Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Bakery Case

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    There are plenty of Christians who think homosexual activity is totally fine.
    So what?

    I think if you surveyed those Christians who are opposed to homosexual activity, their reasons why they were opposed would vary. A lot of them would probably just say "it's a sin, because the bible says so", without having given the subject much further reflection.
    Still waiting for your point.

    What I'm getting at here, is that your idea that homosexual activity is not "in the interests of the doer" is quite a specific claim that I don't think is necessarily believed by the majority of Christians. It implies you might have some specific reasons why it's not in the interests of the doer. In my experience, most Christians who opposed homosexuality don't have any such specific reasons, but rather have the general notion that "it's wrong, cos the bible says so". I tend to find that if they actually sit down and try to think about specific reasons they quickly become much more supportive of gay rights because they quickly realize that there aren't really any good reasons to be anti-gay.
    Ah, I see, so you are one those people who don't subscribe the an objective morality giving by a creator. Got it.
    “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
      So what?
      Abigail had said "Christians believe X", and I was simply pointing out that not all Christians believe X. This is quite relevant because she's been implying that the government requiring people to act in certain ways is an attack on Christian identity. If only a proportion of Christians hold the viewpoint being attacked then it's hardly an attack on Christianity per se.

      Ah, I see, so you are one those people who don't subscribe the an objective morality giving by a creator.
      I think objective morality exists, but I don't think a creator has any relevance to it: In just the same way I think distance exists and I measure it without need to reference God while doing so. I don't need a god to exist for me to measure distance and I don't need a god to exist for me to measure morality.
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
        Abigail had said "Christians believe X", and I was simply pointing out that not all Christians believe X. This is quite relevant because she's been implying that the government requiring people to act in certain ways is an attack on Christian identity. If only a proportion of Christians hold the viewpoint being attacked then it's hardly an attack on Christianity per se.
        Correct, because it's also an attack on Muslims and every other religion that has adherents to the same philosophy. However this doesn't defeat the point given. Some people don't agree with it and they shouldn't be forced by the government to work against their will to do something they don't want to do or support.

        I think objective morality exists, but I don't think a creator has any relevance to it: In just the same way I think distance exists and I measure it without need to reference God while doing so. I don't need a god to exist for me to measure distance and I don't need a god to exist for me to measure morality.
        So what I said was right. Although you hold to some other standard of objective reality. One which supports slavery in order to uphold "gay rights".
        “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          There are plenty of Christians who think homosexual activity is totally fine.
          This is a non-argument, a lot of people used to think the earth was flat.

          Originally posted by Starlight
          I think if you surveyed those Christians who are opposed to homosexual activity, their reasons why they were opposed would vary. A lot of them would probably just say "it's a sin, because the bible says so", without having given the subject much further reflection.
          There are a few verses in the Bible which seem pretty clear to me. So far as I am concerned until these multitudes of Christians you speak of can show from a theological perspective why the rest of us are wrong I will continue to hold my view. Instead what we hear is the usual schtik about not being 'loving' and being a bigot and being a homophobe etc - iow emotional blackmail. If I believe God does not approve of this stuff then it is not within my remit to tell people they are free to do it. That would be expecting me to give something which is not mine to give.

          Originally posted by Starlight
          What I'm getting at here, is that your idea that homosexual activity is not "in the interests of the doer" is quite a specific claim that I don't think is necessarily believed by the majority of Christians. It implies you might have some specific reasons why it's not in the interests of the doer. In my experience, most Christians who opposed homosexuality don't have any such specific reasons, but rather have the general notion that "it's wrong, cos the bible says so". I tend to find that if they actually sit down and try to think about specific reasons they quickly become much more supportive of gay rights because they quickly realize that there aren't really any good reasons to be anti-gay.
          Considering our present culture and how much vested interest people have in legitimizing their own particular bents I honestly believe it would be very hard to get a true picture on whether a certain behaviour was good or bad.

          Just take things like divorce or gay adoption etc. The Bible presents the traditional family as the way to raise children and I believe this is right, but the Bible assumes that the parents will be doing their best to be the parents God wants them to be. Often they are not and the traditional family can be toxic. Does this invalidate the Bible view that a fully functional traditional family is the best? No. Can a gay couple provide a better environment than a traditional family. Yes, if the traditional family is not functioning properly. Does this invalidate the Bible view? No. Here in UK, the 'traditional family' is almost a dirty word and so if you had to try promote the traditional family and encourage them to be the best they could be you would encounter all sorts of opposition. Anyone with two eyes in their heads can look about and see people getting bullied and side-lined into submission because they hold 'old fashioned' beliefs, and statistics can be massaged to prove points which ever way is needed etc. So in the end it does come down to who you trust more and for me that is the Bible. I don't need to enter an arms race of secular reasons in order to believe that one should not engage in homosexual behaviour and I do not see myself as anti-gay. I try as best I can to live my life in accordance with my beliefs and I try live as peaceably as I can alongside those who do not believe as I do. I do not expect to force others into behaving in accordance with my belief but on the other hand I do not expect to be forced by them into behaving in a way which violates my beliefs. We all have opinions on how we think people should behave and we have a right to say as much but it is ultimately the person who decides whether or not to act and that is how it should be.

