|
Post by snow on Mar 31, 2014 23:38:07 GMT -5
"If there was anything that was worth defending in those beliefs" and if there were some truth to them, they would not be "be picked apart pretty much endlessly". What I'm reading: Contempt"The things in the bible should be things no decent person would condone when it comes to stoning your children," The one example I've found of that relates to debauchery and drunkenness, hardly something an actual child would be capable of. [Deut. 21:18-21] Nevertheless, yes, capital punishment for profligacy and drunkenness is not something society would advocate today, of course. Simply put, Jesus is The Way. "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral.....nor drunkards....will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." 1 Cor. 6:9-11"killing homosexuals" Harsh, no doubt. The moral reservation remains (part of sexual sin) but we don't respond to it in the same way, obviously."selling your daughters," Selling your daughters...that is out of context, you know. Slavery was part of near eastern culture, and conditions in this period were brutal all around. He instituted laws which gave some gradient steps forward, i.e., improvements. Just as you wouldn't instruct first graders in Calculus, but bring them up gradually, step by step, precept by precept, God's laws were leading a brutal society to a higher form of social interaction. Conditions in the ancient near east had some common features (purification/cleansing rituals; sacrifices (plant, animal, drink, and human sacrifice; pan/polytheism; theocracy; "sacred" prostitution; divination and magic) and God (YHWH) dealt all of these by forbidding some and refashioning others.
Child sacrifice, polytheism, prostitution in all its forms, and divination and magic were outlawed.
Leviticus 19:29, "Do not debase your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will be prostituted and filled with depravity."
The laws around slavery www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021 were actually improvements in their time.
From our comfortable chairs today we might scoff at these, but when we do, we forget that the incremental steps outlined in the laws of the Bible led, over centuries, to the ultimate Way, Jesus, who taught us that all of the laws and the prophets hang on these two commandments: Loving God first and loving our neighbor as ourselves.
"Does this not raise some pretty major red flags for you at all?" Seen by that armchair today, sure. Seen as they were: incremental improvements necessary in their time, no. Leading to Jesus, no red flags. Because now we have the New Covenant. Now we have The Way: Jesus.
We are talking about an all knowing, all powerful being here. He is the one commanding these things. This is something a God is commanding. Does God evolve from the horrendous being we see in the OT to a semi loving God the NT tries to protray? This isn't about the people, it's about God. He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17 Leviticus 20:9 King James Version (KJV) 9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Oh, and this New Covenant you're talking about. It seems that it upholds the Old one if homosexuality is still a sin.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 31, 2014 23:41:15 GMT -5
Bob ~ LOL ~ It's time to go to bed. You and Rational are on a roll tonight with your visualizing. Sweet dreams! I'm calling it a night!
Oh Gosh. Some of the dreams I have at night. One dream got abruptly interrupted when I discovered myself on my hands and knew on the floor and all the blankets and pillows there with me. I hate giant spiders. Bob ~ Have you been watching Arachnophobia again? That movie will give you nightmares for days! I detest spiders, too, so you have my sympathy!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Mar 31, 2014 23:58:39 GMT -5
"If there was anything that was worth defending in those beliefs" and if there were some truth to them, they would not be "be picked apart pretty much endlessly". What I'm reading: Contempt"The things in the bible should be things no decent person would condone when it comes to stoning your children," The one example I've found of that relates to debauchery and drunkenness, hardly something an actual child would be capable of. [Deut. 21:18-21] Nevertheless, yes, capital punishment for profligacy and drunkenness is not something society would advocate today, of course. Simply put, Jesus is The Way. "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral.....nor drunkards....will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." 1 Cor. 6:9-11"killing homosexuals" Harsh, no doubt. The moral reservation remains (part of sexual sin) but we don't respond to it in the same way, obviously."selling your daughters," Selling your daughters...that is out of context, you know. Slavery was part of near eastern culture, and conditions in this period were brutal all around. He instituted laws which gave some gradient steps forward, i.e., improvements. Just as you wouldn't instruct first graders in Calculus, but bring them up gradually, step by step, precept by precept, God's laws were leading a brutal society to a higher form of social interaction. Conditions in the ancient near east had some common features (purification/cleansing rituals; sacrifices (plant, animal, drink, and human sacrifice; pan/polytheism; theocracy; "sacred" prostitution; divination and magic) and God (YHWH) dealt all of these by forbidding some and refashioning others.
Child sacrifice, polytheism, prostitution in all its forms, and divination and magic were outlawed.
Leviticus 19:29, "Do not debase your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will be prostituted and filled with depravity."
