Done.

Just watched Trumps speech at the Republican Convention. Very strange. A blatant attempt at trying to say he's the one who will support every person. So many empty promises. Do your candidates ever have to prepare a budget? Very easy to spend money on everything and at the same time have lower taxes if you live in a fantasy world. In theory it may work if you have rapid economic growth yet he's just p...ed off the rest of the world with wanting to renegotiate free trade agreements that are only in favour of the US interests? He'll probably blame the rest of the world when it all goes horribly wrong. I particularly thought it interesting when he supports the LBTGQ community yet also supports the right wing Christians who want to discriminate against them. Quite baffling.

Start

pause

Done.

What is a right-wing Christian? How are they different from a left-wing or centrist Christian?

Since when do Christians want to discriminate against homosexuals? We are the ones being discriminated against. Our religious liberty is being stolen from us by the homosexual lobby. They are putting bakers and photographers out of business for acting in accordance with their religious beliefs.

I think the world has grown up. Even in a staunchly Catholic Ireland, they overwhelmingly voted to acknowledge gay marriages. To even think about not baking a cake because you personally object to someone having a different sexuality to you? Very sad. And how could you possibly be put out of business for carrying out your cake baking for a gay couple?

The fear of the unknown is being prayed upon. Instead of turning to discrimination, meet the people you are scared of and see that they are no different to you. The world would be a better place if tolerance and understanding was what was preached at the pulpits.

Back to it

Bakers who refuse to bake cakes for same sex weddings have been sued and fined and basically put out of business. Why should a baker be forced to bake a cake for a same sex wedding? That is equivalent to forcing him to participate in something his religion tells him is sin.

I don't mind that some people are homosexual. But when they advertise there perversion to the whole world and demand our approval, then I have a problem.

I think your legal system has a lot to answer for in that instance. Wouldn't happen anywhere else in the world. Complex issue granted, but shouldn't put people out of business. I'm sure most businesses wouldn't have discriminated against a gay couple. Were there no other cake baking businesses in the area that would have been happy to? If the answer is no then I feel the shop should have found someone to help them out or shown tolerance and made it for them anyway. It would have been the right thing to do.

Yes it would, and has in Canada.

There were other shops, the homosexuals were just trying to make trouble.

One possible compromise would be for the baker to bake a standard wedding cake with no indication that it was for a same sex wedding. The customers could add any extra decorations.

Can't imagine a company in Australia or the UK refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple. It would probably be discrimination on grounds of sexuality so I guess would break the law here too. At the end of the day, if there wasn't such discrimination the laws would not be needed.

But the laws violate the religious liberty of the baker.

Can't agree with you on that one. If you want to go into business, you obey the rules of business.

Remember this, the baker is turning away business. His conscience is costing him money.

No, the rules of business must not trample our rights. One of the most precious rights of the American people, is freedom of religion. The first settlers here were fleeing religious persecution in England.

Yet it is the religions who are prosecuting the hatred and lack of tolerance. Freedom is only freedom if you are not causing harm to others. Freedom to have an opinion and to speak your thoughts is freedom. Freedom is also the right of others to challenge you on those views and beliefs. Freedom does not give you the right to harm others that don't agree with you.

I fail to see how baking a cake for someone can be considered as participating in sin. Do bakers not bake cakes for other sinners? Adulterers? Thieves? People who covet the possessions of others? People of other religions (as there is only one God, I assume people who worship other gods must be considered sinners). If a baker wants to stick with their religious principles, surely they should only sell cakes to the pure.... and they would go out of business very quickly indeed...

I see freedom of religion as the right to practice the religion of your choice without being discriminated against for that practice. Which doesn't give you the right to discriminate against others on the basis of your religion.

Yes, but if you ask me to put a message on your cake celebrating adultery or theft I would refuse.

In other words, I can practice my religion only as far as you approve of it. That is not freedom of religion.

Isn't that rather hypocritical? To sell a cake to a known sinner but not add words which acknowledge their sin?

How so?

Everyone is a sinner. We just don't go around celebrating it.

There are a lot of gay people suffering in silence who would dearly love to practice their religion. It's about time the religions of the world were welcoming and not full of such hatred that they couldn't bake a cake for them.

No, you practice your religion, whether I approve of it or not. That is religious freedom.

