RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (Full Version)

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



Message


kdsub -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/13/2016 8:02:17 AM)

Oh you are right of course we all get our feelings hurt in life... but we should not have to deal with other peoples religious beliefs sanctioned by our governance that is supposed to be separate from religion.

Butch





Nnanji -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/13/2016 8:29:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Oh you are right of course we all get our feelings hurt in life... but we should not have to deal with other peoples religious beliefs sanctioned by our governance that is supposed to be separate from religion.

Butch




With this I agree. Government should make no law for or against religion. That's one of the reasons I'd like to see the EPA sued and proven to be the establishment of a government sponsored religion worshipping Gia.




LadyPact -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/15/2016 7:42:18 AM)

<Fast Reply>

To be fair to everyone, I read the entirety of this thread to the best of my ability. There were certain posts I glazed over, because, well, people can probably figure out why. I even read the comments from the poster who is freely using sexual orientation slurs on threads on various parts of this site. Nobody is going to convince me that's just 'exercising her religion' or any other crap.

Without further ado, here are some points that captured my interest on this thread:

The term "must coordinate" does not imply that a person will receive care. It means you are required to make a phone call. It does NOT mandate that such coordination must be successful. This was a huge gap back some time ago, especially in "28 day" facilities. When you got that referral call, it really just meant, do you currently have an open slot. If that slot is filled by another person in the interim, your client did not get that space.

There was a really interesting quote from the same poster, as thus: "One of the tenets that runs through-out Christianity is if you engage in sinful behavior, you are - not only condoning it but - encouraging it."

Well, first of all, "engaging" was the wrong word there. If that was the case, the cake baker would have been directly involved in non het sex. Let's say that I get what was intended, and baking that cake for the gay couple meant he was endorsing the sin. It was ok to bake cakes for liars, thieves, adulterers, and every other "sin" out there. Only that ONE sin was a problem.

Mixed up in there, some folks are (conveniently) forgetting that said "sin" is not a choice. We have scientific research that denotes otherwise. Not being the greatest theologian on the site, I seem to recall something about thoughts and actions. No impure thoughts, and all of that. Abstinence, in thought and deed. How many people are feeling comfy that they can pass that test? Oh, you get to slide because it was HET sex. Sex before marriage, sex with someone other than your spouse after your divorce, masturbation, oral sex, (heaven forbid) anal sex...

Basically, this thread has been full of a bunch of kinky people trying to tell other people that the kind of sex they want to engage in is wrong. Tell me how that makes sense.





WickedsDesire -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/15/2016 10:06:39 AM)

Ah is this the god hates gays legislation as opposed to all infidels must die thread?

Thinks what did that article say *thinks* rereads Mississippi passes controversial 'religious freedom' bill

weeps




thompsonx -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/15/2016 12:55:15 PM)


ORIGINAL: Nnanji

With this I agree. Government should make no law for or against religion.

It would appear that you believe that it would be ok to stone ones wife for infidelity and the government should butt out>[8|]


That's one of the reasons I'd like to see the EPA sued and proven to be the establishment of a government sponsored religion worshipping Gia.


Could you translate this out of gibberish into english?




Real0ne -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/15/2016 9:29:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

Ah is this the god hates gays legislation as opposed to all infidels must die thread?

Thinks what did that article say *thinks* rereads Mississippi passes controversial 'religious freedom' bill

weeps



[image]http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o296/nine_one_one/stufff/zopd/giphy37.gif[/image]


Nope, its legislation to save theist based religions from the antichrist atheist antitheist takeover of the gubmint.

People with theist based religions have rights too [8|]

dances






Real0ne -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/15/2016 10:10:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyPact

<Fast Reply>

To be fair to everyone, I read the entirety of this thread to the best of my ability. There were certain posts I glazed over, because, well, people can probably figure out why. I even read the comments from the poster who is freely using sexual orientation slurs on threads on various parts of this site. Nobody is going to convince me that's just 'exercising her religion' or any other crap.

