Jump to content

BelieveInGod

Member
  • Content Count

    54
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    Conservative

Profile Information

  • Location
    AZ
  1. So if not hate, then at least selfishness. When enough to kill another human being, however dispassionately it may be, it is the most extreme kind of selfishness. And if selfishness implies a lack of brotherly love, is it right to define hate as a lack of brotherly love? Do I make too many assumptions? Or does it make sense?
  2. Whenever you say this, it's like you don't understand what it is we've been trying to say this whole time... My position is that "THE LAW" that you're referring to, which would be the discrimination laws relevant to this case, are not constitutional, and are in direct opposition to the 1st ammendment, which should take precedence. Do you have any moral case for your position, besides just constantly saying that they need to obey the law? Laws are not always just. They are not always morally right. Laws are created by politicians- need I say more? In case I do, the motivation of a politician is not always to make laws to enforce what it morally right. Same thing. (sigh) Obviously, we disagree on whether opening a business should put you under legal contract to provide your services to everyone who walks through your doors. That is such a gross misrepresentation of the baker's intention. I really cannot believe how you can feel good about saying such a thing. We've tried to explain it to you many times now- the baker is not trying to hurt anyone. He/she is simply trying to protect him/herself from being involved in something he/she does not believe is right. That's what the freedom of religion is about. Does that not make sense to you? Again, the baker is just trying to protect him/herself from being involved in something he/she does not believe is right. It's not because they are not being allowed to harm others. They are not intending to harm anyone. Actually, people are not required to show that they know the regulations before opening a business. But that's not the point. Of course he would have the right to present his case in court about the discrimination laws being unconstitutional. That's something that makes America great. I'm not sure why you're so confused still- the baker wasn't told they can't do something. They were told they have to do something. Can you see how that makes a difference in the issue of whether they were harmed or not? Forced servitude is definitely included in the legal definition of harm. I guess maybe I read it too fast- my apologies. I'm confused now though... why are you comparing the justification? Shouldn't we rather be discussing what it is that they're justifying? Well... are you trying to be fair to our point of view? You have never conceded or recognized even once, that I can recall, about how or why freedom of religion is important enough to apply to all aspects of our life, about how it is considered harmful to us when people want to deny us our freedom of religion, about our motivation for why we would deny a particular service in a particular situation, etc. If you take this as an insult (and again, I didn't mean it to be- I only meant it as an observation), then hopefully you can help point me to something you've said that demonstrates how you were trying to be fair to our point of view. You're right- my bad. I guess I should have read more closely.
  3. I find it easier to take large leaps of faith when I consider the estimated age of the universe and what that would mean for the potential of the evolution of intelligent life. Our scientists have advanced a theory of evolution as the possible origin of our human race. They do not speak much of the possibility of evolution being a possible origin of a parent race to ours. Perhaps even having something to do with the origin of a race of gods. And who knows but if such a race progresses to a point where they find it meaningless to retain individuality anymore, and therefore decide to become one, in all meaningful uses of that word, and call Himself God. In all honesty, I find this idea more logical than the theory that we humans were the first ones to evolve from primal elements. But of course, whether it be our own human race, or some other race in the universe, the question is still out there, if you believe in God or in a race of gods, as to "how gods began to be" ... I'm partly stealing these ideas from science fiction books that I've read in the past. But I'm also partly taking some of these beliefs from the organized Christian religion that I am a part of, believe it or not. One of my favorite science fiction quotes is something like- "Of course, the truth will most likely turn out to be far stranger than anything we could have ever imagined." I believe in God. There are certain definite thing I believe about Him. But I don't profess to know much of His many mysteries.
  4. Well, I definitely like your reasoning a lot better than Isabel's. I do see a difference though between Jesus sharing a meal with the prostitute, and the baker going to present the cake at the 'same-gender marriage' gathering. I'm not sure Jesus would go to present the cake. The issue here though, is freedom of religion- preserving the right for each individual to decide for themselves what they believe is the right thing to do. I have heard liberals say that the government should not try to legislate morality. But that appears to be what they have done with these discrimination laws. Whether or not I personally believe that morality should be legislated is a related, but separate, issue.
  5. It is so easy for me to see through your wrangling. I just hope others can see through it as well. You call it "being denied the right to harm someone else", when what it really is, is "forcing you to provide a service to support and celebrate something you are morally and religiously opposed to". That's exactly what the legal concept of harm entails according to the 1st ammendment. I'm content to just say I agree to disagree with you on that point. What the 1st ammendment means is that it's actually ok for us to "harm" others by denying a service, if performing that service would cause us to do something we are religiously opposed to doing. This is because causing us to do something we are religiously opposed to doing would then, in effect, be harming us. So, what this means is that it's ok to harm others, if by so doing, we are preventing a greater harm from coming to us. You say it's not ok to harm others in this way, in the name of the 1st ammendment, because in your view, you don't think that forcing the business to act against their religious conviction is really causing them any harm. On that we disagree. I guess we can leave it at that. What's funny here is when we replace "discriminate against and harm others" with "refuse to bake a cake and present it at a 'same-gender marriage' gathering because of religious convictions". That's what you're comparing to rape here. Let's just be clear about that. Are you using the slippery slope argument here? That's a pretty far stretch. Or are you really saying that refusing to bake a cake and present it at a 'same-gender marriage' gathering because of religious convictions is on the same level as what Isis has been doing in the name of their religion? If that's really what you're saying, then I suppose it won't do any more good to continue a discussion with you. We would be in way too far of opposite corners. Again, are you seriously trying to make that comparison??? I didn't really see it as an insult to you- it's quite obvious to everyone here, including yourself, that you're not really trying to be fair to our point of view. There's no possible way you could claim such a thing at this point.
