Why are there religious people?

TheBarrd said:

However, why would you do things like try to force a bakery that is clearly marked "Christian" to bake your wedding cake, for instance? Why would anyone want their wedding cake done by someone who had to be forced to do it? Or why would you insist that any organization clearly designated as being Christian serve you, when there are so many other places you can go to get whatever it is you want? For instance, who would really want a doctor to perform a procedure against his will?

Click to expand...

Replace same-sex marriage with interracial marriage here. "Well then, you should just drive to the next town instead of complaining about the people who are against interracial marriage for religious reasons. You can't expect everyone to think that it's 'normal.'" It's all the same logic. That's what these people sound like.

I suppose you'll say "Well that's going too far, God isn't against interracial marriage." But who are you to tell those people that they can't believe that and run their business accordingly? Who are you to decide where the line is drawn? If you want to have this type of religious freedom, you can't just give it to the people who agree with you on everything.

And yes, I would most definitely like a doctor to be forced to do his job if the alternative is prolonged injury or illness.

I am joining the discussion late, sorry, this thread seems very interesting!

There are religious people because there is a God to re-bond with, and people seek to reconstruct that damaged bound. The bound has been damaged by the original sin of Adam and Eve, and since then people has been trying to re-connect, re-bond with God inventing multiple gods, comparing the Creator to plants, rocks, rivers, animals or so, until God revealed Himself when the time arrived and so until now, so religious people exist because the humans are religious by their nature, because we need to reunite with God. This is pretty much my opinion about it.

Cearbhall said:

Replace same-sex marriage with interracial marriage here. "Well then, you should just drive to the next town instead of complaining about the people who are against interracial marriage for religious reasons. You can't expect everyone to think that it's 'normal.'" It's all the same logic. That's what these people sound like.

Click to expand...

Once again, trying to compare the age long struggle of black Americans to this current campaign for gay marriage is pretty lame. It's nothing more than a diversion tactic...another version of the old "bait and switch".
More importantly it is an insult to a great many fine men and women in this country who just happen to be black.
You have no idea what that fight was like, but I'll tell you what...next time you see a horde of men dressed in sheets hanging a gay kid, you come and wake me, and I'll fight beside you.
Till then....

Cearbhall said:

I suppose you'll say "Well that's going too far, God isn't against interracial marriage." But who are you to tell those people that they can't believe that and run their business accordingly? Who are you to decide where the line is drawn? If you want to have this type of religious freedom, you can't just give it to the people who agree with you on everything.

Click to expand...

I'd say the same thing to the interracial couple...it would be incredibly stupid to use a bakery that had to be forced to serve you, when there are so many others who are tripping over themselves to get your business.

Cearbhall said:

And yes, I would most definitely like a doctor to be forced to do his job if the alternative is prolonged injury or illness.

Click to expand...

Same with a doctor, or maybe even more so. I would not want a reluctant doc to prescribe for my precious child....h...uh, well, NO, THANK YOU. Not when there are thousands of qualified doctors that I can trust.
You'd have to be a dang fool to put your health...maybe even your life!...in the hands of someone who doesn't like you, anyway...

Respond to me there Barrd. Don't leave me hanging.

GrimKingGrim said:

Oh so you didn't understand that. Fine. Lemme see if I can explain this.

We see a hurricane and hope that people survived.

Religious folk see a hurricane and thank god for showing favor on those who survived.

Same world. Different lens.

I would consider it a delusion.

Click to expand...

Actually, sometimes we can thank God that people have died and out of their pain...which could also be seen as God's favour toward them.

GrimKingGrim said:

Respond to me there Barrd. Don't leave me hanging.

Click to expand...

Remind me, Grim...where were we?
I've been cooking.

TheBarrd said:

Once again, trying to compare the age long struggle of black Americans to this current campaign for gay marriage is pretty lame. It's nothing more than a diversion tactic...another version of the old "bait and switch".

Click to expand...

