Arizona Court of Appeals rules in favor of SS couple, based on SC Masterpiece ruling

[Bible2+]

Queller said in post #777:

Did you bother to read the article, written by an evangelical Christian that I posted? Here it is again in case you missed it:

Why I'm Against Pre-game Prayers

No.

What are his Biblical arguments?

Queller said in post #777:

[Re: God allowed the Israelites to occupy Canaan]

So that meant it was OK when we did it to the Native Americans?

When a land purchase was made, such as the Dutch buying Manhattan from the Indians.

Queller said in post #777:

[Re: Slavery]

"Most" of the population was NOT against it. Why do you think that half the states at the time seceded from the Union in order to preserve slavery?

The North was more populous.

Queller said in post #777:

[Re: Biblical restrictions on women]

We aren't talking about church, we're talking about rights as an American citizen.

The Biblical restrictions on women are not immoral, even if applied outside of the church (e.g. 1 Timothy 2:9-15).

Queller said in post #777:

When you have a captive audience and pray to them, they are forced to listen.

Not with earbuds.

Also, even without earbuds, they are not forced to pray. They can check their email instead.

Also, at a graduation, for example, if they can listen to the valedictorian's speech, no matter how boring, then why can't they listen to a preceding, harmless prayer said by her and the rest of her graduating class?

*******

Queller said in post #778:

Basing laws under the Constitution on whether something is a sin is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

Forcing Biblical Christians to support sinful activities is a violation of the "free exercise" part of the First Amendment.

Queller said in post #778:

So a Hindu student can post verses from the Bhagavad Gita on a Christian student's locker and you'd be OK with it?

Of course, just as a Christian student should be able to post responding Bible verses on the Hindu student's locker.

Why not, for God's sake?

Why is "political correctness" so against the free exercise of religion and speech in the schools?

What is it afraid of?

Also, if the Christian student took the Hindu verses home to his parents, this would serve as an opportunity for the parents to explain to the student that the future Antichrist's religion of Gnostic Luciferianism (1 John 4:3, Revelation 13:4), also called Satanism, has some core teachings in common with Hinduism and Buddhism:

1. The material realm is unreal and evil. (Both Buddhism and Gnosticism got this mistaken idea, originally called "Maya", from Hinduism.)

2. People must strive to escape the material realm completely and enter a state which is wholly non-physical (Parinirvana in Buddhism, the Pleroma in Gnosticism). Buddhism and Gnosticism got this mistaken idea, originally called "Brahman", from Hinduism.

3. The way for people to get free from their imprisonment within the material realm is through their minds attaining a certain level of enlightenment (Nirvana in Buddhism, Gnosis in Gnosticism). Buddhism and Gnosticism got this mistaken idea, originally called "Moksha", from Hinduism.

4. The way for their minds to attain this certain level of enlightenment is through following the way of the Serpent (one legend of Buddhism says that the Buddha was given the true Buddhism by the King of the Serpents; and in Gnosticism, Gnosis comes from the Christ/the Serpent). Both Buddhism and Gnosticism got this mistaken idea of the enlightening serpent, originally called "Kundalini", from Hinduism. (Regarding the serpent in Genesis 3, Gnostics see him as the good guy, while they see YHWH as the bad guy.)

The Bible contradicts each of the four points above:

1. The material realm is real, and was created by YHWH God as something very good (Genesis 1:31). God Himself is in the flesh (John 1:1,14, Luke 24:39) and He remains wholly without sin (Hebrews 4:15). So there is nothing evil about matter in itself.

2. People must strive to attain to a resurrection (Philippians 3:11) into an immortal human body of flesh and bones like the immortal human body of flesh and bones which Jesus Christ obtained at His resurrection on the third day after His death (Luke 24:39,46; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4,21-23,51-53, Philippians 3:21, Romans 8:23-25), and in which He will remain forever as Christians' fully-human mediator/high priest (1 Timothy 2:5, Hebrews 2:16-17, Hebrews 7:24-26). His tomb is empty (Matthew 28:6), and at His Second Coming He will show the scars of the Crucifixion on His body (Zechariah 13:6, Zechariah 12:10-14).

3. Resurrected people who have been truly enlightened/illuminated (Ephesians 1:18, Hebrews 10:32) by Jesus Christ (John 14:6-7, John 8:32, John 3:36) will remain in the material realm (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29), ultimately living with God on a New Earth, in the sense of a new surface for the earth (Revelation 21:1-4).

4. The Serpent, Satan/Lucifer, is the deceiver of the whole world (Revelation 12:9).

Queller said in post #778:

[Re: Christians can't pray out loud at school activities, even if everyone in the school is Christian and wants to pray]

Answer the question; how do they know?

Ask each student.

Queller said in post #778:

[Re: Denying prayer at school events is denying the free exercise of religion]

No, it is not. It is upholding the Establishment Clause.

Not if the prayers are voluntary.

Queller said in post #778:

[Re: Any prayer should be up to the students, not the teacher]

Which is exactly what we have now. Students can decide what prayers they want to pray on their on time.

Which must include their time in their classroom, or else the government is illegally denying their free exercise of religion there.

Queller said in post #778:

. . . making a cake for one couple but refusing to make an identical cake for another couple based on sexual orientation is discrimination against a person.

No, for the refusal is based not on their persons, but on a sinful activity.

