OMG! A Christian! With An Assault Rifle! Talking About Gays! OMG!

Really? because he’s wearing a backwards baseball cap?

No I’m arguing from a position of watching his videos. He’s a terrible rep for religious people, he’s the equivalent of the Kardashians, to him no publicity is bad publicity, and he doesn’t care how he affects Christians, gun owners, or even MLB fans.

So you concede that you’re arguing from a position of pure ad hominem?

1. There is no such thing as a homophobe. Fearing the unnatural is not inherently irrational.

2. Which of his examples are “homophobic”? (Watch the video.)

3. IS HE WRONG? (Again, watch the video.)

Whatever call yourself a human rights denier if you don’t want to be called a homophobe. I just watched a mirror of his video because I won’t give him a click. However no one is taking away his first amendment rights. A lawsuit is a lawsuit, it’s not the code of law, that lawsuit is purely an attention grab, like the guy in California putting the initiative in to kill gays on the streets.

I agree no cake should be forced to bake a cake for anyone, however your solution to this is war with the government? Yes he is wrong, at this point redress does not need to be done with a bullet. Idiots like him will make us all like like human right deniers (Homophobes) when he’s brandishing an AR pistol

So… Marriage is a human right now? Can I expect you to come to my wedding to a second and third wife then?

Sure as long as they are all adults and consenting. Why not? Marriage became a right the moment government started issuing marriage certificates, and making people pay for them, and offering benefits for married couples.

I don’t think you understand what a right is. Government control and licensing of an activity is pretty much the opposite of making something a right.

I don’t know his motivation and haven’t seen his other videos. In this particular video, I’m not seeing anywhere where he’s actually wrong.

Maybe it’s the stopped clock principle. I don’t know. What is clear is that we’ve reached a tipping point. There are too many people demanding resources and respect from others, without having earned either. Meanwhile they’re waging a luke warm war on those others’ rights to speak, think, or do anything in their own peaceful defense.

We’ve all seen it many times before, and it never ends well.

War waged? or War Answered Travis?

That’s rhetorical, you don’t get to decide for him. And yes, strangely, unless he falls under the category of moron or imbecile, he can be as stupid as he wants (not my characterization) and still chuck the rest of our little agreement (not to) when he feels as though someone has, or is going to, chuck some little part of it that he chooses not to live without. It’s not for anyone else to decide for Feuerstein, whether or not our situation has degraded beyond Feuerstein’s definition of “common cause.” Yes, it does mean he can answer with civil war if he feels like it, and No, you don’t have any right to make him ask for your, or anyone else’s permission. Yes, he has the right to direct force on whatever force is being applied on him, yes, that may be tangential, or even a hundred times removed from the prime-mover of that force.
Yes, an attack on his 1st Amendment rights is an attack on this 2nd Amendment rights (and all others, and your pursuit/hold/and exercise of the same as well). Yes, he actually better get after it while he has a heart beat. Yes he has the right to coalesce others to his cause (fu and yours if you don’t want to help, and you need similar help later). No he has not violated any ‘rights’ of homosexuals. No the push-back on homosexual ‘rights’ is not separate from the struggle against his rights. No, the imposition of rights by the Supreme Court are not proper and yes the authority to do so was a whole-cloth invention of the Supreme Court. Yes, a Supreme Court that over-steps the bounds of its authority is capable of anything, cannot be trusted, and should not be assumed to uphold its one job of actually protecting the Constitution. No you cannot equate a percentage of America’s homosexual population’s request to be equated with something that they do not want to uphold or comply with the tenets of . . .

– – [they are not prevented from taking part in the ‘thing’ that is marriage any more than the large portion of heterosexual people who do not take part in it [for other reasons] but that the percentage of homosexuals want to EXCLUDE in order to create the protected class that they can then be attributed [artificially] to]

. . equal to Feuerstein’s desire to prevent his stupid neighbors who need jobs (his government) from attempting to reduce his religious beliefs to that of a superstition [which is the only separation of church and state that exists]. No, human nature and physics have not changed since they were invented. Yes, history has spoken on all of this and has already applied a value to it. No, homosexual people are not a new or untested/unweighted phenomenon. Yes, if homosexuality offered society something better or “equal” to heterosexuality, then society would be beating down its door to get it, and that is not the case and no label of bigotry will ever stick to that [TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012]. No, gun rights (the right to keep and bear arms) [the means of self-determination] is (also) not a new desire of the human heart, or a new untested part of human nature either, and it has achieved a higher value than the other. Yes, this argument will go on past our grandkids, but No, it won’t change any of the outcomes.

So… Marriage is a human right now? Can I expect you to come to my wedding to a second and third wife then?

Depends, will there be an open bar?

TravisP: “I don’t know what Feuerstein said. But one thing I’m sure of, even though I haven’t listened to him, is that he’s wrong-wrong-wrong and an embarrassing fool as well.”

Feuerstein’s like .. ‘Touche?’ ..

Chris T is correct .. the militant gay lobby, after achieving the confabulation of their mental illness with ‘marriage’, has already re-tasked their top lawyers and lobbyists to defame and dissemble the Second Amendment, and gun owners, so those too might be “fundamentally transformed” .. to quote their bathhouse messiah.

“Ah, riled up religious guys brandishing guns… where have I seen this before?”

Ok, I’ll play your silly game, where? You could be kneeling in an orange jumpsuit with a machete to your throat typing that, and be surprised by the intrusion.

“Good thing his religion is probably a religion of peace. I’m sure its nothing to worry about.”

