You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Would Jesus Condemn Neo-Nazis ?
- Thread starter kandlekid
- Start date
what are you talking about?
you were the one calling people who did no support your theory evil.
So I stated is it not evil to desire to maintain the definition of marriage but at the same time be fine if gays were granted an equivalent status under our laws?
Instead of addressing the argument you have gone off on some crazy tangents.
I think you still have not addressed the point I raised.
2. You stated... "Just don't try to legislate to dictate based on "morals" based on your interpretation of that belief. Not saying you do, but that behavior is why so many of us see Christians as evil."
Your statement is not defensible. You obviously realize that your argument was indefensible so you have attempted to change the argument to arguments about specific religious edicts. That is sophistry. No one is arguing there are some religious edicts that could not be legislated.
As an American we have every right to inform our morality how we wish.
An atheist has no less or more of a right to inform his morality with his or her world view than a Jew or a Christian. You know that if you understood the constitution and our history.
If a legislator voted to not force an employer to provide for late term abortions because his religion tells him abortion is murder... who are you to tell him he or she can't vote that way.
If a voter on a referendum were to say that marriage should be restricted to two people because among other things that is what their belief in God causes them to think... who the hell are you to say the way your was formed is ok but they can't vote theirs? What about the person who says they voted against or chose not to legislate for capital punishment because they believe God or budda would not support capital punishment.
you were the one calling people who did no support your theory evil.
So I stated is it not evil to desire to maintain the definition of marriage but at the same time be fine if gays were granted an equivalent status under our laws?
Instead of addressing the argument you have gone off on some crazy tangents.
I think you still have not addressed the point I raised.
2. You stated... "Just don't try to legislate to dictate based on "morals" based on your interpretation of that belief. Not saying you do, but that behavior is why so many of us see Christians as evil."
Your statement is not defensible. You obviously realize that your argument was indefensible so you have attempted to change the argument to arguments about specific religious edicts. That is sophistry. No one is arguing there are some religious edicts that could not be legislated.
As an American we have every right to inform our morality how we wish.
An atheist has no less or more of a right to inform his morality with his or her world view than a Jew or a Christian. You know that if you understood the constitution and our history.
If a legislator voted to not force an employer to provide for late term abortions because his religion tells him abortion is murder... who are you to tell him he or she can't vote that way.
If a voter on a referendum were to say that marriage should be restricted to two people because among other things that is what their belief in God causes them to think... who the hell are you to say the way your was formed is ok but they can't vote theirs? What about the person who says they voted against or chose not to legislate for capital punishment because they believe God or budda would not support capital punishment.
First off I'm glad to see you abandon the "sophistry" of your argument that discriminating against an entire class of people over the definition of the word "marriage" is at all justifiable. Good to see you've grown just a little.
Speaking of words, let's talk about what seems to be your favorite word, sophistry. I can only assume it doesn't mean what you think it means by the way you use it. The actual definition is Sophistry-The use of fallacious arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving. Sophistry is purposely conflating "voting" with "legislating", another unproductive line of reasoning I see you've wisely abandoned. Sophistry is claiming that discriminating against gay people isn't bad or harmful, it's just your intense love for this one English word, "marriage", and your definition of it, that drives you to deny rights to a whole group of people. See how I use the word sophistry, then show how you are engaging in "fallacious arguments with the intention of deceiving"? See how your arguments were indeed fallacious and intended to deceive? Obviously you do since you've abandoned them and shifted to other arguments, which sadly are also fallacious.
So again, if you have even a cursory understanding of U.S. con law you understand that no law that restricts the rights of Americans to do something based solely on a religious edict is constitutional. In fact yes, we've decided that if the only justification you have for restricting someone's rights are your beliefs based on what an imaginary person wrote in a book, you don't get to do that. In many cases there are secular justifications for religious moral values so we end up with a law that is consistent with a religious value but not derived from it. Is the only reason you don't murder and rape because of your religious based morals? Of course not, that would make you and all other religious people sociopaths! So you implicitly agree there is a secular moral reason that backs the laws against murder and rape. There is no secular value that backs discriminating against someone who is gay, that's just your interpretation (and I'd argue a faulty one at that, WWJD?) based on your religion, which is what makes is impermissible to legislate on, as confirmed by SCOTUS. You brought up blue laws, which are actually a great example of my point. Read McGowan v. Maryland, which determined that blue laws were permissible to the extent that they were based "in terms of their secular benefit to workers", not religious belief. Just like murder, they determined that although there is a religious prohibition that would lead you to a blue law, there is a secular reason as well therefore it is permissible.