Yet homosexuals and their supporters mistakenly claim that a Christian baker not making a cake for a gay wedding shows "hatred" and "discrimination" against gays themselves, in their persons, when in fact what is being discriminated against is not any person (i.e. the baker could make a birthday-party cake for a gay person), but is against the practice of homosexuality itself, which would be promoted by supporting a gay wedding. Christians have the First Amendment right to the "free exercise" of their religion, which requires that they not support sinful activities (Ephesians 5:11), such as homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27) or adultery (Galatians 5:19-21), or pedophilia for that matter (Mark 9:42).

And, indeed, in the "Masterpiece" Supreme Court case, the homosexual plaintiffs admitted that the Christian baker told them:

"I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same - sex weddings."

So he was not discriminating against their persons at all, but was discriminating against an event which goes against his religion.

Queller said in post #778:

[Re: Forbidding school prayer]

. . . the legal upholding of the establishment clause at school events.

Voluntary prayer at school events does not go against that clause.

Queller said in post #778:

[Re: Christians are never to treat any non-Christians as outcasts (Mark 2:16)]

And yet they do it all the time.

How?

 

[Bible2+]

Queller said in post #778:

If I have to be at a location for something and someone starts reciting a Islamic Call to Prayer, I'm forced to listen to it.

So what?

You can say The Lord's Prayer at the same time.

Thank God for religious liberty.

Queller said in post #778:

It isn't voluntary when you have no choice but to be there and listen to it.

Any prayer is voluntary if you are not forced to say it or agree to it.

Queller said in post #778:

Students can decide what prayers they want to pray on their on time. Not at school sponsored events and especially not at events where attendance is mandatory.

Why not, if that's what the school's students want?

Queller said in post #778:

. . . those "Biblical" Christians decided to open a business to the public but refuse to treat all American citizens the same.

They do treat them all the same. But they cannot treat all activities the same (Ephesians 5:11).

Queller said in post #778:

From Websters

Pedophilia: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object; specifically : a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child.

That's not in my Webster's, which simply defines pedophilia as a "sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object".

Who is cooking the books?

Perhaps some people hoping to prepare the way for the legalization of post-pubescent pedophilia, that is, sex with children as young as 12 or 13, so long as they are pubescent?

God forbid.

And yet homosexuals will eventually realize that they have to support pedophilia. For otherwise, pedophilia completely undermines all of their arguments regarding "love" and "sexual orientation".

Queller said in post #778:

1. There are multiple documented cases of homosexuality in animals.

So what?

There's also cannibalism.

Queller said in post #778:

2. There is not one single disease that homosexuals get that heterosexuals do not also get.

So what?

Romans 1:27b can still refer to any disease more prevalent among gay men.

Queller said in post #778:

[Re: Homosexuality is "against nature" (Romans 1:26-27)]

Maybe, but that does not mean that we can outlaw something just because the Bible says so. That is a huge violation of the First Amendment.

. . . There must be a secular reason for the law.

It would be because Congress agreed that it is not good for (even secular) society, like pedophilia (Luke 17:1-2).

Queller said in post #778:

Ever heard of the Lemon Test?

No.

Queller said in post #778:

It is amazing how many Fundamentalists/Evangelicals wave the Constitution around when it suits their purposes but seem to always forget about the prohibition against the government establishing a religion.

No one has said that the government should establish a religion.

Although "political correctness" seems to be its current religion, at least in many liberal appellate courts.

Queller said in post #778:

I'm arguing that the Bible condoned of chattel slavery. I made no mention of race.

Note that Christians, of whatever race, are the chattel slaves of Christ (1 Corinthians 7:23).

Queller said in post #778:

[Re: The Old Testament forbade the cruel treatment of slaves (Leviticus 25:43, Exodus 21:26-27), of whatever race]

Really? Exodus 21:20-21

Also, Exodus 21:4-6

Yes.

Exodus 21:4-6 is not cruel, and Exodus 21:20-21 can be replaced by the New Testament/New Covenant's Colossians 4:1.

Queller said in post #778:

[Re: Wage slaves today are cared for less by their masters than slaves in Bible times were to be cared for]

Now that's funny.

Why?

Are you an employer?

 

[Bible2+]

kiwimac quoted someone in post #779:

. . . Jewish law does not accord the fetus full human rights prior to birth. . .

Note that even if that were true, it would have no bearing on Christian law.

Also, do any ultra-Orthodox Jews run abortion mills?

kiwimac quoted someone in post #779:

Jesus Christ is good news for the poor,
release for the captives,
recovery of sight for the blind
and liberty for those who are oppressed.

But I guess not for children in the womb (Luke 1:15,41).

Bad news for them.

 

[SilverBear]

Orientation is defined by behavior.

no it isn't, the two are independent of each other.

If orientation was defined by behavior then virgins could not have an orientation

*******

Pedophilia is by definition a sexual orientation toward minors.

false on two counts

One it isn't an orientation

Two it isn't towards minors but prepubescence children. Prepubescence is generally considered to end about age 11.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Unfortunately you are wrong. Allow me

Source

No, you are inaccuate. Scripture itself answers these questions. You don't even have to advance to what what they argue about today.

Short and concise summary: https://www.str.org/publications/what-does-exodus-21-22-say-about-abortion#.W1czeLgnaUk

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

no it isn't, the two are independent of each other.

If orientation was defined by behavior then virgins could not have an orientation

*******







false on two counts

One it isn't an orientation

Two it isn't towards minors but prepubescence children. Prepubescence is generally considered to end about age 11.