Good thing there’s such a thing, again I don’t think you’d be the one to accurately determine that, but…

Come Armageddon, I bet the whiney ones go first, whatever side their on.

There is currently one religion of peace that is currently chopping peoples heads off and shooting down defenseless men, women and children, if your not of that particular faith. Especially if you are christian or jew. Otherwise known as Islam.

The other faith that will murder you for some “collective good” is atheistic in origin. Otherwise known as Communism and all of its iterations.

But this is common for all of history, as Christianity was used once it became the state religion of Rome and since until fairly recently. The powers that be will use any convenient belief system that can rally the “useful idiots” to enforce their brand of tyranny. As the Liberal/progressives are using their communist based belief system currently in this country and western europe to enforce their own brand of faith based worship of and obeisance to the state.

And the powers that be will use a convenient scape goat to focus the hate of the people on the scape goat as the Nazi’s did with the Jews and as the Christians are being used by the liberal/progressives in this country.

Just business as usual by those with power and their “useful idiots”.

Overly repressive/hypocritical?

Interesting. I once thought the same. I was agnostic and thought anyone believing in some kind of higher power was a fool.

Until I felt the presence of the life force, the universal intelligence, the I Am, and it was an unconditional love that transcended anything I had ever felt for another human being.

I explored that connection initially with American Indian Teachings and the Great Spirit.. Then I was guided to the Christ and his teachings. And he said that he was here to reach two things, love G-d with all of one’s heart, mind, soul and body, and love your neighbor, but especially your enemy, as yourself. That is the totality of his message, the rest are the details.

He also teaches the laws of G-d of how to have a strong and vibrant society following the laws of nature and what works to create the culture that supports creating a safe place for protecting women and children and creating a properous and abundant culture.

Follow these laws, voluntarily, and the culture will prosper, break these laws, and in time, the culture will collapse into anarchy and chaos.

Up until the sixties, we followed these laws, and we propered as a country, though imperfectly, as the disenfranchisement of women and the unequal treatment of blacks was wrong. But we had landed on the moon!!

But now that we, as a country, have pretty much rejected the old christian ways and label them as “oppressive, racist, sexist and homophopbic”, we are seeing the results.

Our living standards are dropping, as well as our literacy rates, as well as our standings in science, we can’t even keep a space shuttle funded, we have to use the Russians rockets to get people into space. Suicide is rising, especially among adolescents; anti-depressants are the most common medication prescribed in the US. It is pretty well accepted that we are on the down slope of being an economic power and China and India will surpass us as we age as a population into a geriatric population.

We have gone from a creditor nation in the sixties to a debtor nation today, beholden to the rest of the world to fund our national budget that is mostly being paid out for public “benefits”, almost half of which is borrowed.

A society can not survive if half of thier budget is borrowed. But the old christian way of living within ones means and paying ones way without being on the public dole has also been thrown onto the garbage heap, as we will be, unless we realize the errors of our ways and voluntarily, return to living within the laws of G-d.

So, yes, a person, just as a society, can break the laws of G-d, as someone can break the laws of gravity by stepping off the edge of a tall building, and in the feeling of freedom, they can triumphantly declare these “oppressive” laws no longer apply to them, until the sudden stop at the bottom shows them otherwise.

If that bakery wouldn’t serve you because you are a Christian then they break the law.

Again, this is not and has never been the issue. No homosexual was blanket-refused service due to being homosexual.

Want to buy cupcakes? Sure, buy cupcakes. And if the cupcake baker refuses to sell you cupcakes that are offered for sale, then under “right of public accommodation” case law, you were discriminated against in an actionable manner.

Want to force the cupcake baker to custom create cupcakes for your homosexual wedding? Neither you nor the government has the authority, under the consent of the governed, to force the cupcake baker to violate his conscience in that manner.

It was thown out.

Was the filing attorney censured? Was there any recompense to the publishers? No? See the problem yet?

Was Matt Mclaughin censured and debarred? The lawyer behind this, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/23/california-anti-gay-bill_n_6927464.html

No, I don’t see the “problem”, other than the fact that silly lawsuits happen all the time. It’s certainly not a situation that requires a call to arms. That’s an even sillier reaction to an already pointless situation.

He’s after clicks and eyeballs, pwrserge, nothing more. We should be avoiding this louse like the plague, not rushing to his defense. C’mon, man!

Would you like a small sampling of deliciously unhinged anti-gay lawsuits?

The Westboro Baptists are not Christians. They are a cult, and teach things explicitly contrary to biblical doctrine.

Really? Westboro Baptist? They have around 40 members. Come up with something better than that. Choose someone like Joel Osteen, and then were talking.

And for the record, Westboro Baptist isn’t remotely Christian. Thought I should make that clear.

The Westboro Baptists are not Christians. They are a cult, and teach things explicitly contrary to biblical doctrine.

Such as?

I love how people see fit to pass judgement on who is and who is not Christian. Isn’t there something about judging people in the bible? Maybe somewhere in the back?

Their claim to Christendom is backed up by no more evidence than anyone else’s.

Spoken like someone who clearly has no understanding of the Bible whatsoever.

Meanwhile, Chip, you’ve not answered Grindstone’s question.

Nor will I. If someone is genuinely interested in discussion or seeking truth, I’ll answer questions and discuss all day long. But as a rule, I won’t debate religion, the Bible, or faith with people who have no motive other than to be argumentative and insulting.

In what way have I insulted or been argumentative with you, Chip? You’re ascribing properties that just aren’t so. One might even call it a cop-out.

Indeed.

