Let's Be Honest: Opposition to Religious Freedom Laws Is Based on Anti-Religious Hate and Bigotry

[-S-]

Again, you got creamed and are now trying to save face. I've been at this for nearly 10 years, you're small taters Johnny Come Lately. Also, I could care less how you feel about me. Stick to the issues and stop being ignorant when you get shellacked

....Wait really? You've been at this ten years, and you're still only this good?

I'm sorry.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Did you state eating shellfish is an abomination? Yes you did. Did I prove you wrong? Why yes I did.

Case closed

Case Revisited:

It was the set up of your argument's demise. I played a long game, knowing the outcome from the start. You said the Bible stated that homosexuality was an 'abomination'. I stated that the Bible says that eating shellfish is, as well. You stated the part of the Bible I was referring to isn't believed anymore by Christians, and that shellfish is not an abomination. I reminded you that your claim came from the exact same part of the Bible, thus negating your claim against gays as well. It was a good trap, and you did exactly what you were supposed to do to ensure my victory.

It was a victory for both gays and shellfish, as well.

I suggest anybody who likes to laugh take a look at the conversation. Lassy gets really worked up. It was a fun one.

Homosexuality is still against God's word, eating shellfish isn't. You may go now, dunce

They both were verbotten, dearie.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Did you state eating shellfish is an abomination? Yes you did. Did I prove you wrong? Why yes I did.

Case closed

Case Revisited:

It was the set up of your argument's demise. I played a long game, knowing the outcome from the start. You said the Bible stated that homosexuality was an 'abomination'. I stated that the Bible says that eating shellfish is, as well. You stated the part of the Bible I was referring to isn't believed anymore by Christians, and that shellfish is not an abomination. I reminded you that your claim came from the exact same part of the Bible, thus negating your claim against gays as well. It was a good trap, and you did exactly what you were supposed to do to ensure my victory.

It was a victory for both gays and shellfish, as well.

I suggest anybody who likes to laugh take a look at the conversation. Lassy gets really worked up. It was a fun one.

There are Jewish laws. Then there are moral laws. We are no longer under Jewish law, but the moral laws, such as the ten commandments, are still to be obeyed. So, you're not as smart as you think.

There you go again, talking as if your opinion is authoritative, which is no more so than lassieeconchick's comments.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Again, you got creamed and are now trying to save face. I've been at this for nearly 10 years, you're small taters Johnny Come Lately. Also, I could care less how you feel about me. Stick to the issues and stop being ignorant when you get shellacked

....Wait really? You've been at this ten years, and you're still only this good? I'm sorry.

Yup, she's like Sue's younger sister on Glee.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Again, you got creamed and are now trying to save face. I've been at this for nearly 10 years, you're small taters Johnny Come Lately. Also, I could care less how you feel about me. Stick to the issues and stop being ignorant when you get shellacked

....Wait really? You've been at this ten years, and you're still only this good?

I'm sorry.

You're close to getting ignored. It's obvious you're too stupid to continue dueling with and you're a bore.

Last but not least you know little of the Bible, stop pretending you do. Those of us that do know it get tired of childish antics like you are trying to pull. See, you're not nearly as clever as you think you are. Now run along, Sparky, I'm weary of you

 

[JakeStarkey]

Second silliest sttement, in Keys' own words. Yes, he owns them: "So the Progressives are advising the Reader of this forum that Humanity should be regulated upon the base animalistic instincts."

 

[-S-]

They both were verbotten, dearie.

She doesn't understand that though. She likes shellfish, so that's okay.

Also watch what you say to her, she's a ten year veteran.

 

[boedicca]

I would not call it hatred. I would say it stems from a basic need to force people to conform to whatever they see as 'right' and 'correct' thought.

In a few cases I would say you're correct, but my experience has been that in most cases liberals clearly seem to despise/mock people of faith and ardently reject God and the Bible.

Let's turn your argument around. Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Using your faith as an excuse to discriminate or shun another person, because of who they are, violates that commandment. To claim to be a Christian, and yet to refuse service to one type of sinner, again, violates what Jesus taught. When it came to stoning the adulterer, Jesus said "Let you who is without sin among you, cast the first stone". He opposed treating those who have sinned badly.

Using religion, especially Christianity which teaches against such behavior, as an excuse to discriminate, just comes across as dishonest.

Sophistry. Stoning someone to death is not even remotely similar to not wishing to cater a hypothetical wedding.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Again, you got creamed and are now trying to save face. I've been at this for nearly 10 years, you're small taters Johnny Come Lately. Also, I could care less how you feel about me. Stick to the issues and stop being ignorant when you get shellacked

....Wait really? You've been at this ten years, and you're still only this good?

I'm sorry.

You're close to getting ignored. It's obvious you're too stupid to continue dueling with and you're a bore.

Last but not least you know little of the Bible, stop pretending you do. Those of us that do know it get tired of childish antics like you are trying to pull. See, you're not nearly as clever as you think you are. Now run along, Sparky, I'm weary of you

Dear, whether as econchick or this moniker, you never, ever carry your points, then you start pouting, then being mean, then saying you are goining to ignore someone, and you never do. Please do so, and save us having to watch you act the idiot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I would not call it hatred. I would say it stems from a basic need to force people to conform to whatever they see as 'right' and 'correct' thought.