You do understand that "orientation" is a recent term, when co-opted for sexuality.

But if we are going to use it, we need to use it across the board. A pedophile, an ephibophile, etc, all have orientations, if we are going to assert that orientation = attractions (or temptations, if they are wrong sorts of attractions).

 

[SilverBear]

You do understand that "orientation" is a recent term, when co-opted for sexuality.

But if we are going to use it, we need to use it across the board. A pedophile, an ephibophile, etc, all have orientations, if we are going to assert that orientation = attractions (or temptations, if they are wrong sorts of attractions).

no we need to use it as it is actually defined not change the definition and misapply it to criminals to promote hate and bigotry against homosexuals.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

no we need to use it as it is actually defined not change the definition and misapply it to criminals to promote hate and bigotry against homosexuals.

Definition:
orientation (ôrˌē-ĕn-tāˈshən, -ən-, ōrˌ-)

• n.
  The act of orienting or the state of being oriented.
• n.
  Location or position relative to the points of the compass.
• n.
  The construction of a church so that its longitudinal axis has an east-west direction with the main altar usually at the eastern end.

That is what it means. It's been co-opted to now mean who you want to have sex with, and that applies whether or not the law recognizes the behavior as acceptable. Homosexuality was criminalized until very recently. Now it isn't. Pedophila and ephibophilia are still criminalized for the moment. That's completely irrelevant to the mutation of the word in an attempt to deflect from behavior to try to link it with immutable characteristics such as skin color and age and ethnicity.

 

[SilverBear]

Definition:
orientation (ôrˌē-ĕn-tāˈshən, -ən-, ōrˌ-)

• n.
  The act of orienting or the state of being oriented.
• n.
  Location or position relative to the points of the compass.
• n.
  The construction of a church so that its longitudinal axis has an east-west direction with the main altar usually at the eastern end.

That is what it means.

and sexual orientation takes its meaning from the first definition. the state of how one is oriented.

It's been co-opted to now mean who you want to have sex with,

False, sex is only one part of sexual orientation and as it turns out not required for the definition or for experiences one's own orientation. You don't have to have sex to be heterosexual.


Sexual orientation refers to an individuals enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions.


Sexual orientation is distinct from other components of sex and gender, including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological and genetic characteristics associated with being male or female), gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female),* and social gender role (the cultural norms that define feminine and masculine behavior).

and that applies whether or not the law recognizes the behavior as acceptable. Homosexuality was criminalized until very recently. Now it isn't.

so was interracial marriage.

Pedophila and ephibophilia are still criminalized for the moment.

Neither of which is an orientation BECAUSE they do not fit the definition.
It's not an enduring pattern. 80 to 85% of pedophiles are in emotional, romantic and sexual relationships with the mothers of the children they abuse. So they change orientations with the flip of a toggle switch?
Pedophiles don't view themselves as part of community, they don't form identities about abusing children
Abusing children isn't emotional or fulfill any romantic functioning. It's rape. Romance is with someone, not at someone. And please don't be disgusting enough to try and say that some children will claim they love their abusers. As if an 8 year old grasps the concept of romance. These children have been molested, abused damaged and tortured, all the while being told that the hell they are living in is "love" The people who try to use these abused children to further their case show they don't care at all about the children, they are just a something to be exploited.

I get that you WANT pedophilia to be an orientation because it helps you dehumanize homosexuals. That by associating gays with the people who harm children you turn gays into the same monsters.

That's completely irrelevant to the mutation of the word in an attempt to deflect from behavior to try to link it with immutable characteristics such as skin color and age and ethnicity.

I also get why you want to pretend that homosexuality isn't immutable and can't be compared to race. By pretending this you get to pretend you are somehow morally superior to racists. Well, you aren't morally superior to racists.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

and sexual orientation takes its meaning from the first definition. the state of how one is oriented.



False, sex is only one part of sexual orientation and as it turns out not required for the definition or for experiences one's own orientation. You don't have to have sex to be heterosexual.


Sexual orientation refers to an individuals enduring pattern of emotional, romantic and/or sexual attractions to men, women or both sexes. Sexual orientation also refers to a person’s sense of identity based on those attractions, and membership in a community of others who share those attractions.


Sexual orientation is distinct from other components of sex and gender, including biological sex (the anatomical, physiological and genetic characteristics associated with being male or female), gender identity (the psychological sense of being male or female),* and social gender role (the cultural norms that define feminine and masculine behavior).



so was interracial marriage.

Neither of which is an orientation BECAUSE they do not fit the definition.
It's not an enduring pattern. 80 to 85% of pedophiles are in emotional, romantic and sexual relationships with the mothers of the children they abuse. So they change orientations with the flip of a toggle switch?
Pedophiles don't view themselves as part of community, they don't form identities about abusing children
Abusing children isn't emotional or fulfill any romantic functioning. It's rape. Romance is with someone, not at someone. And please don't be disgusting enough to try and say that some children will claim they love their abusers. As if an 8 year old grasps the concept of romance. These children have been molested, abused damaged and tortured, all the while being told that the hell they are living in is "love" The people who try to use these abused children to further their case show they don't care at all about the children, they are just a something to be exploited.

I get that you WANT pedophilia to be an orientation because it helps you dehumanize homosexuals. That by associating gays with the people who harm children you turn gays into the same monsters.