I included Westboro Baptist because I believed they were extremist Xians. I came to this conclusion by actually going to their website (it’s akin to dipping one’s face in raw sewage, then inhaling) and noting they point to bible verses to justify everything they say. They seem able to back up what they believe out of the same book (other) Christians use; if anything, they seem to have paid attention to more of it.

I got jumped by four different people on the grounds that WBC isn’t “really” Christian, yet none of them will explain why. But I’ve noticed a lot of Christians, faced with appalling behavior (cf. death threats, etc.) by other Christians, will simply claim those people aren’t really Christians. I smell the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, frankly.

What?

I don’t think Dirk’s ever made suggestive comments about him, so probably not.

You make the point for Feuerstein. How many answers to BS lawsuits then = a war on Feuerstein?

Each is a damnable usurpation of his resources, and an un-answered one, or one where he could only afford the junior attorney damns us all to the outcome as precedent.

Fight your enemy at your gate, not your door. Or, better yet, promise to meet him under the tree that he sleeps under, before he wakes up, and then keep all your promises. [TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012]

No one is suing Feuerstein. This whole comment section is becoming a facepalm.

Why the tar, feathers, and pitchforks haven’t come out as people are forced to buy overpriced insurance because keeping their old plan didn’t turn out to be an option…or as they’ve watched their rates skyrocket….

Yet people are up in arms because two people who never did anything to them, are now legally allowed to call their relationship a “marriage” and get the legal benefits (presumed inheritance and power of attorney and tax breaks). And this is somehow a frigging religious issue?

(I agree the cake baking thing does cross the line, but the outrage didn’t reach todays levels with THAT, it was the “marriage” decision that did it.)

He didn’t even realize that the lawsuit was old. He’s just another idiot who read something on the internet, made a video, and posted it on the internet for more idiots to get upset about rather than doing the smallest amount of research.
There’s a lesson here, someplace…

No, the BS lawsuit was not against Feuerstein, it was a suit brought to support the notion that the federal government has the authority to alter the Bible. Feuerstein has no right to be offended, you have no right to be offended by his offense. Where do you live? Someone might ask the government to ensure that you are offended by Feuerstein’s offense someplace else. Just leave, don’t take your wife or kids, or your stuff, we don’t want there to the chance that someone might become offended by how long it takes you to leave and then asks our government to disturb your whole block to hurry you along.

BTW, a “homophone” is a word that sounds like another word with a different meaning. Just sayin’.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=homosexuality+in+the+animal+kingdom#

You got me on the spelling mistake.

“Honk if you hate homophones!”

Damn, I should make that bumpersticker.

OK, thanks for the link leading me to google–lol!. Interesting stuff, I’m not entirely convinced, what with expanding the definition of “homosexual behavior” and including hermaphroditic species, but interesting nonetheless.

Don’t know about you, but I use sexual relations as something other than reproduction all the time.

As long as the subject has been broached, let’s jump right to the end of the argument now.

We are all finite beings stuck on a planet. We have basic human needs that need to be met to survive and basic human desires that are part of our nature. Even laissez-faire attitudes towards homosexual behavior (not the people [which are forever equal as “people”]) cannot pass the bounds of being equated back-across the equal sign. That is, heterosexuals are harmed in their attempts at finding a desired mate, and creating resulting offspring, if they are confused with homosexuals (even the metro’s). “Tomorrow” (foresworn as an empty notion in the Bible, by the way) is hampered in our resulting passage in to-it.
Love (please do really love and care for) who you want, in a way that is mutually (with them) how the two of you want, but that doesn’t really come anywhere near what we are really talking about when it comes to marriage. History/human nature/physics/Society has so-spoken. We can open that argument as many times as you would like, but it’s not safe to ignore that we’ve been here before, and on these tracks we will walk again.
To tie-it-back to TTAG – we’ve been over the “power-grab” that is the ‘gun-grab’ tracks before many times too. Our past is littered with the answer, and it is not just wrong, it is wrongful, that anyone should attempt to drag us through it again.

Where do you see rape condoned?

Judges 21:10-24
Numbers 31:7-18
Deuteronomy 20:10-14
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
2 Samuel 12:11-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-14
Judges 5:30
Exodus 21:7-11
Zechariah 14:1-2

Maybe it is YOU that needs to read the bible?

It’s also notable that rape isn’t forbidden in the ten commandments, yet worshipping the wrong god was not only forbidden, it was listed well before “thou shalt not kill.” Nice to see where the priorities lay.

In point of fact the assertion made by many that our laws are based on the ten commandments is sheer twaddle. Only three (or four if you stretch a point) of the commandments actually ban acts that are banned by law, and those particular things were crimes long before the ten commandments were written,.

Steve, don’t forget the omission of “thou shalt not own another human as property”.

Yeah, but our poor interlocutors are still having trouble swallowing biblically-approved rape as a concept. One thing at a time.

Wait: weren’t you just lamenting Christian commenters attacking atheists? Some resident atheists attack Christians and Christianity with impunity – and this comments thread is a prime example, including your nonsense about biblically condoned rape.

@Grindstone , you need to show better reading comprehension. Yours is certainly on the low end of the spectrum. If you need these passages explained, Matthew Henry could do it way better than I. However, I will simply say that you are wrong, terribly so.

This particular chain started when a Christian started puling about a double standard being applied against him. And yes, I am going to feel free to step into an argument when outrageous falsehoods are being bandied about.

Explain how direct commands from God to commit rape are not “biblically condoned rape.”

The picture any objective reader gets from the OT is of a society where if you raped a woman, your crime (if any) was deemed to be against her husband or father, not against her. Said society had the full support of the law as (supposedly) handed down by god, on its side.

