Total posts: 7,093
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
In what way is unpredictability observably different from random chance?
Created:
Posted in:
So we look at stuff he said that was on similar subjects...How have you determined that we have accurate records in this regard?Yes
This is not an answer to my question. How have you determined that we have accurate records of what Jesus said?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
@WyseGui has said
You have made a lot of assertions during this debate.
He thinks you are debating. It is dishonest of you to let him continue thinking this. If debate is unchristian and you are not debating but merely proclaiming your beliefs he deserves to know otherwise you are not having this discussion in good faith.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I thought you were bored with discussions about frrewill.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I'm going to be honest I've been trying to puzzle this out and I just don't get what you are trying to say here. I'm sorry to ask but could you possibly rephrase this?does his interpretation of what constitutes participation covered by free speech and or freedom of religion? I think it does, so what you consider difference or complexity isn't relevant to his opinion and freedoms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
How have you determined that we have accurate records in this regard?So we look at stuff he said that was on similar subjects...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
If Jesus was a historical figure he lived long before the concept of gay conversion therapy and as a consequence probably had very little to say on the subject.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
All of my replies have been a direct consequence of what you have posted. It is possible that we are misunderstanding one another.I was never even talking about that
Tell me in what way do you feel you have been misrepresented? I would always prefer understanding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
My argument is actually that it does not matter what it says in the bible but as I said we are getting off topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
We are getting of topic and that is rude of us but I invite you to create a thread about this subject in which I may participate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
When discussing the efficacy of legislation one must consider the worst case scenario.You should not say they don't have the option to buy a custom cake, or that they are barred from purchasing complex cakes since that has never been proven.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
This is your claim. Do you have evidence for this claim?John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
Ok you have replaced your claim with the bible's claim. Now what? Do you have any evidence for the bible's claims or even just this one biblical claim?
The bible is not in my experience a good source for determining any given christians beliefsThat's your claim. Where's your proof for that
Only that christians interpret the bible differently not just from denomination to denomination but from individual to individual. As an example am Amish person has very different ideas about what is acceptable in the eyes of the Yahweh (which is I believe one reason you see so few of them on the boards).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
This is your claim. Do you have evidence for this claim?I should clarify; everyone sins, and Jesus is here to basically stand in for you when you refuse him you basically say that you'll take the punishment that you deserve for sinning
Because we're talking about Christianity...
The bible is not in my experience a good source for determining any given christians beliefs and even if it was the mere fact that one specific person or even many people believe something is not evidence of the truth of the propisition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If the cakes in the case are significantly different in complexity then it is also untrue in a more fundamental way. But let's assume that it is true for a moment. In that case and if the cakes in the case are what he is offering homosexuals then he has ALREADY baked several gay wedding cakes and I am unclear what difference one more or less would make moralistically or theologically. It rather invalidates the religious objection if that us true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Speedrace
How have you determined that this is the case?You go to hell for unbelief, not sin
And the Bible doesn't say most of us will go to hell, I believe it's actually a pretty large majority that will go to heaven (2/3+), but I'm not sure where it says that
If the bible gives any figures on this I'm unaware of it but even if it did how have you determined that the bible is an accurate source for determining it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
How does a cake for a heterosexual wedding differ from a cake for a homosexual wedding?
Ingredients?
Time in the oven?
Color of icing?
It seems like the two projects are similar enough that you could just make a cake for a heterosexual wedding and then sell it to someone having a homosexual wedding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Heterosexuality is not an attribute that cakes possess.He was, he was offering heterosexual wedding cakes to anyone who wanted to buy one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
If guns deter violence then why do all mass shooting involve guns?they also always involve people, chicken and the egg thing LOL
Well stated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I don't think much of a deity that judges people based on the actions of others.What if gay people are jeopardizing religious peoples afterlife. Unfortunately this has to be considered right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
In that case endorsing gay marriage is not tantamount to endorsing gay sex and the morallity of such acts asside there is suddenly no logical objection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
quite simply you don't have to do an action, the verbs I listed, you can not change your skin color. There are very religious gay people who believe gay sex is a sin so they don't have it (action/verb)you also don't have to get married, totally voluntary and optional, skin color, not so much.I hope that explains the difference that I see.