I also get why you want to pretend that homosexuality isn't immutable and can't be compared to race. By pretending this you get to pretend you are somehow morally superior to racists. Well, you aren't morally superior to racists.

Stop plagiarizing without attribution. I used a dictionary. You just lift passages anywhere and everywhere and cut and paste as if it is your own words. Stop.

Not remotely related to interracial marriage. Stop trotting that out. Inapplicable.

Pedophiles are indeed part of the community. They are sons and brothers (mostly men) and all kinds of professions and trades. Even priests, as we all well know, and some pastors, God forbid. They just stay underground - much like homosexuals did before that was decriminalized - because what they are doing is criminalized and currently not acceptable. NAMBLA would very much like to change this.

I have no dog in this fight and don't "want" anything except for all sin to be wiped away but I'm not going to just let that nonsense roll on by when I see it.

Humans are heterosexual by design and by default. Anything else means something has gone wrong, whether same gender attraction or any of the worst of the freaky stuff I don't care to elaborate upon here.

 

[SilverBear]

Stop plagiarizing without attribution. I used a dictionary. You just lift passages anywhere and everywhere and cut and paste as if it is your own words. Stop.

Not remotely related to interracial marriage. Stop trotting that out. Inapplicable.

Pedophiles are indeed part of the community. They are sons and brothers (mostly men) and all kinds of professions and trades. Even priests, as we all well know, and some pastors, God forbid. They just stay underground - much like homosexuals did before that was decriminalized - because what they are doing is criminalized and currently not acceptable. NAMBLA would very much like to change this.

you really don't read things do you?


" sense of identity ... and membership in a community of others who share those attractions." in other words a collective identity

Collective Identity refers to a set of individuals' sense of belonging to the group or collective. For the individual, the identity derived from the collective shapes the internal perception of his or her personal identity. Individuals come to see themselves as part of a group when some shared characteristic becomes salient and is defined as important and worthy. Inclusion in this collective identity is seen as a primary component of the self to the point that other more general identities are dismissed or diminished. Additionally it is through this cultural identity that one makes sense of the world and established his/her part in the greater society. Membership in a collective identity always involves an emotional investment and revelation as a member. A collective identity will consist of both raising awareness of group membership and the realization of the group’s position within society, in comparison to other groups. Inclusion in a group does not confer collective identity.

Pedophiles fail to meet the base definition of a collective identity. Their individual identity is not derived from the group that is pedophiles. An individual who is a pedophile doesn’t see that as their primary identifier in life. Individuals who are pedophiles do not make use of a collective identity to frame themselves in relation to the rest of society. Pedophiles don’t have a collective identity to express to others as a means of fitting into society.

I have no dog in this fight and don't "want" anything except for all sin to be wiped away but I'm not going to just let that nonsense roll on by when I see it.

Humans are heterosexual by design and by default.

aside from your own personal prejudice do you have anything to back up this claim

Anything else means something has gone wrong, whether same gender attraction or any of the worst of the freaky stuff I don't care to elaborate upon here.

Freaky stuff like homophobia

 

[Bible2+]

SilverBear said in post #784:

If orientation was defined by behavior then virgins could not have an orientation

They do. For they are aroused for the behavior of masturbation-with-fantasy (and possibly also sex toys) by their orientation.

SilverBear said in post #784:

[Re: Pedophilia]

One it isn't an orientation

It is an orientation toward minors.

SilverBear said in post #784:

Two it isn't towards minors but prepubescence children.

No, it can also be towards postpubescent children.

SilverBear said in post #784:

Prepubescence is generally considered to end about age 11.

But pedophilia doesn't end until one becomes oriented toward adults instead of minors.

*******

SilverBear said in post #787:

[Re: Orientation]

. . . we need to use it as it is actually defined not change the definition and misapply it to criminals to promote hate and bigotry against homosexuals.

Note that homosexuals used to be criminals. If that can change, then why not regarding pedophilia-with-consent?

Also, applying orientation to pedophiles promotes hate and bigotry against homosexuals only in the minds of those who hate and are bigoted against pedophiles.

But just as we must never hate or be bigoted against pedophiles, but simply state that what they do is sinful (Mark 9:42); and just as we must never hate or be bigoted against adulterers, but simply state that what they do is sinful (Galatians 5:19-21); so we must never hate or be bigoted against homosexuals, but simply state that what they do is sinful (Romans 1:26-27).

*******

SilverBear said in post #787:

[Re: Homosexuality was illegal in the past]

so was interracial marriage.

But regarding interracial marriage, there is nothing wrong with it. And people need to watch out about even speaking against it. For God accepted Moses marrying an Ethiopian woman, whereas Miriam was turned leprous white for looking down on Moses for doing that (Numbers 12). It was as if God were saying: "Do not exalt white skin". For the natural color of one's skin matters no more to God than the natural color of one's eyes. For He has made all humans of one blood (Acts 17:26-28). And God saves people of every nationality (Revelation 5:9b).

But someone might ask: "Since it is wrong for Christians to be against miscegenation, is it not also wrong for them to be against same-sex marriage?"

The answer is No. For while the Bible is not against miscegenation (Numbers 12), it is against homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27). So when the U.S. government struck down anti-miscegenation state laws in the southern U.S., it was not going against Biblical Christianity. But if the government ever forces Christians to support same-sex marriages, it will be going against the Bible; and so the government will become anti-Christian, helping to prepare the way for the future Antichrist (the individual-man aspect of Revelation's "beast"), and his Satanic, one-world religion (Revelation 13:4-18, Revelation 12:9).