So let’s take a look at these citations that supposedly have nothing to do with sanctioned rape:

Judges 21:10-24 – They capture 400 virgins (after slaughtering the rest of the town) and were given away to men of Israel in forced marriages.

Numbers 31:7-18 – Moses awards virgin captives to his soldiers.

Deuteronomy 20:10-14 – General directive as part of the law to keep women captured (after slaughtering all of the men).

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 – A man who rapes a woman pays the father a fine and has to marry her. (Well maybe that was his plan all along and she wasn’t interested. Or her father wasn’t.)

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 – Both the woman and the man are executed for a rape (sounds a lot like the shit that goes on in Islamic countries).

2 Samuel 12:11-14 – God has the daughters of a man raped as a way to punish him. What it does to them doesn’t seem to matter in the least.

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 – Another general directive permitting forced marriage of a captive woman.

Judges 5:30 – More plundering of virgin captives.

Exodus 21:7-11 – A man is allowed to sell her daughter into slavery, she can be wedded against her will, and her husband can take another wife, as well.

Zechariah 14:1-2 – God is apparently telling the people of Jerusalem that as a penalty for not worshiping him properly, he’s going to let their daughters be raped.

I know quite a number of atheists who were formerly Christians, but dropped out of it once they read the *entire* book, not just the warm-fuzzy parts that pastors like to selectively teach from in Church.

Wait: weren’t you just lamenting Christian commenters attacking atheists? Some resident atheists attack Christians and Christianity with impunity – and this comments thread is a prime example, including your nonsense about biblically condoned rape.

You’re dodging again.

@Grindstone , you need to show better reading comprehension. Yours is certainly on the low end of the spectrum. If you need these passages explained, Matthew Henry could do it way better than I. However, I will simply say that you are wrong, terribly so.

Did you even read the passages I cited? There’s nothing ambiguous about it. Rape, especially that of captured women, is 100% bible/god approved and even commanded.

Here’s a simple example from Numbers 31:7-18:

Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Moses, the man with a direct communication to God, commands his followers to capture and rape all the young virgin girls of the vanquished enemy.

Hm, who does that sound like? I think it starts with an “M”…

I don’t see anything about rape there. You must be reading things into the passage. I guess the problem is really you?

Good grief, man. Don’t be a fool. Read the whole Bible. The old covenant was fulfilled by Christ, who instituted the new covenant. As Christians, we are not bound by the old covenant anymore. And besides, the ten commandments forbids both adultery and coveting what is not yours, which is essentially what rape is. Again, rape and racial based slavery is thoroughly condemned by scripture. Now, unless you will be civil in your speech, that is all I will say. Go read Matthew Henry if you still don’t get it.

I don’t see anything about rape there. You must be reading things into the passage. I guess the problem is really you?

So, tell me, what do you think “keep them for yourselves” means? Or the context of specifying that they must be virgins first? Are you really going to play dumb on that?
Hell, you haven’t even addressed any of the other passages that specify forced marriage of captured women, or the passages like Zechariah 14:1-2 that explicitly states: “And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished”

In case you’re that ignorant, “ravished” does NOT mean “treated with dignity and consent for sexual intercourse sought out first”.

You have some serious cognitive dissonance problems.

Good grief, man. Don’t be a fool. Read the whole Bible. The old covenant was fulfilled by Christ, who instituted the new covenant. As Christians, we are not bound by the old covenant anymore.

Completely missing the point. Unless you think that everything in the OT is suddenly invalid because the Romans killed a rebellious street preacher, the OT is still the “word of God”, is it not?

And besides, the ten commandments forbids both adultery and coveting what is not yours, which is essentially what rape is.

Yet the passages I quoted still exist.

Again, rape and racial based slavery is thoroughly condemned by scripture.

Not quite. The rules for rape are basically the man has to pay the woman’s father then marry the victim. [Deuteronomy 22:28-29 ] You don’t think that’s a little on the WTF side of things?
As for slavery, the bible doesn’t say anything like “thou shalt not keep human property” but rather “don’t kill your slaves outright”.[Exodus 21:20-21] Among other things (Exodus 21:2-11). Even Jesus himself doesn’t say not to have slaves, but for slaves to obey their masters [Ephesians 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:1-2, Luke 12:47-48] That’s a very far cry from being condemned by scripture.

Now, unless you will be civil in your speech, that is all I will say.

Nobody here is uncivil. Calm down.

Go read Matthew Henry if you still don’t get it.

How about you read the bible for yourself instead of having someone else filter it for you?
I have provided direct passages from the bible that explicitly show how rape and slavery is not only supported, but encouraged. You have done nothing but say “read what some guy who had no hand in writing the bible said!”

Keep them for yourself does not imply rape. Maybe in your mind, you sicko.
The use of the word ravished was in regards to what could happen to the women of Jerusalem. It is not an encouragement, this is prophecy.
The person you have been referred to for insight actually has read for comprehension, unlike your own reading.
I have seen plenty of this silliness, even claiming Jesus words out of context.
For the record, arranged marriages still exist today, in America.
A few centuries ago they were quite common.
Your moral equivalence is out of whack for millennia in the past.

Keep them for yourself does not imply rape. Maybe in your mind, you sicko.

Yes, forcible marriage DOES, in fact, directly imply rape.

The use of the word ravished was in regards to what could happen to the women of Jerusalem. It is not an encouragement, this is prophecy.

Oh, excuse me, a prophecy of rape condoned by god is not encouragement? Now you’re splitting hairs.