But you don't approve of me refusing to cater a same sex marriage and pass laws forcing me to violate my conscience. That is not religious freedom.

If I can't act on my beliefs then I can't practice my religion.

It's not just Christians, Muslims are also intolerant of sexual diversity. The majority of people who would say they are religious are tolerant people. It's about time the religious leaders were more tolerant.

Religious freedom does not give you the right to discriminate against others, it just gives you the right to practice your religion. Love thy neighhbour.

But freedom of association is another right. Why do I have to do business with anyone, if I don't want to?

If you go back to the central teaching of Christianity and Islam, as expressed in the Bible and Quran, they both promote tolerance and love, and abhor violence and war. Unfortunately many people who practice both religions seem to have forgotten those elements.

Well said digondda, if there was more love, tolerance and respect for others the world would be a better place.

The teachings of the religions have been twisted by extremists instead of those with tolerance. I suspect if there ever was a God he would be preaching tolerance to all.

I don't know what freedom of association means to you, but I would understand it as having the right to associate with anyone I choose to, providing that the association is legal. Again, I don't see how that should be used to discriminate against others. Commercial activity isn't really 'association', it is merely a transaction.

I am tolerant of homosexuals. That implies that I disapprove of their actions but put up with it. But I don't want to be involved in it against my will/

Freedom of association is also the freedom to not associate with people I choose not to associate with.

Surely the only way you would be 'involved in it' would be to be in the bedroom participating in homosexual acts?

Surely the only way you would be 'involved in it' would be to be in the bedroom participating in homosexual acts?

Similarly the worst act of intolerance the world has ever seen, the persecuting of the Jews by the Nazis should be one not forgotten. They were persecuted because they were different.

Involving me in a same sex marriage by having me cater it is one way to involve me in it.

No dr who you are merely helping somebody celebrate their special day the same as a heterosexual couple. Nothing more.

Suppose I ask a homosexual baker to bake a cake with the message "God can make you straight"? Should he be allowed to refuse.

I have two friends, who are male, and in a happy, settled, same sex relationship. I think they are fabulous. Unfortunately, they are also very committed and practising Christians, and much of their social life revolves around the church. And that is why I don't spend much time with them. I don't want to go into the church. It makes me uncomfortable to be in a place of worship when I don't believe in the religion or the God. So, I see them once or twice a year at open air picnics, or when they come to my house for dinner. But I don;t see my friendship with them as participating in their homosexuality.

Neither do I.

But what if they tried to force you to go to church with them? Isn't that a little like asking me to bake a cake with a message on it I don't approve of, or for a purpose I cannot condone?

But God couldn't make you straight!

Friends don't force each other to do things.

Well said

Baking the cake with the message is a commercial transaction.

Well, you seem to want to force me to do things.

No, I have never asked you to do things.

You want me to bake cakes for same sex weddings.

I was totally unaware that you were a baker.

Don't be so hyper literal.

Actually the opposite, the freedom we share enables us to discuss such issues in an open way without fear of persecution. I respect your views yet I disagree with some of them. I am also open to having my mind and beliefs challenged and sometimes I will change my views.

It is my belief that if a baker is in business, and a customer wants a message on a cake, that the baker should sell the cake with that message. Unless the message violates the law of the land the cake is being sold in.

Well then who owns the baker shop, you or the baker?

The baker doesn't have to agree with the message, it is a commercial transaction. Baking and selling the cake would be an expression of tolerance, which is what the teachings of Jesus are all about.

If someone comes up with a suggestion that questions my beliefs I will happily listen and give their view thought. I find it hard though to change my belief that we should be kind, respectful and tolerant of others.

the rights in the US constitution do not supercede the teachings of Christianity, I assume?

The baker clearly owns the baker's shop.

Nobody is talking about being disrespectful of homosexuals. We are simply asking that they give us the same respect.

I have no idea what the homosexuals did that was disrespectful.

If the baker owns his shop then why do you think you can tell him how to run it?

They are disrespecting the Christian bakers beliefs. They could have taken their business to another shop and been served.

But instead they sued the baker and cost him his business.

Can the baker refuse to sell cakes to women? White people? Black people? Yellow people? If not, why not?

That is not the same. That is discrimination based on physical trait, while refusing to serve a same sex wedding is discrimination against behavior.