          The bakery people do not refuse to serve gay people so all this talk of discrimination is a bit rich. As I understand it, gay people are welcome in their shop. What they did was refuse to provide cake for an outside event/ceremony, participation of which would leave them feeling they had violated their own beliefs. This is a Christian bakery but no space was afforded in the marketplace to them in which to provide service as best they could without violating their own beliefs.
          Last edited by Abigail; 05-20-2015, 08:49 AM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            Abigail had said "Christians believe X", and I was simply pointing out that not all Christians believe X. This is quite relevant because she's been implying that the government requiring people to act in certain ways is an attack on Christian identity. If only a proportion of Christians hold the viewpoint being attacked then it's hardly an attack on Christianity per se.
            This fails on so many levels.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Epoetker View Post
              Am starting to wonder if baked bullying busybody smells good this time of year.
              A gay Christian walks into a gay bar and orders a drink. The gay bartender refuses to serve him on the grounds that he’s Christian. Fair or unfair?
              “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
              “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
              “not all there” - you know who you are

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                A gay Christian walks into a gay bar and orders a drink. The gay bartender refuses to serve him on the grounds that he’s Christian. Fair or unfair?
                Where's the Catholic priest and Jewish Rabbi? They usually walk in the bar too.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                  A gay Christian walks into a gay bar and orders a drink. The gay bartender refuses to serve him on the grounds that he’s Christian. Fair or unfair?
                  Perfectly legit. There is a hotel in Brighton England that serves gay people only. So they refuse to serve heterosexuals. As far as I'm concerned I'm perfectly fine with that. I can go to any other hotel instead.
                  “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Darth Ovious View Post
                    Perfectly legit. There is a hotel in Brighton England that serves gay people only. So they refuse to serve heterosexuals. As far as I'm concerned I'm perfectly fine with that. I can go to any other hotel instead.
                    The bloke in question is also gay. He is refused a drink only because he is Christian. So are you ok with discrimination on religious grounds?
                    “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                    “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                    “not all there” - you know who you are

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                      The bloke in question is also gay. He is refused a drink only because he is Christian. So are you ok with discrimination on religious grounds?
                      Well lets put it this way. If there was an atheist convention and I was refused entry into it because I was Christian then I would think it was totally reasonable.

                      In your example I would leave and go elsewhere. I wouldn't want to be served by someone who has a grudge against me anyway. That particular bartender could spit in my drink or something. Besides a bar probably isn't a good example to use since they regularly exercise their right to refuse service. I have been refused service lots of times based on the "nature of my shoes", which is basic disguised speech for we think you look dodgy and so we do not wish to serve you. Do I get offended by it and take them to court to abuse the system for a cash payout? No I don't.
                      Last edited by Darth Ovious; 05-20-2015, 05:04 PM.
                      “I didn’t go to religion to make me happy. I always knew a bottle of Port would do that. If you want a religion to make you feel really comfortable, I certainly don’t recommend Christianity.” - C.S. Lewis

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                        The bloke in question is also gay. He is refused a drink only because he is Christian. So are you ok with discrimination on religious grounds?
                        This thread has gotten sidetracked into all sorts of other avenues which I think confuse the issue. To my way of thinking the service was not refused on the grounds of 'you are gay and we don't serve you' since they serve gay peoples in their shop, but rather on the grounds that by baking for a specific event the bakers feel they are compromising themselves since that event was specifically in support of the gay lifestyle. So it is not really about the gay person but more about themselves and being associated with the message of that event. If the gay man had come in an ordered cakes for a celebration because he had been promoted at work I am sure the bakery would have made it for him. If nothing else these Christians were open and honest about their motives which is more than can be said for lots of secular organizations which claim to treat all people equally and then surreptitiously discriminate against those they don't like.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                          A gay Christian walks into a gay bar and orders a drink. The gay bartender refuses to serve him on the grounds that he’s Christian. Fair or unfair?
                          Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                          The bloke in question is also gay. He is refused a drink only because he is Christian. So are you ok with discrimination on religious grounds?
                          "Fair", "should be legal", and "ok with it" are all different things.
                          A person can reasonably think flag burning should be legal, without thinking flag burning is ok.
                          A person can reasonably think gift-giving should legal, even if some people give out gifts unfairly.
                          You don't have to think discrimination on religious grounds is "fair" or "ok" to think that it should be legal.