I have no idea why you brought up sodemy laws as anyone with even a passing familiarity with con law knows Lawrence v. Texas which ruled those laws were unconstitutional, precisely because they were based solely on religious belief. As a side note to that, anyone who thinks restricting how I can have sex with my wife in the privacy of my bedroom based on their religious beliefs is permissible is absolutely a sanctimonious prick!
And once again I return to the title of this thread. The Jesus in your book acted in anger the way fundamentalist christians act only twice in my reading of the new testament. Once against the money changers in the temple and the still inexplicable to me rage against the fig tree. He did spend a lot of time talking about pharisees and their parsing of words. We're here on a finance forum and you're parsing words about "marriage".......
Last edited:
I outlined the basis of modern con law in the U.S. supported by the applicable cases that define that law which directly contradicted each of your assertions. I added a tour of your Bible which also directly contradicted your assertions because apparently you're unfamiliar with it, but that was just a bonus for you. If that's a "crazy tangent" to you then we're living in different universes. Hint: mines not make believe!what are you talking about?
you were the one calling people who did no support your theory evil.
So I stated is it not evil to desire to maintain the definition of marriage but at the same time be fine if gays were granted an equivalent status under our laws?
Instead of addressing the argument you have gone off on some crazy tangents.
I think you still have not addressed the point I raised. You just went off on tangents.
2. You stated... "Just don't try to legislate to dictate based on "morals" based on your interpretation of that belief. Not saying you do, but that behavior is why so many of us see Christians as evil."
Your statement is a crazy statement. It is not defensible so you have attempted to change the statement to an argument about specific religious edicts.
As an American we have every right to inform our morality how we wish.
An atheist has no less right to inform his morality with the world view an atheist may favor. A jew or or a christian has every right to do the same. And then they may vote either as a legislator as an elected official or as an individual voter on a referendum or a measure.
but.. since I know you already know all that...
lets take to the next level...
May a Muslim in Congress inform their morality with their beliefs before they vote on legislation?
What if they believe in Sharia law?
1. constitutionally speaking you have not supported your statement.
You never addressed why a religious person who wanted to vote or legislate against capital punish would not be allowed to vote their conscience if it were informed by their understanding of what God would wish. Yet an atheist could. You whole argument is convoluted stawman crap.
to remind you ... this is what you wrote and it is what I objected to.
"Just don't try to legislate to dictate based on "morals" based on your interpretation of that belief. Not saying you do, but that behavior is why so many of us see Christians as evil.
2 Again you are bullshitting your ass off.
You could not have corrected my assertions with a "tour of my bible" or whatever your specious argument means... because I never argued gay marriage was morally wrong. Nor did I argue polygamy was morally wrong.
you need to stop bullshitting and come to grip with the fact that were dead ass wrong.
its so funny that you are accusing others of being sanctimonious.
you make up arguments
you assume that you know what I believe about the bible
and you are dead ass wrong the whole time.
Grow up.
learn...some people like gays and realize they have every right to be equal. I just preferred they have an equivalent social contract or say gayiage without having to change the definition of marriage. To say that position is evil... or even phobic is fucking immature, irrational, intolerant and stupid.
Secondly, in America you have a right to inform you conscience and you morality however you wish with religions or with nothing... and we all have a right to vote for laws based on that morality provided the law is constitutional.
So in short you have been dead ass wrong on the 2 main issues.
You never addressed why a religious person who wanted to vote or legislate against capital punish would not be allowed to vote their conscience if it were informed by their understanding of what God would wish. Yet an atheist could. You whole argument is convoluted stawman crap.
to remind you ... this is what you wrote and it is what I objected to.
"Just don't try to legislate to dictate based on "morals" based on your interpretation of that belief. Not saying you do, but that behavior is why so many of us see Christians as evil.
2 Again you are bullshitting your ass off.
You could not have corrected my assertions with a "tour of my bible" or whatever your specious argument means... because I never argued gay marriage was morally wrong. Nor did I argue polygamy was morally wrong.
you need to stop bullshitting and come to grip with the fact that were dead ass wrong.
its so funny that you are accusing others of being sanctimonious.
you make up arguments
you assume that you know what I believe about the bible
and you are dead ass wrong the whole time.
Grow up.
learn...some people like gays and realize they have every right to be equal. I just preferred they have an equivalent social contract or say gayiage without having to change the definition of marriage. To say that position is evil... or even phobic is fucking immature, irrational, intolerant and stupid.
Secondly, in America you have a right to inform you conscience and you morality however you wish with religions or with nothing... and we all have a right to vote for laws based on that morality provided the law is constitutional.
So in short you have been dead ass wrong on the 2 main issues.
I outlined the basis of modern con law in the U.S. supported by the applicable cases that define that law which directly contradicted each of your assertions. I added a tour of your Bible which also directly contradicted your assertions because apparently you're unfamiliar with it, but that was just a bonus for you. If that's a "crazy tangent" to you then we're living in different universes. Hint: mines not make believe!
