Photographer sued for refusing to provide service...

[dmthompson]

Originally Posted by Rain Lily

I don't want to get into a shouting match either, Dwight. But there is more to it than what you are saying. The only thing is, one has to believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient God to actually get it.

Obviously our views are as far apart as the east is from the west, so we'll both have to just go on believing that the other is childish and simplistic.

Peace, Dwight.

I guess the problem here is you have to believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient enty that can do anything that it wants to do at anytime it wants to do it. That being the case why doesn't this enty just speak to everyone at the same time and eliminiate all this fuss about what religiion you belong to and what the rules are. Why depend upon a group of people to write down a bunch of old stories and publish them in a book? This is not just for Christians but all religions. The book you swear by is fraught with errors that have been know about for many, many years yet no corrections have been made, the excuse being "well it really doesn't change the message". Well it does change message if Moses went across the REED SEA rather than the RED SEA or Mary wasn't necessarily a virgin as we understand the word today.

Originally Posted by patterfr

Religious freedom vs discrimination

What about this one:
Christian church sued and lost the and had to allow same sex marriage on their property......

LifeSiteNews Mobile | Judge Rules Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony on its own premises

Freedom to practice religion as long as it's what the Govt believes is the correct religion.

Or mandating abortion and contraception insurance from the Catholic church:
Catholic Church vs. Obama in Election Year Showdown - ABC News

Again, freedom of religion as long as it conforms with what the govt says otherwise you are not free.
It's all starting.......

You need to read the complete story as to why the Christian facility lost their case. It was the same reason as the photographer. The facility was open to the public for rent and as long as it is for rent to the public it must be for everyone, they cannot disscrimaiiate against a protected group.

The courts can only decide if the laws are constitutional or if they are applied correctly. If there is no law on the books there is nothing to decide. It's much like trying to bring a murderer to justice. The state can try to get a murder 1 convectiion buy if they fail to prove it was planned the person can go free and cannot be tried again even though they did the crime. You cannot try a person more than once for the same crime. If they had gone for murder 2 the jury may have convected the person. The law is not always fair but it is the law until such time as it is changed.

Dwight

[Rain Lily]

Originally Posted by dmthompson

I guess the problem here is you have to believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient enty that can do anything that it wants to do at anytime it wants to do it. That being the case why doesn't this enty just speak to everyone at the same time and eliminiate all this fuss about what religiion you belong to and what the rules are. Why depend upon a group of people to write down a bunch of old stories and publish them in a book? This is not just for Christians but all religions. The book you swear by is fraught with errors that have been know about for many, many years yet no corrections have been made, the excuse being "well it really doesn't change the message". Well it does change message if Moses went across the REED SEA rather than the RED SEA or Mary wasn't necessarily a virgin as we understand the word today.

You said you didn't want to get into a shouting match, yet you refuse to let it go. I believe the Bible is inerrant, but you know what? I also said that I wasn't going to get into it with you, and so I'll keep my word. One of the things taught in the Bible. BTW, there is no "problem here" - not on my end, anyway.

[patterfr]

Originally Posted by stef@apl

As a general truth, groups are primarily concerned with the success of the group before the success of other groups. Scratch the word "only" and replace with primarily. You're right, that wasn't a fair statement.

Jesus came for all of us.
Every last one.

[patterfr]

Originally Posted by dmthompson

I guess the problem here is you have to believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient enty that can do anything that it wants to do at anytime it wants to do it. That being the case why doesn't this enty just speak to everyone at the same time and eliminiate all this fuss about what religiion you belong to and what the rules are. Why depend upon a group of people to write down a bunch of old stories and publish them in a book? This is not just for Christians but all religions. The book you swear by is fraught with errors that have been know about for many, many years yet no corrections have been made, the excuse being "well it really doesn't change the message". Well it does change message if Moses went across the REED SEA rather than the RED SEA or Mary wasn't necessarily a virgin as we understand the word today.



You need to read the complete story as to why the Christian facility lost their case. It was the same reason as the photographer. The facility was open to the public for rent and as long as it is for rent to the public it must be for everyone, they cannot disscrimaiiate against a protected group.

The courts can only decide if the laws are constitutional or if they are applied correctly. If there is no law on the books there is nothing to decide. It's much like trying to bring a murderer to justice. The state can try to get a murder 1 convectiion buy if they fail to prove it was planned the person can go free and cannot be tried again even though they did the crime. You cannot try a person more than once for the same crime. If they had gone for murder 2 the jury may have convected the person. The law is not always fair but it is the law until such time as it is changed.