In a few cases I would say you're correct, but my experience has been that in most cases liberals clearly seem to despise/mock people of faith and ardently reject God and the Bible.

Let's turn your argument around. Jesus said "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Using your faith as an excuse to discriminate or shun another person, because of who they are, violates that commandment. To claim to be a Christian, and yet to refuse service to one type of sinner, again, violates what Jesus taught. When it came to stoning the adulterer, Jesus said "Let you who is without sin among you, cast the first stone". He opposed treating those who have sinned badly.

Using religion, especially Christianity which teaches against such behavior, as an excuse to discriminate, just comes across as dishonest.

Sophistry. Stoning someone to death is not even remotely similar to not wishing to cater a hypothetical wedding.

Indeed, the far right social cons are sophists of the first order.

 

[Edgetho]

There you go again, talking as if your opinion is authoritative, which is no more so than lassieeconchick's comments.

1. Leviticus doesn't say it is forbidden to eat shellfish, it says we are to regard them as abhorrent.

2. The Bible says a lot of things we don't do anymore -- Like exterminate heretics, butt-rangers and blasphemers.

3. I'd be willing to give up shellfish if.......

 

[JakeStarkey]

They both were verbotten, dearie.

She doesn't understand that though. She likes shellfish, so that's okay.

Also watch what you say to her, she's a ten year veteran.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There you go again, talking as if your opinion is authoritative, which is no more so than lassieeconchick's comments.

1. Leviticus doesn't say it is forbidden to eat shellfish, it says we are to regard them as abhorrent.

2. The Bible says a lot of things we don't do anymore -- Like exterminate heretics, butt-rangers and blasphemers.

3. I'd be willing to give up shellfish if.......

1. We regard you as abhorent, as does the shellfish.
2. You are a relativist! Call in Keys the Inquisitor.
3.

 

[Katzndogz]

There you go again, talking as if your opinion is authoritative, which is no more so than lassieeconchick's comments.

1. Leviticus doesn't say it is forbidden to eat shellfish, it says we are to regard them as abhorrent.

2. The Bible says a lot of things we don't do anymore -- Like exterminate heretics, butt-rangers and blasphemers.

3. I'd be willing to give up shellfish if.......

If it were some 21st century scientist going back in time to see people dying of shellfish allergies that scientist might say don't eat shellfish too.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here is the Lassie in action in her guise of Ammon Ra

 

[-S-]

You know, considering the Bible says one thing here, then another thing there, and then has yet another contradiction over there...

Do you guys ever think it might be a good idea to just not base all of your political opinions on it?

Just a thought

 

[JakeStarkey]

You know, considering the Bible says one thing here, then another thing there, and then has yet another contradiction over there...

Do you guys ever think it might be a good idea to just not base all of your political opinions on it?

Just a thought

God has nothing against common sense.

 

[Mr.Right]

Expecting Christians to treat others well, regardless of their belief that the "others" are sinners, is hardly attacking their religion. Expecting a separation of church and state is not attacking Christianity. If anything, these incidents are people claiming to be Christians attacking those who think differently than they do. I don't expect other people to conform to my beliefs.

What about adulterers? What about thieves and liars? Do they bake wedding cakes for adulterers, thieves, liars, those who curse, and break the Sabbath? If they do any of those things, why do they only discriminate against the sin of homosexuality? Selective discrimination is still discrimination.

Christianity expects you to show respect for others, whether you agree with their beliefs or not. The behavior of those who will not serve gays, is not very Christian at all. If offends my Christianity that they chose to single out one group as sinners.

How would a Christian know if someone is an adulterer, a thief, a liar...etc? They would serve these people, as they do others. However, would you expect a Christian pawn shop owner to buy stolen goods from the thief? Would you expect a Christian store owner to assist a liar in their lies? Would you expect a Christian to keep a adulterous affair secret from one of their friends? See where I'm going with this?

 

[-S-]

God has nothing against common sense.

Most of the conservatives on this thread would probably disagree. They directly blame God for the views they hold. They don't come up with their opinions, they learn them from a source and memorize them. Perfect little robots. It's cute.

 

[Mr.Right]

Did you state eating shellfish is an abomination? Yes you did. Did I prove you wrong? Why yes I did.

Case closed

Case Revisited:

It was the set up of your argument's demise. I played a long game, knowing the outcome from the start. You said the Bible stated that homosexuality was an 'abomination'. I stated that the Bible says that eating shellfish is, as well. You stated the part of the Bible I was referring to isn't believed anymore by Christians, and that shellfish is not an abomination. I reminded you that your claim came from the exact same part of the Bible, thus negating your claim against gays as well. It was a good trap, and you did exactly what you were supposed to do to ensure my victory.

It was a victory for both gays and shellfish, as well.

I suggest anybody who likes to laugh take a look at the conversation. Lassy gets really worked up. It was a fun one.

There are Jewish laws. Then there are moral laws. We are no longer under Jewish law, but the moral laws, such as the ten commandments, are still to be obeyed. So, you're not as smart as you think.

There you go again, talking as if your opinion is authoritative, which is no more so than lassieeconchick's comments.

And there you go, pointing out others faults that you yourself are guilty of.