Oh, but that's not what I was doing at all. I was comparing your logic to the logic of those who are against interracial marriage for religious reasons. Can you name one objective difference between the two?

More importantly, I was explaining to you what would happen from a legal standpoint were you to give businesses the right to refuse same-sex couples as customers. You would also have to allow those who think mixing the races goes against God's plan the right to refuse interracial couples, as one belief cannot be regarded as superior to the other under the Constitution.

You are, in fact, the one pulling a bait-and-switch. You want complete religious freedom in the matter of businesses choosing customers, but then say that it's a diversion tactic to speak of the reality of the things that you want to allow. If this is what you want for America, then you shouldn't try to shut down the mere mention of it. You can't make a statement on the topic of business law and then claim that I'm comparing the struggles of the two groups when I reword what you're saying.

TheBarrd said:

Remind me, Grim...where were we?
I've been cooking.

Click to expand...

Post #319 (http://www.christianforums.com/t7878067-32/#post67485113)

Cearbhall said:

Oh, but that's not what I was doing at all. I was comparing your logic to the logic of those who are against interracial marriage for religious reasons. Can you name one objective difference between the two?

More importantly, I was explaining to you what would happen from a legal standpoint were you to give businesses the right to refuse same-sex couples as customers. You would also have to allow those who think mixing the races goes against God's plan the right to refuse interracial couples, as one belief cannot be regarded as superior to the other under the Constitution.

You are, in fact, the one pulling a bait-and-switch. You want complete religious freedom in the matter of businesses choosing customers, but then say that it's a diversion tactic to speak of the reality of the things that you want to allow. If this is what you want for America, then you shouldn't try to shut down the mere mention of it. You can't make a statement on the topic of business law and then claim that I'm comparing the struggles of the two groups when I reword what you're saying.

Click to expand...

Well stated!

Cearbhall said:

Oh, but that's not what I was doing at all. I was comparing your logic to the logic of those who are against interracial marriage for religious reasons. Can you name one objective difference between the two?

More importantly, I was explaining to you what would happen from a legal standpoint were you to give businesses the right to refuse same-sex couples as customers. You would also have to allow those who think mixing the races goes against God's plan the right to refuse interracial couples, as one belief cannot be regarded as superior to the other under the Constitution.

You are, in fact, the one pulling a bait-and-switch. You want complete religious freedom in the matter of businesses choosing customers, but then say that it's a diversion tactic to speak of the reality of the things that you want to allow. If this is what you want for America, then you shouldn't try to shut down the mere mention of it. You can't make a statement on the topic of business law and then claim that I'm comparing the struggles of the two groups when I reword what you're saying.

Click to expand...

PREACH!

GrimKingGrim said:

You care enough to say you don't support it.

Click to expand...

I'd probably be more supportive if it were less "in your face".

GrimKingGrim said:

If I'm paying you money, you'd best serve me and check your bigotry at the door. My money is just as green. They're offering a service and are doing business with the state as a result with the acquisition of their business license. The state requires you to do business with anyone with money regardless of race, gender, creed, sexual orientation.

Click to expand...

It's not really about bigotry. It's more about the right to practice my faith as I see fit. My faith teaches that gay is an abomination.
I can always move my little bakery to a home business.

GrimKingGrim said:

Christian persecution complex here.

Click to expand...

What other reason could there be? There are tons of businesses who will trip all over themselves to get your money. Heck, some of them would cater to your dog's wedding if that's what you want. Why in the world go to the one place where you know you're not wanted?
Unless you're just looking for headlines... Keep it in the public eye. "See? Those bigots won't bake me a cake! Waaaahhhh!!!!!"
And it works...well, at least for now. Don't overplay it though...the unwashed masses can be very fickle.

GrimKingGrim said:

They're paying you money. You have zero reason as to why their money is less acceptable than the next man.

Click to expand...