Dwight

Dwight
You're falling into gryph's argument and not understanding what I'm arguing.
I'm not saying that laws as they were written were misinterpreted.
I'm saying the laws shouldn't be that way.
I'm saying I'm not just following the dogma of the law but I'm using my mind as gryph's recommended and saying that on church property they ought to be able to say what weddings go on there. For instance In catholic weddings the b&g need to go to pre-Cana or they can't get married. What's next they can't have their own rules

[RocketRick]

Originally Posted by Rain Lily

I believe the Bible is inerrant

Rain Lily,

If I promise not to shout, will you help me to understand how you reconcile your belief in the inerrant nature of the Bible with the fact that it contains self-contradictory stories?

For example, Man was created after the animals, as documented in Genesis 1:20-27, and yet was created before them, as documented in Genesis 2:18-19. Given that explicit contradiction in the very first two chapters of the very first book of the bible, how can the bible be considered inerrant?

[prohobo]

Originally Posted by patterfr

i figured out why you dont make any sense to me. Every fiber of your being feels you have to follow the letter of civil and criminal laws without exception and without fail, yet you rail against religious dogma and everything must be questioned and open for individual thought. Quite the dichotomy. Isn't civil and criminal law just a type of dogma? isn't the Constitution dogmatic if nothing elese? What if I "used my mind" and thought that I could safely drive at 80 in a 55 mph zone, not follow that speed limit dogma, and think for myself. What?? Doesn't work like that? But with the balance of my existence for all of eternity, I ought to just go with my gut feeling about what is right and wrong and not be influenced by that damned religious dogma.
What a piece of work. What inconsistency.

All the time I spent in the RP thread, and I couldn't put my finger on it, and you done nailed it. Guess I just needed the thread to go religious on me....

[Rain Lily]

Originally Posted by RocketRick

Rain Lily,

If I promise not to shout, will you help me to understand how you reconcile your belief in the inerrant nature of the Bible with the fact that it contains self-contradictory stories?

For example, Man was created after the animals, as documented in Genesis 1:20-27, and yet was created before them, as documented in Genesis 2:18-19. Given that explicit contradiction in the very first two chapters of the very first book of the bible, how can the bible be considered inerrant?

Rick, there is nothing contradictory here. Gen 2:19 just says God had made the animals and birds, and he brought them to Adam to be named. Nothing here suggests a different order of creation from the first chapter.


Edited to add:
So I have been reading more on this today, and to add more of what I think to it, the events in chapter 1 are the 'big picture' of what happened in the beginning, including the order of creation; and the events of chapter 2 are more about the direct impact on Adam, and because the writer of Genesis already knew what he had written before, there was no misunderstanding about the order of creation to him or to the Hebrew scholars/people.

It's a very deep subject and I didn't nearly do it justice in this little blurb.

[dmthompson]

Originally Posted by Rain Lily

You said you didn't want to get into a shouting match, yet you refuse to let it go. I believe the Bible is inerrant, but you know what? I also said that I wasn't going to get into it with you, and so I'll keep my word. One of the things taught in the Bible. BTW, there is no "problem here" - not on my end, anyway.

Well there is certainly a problem with religious institutions that try to pass laws based upon a book that not everyone believes in. No one or no religious institution should be allowed to pass any laws based solely upon their religious views, and that is stated in the Constitution. If you look at other countries that allow and support one religion to make the laws you can see what can happen. The Christians in this country seem to want that to happen. Certain religious groups have spent millions of dollars to fight gay marriage. That money could have been better spent helping those in need which is why that get a tax break.

Originally Posted by patterfr

Dwight
You're falling into gryph's argument and not understanding what I'm arguing.
I'm not saying that laws as they were written were misinterpreted.
I'm saying the laws shouldn't be that way.
I'm saying I'm not just following the dogma of the law but I'm using my mind as gryph's recommended and saying that on church property they ought to be able to say what weddings go on there. For instance In catholic weddings the b&g need to go to pre-Cana or they can't get married. What's next they can't have their own rules

Well we certainly agree the laws shouldn't be that way. There is a huge difference between the Catholic church saying the B&G has to go to pre-Cana and not renting to a gay couple. In the case of the rental the building was open to the PUBLEC for renting therefor they have no right to not rent to a protected class of people. Their religious beliefs are overriden by the laws of the land. If the building were not open to the public but was only available to member of that partucular church the state law would not apply. This is not to saY that it would be legal for any religion to kill, rape, or otherwise break the state laws as some extreamist religions do. The key here is the building was open to the PUBLIC.

Dwight