Without further ado, here are some points that captured my interest on this thread:

The term "must coordinate" does not imply that a person will receive care. It means you are required to make a phone call. It does NOT mandate that such coordination must be successful. This was a huge gap back some time ago, especially in "28 day" facilities. When you got that referral call, it really just meant, do you currently have an open slot. If that slot is filled by another person in the interim, your client did not get that space.

There was a really interesting quote from the same poster, as thus: "One of the tenets that runs through-out Christianity is if you engage in sinful behavior, you are - not only condoning it but - encouraging it."

Well, first of all, "engaging" was the wrong word there. If that was the case, the cake baker would have been directly involved in non het sex. Let's say that I get what was intended, and baking that cake for the gay couple meant he was endorsing the sin. It was ok to bake cakes for liars, thieves, adulterers, and every other "sin" out there. Only that ONE sin was a problem.

Mixed up in there, some folks are (conveniently) forgetting that said "sin" is not a choice. We have scientific research that denotes otherwise. Not being the greatest theologian on the site, I seem to recall something about thoughts and actions. No impure thoughts, and all of that. Abstinence, in thought and deed. How many people are feeling comfy that they can pass that test? Oh, you get to slide because it was HET sex. Sex before marriage, sex with someone other than your spouse after your divorce, masturbation, oral sex, (heaven forbid) anal sex...

Basically, this thread has been full of a bunch of kinky people trying to tell other people that the kind of sex they want to engage in is wrong. Tell me how that makes sense.





Dunno, have to see what was said and understand the intended meaning?

Hmm... sort of doubt that would fly in the courts. Coordinate generally means to follow through to a settled end, which would I expect would be to set them up with someone qualified, though they would have the ability to turn them down of course. However one google and I am sure they can come up with a list of names.

The rest of the sins you listed cant be known. Now if they wanted them to bake a cake decorated to promote or condone or celebrate liars, thieves and so forth, it would become known to them, and they would be obligated in accordance with their religion to refuse to bake the cake.

Sin is not a choice? Is that not the same as saying crime is not a choice? Sorry that does not compute?

My understanding is that this is about religious freedom. What can I say if atheists know so little about philosophy they delude themselves to believe they have no religion. Keep in mind couched in all that diatribe from scrotus gays got to marry because it was comport with their beliefs (religious).







Real0ne -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/15/2016 10:25:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Oh you are right of course we all get our feelings hurt in life... but we should not have to deal with other peoples religious beliefs sanctioned by our governance that is supposed to be separate from religion.

Butch




With this I agree. Government should make no law for or against religion. That's one of the reasons I'd like to see the EPA sued and proven to be the establishment of a government sponsored religion worshipping Gia.



He said the bill "protects sincerely held religious beliefs and moral convictions".

Gays have a right to exercise their religious beliefs that homosexuality is not a sin and theists and anyone else has the right to exercise their religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin.


Listen to all the gays whine and cry that they cant stomp out theist based religion. HAving the right to exercize their religion isnt good enough!







vincentML -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/18/2016 6:13:05 AM)


But the exercise of homosexuality in no way effects theists unless the preachers are purchasing the services of male whores, as some do occasionally.




Bhruic -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/18/2016 6:58:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TNDommeK

So this bill just signed.. Religious freedom bill. Your thoughts?


I think the bill would be fine if they passed a companion bill that prevented bigots from holding any government job, or opening a public business.




Nnanji -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/18/2016 7:25:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


But the exercise of homosexuality in no way effects theists unless the preachers are purchasing the services of male whores, as some do occasionally.



But, how does it affect them?




kdsub -> RE: Thoughts about backwoods Mississippi? (4/27/2016 8:25:23 PM)

Just an update... the hypocritical holier than thou asses in Missouri have killed the religious freedom bill because their big business political contributors threatened to withhold contributions... So money is more important to the Republican legislature than their religious convictions.

Butch




Page: <<   < prev  16 17 18 19 [20]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125