Maybe my principles are more important to me than money. Maybe I truly do believe in my God so strongly, that I would risk going to jail if necessary. My God did say something about keeping my treasure in heaven, as I recall.
And then there is that famous line:
What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his soul?
What would a man give for his soul?

Make enough of a fuss, and maybe public sympathy might swing the other way.

GrimKingGrim said:

If you wanna keep your job, you're to do what you're paid to do. Or look for a new job.

Click to expand...

Uh, if it's my business, I'm not about to fire myself.
If I'm working for someone who insist I violate my faith, I don't need that job.

It's not really about bigotry. It's more about the right to practice my faith as I see fit. My faith teaches that gay is an abomination.
I can always move my little bakery to a home business.

Click to expand...

You can absolutely do that and there would be no problem. Your private practice and business, your rules.

But as soon as you obtain a business license, you're required to do business with anyone with money. It's illegal to discriminate in some way without provocation like that. So be prepared for lawsuits if that's how you'd do business in the public.

I'd probably be more supportive if it were less "in your face".

Click to expand...

Very old fashion minded I see. What do you actually mean by "in your face?"

When I first heard of the gay marriage thing, way back in the days of Yahoo chat, my first reaction was 'Eh, who cares. The license doesn't mean a thing any way. They are already doing everything married people do...renting an apartment together, raising kids together, paying bills together, cheating on one another, fighting over who gets to keep what...what difference does it make if we let 'em file their taxes together? There are ways they can do that, anyway, what's the big deal? It's not as if they want to force us to watch.'

And that's really the way I felt about it. Since we have "no fault divorce" it is as easy to say "I don't" as it once was to say "I do", and in many states the lines about what is personal property and what is the property of the marriage are fuzzy.

Then, suddenly it was everywhere I looked. Gay pride this and gay pride that, and parades and protests, and people running around with their buttocks hanging out...
Then there was a kiddie show that purported to teach what a family is...and sure enough, there were "families" with two mommies or two daddies being shown as "normal".

And I kept hearing how "it's natural, after all animals do it", as if we ought to pattern our sex life on what we see in the animal world. Besides, I grew up on a farm and I know that animals pretty much prefer the opposite sex. Are you old enough to remember those penguins in the London zoo? Two males, raising a chick, and acting like lovers.
It was decided to bring in some females, and the gay crowd went ballistic. "They're gay" they screamed, "leave them alone!" And then the zoo did bring in females and the penguins forgot all about being gay.

I liked it better when we were being told that what two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is no one's business but their own. I agree. Heck, what they do on their couch, or their dining room table, or anywhere else in their own home is no one else's business as long as whatever it is involves consenting adults...I don't care how many consenting adults, either.
As long as they all keep it private.
I have this live and let live policy.
Heck, I might even have baked the cake, as long as you didn't make a point of telling me that it was for a gay wedding. All I needed to know was that you wanted a wedding cake. No further information required. You keep your stuff to yourself and we'll get along just fine.
Expose my kids to it and you'll be fighting a running chain saw...

TheBarrd said:

What other reason could there be? There are tons of businesses who will trip all over themselves to get your money. Heck, some of them would cater to your dog's wedding if that's what you want. Why in the world go to the one place where you know you're not wanted?
Unless you're just looking for headlines... Keep it in the public eye. "See? Those bigots won't bake me a cake! Waaaahhhh!!!!!"
And it works...well, at least for now. Don't overplay it though...the unwashed masses can be very fickle.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure they just went in for a cake. And this became a big deal because an everyday process was halted over some bs. If they just made the cake it wouldn't have happened.

Maybe my principles are more important to me than money. Maybe I truly do believe in my God so strongly, that I would risk going to jail if necessary.

Click to expand...

Pheh. Come off it now, love. If that's how you actually felt you wouldn't open a business in the first place and would do the service for free for people of your choosing. Like a family & friends only thing.

My God did say something about keeping my treasure in heaven, as I recall.
And then there is that famous line:
What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his soul?