The person you have been referred to for insight actually has read for comprehension, unlike your own reading. I have seen plenty of this silliness, even claiming Jesus words out of context.

Again, refusing to directly address the quotes, instead trying to pawn them off to a professional spin doctor.

For the record, arranged marriages still exist today, in America.
A few centuries ago they were quite common.

Slavery still exist, doesn’t make it any less abhorrent.

Your moral equivalence is out of whack for millennia in the past.

Says the one pooh-poohing the biblically-endorsed rape and forced servitude of women. I’m not the one playing mental gymnastics trying to weasel excuses and deflections (or outright avoidance) of the uncomfortable truth.

Allowed does not imply approved. Nor is rape implied in keeping for yourself. You like to finish things with your own sick twists rather than read for co pretension.
No wonder you are so messed up.
A professional spin doctor? You are a moron. I, nor most, have the time nor credentials to study the nuances of primitive Hebrew, nor the actual practices espoused by the words. In addition, words were much more generic back then, so context is extremely important. Experts study those nuances, if you want to learn, consult them.
Also the mosaic law applied to the Jews, not to the world.
Then come asshats working with translations, without context, and thinking they have the last word on the subject. Grindstone fits, you are an abrasive blockhead. I guess you have learned a lot today. Maybe tomorrow we can try teaching you about analog time-keeping devices? We can get you past the big hand/little hand problem.

Mathew Henry was not a spin doctor. I am citing him because it is much easier for you to go and Google his commentaries than for me to keep trying to talk you through scripture. Go back and read the scriptures in context, in conjunction with some well founded sermons.

Paul G: Experts study those nuances, if you want to learn, consult them.

Ajax: …Matthew Henry…

It’s amazing that the Son of God couldn’t be clear enough to not require “experts” to interpret what he said. Presumably, he knew that far more people would be reading the words in translation than would ever read it in the original Aramaic (or Koine Greek), so honestly, I don’t buy translation as an excuse for this (supposed) failure.

Likewise Moses, when (allegedly) writing the Pentateuch in Hebrew.

I tend to think the authors of these works meant exactly what they said, and that it’s modern Christians who are being selective about interpretation, because the ethics of modern people have moved far beyond the early Iron Age mores shown in the OT, which remained substantially unchanged during the period of the Early Roman Empire. If they had to face up to what was actually being said, they’d have to choose between behaving like barbarians, or abandoning their faith. (All too many would choose the former, see the man at the top of the page in the video.)

It is readily apparent that you are no polyglot. Context is also vital, and at times
must be gleaned through reference to several other writings.
Similarly, reading chapter 7 of a 28 chapter novel hardly gives a full picture. Even many of the events of chapter 7 need the preceding chapters to be understood.
People quote words Jesus relates in parables as if the words were his opinion, not part of a parable related to impart a lesson. Unscrupulous is putting it mildly in relation to such actions.
I guess if you cannot fathom these simple concepts the rest is probably Greek to you as well. Your comments on morality are laughable.

I’ve had a fair amount of expose to two other languages, though I certainly won’t claim fluency in either of them. I’ve seen enough to note that with very complex concepts, translation can certainly be a royal pain and takes skill. However, I’ll also note that the folks who translated the NIV, NRSV, etc. have plenty of such skill; I misdoubt that was true of the KJV as well (though I suspect they had less knowledge of many aspects of ancient life than modern translators, it doesn’t seem to have had much of an effect on the product as the translations are substantially in agreement).

But you’ll note that I said “complex concepts.” A commandment not to kill or a commandment to stone gays is pretty easy to translate, as are indicative sentences in general, and as I pointed out, Christ, if he truly were divine, would surely have known his words were going to be translated, and to be sure to NOT be obscure. Instead, we see him having to explain himself over and over again to his own followers, who spoke his language.

As far as your analogy to reading a chapter out of the middle of a novel, I’m not sure it serves your argument well to be comparing the bible to a work of fiction. But worse is that I see Christians walk around all the time with “bibles” that are nothing but Psalms and the New Testament. Over two thirds of the bible is *missing.* These are also pushed upon people in an attempt to get them to convert; apparently for that you don’t particularly need the Old Testament. It’s as if one were given chapters 17 and 46-52 of a novel and expected to believe in the entire contents of the novel, sight unseen. Doesn’t the old testament set the context for the new? Or does the new testament just completely over-ride everything in the old testament, in spite of Jesus’ reassurances to the contrary? And if it does override the OT, then why are so many people today adamant about gays being an abomination (yet they have no problem with any of the other situations condemned in the very same chapter)? But even the New Testament contains references to slavery, with not a hint that it ought to be abolished; in fact Jesus (through Paul) admonishes slaves to continue to be obedient. Surely if slavery were actually *wrong* Jesus would have said so, and given slaves to rebel against the immoral circumstances they found themselves in. It being too big a change would be no barrier to the son of god, he had plenty else to say which went against the wisdom of the day.

Your special pleadings that experts are needed to understand this book, in spite of it already being translated by experts (who certainly supplied a lot of footnotes to point out any ambiguities they saw) sound to me like you’re just shilling for spin doctors, to use Grindstone’s term. But spin doctors are needed in order to explain away embarrassments, and there is plenty of work for them to do.

