Federal Judge rules Utah's ban on gay marrage illegal. Internet about to explode

The first amendment could only ever come under a Christian faith.
Malleus.jpg

1543_On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies_by_Martin_Luther.jpg

Exhibit A: A religion that created the sole circumstances in which secularism could occur.
 
File:Malleus.jpg

File:Pedro_Berruguete_-_Saint_Dominic_Presiding_over_an_Auto-da-fe_(1475).jpg

File:1543_On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies_by_Martin_Luther.jpg

Exhibit A: A religion that created the sole circumstances in which secularism could occur.

Zoroastrianism?

edit: I wish, when Luther had become older and infirm, they had taken his pen. His later writings are obviously not indicative of what and who that man was earlier in his life. Unfortunately we're left with this hateful conundrum and an apology of sorts.
 
You're not teaching me much, except that I shouldn't talk to you. Is that what you want?
After falsely claiming I am an "anti-Christian" for merely disagreeing with your own personal views? :lol:

Have you already changed your mind:

I will fight you on this. I can see through your b.s. and to paraphrase you, you are the "dodgy one".

You can't seem to help discussing me instead of the topic. I doubt it will change.
 
Sorry, young lady. You're late to the dogpile. I've already been talked down from that one, having misunderstood the filing of lawsuits and such to actual law.

I'm not female.

Also, the only reason you got "talked down" was because you made a laughable claim with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
 
And so you're bending that to calibrate Jesus' knowledge and intuition?

Yeah. I'll never disparage the idea that Jesus had some really good ideas. I just find the idea that he could speak for God a bit much. Don't worry, Muhammed's fallibility is a target, too, when dealing with people who want to use him to justify bigotry.

It's not a terrifically cheap shot. Either Jesus knew Noah was a myth, he didn't, or he was misquoted. I don't think any of these scenarios allows us to heavily fear specific prophesies regarding the End Times.
 
I'm not female.

Also, the only reason you got "talked down" was because you made a laughable claim with absolutely no evidence to back it up.

Quite.

I also did something which is so rare around here you probably missed it. I admitted I had misunderstood something. People like little "Formy" here aren't teaching people well. I'll take that hit.
 
Try living in a contry where Christianity hasn't influenced the law.

I think we could both come up with good and bad examples on both sides.

Anyhow, off to go sit through Mass detention like a good little protestant boy. Merry Christmas to you and yours CH. I hope you feel well for the holidays and best wishes!
 
Try living in a contry where Christianity hasn't influenced the law.

Okay, when you saw "where Christianity hasn't influenced the law" you're pretty much excluding Europe, Russia, Australia, and North and South America, right? So we're left with Africa, the Middle East, and southern and eastern Asia. So, okay, we know places like Iran and Saudi Arabia are fairly hostile to anything other than their primary religion. But how about a majority-Muslim country like Indonesia?

wiki said:
The constitution provides for freedom of religion. The government generally respects religious freedom for the six officially recognized religions: Islam, Catholicism, Protestantism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Confucianism. However, ongoing restrictions, particularly on religions not sanctioned by the government and sects of the recognized religions considered deviant, are exceptions."

Japan?
wiki said:
"The Constitution provides for freedom of religion, and the government respects this right in practice. The government doesn't care and at all levels seeks to protect this right in full and does not tolerate its abuse, either by governmental or private actors."

India?
wiki said:
"Freedom of religion in India is a fundamental right guaranteed by the country's constitution. Modern India came into existence in 1947 as a secular nation and the Indian constitution's preamble states that India is a secular state. Freedom of religion is established in tradition as Hinduism does not recognise labels of distinct religions and has no concept of blasphemy or heresy. Every citizen of India has a right to practice and promote their religion peacefully. However, there have been a number of incidents of religious intolerance that resulted in riots and violence. These incidents have been condemned by the governmental administrations, private businesses, and judicial systems."

China, obviously, doesn't hold up well:
wiki said:
"Freedom of religion in China is provided for by the country's constitution, with an important caveat. Namely, the government protects what it calls "normal religious activity," defined in practice as activities that take place within government-sanctioned religious organizations and registered places of worship. Human rights bodies have criticized this differentiation as falling short of international standards for the protection of religious freedom.
China's five officially sanctioned religious organizations are the Buddhist Association of China, Chinese Taoist Association, Islamic Association of China, Three-Self Patriotic Movement and Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association. These groups are afforded a degree protection, but are subject to restrictions and controls under the State Administration for Religious Affairs. Unregistered religious groups—including house churches, Falun Gong, Tibetan Buddhists, underground Catholics, and Uyghur Muslims—face varying degrees of harassment, including imprisonment, torture, and forced religious conversion."