                          And, yes, it should be legal. --property rights, freedom of choice, freedom of association, freedom of thought, and all that.
                          Whether the man was asked for whiskey or sex, no means no. Anything else is theft, rape, slavery, and the like.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Abigail View Post
                            The Bible presents the traditional family as the way to raise children.
                            Huh? I can't think of any relevant verses to that effect.

                            The family structure that appears most commonly in the bible is polygamous, and with extended families all living together. The way children were commonly raised in biblical times was that the women of the family (and servants) would raise the children, while the men went out and worked, and the men would barely interact with the children at all until the children reached adulthood.

                            The development of the 'nuclear family' (ie two parents raising their children with no extended family living with them) is a fairly modern family structure that's only become prevalent in the last few hundred years in the West. If that's what you mean by 'traditional' family then it's not really very traditional.
                            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              Huh? I can't think of any relevant verses to that effect.

                              The family structure that appears most commonly in the bible is polygamous, and with extended families all living together. The way children were commonly raised in biblical times was that the women of the family (and servants) would raise the children, while the men went out and worked, and the men would barely interact with the children at all until the children reached adulthood.

                              The development of the 'nuclear family' (ie two parents raising their children with no extended family living with them) is a fairly modern family structure that's only become prevalent in the last few hundred years in the West. If that's what you mean by 'traditional' family then it's not really very traditional.
                              God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and Gladys and Shelagh. When Jesus is speaking to the pharisees in Matthew 19:3-9, His speech seems to support this view. In 1 Tim 3:2 we see bishops/overseers are to be the husband of one wife. Also see Titus 1:6. Also the first person recorded in the Bible to have multiple wives is Lamech (Gen 4:19) and what is he noted for? Check out Genesis 4:23-24 "Lamech said to his wives,
                              “Adah and Zillah,
                              Listen to my voice,
                              You wives of Lamech,
                              Give heed to my speech,
                              For I have killed a man for wounding me;
                              And a boy for striking me;
                              24 If Cain is avenged sevenfold,
                              Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”"

                              Proud excessive behaviour it seems to me, not to mention violence popping up again. The very next verse (25) we see Adam having relations with his wife again and they give birth to Seth, which to me seems like a reaffirming of the first order.

                              No one denies the benefits of children being raised in extended family groups but my point is the best is if the group contains the original nuclear nub if possible. I am not blind to the fact that this is an imperfect world and so groups which should be functioning are not, but we are talking about the best senario. This is my view. Show me from the Bible where I am wrong.
                              Last edited by Abigail; 05-21-2015, 03:32 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Abigail View Post
                                God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Eve and Gladys and Shelagh.
                                I feel you're stretching things more than is at all reasonable, to try to reason from the number of people God created at the beginning of the world to arguments about optimal family structures for child rearing in the modern world.

                                When Jesus is speaking to the pharisees in Matthew 19:3-9, His speech seems to support this view.
                                No it doesn't.

                                In 1 Tim 3:2 we see bishops/overseers are to be the husband of one wife. Also see Titus 1:6.
                                There are some surviving instances of this phrase appearing on the gravestones of women from this period. The consensus appears to be that the phrase was a metaphorical one meaning "faithful to their spouse" or "didn't sleep around".

                                Also the first person recorded in the Bible to have multiple wives is Lamech (Gen 4:19) and what is he noted for? Check out Genesis 4:23-24 "Lamech said to his wives,
                                “Adah and Zillah,
                                Listen to my voice,
                                You wives of Lamech,
                                Give heed to my speech,
                                For I have killed a man for wounding me;
                                And a boy for striking me;
                                24 If Cain is avenged sevenfold,
                                Then Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”"
                                So nothing bad at all is said about him having multiple wives.

                                The very next verse (25) we see Adam having relations with his wife again and they give birth to Seth, which to me seems like a reaffirming of the first order.
                                It seems to me like you're reading your own ideas into the bible.

                                This is my view. Show me from the Bible where I am wrong.
                                You're simply tricking yourself into thinking that the Bible supports your view. When, in reality, the Bible doesn't say anything much on the subject. What it does tend to do, by and large, is depict extended family structures and polygamous family structures.
                                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                99 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                292 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                109 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                195 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                356 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X