Not comparable. Objecting to the production and consumption of marijuana is not analogous to objecting to a person’s sexual identity.
Jim Harbaugh
- Thread starter Knight Shift
- Start date
- Status
Not comparable. Objecting to the production and consumption of marijuana is not analogous to objecting to a person’s sexual identity.
It's probably safe to say the Supreme Court weighed in on this subject long ago so you can refer to however they ruled. It's probably more well-thought out than the opinions of bulletin board members.
There is a subset of people that is always comparing gay human beings and their relationships to inanimate objects (ie. allowing gay marriage isn't far from allowing marriage to a chair or a horse).
Rational, non-agenda driven people see the logical difference and lack of comparability as it pertains to this discussion between promoting a product and rejecting a group of people based upon part of their identity outside their control.
This goes for both sides, though, and older people. Nobody listens.
Nah.
If I choose not to wear a BLM shirt, that doesn’t mean I reject black people.
If I choose not to wear a Planned Parenthood shirt, that doesn’t meant I reject women who have abortions.
I believe when you apply for a job you are aware of what the job will entail. If you don't like what you are required to do you have to look for another job. If you don't want to dispense morning after pills you can't be a pharmacist. You don't get to alter the job that needs to be done to suit your desires. If you must show your face you can't do a job in a niqab. Nobody is forcing you to apply for that job or with that employer.
I recall Bill O'Reilly being one of those people. Though I don't remember any instances of someone trying to marry their dog.
If you apply for a job playing Rugby, it’s not reasonable to expect you will be required to wear a rainbow flag
No, strictly speaking, it is possible you can object to those organizations without being racist or misogynist. Doubt you’d pull it off, but it is possible.
In the case of the rainbow designed uniform, though, there isn’t such an organization behind it. It’s just the group of people. So no way to deflect your bigotry.
You know you will wear a uniform provided by your employer or a uniform that conforms to their requirements. If you aren't comfortable with that apply elsewhere. I suppose an applicant can ask beforehand what the uniforms will look like. Also, if it's a yearly thing you can't say you didn't know it would happen.
"Pigs in a blanket, fry'em like bacon"? I think I can object to an organization chanting that, or wearing their insignia, without being a bigot.
Group of people?
Are all gay people required to be represented by the rainbow? No. It’s a choice to buy into the Rainbow ideology.
I have a lesbian friend (oh no, he claims to not be a bigot because he is friends with a lesbian! No. Please try to focus) and she has opted out of rainbow representation.
So I would not be injuring her by refusing to wear a rainbow shirt
Yeah, you could try that justification. Of course, you run the significant risk of being seen as cherry picking the words of a subset to justify your preconceived notion. But you could try, yes.
The rainbow merely refers to an array of people, some of whom are not even sexually active but identify as gay or bisexual or transgendered, etc. It's as diverse a group of people as humanity. BLM or Planned Parenthood have specific agendas and are organizations, not human beings.
No, of course not. I’m sure there are gay people who don’t like rainbows. But that’s not the point. You called out two organizations. BLM and Planned Parenthood. The rainbow is not an organization. It’s a symbol organically chosen to represent a group. Whether a very small minority chooses not to identify with it doesn’t change that fact.
And they could chant "guillotine" after anything I say. I guess that would be THEIR preconceived notion.
I disagree.
I believe one has to opt into the Rainbow representation and group identification. So more akin to planned parenthood and blm. No one is born into the rainbow.
Seems unreasonable to lump all gay people together under one banner, along with lesbians, bisexuals and trans etc.
Why categories for everyone?
Better to treat everyone as individuals.
To say BLM, the organization, chanted that is the same as saying the Catholic church, the organization, raped little children. Are you comfortable saying both things?
Do you object to priests wearing their robes and insignia too?
then there might be none.
People have made gods of just about everything and everything because of a need to believe in something.
Some things I found googling and check the last one!!!!
>Zoroastrianism is an ancient Persian religion that may have originated as early as 4,000 years ago.
Some scholars say that tenets of Zoroastrianism helped to shape the major religions—including Jewish , Christian and Islam
Zoroastrian concepts, including the idea of a single god, heaven, hell and a day of judgment, may have been first introduced to the Jewish community of Babylon , where people from the Kingdom of Judea had been living in captivity for decades.
