says you can't do that'
You always have the right to free expression, no matter what the state says.
True, but the 'state' guaranteed that right. None of your rights were inalienable without the government deciding that they should not have any way to legally take back the rights they were giving to you.
If you believe that this phrase encompasses Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, then you have a serious fundamental misunderstanding to fix. It’s most likely not your fault at all; nearly everyone has been lied to about this topic.
Freedom of speech (that doesn't incite hatred) – yes.
Fuck that. I have the right to hate. The corollary of which is that you have no fucking power to tell me what I can and cannot like. I can hate whatever I want to hate. I can hate things based on fact, reason, and data. I can hate things based on personal preference. For me, since I can’t speak for anyone else, those only diverge in only three or four places (like, I can hate tomatoes, you know? I don’t have to like their taste).
“Hate speech”, consequently, does not exist. Speech which describes hate, sure.
No one has the right to not feel insulted, or to not feel embarrassment.
Or to not be hated.
...in the reference to... ...Gender... ...is [not] a CHOICE...
Good for you! One step at a time, I guess.
Otherwise we’re on the road to being criminalised for besmirching, say, Republicanism – are you reading this Donald Trump?
Why would you reference him when his opponents are the ones wanting him silenced?
The trouble with this is the measure of society. Is the society one’s neighbourhood? Town? City? All the people of the State or its ‘representatives’, or is it the majority of the population of the USA?
Depends on your political ideology. Totalitarian groups (marxism and fascism) would say that it’s the whole of the nation which is affected by your actions and stop you from doing things that go against the betterment thereof (“betterment” as proscribed by the ruling class’ wishes). Republicanism puts the responsibility for determining ‘betterment’ on the individual, dictated by the response of the group to said action. Anarchy obviously just expects you to kill anyone you need to in order to keep from being killed.
Good question; very important.
I would say, yes, I have the right. What if the person who wanted that told me it was for a ruse and so therefore it would be morally ‘ok’?
What if your morality precludes acceptance of ruses?
it means that by definition you can't just pick and choose commandments from the old testament. so where are the Christians wearing tzitzit? where are the Christians keeping kosher? why do they ignore all that but then when it comes to gay people all of a sudden they say 'oh the bible says you can't do that'
Sounds like your understanding of the relationship of the new and old testaments requires some work.
Oops fatal flaw in #2. Try again. Did you read my other reply after that one?
Just to be transparent, I don't think I have ever "Disliked" anyone's post, certainly none of yours. I think it has been a reasonable discussion but I'm leaving to run some errands. Good luck.
None of your rights were inalienable without the government deciding that they should not have any way to legally take back the rights they were giving to you.
But the government is doing the exact opposite now,
As long as you have 2, you have 1, and you always have 2, regardless of if it's "legal".
You are all wrong. The power Zeus yields is unquestionable. Even Sophocles said so and his authority is paramount. Whatever Zeus says goes! "Zeus who oversees and directs all is still mighty in Heaven." ~Sophocles
Have you ever heard of a document called the Constitution of the United States of America? No? Well this document already protects religious freedom. You know what's not a good thing? Spreading disinformation.
Well the constitution is only as good as actual adherence to it through the actions of the state. In some cases that's found wanting. Compelling a person to take some actions against their will based on their sincere beliefs and values would seemingly be an example of that.
Then hire gay people to cater the wedding so you, as owner, don't have to be part of a gay wedding. If you don't like that think about getting into another business that doesn't put your bankrupt morals in play.
If you believe that this phrase encompasses Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, then you have a serious fundamental misunderstanding to fix. It’s most likely not your fault at all; nearly everyone has been lied to about this topic. Fuck that. I have the right to hate. The corollary of which is that you have no fucking power to tell me what I can and cannot like. I can hate whatever I want to hate. I can hate things based on fact, reason, and data. I can hate things based on personal preference. For me, since I can’t speak for anyone else, those only diverge in only three or four places (like, I can hate tomatoes, you know? I don’t have to like their taste).