One part of the future Antichrist's (Gnostic) religion will be to forbid marriages outright (1 Timothy 4:3). And legalizing same-sex marriage is just the first step toward this goal. For the next step will be to legalize polygamy, and "polyamory", that is, to allow whatever number of people, whether male or female, in any combination, to enter "group marriages" (for example, consisting of three women, or three men, or six women and four men, etc.). Then, the next step will be to declare the whole idea of marriage as "obsolete". Indeed, it will even be declared to be "evil" from the Gnostic (that is, the Antichrist) point of view (cf. 1 John 4:3; 2 John 1:7), which sees the whole idea of a physical (as opposed to a purely spiritual) existence as an abomination, especially when it forms new people into physical bodies, that is, forms offspring through marriages.

This is not to say that all people who support same-sex marriages are Satanic Gnostics. Instead, some people could simply (yet still mistakenly) think that God supports homosexuality, just as many U.S. Southerners of old simply (yet still mistakenly) thought that God supports racism.

SilverBear said in post #787:

80 to 85% of pedophiles are in emotional, romantic and sexual relationships with the mothers of the children they abuse. So they change orientations with the flip of a toggle switch?

They can have a bi-orientation.

SilverBear said in post #787:

Pedophiles don't view themselves as part of community, they don't form identities about abusing children . . .

Not "abusing", but "loving", as in NAMBLA.

Also, homosexuals will eventually realize that they have to support pedophilia-with-consent. For otherwise, pedophilia-with-consent completely undermines all of their arguments regarding "love" and "sexual orientation".

SilverBear said in post #787:

I get that you WANT pedophilia to be an orientation because it helps you dehumanize homosexuals.

Only in the minds of those who dehumanize pedophiles.

SilverBear said in post #787:

I also get why you want to pretend that homosexuality isn't immutable and can't be compared to race.

Homosexuality indeed can't be compared to race. For race is not a sin, but homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1:26-27). And Christian Gay Conversion Therapy can help some gay Christians to become straight, or at least to no longer practice homosexuality. For Jesus Christ has the power to deliver Christians from slavery to any sin (John 8:34-36).

*******

SilverBear said in post #791:

[Re: Humans are heterosexual by design and by default. Anything else means something has gone wrong . . .]

aside from your own personal prejudice do you have anything to back up this claim

Matthew 19:4-5

SilverBear said in post #791:

Freaky stuff like homophobia

Be very careful about throwing that word "homophobia" around like that. For Christians could be persecuted in our future simply for asserting from the Bible that homosexual acts are sinful. For such an assertion could become an illegal act of "hate speech", punishable by fines and imprisonment.

A move toward this point could have even started. For example, not long ago, the New York Times (98% of its readers say that they never pray) held a forum for evangelicals, the point of which was to basically accuse evangelicals of causing the Orlando, Pulse-nightclub shooting against homosexuals, because of the evangelical teaching against homosexuality, which it is said puts homosexuals "in danger". Of course, that Orlando shooting was done by a Muslim, not a Christian. But in the twisted, Satanic world of "political correctness", no evil can ever be ascribed to Islam (even though Islam, even in its moderate forms, opposes homosexuality no less than evangelical Christianity), whereas any evil whatsoever can be ascribed to evangelical Christianity.

Also, "political correctness" loves to paint any evangelical teaching against homosexuality as "homophobic", or "hateful", as if evangelical Christians are actually fearful (phobic) of homosexuals, or actually hate them, when in fact evangelical Christianity simply states from the Bible itself that homosexuality is sinful (Romans 1:26-27). It would be like pedophiles saying that Christians (or even New York Times readers) are "pedophobic", or "hateful", for being against pedophilia, which pedophiles prefer to call "man-boy love". Or, it would be like people who are into inappropriate behavior with animals saying that Christians are "beastiphobic", or "hateful", for being against inappropriate behavior with animals, which people who are into inappropriate behavior with animals prefer to call "inter-species love".

So, along with the acceptance of homosexuality, do not be surprised if the non-Christian world, in the name of "love", eventually begins to also accept pedophilia and inappropriate behavior with animals, so long as (in the non-Christian world's words) "the child or animal involved in each case is okay with the activity, showing no signs of distress, but rather consent, and even pleasure".

And then pedophiles and people who are into inappropriate behavior with animals will walk around with "Love wins" signs at anti-Christian rallies.

 

[SilverBear]

They do. For they are aroused for the behavior of masturbation-with-fantasy (and possibly also sex toys) by their orientation.

but that would mean the aren't heterosexaul or homosexual but sex-toysexual????

It is an orientation toward minors.



No, it can also be towards postpubescent children.

go back and read what i posted because it's painfully obvious that you didn't read

But pedophilia doesn't end until one becomes oriented toward adults instead of minors.

yet the vast majority of pedophiles are in active ongoing relationships with the mother of the child/children he is molesting. So they are already oriented to adults.

*******

Note that homosexuals used to be criminals. If that can change, then why not regarding pedophilia-with-consent?

Being married to someone of a different skin color used to be a crime.

What is both telling and horrifying is that you don't seem to be able to grasp (or you pretend you don't) the difference between to consenting adults getting married and a a 40 year old man raping his two year old daughter.

Also, applying orientation to pedophiles promotes hate and bigotry against homosexuals only in the minds of those who hate and are bigoted against pedophiles.