When the Persia King Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 B.C., he liberated the Babylonian Jews. Many went to Jerusalem where their descendants helped to create the Hebrew Bible.<
In which some, like me feel that the 10 Commandments came from Babylon's Hammurabi's Code and not part of a burning bush scene
Then there was the Cathars >(The Cathars were a religious group who appeared in Europe in the eleventh century)who believed there were two gods: the evil God of Creation spoken of in the Old Testament, and the good God of the New Testament. Essentially, the Cathars believed that the Yahweh of the Old Testament was really Satan, who had created every single physical thing in the world, including people. They believed that humans were essentially genderless, angelic spirits trapped within a body made by the Devil, and that only knowledge of the truth could relieve the angelic spirit of its constant reincarnation into evil flesh.
Catholic theologians have debated with themselves for centuries whether Cathars were Christian heretics or whether they were not Christians at all. The question is apparently still open. Roman Catholics still refer to Cathar belief as "the Great Heresy" though the official Catholic position is that Catharism is not Christian at all.
By 1209, the Catholic Church had mercilessly wiped this entire group of "heretics" off the face of the Earth. Only the Black Death killed more Europeans than the Catholics during this genocidal purge. Today, we remember the Cathars on one specific date, the day on which the last Cathar fortress fell. The Church burned over 200 Cathars alive at the foot of that castle. Cathars called this day "The Massacre of Montsegur" - today we simply know it as Friday the 13th.
At the end of the extermination of the Cathars, the Roman Church had proof that a sustained campaign of genocide can work. It also had the precedent of an internal Crusade within Christendom, and the machinery of the first modern police state that could be reconstructed for the Spanish Inquisition, and again for later Inquisitions and genocides<
>
Fans of the Old Testament know all about Baal and the Canaanites, but what fewer people know is that "Baal" wasn't a single god. It was just a title, meaning "Lord" or "God." There were many Baals worshipped in this area, the highest of whom was called El. As in "El Elohim," "Yahweh," or "the exact same god of the Old Testament."
The Old Testament also mentions other gods. Example: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." See, originally, the Hebrew god El was a Canaanite Baal - the father of all other gods, like Asherah (also mentioned in the Old Testament), Astarte, Dagon, and many others. Think of El as equivalent to Zeus, Apollo, or Odin; not a singular god, but an all-powerful father to the others.
When the ancient Hebrews came through, they were flying the banner of the "god of all gods." Effectively, the Hebrews just cut out the middlemen and decided to worship the Baal El directly. Likely under the assumption that whatever Dad says goes among his kids, too.
This means two things. First: Baal worship is still alive and well in every church, synagogue, and mosque on Earth. Second: Judaism was not purely monotheistic. It was simply a version of pantheist Baal worship that places emphasis directly on the most powerful god. If that's your measure of "monotheism," then any temple devoted to Zeus, Apollo, or Odin could say the same. <
>This dead religion is incredibly interesting mostly because it isn't exactly "dead." It just became Christianity. Mithras was a very popular god worshipped by Romans during the 1st to 4th Century BC, during the initial formation of Christianity. Mithras was a demi-god who was born of a virgin on December 25th. He was a great teacher who traveled the land spreading wisdom, had 12 disciples, and was identified with both the lion and the lamb. Romans called him "Good Shepherd," "Redeemer," "Savior," and "the Way, the Truth and the Light." All of which you may recognize from the New Testament - most of which was written well after worship of Mithras had already begun.
Mithras was even buried in a tomb, and resurrected after three days. The Romans celebrated his resurrection on the feast day of the female goddess of fertility. Depending on the specific region, that would be Aphrodite, Ishtar, or Astarte, from which we get the word "Easter." Sounds like a pretty solid case that Jesus was really Mithras, right?
Maybe - or maybe not. Because Mithras himself was based entirely on the Egyptian demi-god Horus. Every single thing said here applies as much to Horus as Mithras and Jesus. In addition, Horus was born under an Eastern star, was attended by three wise men, walked on water, healed the sick, was baptized at 20 years old by "Anup the Baptizer," and was later represented by the ichthys fish symbol adopted by Christians.
