Obama the Defiler

[AgeofKnowledge]

This entire discussion you've not been right. But now you want to "get something straight." It's obvious that you've received no formal higher education and are completely out of your depth.

Which is why you're ignorantly asserting that anyone can just call themselves a Christian and that means they are one regardless of whether they actually are or not. Obviously not. One isn't a genuine Christian unless they have been spiritually reborn with a new godly nature by God Himself (that reflects God's holiness). Bingo! By George, I think we found it.

In Christianity, to be born again is to undergo a "spiritual rebirth" (regeneration) of the human soul or spirit from the Holy Spirit, contrasted with the physical birth everyone experiences.

The origin of the term "born again" is the New Testament: "Jesus replied, 'Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again.'"[John 3:3] It is a term associated with salvation in Christianity. Individuals who profess to be born again often state that they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

The new birth, being born again, is an act of God whereby eternal life is imparted to a person. the person who believes (2 Corinthians 5:17; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:3; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1-4, etc...

The question logically comes, "Why does a person need to be born again?" The apostle Paul in Ephesians 2:1 says, "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins" (NKJV). To the Romans he wrote, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Sinners are spiritually “dead”; when they receive spiritual life through faith in Christ, the Bible likens it to a rebirth. Only those who are born again have their sins forgiven, a new godly nature, and a very real new relationship with God with a new citizenship in His spiritual kingdom.

It's not "incredibly difficult." You either are regenerate or you are unregenerate. Simple. If you are regenerate, then you have a new godly nature from God Himself that has changed what you are as a person to your very core and your position with respect to God. This new godly nature naturally aligns with and seeks God's holy normative morality. This is why you don't find genuine Christians living lives of great wickedness and seeking to persecute other Christians who uphold God's holiness in their lives and organizations.

You do see fake or professing Christians (unregenerate people who merely profess to be Christians but are not in reality) living lives of great wickedness and seeking to corrupt and defile God's holiness.

Now I stated:

"Of course, there are many more things of which absolute certainty is not possible. But even here relativists like yourself miss the mark in rejecting absolute truth simply because of the lack of absolute evidence that some things are true, for they fail to recognize that the truth can be absolute no matter what our grounds for believing it are. For instance, if it is true that Sydney, Australia, is next to the ocean, then it is absolutely true no matter what my evidence or lack of evidence may be."

That is a direct quote from a scholar of logic, philosophy, and theology that teaches logic, philosophy, and theology at some of the top seminaries in the nation that stated it in defense of objective reality in exactly the same way I employed it.

Let's see, should we believe experts in the field or someone that never took a logic, philosophy, or theology class in their life but falsely asserts that "water is everywhere." Obviously, not. Water is not everywhere. It is where it is and that's all.

It doesn't matter if "a very specific religious moral viewpoint is especially subjective, not objective" or if there "are many discrepancies in individual Christian beliefs" or that there are "some 41,000 different denominations" or that "no one denomination of Christianity holds the entirely correct view [a statement you have not proven btw]" for the purpose of asserting the existence and reality of objective truth.

People and organizations failing to correspond with truth do not invalidate truth as I explained to you earlier. You are making a false assertion that they do. As I stated, truth is found in correspondence. Truth is what corresponds to its object (referent), whether this object is abstract or concrete. As applied to the world, truth is the way things really are. By contrast, falsehood is that which does not correspond to its referent (object). Falsehood is a misrepresentation of the way things are. Statements are false if they are mistaken.

Your statement, for example, is false because it's mistaken.

Truth doesn't change because you think it should, your beliefs about what is true change, or because people have differing views with respect to the truth. All truth is absolute, there are no relative truths. If something really is true, then it really is true everywhere and for everyone. 7+3=10 is not just true for mathematics majors, it's true everywhere. People align or fail to align with absolute truth.

Expressed truth is what corresponds to its object. To deny this is self defeating, since to deny assumes that one's denial corresponds to the facts. Likewise, the noncorrespondence view, like the relative view of truth, is self-defeating. The relativism of truth cannot be affirmed as truth unless relativism is false; it is absurd to affirm that it is objectively true for all that truth is not objectively true for all. Absolute truth is literally undeniable and since God's normative morality is absolutely true, morality is not subjective.

Maybe you'll get that straight and stop engaging in long winded fallacious reasoning and false assertions. I wouldn't bet on it but there's always eventually the possibility. In the meantime, as an unregenerate, you seek to tyrannically and hypocritically deny regenerate Christians their human rights and religious liberty knowing (because I already shared the scripture with you) they are commanded by God to maintain His standards of holiness in their lives, churches, and organizations which is something they naturally want to do since they are regenerate.

Let's get something straight here. Morality is something concerned with the principals of right and wrong behaviour. Now, you assert that there is an objective, total moral framework imparted upon a true believer. This is a perfect example of the No True Scotsman argument. What constitutes a true believer is incredibly difficult, in fact almost impossible, to practically define in that the definition of a true Christian itself is disputed among Christians, meaning that many Christians struggle to even define what a Christian is - thus reaching different conclusions.

The word 'believer' itself denotes that a person have personal faith in a particular thing's validity. Now, it is obviously true that the belief that there is water on Earth is a true belief, in that it can be observed, testified to with evidence, and thus validated as true. Water is everywhere, we drink it, we use it, and our oceans are filled with it. Yet you argue that because observation of Sydney's geographical location, or observation of the water near it, are objective and verifiable truths that there is also an objective and total moral truth, the existence of which can be asserted based on the premise of the easy validation of observed geography. You fail to recognize that this analogy doesn't work because morality is in itself something internally cognitive. To show up how ridiculous this argument is; we don't walk down the street, see morality running into our street drains and say 'oh look, it's objective morality', but we do see water running and can say 'look, it's water'.

Particularly where religions are concerned, belief in a very specific religious moral viewpoint is especially subjective, not objective, as evidenced by the many discrepancies in individual Christian beliefs. Yet, those sometimes wildly varying beliefs all come under the heading 'Christianity', which is itself defined as the 'religion based on the person and teachings of Jesus Christ, or in its beliefs and practices'. The scope of particular interpretations within 'Christianity' as a whole include some 41,000 different denominations. The definition of denomination itself is 'the emphasizing of denominational differences to the point of being narrowly exclusive'.

Thus your assertion that there exists a singular and total truth within Christianity must conclude one of three things in light of the evidence of denominationalism:

1. Only one denomination of Christianity holds the entirely correct view.
2. Many of these denominations hold a central truth but hold fallacies in specific areas.
3. All types of Christianity are simultaneously true.

And any one of these last two conclusions completely nullify your assertion that an exact moral Christian truth exists, at least on a practical level insofar as the followers of the religion are concerned. The second conclusion shows that the truths held by the individual Christians are not complete or all encompassing - fallacies exist. The third conclusion shows that the basis for Christian truth is a paradox - the 'Christian' can himself or herself be contradictory things to another 'Christian', thus the basis for what constitutes a 'Christian' cannot be established, and inconsistent premises make any argument arguable. And lastly, the first argument narrows the truth down to a single specific denominational belief out of around 41,000 sects, so unless you are utterly sure which one of those denominations holds that truth, then you may very well not be a part of it.

Thus the objective total morality of the bible is very difficult to define. As far as practicality and the reality of the entire Christian demographic is concerned, we can't currently define a complete and total objective Christian moral framework which can be unanimously validated like the existence of water can. Each one of those denominations holds a subjective opinion on the teachings of Christ and on what those teachings constitute, how they should be viewed and what is inherently right or wrong - yet every one of those peeople, just like you, believe that they 'have the spirit' and know the objective reality of the true Godly morality.

Let's get something else straight, I believe that morality is subjective insofar as how people actually come to moral conclusions. You come to your conclusions because of your conditioning, just like someone else comes to theirs. That is not to say that I think any old morality is acceptable, much less beneficial or worthy of adherence. For instance, I could certainly understand how a person who grew up being raped by her father viewed the death penalty for paedophiles as a morally valid, righteous principle of law that should be upheld and enforced. But just because I understand something, does not mean that I condone it.

Understanding that subjective conditionings lead to subjective conclusions (that every person's life experiences are different and lead them to different beliefs about the world) is not in any way evidence that I agree with a particular person's definitions of what is right and wrong. I simply understand that subjective circumstances led them to the beliefs they hold.

A great example of condition and circumstance leading to personal conclusions are this; if you had never come across those who inspired you to God, or had never been in whatever moment wherein you discovered God, you would not have discovered him. That argument cannot be refuted. If you never had a moment of time wherein you saw God, you would not have seen him.

1-1 = 0.

Now that has ramifications. It means that your belief in God is, for all intents and purposes, a result of the experiences wherein you came to, or validated, that belief in him. Whether it be that you read the bible and saw in it some universal eternal wisdom that was up to that point missing from your life, or whether your parents indoctrinated you into belief, or whether you believe the hand of God actively searched you and struck you and you never stood a chance against it - it doesn't matter - your circumstances led to your conditioning, and your conditioning led to your conclusions.

Now, you argue against me that my observation of moral subjectivism's existence (denominationalism, which I can objectively observe) means that I believe anything is 'moral'. If you define something as being 'moral' if it is something which is a personal belief of right and wrong, then yes, any belief of right and wrong is a 'moral' belief.

But if you mean 'moral' to be equatable to 'condonable' then no, not every behaviour based on a subjective morality is 'moral' - some behaviours based on particular moral systems are despicable. For instance, the practice of stoning people to death. Though it is based, like all moral beliefs, on a personally held conviction of 'right and wrong', I think it is despicable.

Why do I think it is despicable? Because I would not like to be stoned to death. Empathy. My morality is based on empathy. I base my morality on empathy because for all my searching for some objective truth, like searching for a secret key to the universal right and wrong, I recognized that in empathy lay that very thing. If I consider another person as myself, I become them in mind, thus whatever I may do against that person I would imagine done against me. Would I like to be discriminated against? No.

Would I like to be a self funding religious person who runs an institution forced to employ people who go against my religious ideals? No.

Would I like to be a governmentally contracted Christian running a Christian ministry, who by garnering government funding goes against my own religion's ideals? No. (Matt 35:33-35 - Swear No Oaths By Either Heaven Or Earth)

And just like you can argue against the conclusion I have formed on that verse, I can counter-argue, all day long. Because there is no totally objective method of interpreting the gospel's message. My understanding of that verse, in practical terms, is just as valid as yours, unless of course you believe that I haven't got the subjective spirit of your single correct denomination out of 41,000 denominations, in which case you automatically win.

And that win would be on the basis that you believe that your conclusions are superior to mine, regardless of what I say. Nothing else.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

It already is. That's what the topic of this thread is about. Duh! Must we endlessly rehash everything because you can't retain information?

Read the first post:

"Obama just discriminated against genuine [regenerate] non-apostate Christians by issuing an executive order banning all religious organizations that don't propagate [immoral] homosexuality in their organizations from working for the [federal] government. That's about 20% of the U.S. labor market.

Unilaterally, Obama simply issued and edict violating the human right under natural law to a free moral conscience and the religious liberty toward a normative morality of all Americans.

Genuine non-apostate [regenerate] Christians in the U.S. are now officially discriminated against by the Obama Administration."

It's a fact BUT, as stated, I don't see how it's going to pass the U.S. Supreme Court given their recent unanimous rulings that such federal government behavior violates the religious liberty of Christian organizations.

You will rue the day that discrimination in employment is openly encouraged, because one day that prejudice will be aimed at you.

 

[oldernotwiser]

Otherwise, we might as-well completely scrap the right to not have rights infringed. If businesses or for-profit organizations could discriminate in the vein you would wish, then I could deny a christian a job simply because they are christian. I could deny anyone service because of my personally held convictions.

And the issue with this is that it encourages canvassing and preferential employment. What's to stop every shop or business boycotting gay people for both service and employment? They wouldn't be able to make an income or buy any goods. It's unfair and unjust.

We'd effectively be leaving them no option but to flee our society.

historically that has been the amish response to pressures that would openly persecute them or compel them to join the larger surrounding society (the world,) they leave. if this sort of discrimination suggested (against homosexuals) was allowed, and christians were the target, it would be interesting to see how the larger christian community would react.

 

[oldernotwiser]

You will rue the day that discrimination in employment is openly encouraged, because one day that prejudice will be aimed at you.

many years ago, (the 70's) i was in a class at fordham and the subject of slavery came up. i horrified most of the class (i think they were ready to lynch me) when i said that the only really valid argument against slavery was that if i accept the institution, i really have no guarantee of a management position. the liberals and borderline hippies were horrified. the only one who agreed with me was a young radical black guy.

 

[tourist]

many years ago, (the 70's) i was in a class at fordham and the subject of slavery came up. i horrified most of the class (i think they were ready to lynch me) when i said that the only really valid argument against slavery was that if i accept the institution, i really have no guarantee of a management position. the liberals and borderline hippies were horrified. the only one who agreed with me was a young radical black guy.

The rest of the class was probably toking on weed.

 

[oldernotwiser]

The rest of the class was probably toking on weed.

hey, it was the 70's .... maybe i was too

 

[Dude653]

Forcing Christian churches to accept homosexuality is like forcing a Muslim to eat a pork chop

 

[tourist]

Forcing Christian churches to accept homosexuality is like forcing a Muslim to eat a pork chop

How about a homosexual Muslim eating a pork chop?

 

[Esanta]

To you, Age of Knowledge:

This entire discussion you've not been right. But now you want to "get something straight." It's obvious that you've received no formal higher education and are completely out of your depth.

I've come out of secondary education with 4 A's at A-level and study a Combined Honours degree at a Russell Group (the UK equivalent of Ivy League) University. Regardless, this is appeal to ridicule.

Which is why you're ignorantly asserting that anyone can just call themselves a Christian and that means they are one regardless of whether they actually are or not. Obviously not. One isn't a genuine Christian unless they have been spiritually reborn with a new godly nature by God Himself (that reflects God's holiness). Bingo! By George, I think we found it.

I never said anyone can call themselves Christian. I said that there are 41,000 denominations of the religion each considering themselves to be 'Christian'. I said that the grounds for defining what a 'Christian' inherently is varies tremendously between each of those denominations, and so for a person looking from the outside in, the logical conclusion to make is that different Christian sects define a 'true Christian' with different bases. Thus what you define a 'true Christian' may not be what another 'Christian' defines a true Christian. Likewise, even the process of being 'born again' varies in different denominations, as do the premises upon which the 'true believer' bases their moral framework.

In Christianity, to be born again is to undergo a "spiritual rebirth" (regeneration) of the human soul or spirit from the Holy Spirit, contrasted with the physical birth everyone experiences.

This is arbitrary. There is no logical proof that a 'spirit' or 'soul' even exists, at least not in any tangible way. It can be assumed that it either does or doesn't. And there is no proof either way.

The origin of the term "born again" is the New Testament: "Jesus replied, 'Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born again.'"[John 3:3] It is a term associated with salvation in Christianity. Individuals who profess to be born again often state that they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

The new birth, being born again, is an act of God whereby eternal life is imparted to a person. the person who believes (2 Corinthians 5:17; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:3; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1-4, etc...

So, being born again is simply an act of God whereby eternal life is imparted on a person in return for belief? Belief is defined as a personally held conviction that something is true. This implies that the method required to be born again is to do nothing more than believe you are born again. I don't see how an arbitrary assumption of one's eternal standing with an omnipresent creator whose existence can be neither proved nor disproved has got anything to do with a person's moral character. Plenty of Christians would argue taht when Jesus said 'you cannot see the Kingdom unless you be born again' he was implying a specific change of mind which is not 'imparted upon' a person but rather stems from introspection of oneself, as the verse 'The Kingdom of God is within you' implies. Any person who reads non-canonical references to Jesus can see in the Gospel of Thomas among other Gospels that Jesus warns people not to follow others who say the kingdom is in the sky or the sea, nor those who require ritual to gain some metaphysical reward. In fact he instructs 'know yourselves, then you will understand that you are sons of the liiving God' and 'do not follow those who say the kingdom is in the sky, for the birds precede you'.

The question logically comes, "Why does a person need to be born again?" The apostle Paul in Ephesians 2:1 says, "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins" (NKJV). To the Romans he wrote, "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Sinners are spiritually “dead”; when they receive spiritual life through faith in Christ, the Bible likens it to a rebirth. Only those who are born again have their sins forgiven, a new godly nature, and a very real new relationship with God with a new citizenship in His spiritual kingdom.

Again, this a subjective interpretation of a text; an interpretation that may not be shared by other Christian sects. A person might argue that being born again is to understand oneself and come to some recognition of the nature within, therefore the purpose of being born again is nothing more than to understand oneself so as to understand the ills that sinful behaviour causes and to pull them out at their roots. Regardless, the fact that being 'born again' is an arbitrary notion which can be interpreted differently creates a paradox wherein many arguments become valid.

It's not "incredibly difficult." You either are regenerate or you are unregenerate. Simple. If you are regenerate, then you have a new godly nature from God Himself that has changed what you are as a person to your very core and your position with respect to God. This new godly nature naturally aligns with and seeks God's holy normative morality. This is why you don't find genuine Christians living lives of great wickedness and seeking to persecute other Christians who uphold God's holiness in their lives and organizations.

Again, the 'normative morality' of God, in the sense of how the followers of Christianity behave, is not easy to connect to some notion of being metaphysically regenerate on the basis of the belief of being metaphysically regenerate. Dogmatism (believing yourself regenerate thus being regenerate) seems to bear no direct correlation to a person's moral character, as evidenced by the varying characters of those people who believe in different Christian interpretations of the texts.

You do see fake or professing Christians (unregenerate people who merely profess to be Christians but are not in reality) living lives of great wickedness and seeking to corrupt and defile God's holiness.

On what tangible evidence do you conclude that someone is only professing faith, apart from on your own subjective interpretations? Likewise, what tangible evidence would someone from a sect opposed to your particular interpretations have for asserting that you are only professing faith, if not their own subjective interpretations?

Now I stated:

"Of course, there are many more things of which absolute certainty is not possible. But even here relativists like yourself miss the mark in rejecting absolute truth simply because of the lack of absolute evidence that some things are true, for they fail to recognize that the truth can be absolute no matter what our grounds for believing it are. For instance, if it is true that Sydney, Australia, is next to the ocean, then it is absolutely true no matter what my evidence or lack of evidence may be.''

That is a direct quote from a scholar of logic, philosophy, and theology that teaches logic, philosophy, and theology at some of the top seminaries in the nation that stated it in defense of objective reality in exactly the same way I employed it.

Let's see, should we believe experts in the field or someone that never took a logic, philosophy, or theology class in their life but falsely asserts that "water is everywhere." Obviously, not. Water is not everywhere. It is where it is and that's all.

You're taking a point out of context and asserting literalism where I implied a generalization. The point of me saying 'water is everywhere' was not to assert that it lies absolutely everywhere, but rather to show that water is so abundant on Earth that it is very, very easy to identify and objectively observe. If you kept the statement in context then my implication would be obvious to a reader. This is a desperate measure to discredit me.

It doesn't matter if "a very specific religious moral viewpoint is especially subjective, not objective" or if there "are many discrepancies in individual Christian beliefs" or that there are "some 41,000 different denominations" or that "no one denomination of Christianity holds the entirely correct view [a statement you have not proven btw]" for the purpose of asserting the existence and reality of objective truth.

It does matter in defining what that inherent 'total objective truth' actually is though. I don't deny that it is possible for a total objective truth to exist, but I do deny that there is a total infallible method for recognizing what that total, objective and universal truth is. The evidence upon which that denial is based can be objectively observed in the fact that so many denominations disagree about what that total objective truth actually is.

People and organizations failing to correspond with truth do not invalidate truth as I explained to you earlier. You are making a false assertion that they do. As I stated, truth is found in correspondence. Truth is what corresponds to its object (referent), whether this object is abstract or concrete. As applied to the world, truth is the way things really are. By contrast, falsehood is that which does not correspond to its referent (object). Falsehood is a misrepresentation of the way things are. Statements are false if they are mistaken.

Yea, truth is the way things are. But do you honestly believe that you are the only person who truly understands what way they are? You'd have to believe that to be making some of the statements you're making. If you do believe it, then you're the same as all others who do, even if yours and their beliefs conflict.

Your statement, for example, is false because it's mistaken.

Truth doesn't change because you think it should, your beliefs about what is true change, or because people have differing views with respect to the truth. All truth is absolute, there are no relative truths. If something really is true, then it really is true everywhere and for everyone. 7+3=10 is not just true for mathematics majors, it's true everywhere. People align or fail to align with absolute truth.

I agree. 7+3=10. That's true everywhere. Water is H2O. That's true everywhere. But those things are mathematical, not philosophical. They are objective standards, not personal religious convictions. There is a massive difference between the method of validating a simple mathematical sum and validating a religious or moral belief.

Expressed truth is what corresponds to its object. To deny this is self defeating, since to deny assumes that one's denial corresponds to the facts. Likewise, the noncorrespondence view, like the relative view of truth, is self-defeating. The relativism of truth cannot be affirmed as truth unless relativism is false; it is absurd to affirm that it is objectively true for all that truth is not objectively true for all. Absolute truth is literally undeniable and since God's normative morality is absolutely true, morality is not subjective.

Technicality of terms. I can safely observe the world, wherein billions of humans believe different philosophical ideas, and conclude that there is no human consensus on what total truth is. There is not even a Christian consensus on what total truth is. That doesn't disprove that a total truth exists, but in practical terms, everyone's ideas of what is religiously and philosophically true are subjective projections of self. Mathematics is a different matter.

Maybe you'll get that straight and stop engaging in long winded fallacious reasoning and false assertions. I wouldn't bet on it but there's always eventually the possibility. In the meantime, as an unregenerate, you seek to tyrannically and hypocritically deny regenerate Christians their human rights and religious liberty knowing (because I already shared the scripture with you) they are commanded by God to maintain His standards of holiness in their lives, churches, and organizations which is something they naturally want to do since they are regenerate.

Maintaining a standard of holiness in my life is not fair to equate with forcing my moral views on somebody else. If I'm gonna be a pious follower of Jesus, I sure as hell wouldn't sign a government contract so I could profiteer from my supposedly Christian charitable ministry.

 

[Esanta]

It already is. That's what the topic of this thread is about. Duh! Must we endlessly rehash everything because you can't retain information?

Read the first post:

"Obama just discriminated against genuine [regenerate] non-apostate Christians by issuing an executive order banning all religious organizations that don't propagate [immoral] homosexuality in their organizations from working for the [federal] government. That's about 20% of the U.S. labor market.

Unilaterally, Obama simply issued and edict violating the human right under natural law to a free moral conscience and the religious liberty toward a normative morality of all Americans.

Genuine non-apostate [regenerate] Christians in the U.S. are now officially discriminated against by the Obama Administration."

It's a fact BUT, as stated, I don't see how it's going to pass the U.S. Supreme Court given their recent unanimous rulings that such federal government behavior violates the religious liberty of Christian organizations.

Christians aren't the ones being denied employment by gay people. It's the other way around.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

The correlation fails. Muslims are unregenerate lost people deceived by a false prophet and false religious cult (e.g. Islam). Eating pork chops and engaging in sexual immorality doesn't change their soteriological position as they are already spiritually dead, soteriologically lost people.

Authentic (not just professing) Christians have been regenerated by God Himself with a new godly nature from this previous state of subjection to the decay of spiritual death (Ephesians 2:4).

This is why there is no such thing as a homosexual regenerate Christian. The very statement is an oxymoron. There are only regenerate Christians undergoing sanctification in their lives away from sin and toward the sinlessness of Christ that ultimately reaches perfection in heaven.

Sure this "down payment" of a new godly nature that God Himself endows those who are spiritually reborn does war with the old nature which will not be ultimately defeated until glorification in heaven; however, their identity has been changed by God. Though specific sins may still harry a regenerate Christian, they are no longer a part of their identity nor are regenerate Christians to identify with them any longer.

"Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.

Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. Because of these, the wrath of God is coming.

You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.

Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all. Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved..." -Colossians 3:1-12.

Apples and oranges friend... apples and oranges.

How about a homosexual Muslim eating a pork chop?

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

...and not only people who choose to engage in homosexual acts but also people who choose to engage in sex with little children, sex with animals, embezzlers, etc..., which they should as regenerate people in spiritual union with God and His holiness associating as a Christian organization.

Banks shouldn't have to hire embezzlers that embezzle funds and Christian religious employers shouldn't have to hire people who choose to engage in sexual immorality that are obviously out of alignment with their worldview, beliefs, epistemology, and whose immoral behavior undermines the very mission of their organization.

And the Supreme Court, fortunately, agrees to the extent they did in the Hosanna-Tabor ruling at least where they levied a unanimous Supreme Court decision overturning the federal government ruling:

“Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs.”

That’s a violation of both the Free Exercise Clause, “which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments,” and the Establishment Clause, “which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.” The First Amendment “gives special solicitude to the right of religious organizations.” The government’s contrary view is “remarkable” and erroneous.

Thus, the Court said, while “the interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important,... so too is the interest of religious groups in who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission.”

I have things to do today so I'll be back to correct your false assertions and refute your lies later, au revoir.

Christians aren't the ones being denied employment by gay people. It's the other way around.

 

[Esanta]

...and not only people who choose to engage in homosexual acts but also people who choose to engage in sex with little children, sex with animals, embezzlers, etc..., which they should as regenerate people in spiritual union with God and His holiness associating as a Christian organization.

Banks shouldn't have to hire embezzlers that embezzle funds and Christian religious employers shouldn't have to hire people who choose to engage in sexual immorality that are obviously out of alignment with their worldview, beliefs, epistemology, and whose immoral behavior undermines the very mission of their organization.

And the Supreme Court, fortunately, agrees to the extent they did in the Hosanna-Tabor ruling at least where they levied a unanimous Supreme Court decision overturning the federal government ruling:

“Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs.”

That’s a violation of both the Free Exercise Clause, “which protects a religious group’s right to shape its own faith and mission through its appointments,” and the Establishment Clause, “which prohibits government involvement in such ecclesiastical decisions.” The First Amendment “gives special solicitude to the right of religious organizations.” The government’s contrary view is “remarkable” and erroneous.

Thus, the Court said, while “the interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important,... so too is the interest of religious groups in who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith, and carry out their mission.”

I have things to do today so I'll be back to correct your false assertions and refute your lies later, au revoir.

Yet again, AgeOfKnowledge, I agree religious institutions separate from state shouldn't have to employ people who go against their missions. But a for-profit organization is a ​business.

 

[dcontroversal]

AMEN....JUMP for JOY and REJOICE that WE are counted WORTHY to be discriminated against.....Great is our REWARD in HEAVEN when we are de-famed, reproached and rejected for righteousness sake......soon the wrath of the lamb will burn this world and all who will not receive the LOVE of the truth, but rather had pleasure in unrighteousness.

 

[Esanta]

AMEN....JUMP for JOY and REJOICE that WE are counted WORTHY to be discriminated against.....Great is our REWARD in HEAVEN when we are de-famed, reproached and rejected for righteousness sake......soon the wrath of the lamb will burn this world and all who will not receive the LOVE of the truth, but rather had pleasure in unrighteousness.

I don't want to discriminate against anyone. I think a person having a moral code of selflessness, as Jesus asks of those who wish to follow him, is beautiful. I think it's very admirable and I'd never want to discriminate against someone like that, or anyone for that matter. Sometimes law binds us, but ideally nobody would discriminate at all. The thing is though, what I see more often than selflessness from Christians is something more like an offensive attitude. I mean, for instance, your profile picture is one of you or some person you know in some military uniform with some flag behind, a signal of your patriotism to your country from which you or that person take orders nomatter what they are or what they go against. It is not robes or cloth or modest dress that person is wearing. That makes me think you have not only an offensive attitude but a violent one. Now, how can you worship both country and God?

What happens when your country asks you to do something against the benevolence your master requires of you?

But this allegiance to your countries orders is something you have while you simultaneously profess righteousness above others. This is why your retort to all of these arguments can be summed up with 'we are righteous in all we do and anyone who doesn't agree with us or who opposes us (thus making themselves enemies to us) will burn for eternity.'

And you take pleasure in that? Dcontroversal, GOD doesn't even take pleasure in that!

It surely doesn't sound like you're living in selflessness or 'loving your enemies' to me. You openly support those who kill your enemies.

Personally, though, I will continue to say that I realize subjective conditionings lead people to subjective moral beliefs, just like they have with you or me. And for your conditioning leading you to your outlook, you are no more or less worthy than any other person who kills for a living or supports killing for a living; no more or less worthy than any other person who takes a great indulgent pleasure in the idea that anyone opposed to you will die and burn in agony.

However, I would urge you to please reconsider your view, nomatter how much grief opposition or spite I will get for it. You are not being opposed by me because you are righteous, dcontroversal, but rather the opposite.

 

[dcontroversal]

I don't want to discriminate against anyone. I think a person having a moral code of selflessness, as Jesus asks of those who wish to follow him, is beautiful. I think it's very admirable and I'd never want to discriminate against someone like that, or anyone for that matter. Sometimes law binds us, but ideally nobody would discriminate at all. The thing is though, what I see more often than selflessness from Christians is something more like an offensive attitude. I mean, for instance, your profile picture is one of you or some person you know in some military uniform with some flag behind, a signal of your patriotism to your country from which you or that person take orders nomatter what they are or what they go against. It is not robes or cloth or modest dress that person is wearing. That makes me think you have not only an offensive attitude but a violent one. Now, how can you worship both country and God?

What happens when your country asks you to do something against the benevolence your master requires of you?

But this allegiance to your countries orders is something you have while you simultaneously profess righteousness above others. This is why your retort to all of these arguments can be summed up with 'we are righteous in all we do and anyone who doesn't agree with us or who opposes us (thus making themselves enemies to us) will burn for eternity.'

And you take pleasure in that? Dcontroversal, GOD doesn't even take pleasure in that!

It surely doesn't sound like you're living in selflessness or 'loving your enemies' to me. You openly support those who kill your enemies.

Personally, though, I will continue to say that I realize subjective conditionings lead people to subjective moral beliefs, just like they have with you or me. And for your conditioning leading you to your outlook, you are no more or less worthy than any other person who kills for a living or supports killing for a living; no more or less worthy than any other person who takes a great indulgent pleasure in the idea that anyone opposed to you will die and burn in agony.