You tried to use this rationalization for homophobia before and it didn't work.

But just as we must never hate or be bigoted against pedophiles,

no one is.

but simply state that what they do is sinful (Romans 1:26-27).

but you aren't doing this.

 

[SilverBear]

But regarding interracial marriage, there is nothing wrong with it.

thank you for your opinion, racists disagree

Your opinion doesn't change the simple fact that until very recently interracial marriage was illegal.

They can have a bi-orientation.

but you just said "But pedophilia doesn't end until one becomes oriented toward adults instead of minors."

Was that statement wrong?

Not "abusing", but "loving", as in NAMBLA.

A couple posts ago i spoke of my personal disgust for people who take the horror and pain of being sexually abused and exploit those children to justify their own petty hatred of gays.

You disgust me.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

you really don't read things do you?


" sense of identity ... and membership in a community of others who share those attractions." in other words a collective identity

Collective Identity refers to a set of individuals' sense of belonging to the group or collective. For the individual, the identity derived from the collective shapes the internal perception of his or her personal identity. Individuals come to see themselves as part of a group when some shared characteristic becomes salient and is defined as important and worthy. Inclusion in this collective identity is seen as a primary component of the self to the point that other more general identities are dismissed or diminished. Additionally it is through this cultural identity that one makes sense of the world and established his/her part in the greater society. Membership in a collective identity always involves an emotional investment and revelation as a member. A collective identity will consist of both raising awareness of group membership and the realization of the group’s position within society, in comparison to other groups. Inclusion in a group does not confer collective identity.

Pedophiles fail to meet the base definition of a collective identity. Their individual identity is not derived from the group that is pedophiles. An individual who is a pedophile doesn’t see that as their primary identifier in life. Individuals who are pedophiles do not make use of a collective identity to frame themselves in relation to the rest of society. Pedophiles don’t have a collective identity to express to others as a means of fitting into society.



aside from your own personal prejudice do you have anything to back up this claim

Freaky stuff like homophobia

I read everything to which I respond, especially the nonsensical stuff. I attempt to make sense of it.

Again with the quoting without attribution - aka plagiarism. Your source?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

What is both telling and horrifying is that you don't seem to be able to grasp (or you pretend you don't) the difference between to consenting adults getting married and a a 40 year old man raping his two year old daughter.

Classic straw man argument, trotting out the far extreme. That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

NAMBLA is not working to legitimize sex with a two year old. You don't ever start with the the most unpalatable extreme. First, efforts are made to gain acceptance that it is ok to have sex with a consenting 17 year old or 16 year old (whatever is just below the current age of consent in your jurisdiction). You start where you are most likely to gain acceptance, and you align with your opponent on the worst possible outcomes, such as you suggest. That's how one gains allies and proceeds.

We see it all the time in the political arena.

 

[Queller]

Matthew 5:18 did not mean that heaven and earth had to pass away before the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments could be abolished, but that Jesus Christ had to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah's/the Christ's first coming (Luke 24:44-46; e.g. Acts 3:22-26, Isaiah 53) before He could abolish the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments (for both Jews and Gentiles, of all times) on the Cross (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19).

That's not what the verse (Jesus' own words) states.

Also, do you reject the apostle Paul, and so reject the books of the Bible written by him? If so, that is a serious mistake. For the basis for Paul's theology is direct revelation to him from Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11-12). That is why his theology is in accord with what the Old Testament foretold (Acts 26:22-23), with what the New Testament Gospels describe (Matthew 16:21, Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4), and with what the other writings in the New Testament say (2 Peter 3:15-16).

The basis for Paul's authority, his being an apostle of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 9:1), is his being an eyewitness of Jesus (1 Corinthians 9:1), and receiving his ministry directly from Jesus (Acts 26:16-18, Acts 9:10-22). When the other apostles saw how greatly Jesus worked through Paul, they accepted him as a fellow apostle (Galatians 2:9, Acts 14:14). Peter even expressly wrote to Christians confirming that all of Paul's epistles are from God, are scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). There is no reason to reject Paul's apostolic authority (1 Corinthians 14:36-37). His faithful work on behalf of Jesus proves that he is not a false apostle (Matthew 7:16-18). And Paul fulfilled many of the signs spoken of by Jesus regarding true Christians (Mark 16:17-18, Acts 19:11-12; 1 Corinthians 14:18, Acts 28:3-5, Acts 28:8).

Also, because of the wonderful example of Saul the persecutor becoming Paul the apostle (1 Timothy 1:12-17; Acts 7:58 to Acts 13:9), Christians should never give up on any non-Christians, no matter how hostile they are to Christians and the Christian faith. Instead, Christians should keep praying for them that God would miraculously save their souls (2 Timothy 2:25, Ephesians 2:8, Colossians 1:21-23). And because of the example of Saul becoming Paul, those who have persecuted Christians, and reviled the Christian faith in the past, but now feel God's gifts of repentance and faith (2 Timothy 2:25, Ephesians 2:8) moving within them, should not think that what they have done against Christians and the Christian faith (whether in word or in deed) in the past disqualifies them now from being able to repent, and to ask God's forgiveness, and to receive His salvation through their faith in Jesus Christ (Colossians 1:21-22).

The only witness to Paul's meeting with Jesus is Paul himself
*******

Orientation is defined by behavior. Also, homosexual behavior is a sin (Romans 1:26-27), and Biblical Christians cannot support sinful activity (Ephesians 5:11).

