AlexC wrote: So your belief is based on a book written 30 years after Jesus' death because you were brainwashed from a young age that this is true.
Quote:
Yvonne wrote: It is in the bible, Jesus was asked about divorce, he explained Moses allowed this but it is not God's plan, look up. (Matt. 19:3?8; cf. Mark 10:2?9; Luke 16:18) and Gensis 2:21.
Christians loves the Bible because it allows them to turn their brain off. Instead of using critical thinking skills, they say "The Bible said so".
Yvonne, as a former Catholic seminarian, I could tell you that the scriptures were not written in English. They were written in ancient languages, Greek and or Hebrew and then converted several times over, before they were published. If you were to compare the language of even some Bibles written in English you would see differences in the use of tenses and genders. If you then compared them to the Bible Greek publications you would find even more discrepancies.
That aside, seminarians and scripture scholars study a course called hermeneutics, which helps in the meaning of particular language of the Bible, as opposed to someone attempting to take specific language literally and out of context. Part of the understanding, is to learn about the community of the people who authored the text, the time and surrounding events.
I don't know the interpretation of that particular quote you've posted. But you have to be particularly careful about quoting any of the gospels. Be mindful that John's Gospel was written 100 years after the death of Christ. It is therefore, readily apparent that the author of John's Gospel was certainly not John the disciple, but wrote from other sources which he chose to interpret. There remain scholarly debates about what communities John's Gospel and the synoptic gospels were derived, albiet it's commonly agreed that the synoptics came from Jewish communities it's not agreed that gospel according to John, necessarily came from a Jewish community.
But to take a snippet from scripture and use it exclusively to establish your belief on a particular point is not advisable by any regarded scripture scholar. Quote:
Yvonne wrote: What did Jesus say? A man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and the two will be one flesh...this is the father's intent. So why would Jesus say this, Sutherland?
So your belief is based on a book written 30 years after Jesus' death because you were brainwashed from a young age that this is true.
Quote:
Yvonne wrote: It is in the bible, Jesus was asked about divorce, he explained Moses allowed this but it is not God's plan, look up. (Matt. 19:3?8; cf. Mark 10:2?9; Luke 16:18) and Gensis 2:21.
Yvonne wrote: It is in the bible, Jesus was asked about divorce, he explained Moses allowed this but it is not God's plan, look up. (Matt. 19:3?8; cf. Mark 10:2?9; Luke 16:18) and Genesis 2:21.
You left out Matthew 19:10-12. Jesus was debating divorce with the Pharisees, quoting Genesis, then qualifying it.
And you left out the single sentence in the gospel that nails equality. Mark 12:31 and Matthew 22:39: ?...You shall love your neighbor as yourself'. That's the core principle in the US constitution - that's helped the US navigate the challenges of slavery, suffrage, racism, bigotry and more recently LGBT rights.
It is in the bible, Jesus was asked about divorce, he explained Moses allowed this but it is not God's plan, look up. (Matt. 19:3?8; cf. Mark 10:2?9; Luke 16:18) and Gensis 2:21.
Yvonne wrote: What did Jesus say? A man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and the two will be one flesh...this is the father's intent. So why would Jesus say this, Sutherland?
What did Jesus say? A man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and the two will be one flesh...this is the father's intent. So why would Jesus say this, Sutherland?
Yvonne, and you fail to mention that the author of John's Gospel was written by "the One That Christ Loved". You also fail to recognize that the vast majority of priests are homosexual men, who typically break their own vow of chastity and have sex. The Courage movement was in fact started by Benedict Groeschel a Franciscan Friar, ironically born and raised in Jersey City and who in response to media coverage of priest abuse of children was controversially quoted in 2012 by the National Catholic Register as saying, "Suppose you have a man having a nervous breakdown, and a youngster comes after him. A lot of the cases, the youngster ? 14, 16, 18 ? is the seducer." Quote:
Yvonne wrote: I guess being force to deny your religion is not a big thing if you don't have religion. But you are a person of faith, you are being forced to called Jesus a liar when he said a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and the two will be on flesh...this is the Father's intent. If he denied a birthday cake, then I would agree but the issue is strictly based on being reprogrammed against your religion in order to save your business. Besides, the US Constitution says our rights comes from God/Creator not from government. Personally, I believe 1984 has arrived. The author said people will be reprogrammed. And this is exactly what is happening. Those students who were killed in Kenya were asked if they were Christians and they said yes and were killed. We are doing something similar, while we are not killing people we are suing them to death. By the way, the Hitler loving father was told no when he asked for a birthday cake, I believe by Walmart for his son who he named Adolph Hitler but no one called out the bakery, then.