Care to guess Horus's birthday? Here's a hint: You celebrate it every year... on Christmas. <
I don't object to their wearing their robes and insignas. My objection is to an expectation/requirement that I wear them.
And you still are questioning the Word of Jesus Christ? There have been hundreds of religions recorded in books. What you and others fail to understand is we all know this if you are a Christian or Jew. Would suspect most who ridicule and deny probably had family who practiced a particular faith. That said , the country we live in was founded within the laws of the God of Abraham and that is Christian -Judeo .then there might be none.
People have made gods of just about everything and everything because of a need to believe in something.
Some things I found googling and check the last one!!!!
>Zoroastrianism is an ancient Persian religion that may have originated as early as 4,000 years ago.
Some scholars say that tenets of Zoroastrianism helped to shape the major religions—including Jewish , Christian and Islam
Zoroastrian concepts, including the idea of a single god, heaven, hell and a day of judgment, may have been first introduced to the Jewish community of Babylon , where people from the Kingdom of Judea had been living in captivity for decades.
When the Persia King Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 B.C., he liberated the Babylonian Jews. Many went to Jerusalem where their descendants helped to create the Hebrew Bible.<
In which some, like me feel that the 10 Commandments came from Babylon's Hammurabi's Code and not part of a burning bush scene
Then there was the Cathars >(The Cathars were a religious group who appeared in Europe in the eleventh century)who believed there were two gods: the evil God of Creation spoken of in the Old Testament, and the good God of the New Testament. Essentially, the Cathars believed that the Yahweh of the Old Testament was really Satan, who had created every single physical thing in the world, including people. They believed that humans were essentially genderless, angelic spirits trapped within a body made by the Devil, and that only knowledge of the truth could relieve the angelic spirit of its constant reincarnation into evil flesh.
Catholic theologians have debated with themselves for centuries whether Cathars were Christian heretics or whether they were not Christians at all. The question is apparently still open. Roman Catholics still refer to Cathar belief as "the Great Heresy" though the official Catholic position is that Catharism is not Christian at all.
By 1209, the Catholic Church had mercilessly wiped this entire group of "heretics" off the face of the Earth. Only the Black Death killed more Europeans than the Catholics during this genocidal purge. Today, we remember the Cathars on one specific date, the day on which the last Cathar fortress fell. The Church burned over 200 Cathars alive at the foot of that castle. Cathars called this day "The Massacre of Montsegur" - today we simply know it as Friday the 13th.
At the end of the extermination of the Cathars, the Roman Church had proof that a sustained campaign of genocide can work. It also had the precedent of an internal Crusade within Christendom, and the machinery of the first modern police state that could be reconstructed for the Spanish Inquisition, and again for later Inquisitions and genocides<
>
Fans of the Old Testament know all about Baal and the Canaanites, but what fewer people know is that "Baal" wasn't a single god. It was just a title, meaning "Lord" or "God." There were many Baals worshipped in this area, the highest of whom was called El. As in "El Elohim," "Yahweh," or "the exact same god of the Old Testament."
The Old Testament also mentions other gods. Example: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." See, originally, the Hebrew god El was a Canaanite Baal - the father of all other gods, like Asherah (also mentioned in the Old Testament), Astarte, Dagon, and many others. Think of El as equivalent to Zeus, Apollo, or Odin; not a singular god, but an all-powerful father to the others.
When the ancient Hebrews came through, they were flying the banner of the "god of all gods." Effectively, the Hebrews just cut out the middlemen and decided to worship the Baal El directly. Likely under the assumption that whatever Dad says goes among his kids, too.
This means two things. First: Baal worship is still alive and well in every church, synagogue, and mosque on Earth. Second: Judaism was not purely monotheistic. It was simply a version of pantheist Baal worship that places emphasis directly on the most powerful god. If that's your measure of "monotheism," then any temple devoted to Zeus, Apollo, or Odin could say the same. <
>This dead religion is incredibly interesting mostly because it isn't exactly "dead." It just became Christianity. Mithras was a very popular god worshipped by Romans during the 1st to 4th Century BC, during the initial formation of Christianity. Mithras was a demi-god who was born of a virgin on December 25th. He was a great teacher who traveled the land spreading wisdom, had 12 disciples, and was identified with both the lion and the lamb. Romans called him "Good Shepherd," "Redeemer," "Savior," and "the Way, the Truth and the Light." All of which you may recognize from the New Testament - most of which was written well after worship of Mithras had already begun.
