RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


thompsonx -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (10/14/2015 11:58:17 AM)


ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


Except when laws "force" us to violate our religious tenets. That's what's going on in this country, lately.


Christians don't seem to have any problem violatng the tenants of their faith without force. How many divorces you got mikey? How many times have you and other christians "set asunder what god has joined together"How many christians commit adultry? How many go to church on every sunday ...even superbowl sunday?[8|]




thompsonx -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (10/14/2015 12:03:59 PM)

I'm just glad they have courts to deal with this kind of shit now. Today your kid grows up to be a drunken asshole and the cops deal with it.

What part of the u.s. do you live in where parental responsibility has been abrogated to the police?


Back then things were vastly different.


Like how?[8|] Did people not breath air,drinki water or take a shit?[:-]

One of the reasons I get a laugh out of people who want to slam christians but have to go back that far to find a good example.


No one has to go back any farther than this post.


And yes people will bring up the fact that a lot of christians see the old testament as a history lesson and actually follow the new testament because they do. But that won't stop others from trying to claim all christians believe the same exact things and think with one mind.

Unlike muslims and islamist?[8|]




thompsonx -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (10/14/2015 1:40:13 PM)

no one in the Christian faith disbelieves or is at substantive variance with "love your neighbor as yourself" (which was not Christ's "supreme command" by the way), they rather are at odds, seemingly, with your interpretation of the admonition.

Since ,according to you, that love thy neighbor shit was not the main msg. then why bother?[8|]




thompsonx -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (10/14/2015 1:41:57 PM)


ORIGINAL: Kirata
Well you sure fooled me.

That seems to happen a lot to you.




thompsonx -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (10/14/2015 1:44:33 PM)

ORIGINAL: Kirata
Except for the detail that Christianity neither enshrines nor follows the whole of Old Testament law.

Then why does every bible have one?




thompsonx -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (10/14/2015 1:55:44 PM)

ORIGINAL: bounty44

as kirata alluded to and i can elaborate on

As if you had any knowledge to share.[8|]


---it would be very helpful if people understood the old testament,


You have shown no evidence that you do.

and the relationship between the old testament and the new testament instead of, in their hubris, claiming that Christians (and jews for that matter) "pick and choose"---as if you know something, have some insight into doctrine and faith practice that they are oh so clearly missing. the same can be said about the ten commandments.


Yes we see jesus phreques like you running off at the mouth about shit you have no clue of. Why do you think no one knows how to read except you?



that said, in this particular instance---Christians don't stone their children.
Christians have never stoned their children.

Duuuuuuhhhhh pretty sure christ was born after duterotomy was written. Did you use the calculus to figure that one out or did you take of your shoes to do the cipher?

to suggest Deuteronomy as proof texts in support of the need to have "pesky laws" to prevent them from killing their children is utterly moronic. in fact, the new testament story of the "prodigal son" is exactly the case in question with exactly the opposite set of consequences.

And yet you...a card carrying christian has said on these very boards that the prodigal son deserves nothing except what he earns.

and outside of that one particular place in time, jews don't stone their children, and if they ever actually did during that time there are no biblical accounts of it occurring.


So according to you all history is contained in the bible and if it ain't there it did not happen.[8|]


and you somehow think its civil law that prevents them? during the time in question, the land was Israel's.

Historically you are full of shit.

more importantly, if they ever did indeed do it, they haven't since for many thousands of years.


Now the story changes from "they never did it to if they did it was a long time ago????[8|]





Hillwilliam -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (10/14/2015 3:29:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml

Yeah it's a crying shame that those pesky murder laws don't allow us to kill disrespectful children.

If you want to live in a theocraticy, change the constitution.

if there's a faith practice out there that wants to be able to "kill disrespectful children", I suspect you might be one of the very few who knows about it.

Deuteronomy" 18-21

The 'obscure' religions that only crazyml knows about are Christianity and Judaeism.

Quite a few people allegedly follow those.

Except for the detail that Christianity neither enshrines nor follows the whole of Old Testament law.

K.


Well, let's just toss out those pesky commandments, shall we?

Yaknow, the ones that Christians want on courthouse walls in a lot of the country.


as kirata alluded to and i can elaborate on---it would be very helpful if people understood the old testament, and the relationship between the old testament and the new testament instead of, in their hubris, claiming that Christians (and jews for that matter) "pick and choose"---as if you know something, have some insight into doctrine and faith practice that they are oh so clearly missing. the same can be said about the ten commandments.

that said, in this particular instance---Christians don't stone their children. Christians have never stoned their children. to suggest Deuteronomy as proof texts in support of the need to have "pesky laws" to prevent them from killing their children is utterly moronic. in fact, the new testament story of the "prodigal son" is exactly the case in question with exactly the opposite set of consequences.

and outside of that one particular place in time, jews don't stone their children, and if they ever actually did during that time there are no biblical accounts of it occurring. and you somehow think its civil law that prevents them? during the time in question, the land was Israel's.

more importantly, if they ever did indeed do it, they haven't since for many thousands of years.

you either can submit that today's jews then are blatantly disobedient to old testament law, or you can look for an answer that actually seeks to understand Judaic history. otherwise, you can just imagine schlomo and Rachel sitting around saying, "gee our son sure is rebellious, I wish we could stone him."

that said though--it wasn't the parents who stoned the offender, it was the "all men in the town" which points towards a court system. and just to point out, when you use the word "children"---they weren't talking about 9yr olds, they are talking about grown men.

its worth noting, though its not "children" specific, that muslims today engage in stoning and other forms of capital punishment for breaking certain aspects of religious law. if you want a faith practice from which to protect the general population by civil law, look there.




So, you pick and choose too.

Isn't there something in the Bible that says something to effect of "Follow the WHOLE book"?

Do you have any tats or piercings?
Do you wear cotton polyester blend clothing?

The same book that initially calls 'the gay' an abomination punishable by death also gives the death penalty for those.




thompsonx -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (10/14/2015 3:53:42 PM)

Do you wear cotton polyester blend clothing?


Only a pam would wear such.




Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (10/14/2015 8:57:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


Except when laws "force" us to violate our religious tenets. That's what's going on in this country, lately.



Michael


But it doesn't 'force' you to violate 'your' religious tenets at all.

As an employee (agent) of the govt,. though, you relinquish the right to 'force' your religious tenets on others in violation of law as in the Kentucky case for example. If one feels the job forces one to do so, then one quits their job.

And yes, we have a 200+ year history of religious tenets being trumped by law. But if your position in govt. requires one to act in violation of any religious tenet, then one simply needs to leave that position in govt.

The free exercise of religion does not entitle you that exercise in a position of govt. duty bound by the law.



Nope!

Guess I have to chime in here. The way it works is administrative law is subject to organic law. the constitution is the organic law. the right to exercise religion is reserved to the people, not the an enumerated power of government.

The right to exercise religion is a thou [government] shalt not trespass, keep off the grass zone, they cant even enter to look around.

Government is not qualified to even judge what is and what is not a religion, much less make the moral determinations they have granted to themselves the power to make.

No grant or implication of power came from the people.

That said ALL law, rules, by-law, ordinances etc etc etc are all 'subject' to the organic law. This is why we hear everyone screaming what is and is not constitutional.

The problem you have in the davis case is several fold.

First this is not a private corporation which has a no 'right to exercise your religion clause'.

Second the county has an obligation to accommodate davis's religion or allow her the right to freely exercise her religion unimpeded.

Third forcing davis is a violation of the contract and a violation of davis's right to exercise her religion. Forcing davis to personally sign gay marriage acknowledgements force her to be an accessory to the commission of a sin against her and her God.

Remember consent to be governed is conditional upon the 'reserved' right to exercise our religion, [in other words gubmint you keep the fuck out], simple contract law.

So we have violation of trust, violation of her rights and breach of contract on the part of the government sworn to uphold those rights.

First things first. People are so used to hearing law presented backwards from the media propagandists seeps in sometimes.

The very worst thing she can do is resign, instead sue the fuck out of them and when it costs 20 million they get the hint for a few years until they get another tax windfall and try it again.

The free exercise of religion does not entitle you that exercise in a position of govt. duty bound by the law.

Yes its not an entitlement its a right, rights trump entitlements.

If her obligation to the office requires her to be negligent to her moral obligations then in the same vein we murdered a whole lot of nazis who were expected to rebel against the government as a matter of moral conscience.

Entitlement refers to government issued _______something, she has the 'right', rights trump entitlements, and organic law trumps administrative code since our agreement to be governed is contingent upon the organic law. (reserved right to exercise religion)

Not only does the right to exercise your religion give you the power to reject bad government it gives you the right to discriminate against anything that would violate your religion, such as becoming an accessory to sin against a persons religion by baking a gay wedding cake.

Therefore KD could refuse to personally sign the certs but she does not have the authority to order the whole office to refuse it unless there are other issues I am unaware of.

Otherwise, yes, the government has established itself as a religion since its inception.





crazyml -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (10/15/2015 2:08:08 AM)

FR.

So... come on then... this one is for the christians.

Which laws do you think people should be allowed to ignore because of their religious beliefs?