Again, very much the way Jesus would respond. I'm sure he's very proud of you.To say that position is evil... or even phobic is fucking immature, irrational, intolerant and stupid.
Really, you need to repeat after me. Voting isn't the same as legislating a legal law the United State! I've expressed this to you no fewer than 4 times, and you keep returning to rebutting an argument I've never made about voting your conscious followed by a hodge podge stream of consciousness. I think you're intelligent, so the fact that you continue to purposely conflate those two things makes it clear that you're being obtuse, or as you would say engaging in sophistry. So how about this. Read the 3 cases I listed. Throw in Brown vs. Board of Education to understand how discrimination justified by "separate but equal" turns out. Maybe take a con law class if they aren't clear, although that's not really necessary if you just take the time to read them, which you clearly have not. Then we can have a rational discussion about what makes a law permissible in the United States. Until then, a rational conversation isn't possible.
While you're at it, you might read the bible a couple times if that's your imaginary book of choice, because you're doing a pretty poor job of acting like that Jesus dude told you to act. People like you were the shove that got me to start critically thinking about my religion, at which point I affirmatively rejected it and most of it's fundamentalist adherents, of which I was once one. Think about that, your actions are driving people away from the christ you believe in, mainly because you're doing such a poor job of acting like he told you to act. This is by no means an attack on any religion, there are plenty of spectacular Christians who I love dearly and who unquestionably make the world a better place. They don't act anything like you're acting or believe what you or the fundamentalists seem to believe. Shockingly they actually act like Jesus to the best of their ability. Something you might try?
Last edited:
If Jesus were alive to even understand what "neo-nazis" are and what they are about, he'd be smoking a bowl of serious hydro and chillaxin' on
...and
He'd be like, "WTF dude, just calm down. All this silliness. My message was about being peaceful, not warful."
And then he would poof in a cloud of illogic, because he never actually existed. Any one single good writer can come up with a nonsensical piece of prose about "peace on earth" and "goodwill to all". Is everyone that gullible that they actually have hope that life is anything more than the present moment, which is the "now"?
There is no past, there is no future. "Now" is all we will ever have, forever. Chew on that. You ain't gonna' fly up to a perceived heaven. You ain't going to a perceived hell. You're just gonna' stop existing when you die, the same way you never existed until you were born. This is it man.
Actually, His message was not really about being "peaceful". it was about redemption. Really, anyone who wanted to be redeemed, had the opportunity. Unfortunately, many did not take it. But many others did.
Again, very much the way Jesus would respond. I'm sure he's very proud of you.
Really, you need to repeat after me. Voting isn't the same as legislating a legal law the United State! I've expressed this to you no fewer than 4 times, and you keep returning to rebutting an argument I've never made about voting your conscious followed by a hodge podge stream of consciousness. I think you're intelligent, so the fact that you continue to purposely conflate those two things makes it clear that you're being obtuse, or as you would say engaging in sophistry. So how about this. Read the 3 cases I listed. Throw in Brown vs. Board of Education to understand how discrimination justified by "separate but equal" turns out. Maybe take a con law class if they aren't clear, although that's not really necessary if you just take the time to read them, which you clearly have not. Then we can have a rational discussion about what makes a law permissible in the United States. Until then, a rational conversation isn't possible.
While you're at it, you might read the bible a couple times if that's your imaginary book of choice, because you're doing a pretty poor job of acting like that Jesus dude told you to act. People like you were the shove that got me to start critically thinking about my religion, at which point I affirmatively rejected it and most of it's fundamentalist adherents, of which I was once one. Think about that, your actions are driving people away from the christ you believe in, mainly because you're doing such a poor job of acting like he told you to act. This is by no means an attack on any religion, there are plenty of spectacular Christians who I love dearly and who unquestionably make the world a better place. They don't act anything like you're acting or believe what you or the fundamentalists seem to believe. Shockingly they actually act like Jesus to the best of their ability. Something you might try?
Well, maybe we have to ask, where does good law come from ? Perhaps it is arbitrary. But I think not. Humans were implanted (or perhaps taught) what is right and wrong. We as humans do not (normally) adhere to the law of the jungle. We care for the sick and needy. We are unlike any other species. It is not a "Christian" thing. It is a human thing. I believe that Christ is the culmination of this, but all humans are "made in the image of G-d", and therefore behave unlike any other species.
but all humans are "made in the image of G-d"
If that were true, why aren't humans invisible.
But It's the other way around. God is "made in the image of humans" in the imagination of humans, by humans.
God is thereby made imaginary and in extreme reverence and superstition of their imaginary image, some humans dare not even write its name properly.