A “gay conversion therapy” provider that was found guilty of consumer fraud in June will permanently shut down and dissolve its corporate entity, according to a settlement reached on Friday.
The settlement was announced by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which helped spearhead the 2012 lawsuit against the New Jersey-based group, Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (Jonah).
Jonah had been found guilty of committing consumer fraud and engaging in “unconscionable commercial practices” in June. The therapy offered by Jonah had been ruled as fraud by Peter Bariso Jr, a New Jersey superior court judge, in pretrial back in February. At the time, Bariso also ruled that defense could not call on experts who would testify that homosexuality is an illness.
By Susan K. Livio | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com Email the author | Follow on Twitter on June 25, 2015 at 2:25 PM, updated June 25, 2015 at 3:50 PM
A New Jersey jury on Thursday found a non-profit group that provides gay-to-straight conversion therapy guilty of consumer fraud for promising clients they could overcome their sexual urges by undressing in front of other men, pummeling an effigy of their mothers, and re?enacting traumatic childhood experiences.
In the first case in the nation to put the controversial practice on trial, the jury concluded that Arthur Goldberg and Elaine Berk, the founders of Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing in Jersey City and life coach Alan Downing to whom JONAH referred patients, "engaged in unconscionable commercial practices" and misrepresented their services.
Gay-Conversion Trial Opens Window On Orthodox Debate
Fraud suit against Jewish group’s homosexuality ‘cure’ puts spotlight on divide over sexual orientation in frum world.
06/10/15 Rachel Delia Benaim Special To The Jewish Week
Jersey City, N.J. — The only time Benjamin “Benji” Unger lost his composure on the stand was when recounting how he stopped talking to his mother for several months after his gay conversion therapist suggested that his closeness with his mother was a root cause for his homosexuality.
Only 19 at the time, Unger, a Borough Park native, started seeing a conversion therapist when he told his parents that he was attracted to men. His father directed him to the only resource he knew: a conversion therapy nonprofit JONAH, Jews Offering New Alternatives to Healing.
In his first phone call with JONAH co-director Arthur Goldberg, Unger recalls Goldberg saying that one-third of JONAH clients are healed completely of their homosexuality, and another third sees a decline in same-sex attraction. “He said he helped hundreds,” recalled Unger. Unger was eager to sign up so that he could fit back into the community that raised him.
Over the next year, Unger endured what some would consider bizarre and often damaging treatments — including beating an effigy of his mother until his hands were raw — in hopes that he would become straight, just as he remembers Goldberg promising him.
In a landmark trial now in its second week in a Hudson County state court here, Unger, who is now 27, and three other former clients of the gay conversion therapy organization, and two of their mothers, are claiming that JONAH breached New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act by claiming that JONAH could “cure” their sexual orientation in a specific amount of time with a specific success rate. The suit names JONAH, its two co-directors, and counselor Alan Downing.
From a consumer fraud angle, the plaintiff’s attorney, David Dinielli, deputy legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit advocacy organization specializing in civil rights litigation, presented a simple argument during last week’s opening statements: “My clients needed help, but JONAH lied and JONAH made it worse.”
Pebble wrote: You continue to write a lot of crap. It's really why I put so very little into the efforts of rebutting said crap. Maybe when you learn to not ascribe what isn't written to someone you'll be taken more seriously. Until then, your big red nose just squeaks...
Well, sure, I can see that the only rebuttal you could come up with is "red nose". Somehow I doubt it's due to the lack of effort.
"red nose" - is another butchered quote of yours. Pebble actually posted "Until then, your big red nose just squeaks...". Nailed it imo. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoAizPDdsvo
Pebble wrote: You continue to write a lot of crap. It's really why I put so very little into the efforts of rebutting said crap. Maybe when you learn to not ascribe what isn't written to someone you'll be taken more seriously. Until then, your big red nose just squeaks...
Well, sure, I can see that the only rebuttal you could come up with is "red nose". Somehow I doubt it's due to the lack of effort.
Pebble wrote: The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. So, no, it certainly isn't about whether the majority think it is ok to just kick a certain segment of the population. For all of your absurd bluster that you put on these boards, and you seriously have a hankering for putting completely absurd bluster, I thought you would have understand this very basic understanding of our nation?s founding
In #52 you declared, quote - "It's always nice when the bigots come out of hiding to create some loose justification for their hate and desire to discriminate..." Why would you assume that people who defend the right of others to be bigots are bigots themselves? Well, the only logical conclusion is that it you yourself would never defend the right to have views other than yours. So, being that way yourself you can't imagine anyone else seeing it differently. Neither Bill of Rights nor the Founding has anything to do with this.
Quote:
dtjcview wrote: Again Boris - your English comprehension and paraphrasing fails... I'm defending the rights of people - over religious org/parental abuse - and against anyone who hides behind the pretense of religious freedom to inflict their ignorance on others.
Really? And you can name a right that you are defending? You surely don't defend any rights of a religious person to not be forced to go against his faith. Please, entertain me, describe the exact right that you defend.
Let me guess, the "rights" that you defend would sound like "the right to force other people to serve me, even if they don't want to", no? And you are going to explain that you have that rights because the reason why they wanted to refuse the service was a thoughtcrime. That if someone has bad convictions, they can't use those bad thoughts to choose whom to do business with. Only the good convictions that we approve may be taken into account when doing business, correct? This is your model of rights, no?
You continue to write a lot of crap. It's really why I put so very little into the efforts of rebutting said crap.
Maybe when you learn to not ascribe what isn't written to someone you'll be taken more seriously. Until then, your big red nose just squeaks...
Pebble wrote: The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. So, no, it certainly isn't about whether the majority think it is ok to just kick a certain segment of the population. For all of your absurd bluster that you put on these boards, and you seriously have a hankering for putting completely absurd bluster, I thought you would have understand this very basic understanding of our nation?s founding
In #52 you declared, quote - "It's always nice when the bigots come out of hiding to create some loose justification for their hate and desire to discriminate..." Why would you assume that people who defend the right of others to be bigots are bigots themselves? Well, the only logical conclusion is that it you yourself would never defend the right to have views other than yours. So, being that way yourself you can't imagine anyone else seeing it differently. Neither Bill of Rights nor the Founding has anything to do with this.
Quote:
dtjcview wrote: Again Boris - your English comprehension and paraphrasing fails... I'm defending the rights of people - over religious org/parental abuse - and against anyone who hides behind the pretense of religious freedom to inflict their ignorance on others.
Really? And you can name a right that you are defending? You surely don't defend any rights of a religious person to not be forced to go against his faith. Please, entertain me, describe the exact right that you defend.
Let me guess, the "rights" that you defend would sound like "the right to force other people to serve me, even if they don't want to", no? And you are going to explain that you have that rights because the reason why they wanted to refuse the service was a thoughtcrime. That if someone has bad convictions, they can't use those bad thoughts to choose whom to do business with. Only the good convictions that we approve may be taken into account when doing business, correct? This is your model of rights, no?
Pebble wrote: It's always nice when the bigots come out of hiding to create some loose justification for their hate and desire to discriminate...
Which means my question is answered. If not about the majority than at least Mr. pebble and Mr. dtjcview publicly declared that they can't possibly imagine defending the rights of other people.
Oh, and about that bigotry, Mr pebble, may I yet again draw your attention to the fact that your signature line, the one that you slap on every comment of yours, objectifies women? Not just objectifies, you basically declare over and over and over again that a woman is a sex prize a "winner" man would get. How do you like them bigots?
The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. So, no, it certainly isn?t about whether the majority think it is ok to just kick a certain segment of the population. For all of your absurd bluster that you put on these boards, and you seriously have a hankering for putting completely absurd bluster, I thought you would have understand this very basic understanding of our nation?s founding?
If not about the majority than at least Mr. pebble and Mr. dtjcview publicly declared that they can't possibly imagine defending the rights of other people. ...
Again Boris - your English comprehension and paraphrasing fails...