I’ve seen you flatly refuse to listen to subject matter experts when their opinion contradicts your much-less-informed opinion; in fact you do so in a rather snotty fashion. Thus I don’t expect to be able to persuade you that simple indicative sentences and other sentences in the imperative mode mean what they say, reaching for any excuse, finally resorting to “oh but you have to read the whole book to be able to understand any single sentence in it.” Of course there’s no shortage of one-liners quoted by Christians all the time, to people whom (they believe) are profoundly ignorant of what’s in the bible; apparently those sentences don’t require any context at all. But I’ll point out that I have, indeed, read the whole thing, end-to-end. And I have to continue to stand by my original point: If eight hundred thousand words isn’t enough to explain ones self clearly, than one is piss poor at explaining things, rather than being omnipotent. God should have engaged the services of a competent editor.

Familiar is far from being fluent. Even fluency fades when not exercised, and we are discussing archaic forms, no longer in use. Yes, even simple concepts can be misinterpreted. Is it thous shalt not kill, or murder? Big difference, huh? Isiaih 40:22 is often held up by atheists to prove the silliness of the Bible. The reference to the circle of the earth proves they thought they earth was like a pizza pan. Never mind the metaphoric nature of the verse. Worse, don’t know that the word for circle is used elsewhere to indicate the shape of a pregnant woman’s belly. Are those athiests stupid, insisting pregnant women have pizza pan shaped bellies? Or is it just an archaic word, and mistranslated even slightly, making a difference?
There is quite a lot about slavery in the testaments. Of course slavery was a fact all over the world until relatively recent times. Also, it was western Christians that agitated for, and to a large extent succeeded in, ending the practice. The slavery issue is much more complex than the simple views you present. At the least, it can be asserted that treatment of slaves was expected to be fair in the Christian testament.
Disagreeing with “experts”, especially in the legal realm, is hardly a similar comparison . Indeed, if you have taken time to study ancient Hebrew and hash out the original meanings, and connect the various strings tying together the various parts of the narrative, feel free to educate me. If not, the works of others who have done such work can be helpful. They are presenting facts, not opinions. That an ancient word could be translated two ways is hardly a difficult concept to believe. That translators could make errors, or have chosen better words is a daily reality. Ask anyone at the UN.

Do you regularly carry a copy of the Magna Carta, or perhaps the Articles of Confederation? Or does a copy of the Constitution, and maybe the Declaration of Independence, fill the bill since we are Americans, and those are currently relevant?
Christians look to the OT for primarily historic reasons, the NT is the relevant guide.

Reading is not the same as comprehending. Comprehension quite often entails much more than a simple read.

Poor use of words on your part. No state I know of grants marriage contracts. All honor the signature of a religious officiant as valid to certify a marriage, clearly violating your misunderstanding of separation of church and state.
Stick to topics you understand.

I’m pretty sure Ralph has a law degree and some experience practicing law. What about you?

I don’t get why religious people think the concept of marriage has a religious origin. Marriages came about as a way of legally codifying inheritance and property transfers. That’s all the gays want out of it now.

How many marriages has he contracted?
I made it quite clear his choice of words was bad.

A marriage is a contract, as you will find out if you are ever divorced. Very correct in the eyes of the government.

Go tell your county clerk you want a marriage contract.

Let me try to explain it to you, Paul. I’ll start with an excerpt from Wikipedia:

“Marriage, also called matrimony or wedlock, is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them . . .”

When two individuals marry in the United States, they are bound by the marriage laws of the licensing jurisdiction. This is the contract, detailing the rights and responsibilities of the parties. Some rights can be changed by mutual agreement; some cannot. Property rights, legitimacy, inheritance etc. are all prescribed by law.

You fundamental misunderstanding that you know nothing of contracts or of marriage. When you get divorced, which you will if you can find someone impressionable enough to marry you in the first place, you will learn better.

Gee, wiki? Looks like you have proven my point.
Sorry, I am certain that both of the women who once married me (one still my wife) are way out of your league.

You might have been closer with Black’s, but wiki-authority will not come anywhere near the timelessness of “marriage.” A ‘marriage’ does not even fully meet Black’s definition, as to its enforceability [a judge will make you roll your Petition and cram-it if you attempted to sue for specific performance], but SOCIETY (wherever there are two individual people) will uphold it. All law requires a formidable amount of “Paired Societies’ [TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012] to uphold it. Marriage is one of the few ways you can gather enough of the rabble to even disseminate that you thought that there even ought to be a law. NEITHER Government nor any of its citizenry [doesn’t matter where on the planet or in what period of human history you care to discuss – even if GOD allows us to branch out into the universe in the future] cannot get its little-toe under the turtle that is human nature and physics, and those things [again, and only UNDER GOD] solely support and define “Marriage.”

All honor the signature of a religious officiant as valid to certify a marriage, clearly violating your misunderstanding of separation of church and state.
Stick to topics you understand.

No religious officiant signed my contract between my wife, myself, and the state recognizing our legal union.
Maybe you don’t understand what you’re talking about?

Nowhere was it claimed that clergy were the sole persons who could certify a marriage. But their eligibility invokes the church in what you claim as a state matter. Ya gotta keep em separated.

How valid is a contract without terms? A license is different.

Don’t bother, Ralph. Paul G is immune to instruction and has been since the first grade.

Not at all. If someone has intelligent commentary to add, great. Kinda excludes you I guess.

But their eligibility invokes the church in what you claim as a state matter.

Their eligibility has nothing to do with their religion. It’s a state ordainment. Being clergy doesn’t automatically grant religious marriage ordainment, just as being ordained doesn’t automatically make you clergy. Hell, in Alaska, all you need to be is 18 to ordain a marriage.

How valid is a contract without terms? A license is different.

The terms are that we’re joined in legal union. A contract is not required to be a quid pro quo document. This is a legal agreement between myself and my wife that we are united and share in the legalities as such.