Click to expand...

Money to eat.

Make enough of a fuss, and maybe public sympathy might swing the other way.

Click to expand...

That's generally how radical change happens. They want you quiet so they can continue oppressing them. So bang on their windows every night and maybe they'll start realizing it's not just a tantrum.

Several movements have had this exact same approach.

Uh, if it's my business, I'm not about to fire myself.

Click to expand...

Then it'd be in your best interest to serve everyone with money or abandon the business license and live off scraps because you wanna be finnicky with customers. Customers choose the stores, you don't choose the customer. Your pride and business don't mix.

If I'm working for someone who insist I violate my faith, I don't need that job.

Click to expand...

That's all well and good, I won't tell ya how to manage your financials and work life. But that is gonna be awkward coming up in interviews.

Colter said:

No, you still don't get it, all's I'm saying is that when Atheism is promoted in that way it becomes a belief. It's ok to be a belief, but it is faith in the doctrines of doubt that are just as unproven as mans faith in God.

Click to expand...

And that's where you're wrong. You are confusing a belief for a lack of belief and faith for a lack of faith. Atheism doesn't have doctrines that you must believe.

Colter said:

I disagree, promoting godless ideals on a Christian forum, or attempting to undermine, mock or impugn the faith of believers indicates the willful promotion of a belief.

Click to expand...

There's that term again, "godless ideals". I have no idea what that is and yet I'm supposedly here promoting it. You've invented a pseudoreligion and now expect that the atheists here subscribe to it. Those atheists that aren't subscribed to this pseudoreligion aren't here, making them 'neutral' by your definition. As I said earlier, it's impossible for us to discuss religion 'neutrally', in a manner consistent with your definition of neutrality, because the very act of participating in this conversation renders us non-neutral, per your definition.

TheBarrd said:

When I first heard of the gay marriage thing, way back in the days of Yahoo chat, my first reaction was 'Eh, who cares. The license doesn't mean a thing any way. They are already doing everything married people do...renting an apartment together, raising kids together, paying bills together, cheating on one another, fighting over who gets to keep what...what difference does it make if we let 'em file their taxes together? There are ways they can do that, anyway, what's the big deal? It's not as if they want to force us to watch.'

And that's really the way I felt about it. Since we have "no fault divorce" it is as easy to say "I don't" as it once was to say "I do", and in many states the lines about what is personal property and what is the property of the marriage are fuzzy.

Then, suddenly it was everywhere I looked. Gay pride this and gay pride that, and parades and protests, and people running around with their buttocks hanging out...
Then there was a kiddie show that purported to teach what a family is...and sure enough, there were "families" with two mommies or two daddies being shown as "normal".

And I kept hearing how "it's natural, after all animals do it", as if we ought to pattern our sex life on what we see in the animal world. Besides, I grew up on a farm and I know that animals pretty much prefer the opposite sex. Are you old enough to remember those penguins in the London zoo? Two males, raising a chick, and acting like lovers.
It was decided to bring in some females, and the gay crowd went ballistic. "They're gay" they screamed, "leave them alone!" And then the zoo did bring in females and the penguins forgot all about being gay.

I liked it better when we were being told that what two people do in the privacy of their own bedroom is no one's business but their own. I agree. Heck, what they do on their couch, or their dining room table, or anywhere else in their own home is no one else's business as long as whatever it is involves consenting adults...I don't care how many consenting adults, either.
As long as they all keep it private.
I have this live and let live policy.
Heck, I might even have baked the cake, as long as you didn't make a point of telling me that it was for a gay wedding. All I needed to know was that you wanted a wedding cake. No further information required. You keep your stuff to yourself and we'll get along just fine.
Expose my kids to it and you'll be fighting a running chain saw...

Click to expand...