The laws around slavery www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021 were actually improvements in their time.
From our comfortable chairs today we might scoff at these, but when we do, we forget that the incremental steps outlined in the laws of the Bible led, over centuries, to the ultimate Way, Jesus, who taught us that all of the laws and the prophets hang on these two commandments: Loving God first and loving our neighbor as ourselves.
"Does this not raise some pretty major red flags for you at all?" Seen by that armchair today, sure. Seen as they were: incremental improvements necessary in their time, no. Leading to Jesus, no red flags. Because now we have the New Covenant. Now we have The Way: Jesus.
We are talking about an all knowing, all powerful being here. He is the one commanding these things. This is something a God is commanding. Does God evolve from the horrendous being we see in the OT to a semi loving God the NT tries to portray? This isn't about the people, it's about God. He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17 Leviticus 20:9 King James Version (KJV) 9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Oh, and this New Covenant you're talking about. It seems that it upholds the Old one if homosexuality is still a sin. Snow ~ I'm a Christian who shares your same sentiment about the wording in the O.T. However, I feel the New Covenant is based upon a whole new set of laws written upon the heart and the old law is obsolete. Hebrews :10-13 attests to this fact, IMHO?
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 1, 2014 0:14:18 GMT -5
"If there was anything that was worth defending in those beliefs" and if there were some truth to them, they would not be "be picked apart pretty much endlessly". What I'm reading: Contempt"The things in the bible should be things no decent person would condone when it comes to stoning your children," The one example I've found of that relates to debauchery and drunkenness, hardly something an actual child would be capable of. [Deut. 21:18-21] Nevertheless, yes, capital punishment for profligacy and drunkenness is not something society would advocate today, of course. Simply put, Jesus is The Way. "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral.....nor drunkards....will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God." 1 Cor. 6:9-11"killing homosexuals" Harsh, no doubt. The moral reservation remains (part of sexual sin) but we don't respond to it in the same way, obviously."selling your daughters," Selling your daughters...that is out of context, you know. Slavery was part of near eastern culture, and conditions in this period were brutal all around. He instituted laws which gave some gradient steps forward, i.e., improvements. Just as you wouldn't instruct first graders in Calculus, but bring them up gradually, step by step, precept by precept, God's laws were leading a brutal society to a higher form of social interaction. Conditions in the ancient near east had some common features (purification/cleansing rituals; sacrifices (plant, animal, drink, and human sacrifice; pan/polytheism; theocracy; "sacred" prostitution; divination and magic) and God (YHWH) dealt all of these by forbidding some and refashioning others.
Child sacrifice, polytheism, prostitution in all its forms, and divination and magic were outlawed.
Leviticus 19:29, "Do not debase your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the land will be prostituted and filled with depravity."
The laws around slavery www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021 were actually improvements in their time.
From our comfortable chairs today we might scoff at these, but when we do, we forget that the incremental steps outlined in the laws of the Bible led, over centuries, to the ultimate Way, Jesus, who taught us that all of the laws and the prophets hang on these two commandments: Loving God first and loving our neighbor as ourselves.
"Does this not raise some pretty major red flags for you at all?" Seen by that armchair today, sure. Seen as they were: incremental improvements necessary in their time, no. Leading to Jesus, no red flags. Because now we have the New Covenant. Now we have The Way: Jesus.
We are talking about an all knowing, all powerful being here. He is the one commanding these things. This is something a God is commanding. Does God evolve from the horrendous being we see in the OT to a semi loving God the NT tries to protray? This isn't about the people, it's about God. He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. -- Exodus 21:17 Leviticus 20:9 King James Version (KJV) 9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Oh, and this New Covenant you're talking about. It seems that it upholds the Old one if homosexuality is still a sin. Snow ~ I share your sentiment about the O.T. Jewish law and feel we are now living under a New Covenant under Christ. Hebrews 8:10-13 attests this fact. However, there was group during Paul's time called Judaizers who tried to put people back under the old law of Moses and the apostle Paul corrected them strongly in this area, since the old law had become obsolete under the New Covenant.
www.astudyofdenominations.com/history/judaizers/
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 1, 2014 0:23:01 GMT -5
Bob ~ Now you're making fun of all those "family value" people in the Mormon faith ~ shame on you!