False.
*******

No one has said that women are second-class citizens. For:

The Bible treats them as such.

Irrelevant sermonizing snipped

It does, for only from a mountain in heaven could all of the kingdoms of the earth be viewed.

Wrong from ANYPLACE in heaven all the Kingdoms of the earth could be viewed. There is no need for a mountain in heaven.

No, for there is no problem. Also, Proverbs 30:5 includes the purity of God's teaching in Romans 1:26-27, for example.

And you violate the purity of God's teachings when you add to it to explain away a problem.

Right.

Wrong. See above.

The plain reading of Matthew 4:8 does not say or require that the mountain is on the earth.

The plain reading of the text indicates that the mountain is on earth. The stones are on earth, the temple is on earth, and the mountain is on earth, according to the text. If Satan took Jesus to heaven (and just how is Satan allowed into heaven anyway) why would he need a mountain in heaven?

Why would they have to mention everything that happened?

Consistency. Inevitability.

Compare what John 20:30 says.

The issue we are discussing is an incident that IS written in the Bible, three different times in fact. Yet the accounts fo not agree on many important details.

My Strong's entry for #G1519 reads:

a primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered), of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose (result, etc.); also in adverbial phrases: -- (abundant-)ly, against, among, as, at, (back-)ward, before, by, concerning, + continual, + far more exceeding, for (intent, purpose), fore, + forth, in (among, at, unto, -so much that, -to), to the intent that, + of one mind, + never, of, (up-)on, + perish, + set at one again, (so) that, therefore(-unto), throughout, till, to (be, the end, -ward), (here-)until(-to), ...ward, (where-)fore, with. Often used in composition with the same general import, but only with verbs (etc.) expressing motion (literally or figuratively).
--
[And "by" is the meaning of G1519 in Acts 27:2.]

According to Blue Letter Bible The word used in Acts 27:2 is G2596 (κατά) not g1519 (εἰς)

Not one Bible translation use the "by" translation of εἰς. They all use "near to", approached" or the like. If you are leaving somewhere, you aren't drawing near to it.

No. Instead, it would be adding to the Bible to claim that Mark 10:46-52 and Luke 18:35-43 say that Jesus did not touch the blind eyes.

No, claiming that He touched their eyes despite what the text says is adding to the Bible.

So what? There is nothing inaccurate about their accounts.

Unless you count differences in number of men healed, how they were healed, and whether Jesus was leaving Jericho or coming to Jericho as accurate. Most logical, reasonable adults don't consider differences in key events of a an account to be "accurate".

Yes, they are, in many states.

Name one.

Pedophilia is by definition a sexual orientation toward minors.

Not according to Webster's.

How was His healing of the blind, for example, not empirically proven?

What? None of the miracle Jesus performed are empirically proven. Do you understand what that word means?

That's right.

For example, see 2 Corinthians 12:7-10.

By you use of that verse, I have to wonder why God heals anyone at all?

The First Amendment does.

The First Amendment does what?

No, it doesn't. For the unbelievers in the audience can play with their smartphones during the prayer.

Yes, it does and multiple Supreme Court decision support my statement.

Any prayer in the classroom should be up to the students.

Then why does the teacher need to be involved.

And they should be able to hand out Bibles to their fellows as part of Mark 16:15 and the "free exercise" part of the First Amendment, which would also protect any students handing out Korans.

In the latter case, if the students take the Korans home to Christian parents, it would serve as an opportunity for the parents to explain to the students that because Islam falsely claims that the anti-gospel Koran came through the angel Gabriel, it is one fulfillment of Galatians 1:8-9 (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:14).

Islam is an anti-gospel religion because, even though it affirms that Jesus is the Christ (Koran 4:157, Koran 5:17,75), it denies that Jesus is the human/divine Son of God (Koran 9:30, Koran 4:171, Koran 5:72). And it denies that He suffered and died on the Cross for our sins (Koran 4:157) and rose physically from the dead on the third day. In order to be saved from hell, people have to believe the Gospel that Jesus is both the Christ and the human/divine Son of God (John 3:16,36; 1 John 2:23), and that He suffered and died on the Cross for our sins and rose physically from the dead on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Luke 24:39,46-47, Matthew 20:19, Matthew 26:28).

The reason why it is necessary to believe these things to be saved from hell is because it was only as the human/divine Son of God that Jesus Christ's suffering during His Passion could satisfy God the Father's justice (Isaiah 53:11), which requires an infinite amount of human suffering for sin (Matthew 25:46).

Jesus Christ's suffering during His Passion was sufficient to forgive the sins of everyone (1 John 2:2), because Jesus is not only a human, but also God (John 1:1,14, John 10:30, John 20:28). His soul is infinite, and so the suffering of His soul (Isaiah 53:11, KJV) was infinite in amount, even though it was not infinite in duration. And so His suffering could satisfy God the Father's justice (Isaiah 53:11, KJV; 1 Peter 3:18), which requires an infinite amount of human suffering for sin (Matthew 25:46). Because humans who are not God have finite souls, in order for them to suffer an infinite amount for their sins they must suffer over an infinite duration of time (Matthew 25:46, Revelation 14:10-11, Mark 9:46).