How is it disrespecting the Christian beliefs of the baker? The baker advertises a service. Someone tries to buy the service and is discriminated against, so they sue. I don't agree with the suing, by the way, but I can see where they are coming from - they believe that they are being discriminated against, which they are.

If there was a religion which insisted that no human had sexual relations of any kind, and a baker practiced that religion, and you may or may not know this when you visit their shop, how would you feel if they refused to sell you a wedding anniversay cake?

People don't choose their sexuality, they are born with it. Just as they are born with their skin colour.

In that case, he would just say he doesn't make wedding cakes. Which is perhaps what a Christian baker might be forced to do, stop making all wedding cakes.

LOL @ "forced"

Not be forced. Choose to do.

Yes, some are born males, some are born females. And a wedding was defined to be the union of a male and a female. But acting on sexual attraction whether or not it is natural is the issue, not how a person was born.

Sexual attraction is natural in humans. Acting on it is natural in humans. If you take your train of thought to its logical conclusion, then I *think* that the only acceptable sex would be sex for the sole purpose of procreation.

Sin is natural for humans, but we should resist our sinful impulses, not act on them even though that is natural.

1) Plenty of people are born some variant of male or female, or a mixture, or just . . . different. It's not binary, it never has been.

2) Defined by whom? If it's by a religion, it shouldn't be the basis for law. Ours is a secular government, not a religious one. If it's defined by law, then laws can be rewritten.

3) Sin is a religious concept. See above, re: secular nation.

The only acceptable sex is within the confines of matrimony.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA *whew* That's funny, you telling me what is "acceptable" for me to do.

I don't see why people who are sexually attracted to the same sex have to resist their impulses when people who are attracted to the opposite sex don;t have to. And where the heck does that leave people who are attracted to botnh sexes? It's OK for them to have sex with some people but not others?

I have two friends, in the US, who are married. When they married, one was male and one was female. One had always felt they had been born in the wrong body, and 5 years in to the marriage, started the process of gender reassignment, with the support of their wife. They are still married but both are now female. And still having sex. Is their sex acceptable, because it meets your definition of marital sex, or is is unaccepatble because it is same sa=ex sex?

Life is complicated, and we should be tolerant of the differences between us, remembering that we are all humans, and all religions preach love and respect for others.

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:27

I get that that's what your holy book says. I just don't see what it has to do with *me*

I am tolerant of your beliefs but don't have to agree with them.

For you, the definition of marriage has a long legal tradition which we have just changed. Much to our detriment I fear.

I mean, *my* Holy Book says not to eat hot dog buns, but do you see me carrying signs around your local grocery store? No. No you don't.

Does your holy book also say murder is wrong?

*shrug* The law was immoral. Slavery also had a long legal tradition that we just up and changed, and lots of people insisted that it was to our detriment then too.

My holy book pushes for the legalization of free enterprise murder, and no, I am not making that up.

I just ignore that bit.

You're Christian, you should have lots of experience with that.

(Well, actually the legalization of murder is from one of the apocryphal books, but it's largely accepted as canon by the clergy.)

Really! Which one?

Ha ha! No. You can Google it if you've got a mind to, but I ain't telling.

i'm guessing it's the book of corleone

Well, we have laws against murder because virtually everyone agrees that is wrong. We had laws defining marriage as a man and a woman because virtually everyone agreed that was the natural order.

Suddenly you want to change what has worked for centuries! I don't think that is wise.

Once upon a time, people believed that slavery was natural. It's certainly sanctioned by *cough* a few holy books.

Slavery is not the basic problem, the notion that some people should be slaves because of the color of their skin was the problem.

In fact there were probably more white slaves in colonial America than black. The difference was that most white slaves could eventually get out of there condition of slavery.

. . . Slavery is a pretty damned basic problem.

And, really, if your moral compass points to slavery as a thing that's OK by you, you've pretty much just abdicated your right to any other moral position, or at least the right not to have it pointed to and laughed at.

No, some people got into slavery because of financial hardship. It was a way to take care of their debt. It was a very different arrangement than the enslavement of Africans.

Surely the definition of slavery is that the slave has no choice in the matter?

Do you have a mortgage on your house? The Bible says you are a slave:

The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.
Proverbs 22:7

I do not have a mortgage on my house.

But being a servant is not the same thing as being a slave.

I am just thrilled to see someone tying himself in semantic knots to defend slavery. This is adorable.