By that rational getting married need not involve sex (though like being homosexual it generally does) so the bakers objection to a non sex act is still quite puzzling.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
How does this prevent one from claiming religious objection to serving other races or disabled persons? Is there any way to prevent abuse of a "religious freedom" bill which is worded to protect one from being prosecuted for discrimination based on whatever post hoc religious justifications are offered?The bible is based upon our relationship with God, not vice versa.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
No the difference between skin color and sexual orientation. If one can object to a ceremony/act/verb based on sexual orientation then one could also object based on skin color. What is the difference?we are going in circles here, how can I explain the difference between a ceremony,event,act (verbs) and skin color (noun) in any more of a plain way than I already have?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Marriage in this context is a legal designation not a religious one. Otherwise no legislation would be necessarry or apply.Marriage is between a man and a woman, who are given to one another. There is no such thing as homosexual marriage in Christianity. It is like an oxymoron. Interracial marriage would still be marriage.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
No it is not.what you are saying is tantemanout to justification for repealing the Bill of Rights.
It is a conscious act.
What is the above in response too?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I believe many religions have a long history on various issues. Afaik divorced people can't get remarried in a Catholic church, or that was the case at one time.
A church is essentially a private club a bakery is not. If you wish to reap the benefits of opening your buisness to the general public then you must open your buisness to the entire general public.
People shouldn't be forced to reach agreement
The issue is not a failure to reach a financial agreement it is refusal of a service that is ordinarily open to the general public. We already have legislation that deals with financial agreements so if that were all then we would not need a "religious freedom bill" and we would not even be having this conversation.
Also please address the following.
What specifically makes homosexual sex acts between consenting adults immoral and heterosexual sex acts between interracial consenting adults moral?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
as I said objecting to the act of homosexuality or a religious event is not the same as objecting to someone's skin color, vastly different things
I'm afraid that I do not see the difference. Please tell me specifically what the difference is?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Also please address the following.
What specifically makes homosexual sex acts between consenting adults immoral and heterosexual sex acts between interracial consenting adults moral?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
he felt that would be accepting and legitimizing a gay wedding which he objects to.
On what specific (non arbitrary) grounds? As 3RU7AL has stated repeatedly the bible commands against marriages being performed on saturdays and between devorcees and to weddings where lobster rills are served but none of those would seem to br an issue. Why specifically are we drawing a line at homosexual marriage?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
While I don't know why they are being refused, in one situation, people have apparently managed to convince the majority of society that it needs a business license from them, probably enforce something against the minority who don't want or have business licenses, and are now acting as a gatekeeper to people they deem unfit. In the other, someone is minding their own business, apparently to do with wedding services, as they see fit.For the second one, I'm not sure if you literally mean refusing to entertain service for someone like, "Joe, I've tried to be reasonable with you, and I've had enough! You need to leave." or as if they are being requested a service where they haven't been able to negotiate a mutual agreement
The situation is that one person sees another as immoral for reasons that are beyond their control (race, disability, sexual orientation etc.) and are using their religious beliefs to justify refusing them service even if they are perfectly reasonable paying customers that are doing nothing objectionable beyond being who they are.
If the case were that the customer were being unreasonable or a financial arrangement cannot be agreed upon then no "religious freedom" act would be necessary as we already have legislation that deals with those issues and we would not be having this discussion at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
How does this differ from objecting to am interracial marriage or a Jewish wedding in religious grounds? I'm afraid you cannot have it both ways. Either religious freedom gives carte Blanche to discriminate on religious grounds of it does not. If you feel that the baker would be justified in refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual person's wedding then you are also saying that he can refuse to do it for a disabled person's wedding or a black person's wedding. Is that your contention?I don't know, it's a religious thing and if we are to have freedom of religion then their beliefs must be accepted.I'm not defending religion, just freedom.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
What specifically makes homosexual sex acts between consenting adults immoral and heterosexual sex acts between interracial consenting adults moral?one includes the act of homosexual sex, the other does not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I agree. How is refusing someone the services necessary to perform a wedding different?For example, if they are ignorant, and using their power unjustifiably to harass people and run them out of business.Would this include refusing them the services needed to run their buisness? (For example refusing someone a buisness licence because they are homosexual?)Probably.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
What is moral is opinion. What causes harm can be measured in many cases. What specifically makes homosexuality immoral and interracial marriage moral? Certainly neither one harms the person baking the cake.homosexual sex has been deemed immoral for a long, long time and in just about every country, I'm not sure if that's true for interracial couples.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Many racists have historically couched their objections as religious and I fail to see the difference between refusing to bake a cake for a black man and refusing to bake a cake for a homosexual man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
For example, if they are ignorant, and using their power unjustifiably to harass people and run them out of business.
