Attack Against Christendom

No, I said what I meant.

Whether or not Jesus would officiate at such a wedding is irrelevant. Jesus tollerated many who clearly sinned by the measure of the laws of the day. Whether he would have himself taken part is a ridiculous question.

The question today has to do with what our legal system should allow - NOT what Jesus himself would do.

And, the message from Jesus on that is that at the VERY least, we must show tollerance.

In fact, in Matthew 25:31 to end, we see that Jesus directs Christians to search hospitals and jails for those who need support and to provide that support. That's not suggesting that Christians behave like those people. It's direction that there is a duty to those people that includes service regarless of transgressions.

In fact, it is a statement that the golden rule is not even SLIGHTLY good enough.

 

go your way and sin no more.

 

And?

You can believe that, too. I'm not objecting to that.

The issue is whether you get to use government to enforcee your religious views on others who do not share your bliefs.

 

The Christian Fascists are all in for replacing American public schools with private Christian schools to teach Free Market ideology and Randian psychopathic egoism plus a dash of self-righteous bigotry. We already seen the investment pay off in Washington D.C.

Speaking of investment in Christian education, what do you need for open a private Christian Academy in Christian America?

• Teachers like Know County, Florida Mr. and Miss John Dollar.
• A school like the Mountain View Christian Academy in Knox County.
• Certification as a teacher.

And you need to following essential educational motivational tools:

1. electric cattle prods
2. pliers
3. vise
4. hammer
5. chains

​

Why pliers? As a disciplinary method by pulling the children’s toenails out as Brother John Dollar did—not the hands in order to hide the injuries. The same with vises and cattle prods. Brother John and Linda would starve and lock children into a closet. The Christian couple had adopted seven children: 14-year-old twin boys, two girls ages 12 and 13, and the 16-year-old. Police reported that “Their adopted 16-year-old son weighed 59 pounds when hospitalized Jan. 21 in Citrus County, which started an investigation, officials said. Twin boys, 14, subsequently were found to weigh 36 and 38 pounds. Two girls, 13 and 12, also were severely undernourished.”


John and Linda Dollar
You can read the detailed story at Couple Charged With Torturing Adopted Children at Christian Academy.

 

The point I was addressing here was only that it was stated that a majority of Americans "call" themselves Christian, but apparently they would tolerate a "union" that Jesus would not officiate. In other words, though they call themselves Christian, they embrace (in the name of tolerance) things Jesus would not.

 

If you want to make this article as a condemnation of all Christians;I'll have this to say.......
As I've stated before anyone can call themselves Christian but just a brief examination of all the things taught by Jesus shows to most that these folks do not follow. If you want to play this game, I will point out the actions of a Jeffry Dahmer, and a John Gacy....two godless homosexuals who did equally hideous things and see how you identify with them. (I do recognize Dahmer claimed a conversion before his death but after his crime)

 

Texas Baptist Rev.Thompson beat a child for 90 mins for talking. The beating caused the 11 yr. old child to have kidney failure. Don't talk during bible study! How is it possible for a Christian minister to beat a 11 year old child for 90 minutes? Brother Thompson turned up the radio to drown out the child's screams during the whipping and beating. I wonder if it was Christian music. Thompson of the "King James Only" church was released on bail but later got a 26 year prison sentence.


Caleb Thompson, left, and Joshua Thompson, 23-year-old twin brothers, are shown before opening statements in their trial Dec. 3 in Austin.
Texas boy beaten in Bible study
July 13, 2002

 

Polls are based on people self identifying.

They don't require answers to a questionaire designed to figure out if their religious beliefs aren't "good enough".

And, as I said before, the issue is not one of whether Jesus would officiate.

You're still trying to find an excuse for turning YOUR religious rules into LAW that others must follow.

You are lobbying for Christian Sharia.

That is precluded by the first amendment.

 

Not really but I would like to promote my Christian values because I think they are pretty good for the culture. You just don't like that. You would like to put me in a box....or a camp.

 

If you want to make this article as a condemnation of all Christians;I'll have this to say.......
As I've stated before anyone can call themselves Christian but just a brief examination of all the things taught by Jesus shows to most that these folks do not follow. If you want to play this game, I will point out the actions of a Jeffry Dahmer, and a John Gacy....two godless homosexuals who did equally hideous things and see how you identify with them. (I do recognize Dahmer claimed a conversion before his death but after his crime)

Last edited: Today at 7:23 AM

 

I'm ok with you promoting your values.

But, there is a serious limit when you want to use the force of law to do so.

We don't make law based on what is sin. For example, there are no laws relating to any of the "7 deadly sns".

 

then whose values do we use to implement the force of law?? Tell me.

 

I thiink it's reasonably laid out in our constitution, plus our long history of interpreting that document.

 

Well, how would you like it if I called my dog a hypocrite!

The “No Irishman Would Do That” logical fallacy parable goes like this--but there are many versions. The police arrest an Irishman for vandalism. The local newspaper announced “An Irishman” was arrested for vandalism! The town Irishman however become very upset and said, “No Irishman would do such a thing.” What Irishman would vandalize property? He obviously was not an “Irishman.”

What is causing the disagreement of fact? The police were making a factual statement, “The arrested man was of Irish heritage.” This is a “factual” statement. In logic it’s called a “synthetic proposition.” All factual statements are synthetic statements: X is (or has the attributes of ) A, B, C, and D qualities like color, shape, and so on. Factual statements can be either true, or false.

However, the Irish citizens were making a different kind of statement than the police blotter. They were saying, “No true Irishman would do such a thing because an Irishman would never vandalize a building.” They were creating a “definition,” or in logical terms, stipulating an “analytical definition” of an Irishman. Analytic statements are true by definition. To deny, for example, the analytical statement “Circles are around,” is to deny a definition, and this is always false--unless you change the definition. You’re not going to get an Irishman to do that without an argument! If an Irishman defines an “Irishman” as someone that would never vandalize a building, and another is claiming a historical fact--you got an unsolvable disagreement. Would you call the numerous historical Catholic Inquisitions "Christian?" Many persons debate a position and are unaware that they are switching from pre-constructed definitions to empirical statements of fact in their arguments and back again depending on what is convenient. In this case, the facts are inconvenient.

 

bigamy comes to mind, whos idea was it to establish those religious laws?

 

A lot of Christians influenced the whole thing!

 

In Denmark-Norway during the 1850's it was illegal for anyone, but a Christian to own a whorehouse. The American South has similar laws.

 

I'm not sure what your question is here.

Are you suggeting that laws against bigamy are religious laws?

 

its not a suggestion its a statement

first off its not laws against bigamy, its laws again polygyny

 

Your post specified bigamy.

And, you used a question mark, which usually indicates a question.

I still don't see what point you're trying to make.

 

any time a law is made that stomps on someones religion it is the establishment of a new religion by force, regardless of agency title or reason unless it is causing injury or damaging someone.

Thats how its been done since the beginning of time thats how its done today, even in the land of the freedom to do what the gubmint gives us permission to do.

Did that clear it up or you?

 

It's obvious you have a disdain for Christians. Maybe write a book about the terrible persecution you have endured at their hands.

 

No.

I'm sure there are laws that overstep. And, not in just one direction.

That gets fixed by addressing the individual cases through the legislatures and the courts.

 

ALL laws are an imposition of somebody's morality. Christians have just as much right to be involved in public policy issues as anyone. It's what ended the slave trade.

 

You said that very well. The left just doesn't like it.