  6. This is what is so scary about the moral state of the nation right now. There is nothing more religiously based than a wedding ceremony is. If someone is in favor of this, it's obvious that the freedom of religion means nothing to them.
  7. Good question- sorry to sound accusational. I mean something that people asked you to participate in, but you felt it would be very much against your morals to be a part of it. Maybe we should clarify that in this case, it was actually more than just baking a cake- the couple had invited the baker to come present it at their ceremony. I know it may hurt people to hear it, but there are many good people who feel that homosexuality, and same-gender marriage, is a huge abomination, and will eventually be a big part of the downfall of society. It would be very hurtful to them to force them to be involved in something celebrating such a lifestyle. I must confess that I fall into this category. I know that saying these things might make me look like a real bad guy, like a hater, to those who just go with their first emotional reaction. But I'm hoping enough people are able to take a step back with me and realize that I DO NOT HATE homosexuals. I'm opposed to what they choose to do- that they choose not to control their sexual feelings- but that's as far as it goes. I don't care if someone is born that way or not- it makes no difference to me. I still love them as a brother or sister under the same Heavenly Father. And I know that compared to the glory of God, I am just as vile a sinner as they are. That I am just as needful of repentance; just as needful of the mercy of our God and Savior.
  8. I'll give you an example of how you're "speaking out of both sides of your mouth". It's surprising to me that you don't even realize it. Out of one side: The first amendment / "freedom of religion" clause in no way gives you the right to harm others because of your religious beliefs. Out of the other side: But the discrimination laws give the couple the right to harm the baker because of his religious beliefs. When you say he's not being harmed, it only shows that you don't understand the importance of a person's not wanting to be involved in something he doesn't believe in. That's just as important to him, as it is to the couple that they have a right to be recognized in the formalizing of their relationship. Are you not willing to concede that it is this important to the bakery employee(s)? Do you really think that's a fair analogy? Saying something like that is what makes it so clear what you're really trying to accomplish here. Fairness is not a part of your end game at all.
  9. Which probably means you're quite simple minded, and not very understanding of what it means to take a stand for what you believe in. How old are you? Has there ever been anything in your life that you felt a strong sense of morality about, that you felt you really needed to stand up for what's right?
  10. And simply put, that's where we have to agree to disagree. We believe it IS relevant, because of the 1st ammendment. You seem to believe either that: 1. that part of the 1st ammendment is not as important as the current relevant discrimination laws, and/or... 2. that the "freedom of religion" clause of the 1st ammendment should be limited to not apply to a business which is providing services to the public. I disagree on those two points, but I acknowledge your difference of opinions in that regard. With that, perhaps we can go our separate ways, hopefully with a better understanding of one another's views.
  11. Have you seen or read Les Miserables? You are reminding me a little bit of Javert, with the way you are heralding "the law" above all else. Laws change as the collective morality of society changes. I hope that your moral stances are not dependent on what all the rest of society thinks. It's astounding to me how you speak out of both sides of your mouth, and apply different moral standards to the baker and to the couple. Note that I'm not talking about following the current discrimination laws as a standard- I'm talking about more concrete and unchanging moral standards. Surely you have at least some of your moral standards that are not dependent entirely on the current discrimination laws?
  12. Wonderful- so you also believe we will all transcend our mortal bodies and continue to exist. I wonder if you are also open to the possibility that we all had a pre-mortal existence, and that taking on an earthly body here has somehow caused us to forget our previous existence... it may be a temporary memory lapse or permanent- perhaps also under the control of the more advanced being / group / race that sent us here. A premortal existence is actually not widely taught in Christianity or other religions- but it still is in some parts. It's a concept that I believe in- one that, to me, helps add some purpose to why we are here. I would say the jump from our mortal undestanding, to achieving or developing immortality, may be considered greater than the jump between a pilot / engineer and a native in the jungle. Perhaps it's a great enough jump that we could consider them to be superior beings. Especially since, having achieved immortality, they likely have had a far greater amount of time for each individual to have learned and progressed.
  13. Nope, I'm open to philosophizing on other theories. It helps me though, if you remain grammatically correct.
  14. Are you talking about the issue of whether we have some type of immortal soul / spirit / consciousness or not? I think an open minded individual should reasonably be open to that possibility, if they accept that the origin of humans on earth could possibly be from from a superior being or group or race. It would be reasonable to believe that being / group / race is highly advanced enough, technologically or otherwise, to have achieved or developed immortality, and be able to pass that on to a child race.
  15. Whether we recognize it would depend, of course, on how they choose to communicate with us, and on whether direct and clear communication with all of us is compatible with their purpose for having us here. (If we're still going along with the theory that these beings in question were the primary means of the origin of human-kind on earth.)
×
×
  • Create New...