Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-16-2017, 08:37 PM
 
25,403 posts, read 9,674,400 times
Reputation: 15224

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pcamps View Post
I am sure that you are in a better place for it. My exit from it was pretty smooth other than the horror seeing what my beliefs had shaped me into.
Thank you. I am more peaceful for sure. And I no longer blame bad things on God, so I don't get angry when things don't turn out the way I thought they should. Life is just life. Good things happen, bad things happen. The end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-16-2017, 08:57 PM
 
2,826 posts, read 2,353,007 times
Reputation: 1011
Quote:
Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8 View Post
You just compared a loving committed relationship between 2 people to screwing a dog or hurting a child. Who's the ******* again?
No I'm not.

Squick - TV Tropes

This is what is called squick factor. I may be cool with it, you may be cool with it, but it's up to the baker. If he gets creeped out by it, and you force him to do it anyway, then yes, that makes you an *******. Just as if you went to an atheist's place of business and do something against his personal feelings would be a POS move.

Equivalency, equivalency, you must learn equivalency! What is good for one group must be good for another, or it isn't good for anyone.

Committed nothing. You're making an automatic assumption. If we are holding to the view that homosexual relationships are real relationships, and not random dalliances, this still leave the fact that we cannot assume a given couple is any more faithful than the average het player. Besides which, why can't one have a committed relationship with a dog? What about man's best friend?

I demand creature marriage rights! (No, not really) I will come to your place of business, and demand you bake a cake for me and Rover. You must do it! No? Then stop giving me grief. You have no equivalency.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2017, 10:19 PM
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
31,374 posts, read 19,996,213 times
Reputation: 14068
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
No I'm not.

Squick - TV Tropes

This is what is called squick factor. I may be cool with it, you may be cool with it, but it's up to the baker. If he gets creeped out by it, and you force him to do it anyway, then yes, that makes you an *******. Just as if you went to an atheist's place of business and do something against his personal feelings would be a POS move.

Equivalency, equivalency, you must learn equivalency! What is good for one group must be good for another, or it isn't good for anyone.

Committed nothing. You're making an automatic assumption. If we are holding to the view that homosexual relationships are real relationships, and not random dalliances, this still leave the fact that we cannot assume a given couple is any more faithful than the average het player. Besides which, why can't one have a committed relationship with a dog? What about man's best friend?

I demand creature marriage rights! (No, not really) I will come to your place of business, and demand you bake a cake for me and Rover. You must do it! No? Then stop giving me grief. You have no equivalency.
I hope you have a competent caregiver and that your computer time is strictly limited.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2017, 11:32 PM
 
9,588 posts, read 4,981,550 times
Reputation: 755
Quote:
Originally Posted by TroutDude View Post
I hope you have a competent caregiver and that your computer time is strictly limited.
Why? It hasn't worked for you so far. Peace
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2017, 11:35 PM
 
2,826 posts, read 2,353,007 times
Reputation: 1011
And again, you didn't give a competent disproof of anything I said. You just defaulted to ad hominem.

To answer your question, they're called "parents." Not all of us are on the government's teat. I am a grown adult, and nobody is able to limit my time. But I do have a job and a life. And other hobbies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2017, 12:17 AM
 
10,800 posts, read 3,546,606 times
Reputation: 5950
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
And again, you didn't give a competent disproof of anything I said. You just defaulted to ad hominem.

To answer your question, they're called "parents." Not all of us are on the government's teat. I am a grown adult, and nobody is able to limit my time. But I do have a job and a life. And other hobbies.
Is the convention here not to quote who you are responding too? It is on any other forum, as it makes it easier to figure out who you are talking to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2017, 12:58 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
10,688 posts, read 7,644,620 times
Reputation: 4674
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40 View Post
Then stop defining them by their sexuality. There are no "gay rights". Only human rights. Gay is not a classification and should never be.
I'm not defining them by their sexuality---YOU are. If their sexuality is not important to God why wouldn't you bake a cake for them? You've stated over and over ad nauseum that "Christians" have a right to bar anyone from service or purchases if it is "against their religion." That is the poster child of defining people by their sexuality.

Don't start in on "they shouldn't have to participate in a wedding." Those bakers here in Colorado weren't invited. And the couple had already married in Massachusetts.

So maybe you should refrain from trying to correct others as it just proves your own hypocrisy in such matters.

Last edited by Wardendresden; 11-17-2017 at 02:12 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2017, 02:10 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
10,688 posts, read 7,644,620 times
Reputation: 4674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rbbi1 View Post
Half sisters, get your story straight. And again, Jesus said in the beginning it was so and defined what "so" is by Genesis. The fact that men ignored what He said at times should not come as a shock to YOU, now should it? Peace
There is nothing about Rachel and Leah being "half-sisters" in the Bible. In fact some tradition has it that they were twins. Both women brought their handmaidens or younger sisters (depending on source) for Jacob to sleep with as well. So much for "one man, one woman."