Would this include refusing them the services needed to run their buisness? (For example refusing someone a buisness licence because they are homosexual?)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Then precisely what did you mean? What context makes it ok to call politicians ignorant savages if it isn't ok to call Jews ignorant savages?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
no, before civil rights they were denying people, not actions,celebrations and things I've already outlined.
One of the ways they did this was by refusing services to certain individuals (say baking wedding cakes for interracial couples).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
If someone called all blacks or all Americans or all southern Baptists ignorant savages would that be dehumanizing to any of those groups? If the answer in any of those cases is yes then it is dehumanizing in your world view.Ignorant savages? That sounds dehumanizing.By what world view?
Created:
-->
@mustardness
Excellent post by the way I understood every word. Thank you. Sincerely thank you.
Created:
-->
@mustardness
We cannot rule out anything. We can only verify what is observable and withhold belief in the absence of sufficient evidence.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
A person built your garage with precise measurements and engineering to keep it up... hmm...
That is one thing needed to keep a garage standing.
The other is the perfect spirit of a garage which unbeknownst to the builders enters the garage upon completion. Can you disprove this or are you simply being skeptical of an unnecessary and unprovable hypothesis? In either case how is this different than believing that the universe (most of which seems to get on just fine without conciousness) requires a conciousness in order to exist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
By the guidelines you have outlined a majority acting in concert can deprive minorities of certain freedoms entirely. This was the case before the civil rights act and why they were instituted in the first place.
Your intentions may be noble but you ate creating a very slippery slope when you say "any reason".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Ok then specifically you should not be allowed to make it more difficult to get married just because you do not like them getting married. If cakes are off the table what about a dj? A caterer? Flower arranger? How about someone to perform the wedding?
If these are all services that you feel can be "refused to any one for any reason" and they are refused by everyone to a particular minority then that minority us effectively barred from being married. Does that sound acceptable to you?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
Ignorant savages? That sounds dehumanizing. It is the guided process of dehumanization that I am worried abput. It doesn't matter if that comes on the guise of racism or homophobia or religious/cultural purity.
I have been fairly clear about my fears if these laws take effect (that some classes of people will be legally denied the services that should be taken for granted.
What specifically are you afraid will happen if these laws do not get passed?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Let me ask you a question. If we all have the right to refuse service as you suggest then why do we need these "religious freedom" bills that by the way resemble the him Crow laws from the sixties.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Snoopy
I did not cite this article I merely read it and found that it did not support the claims of the poster who did use it as a citation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The issue is not forcing someone to do something that they would under normal circumstances refuse to do it is in insuring equality which sadly often requires legal action. A baker makes cakes. To refuse this service is not in and of itself a problem. Refusing this service based on someone's minority status is.
Do you feel that it is acceptable to refuse services to Asians? Women? Jews? Based on their color? sex? religion?
As 3RU7AL has stated repeatedly the issue is not refusing service it is claiming protection from legal recourse when guilty of discrimination under the very laws that are meant to prevent discrimination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
All of which is to say that statistics can be faulty or in other words your quoted statistics about Jamaica were largely meaningless. This leaves us with little to go on other than personal opinion and the twin facts that a guns only purpose is putting holes in things from far away and that having more than ones alloted number of holes is very bad for one.This easily could be due to other factors, like states with tough gun laws coincidentally also tend to have a high GDP per capita, and rich people are less likely to commit homicide. Cities which tend to have tough gun laws, tend to have a high GDP per capita by coincidence, but despite this, they also have higher homicide rates then poor rural areas, despite being richer.
--> @Snoopy
Is our stated goal preventing gun violence or preserving imperfect institutions? The two may be mutually exclusive.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
And I quote "(Four others involved "unarmed citizens [who] confronted or persuaded the shooter to end the shooting.")" So it would seem that the courage to take a stand is the deciding factor and not personal armament.
Created: