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

[Queller]

So what?

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

Thank God for religious liberty.

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

Sorry. No matter how many times you say, when the government forces me to listen to a prayer (be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, or any other) at an event that I have no choice but to attend, that is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

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

And if even one student DOESN'T want it?

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

That verse justifies treating homosexuals as second-class citizens.

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

Interesting how you dishonestly leave out the remainder of the definition:

specifically : a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child

Who is cooking the books?

YOU are, by deliberately leaving out the full definition. To wit:

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

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?

Nope. you're the only one "cooking the books" to make the definition what you want it to be instead of what it actually is.

BTW, the terms for someone attracted to post pubescent adolescents are:

Hebophilia (attracted to adolescents 11-14) and;
Ehpehbophilia (attracted to adolescents 15-19)

At least learn your terms.

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".

Ridiculous. No one will ever have to justify supporting civil rights for homosexuals but not supporting the "rights" of someone who wants to sexually violate a minor who cannot give consent.

So what?

There's also cannibalism.

The fact that there are documented cases of homosexuality in animals destroys your argument that homosexuality is "against nature".

So what?

So what? You said "[homosexuality] can lead to horrible diseases".

There is no disease that is "led to" by homosexuality.

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

You're interpreting that verse to mean disease when there is no justification for doing so.

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

Homosexuality is not comparable to pedophilia. What two (or more) consenting adults (homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual) do is not comparable to what an adult does to a minor who cannot give informed consent.

No.

Really? You're here arguing about the First Amendment and Religion yet you have no idea of the Lemon Test? Or (presumably) of the court case from which it stems, Lemon v. Kurtzman? Wow.

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

And yet when the government promotes or allows one religion to benefit above others (say by forcing non-Christian students attend Christian prayers) that's EXACTLY what is happening.

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

I've noticed that most people claim "political correctness" (or the related "judicial activism) when things don't go their way.

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

1. I'm talking about slaves of other men, not Christ. Quit changing the subject.

2. We are not chattel slaves of Christ. We can walk away anytime we want. Chattel slaves cannot.

Yes.

Exodus 21:4-6 is not cruel,

Horse puckey. Keeping a slave's wife and children from him when he goes free or letting him stay with his wife and children only if he agrees to remain a slave forever is the very definition of cruelty. I would argue that it even more cruel than beating him to death.

and Exodus 21:20-21 can be replaced by the New Testament/New Covenant's Colossians 4:1.

doesn't change the fact that beating a slave so severely that he dies and receiving no punishment as long as the slave survives for a day or two before succumbing is extremely cruel and evil.

Why?

Are you an employer?

Yes, but that's not why it's laughable. Your complete lack of understanding of economics is what is laughable.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Blacks actually fought in the Civil.War and gays have done nothing but raise money and have rallies, . . . . gays have done no such thing, they were doing great persuading and lobbying legeslatures, convincing the public, and moving their agenda forward. . . . .

Uh. . . I think you are contradicting yourself here.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

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.

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

I'm sure you do.

Source? That's the fourth time I have asked you to cite the sources you are plagiarizing. If you refuse to discuss any issue in good faith and rationally, I will move on and respond to others instead.

As to your example, while I am very sorry this happened to your wife and it is truly horrendous, it has no applicability to the discussion at hand. There is indeed a progression of pushing the envelope on acceptability and to deny that is to be ignorant of our political and cultural history.

 

[SilverBear]

Source? That's the fourth time I have asked you to cite the sources you are plagiarizing. If you refuse to discuss any issue in good faith and rationally, I will move on and respond to others instead.

As to your example, while I am very sorry this happened to your wife and it is truly horrendous, it has no applicability to the discussion at hand. There is indeed a progression of pushing the envelope on acceptability and to deny that is to be ignorant of our political and cultural history.

NAMBLA has no applicability to the discussion but you keep bringing it up

 

[creslaw]

"Why" is an interesting question because despite what Paul claims, Jesus says that nothing in the law will be changed until heaven and earth pass away and all of the law is fulfilled. Matthew 5:18

The Law was fulfilled in Jesus Christ (Luke 24:44) which is confirmed by Paul (Ephesians 2:15).

The continued confusion between the new covenant in the NT and the old covenant in the OT, is just a ploy to promote the acceptability of same sex behaviour today.

 

[Bible2+]

SilverBear said in post #793:

[Re: Virgins employing sex toys in masturbation]

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

No, for the sex toys would not be arousing apart from a homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual orientation.

SilverBear said in post #793:

[Re: Pedophilia can be towards postpubescent children]

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

What was posted was read, but not agreed with.

SilverBear said in post #793:

. . . 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.

And also to children. So they have a bi-orientation.

SilverBear said in post #793:

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

It was wrong to make it a crime, because being married to someone of a different skin color is not a sin.

But homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1:26-27).

SilverBear said in post #793:

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.

Both are wrong, if the adults (in the first case) are of the same sex.

Also, what we're talking about is not rape, but pedophilia-with-consent, like with NAMBLA.

That is, pedophilia could be legalized in all cases where "consent" has been established in court, or by some other legal means, just as some states already allow minors to consent to marriage. If they can consent to marriage, then why not to pedophilia?

SilverBear said in post #793:

[Re: 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.

Only in the minds of those who hate and are bigoted against pedophiles.

Also, note that it is not homophobia to say that homosexuality is a sin (Romans 1:26-27), and that Biblical Christians cannot support sinful activities (Ephesians 5:11).

Also, homophobia is a misnomer, for "phobia" means "fear", and no one is fearful of homosexual people, unless they start to get violent, like Antifa.

But then the fear is simply the fear of bodily harm, not any fear of homosexuality per se.

So the word "homophobia" needs to go into the trash, where it belongs, along with "pedophobia" and "beastiphobia".

SilverBear said in post #793:

[Re: We must never hate or be bigoted against pedophiles]

no one is.

Unless we call them "monsters", and say that comparing homosexuality to pedophilia "dehumanizes" homosexuals, as if pedophiles are not humans.

SilverBear said in post #793:

[Re: We must simply state that what homosexuals do is sinful (Romans 1:26-27)]

but you aren't doing this.

How not?

*******

SilverBear said in post #794:

[Re: Regarding interracial marriage, there is nothing wrong with it]

thank you for your opinion, racists disagree

Then they disagree with the Bible, like homosexuals do.

SilverBear said in post #794:

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

And its past, wrongful illegality doesn't change the simple fact that homosexuality is still sinful.

SilverBear said in post #794:

[Re: Pedophiles 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?

No, for when they stop having any orientation toward minors, then they will no longer be pedophiles.

That is, any bi-orientation which they may have had, toward both adults and minors, will have become a single orientation toward adults.

SilverBear said in post #794:

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.

Disgust is close to hatred.

Also, no one has advocated any hatred toward gays, or any exploitation of the rape of children.

Instead, all that has been said is that if homosexuality is supposed to be okay, then why not pedophilia-with-consent, like there is minor-marriage-with-consent in many states?

*******

SilverBear said in post #804:

NAMBLA has no applicability to the discussion but you keep bringing it up

Note that NAMBLA has perfect applicability to the discussion. For pedophilia can be claimed to be "love" and a valid "sexual orientation", even though pedophilia is a sin according to the Bible (Luke 17:2).

And the same goes for homosexuality.

 

[Bible2+]

Queller said in post #797:

[Re: 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.

That's what it means, based on the other verses referenced, such as Luke 24:44-46.

That is, Matthew 5:17-18 means that Jesus Christ came the first time not to abolish the prophecies in the Mosaic law and the Old Testament prophets regarding the Messiah's/the Christ's first coming, but to fulfill all those prophecies (Luke 24:44-48; e.g. Acts 3:22-26, Isaiah 53). Matthew 5:17-18 cannot mean that Jesus came not to abolish the letter of the commandments of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, for He did come to do that, on the Cross (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19). Also, Matthew 5:17-18 cannot mean that Jesus came to fulfill the letter of all of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments, for He could not possibly have done that. For example, some of those commandments applied only to women after childbirth (Leviticus 12:4-8), or to wives suspected of adultery by their husbands (Numbers 5:19-31).

As the Christ (Matthew 5:17, Luke 24:44-46), the mediator of the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 12:24, Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 8:6-9), Jesus had the divine authority to contradict the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments and replace them with His own, even better, New Covenant commandments (Matthew 5:38-44, Matthew 19:7-9, John 8:5-7), such as those He gave in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29) and in the epistles of the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 14:37; 1 Thessalonians 4:2). And as the Christ, Jesus had the divine authority to allow His disciples to break the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments (Matthew 12:1-8).

Queller said in post #797:

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

No, Ananias also knew that it was true (Acts 9:17-18).

Queller said in post #797:

[Re: 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.

Are you saying that the Bible is false?

Also, why do you feel that it is false to say that orientation is defined by behavior?

Queller said in post #797:

[Re: No one has said that women are second-class citizens]

The Bible treats them as such.

No, the Bible says that women are in the same class as men, "as being heirs together of the grace of life" (1 Peter 3:7b).

Queller said in post #797:

[Re: Biblical teaching regarding women]

Irrelevant sermonizing snipped

Why is it irrelevant?

Queller said in post #797:

[Re: Matthew 4:8, 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.

The point of what was said was not that it is necessary to have a mountain in heaven (even though there is indeed one: Hebrews 12:22), but that it is necessary that the mountain in Matthew 4:8 is in heaven.

Queller said in post #797:

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

Note that there is no problem. Also, nothing has been added to God's teachings, when they are taken in their entirety.

Queller said in post #797:

[Re: Matthew 4:8]

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.

Note that the text in no way says or requires that the mountain is on the earth.

Queller said in post #797:

If Satan took Jesus to heaven (and just how is Satan allowed into heaven anyway) why would he need a mountain in heaven?

He wouldn't need it, but he could choose it nonetheless.

Also, Job 1:6, for example, shows that Satan is allowed in heaven.

Queller said in post #797:

[Re: Why would Mark and Luke have to mention everything that happened when Jesus healed the blind men by Jericho?]

Consistency. Inevitability.

What do you mean by "Inevitability"?

Also, there is no inconsistency so long as there is no contradiction.

Queller said in post #797:

[Re: John 20:30]

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.

They do not disagree on any detail.

Mark and Luke simply do not mention some details.

Queller said in post #797:

According to Blue Letter Bible The word used in Acts 27:2 is G2596 [Greek] not g1519 [Greek]

According to Strong's Concordance, both words are used in Acts 27:2, the first translated as "of" and the second as "by".

Queller said in post #797:

Not one Bible translation use the "by" translation of [Greek: G1519].

The KJV does, in Acts 27:2.

Queller said in post #797:

If you are leaving somewhere, you aren't drawing near to it.

In Luke 18:35 the original Greek word (G1519) translated as "unto" can mean as Jesus came near "by" (Acts 27:2) a blind man next to Jericho, yet still on Jesus' way out of Jericho (Mark 10:46).

Queller said in post #797:

. . . claiming that He touched their eyes despite what the text says is adding to the Bible.

No, for the Bible does say that He touched their eyes (Matthew 20:34).

And nothing in the Bible says that He did not touch their eyes.

Queller said in post #797:

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".

There is no inaccuracy because there is no contradiction in the original Greek.

Also, no account says that Jesus did not heal two blind men near Jericho.

Queller said in post #797:

[Re: Minors are allowed to consent to marriage in many states]

Name one.

You should google it. For you will eventually have to anyway, to confirm or deny any state that I name.

Queller said in post #797:

[Re: Pedophilia is by definition a sexual orientation toward minors]

Not according to Webster's.

Yes, according to the original Webster's, before people changed it recently for some reason.

Queller said in post #797:

[Re: How was Jesus' 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?

Yes, proven by experience.

Blind men truly experienced healing by Jesus (Matthew 20:34). They weren't faking.

Queller said in post #797:

[Re: 2 Corinthians 12:7-10]

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

When He considers it best for the person, and His glory.

Queller said in post #797:

[Re: The First Amendment does]

The First Amendment does what?

Feel the same about Santeria as about Biblical Christianity.

For denying the "free exercise" of religion is prohibited by the First Amendment.

Queller said in post #797:

[Re: A voluntary school graduation prayer doesn't violate the Establishment clause of the First Amendment]

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

They're wrong, just as they're wrong about abortion and same-sex marriage.

Do you think that the Supreme Court is infallible, or can't overturn its own mistakes?

Queller said in post #797:

[Re: Any prayer in the classroom should be up to the students]

Then why does the teacher need to be involved.

Who said that she does?

Queller said in post #797:

[Re: Islamic students sharing their religion with Christian students at school is not a threat to Christians who know why Islam is wrong]

Completely irrelevant to the issue.

Not at all. For the issue is that there must be free exercise of religion in the schools according to the First Amendment.

Queller said in post #797:

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

No one has said that.

Instead, what has been said is that any prayers in the schools should be up to the students.

*******

Queller said in post #798:

Too scared to read something that might make you rethink your preposterous claims?

A Biblical argument might make me rethink something, but not merely someone's non-Biblical opinions.

Queller said in post #798:

Biblical arguments are ineffective against violations of the First Amendment.

Voluntary school prayer does not violate the First Amendment.

Also, Biblical arguments are the basis for the religion of Biblical Christianity, the free exercise of which is protected by the First Amendment.

Queller said in post #798:

[Re: Land ownership in America]

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

Thousands of times?

And did the majority of Americans approve of any time?

Queller said in post #798:

Most Northerners weren't against slavery either.

They weren't?

Then why did the Northern states forbid slavery?

Queller said in post #798:

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

The Bible does not require that women not be allowed to speak on the job.

Queller said in post #798:

[Re: An audience at a school prayer]

They still have to listen.

But they don't have to say it or agree to it. And they don't have to even pay any attention to it if they have a smartphone which they can play with instead. And they don't even have to listen to it if they have earbuds on playing music.

Queller said in post #798:

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.

What arguments in the link prove that school prayer is wrong?

Why not bring those arguments into this thread, and explain why you feel that each argument cannot be wrong?

 

[Bible2+]

Queller said in post #798:

[Re: Why can't people listen to a graduation prayer before a valedictorian's speech?]

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

Neither is, if the prayer is voluntary.

Queller said in post #798:

[Re: 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.

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

The reply was relevant because the First Amendment is more than just the Establishment Clause.

That is, even if homosexuality is legal now, Biblical Christians still cannot be forced to support it.

Queller said in post #798:

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

No, because paint is too troublesome to remove. But you could certainly hang a little OM-symbol card on my doorknob, which I could then choose to either keep or throw away, like any advertisement-card hung on a doorknob.

Queller said in post #798:

. . . why is it OK to vandalize someone else's locker at school?

Taping a Bible verse on a locker is not vandalism, so long as the taped verse can be easily removed.

Queller said in post #798:

[Re: Those who hold to "political correctness"]

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

No rights are violated by spreading the Gospel (Mark 16:15).

But the First Amendment is violated if this is denied by the government in schools.

Queller said in post #798:

....irrelevant discussion of Hinduism snipped.

Note that it's not irrelevant. For the issue is that there must be free exercise of religion in the schools according to the First Amendment. And Hindu students sharing their religion with Christian students at school is not a threat to Christians who know why Hinduism is wrong.

Queller said in post #798:

[Re: School prayer, ask each student if they are okay with it]

And if even one student says no?

Then skip the prayer.

Queller said in post #798:

[Re: School prayers]

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

They are voluntary if there are no required participants.

Queller said in post #798:

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

Prayer is not a disruption if it is a planned part of the class.

Also, a prayer can be short, and instructive in itself, like The Lord's Prayer.

Queller said in post #798:

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.

Only so long as the cake was not for the celebration of the practice of homosexuality.

Queller said in post #798:

[Re: Voluntary prayer at school events does not go against the Establishment Clause]

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

It doesn't if they don't have to say or agree to the prayer.

Queller said in post #798:

[Re: How do Christians treat non-Christians as outcasts all the time?]

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

The government says they can. And if they do, even though they will be sinners, Christians still must not treat them as outcasts (Mark 2:16).

For example, Christians can freely eat with homosexuals, such as at a birthday party for a gay person. For the meal is not in support of the practice of homosexuality, but in support of the person in himself.

*******

Queller said in post #801:

. . . when the government forces me to listen to a prayer (be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, or any other) at an event that I have no choice but to attend, that is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

No, for you are not forced to listen to it. You can simply plug your ears.

And if you are there to support the students at a graduation, for example, then why would you not be interested in their prayer, which you do not have to pray yourself or agree to in any way?

Do you reject merely listening to any speech which you may not agree with?

Hopefully not.

For just as there is freedom of speech, so there is freedom of religion.

If you do not like that, then you could move to China, where there is neither.

Then you can be free under materialism, so long as you don't say anything against the Communist Party.

Queller said in post #801:

[Re: Ephesians 5:11]

That verse justifies treating homosexuals as second-class citizens.

Not at all. For it is not against any persons in themselves, but only against sinful activities.

Also, if you reject the Bible, then why would you want to post in a Christians-only subforum?

That is, are you hoping to convert Biblical Christians to non-Biblical Christianity?

If so, why would you want to do that?

That is, if you are so against "forcing" others to listen to anything religious that they may disagree with, then why are you forcing Biblical Christians to read your anti-Biblical-Christian viewpoints?

Also, what books of the Bible do you feel are Christian, if you reject the books by Paul, and the Old Testament books?

And of the few books of the Bible that you feel are Christian, what do they say that rejects the other books as not being from God, or rejects the idea that homosexuality is sinful (Romans 1:26-27), or that Biblical Christians must not support sinful activities (Ephesians 5:11)?

Queller said in post #801:

[Re: Webster's definition of "pedophilia"]

Interesting how you dishonestly leave out the remainder of the definition:

specifically : a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engages in sexual acts with a prepubescent child

That "rest of the definition" is not in my Webster's, and not even in my Unabridged Webster's.

So who added it? And why?

Queller said in post #801:

No one will ever have to justify supporting civil rights for homosexuals but not supporting the "rights" of someone who wants to sexually violate a minor who cannot give consent.

Minors can give consent to marriage in many states. So why not to pedophilia?

Queller said in post #801:

The fact that there are documented cases of homosexuality in animals destroys your argument that homosexuality is "against nature".

No, it doesn't, just as animal cannibalism doesn't.

For homosexuality is "against nature" according to the Bible (Romans 1:26-27), in the sense of how God created nature to work:

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

God never intended for males to become sexually joined or married to other males, just as God never intended for females to become sexually joined or married to other females.

Queller said in post #801:

There is no disease that is "led to" by homosexuality.

Of course there is, such as hepatitis and AIDS.

Queller said in post #801:

[Re: Romans 1:27b]

You're interpreting that verse to mean disease when there is no justification for doing so.

What do you prefer instead?

Queller said in post #801:

Homosexuality is not comparable to pedophilia.

It is, in that both are sinful, but those who practice either can claim that it is not sinful, but "love" and a valid "sexual orientation".

Queller said in post #801:

What two (or more) consenting adults (homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual) do is not comparable to what an adult does to a minor who cannot give informed consent.

Minors can give informed consent to sexual activity.

Queller said in post #801:

You're here arguing about the First Amendment and Religion yet you have no idea of the Lemon Test?

That's right.

Why not bring its arguments into this thread, and explain why you feel that each of its arguments cannot be wrong?

Queller said in post #801:

And yet when the government promotes or allows one religion to benefit above others (say by forcing non-Christian students attend Christian prayers) that's EXACTLY what is happening.

It hasn't been said that any non-Christian students should ever be forced to attend Christian prayers.

Queller said in post #801:

I've noticed that most people claim "political correctness" (or the related "judicial activism) when things don't go their way.

It's the other way around. "Political correctness" is for some reason against the free exercise of Biblical Christianity, even though the First Amendment protects it.

Queller said in post #801:

1. I'm talking about slaves of other men, not Christ. Quit changing the subject.

If the subject is that slavery per se is wrong, then both types of slavery are relevant.

Queller said in post #801:

2. We are not chattel slaves of Christ. We can walk away anytime we want. Chattel slaves cannot.

Of course they can, unless they are chained to a wall.

Also, Christians are the chattel slaves of Christ (1 Corinthians 7:23), even though they can still wrongly employ their free will to walk away from Him, to the ultimate loss of their salvation from hell (Hebrews 6:4-8).

Queller said in post #801:

Keeping a slave's wife and children from him when he goes free or letting him stay with his wife and children only if he agrees to remain a slave forever is the very definition of cruelty.

Not if he loves his master (Exodus 21:5).

Queller said in post #801:

I would argue that it even more cruel than beating him to death. [Exodus 21:20-21]

That could be replaced by the New Covenant's Colossians 4:1.

Queller said in post #801:

doesn't change the fact that beating a slave so severely that he dies and receiving no punishment as long as the slave survives for a day or two before succumbing is extremely cruel and evil.

The Old Covenant was harsh at times (Matthew 5:38), but never cruel or evil (Romans 7:12).

For it was still God's Word for that time, although it is now no longer in effect (Hebrews 7:18).

But God's Word in Romans 1:26-27 and Ephesians 5:11 is still in effect, and those verses are not harsh, much less cruel or evil.

Queller said in post #801:

[Re: Do you see the idea of "wage slavery" as laughable because you are an employer?]

. . . that's not why it's laughable. Your complete lack of understanding of economics is what is laughable.

Do you feel that economics justifies wage slavery?

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

NAMBLA has no applicability to the discussion but you keep bringing it up

Cite your sources. Five.

If we are stretching examples, then sure, it is completely applicable. You are attempting to equate unalike scenarios. I'm just using the same sort of analogy, but you don't like this one. That doesn't make in inapplicable if we are talking about sexual proclivities.

 

[Queller]

The Law was fulfilled in Jesus Christ (Luke 24:44) which is confirmed by Paul (Ephesians 2:15).

The continued confusion between the new covenant in the NT and the old covenant in the OT, is just a ploy to promote the acceptability of same sex behaviour today.

The verse in question:

"44 And he said unto them, These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me."

Note the part in bold. Jesus is telling them that there are things that still need to be fulfilled. He says nothing about them all having been fulfilled.

 

[Bible2+]

Queller said in post #810:

[Re: Luke 24:44]

Jesus is telling them that there are things that still need to be fulfilled. He says nothing about them all having been fulfilled.

That's right.

For Luke 24:44 does not say that Jesus Christ fulfilled at His first coming everything prophesied in the Old Testament regarding Him, but that everything prophesied in the Old Testament regarding Him must be fulfilled. For Jesus did not fulfill, for example, Zechariah 14 at His first coming. But because it must be fulfilled, He will fulfill it at His future, Second Coming, along with all of the other Old Testament prophecies which He did not fulfill at His first coming (e.g. Micah 4:1-4, Isaiah 19:18-25).

So Acts 13:29 must refer only to all that was written in the Old Testament regarding Jesus Christ's suffering and dying for our sins (e.g. Isaiah 53, Psalms 22). Indeed, Acts 13:29 was even before Jesus had resurrected on the third day after His death, which resurrection was also written of Him in the Old Testament (e.g. Acts 26:22-23, Psalms 16:10, Hosea 6:2).

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

The verse in question:

"44 And he said unto them, These are my words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must needs be fulfilled, which are written in the law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me."

Note the part in bold. Jesus is telling them that there are things that still need to be fulfilled. He says nothing about them all having been fulfilled.

Right. He had to go to the cross first. Then he said, "IT is finished."

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Right. He had to go to the cross first. Then he said, "IT is finished."

Well, his work on the cross was finished, one can understand how that would be the main thing on His mind at the time . . . .

 

[Bible2+]

RestoreTheJoy said in post #812:

Right. He had to go to the cross first. Then he said, "IT is finished."

John 19:30 meant that Jesus Christ had finished His work of suffering for our sins (Isaiah 53:11), not that He had finished, for example, His work as King on the earth. For in our future, He must reign as King on the earthly throne of David forever (Isaiah 9:7, Luke 1:32-33).

Presently, the Kingdom of God is in heaven (2 Timothy 4:18, Hebrews 12:22-24), and is on the earth spiritually within Christians (Romans 14:17, Luke 17:21). But in the future, the Kingdom will come fully upon the earth as it is in heaven (Matthew 6:10). It will also be physically (Luke 22:30, Matthew 19:28) on the earth (Revelation 5:10), first during the future Millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 2:26-29, Psalms 66:3-4, Psalms 72:8-11, Zechariah 14:3-21), and then forever on the New Earth (Revelation 21:1-8), as in a new surface for the earth.

Jesus Christ's Kingdom is Israel (John 1:49, John 12:13-15, John 19:19, Luke 22:30). And at His future, Second Coming, He will sit on the earthly throne of King David (Luke 1:32-33, Isaiah 9:7) and restore the kingdom to Israel (Acts 1:6-7, Acts 3:20-21). Jesus is, in His humanity, the son of David (Matthew 1:1, Matthew 21:15-16, Romans 1:3), of the house of David (Luke 1:69). So at Jesus' Second Coming, He will restore the tabernacle, the house, of David (Isaiah 16:5, Amos 9:11) to its royal glory (2 Samuel 5:12), which it had lost (2 Kings 17:21a). And Jesus will fulfill the prophecy and prayer of 2 Samuel 7:16-29. And He will bring salvation to all of the still-living, non-Christian elect Jews of the house of David. For they (along with all other still-living, non-Christian elect Jews) will become Christians when they see Jesus at His Second Coming (Zechariah 12:10-14, Zechariah 13:1,6, Romans 11:26-31). And so they will all become part of the Church at that time. For there are no Christians outside of the Church (Ephesians 4:4-6).

After Jesus Christ's future, Second Coming (Revelation 19:7 to 20:3, Zechariah 14:3-5) will occur the Millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, Zechariah 14:8-21), during which time the Gentile nations will come to seek the returned Jesus ruling the whole earth (Zechariah 8:22, Zechariah 14:9, Psalms 72:8-11) on the restored throne of David (Isaiah 9:7) in the earthly Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:1-4, Zechariah 14:8-11,16-19). And the physically resurrected Church will reign on the earth with Jesus during the Millennium (Revelation 20:4-6, Revelation 5:10, Revelation 2:26-29). For the Church is Israel (Romans 11:1,17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29, Revelation 21:9,12; 1 Peter 2:9-10).

 

[Logic Over Emotionalism]

If it goes up to the supreme Court the same sex couple will lose as it did when the Supreme Court backed the Christian Baker in a 7-2 decision. This is discrimination on religious businesses that have to violate religious conviction to run a business which is a violation of the First Amendment. Your religious rights do not end when you are a business owner.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1J01WU

 

[SilverBear]

If it goes up to the supreme Court the same sex couple will lose as it did when the Supreme Court backed the Christian Baker in a 7-2 decision. This is discrimination on religious businesses that have to violate religious conviction to run a business which is a violation of the First Amendment. Your religious rights do not end when you are a business owner.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN1J01WU

GO read the ruling. The court side steeped the whole cake issue and said nothing about any cake. the court ruled (and specifically said the ruling applies to this case only) against the Colorado civil rights commission for not being sufficiently neutral. And that is it

 

[Logic Over Emotionalism]

GO read the ruling. The court side steeped the whole cake issue and said nothing about any cake. the court ruled (and specifically said the ruling applies to this case only) against the Colorado civil rights commission for not being sufficiently neutral. And that is it

I did and if this goes to Supreme Court the gay couple will loss as this is religious discrimination. Unless you believe that religious freedom ends when you are a business owner?