Mithras was even buried in a tomb, and resurrected after three days. The Romans celebrated his resurrection on the feast day of the female goddess of fertility. Depending on the specific region, that would be Aphrodite, Ishtar, or Astarte, from which we get the word "Easter." Sounds like a pretty solid case that Jesus was really Mithras, right?
Maybe - or maybe not. Because Mithras himself was based entirely on the Egyptian demi-god Horus. Every single thing said here applies as much to Horus as Mithras and Jesus. In addition, Horus was born under an Eastern star, was attended by three wise men, walked on water, healed the sick, was baptized at 20 years old by "Anup the Baptizer," and was later represented by the ichthys fish symbol adopted by Christians.
Care to guess Horus's birthday? Here's a hint: You celebrate it every year... on Christmas. <
Even the sources you cite contradict each other.then there might be none.
People have made gods of just about everything and everything because of a need to believe in something.
Some things I found googling and check the last one!!!!
>Zoroastrianism is an ancient Persian religion that may have originated as early as 4,000 years ago.
Some scholars say that tenets of Zoroastrianism helped to shape the major religions—including Jewish , Christian and Islam
Zoroastrian concepts, including the idea of a single god, heaven, hell and a day of judgment, may have been first introduced to the Jewish community of Babylon , where people from the Kingdom of Judea had been living in captivity for decades.
When the Persia King Cyrus conquered Babylon in 539 B.C., he liberated the Babylonian Jews. Many went to Jerusalem where their descendants helped to create the Hebrew Bible.<
In which some, like me feel that the 10 Commandments came from Babylon's Hammurabi's Code and not part of a burning bush scene
Then there was the Cathars >(The Cathars were a religious group who appeared in Europe in the eleventh century)who believed there were two gods: the evil God of Creation spoken of in the Old Testament, and the good God of the New Testament. Essentially, the Cathars believed that the Yahweh of the Old Testament was really Satan, who had created every single physical thing in the world, including people. They believed that humans were essentially genderless, angelic spirits trapped within a body made by the Devil, and that only knowledge of the truth could relieve the angelic spirit of its constant reincarnation into evil flesh.
Catholic theologians have debated with themselves for centuries whether Cathars were Christian heretics or whether they were not Christians at all. The question is apparently still open. Roman Catholics still refer to Cathar belief as "the Great Heresy" though the official Catholic position is that Catharism is not Christian at all.
By 1209, the Catholic Church had mercilessly wiped this entire group of "heretics" off the face of the Earth. Only the Black Death killed more Europeans than the Catholics during this genocidal purge. Today, we remember the Cathars on one specific date, the day on which the last Cathar fortress fell. The Church burned over 200 Cathars alive at the foot of that castle. Cathars called this day "The Massacre of Montsegur" - today we simply know it as Friday the 13th.
At the end of the extermination of the Cathars, the Roman Church had proof that a sustained campaign of genocide can work. It also had the precedent of an internal Crusade within Christendom, and the machinery of the first modern police state that could be reconstructed for the Spanish Inquisition, and again for later Inquisitions and genocides<
>
Fans of the Old Testament know all about Baal and the Canaanites, but what fewer people know is that "Baal" wasn't a single god. It was just a title, meaning "Lord" or "God." There were many Baals worshipped in this area, the highest of whom was called El. As in "El Elohim," "Yahweh," or "the exact same god of the Old Testament."
The Old Testament also mentions other gods. Example: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." See, originally, the Hebrew god El was a Canaanite Baal - the father of all other gods, like Asherah (also mentioned in the Old Testament), Astarte, Dagon, and many others. Think of El as equivalent to Zeus, Apollo, or Odin; not a singular god, but an all-powerful father to the others.
When the ancient Hebrews came through, they were flying the banner of the "god of all gods." Effectively, the Hebrews just cut out the middlemen and decided to worship the Baal El directly. Likely under the assumption that whatever Dad says goes among his kids, too.
