LGBTQ and the Bible

huh?
did you bother 'read' before putting your keyoard in gear?

Some people are born with both sets of genitals fully functional, its game over for you and your gubmint dictators.

 

Nuero photogarphy however shows that trans-males do

 

Now you are making MY arguments.

if it's not a choice, then all the rights equality apply without the possibility of question or denial by the government.

 

They are different groups of people.

 

Intersex people have masculine or feminine faces.

 

So, how does that impact issues of discrimination by government?

I know this thread is about religion, but when religion wants to use the government to enforce personal religious views, this immediately becomes an issue of what the government is allowed to do.

 

Intersex people arent male and female-they will look male or look female.

 

This makes not sense at all.

There are various sexual characteristics the range from how the human brain works, chemistry of our systems, different aspects of external morphology, internal structures, etc.

Suggesting that one of those dominates the others is just not what happens.

 

You forgot when govmint wants to use religion to enforce their personal agenda on people.

Hows that?

the individuals religious choices are outside the jurisdiction of the gov.

religious choices are outside the jurisdiction of the gov.

 

You can claim that ANY choice you make is based on your "religion", obviously.

So, you have only two fundamental choices.

You can decide that there can be no government, since it can't possibly cater to all the religions.

Or, you can decide that there can be ONE sanctioned interpretation of ONE religion.

And, our founders had experience with that and thus soundly rejected it.

 

You know thats extremist and not true.

You know thats extremist and not true.

Citation? In all the con law I studied I never seen anything close to that, so cite it.

 

here I'll put it this way, what the commies and nazis and atheists fail to understand, is that this country was created to have a religionless gov, not a gov that caters to all religions.

The only way the gov can cater to "all" religions is to stay out of all religious affairs. (Instead they 'meddle' in all religious affairs.

Legitimate positive law (statutes) can only be created that are universally acceptable to all religions.

For instance a few of the big 10. Murder, Rape, Stealing etc, literally 'all' religions can agree this is wrong, no problemo creating a statute for those premises because it violates no ones religion.

Instead they cater to one religion or another stomping on some opposing religion, always violating one religion to favor another.

Politics as it is today is 99.9% religion gone public, not gov as the founders seen it.

Freedom of religion has no representation in america.

 

I'll stop with that, as what you suggest is an obvious absolute impossibility.

Everything humans do from banking to medicine to food to property (including all property, not just real estate and physical property) to discrimination/representation, to law/sin/punishment to taxes/funding, to caring for the needs of the least among us, etc., etc. is covered by various religions in different and conflicting ways.

What you are proposing is that our only choice is a pure anarchy since not one move a government can make could possibly accommodate all religious strictures.

Our founders did NOT look at this problem as do you. And, for VERY good reasons of which they were strongly aware.

 

Hardly, more like you're so programmed to think inside of a tiny little box that you can't think of any other way to do it.

That's not true in fact that's not true at all had you paid attention when I explained the difference between religion and what's not religion you'd know it's quite easy.

There you go back to the extreme, off the deep end! actually that system worked quite well in England until the system became corrupt and the King seen himself as a god, later to incorporate both the church and the secular government into one entity.

but that's not true this country is designed to work off of referendums and when you have a referendum where people actually get to vote on the laws that they are forced to live under then you will get the best fit bell curve that in the long run will stomp on the least people's feet along the way but that's bad for the just us club business model so no need to expect it anytime in your lifetime.

Giving the people the power to govern themselves in actual practice is not anarchy, it's democracy.

 

what you have here is a conglomerate mess both religious and secular all thrown together in one pot in it simply doesn't work that way.

There's a huge distinction between those in the corporation and those outside of the corporation. The government is well within their authority to make laws and statutes for those who are on their payroll in the government.

For the people who are not on the government payroll that is left between the parties to be settled in the courts, each time it doesn't matter how many repeats there are, otherwise the deck is stacked against you.

However the government undermined the intended foundation of this country and what they started doing is statutizing court cases which effectively bridged that gap.

In today's world nobody knows the difference, exactly the way the government likes it because they end up with all the power and you end up with zero.

I have the right to discriminate however if my discrimination endangered someone's life they have the right to sue me.