You do know that Harry Reid in the Senate is also a Mormon? I wonder if he checks out those clubs himself? According to this Wiki article, Harry Reid plans on seeking re-election in 2016. That should make some Tea Partiers really happy in the U.S.A. ~ NOT HAPPY!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Reid
Oh yes, Harry is a good Mormon. I don't know him personally, but I know his son, who is a very helpful ally with one of my activist interests. The thing I like about the Reed family is that they make no issue of their Mormonism when dealing with people of other "value" systems -- especially the "value system" I am concerned about. As a matter of fact, when I was teaching school no parents were more supportive of me than Mormon parents. As a matter of fact I got a lot of praise from them. Unlike the snotty Christian mother who wanted me fired because the French word for a seal is "phoque". You should have heard her the day I sang the song "La Belle Petite Phoque en Alaska" for the class. Bob, is there some way that you could make a video of you singing "La Belle Petite Phoque en Alaska" and post it here so that we could hear you sing it? Wouldn't that be great!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 1, 2014 0:48:03 GMT -5
Bob ~ LOL ~ It's time to go to bed. You and Rational are on a roll tonight with your visualizing. Sweet dreams! I'm calling it a night!
Oh Gosh. Some of the dreams I have at night. One dream got abruptly interrupted when I discovered myself on my hands and knew on the floor and all the blankets and pillows there with me. I hate giant spiders. Yes, ending up on the floor on one's hands and knees on the floor (like a spider) wouldn't be pleasant but imagine waking to actually finding oneself transformed into a large, insect-like creature like in Metamorphosis ?
As I read it I imagined the insect to be cockroach, more loathsome to me than a spider!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 1, 2014 0:58:27 GMT -5
Oh Gosh. Some of the dreams I have at night. One dream got abruptly interrupted when I discovered myself on my hands and knew on the floor and all the blankets and pillows there with me. I hate giant spiders. Bob ~ Have you been watching Arachnophobia again? That movie will give you nightmares for days! I detest spiders, too, so you have my sympathy! I'm not so much afraid of spiders as I am of spiders that are bigger than I am and they're coming right at me. I was so glad to end up on the floor.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 1, 2014 1:00:40 GMT -5
Oh yes, Harry is a good Mormon. I don't know him personally, but I know his son, who is a very helpful ally with one of my activist interests. The thing I like about the Reed family is that they make no issue of their Mormonism when dealing with people of other "value" systems -- especially the "value system" I am concerned about. As a matter of fact, when I was teaching school no parents were more supportive of me than Mormon parents. As a matter of fact I got a lot of praise from them. Unlike the snotty Christian mother who wanted me fired because the French word for a seal is "phoque". You should have heard her the day I sang the song "La Belle Petite Phoque en Alaska" for the class. Bob, is there some way that you could make a video of you singing "La Belle Petite Phoque en Alaska" and post it here so that we could hear you sing it? Wouldn't that be great!
I might be able to get the original of it sung by a professional singer. It is the cutest little song -- the kids love it.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 1, 2014 1:02:33 GMT -5
Oh Gosh. Some of the dreams I have at night. One dream got abruptly interrupted when I discovered myself on my hands and knew on the floor and all the blankets and pillows there with me. I hate giant spiders. Yes, ending up on the floor on one's hands and knees on the floor (like a spider) wouldn't be pleasant but imagine waking to actually finding oneself transformed into a large, insect-like creature like in Metamorphosis ?
As I read it I imagined the insect to be cockroach, more loathsome to me than a spider!
Have you seen the movie "The Fly"? I thought it was really great.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 1, 2014 1:10:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 1, 2014 12:23:15 GMT -5
...from our comfortable chairs today we might scoff at these, but when we do, we forget that the incremental steps outlined in the laws of the Bible led, over centuries, to the ultimate Way, Jesus, who taught us that all of the laws and the prophets hang on these two commandments: Loving God first and loving our neighbor as ourselves. Great. I live with a secular version of these. But what does it mean to "love our neighbor?" At one time in the U.S. (in the not too distant past), it was fervently believed by many white Christians that slavery was good for the slaves. The reasoning went something like this (paraphrase): Since the Africans were not fully human they would not be capable of fending for themselves out on their own. Also, their enslavement brought them to Christianity! Bolstered by the references to slavery and slaves in the New Testament, "clearly" the neighborly thing to do was to keep them in slavery "for their own good." This is your New Testament in action. It seems to me that you are able to look past references to slavery in the New Testament but not to references to sexuality. And if the admonition is for slaves to be obedient to their masters, then why not "Cake Shop owners make the @#$% cake for your customers!"