“Hate speech”, consequently, does not exist. Speech which describes hate, sure. Or to not be hated. Good for you! One step at a time, I guess. Why would you reference him when his opponents are the ones wanting him silenced? Depends on your political ideology. Totalitarian groups (marxism and fascism) would say that it’s the whole of the nation which is affected by your actions and stop you from doing things that go against the betterment thereof (“betterment” as proscribed by the ruling class’ wishes). Republicanism puts the responsibility for determining ‘betterment’ on the individual, dictated by the response of the group to said action. Anarchy obviously just expects you to kill anyone you need to in order to keep from being killed.
Good question; very important. What if your morality precludes acceptance of ruses?
--------------------
If you believe that this phrase encompasses Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, then you have a serious fundamental misunderstanding to fix. It’s most likely not your fault at all; nearly everyone has been lied to about this topic.
The god Abraham spoke to is the one the Jews recognise, as do the Muslims. According to the story, Abraham's god seeded Mary... with himself. Jesus is Yahweh dressed-up, incarnate. That's the whole point about the Nicene code of the 4th century. The bishops 'voted' on the nature of Jesus. They voted to consider him as the same essence - the same one substance. The same entity. It has to be, otherwise as Jesus came into being at some point, it necessarily follows that there was a time when he didn't exist - before he was born. But how could there be a time when the One god did not exist? Sure the adopted Athanasian trilogy myth is an illogical mess, contrary to the non-trinitarian Arianism posit. But Meh, in the end it was down to a vote by bishops some 325 years after the time of Jesus, some 15 generations. Can you imagine voting on the nature of someone today who was born around 1691 with no bona fide verifiable contemporary records, pictures, or recordings?
Incitement to hate I agree with your point in that one should have the right to hate things, policies and people. But if one should call for physical harm to be done to someone, or to encourage others to harm on one's behalf, that is in no way within the spirit of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech advocates the right to openly disagree with the policies of the Community leaders, that's the fundamental nature of it. But our political and military leaders call upon their men to murder 'the other guys' every day in order to carry out government policies of Judeo/Christian/Secular jurisdictions.
So, I'm not judging anyone, I'm just wondering why I don't get the right to say that I disagree with homosexuality. And, according to the Bible, so does God.
Who's saying you can't disagree? Disagreement, and discrimination are 2 different things. Nobody leads a spotless life. If you looked hard enough you could find something you vehemently disagree with in anyone's life. Sins are weighted, one isn't worse than another in God's eyes. A gay person isn't a worse sinner than a straight person.
Yes, I agree with you (I assume that you meant to type "sins AREN'T weighted). In God's eyes, the sin of homosexuality is no worse than the sin of having an affair, stealing something, or even disobeying your parents. It all sin, and we all do sin. It's that want to take away the freedom to SAY that God says these things are sin. You can stand up in a school and say that homosexuality is right, but if you stand up and say homosexuality is wrong you can be arrested for discriminating, when all you are doing is expressing your belief or opinion. You're not allowed to disagree, and can be forced to accept something that you don't believe is right.
where does it say in Christianity that being gay is wrong?
Well, since you asked, there's quite a few verses throughout the Bible that present homosexuality, along with many other things, as being sin in Gods eyes, such as in 1 Coninthians "Don’t you realize that those who do wrong will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don’t fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, or who worship idols, or commit adultery, or are male prostitutes, or practice homosexuality, or are thieves, or greedy people, or drunkards, or are abusive, or cheat people—none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God."
Notice how God doesn't single out one group of people, but rather calls all of those things wrong.
The good news is that in the very next verse, we're told that God has made a way for us to be forgiven, through Jesus - "Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
But if one should call for physical harm to be done to someone, or to encourage others to harm on one's behalf, that is in no way within the spirit of freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech was intended to be ENTIRELY free, and was designed that way to postpone the need for physical violence. If the government starts seeing people talking about killing them for not following the Constitution, they tend to shape up... or be killed. If the government starts silencing and killing people for speaking out against them, as we’re quite close to now, you obviously don’t see any change.
Then hire gay people to cater the wedding so you, as owner, don't have to be part of a gay wedding. If you don't like that think about getting into another business that doesn't put your bankrupt morals in play.