However, I would urge you to please reconsider your view, nomatter how much grief opposition or spite I will get for it. You are not being opposed by me because you are righteous, dcontroversal, but rather the opposite.

First of all you entire assessment of myself in my Marine uniform in 1986 is based upon ignorance of the facts...so maybe you should find out about who I am, what I have or have not done in my life, how I choose to worship and what I take pleasure in...

When you know for sure then make a judgment call...until then your observations are not only moot, but miss the mark by more than a mile!

And...if you don't like what I posted above then complain to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as it is his words and what he is going to do to all who reject him in favor of worldly religions and mere men who claim to be prophets!

 

[Esanta]

First of all you entire assessment of myself in my Marine uniform in 1986 is based upon ignorance of the facts...so maybe you should find out about who I am, what I have or nave not done in my life, how I choose to worship and what I take pleasure in...

When you know for sure then make a judgment call...until then your observations are not only moot, but miss the mark by more than a mile!

Then instead of all of this why don't you just tell me who you are, and I'll tell you who I am? That was actually why I joined this site in the first place. If you think I am condemning you to something, then let me ask you, if I don't believe in a condemning place, nor do I have the power to enforce my condemnation, then how can I condemn you in any way?

Isn't your life between you and God?

And likewise, if you have no power to condemn me, nor to enforce your condemnation, then how can you ever condemn me in any way? Isn't my life between me and God?

If you don't indirectly threaten me with hellfire without knowing who I am or where I've been or what I'm from, then I would also show you the courtesy to know you - not just to judge you on the merits of some arguments on a website. And wouldn't that make things much easier?

 

[tourist]

Then instead of all of this why don't you just tell me who you are, and I'll tell you who I am? That was actually why I joined this site in the first place. If you think I am condemning you to something, then let me ask you, if I don't believe in a condemning place, nor do I have the power to enforce my condemnation, then how can I condemn you in any way?

Isn't your life between you and God?

And likewise, if you have no power to condemn me, nor to enforce your condemnation, then how can you ever condemn me in any way? Isn't my life between me and God?

If you don't indirectly threaten me with hellfire without knowing who I am or where I've been or what I'm from, then I would also show you the courtesy to know you - not just to judge you on the merits of some arguments on a website. And wouldn't that make things much easier?

I think that we can settle this squabble over a few cold Buds. I don't drink anymore so I will settle for an ice cold Strawberry Lemonade. If things get a little heated I will splash in a little rum but please don't tell anyone. We can take a cab home when the hostilities are over for the night. "Can't we all just get along?..."

 

[dcontroversal]

Then instead of all of this why don't you just tell me who you are, and I'll tell you who I am? That was actually why I joined this site in the first place. If you think I am condemning you to something, then let me ask you, if I don't believe in a condemning place, nor do I have the power to enforce my condemnation, then how can I condemn you in any way?

Isn't your life between you and God?

And likewise, if you have no power to condemn me, nor to enforce your condemnation, then how can you ever condemn me in any way? Isn't my life between me and God?

If you don't indirectly threaten me with hellfire without knowing who I am or where I've been or what I'm from, then I would also show you the courtesy to know you - not just to judge you on the merits of some arguments on a website. And wouldn't that make things much easier?

Why didn't you just ask before you posted your rant such as...


It surely doesn't sound like you're living in selflessness or 'loving your enemies' to me. You openly support those who kill your enemies.


I am a happy, go lucky kind of guy!

 

[Esanta]

Why didn't you just ask before you posted your rant such as...


It surely doesn't sound like you're living in selflessness or 'loving your enemies' to me. You openly support those who kill your enemies.


I am a happy, go lucky kind of guy!

Because I wanted to show you that even indirect condemnation leads to confrontation and problems between two people. I wanted to show you that if you were to indirectly condem me by saying:

soon the wrath of the lamb will burn this world and all who will not receive the LOVE of the truth, but rather had pleasure in unrighteousness.

.. even when you didn't know me, that I could just as easily turn that judgement on you, if I were to judge you on the basis of what you've written on a website rather than know you. And your response was perfect. You responded by telling me that I didn't know the facts about who you are and that I should get to know you before I judge. Well ditto, Dcontroversal.

It's not a very pleasant and communal atmosphere in society when people create disparity like that. It would ​be a fantastic thing if people just got to know each other rather than make assumptions about one another.