|
|
|
Post by hangingout on Apr 1, 2014 12:39:46 GMT -5
snow, I have a paper to write, but I'll be answering you soon
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 1, 2014 13:06:05 GMT -5
...from our comfortable chairs today we might scoff at these, but when we do, we forget that the incremental steps outlined in the laws of the Bible led, over centuries, to the ultimate Way, Jesus, who taught us that all of the laws and the prophets hang on these two commandments: Loving God first and loving our neighbor as ourselves. Great. I live with a secular version of these. But what does it mean to "love our neighbor?" At one time in the U.S. (in the not too distant past), it was fervently believed by many white Christians that slavery was good for the slaves. The reasoning went something like this (paraphrase): Since the Africans were not fully human they would not be capable of fending for themselves out on their own. Also, their enslavement brought them to Christianity! Bolstered by the references to slavery and slaves in the New Testament, "clearly" the neighborly thing to do was to keep them in slavery "for their own good." This is your New Testament in action. It seems to me that you are able to look past references to slavery in the New Testament but not to references to sexuality. And if the admonition is for slaves to be obedient to their masters, then why not "Cake Shop owners make the @#$% cake for your customers!" Question: Do you love me? Answer: With all my heart. Question: Then do you know what hurts me? Answer: Well, not exactly. SO: Then how can you love me? Majority populations more often love their minority populations for some useful role they play in their (the majority's) society. Loving them as individuals means understanding the abuse they suffer in that role.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 1, 2014 13:21:09 GMT -5
Great. I live with a secular version of these. But what does it mean to "love our neighbor?" At one time in the U.S. (in the not too distant past), it was fervently believed by many white Christians that slavery was good for the slaves. The reasoning went something like this (paraphrase): Since the Africans were not fully human they would not be capable of fending for themselves out on their own. Also, their enslavement brought them to Christianity! Bolstered by the references to slavery and slaves in the New Testament, "clearly" the neighborly thing to do was to keep them in slavery "for their own good." This is your New Testament in action. It seems to me that you are able to look past references to slavery in the New Testament but not to references to sexuality. And if the admonition is for slaves to be obedient to their masters, then why not "Cake Shop owners make the @#$% cake for your customers!" Question: Do you love me? Answer: With all my heart. Question: Then do you know what hurts me? Answer: Well, not exactly. SO: Then how can you love me? Majority populations more often love their minority populations for some useful role they play in their (the majority's) society. Loving them as individuals means understanding the abuse they suffer in that role. As I'm sure you know, Bob, this message about U.S. Slavery being "good for the slave" isn't just from the 1800's or early 1900's. I remember hearing it discussed like this among some of the professing Friends I grew up listening to. This was during the 1960s and '70's in the Northeast U.S..
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 1, 2014 13:40:33 GMT -5
And if the admonition is for slaves to be obedient to their masters, then why not "Cake Shop owners make the @#$% cake for your customers!" Shop owners should not be required to produce goods with which they disagree. If someone asks them to create a cake with a swastika they have every right to refuse.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 1, 2014 13:52:14 GMT -5
And if the admonition is for slaves to be obedient to their masters, then why not "Cake Shop owners make the @#$% cake for your customers!" Shop owners should not be required to produce goods with which they disagree. If someone asks them to create a cake with a swastika they have every right to refuse. I think a swastika can be considered a form of hate speech, no? I agree with that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2014 13:54:02 GMT -5
we don't really have hate speech laws in the USA...YET
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 1, 2014 13:57:10 GMT -5
Shop owners should not be required to produce goods with which they disagree. If someone asks them to create a cake with a swastika they have every right to refuse. I think a swastika can be considered a form of hate speech, no? I agree with that. The swastika was an example. They should not have to create anything they do not wish to provide for customers when asked.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 1, 2014 13:58:04 GMT -5
Question: Do you love me? Answer: With all my heart. Question: Then do you know what hurts me? Answer: Well, not exactly. SO: Then how can you love me? Majority populations more often love their minority populations for some useful role they play in their (the majority's) society. Loving them as individuals means understanding the abuse they suffer in that role. As I'm sure you know, Bob, this message about U.S. Slavery being "good for the slave" isn't just from the 1800's or early 1900's. I remember hearing it discussed like this among some of the professing Friends I grew up listening to. This was during the 1960s and '70's in the Northeast U.S.. Oh yes -- I lived in the Northeast US in the 60s and spent a lot of time there through the 70s and 80s, and I was quite horrified at the racist remarks that were made by so many people. They had no concept of African Americans having the same species qualities as Caucasians at all -- Andrew Abernathy included. That was when I learned that some of the people who condemned the South for their treatment of blacks were still some of the biggest racists of all. I know a few professing households where professing black folks would NOT have been welcomed, AT ALL. When I moved back to Canada some relatives came to visit. There was a knock on the door and one of them answered and then closed the door and whispered, "There's a black kid at the door." "Let her in." Our daughter plays with her every day. We had black people visiting us a lot at home. We even shared a duplex with a professing black family for a year. I was probably 30 before I realized that their dark skin was a race distinction. My parents had the dumbest approach to raising children, I am sure. Of course, there are a few racists in Canada too, but they never got off with the segregation and discrimination stuff like they did in much of the US.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 1, 2014 14:02:11 GMT -5