You seem to be missing the point and reverting to insults. Too bad.
My view is the complete opposite, that you are missing the point... What constructive place can we go from here other than laugh about it?
Comments
But in the previous chapter is says you should observe the Sabbath, you can't get a tattoo, you can't cut off your sideburns, you can't trim your beard, you can't wear clothes with wool and linen, you can't breed plants or animals etc. etc.
My question is not where does it say it in the bible, but where does it say it in Christianity, since you guys clearly don't keep any of the commandments mentioned above
1. Life : Don't kill anyone
2. Liberty : I can do whatever the hell I want
3. Property : Pursuit of happiness
So working from the bottom to the top:
I think I would be much happier if I had all your property, so since I can do whatever the hell I want, I believe I will threaten to beat you within an inch of your life if you don't give it to me. What? I didn't say I would kill you. You still have life.
That is why we have laws to prevent that sort of behavior.
Not even remotely close. The Constitution does not grant you any rights. The Constitution states the rights that the state may not infringe. You always have the right to free expression, no matter what the state says. The Constitution is a document restricting the actions of the state, not the actions of the people.
Fuck that. I have the right to hate. The corollary of which is that you have no fucking power to tell me what I can and cannot like. I can hate whatever I want to hate. I can hate things based on fact, reason, and data. I can hate things based on personal preference. For me, since I can’t speak for anyone else, those only diverge in only three or four places (like, I can hate tomatoes, you know? I don’t have to like their taste).
“Hate speech”, consequently, does not exist. Speech which describes hate, sure.
Or to not be hated.
Good for you! One step at a time, I guess.
Why would you reference him when his opponents are the ones wanting him silenced?
Depends on your political ideology. Totalitarian groups (marxism and fascism) would say that it’s the whole of the nation which is affected by your actions and stop you from doing things that go against the betterment thereof (“betterment” as proscribed by the ruling class’ wishes). Republicanism puts the responsibility for determining ‘betterment’ on the individual, dictated by the response of the group to said action. Anarchy obviously just expects you to kill anyone you need to in order to keep from being killed.
Good question; very important.
What if your morality precludes acceptance of ruses?
well then please, explain
As long as you have 2, you have 1, and you always have 2, regardless of if it's "legal".
--------------------
The god Abraham spoke to is the one the Jews recognise, as do the Muslims. According to the story, Abraham's god seeded Mary... with himself. Jesus is Yahweh dressed-up, incarnate. That's the whole point about the Nicene code of the 4th century. The bishops 'voted' on the nature of Jesus. They voted to consider him as the same essence - the same one substance. The same entity. It has to be, otherwise as Jesus came into being at some point, it necessarily follows that there was a time when he didn't exist - before he was born. But how could there be a time when the One god did not exist? Sure the adopted Athanasian trilogy myth is an illogical mess, contrary to the non-trinitarian Arianism posit. But Meh, in the end it was down to a vote by bishops some 325 years after the time of Jesus, some 15 generations. Can you imagine voting on the nature of someone today who was born around 1691 with no bona fide verifiable contemporary records, pictures, or recordings?
Incitement to hate
I agree with your point in that one should have the right to hate things, policies and people. But if one should call for physical harm to be done to someone, or to encourage others to harm on one's behalf, that is in no way within the spirit of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech advocates the right to openly disagree with the policies of the Community leaders, that's the fundamental nature of it. But our political and military leaders call upon their men to murder 'the other guys' every day in order to carry out government policies of Judeo/Christian/Secular jurisdictions.
Notice how God doesn't single out one group of people, but rather calls all of those things wrong.
The good news is that in the very next verse, we're told that God has made a way for us to be forgiven, through Jesus - "Some of you were once like that. But you were cleansed; you were made holy; you were made right with God by calling on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God."
Freedom of speech was intended to be ENTIRELY free, and was designed that way to postpone the need for physical violence. If the government starts seeing people talking about killing them for not following the Constitution, they tend to shape up... or be killed. If the government starts silencing and killing people for speaking out against them, as we’re quite close to now, you obviously don’t see any change.