I'm defending the rights of people - over religious org/parental abuse - and against anyone who hides behind the pretense of religious freedom to inflict their ignorance on others.
Pebble wrote: It's always nice when the bigots come out of hiding to create some loose justification for their hate and desire to discriminate...
Which means my question is answered. If not about the majority than at least Mr. pebble and Mr. dtjcview publicly declared that they can't possibly imagine defending the rights of other people.
Oh, and about that bigotry, Mr pebble, may I yet again draw your attention to the fact that your signature line, the one that you slap on every comment of yours, objectifies women? Not just objectifies, you basically declare over and over and over again that a woman is a sex prize a "winner" man would get. How do you like them bigots?
Pebble wrote: It's always nice when the bigots come out of hiding to create some loose justification for their hate and desire to discriminate...
+1. Religious freedom doesn't entitle any person or organization to inflict their ignorance on others - particularly kids. And in this case it's good to see their asses getting sued - and losing.
I'd love to see more class actions on other religious stances that have created personal injury to kids - such as birth control and vaccination.
corybraiterman wrote: hey boomer, next time, simply writing "sarcasm off" doesn't seem to work. i suggest choosing from some of these lovely choices here on google image search
(ps, i got your sarcasm even without the hint. when one says things as outlandish as that and even includes a bunch of exclamation points, sane and intelligent people understand what you're doing)
Oh Corey, I know auto correct is rough stuff but you if you read your post before you press submit it might prevent you from saying something you didn't intend, trust me, it'll pay dividends.
And thanks for the suggestions, the sarcasm tag is necessary, the great Scott Adams said, "You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public."
corybraiterman wrote: i wonder if boris is really this stupid or just pretends to get responses?
if it's the latter, well trolled, sir. i truly think it's the former.
hey boomer, next time, simply writing "sarcasm off" doesn't seem to work....
I can't give you a sure way on how to make sarcastic and otherwise humorous remarks, but I can easily provide you with a rule number one: they must be factually true.
When your attempt at sarcasm shows your ignorance (not mentioning your intolerance, hate, bigotry and other beautiful qualities) you can't complain that the audience didn't get your humor.
i wonder if boris is really this stupid or just pretends to get responses?
if it's the latter, well trolled, sir. i truly think it's the former.
hey boomer, next time, simply writing "sarcasm off" doesn't seem to work. i suggest choosing from some of these lovely choices here on google image search
(ps, i got your sarcasm even without the hint. when one says things as outlandish as that and even includes a bunch of exclamation points, sane and intelligent people understand what you're doing)
corybraiterman wrote: i do like how you (you in particular) assumed i was talking about you (you specifically) rather than the you (people other than myself) in general.
Ah, so, when you insinuated that someone has an "abhorrent opinion" and you can call them on it, you meant not just me personally, but all the people other than you. Noted. Your life must be hard but truly rewarding. What with having to put the whole Planet in its place.
Quote:
boomer wrote: the government is forcing me to deny my religion but not allowing me to round up a posse to kill both of them. This passage can't be more clear.
Yeah, have you ever talked to your Rabbi about that clarity? I think not. If you did you wouldn't show your ignorance by publicly announcing that the laws of Old Testament allowed vigilante justice. If you want to ask the state to allow you religious prosecution of that case, you would need to go to the Sanhedrin with the accusation and then you'd have to bring with you witnesses, who would be under the penalty of death obligated to proclaim that they both had seen how you wife cheated on you. That they both seen each other. That they had warn her that what she's doing is a sin. That she disregarded their warnings, responded that she is going to do it anyway, and continued to cheat on you in their presence. Their testimony would be heard separately and if they differ even in a tiny itty bitty minor detail, it would be considered contradictory and wouldn't count. And then if the majority of the court says "guilty" the witnesses will be obliged to carry on the execution, not you. Not to mention that if your wife told the judges about how ignorant you are nobody would ever blame her to begin with.
With that marvelous brain of yours, care to guess how often those executions were?
Well, not too often, especially since the Sanhedrin decided that without truly righteous population it's hard to administer harsh penalties without overstepping some limits, and stopped the practice. Not one contemporary branch of Judaism believes it is up to them to pass those kinds of judgments.
Now, since you obviously know exactly nothing about the subject, want to try something else?