From the article:

"The lawsuit, brought by Brush and Nib Studio, a calligraphy business that wanted to turn away same-sex couples seeking custom-made calligraphy for weddings, citing a religious belief that opposes same-sex marriage."

If this was a case of the owner refusing to sell cakes or stuff on display that would be discrimination. But when you order a custom made item the owner has a legal right to refuse under religious grounds.

 

[Logic Over Emotionalism]

if you would have read what i wrote you would have noticed i was comparing racism to homophobia

there is no black gene either

There is couple major problems trying to piggyback the gay rights movement to that of the racism of that during the Civil Rights Movement.

1. The majority of African Americans who was the the subject of that discrimination are against homosexuality including my wife who is also black. 72.3% of African Americans agree that homosexuality is “always wrong” and even Martin Luther King Jr said this on the subject of a boy liking a boy (sources below):

"The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. Your reasons for adopting this habit have now been consciously suppressed or unconsciously repressed. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this problem by getting back to some of the experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. In order to do this I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist you in bringing to the forefront of conscience all of those experiences and circumstances that led to the habit." - Martin Luther King Jr 1958

2. Race is something you are clearly and visibly born with, where homosexuality is not something you are born with that can be proven. Sexuality is something that is learned through our experience and social interactions with others, events such as divorce or abuse negativity impacts this. Unless you would like to claim babies or toddlers are sexual or comprehend the dynamics of relationships.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.li...n/mlk-homosexuality-a-problem-with-a-solution

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pi...ing-jr-think-of-the-lgbt-rights-movement/amp/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974805/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ps...ct-divorce-young-children-and-adolescents?amp

https://www.google.com/amp/keepkidssafe.org/6-ways-molestation-affects-adult-survivors/amp/

 

[SilverBear]

I did and if this goes to Supreme Court the gay couple will loss as this is religious discrimination. Unless you believe that religious freedom ends when you are a business owner?

do you believe that constitutional rights are tossed aside if you are a minority?

 

[SilverBear]

There is couple major problems trying to piggyback the gay rights movement to that of the racism of that during the Civil Rights Movement.

Wow you even directly quoted me yet you still manage to either not get what was written or you chose to dishonestly ignore what i had written.

1. The majority of African Americans who was the the subject of that discrimination are against homosexuality including my wife who is also black. 72.3% of African Americans agree that homosexuality is “always wrong” and even Martin Luther King Jr said this on the subject of a boy liking a boy (sources below):

and at the time Martin Luther King Jr was saying this about 70% of American's believed that racial equality was wrong. Did that belief make racial equality wrong?

Constitutional rights are based on the Constitution not on opinion polls.

"The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired. Your reasons for adopting this habit have now been consciously suppressed or unconsciously repressed. Therefore, it is necessary to deal with this problem by getting back to some of the experiences and circumstances that led to the habit. In order to do this I would suggest that you see a good psychiatrist who can assist you in bringing to the forefront of conscience all of those experiences and circumstances that led to the habit." - Martin Luther King Jr 1958

and how does Martin Luther King Jr misinformation of the topic in any way change the fact that the rhetoric and justifications of racism are indistinguishable from the rhetoric and justifications of homophobia?

2. Race is something you are clearly and visibly born with, where homosexuality is not something you are born with that can be proven.

it cannot be proven that disease is caused by microscopic organisms but just like all the evidence shows that sexual orientation is inborn all the evidence says bacteria and viruses are what's behind disease.

Sexuality is something that is learned through our experience and social interactions with others,

Evidence?