Hello:

Lemme start by saying the cotton gin became obsolete when we found a better way.. The health insurance industry is obsolete. Its purpose is to collect money, deny claims, and write checks.. But, if we covered EVERYTHING, there'd be NOTHING to deny, and Medicare already writes checks..

Here's how the math works.. It's simple, really. Let's start with whatever amount, as a nation, we spend on healthcare.. Now, if we SUBTRACT whatever amount the health insurance industry takes, and APPLY it to actual medicine, I suggest we can cover EVERYBODY for EVERYTHING and have money left over for an aircraft carrier or two.

Yes, I feel bad about those insurance workers.. I also felt bad about all those cotton gin workers.

excon

the money instead will transfer to an army of bureaucrats who's job it will be to collect money (taxes ) , deny claims (rationing with little or no appeal ... 'take the red pill' ) , and write checks to health providers . No savings and worse than what we have now . As the system goes deeper into the red ,the government will increase taxes to cover it and ration even more . Maybe it's your plan to nationalize pharmaceutical companies also ?

Hello tom:

Well, you can SAY it'll devolve into all those bad things.. But, it won't. At least it doesn't have to. Please.. Re-read what I wrote. Lemme repeat.. The ONLY job the government will have under my plan, is to WRITE checks.. NOTHING else.. They get a claim, they write a check.. Period! A couple hundred computer operators should be able to handle it.

Yes, there'll have to be some cops on the beat making sure nobody rips off the system.. But, their job will be LAW ENFORCEMENT, and NOT medical..

If you want the government OUT of your health care, THIS plan does that.. Here's how it works in the ground.. You feel ill. You go to your doctor. Your doctor treats you. He sends a bill to Medicare. Medicare pays it. Easy peasy. Truly, it's EASY PEASY... The government gets a bill, and they PAY IT. NOTHING MORE.

That's the plan I'm proposing.. It doesn't look anything like you said it looks..

Look.. If you wanna lament the total and absolute DESTRUCTION of the health insurance INDUSTRY under my plan, you'll have an argument. And, maybe my math is wrong.. But, my plan, WON'T allow for any of the stuff you say it will..

excon

You feel ill. You go to your doctor. Your doctor treats you. He sends a bill to Medicare. Medicare pays it. Easy peasy. Truly, it's EASY PEASY... The government gets a bill, and they PAY IT. NOTHING MORE.
I'm on your team, excon, but what if the cost of medical services to the patient is $500 and the doctor sends a bill for $1000 to Medicare who pays the $1000. The doctor whispers this to his doctor friends who start thinking ahead to buying a new car or having a neighborhood cookout with Omaha steaks, etc.

Hello CB:

Well, as the BIG guy on the block, Medicare sets prices. I dunno how long a doctor would last if he wanted to charge more. Plus, if he billed for services he didn't deliver, that's a job for the cops..

excon

Geez WG, you think doctors would game the system? I though just us lazy bums did that! That's what Tom said!

In EX's plan is the restricting physicians fees and pharmaceutical prices . He's said in other posts that doctors would have to either accept the fee structure imposed on them by the government ,or find something else to do . The truth is that under the Medicare system already in place , physicians are doing everything they can to reduce their expenses while keeping the quality of their care high. No matter what they do, it does not change the fact that the fees Medicare pays physicians ;especially primary care physicians ;are not enough to cover overhead (rent, utilities, staff, benefits, malpractice, and technology). Medicare reimbursements have not kept pace with inflation, especially when it comes to the overhead costs of running a medical practice.

More and more physicians now outright refuse new Medicare patients . As of September , there are more than 22,000 licensed medical providers that will not take Medicare for payment. Medicare now does not cover wellness care . That means annual check ups are NOT covered . Will the new 'everyone must participate in Medicare 'now add the additional expense of cutting the check for annual checkups and various other childcare expense that Medicare doesn't have to deal with now ?

Medicare now has a number of audit departments . Will they be eliminated ?Medicare Administrative Contractors (MACs),Recovery Auditors (RACs),Program Safeguard Contractors,Zone Program Integrity Contractors (ZPICs),Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) Review ContractorOffice of Inspector General (OIG) .....If not then doctors will continue to be burdened with the additional over head of regulatory compliance . If the doctors can't afford the staffing ,then they end up spending more time being an office manager than a doctor.
It is not just a simple matter of cutting a check . Claims get reviewed now and will continue to get reviewed .

Even though Medicare today is funded throughout a person's working life ,it is on track to go insolvent in less than a decade . So now when even more and more boomers are becoming eligible for benefits ,and the population ages as we kill off our babies ;future contributors to SS and Medicare , the plan is to suddenly add 100 million + more eligible people with no additional long term funding ? Yeah that's a plan.

