Christian marriage is man and woman/husband and wife.

[99percentatheism]

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

[scourge99]

Your right to believe as you wish is not violated by hiring a non-mormon janitor. There are no laws in the US that restrict what people can or can't believe. Period. It seems you make these types of exaggerations or "slips" frequently when you are passionate about a topic. I don't know if you are just being sloppy or its an intentional exaggeration.

In any place but a Temple...or, (perhaps, though this isn't an issue for us one way or the other) a regular meeting house, you'd be right.

Up to a point.

No. Even in a Temple. As I said before, there are no US or state laws which restrict what people are allowed or not allowed to believe. You have 100% freedom of conscious.

So you can't keep running around claiming that there is legislation that restricts what Mormons are allowed to believe. That would be a lie. You may not be able to ACT as you wish in certain places but you are allowed to believe as you wish.

....and I do 'walk the walk,' having been refused a job as a teacher specifically and only because of my religion. If a "Christian" school doesn't want to hire a Mormon who can't sign their 'statement of faith" (and I can't, not honestly) then it is THEIR RIGHT. They are offering a specific service to a specific set of parents, who want their children taught by people who share their standards and their beliefs. That is ABSOLUTELY their right.

Not quite accurate. I started looking into this matter and i discovered i recent supreme court ruling:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosanna-Tabor_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_and_School_v._Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission

In this decision the judges ruled that churches and church schools could violate the civil rights act sections regarding employment BUT only for employees in ministerial positions (known as the ministerial exception). So if you just teach English and don't have any "substantial ministerial duties" then you may have been able to sue the school that didn't hire you.

I urge you to read the opinion of the court.

I did. You are badly misrepresenting the findings there,
,

You claim i misrepresented the findings but COMPLETELY FAIL to explain how i misrepresented. All you did was paraphrase your interpretation without explaining or citing any misrepresentation on my part.

since the plaintiff was acting in a 'ministerial' position, the folks had an absolute right to fire her for whatever reason.

Correct. But the justices explained quite clearly that the ONLY reason she could be fired in violation of the civil rights act is because she qualified as a minister and thus the ministerial exception applied.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that if she didn't qualify for the ministerial exception then her firing would have been unacceptable.

The court specifically refused to address any claim she might have had as a teacher, or any basis for a lawsuit she might have had for any other reason. This court finding does not address the matter of teachers in a private religious school at all.

Yes, it does. It quite clearly continues the previously established precedent that only employees performing "substantial ministerial duties" can be terminated in violation of the civil rights act.

The justices did refuse to narrowly define who qualifies as a minister and exhaustively list what actions qualify one as a minister. But that is normal because the justices don't want to inadvertently leave loopholes open for people to exploit by being too explicit. This is a problem the lower courts are navigating at the moment:

www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/ ... gnant.html

www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2 ... s-lawsuit/

I sure wouldn't be happy about the government forcing me to send my children there. Would you be?

This country's laws are restricted based on the constitution, not your personal happiness.

They are based upon the constitution, yes: the first amendment of which is rather clear about the importance of freedom of religion; both that the government may not establish one, NOR INTERFERE WITH THE FREE EXERCISE thereof.

Forcing religions to hire people who do not share beliefs in positions that are clearly important TO those beliefs is about as egregious a violation of that amendment that I can think of.

As usual you think the free exercise clause trumps all regardless of whether it conflicts with other constitutional rights. It doesn't and you've been corrected on this several times in other threads and this one yet you continue to repeat your mistakes.

[99percentatheism]

There is no secular or theological challenge to be made that a "Christian marriage" isn't immutably a man and woman/husband and wife. Therefore, it should be a criminal act under current hate crimes laws, to accuse a Christian of hate, bigotry, or irrational . . ., if they assert the immutability of the structure of marriage as man and woman/husband and wife.

As Jesus proclaimed it in the Gospels and the writings reaffirm and define it so.

Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

Being an atheist, I have no claim, and no right, to say what is or isn't 'Christian'. But looking at it from the outside, ISTM that nobody else, not even a Christian, has any right to make such a claim either.
Kayky is a Christian.
99% is a Christian.
Spong is a Christian.
So is Pope Francis.
I'm asking for some clarity here.
Every religion must have some way of agreeing what is universally (within the faith) recognised as sin and what is not.
Jews, Sunni Muslims, Roman Catholics, Unitarian Christians, and everyone in between, has access to the same set of ancient Scriptures, plus some more recent declarations, interpretations, prophesies, philosophical commentaries, and folk stories. It's not like Jewish, Muslim and Christian scholars have never read or debated each other's stuff.
So how 99% (for example) can with such apparent certainty declare Kayky wrong about God's will in a matter that is not universally agreeed within the faith is a genuine puzzle to me. How is it possible to know whether Jesus really said x, or what exactly He would have meant if He did say it?

PS: To interject, with no warrant whatsoever, my own impression here; from my vague and receding memories of what I once thought Christianity was all about, Kayky's compassion seems a lot more in keeping than 99%'s bigotry. But what the bleep do I know?

I realize that you have been conditioned to see and hear anything that is not liberal and progressive, materialist or humanist, as bigotry and hate and whatever little propaganda technique has now been developed to silence opposition to secularism's rise to ultimate totalitarianism, but here is what Peter says about people that live as non-Christians do:

For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry.

They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you. But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.

So it was important to Peter, that Christians not live as the worldly do.

My message is in concert with that.

But be as judgmental as you wish. As Peter says:

However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name. For it is time for judgment to begin with God’s household; and if it begins with us, what will the outcome be for those who do not obey the gospel of God?

And seeing what is happening to Christians that dare to stand against the gay agenda, suffering is indeed on the way.

Of course not to the ones that happily join with it though.

Yes, yes, Jax judge away. But if you are going to use the measurement of "who and what is a Christian" look to the guidebook of the New Testament from start to finish and not to the Human Rights Campaign, the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center or Barack Hussein Obama.

[99percentatheism]

Jax Agnesson
Why would anyone, religious or secularist, NOT support and affirm Christians adhering to the consistent and immutable Biblical teaching that a marriage is a man/husband and woman/wife?

Being an atheist, I have no claim, and no right, to say what is or isn't 'Christian'. But looking at it from the outside, ISTM that nobody else, not even a Christian, has any right to make such a claim either.
Kayky is a Christian.
99% is a Christian.
Spong is a Christian.
So is Pope Francis.

I'm asking for some clarity here.
Every religion must have some way of agreeing what is universally (within the faith) recognised as sin and what is not.

Jews, Sunni Muslims, Roman Catholics, Unitarian Christians, and everyone in between, has access to the same set of ancient Scriptures, plus some more recent declarations, interpretations, prophesies, philosophical commentaries, and folk stories.

It's not like Jewish, Muslim and Christian scholars have never read or debated each other's stuff.


So how 99% (for example) can with such apparent certainty declare Kayky wrong about God's will in a matter that is not universally agreeed within the faith is a genuine puzzle to me. How is it possible to know whether Jesus really said x, or what exactly He would have meant if He did say it?

PS: To interject, with no warrant whatsoever, my own impression here; from my vague and receding memories of what I once thought Christianity was all about, Kayky's compassion seems a lot more in keeping than 99%'s bigotry. But what the bleep do I know?

OK Jax, whose theology lines up more with this:

For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you.

- Peter writing to Christians

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.

- Jude to Christians

I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are in Rome.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.�

- Paul to Roman Christians

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity.

They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
- Paul to Roman Christians

Now do your comparison again please?

[kayky]

Being an atheist, I have no claim, and no right, to say what is or isn't 'Christian'. But looking at it from the outside, ISTM that nobody else, not even a Christian, has any right to make such a claim either.
Kayky is a Christian.
99% is a Christian.
Spong is a Christian.
So is Pope Francis.
I'm asking for some clarity here.
Every religion must have some way of agreeing what is universally (within the faith) recognised as sin and what is not.
Jews, Sunni Muslims, Roman Catholics, Unitarian Christians, and everyone in between, has access to the same set of ancient Scriptures, plus some more recent declarations, interpretations, prophesies, philosophical commentaries, and folk stories. It's not like Jewish, Muslim and Christian scholars have never read or debated each other's stuff.
So how 99% (for example) can with such apparent certainty declare Kayky wrong about God's will in a matter that is not universally agreeed within the faith is a genuine puzzle to me. How is it possible to know whether Jesus really said x, or what exactly He would have meant if He did say it?

PS: To interject, with no warrant whatsoever, my own impression here; from my vague and receding memories of what I once thought Christianity was all about, Kayky's compassion seems a lot more in keeping than 99%'s bigotry. But what the bleep do I know?

Thank you, Jax. Jesus taught only one standard for morality: love.

[dianaiad]

Your right to believe as you wish is not violated by hiring a non-mormon janitor. There are no laws in the US that restrict what people can or can't believe. Period. It seems you make these types of exaggerations or "slips" frequently when you are passionate about a topic. I don't know if you are just being sloppy or its an intentional exaggeration.

In any place but a Temple...or, (perhaps, though this isn't an issue for us one way or the other) a regular meeting house, you'd be right.

Up to a point.

No. Even in a Temple. As I said before, there are no US or state laws which restrict what people are allowed or not allowed to believe. You have 100% freedom of conscious.

So you can't keep running around claiming that there is legislation that restricts what Mormons are allowed to believe. That would be a lie. You may not be able to ACT as you wish in certain places but you are allowed to believe as you wish.

....and I do 'walk the walk,' having been refused a job as a teacher specifically and only because of my religion. If a "Christian" school doesn't want to hire a Mormon who can't sign their 'statement of faith" (and I can't, not honestly) then it is THEIR RIGHT. They are offering a specific service to a specific set of parents, who want their children taught by people who share their standards and their beliefs. That is ABSOLUTELY their right.

Not quite accurate. I started looking into this matter and i discovered i recent supreme court ruling:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosanna-Tabor_Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_and_School_v._Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission

In this decision the judges ruled that churches and church schools could violate the civil rights act sections regarding employment BUT only for employees in ministerial positions (known as the ministerial exception). So if you just teach English and don't have any "substantial ministerial duties" then you may have been able to sue the school that didn't hire you.

I urge you to read the opinion of the court.

I did. You are badly misrepresenting the findings there,
,

You claim i misrepresented the findings but COMPLETELY FAIL to explain how i misrepresented.

Actually, I did.

The court found (let me find the quote from my post here....)

You are badly misrepresenting the findings there, which were that, since the plaintiff was acting in a 'ministerial' position, the folks had an absolute right to fire her for whatever reason. The court specifically refused to address any claim she might have had as a teacher, or any basis for a lawsuit she might have had for any other reason. This court finding does not address the matter of teachers in a private religious school at all.

All you did was paraphrase your interpretation without explaining or citing any misrepresentation on my part.

No, that wasn't 'my interpretation.' that was the court ruling: the court found that because this teacher was a 'minister' and hired to act as one, the church/school had the right to fire her for any reason at all. They UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE CHURCH. The teacher LOST. Hello? Did you get that part? She lost. The court refused to hear any part of the suit that might have addressed a claim she had AS A TEACHER. In other words, you very badly misrepresented the case, both the point and the results.

since the plaintiff was acting in a 'ministerial' position, the folks had an absolute right to fire her for whatever reason.

Correct. But the justices explained quite clearly that the ONLY reason she could be fired in violation of the civil rights act is because she qualified as a minister and thus the ministerial exception applied.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that if she didn't qualify for the ministerial exception then her firing would have been unacceptable.

No, it doesn't take a rocket scientist, but I think it does take someone who is looking for something that is not only not there, but which the court very specifically, and in words, didn't PUT there. What part of 'they would not address' the issue went over your head? As she was both a 'minister' AND a teacher, and she didn't differentiate between the two, the court did; what they found was that since the church COULD fire her as a minister, that freedom of religion was the most important thing. They weren't going to consider any claim she had, one way or another, as a 'teacher' apart from her ministerial duties. The thing about not considering any claim is that they didn't consider any claim. No judgment one way or another. No comment. Nothing for you to assume, 'rocket scientist' or not.

BTW, my father is a rocket scientist. AND 88 years old. He figured out that 'not consider' the position of this woman as a teacher meant that the court wasn't going to comment on the merits of her position as a teacher. Lawyers being rather picky about words and things, one can generally figure that 'no comment' means 'no comment."

The court specifically refused to address any claim she might have had as a teacher, or any basis for a lawsuit she might have had for any other reason. This court finding does not address the matter of teachers in a private religious school at all.

Yes, it does. It quite clearly continues the previously established precedent that only employees performing "substantial ministerial duties" can be terminated in violation of the civil rights act.

The justices did refuse to narrowly define who qualifies as a minister and exhaustively list what actions qualify one as a minister. But that is normal because the justices don't want to inadvertently leave loopholes open for people to exploit by being too explicit. This is a problem the lower courts are navigating at the moment:

www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/ ... gnant.html

www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2 ... s-lawsuit/

I sure wouldn't be happy about the government forcing me to send my children there. Would you be?

This country's laws are restricted based on the constitution, not your personal happiness.

They are based upon the constitution, yes: the first amendment of which is rather clear about the importance of freedom of religion; both that the government may not establish one, NOR INTERFERE WITH THE FREE EXERCISE thereof.

Forcing religions to hire people who do not share beliefs in positions that are clearly important TO those beliefs is about as egregious a violation of that amendment that I can think of.

As usual you think the free exercise clause trumps all regardless of whether it conflicts with other constitutional rights.

There is a reason that the First Amendment IS the First amendment, yes. You, on the other hand, seem to think that the only first amendment rights worth protecting are those with whom you agree. The problem is, the First amendment wasn't written to protect the rights of the people we agree with. It was written to protect the rights of those with whose opinions we disagree, so that, when THEY come into power, they can't shut us up.

That's basically it: If you don't want someone, eventually, to pass a law telling you that you MUST have a Christus statue in your business or your home, or you MUST pray before you eat in your home, or you MUST allow a Vodouin altar to a specific Loa in your restaurant or get sued for discriminating against a group of people because of THEIR beliefs, then I suggest you figure out that it would be a good idea to keep YOUR ideas of what is 'good' out of everybody else's belief systems.

And that includes paying attention to a part of the first amendment that hasn't been emphasized so much; not just freedom of religion and speech, but of ASSOCIATION. Odd, how all those rights come first in the Constitution, and quite frankly, there is no constitutional right to work for someone who doesn't want to hire you.

It doesn't and you've been corrected on this several times in other threads and this one yet you continue to repeat your mistakes.

It doesn't matter how many times you claim that I've 'been corrected.' I'm right on this, you are either badly mistaken or deliberately misrepresenting things...and you are, in this, dead wrong, both in the facts of the court cases and in your position. You might want to consider that, rather than my thinking that freedom of religion, speech and association trump all other rights, that there are no other rights that trump THEM. Because there aren't any.

Without them, no other rights are possible. The last few weeks should illustrate this; what happens when the government runs roughshod over these rights?

You SHOULD be thinking 'nothing good.' I hope you are, anyway.

[KCKID]

OK Jax, whose theology lines up more with this:

For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you. - Peter writing to Christians

*sigh* Here we go again. The above text is probably in reference not only to idolatry but also to the licentious (I used your favorite word, 99percent) practices associated with idolatry. This text not only has NOTHING to do with the thread subject (quite obviously!) but it is undoubtedly referring to PUBLIC pagan practices. As often happens, 99percent just grabs a Bible text and attempts to make it fit the subject matter. It doesn't!

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord. - Jude to Christians

I am obligated both to Greeks and non-Greeks, both to the wise and the foolish. That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are in Rome. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.� - Paul to Roman Christians

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. - Paul to Roman Christians

Now do your comparison again please?

Typical rubbish. What does ANY of the above have to do with the subject matter? Answer: It doesn't! All of those texts have been discussed extensively elsewhere on this very forum. For those interested all they need do is to look them up. No point rehashing them yet again on this particular thread. Again, however, they have NOTHING to do with the subject matter!

[KCKID]

An addendum to the above: 99percent is well aware that the scriptures he presents HAVE been discussed at length elsewhere on this forum and counterarguments to those of his own have also been well presented. With that in mind it needs to be drawn to the reader's attention that 99percent rejects any counter argument based purely (it would seem) on obstinacy alone. This quite obviously indicates that 99percent has his OWN agenda on this subject that has nothing to do with scripture.

[JohnPaul]

An addendum to the above: 99percent is well aware that the scriptures he presents HAVE been discussed at length elsewhere on this forum and counterarguments to those of his own have also been well presented. With that in mind it needs to be drawn to the reader's attention that 99percent rejects any counter argument based purely (it would seem) on obstinacy alone. This quite obviously indicates that 99percent has his OWN agenda on this subject that has nothing to do with scripture.

99percent's agenda is to destroy the credibility of Christianity by presenting it here as filled with nothing but irrational hate. He is being helped in that task by the demon Belial which I invoked upon him in a previous thread.

[Allahakbar]

Is 99 the teachers pet? Even a casual reading of his posts presents an incessant MO of personal attacks, protected species or what.
Besides which is incessant harping on that homosexuality is a sin in the NT is, I would imagine, an attempt to convince people by the sheer fact that he repeats it so often. Unfortunately for him there is nothing in the NT to support this deliberate dishonesty.

[KCKID]

I'd like for 99percentatheism to comment on the below item. The story appeared on Australian 60 Minutes this evening, in fact, it just finished a few minutes ago. As yet, the video has not been uploaded but I'll present it as soon as it is. Meanwhile, below is a summary about Emma and his/her 'affliction' that is known as gender dysphoria.

It's the most exciting day in a parent's life - finding out whether their baby is a boy or a girl. But for some, the answer is not always clear-cut.

Emma Hayes was just five years old when she told her parents that despite being born a boy she wanted to live and dress as a girl.

Diagnosed with gender dysphoria, Emma is among a growing number of children across the country who insist they're trapped in the wrong body.

Now, Emma's parents have agreed to let her live as a girl and have re-enrolled her at the same school as a female.

This Sunday, Emma and her family are sharing their story in the hope they'll create awareness and acceptance.

99percent, this little boy is/was trapped inside a girl's body. What do you, your Bible God, Paul, Jude, et al have to say about this kind of situation? Is this young person 'rebelling against God' for not being the gender he/she was intended to be? Does this kind of thing add any new light light regarding the complexities of human sexuality? What say? After all, you're the mouth-piece for God.

As said, I'll present the link to the 60 Minutes program dealing with this subject as soon as it hits the web.