P.S. Since you mentioned 1984. Do you know what a "Two Minutes Hate" is?
In the Bible it states - If a man commits adultery with another man's wife--with the wife of his neighbor--both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death. - Leviticus 20:10
My friend had an affair with my wife, the government is forcing me to deny my religion but not allowing me to round up a posse to kill both of them. This passage can't be more clear. And it is against the law for me to kill them. I am a person of faith and I feel like a fraud being forced to call Jesus a lair. Maybe I should just sue the adulteress and adulterer to death as someone intelligently said here.
And 1984 HAS arrived.
The first amendment of the constitution guarantees me freedom of religion and I am being denied!!!!
auto correct on phones is rough stuff. i really should turn it off.
i do like how you (you in particular) assumed i was talking about you (you specifically) rather than the you (people other than myself) in general.
not too far off the mark, but it's like yelling out "HEY, ASSHOLE!" and seeing who turns around.
in regards to obes, i wouldn't particularly call it offensive given the context in which he used it, simply kind of a dumb choice of words. in fact, stupid is fairly accurate
Obama also said he hopes the Supreme Court makes the ?right decision? on pending litigation seeking marriage rights for same-sex couples. ?I?m hopeful the Supreme Court comes to the right decision, but I will tell you, people?s hearts have opened up on this issue,? Obama said. ?I think people know that treating folks unfairly, even if you disagree with their lifestyle choice, the fact of the matter is, they?re not bothering you. Let them live their lives, and under the law, they should be treated equally.?
Again, it's a wee bit different when one says "even if you blah", vs some declaration of. but when have you ever had a contextual grasp of anything?
borisp wrote: Obama called being gay a "lifestyle choice". (That was just a couple of weeks ago, I believe during an important interview about the State Of The Union) Am I to understand that you consider his views really offensive as well?
Obama stated that was a poor choice of words, as did his press secretary in a clarification:...
So, in other words, when Obama says it, it's not insulting, it's not offensive, it's not stupid - it just requires some clarification, that's all. I wonder why you bothered to respond, there is no person here who'd ever expect anything else.
Quote:
corybraiterman wrote: Having a dividend view point is fine and dandy. You're welcome to say it and believe it. Just as I am free and welcome to call you out for your abhorrent opinions. You're perfectly within all rights to have a shitty opinion, that just makes you a terrible person. That isn't a crime.
I'm not sure what "dividend view point" means. However, if I am not mistaken, you are trying to insinuate that I have expressed some "shitty opinion" that made me a "terrible person".
Now, I wouldn't dream to deny that you are, indeed, "free and welcome" to bravely step forward and "call me out" on my "abhorrent opinions".
What puzzles me, sort of, is that somehow when you "called me out" on some "abhorrent opinions" of mine, you forgot to mention what opinion you are referring to . Now, since you are obviously a decent, brave and honest man, not some sniveling slanderer, you wouldn't mind rectifying this small omission? Would you please quote that "abhorrent opinion" of mine you denounced so bravely?
Obama stated that was a poor choice of words, as did his press secretary in a clarification:
Obama used the ?lifestyle choice? phrase in the context of saying he hopes the Supreme Court makes the ?right decision? on pending litigation seeking marriage equality.
?I?m hopeful the Supreme Court comes to the right decision, but I will tell you, people?s hearts have opened up on this issue,? Obama said. ?I think people know that treating folks unfairly, even if you disagree with their lifestyle choice, the fact of the matter is, they?re not bothering you. Let them live their lives, and under the law, they should be treated equally.? Obama has previously rejected the notion that being gay is a choice. In 2010 town-hall style event, he told students, ?I don?t think it?s a choice. I think people are born with a certain make-up.?
Having a dividend view point is fine and dandy. You're welcome to say it and believe it. Just as I am free and welcome to call you out for your abhorrent opinions. You're perfectly within all rights to have a shitty opinion, that just makes you a terrible person. That isn't a crime.
Quote:
borisp wrote:
Obama called being gay a "lifestyle choice". (That was just a couple of weeks ago, I believe during an important interview about the State Of The Union) Am I to understand that you consider his views really offensive as well?
I am under the impression that the majority in this forum strongly believes that the only reason to protect someone's right to have certain views is if you share those same views. True/false?