Okay, then you get my point. Slavery as practiced in pre-civil war America is not the slavery talked about in the Bible.

Sorry, I don't understand. My definition of slavery is that a person is kept against their will, and is forced to do labour of whatever kind their 'master' requires, for whatever length of time their 'master' requires? Including sexual favours? And for no financial reward.

The Bible teaches that slave (servants) have dignity and rights.

And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.
Ephesians 6:9

Suuure. When the bible says "slave", it clearly means "person who is in debt".

That's obviously the literal meaning. OBVIOUSLY.

You are confusing slavery and servitude.

No, I am not. SamanthaJoy is.

She accuses the Bible of condoning slavery. It does not.

Somebody translated the bible, a long time ago. And maybe it was translated again, from the first translation, rather than the original text. And maybe, some of the beliefs of the translators got incorporated?

Don’t let anybody tell you that biblical slavery was somehow less brutal than slavery in the United States. Without exception, biblical societies were slaveholding societies. The Bible engages remarkably diverse cultures — Ethiopian, Egyptian, Canaanite, Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman — but in every one of them some people owned the rights to others. Slaveowners possessed not only the slaves’ labor but also their sexual and reproductive capacities. When the Bible refers to female slaves who do not “please” their masters, we’re talking about the sexual use of slaves. Likewise when the Bible spells out the conditions for marrying a slave (see Exodus 21:7-11).

Dr Who - your sentence read slave (servants). I see slaves and servants as two VERY different things.

Well, the Bible uses both terms interchangeably. You are making a distinction that did not matter then.

Jesus frequently refers to slaves in his parables, and one of the parables assumes that beating a slave is acceptable (Luke 12:47-48)

When? When the bible was written, or when it was translated or when it was rewritten in the 1600s? I think the distinction has always mattered.

Ephesians 6:5-8
Colossians 3:22-4:1
Titus 2:9-10

It's, like, the christian god was like, "hmmmm, what about the easiest and most obvious moral question ever? Let's go with it; I'll forbid shellfish instead."

It would matter to me. I work as a public servant, by choice. My (government) employer requires me to perform my duties according to set of principles they have outlined. However, I am paid for my work, and can walk away at any time. I literally serve people - some days I sell them gifts, other days I make and sell drinks and food, other days I sell admission tickets. Every day I strive to make their visit to my workplace as educational and enjoyable as it can be. I serve. I am not a slave.

The Bible exhorts Christians who are slaves to obey their masters. It also exhorts Christians who are masters to treat their slaves fairly.

. . . Yes. Yes it does.

That's how you can tell that the bible condones slavery.

Don't the biblical teachings and the US constitution confilct?

At least it's unambiguous in the matter of lobster, though! Gotta put the emphasis where it matters!

How so? Do you think the US constitution condones slavery?

I didn't say that. I just asked if there was a conflict. Did slaves have the right to bear arms? Did slaves have the right to follow their religion? Freedom of Association?

Surely any system which says that some people have more rights than other people is unfair and unjust?

No they didn't.

You need to read what former slave Frederick Douglas said about the Constitution and slavery:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/\nlibrary/document/the-constitution-of-the-unit\ned-states-is-it-pro-slavery-or-anti-slavery/

I doubt that the US constitution condones slavery, but didn't slavery and the US constitution co-exist at some point?

Yes they did. But see my previous reference. Douglas argues that the Constitution was designed to kill off slavery.

So, let me get this right, the bible says slavery is fine, and in the Christian tradition. But the constitution was written to end slavery. So, in the US, laws have been enacted which are against the Christian religion, because people have changed their beliefs about justice, equality, and what is morally right and wrong?

. . .digondda, i think i love you

:-D

Unlike the Constitution, the Bible is not a political document. It is addressed to individuals and seeks to change the world one person at a time, not to reorganize society. It just happens if enough individuals actually follow the Bible society gets reorganized in the process.

The abolitionist movements in 19th century American and England were inspired by Biblical principles and lead by Christian people.

And you don't see the parallels with the movement for sexual equality??

The slavery or servitude in the Bible was an economic arrangement, normally entered by the slave at least partly of his own will. The Bible teaches that we honor our word and keep our obligations.

Fringe christian movements. The majority sided with John Calhoun. He was a Vice President, a Secretary of State, Secretary of War, Senator, Representative . . yes, he seriously held all of these titles and served in both house, but he's best remembered today for his "Slavery is a positive good" stance.