That is the way law used to be until the cancer set in. It used to be strictly injury and damages and it no longer is that way it's whatever way the wind blows we say so you do it and shut up.

The gay wedding cake there was no injury no damage, the Christians rights were clearly violated. The gays only needed to go to the end of the block to another bakery which was more than happy to serve them. The gays certainly had a legal right to sue for damages which amounted to 10 cents in gas and time to drive a block to the other bakery.

However since our government had to butt in and get into the religion business and tell us who we have to love and who we have to hate oh wait hate doesn't exist anymore that's all changed, today at Strawberry Fields forever and the only motion that's allowed to be expressed is love. Great way to create psychopaths.

Welcome to the desert of the real!
*The Matrix

 

That's not an argument in support of anything you've said.

You aren't promoting religious liberty here.

Your're just saying that at each election time, the majority should get to choose the religion used by the government to rule the people.

Today, we look at it a little differently. Individuals can choose or develop their own religion. But, there are constraints on what they can ask government to do to others.

For example, laws against other people's marriages can't be based solely on your personal religious choices. These OTHER people get to make their choices, regardless of your religion.

 

Of course I am like I said you function in a tiny little cube, I don't.

I'm saying nothing of the sort. I said earlier this country was designed to be run by referendums referendums given to the people to vote on not limited to the government to vote on.

The governments authority is based in commerce that's one of the things the Bill of Rights was intended to distinguish and to make perfectly clear.

individuals always have and always will develop their own religion regardless of government, who's this we that you are talking about our police state?

Read my lips REFERENDUM!

Straw man nobody said anything about or implied anything about that.

yep that's it exactly not my religion not your religion but when it's the government's religion then it's green light all the way!

no one said they can't again straw man I certainly didn't say your imply anything about that.

 

ad hom

No. We are a representative democracy.

You aren't countering anything I've said.

 

false I've countered everything you said you just don't recognize it or refuse to recognize it

not at all proof is in your following post below

you take the extreme position that because we are a representative democracy that the founders passed out crystal balls and the elected are all psychics and can read all our minds

then in addition to that the courts have been made so hard to navigate the average Joe doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell for remedy against the government without Flea Bailey at his side, well unless of course you're Bill Gates or someone drowning in money.

I've already done this dance with the state legislature staff attorneys

 

The Bible does condemn homosexuality. Having said that, most people who focus on that are cherry picking, ignoring things the Bible condemns just as much, or even much more (like being rich!).

 

It would be nice to be able to say, "Who cares? We long ago outgrew the iron aged nonsense in the bible, which was one of our first and worst attempts at philosophy and morality." But we have too many people in this country that retrofit their own bigotry to the iron age fairy tale. So here we are.

 

As for homosexuality, I don't care what people do in private. I disagree that the bible is either nonsense or a fairy tale. The bible included the sermon on the mount, the injunction against theft and adultery, and the admonition to clean up your own backyard.

The author of a fairy tale presumably knows that Cinderellas don't turn into pumpkins or wear glass slippers. It's entertainment. The ancients were struggling to make sense of the world and their place in it. I think they actually believed that there was a primordial cause for the birth of the universe, as they actually believed that there is a difference between good and bad. The Bible just memorialized the insights of the brighter bulbs in their society. Other bright bulbs, including Aquinas, Michelangelo, Augustine, and George LeMaître (no credulous dummy, he) believed it entirely, took it as their inspiration, made great art and founded hospitals and orphanage, and changed the world in other beneficial ways. I don't believe it's perfect, nor can it reasonably be expected to mesh with latter day scientific discoveries (unless taken as instructive myth), but it deserves respect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître

 

Which we now have better versions of, without fairy tales about zombie kings and living in whales. The Bible is a child's toy we have long ago outgrown as a species.

 

I cited some pretty distinguished individuals who viewed it as more than a mere fairy tale. As well they should have. They were pretty accomplished individuals, and they took the Bible, or at least the assumptions memorialized in the Bible, as their foundation. What they built or created has endured. What other fairy tale has been as inspirational?

 

So what? Given that the vast majority of both humans alive today and of humans who have ever lived do and have viewed it as a fairy tale, anyone could produce 5 or 10 distinguished individuals who do view it as a fairy tale for every one you produce who doesn't.