we don't really have hate speech laws in the USA...YET But we do have libel, slander, and threat laws. I've had a few people put in the slammer for their speech. As for the swastika, there is no law against that and there should not be, but it is normally not used legally anyway. You can normally prosecute people who use it for vandalism.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 1, 2014 14:10:42 GMT -5
I think a swastika can be considered a form of hate speech, no? I agree with that. The swastika was an example. They should not have to create anything they do not wish to provide for customers when asked. So if the gay couple provides their own topper for the wedding cake, there should be no problem.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 1, 2014 14:11:32 GMT -5
Shop owners should not be required to produce goods with which they disagree. If someone asks them to create a cake with a swastika they have every right to refuse. I think a swastika can be considered a form of hate speech, no? I agree with that. Yes, I can't think of any time that the swastika has been used without being an expression of hate. You can prosecute people for intimidation, however, and if the swastika is displayed in connection with a crime it can make it a hate crime, and increase the punishment. I think that is the better way to deal with swastikas and such. That way there can be a clearer distinction between freedom of expression and hate inspired crime. The problem is that, at least in the US, we have so many people who want everything they don't agree with made illegal -- kind of like only they know best. Or maybe they used to tell their mother to shut up from time to time.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 1, 2014 14:38:05 GMT -5
I think a swastika can be considered a form of hate speech, no? I agree with that. The swastika was an example. They should not have to create anything they do not wish to provide for customers when asked. If they're doing business with the general public, perhaps they should put a sign by the door advising people what they will not do. Asking to have what you want put on a cake is standard cake business stuff. I don't think you can make a case that asking the baker to put a swastika on a cake constitutes any disrespect of the baker. It has everything to do with the baker's ideologies.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 1, 2014 14:39:31 GMT -5
The swastika was an example. They should not have to create anything they do not wish to provide for customers when asked. So if the gay couple provides their own topper for the wedding cake, there should be no problem. I think in this case the test should be are they discriminating against the people making the request or would the answer be the same to anyone making such a request.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Apr 1, 2014 15:10:58 GMT -5
So if the gay couple provides their own topper for the wedding cake, there should be no problem. I think in this case the test should be are they discriminating against the people making the request or would the answer be the same to anyone making such a request. So if the gay couple wants a cake with a same sex topper, the shop could refuse because they don't make those for any of their customers. If the gay couple wants a standard wedding cake, then the bakery has no good reason to refuse.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Apr 1, 2014 16:04:13 GMT -5
You shouldn't willfully live what Jesus taught is wrong! An ex worker, Charlie Davis spent a lot of time in our home. He is long dead now. The rumor was he was put out of the work for being gay. I don't know if that was true or not. He was a very nice man. I wish I was able then to do more to help him out after he was put out, but at the time I was living pay check to pay check. He lived in a small old trailer but had a very loving heart. I haven't professed for a long time, but I hope life has improved for those workers & ex- workers who are gay. Yet I fear not much has changed. It's sad how some people treat other's who are different by no choice of their own. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 1, 2014 16:11:55 GMT -5
So if the gay couple provides their own topper for the wedding cake, there should be no problem. I think in this case the test should be are they discriminating against the people making the request or would the answer be the same to anyone making such a request. Good point. Constructing legal language to separate the two situations would be a challenge, though, huh?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 1, 2014 16:19:38 GMT -5
I think in this case the test should be are they discriminating against the people making the request or would the answer be the same to anyone making such a request. So if the gay couple wants a cake with a same sex topper, the shop could refuse because they don't make those for any of their customers. If the gay couple wants a standard wedding cake, then the bakery has no good reason to refuse. This is the Jan Brewer dilemma -- she was in favor of the baker refusing gay people because he (the baker) was gay, but she thought long enough about the consequences to realize that allowing such a rule to stand would open the door to any fanatic refusing to serve whoever he decided to disrespect -- a new form of segregation, except with how many religious possibilities coming into play. At least when it was only black and white separation there were only two possibilities in the establishment, and I understand there was a sign to help people from "offending" people by expecting service in the wrong place.
|
|