For all your praise of Jesus living as a complete Jew you appear to be more ignorant than me with how Jews view this problem of marrying sisters:
---------------------------------
"This week’s Parshah contains an account of Jacob’s four marriages, all (according to Rashi) to daughters of Laban. Now this appears to contradict the traditional view that Jacob (together with Abraham and Isaac) kept all the commandments of the Torah despite the fact that G‑d had not yet given them to Israel—out of a combination of personal zealousness and a prophetic knowledge of what the law would be; for marriage to two sisters is later prohibited. Rashi seems to offer no explanation of the difficulty, and the Rebbe considers a number of possible solutions, eventually reconciling the apparent contradiction, and drawing out the moral implications of the story.

Jacob’s Wives

An important and well-known principle about Rashi’s commentary on the Torah is that his policy is to answer all the difficulties which are apparent in construing a literal interpretation of the verses. And when he cannot find an answer on this level, he will note the difficulty and add, “I do not know” how to resolve it. When there is a difficulty which Rashi does not even point out, this is because the answer is obvious, even to a five-year-old (the age when a Jewish child begins to study the Torah).

It is therefore very strange that we find in this week’s Parshah a puzzling fact, that has preoccupied many commentators, and which Rashi not only does not explain but of which he appears to take no notice at all.

We are told that Jacob married both Rachel and Leah, and later Bilhah and Zilpah, all daughters of Laban. Now since we have a tradition that the forefathers kept the entire Torah, even though it had not yet been given—how can it be that Jacob married four sisters, when we are told,1 “You shall not take a woman to her sister”—that is, one may not marry the sister of one’s wife?

Perhaps we could say that Rashi does not comment on the problem because when the “five-year-old” learns this Parshah, he does not know that Jacob’s act was forbidden (for the law does not appear until Vayikra (Leviticus), and the child has not yet reached that book). However, this will not do, for Rashi does not explain the difficulty even later on.

Alternatively, it is possible that Rashi felt that, amongst the many explanations of the point given in other commentaries, there was one sufficiently obvious enough that he was not bound to mention it. But this also will not explain his silence. First of all, there are many disagreements among these other commentators, so the explanation is not obvious; and second, they are not explanations of the literal meaning of the text—which is therefore still wanting." (Taken from Chabad.org)
----------------------------------
Neither can one find any prohibition in the Bible for a man to refrain from having sex with an unmarried woman!! It does seal of "sexual immorality" but the change in many English language Bibles is to improperly call that fornication. Fact is, no one knows for certain what sexual immorality may have stood for with one exception----adultery.

With regard to the four sisters or two sisters and two handmaidens that Jacob took to bed, one can only state that the lineage of Jesus came from a seriously dysfunctional family. The honest argument, if honesty is able to creep into your view of life as mirrored by Jesus, is that multiple spouses will sooner or later cause multiple problems. No need to create a fictional bible story to make it God's "command." Just look how messed up Jacob's family became.

Learn something about Judaism other than how many feasts you should keep in order to be "obedient," sans the love.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2017, 02:20 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
10,688 posts, read 7,644,620 times
Reputation: 4674
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
No I'm not.

Squick - TV Tropes

This is what is called squick factor. I may be cool with it, you may be cool with it, but it's up to the baker. If he gets creeped out by it, and you force him to do it anyway, then yes, that makes you an *******. Just as if you went to an atheist's place of business and do something against his personal feelings would be a POS move.

Equivalency, equivalency, you must learn equivalency! What is good for one group must be good for another, or it isn't good for anyone.

Committed nothing. You're making an automatic assumption. If we are holding to the view that homosexual relationships are real relationships, and not random dalliances, this still leave the fact that we cannot assume a given couple is any more faithful than the average het player. Besides which, why can't one have a committed relationship with a dog? What about man's best friend?

I demand creature marriage rights! (No, not really) I will come to your place of business, and demand you bake a cake for me and Rover. You must do it! No? Then stop giving me grief. You have no equivalency.
It's interesting to note that some of the most conservative christian states in the land have no prohibition against people having sex with animals. Texas is the Big one, but include KY, WV, WY and D.C. , maybe Hawaii as well. Lots of Bible believers in those states!

If gay people can't marry, let's refuse to let heterosexual couples divorce! After all, the Bible states that God hates divorce and we do want to be "righteous" don't we?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-17-2017, 06:16 AM
 
Location: minnesota
15,792 posts, read 6,200,595 times
Reputation: 5032
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
No I'm not.

Squick - TV Tropes

This is what is called squick factor. I may be cool with it, you may be cool with it, but it's up to the baker. If he gets creeped out by it, and you force him to do it anyway, then yes, that makes you an *******. Just as if you went to an atheist's place of business and do something against his personal feelings would be a POS move.

Equivalency, equivalency, you must learn equivalency! What is good for one group must be good for another, or it isn't good for anyone.

Committed nothing. You're making an automatic assumption. If we are holding to the view that homosexual relationships are real relationships, and not random dalliances, this still leave the fact that we cannot assume a given couple is any more faithful than the average het player. Besides which, why can't one have a committed relationship with a dog? What about man's best friend?

I demand creature marriage rights! (No, not really) I will come to your place of business, and demand you bake a cake for me and Rover. You must do it! No? Then stop giving me grief. You have no equivalency.
You did it again.

The only one demanding anything is the bakers. They wish to come into the marketplace and have their personal prejudices coddled. Time for them to put on their big boy pants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:18 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top