It does seem that DS wants people to have the right to discriminate against people because of their religious beliefs, what other passes should we give these people?

If a person believes it is his or her religious duty (according to whatever religion, text, or interpretation of that text the person sincerely believes represents his religious obligation) to stone his son to death, is that ok?

When you get all uppity about the violation of a person's religious beliefs, how do you define those "religious beliefs". Which religious beliefs are valid ones? Is there a particular religion that is more "valid" than others?







Lucylastic -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (10/15/2015 5:25:20 AM)

I think you just kilt the thread :)




thompsonx -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (10/15/2015 8:32:56 AM)

No one gives a phoque about your imaginary friend.




thompsonx -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (10/15/2015 8:50:28 AM)

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Now that is precious!

I find it disturbing that scotus is not more transparent with their language and simply tell people that everyone has a right to exercise their religion, not only gays, but christians as well as muslims jew hindus budists and 'anyone' else as long as it does not injure another.


Why the caviat? Either there is religious freedom or not?





Kirata -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (10/15/2015 5:39:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Isn't there something in the Bible that says something to effect of "Follow the WHOLE book"?

I could be mistaken, but I don't think so. I don't see how there could be. The Bible isn't so much a book as a library, a multitude of often conflicting texts, from different sources and different times, the authors of which couldn't even have known about many of the others, let alone imagined that they would someday be gathered together in a single volume. Moreover, harmonizing the texts in this collection requires contortions both logical and theological that would be the envy of a circus performer.

Exceptions granted, I think for the vast majority of Christians the NT takes precedence over any laws or customs previously observed with which those later teachings conflict.

K.





thompsonx -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (10/15/2015 6:02:07 PM)

Or perhaps the bible is just a fuck story designed to keep the faithful in line.[8|]




BamaD -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (10/15/2015 6:07:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

Isn't there something in the Bible that says something to effect of "Follow the WHOLE book"?

I could be mistaken, but I don't think so. I don't see how there could be. The Bible isn't so much a book as a library, a multitude of often conflicting texts, from different sources and different times, the authors of which couldn't even have known about many of the others, let alone imagined that they would someday be gathered together in a single volume. Moreover, harmonizing the texts in this collection requires contortions both logical and theological that would be the envy of a circus performer.

Exceptions granted, I think for the vast majority of Christians the NT takes precedence over any laws or customs previously observed with which those later teachings conflict.

K.



New Testiment = New Covenant, as per Christ.
He is refering to a passage in Revelantions which states that you can neither add to nor subtract from the Word. It means the New Testimant.




Kirata -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (10/15/2015 7:04:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

He is refering to a passage in Revelantions which states that you can neither add to nor subtract from the Word. It means the New Testimant.

Ah, thank you. Revelations is an exceedingly strange book. The steeds of the Four Horsemen who will bring the Apocalypse upon the world are white, red, black, and "pale" (khlōros, the Greek root for chlorophyll), which has been interpreted as green. Looking at the flags of the member states of the UN, and unless I missed one, those four colors, and only those four colors, appear together only on the flags of Afghanistan, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Palestine, Sudan, Syria, and the UAE.

Oooweeooo... Yeah no, just sayin' [:D]

K.






dcnovice -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (10/15/2015 7:10:06 PM)

quote:

The Bible isn't so much a book as a library, a multitude of often conflicting texts, from different sources and different times, the authors of which couldn't even have known about many of the others, let alone imagined that they would someday be gathered together in a single volume. Moreover, harmonizing the texts in this collection requires contortions both logical and theological that would be the envy of a circus performer.

Nicely put, K.




crazyml -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (10/16/2015 2:53:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


New Testiment = New Covenant, as per Christ.
He is refering to a passage in Revelantions which states that you can neither add to nor subtract from the Word. It means the New Testimant.


Horseshit.

John of Patmos could not possibly have known what was in the New Testament, on account if it not actually existing when revelations was written.

Duh




Kirata -> RE: Supreme Court justices predict next battle: Religious Freedom (10/16/2015 4:06:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crazyml
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

New Testiment = New Covenant, as per Christ.
He is refering to a passage in Revelantions which states that you can neither add to nor subtract from the Word. It means the New Testimant.

Horseshit.

John of Patmos could not possibly have known what was in the New Testament, on account if it not actually existing when revelations was written.

Duh

Most sources date the Book of Revelation to the reign of Domitian, and some scholars date the texts of the NT to the same period. So at the very least, it's not impossible that he could have been aware of them. But that said, when I looked for the passage that BamaD referred to, the only thing I could find that came close was this one:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. ~Revelation 22:18-19

The admonition against adding or subtracting refers to the words of the Book of Revelation itself.

K.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875