This means two things. First: Baal worship is still alive and well in every church, synagogue, and mosque on Earth. Second: Judaism was not purely monotheistic. It was simply a version of pantheist Baal worship that places emphasis directly on the most powerful god. If that's your measure of "monotheism," then any temple devoted to Zeus, Apollo, or Odin could say the same. <
>This dead religion is incredibly interesting mostly because it isn't exactly "dead." It just became Christianity. Mithras was a very popular god worshipped by Romans during the 1st to 4th Century BC, during the initial formation of Christianity. Mithras was a demi-god who was born of a virgin on December 25th. He was a great teacher who traveled the land spreading wisdom, had 12 disciples, and was identified with both the lion and the lamb. Romans called him "Good Shepherd," "Redeemer," "Savior," and "the Way, the Truth and the Light." All of which you may recognize from the New Testament - most of which was written well after worship of Mithras had already begun.
Mithras was even buried in a tomb, and resurrected after three days. The Romans celebrated his resurrection on the feast day of the female goddess of fertility. Depending on the specific region, that would be Aphrodite, Ishtar, or Astarte, from which we get the word "Easter." Sounds like a pretty solid case that Jesus was really Mithras, right?
Maybe - or maybe not. Because Mithras himself was based entirely on the Egyptian demi-god Horus. Every single thing said here applies as much to Horus as Mithras and Jesus. In addition, Horus was born under an Eastern star, was attended by three wise men, walked on water, healed the sick, was baptized at 20 years old by "Anup the Baptizer," and was later represented by the ichthys fish symbol adopted by Christians.
Care to guess Horus's birthday? Here's a hint: You celebrate it every year... on Christmas. <
Dig a little deeper next time.
No Bob that is where you are wrong no matter how many quotes you cite. This country was founded to allow people to worship whatever religion or god they choose without fear of persecution by others or by the government. This is a secular country.
Last edited:
If we allow that, next think you know mildone will be marrying his sheep.
“And for an entire year they met with the church and taught considerable numbers of people; and the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.”
Acts 11:26
it is estimated that 50% of pregnancies are lost due to miscarriage. How will it be definitely shown that the pregnancy was lost due to nature and not intervention? Is the woman guilty if she can’t prove there was an actual medical problem? And please don’t tell me that the medical professionals can figure this out because that is 100% not true
50%
50%
And yet you are part of a group which find it OK to ridicules those who do believe in a Deity because it OFFENDS them. It was the same in the 50’s -70’s. This is no longer a secular country but we’ll save that for another day.
The followers of Jesus Christ became to be known as Christians . Later on Catholicism evolved from those followers who sheltered in the catacombs dug during the time of the Roman Empire. Hiding from persecution is still common and it usually has involved those who have religious beliefs. It is going in that direction once again.
Where have I ridiculed your right to practice your religion? I have no problem with you or anyone doing so. You and anyone else are free to practice and worship to whatever deity you want. That freedom is in part what this country was founded on. But keep it out of the government (and I don’t mean you personally) because that’s also what it was founded in. It’s the right wing evangelical Christians who claim that religion (their religion) should be guiding the government who are the problem here. Sorry but that sentiment is BS. Their Christofacism is a threat to democracy.
Last edited:
will the marriage be with a lamb of god ????????
Googling found this:
In Christianity, the lamb represents Christ as both suffering and triumphant; it is typically a sacrificial animal, and may also symbolize gentleness, innocence, and purity.
Sheep are the followers of Christ, while goats chose not to follow Christ. The parable is based on the differences in behavior between sheep and goats. Sheep are gentle, quiet, innocent animals. They do not give their shepherds a lot of problems.
The Bible tells us, “for we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ….” (2 Corinthians 5:10). You and I and every other person will be either on the right or left hand of Jesus. Those on the right hand, represented as sheep, are the saved. Those on the left hand, represented as goats, pictures the lost.
No worries. They will just wrap chains around the former mothers and toss them in a lake. If they float, they’ll know the miscarriage was unnatural in some way and they can burn them at the stake.
Sheep never say no. What else could there possibly be to argue?
- Status