Every human has sinned (Romans 3:23), except Jesus Christ (Hebrews 4:15b; 2 Corinthians 5:21). But because Jesus suffered for sins (1 Peter 3:18, Isaiah 53:11, KJV) an infinite amount, when elect people repent from their sins and believe in Jesus' human/divine sacrifice, they can have their past sins forgiven (Romans 3:25-26, Matthew 26:28), while God the Father's justice remains fully satisfied by Jesus' suffering for their sins (Isaiah 53:11, KJV; 1 Peter 3:18).

One way to help Muslims understand how Jesus Christ can be God, from everlasting, is to question them about their understanding of the Muslim belief regarding the Koran. For Islam says that there was no time when the Koran did not exist in a spiritual form in heaven, that it has always coexisted with Allah as his word. So Christians can show Muslims that the Bible says that before Jesus' incarnation, there was no time when He did not exist in a spiritual form in heaven. He has always coexisted with God the Father as God the Word (John 1:1,14).

This is not to suggest that the Muslim claim regarding the Koran is true, or that the book itself is true. Indeed, again, because Islam falsely claims that the anti-gospel Koran came through the angel Gabriel, it is one fulfillment of Galatians 1:8-9 (cf. 2 Corinthians 11:14).

Completely irrelevant to the issue.

Glad to see you support teachers leading students in prayers to deities other than God though.

BTW, do you not know how to use the "reply function?

 

[Queller]

No.

Why not? Too scared to read something that might make you rethink your preposterous claims?

What are his Biblical arguments?

He doesn't make a Biblical argument. Biblical arguments are ineffective against violations of the First Amendment.

When a land purchase was made, such as the Dutch buying Manhattan from the Indians.

And the thousands of other times when Native Americans were just told to leave or die?

The North was more populous.

So? Most Northerners weren't against slavery either. Only the abolitionists who were NOT the majority of people.

The Biblical restrictions on women are not immoral, even if applied outside of the church (e.g. 1 Timothy 2:9-15).

So you think that if women were not allowed to speak say on the job, that would be a moral choice?

Not with earbuds.

Also, even without earbuds, they are not forced to pray. They can check their email instead.

They still have to listen.

Until you read the article I linked to and see the fallacy of your words, your arguments remain completely illogical.

Why I'm Against Pre-game Prayers.

Also, at a graduation, for example, if they can listen to the valedictorian's speech, no matter how boring, then why can't they listen to a preceding, harmless prayer said by her and the rest of her graduating class?

Because one is a violation of the Establishment Clause and the other isn't.
*******

Forcing Biblical Christians to support sinful activities is a violation of the "free exercise" part of the First Amendment.

Irrelevant to the comment I made. Address it or move on.

"Basing laws under the Constitution on whether something is a sin is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution."

Of course, just as a Christian student should be able to post responding Bible verses on the Hindu student's locker.

Why not, for God's sake?

Can I come to your house and paint an OM symbol on it?

If not, why is it OK to vandalize someone else's locker at school?

Why is "political correctness" so against the free exercise of religion and speech in the schools?

What is it afraid of?

Because they don't want followers of the predominant religion to violate the rights of the followers of other religions.

....irrelevant discussion of Hinduism snipped.

Ask each student.

And if even one student says no?

Not if the prayers are voluntary.

They aren't voluntary if even one required participant doesn't want to exposed to it.

Which must include their time in their classroom, or else the government is illegally denying their free exercise of religion there.

So they can disrupt classroom learning time to pray out loud with others?

No, for the refusal is based not on their persons, but on a sinful activity.

Yet homosexuals and their supporters mistakenly claim that a Christian baker not making a cake for a gay wedding shows "hatred" and "discrimination" against gays themselves, in their persons, when in fact what is being discriminated against is not any person (i.e. the baker could make a birthday-party cake for a gay person), but is against the practice of homosexuality itself, which would be promoted by supporting a gay wedding. Christians have the First Amendment right to the "free exercise" of their religion, which requires that they not support sinful activities (Ephesians 5:11), such as homosexuality (Romans 1:26-27) or adultery (Galatians 5:19-21), or pedophilia for that matter (Mark 9:42).

And, indeed, in the "Masterpiece" Supreme Court case, the homosexual plaintiffs admitted that the Christian baker told them:

"I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same - sex weddings."

So he was not discriminating against their persons at all, but was discriminating against an event which goes against his religion.

If a baker refuses to make an identical cake for a homosexual that they made for a heterosexual, then it is discrimination against the homosexual.

Voluntary prayer at school events does not go against that clause.

It does when the attendees have no choice but to be there.

How?

For starters, how about telling them that they can't marry the single, consenting, adult of the gender to which they are attracted?

 

[SilverBear]

I read everything to which I respond, especially the nonsensical stuff. I attempt to make sense of it.

Again with the quoting without attribution - aka plagiarism. Your source?

I don't need to reference myself

 

[SilverBear]

Classic straw man argument, trotting out the far extreme. That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.

NAMBLA is not working to legitimize sex with a two year old.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.


For example tossing NAMBLA into a post that doesn't mention or reference them in any way way.

You don't ever start with the the most unpalatable extreme.

My late wife was sexually abused by her father for a little over a decade starting when she was 2 years old. Don't talk to me about what is palatable in this area and what is not

First, efforts are made to gain acceptance that it is ok to have sex with a consenting 17 year old or 16 year old (whatever is just below the current age of consent in your jurisdiction). You start where you are most likely to gain acceptance, and you align with your opponent on the worst possible outcomes, such as you suggest. That's how one gains allies and proceeds.

We see it all the time in the political arena.

I'm sure you do.