I'm not sure exactly what conclusion can be drawn from the above and the example of four of the most prominent (in population, if nothing else) non-Christian countries on the planet, but it doesn't sound like living as a Christian (or a Muslim, or an atheist, or whatever) is particularly more dangerous or oppressive in those countries than for members of those countries' majority religion.
 
There is no good reason to think that Jesus was long haired. Considering that one of his disciples wrote that long hair is shameful on a man, it seems much more likely that his hair was as short as was normal for men in the Roman Empire.

Abortion may not be explicitly mentioned in any of the gospel accounts. It is however explicitly forbidden in the Didache, an early christian document most likely written closer to the lifetime of Jesus than were any gospel accounts.
 
I admitted I had misunderstood something.
Now all you have to do is to realize that this and similar propaganda spread by the usual suspects was apparently largely the basis for your views regarding same-sex marriage. That there really is no valid reason to be opposed to it. That it simply doesn't endanger heterosexual marriage much less your own religious practices, or anybody else's, in the least.
 
All Christian documents are flawed through the fact that they are written through the hand of humans who aren't Jesus, and thus these peoples have their own messages and biases to put across.

EDIT:
Spoiler :
Malleus.jpg

1543_On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies_by_Martin_Luther.jpg

Exhibit A: A religion that created the sole circumstances in which secularism could occur.

Zoroastrianism?

That's the Inquisition
 
Quite.

I also did something which is so rare around here you probably missed it. I admitted I had misunderstood something. People like little "Formy" here aren't teaching people well. I'll take that hit.

Admitting to mistakes and misunderstandings is indeed very rare on the internet, so yes, that you did so commend some respect. Which doesn't change what I think of your opinion on gay marriage, but what I think of your opinion on a specific topic, and what I think of you, are two very different things.
 
That's the Inquisition

"That" is not the Inquisition, although "Malleus Maleficarum" was certainly a tool used during it.

I responded, "Zoroastrianism", to her words, "A religion that created the sole circumstances in which secularism could occur", because that's what the Achaemenids did, earlier than I can think of any other belief really having an interest. Incidentally, what also sparked that blurt was her crescent moon and star avatar, which generally denotes Islam, which was responsible for the virtual decimation of that religion.

The second pic was from Luther's works, years into the protestant reformation. Is it depicted there as an intention to say "protestantism is a belief of hate"? You might be led to think that way, out of context, if that was the only work by Luther with which you'd had exposure. He had grown very ill by that time, and as I said above, it was sad this work was allowed to represent his life, which it does not, in my opinion.
 
First off, I'm a he.
Second, the 'crescent moon and star' is a reference to the Moon-and-Star symbol of Azura, the Lady of Dusk, from Morrowind.
Third, the posting of those images was to show that Christianity in and of itself does not tend toward 'secularism' or freedom. The tendency of "Christian" countries* to have a better track record on secularism and freedom is due less to Christianity and more to the Enlightenment and the development of the concept of Humanism. While the idea of 'Rational Christianity' did play a large part in setting up the stage for those ideas to take hold, there is nothing intrinsic in Christianity itself to make that situation more or less probable than any other major religion.

*To be specific, Western Europe as there are many Christian-dominant African countries where I would rather not live. (ie: Uganda)
 
There is a false dichotomy because Christianity is not really an all inclusive governing system to begin with. Secular humanism and Christianity are only personal beliefs which effect the laws being written.

Unless we take the human factor out of government, rulings are going to be influenced by both secular and Christian belief systems.
 
First off, I'm a he.
Second, the 'crescent moon and star' is a reference to the Moon-and-Star symbol of Azura, the Lady of Dusk, from Morrowind.

ok.

Third, the posting of those images was to show that Christianity in and of itself does not tend toward 'secularism' or freedom.

Ok, but those are not scriptural. They're basically "period opinion columns" like Fox News, and clearly both from individuals who were quite obviously ill, who happened to be christians. They were never part of "church service", they're like "side reading".
 
Back
Top Bottom