"At least partly" of his own will. I LOVE THIS. This is just great.

Heya, remember that bit where JC said it was ok to beat slaves? I linked to that earlier.

Not the majority. The majority elected Lincoln in 1860.

Lincoln didn't run on a segregationist platform.

Yes, partly. You don't plan on going bankrupt, but that was a way out back then.

gah. incorrect cut/paste.

He didn't run on an abolitionist platform. Had it not been for the was, lincoln never would have freed slaves.

Lincoln ran on an abolitionist platform.

He did not. The platform included not allowing slavery in any new US states, but did not include ending slavery in states where it already existed.

The newly minted Republican party was an abolitionist party. The Whigs self destructed over the slavery question.

The south split in part because of Lincoln's abolitionist views.

By the way, some slaves were forced into slavery in Bible times. The Bible calls that kidnapping or stealing a man:

And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
Exodus 21:16

g/g

that purely applies to israelite slaves. others were captured against their will, forever, and not freed even upon their master's death; they were inheritable property.

Surely on this day and age, the whole world would agree that slavery is wrong. Times have changed and we as humans have evolved to a point where so much of what was allegedly written 2000 years ago has no relevance today. The world is a very different place and thankfully the world is mainly a free and fair place. We would no longer condone stoning a person to death today in the free world. Sadly there are parts of the world where it happens still.I wish the extremists would be disowned by the silent majority.

The prohibition against kidnapping did not specify any race or creed.

. . which pretty much all proves my point that the bible condones slavery, and got what is easily the simplest moral question ever dead wrong

the deuteronomic code and the covenant code both make that very clear

Slavery is not OK. It cannot be entered into voluntarily; one cannot sign away one's basic rights, that's what makes them rights instead of privileges.

Slavery is not OK. Contracting to do a job isn't slavery, paying a debt isn't slavery.

Slavery is not OK. This is not complicated.

Any questions?

Oh, and Phil: This argument comes about because drwho explicitly said that "Slavery is not the basic problem, the notion that some people should be slaves because of the color of their skin was the problem."

He then went on to explain when and why slavery is OK.

So, uh. No. The whole world doesn't agree that slavery is wrong.

Of course he also says that anyone who has a mortgage is a slave. So there's that.

done

Difficulty score 47.

Godspeed Roger Ailes

This was an Expert?

go

SJ: its even worse than that:

Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
John 8:34

Slavery is the natural state of mankind.

Don't worry Tuco, his parachute is golden, but maybe his case in court isn't.

done

The Bible is a bit like your constitution. Ambiguous, interpreted by those seeking yo interpret their way and totally out of date and in need of bringing into present understanding of the English language.

It was probably written by lawyers who always try their utmost not to use plain English as reason why they should charge so much money!

drwho - if there are any damages resulting from Ailes conduct, they'll be paid by Fox, not Ailes.

I identify as Christian, but (hopefully) one who hasn't checked logic and reason at the door. I recognize that the gospels were written by men who had an agenda (which is why they're so different from each other). I do believe that Jesus was divinely inspired, but could not speak to all ills of society. And I wonder what ills he spoke about that, because of politics, never made it into the gospels. But the essence of his message - feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless, love your neighbor as yourself, is what's important. One needs to look at the new testament through the big picture lens, not a constrained, word-for-word lens.

And Diane that is the crux of the matter, treat everyone with respect,kindness and tolerance. Can't imagine he would have regarded those of different race, religion or sexuality in any other way.

done, finally

Phil, I can see you've never read the Bible. It's just amazing how people who know absolutely nothing about it feel qualified to comment on its authorship. You'd never find anybody offering an insane and impossible theory on the authorship of, say, a motorcycle repair manual. It would just never occur to anyone. So what makes the Bible special?

Did it, no green, no guess. It had a pair that was tricky to exploit, and then a unique rectangle, not completely closed at either end, so that it took an "either way, put it here" to exploit it. Really neat. 32.

Diane writes concerning the Bible,
"One needs to look at the new testament through the big
picture lens, not a constrained, word-for-word lens."
The big picture? What is that?
Isn't most exegesis a "word-for-word" activity?
When I hear comments like this, I suspect that the person
saying them really means, "Read the Bible the way I read it."