Hell, the language on the marriage application explicitly calls it a contract:

“That said parties are not of the relationship prohibited by law and may lawfully contract and be joined in marriage.”

Didn’t you claim that Ralph didn’t know what he was talking about when it comes to marriage documentation? I think it’s fairly obvious that you’re the ignorant one here.

Now you are just plain wrong. Very few municipalities regulate clergy, none that I am aware of have “state ordainment”. Vegas and NYC stand out in my mind as tougher regarding ministerial laws, they require a written document attesting to a minister’s ordination be registered with the city. But they do not ordain anyone.
In the majority of the USA anyone can get an Internet ordination and officiate weddings, the government recognizes the religious ordination.
Interestingly, Michigan law says any minister of the Gospel may perform a marriage, which actually disqualifies rabbis and imams. So much for separation.

“A contract is not required to be a quid pro quo document”
First you argue for it being a contract, then you contradict yourself. LOL

Is English your second language? You seem to have some reading comprehension problems. A contract is an agreement between multiple parties at it’s most basic level. That’s not contradictory. You’re just ignorant.

English is my first language, and I comprehend it quite well. The ignorance is in your inability to do so.
I have never signed a marriage contract, but I have signed marriage licenses. That nuances of language are lost upon the dense. That would be you.

That’s the point that you apparently totally missed. She wasn’t breaking any law. I think my post was pretty clear that she was standing in the public right-of-way, next to the street, where the sidewalk would be if there was a sidewalk there. What led you to the totally erroneous conclusion that she was breaking the law?

Oh, and where did you get the idea that my daughter was “screaming” at anyone? Again, I think my post was clear that she was standing in one place and praying. She does not scream when she prays. And again, she was across the street, not interfering with anybody coming in or out. Maybe you should invest in a little reading comprehension before you start shooting off baseless comments.

Another Robert, the Supreme Court would probably decide in favor of your daughter. The controlling case is McCullen v. Coakley, where the Court struck down MA’s “buffer zone” law as an impermissible restriction of First Amendment rights.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1168_6k47.pdf

Again, Swarf and a few others are not playing the argument out to the end in their head, and they are pretending like society/history/nature/nurture have left this as an “open question” yet to be decided by some higher-thinking individuals.

Bottom-line the argument. If a woman does not value the life of an individual that exists by her own invitation [her baby] then she cannot convince me that she values my life, or values anything else that I have placed a value-on.

If we do not value each other, than all other arguments are over, and every other “argument” (discussion) should be assumed to be accompanied by violence.

If the woman’s will was usurped by rape [not sure why ‘incest’ is usually thrown in here (must be a blue-state/evil house of (D) fantasy or something)] OR, if the continued carriage truly threatens the continued life of the woman, then Society cannot not expect anything else from her. A Woman (and Women in general) cannot be forced to carry Society’s children, as that devalues the woman’s life in return.

If the tobacco settlement money buoys the U.S. economy enough to make the sh_t-a_ _ Bill Clinton feel like a hero, and the government gives a smallish fraction of that money to Planned Parenthood who then goes and uses it to kill nearly 50% of everyone that comes through its doors, and that’s not damnable? Then F all of you, pray nightly that my soul is not remanded to hell, for you will be my b_tch there too.

Another Robert

You’ve been nothing but courteous in this weird ass thread, so I will do you the courtesy of publicly (whatever that means on an internet blog where I go by the name Swarf) cop to the fact that yes, I did misread your comment. I thought you said she was standing in the road.

Litterin’

Littering and..?

And creatin’ a nuisance.

No. No businesses are being “shut down by the government” over this. You’re parroting talk-radio nonsense.

Sweetcakes by Melissa voluntarily closed up shop and took their business online. In no way, shape, or form did the government force them to close. They did so because their actions cost them too much business. Ain’t the “free market” a bitch?

When you include this kind of idiotry into your posts, it taints the entirety.

The cake crosses a line because someone is being forced to do business against his will. My objection to it has nothing whatsoever to do with his motivation for not wanting to do business with the couple in question.

Are you aware of any other religious group whose businesses are being shut down by the government because they are adhering to their religious principles?

I’m aware that Hobby Lobby got a religious carveout from Obamacare. Every other employer of that size has to buy a one size fits all insurance policy (or pay a penalty). But whine about how it violates your religion, and you get a partial break. What about people who think it’s abhorrent to be forced to buy shit for other people but *don’t* have a rationale that invokes something a god allegedly said 3+ thousand years ago?

And while you are at it, are you aware of any other religious group that has had RICO suits filed against them for engaging in First-amendment protected activities?

Citation, please–both for Christians–qua Christians–being sued and other religions getting off scot free for doing the same thing under the same circumstances.

And OBTW, if it’s for telling people how to vote from behind a pulpit, that’s a violation of their 501c3 status. It’s illegal for any non profit to do this.

Or have been labeled by the DOD as potential domestic terroristst?

Citation, please. And show that it’s because they are professed Christians, not because they are talking about breaking the law.

I’ll concede that a lot of folks are caterwauling about dangers more perceived than real, but that doesn’t mean there is no religious discrimination going on.

Even if I were to stipulate that what you said above is true, you would still get the understatement of the century award, everything from:

* People puling about a store clerk saying “Happy Holidays,”
* Righteous indignation about removing religious displays from government property (a violation of the Establishment Clause)–even though there’s a perfectly good church right across the way that can host that display.
* People complaining because you’re not allowed to lead (i.e., force) a *government* school class full of a random cross section of American children through a Christian prayer even though not all of the students are Christian. Again, our government is required to remain neutral on these issues. Those who don’t like their kid (and mine!) *not* being force fed religion in school can pull him out, send him to a private school. But whining about being persecuted because you don’t get to *impose* your religion on everyone else at taxpayer expense? Puh-lease!