This last point raises a number of questions. Your kids are presumably exposed to heterosexual romance on an almost daily basis. They see heterosexual couples on TV, on the street, in the park, etc. What they don't see quite so often (if at all) are examples of homosexual relationships. So they develop an expectation that a heterosexual relationship is what a relationship is supposed to be. When they grow older, and some start experiencing same-sex attraction, how do you think this expectation affects them? They've never seen a model of a good gay relationship, and yet they have these romantic feelings for someone of the same sex, which makes them different to most of their peers who are heterosexual. The reason it's "everywhere" now is because you are more aware of it. It was always "everywhere," but you weren't aware of it. Raising awareness is one of the first steps toward mitigating the bigotry against gay people that was once commonplace.

TheBarrd said:

I'd probably be more supportive if it were less "in your face".

Click to expand...

I can't understand this at all. Does the sight of opposite-sex PDA make you less supportive of opposite-sex marriage and rights of opposite-sex couples? Does it make you think less of yourself? I highly doubt you're consistent with this. What does an instance of PDA have to do with anyone else who happens to be in a relationship with the same gender combination? My goodness, it's not like there's "us" and then there's the gays in their cult. They aren't responsible for one another any more than we are.

Do you think LGBT people have the same reaction to opposite-sex PDA? Do you see them telling you to not make it visible outside of the bedroom if you want their respect and your rights?

GrimKingGrim said:

PREACH!

Click to expand...

bhsmte said:

Well stated!

Click to expand...

Thank you. Most people who want more "reigious freedom" seem to be operating under the delusion that the government will hold their beliefs above all others and implement the law exactly the way that they personally want, when that is impossible.

They speak as if everyone who will take advantage of this "freedom" will do it in the exact same way that they would, and no further. They don't think of all the things that such a law would allow. Now, I'm sure there are a minority who realize this and support equal "freedoms" for all religious people, but I doubt that most of these types would want to see a Muslim display outside a courthouse or would cheer for freedom while being turned away at a local restaurant because of the religious beliefs of the owners. They never think of themselves as the potential victims. They assume that they'll always be the ones discriminating and benefiting from such a law, because they think that their beliefs and life choices are objectively right. It's one of the best examples of privilege that I can think of, actually. They don't realize that current laws and precedent protect them, as well.

Fortunately, we're about 50 years past this nonsense. The problem that we're seeing right now is the result of the fact that sexual orientation wasn't on the public's radar in 1964 to such a degree that it was included explicitly in anti-discrimination legislation. Now we have to hammer it out all over again.

Archaeopteryx said:

And that's where you're wrong. You are confusing a belief for a lack of belief and faith for a lack of faith. Atheism doesn't have doctrines that you must believe.



There's that term again, "godless ideals". I have no idea what that is and yet I'm supposedly here promoting it. You've invented a pseudoreligion and now expect that the atheists here subscribe to it. Those atheists that aren't subscribed to this pseudoreligion aren't here, making them 'neutral' by your definition. As I said earlier, it's impossible for us to discuss religion 'neutrally', in a manner consistent with your definition of neutrality, because the very act of participating in this conversation renders us non-neutral, per your definition.

Click to expand...

Belief is belief, you seem unwilling to own your current belief/philosophy of life. This issue is not confined to Atheist, religionists have belief obveously. As a professional in the feild pshycology I would think that you would readily understand that people have beliefs about all sorts of things.

An example of a Godless ideal would be the theory of uncaused evolution, that there was no mind behind the creation of mind, that conciousness has no real access to spiritual influence.

Colter said:

Belief is belief, you seem unwilling to own your current belief/philosophy of life.

Click to expand...

Sure I do - my philosophy just isn´t atheism.

An example of a Godless ideal would be the theory of uncaused evolution, that there was no mind behind the creation of mind, that conciousness has no real access to spiritual influence.

Click to expand...

A scientific theory is not an ideal, to begin with.
Heck, I often curse gravity, but can´t help acknowledging the theory.

On another note, if my ideals are "godless" (because they don´t involve a god) they are also "satanless".