People who complain about the latter two sorts of issues (yes, they crop up incessantly even though the case law was made clear decades ago) have to do so anonymously because they will otherwise be subjected to death threats and other forms of harassment.

So just who the FVCK is being persecuted here?

Sweetcakes by Melissa isn’t the only business that has had this kind of incident. Bakers and photographers and pizza parlors in various different states have closed down after being unable to pay fines and penaties, or have shut down rather than pay them. Using a single example to make an exclusive conclusion about the whole situation taints your whole argument. As does assuming I listen to talk radio, which I don’t (what is it with you guys and talk radio? kind of like anti-gunners and penises)

Now, you caught me on the RICO in a sense. RICO suits were filed against various anti-abortion groups, but then, you don’t necessarily have to be Christian to be anti-abortion. Hobby Lobby managed to get a Supreme court ruling in their favor, true, but then they had to go to the Court in the first place because the .gov was hell-bent on forcing them to go against their religious principles in the first place. And if you want to go on about people complaining about “Happy Holidays” instead of ‘Merry Christmas”, fine, but that doesn’t mean that the parent of a kindergartner who was told she couldn’t say grace over her snack doesn’t have a legitimate complaint. Oh, the DOD and DHS have been caught several times using training curricula obtained from the Southern Christian (imagine that) Leadership Conference that labeled “Christian fundamentalists” and Catholics as well as military veterans, as likely domestic terrorists.

Another Robert, when a business refuses service because of factors such as race, religion, sexual orientation etc., that’s usually a violation of state law since state laws usually prohibit such types of discrimination. I don;t have a problem with that. But what I have a major problem with is a six figure fine for not wanting to bake a cake for a gay wedding in Oregon.

Excessive fines violate the very language of the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution. Unfortunately, the prohibition against excessive fines has not be incorporated so as to apply to the states. However, the Oregon Constitution does prohibit excessive fines. Is six figures excessive? I think so, even if it’s a civil fine.

Hi Ralph–Yes, I understand about the state laws, but the fact that it is the states and not the feds has no significance in my view, it still is a massive government overreach. And in a way, Steve has “caught” me again ( with an assist from yourself), in that you don’t necessarily have to claim to be a Christian to oppose either homosexual marriage or being forced to bake a cake for anyone for whatever reason. I will note that so far I have not heard of any government agency at any level moving against, say, a Muslim bakery for refusing to do the wedding cake thing for a homosexual couple, which might explain why some folks see it as an anti-Christian kind of thing.

But you agree that the “cake-baking thing” is crossing the line, right? Are you aware of any other religious group whose businesses are being shut down by the government because they are adhering to their religious principles?

They violated Oregon law. If they had refused to bake the cake and cited it was because of the race of the couple, it would be illegal under the same law.

And while you are at it, are you aware of any other religious group that has had RICO suits filed against them for engaging in First-amendment protected activities?

Is this about Mars Hill? From what I’ve seen, the charges come from a former Deacon, not the government.

Or have been labeled by the DOD as potential domestic terroristst?

I wouldn’t be surprised if the guy in the article above was on a potential domestic “terroristst” [sic] list, considering he’s advocating armed insurrection. I’m a veteran with right-leaning politics, yet somehow I’m able to have a clearance and a job with the DOD.

doesn’t mean there is no religious discrimination going on.

There really isn’t, though. You’re still free to hate gays. You’re still free to attend whatever church you want. You’re still free to believe whatever you want. But forcing your beliefs into government and legislation is where it end. That is not “discrimination”. That is true freedom. Freedom from YOUR religious tyranny.

Hobby Lobby managed to get a Supreme court ruling in their favor, true, but then they had to go to the Court in the first place because the .gov was hell-bent on forcing them to go against their religious principles in the first place.

LOTS of people tried to get this law overturned. They ALL had to go to the court. So having to go to court isn’t evidence of persecution (unless everyone is being persecuted by Obamacare…a point of view I would not be unsympathetic towards). ONLY the religious argument succeeded. You got yourself a special carve out, and have the gall to claim it as persecution?

ONLY the religious argument succeeded. You got yourself a special carve out, and have the gall to claim it as persecution?

If ever there was a time to resurrect the “owned” meme, now would be it.

You’re confusing free speech, with not allowing a certain religion to enforce their religion on you. Libertarians live and let live.

To Travis P
No religion is forced on you. This is American. You don’t have to attend any church. You are a confused libertarian. You do not have to listen to the musings of people who believe in invisible beings.

But libertarians can get government force to take a bakery away from private citizens who say things you don’t like. There are many comments of support for this government bakery take over.

Send me your libertarian links. Educate me.

Well you can start by dropping your bullshit assertion that Libertarians want to force people to bake wedding cakes.

http://reason.com/archives/2014/03/06/nobody-gay-or-straight-has-the-right-to

http://reason.com/archives/2014/08/19/libertarians-gay-marriage-and-freedom

If you ‘read’ it, and didn’t just ‘look at the pictures’ then. . .

mischief managed.

So Leviticus 20:13 doesn’t exist, then?

Change that to “freedom of association” and I’m fully with you.

And on that point, I agree with you fully, regarding how things should be. But that train has left the station (thanks to judiciary-discovered “right of public accommodation”); how do we make it return?

Damfino.

One thing I don’t think would be helpful, though would be to give powerful groups a carve out. If they get that, then they cease to care.