Hello excon:

But maybe, for some reason, my tonsillectomy turns out to be more complicated than your tonsillectomy so my surgeon's bill is $500 (the amount Medicare pays for a tonsillectomy) and your surgeon's bill is $750. Now what? Does Medicare stiff your surgeon $250?

Carol

Hello Carol:

If I was drawing up the payment schedule, I'd include a check mark for complicated procedures.. I'll assume that the payment schedule will be set up as fair as possible, and I'm sure there'll be room for modifications.. I dunno exactly HOW these minute details will be worked out.. I'll just assume they will be..

Look.. Nobody is saying that a major change such as the one I propose is gonna be easy.. But, we don't endeavor to do things because they're easy.. We do them because they're the right thing to do.

excon

Hello excon:

I wonder how the countries with free health care for all have figured this out. I think I'll call a reference librarian. :D

Carol

zero the successful ones like the Aussies have a 2 tier system where the regular schmo has to live with what the government gives them and the privileged get to buy into supplemental private insurance ...much like Medicare here .

btw remember when Obamacare was peddled and the Repubs said that it was designed to fail so that we would end up with single payer as the only alternative ......and they were accused of fear mongering ? Well now Obamacare is failing and the Dems plan B is ...you guessed it .... Medicare for all.
But they have gone far beyond that .
Under their new freebie plan there would be NO co pay . Even the most socialized system today has co pay . The plan Bolshevik Bernie is proposing would cost the federal government $32.6 trillion over its first 10 years. That's the price of 16 air craft carriers . And that assumes drastic cuts in reimbursements . More than half of the Dems running for the House support some version of this plan . Of course ,much like Obamacare they are outright lying about the details .... Remember 'if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor "? Good luck with that .

zero the successful ones like the Aussies have a 2 tier system where the regular schmo has to live with what the government gives them and the privileged get to buy into supplemental private insurance ...much like Medicare here .

Have to say Tom our scheme works pretty well, payment works electronically even for the private health insurance and all for a small impost on our income tax so if you don't pay income tax it is free unless you want a high priced doctor. Medicare (we call it Medicare too) can get you some wait times for elective surgery so private insurance gets you in the door right away but there are always those doctors who want to charge more. The Doctors have resigned themselves to the fee structure and still drive expensive cars

The Doctors have resigned themselves to the fee structure and still drive expensive cars


I don't know what expenses your doctors have just the run their practice . Here people like to sue ;so their liability insurance alone to cover
frivolous litigation is a major expense .

Our doctors have to work their tails off just to be a primary care physician . To move up to specialized medicine is many years investing in their education . Maybe your medical schools are another freebie ,but here the doctors pay . They also have to do a number of years in internship to get their license to practice . If I chose to I could drive around in a fancy car too. It depends on what you are willing to pay . Having a so called fancy car doesn't mean squat. That is just a life style choice . The only limits to what a doctor earns should be what the market bears .


When there is competition like in some of the elective procedures then the doctors have to compete with other doctors .That keeps fees in check much more than artificial fee structures imposed by the government . That is true with examples like Lasix surgery ,cosmetic procedures, infertility treatments, etc. ;and in direct primary care clinics where patients are offered the choice of quality, affordable, convenient primary care in a monthly, quarterly, or annual care package. There is no secret to the price structure . Many of them post their prices on line so the patient can compare prices .

https://www.northwestradiology.com/pricing/

Actually you would be surprised at the cost difference when you ask a doctor or hospital what their cash price is compared to the insured price.

Many of the patients pool their resources in heath care sharing ministries like Medishare .In many cases they customize their coverage to fit their needs instead of these comprehensive cover everything mandated public /private big insurance scams most Americans are living under .Obamacare mandates Birth control.Alcohol counseling.Depression screening.Diet counseling.Tobacco use screening.Breastfeeding counseling. etc .Some people want those things, but mandating them for everyone drives up costs. In my perfect world most things doctors do would be price negotiated with the doctor without insurance intervention . Catastrophic insurance would be the only thing mandated and of course government programs would cover the health care of the truly needy.

As always Tom you have a way of complicating what is basically simple by introducing the profit motive. No one says doctors shouldn't be adequately compensated but the public are not sheep to be shorn, as to working their buts off I have never seen a doctor with his butt hanging out, have you? We are not as litigious as you as we are not into making the legal profession rich but no doubt there are those who use the system. We don't do medicine as a business but as a necessity and thus we try to keep the vested interest groups out of it. Not an easy road but our government uses its legislative power on occasion. Thus "universal" health care was introduced so long ago few care to remember the "calamity" that befell us in those days when the transaction gained an extra party but we learned that having paid for service we should use it and today about 70% of all consultations are paid by Medicare without supplementary fees

The plan Bolshevik Bernie is proposing would cost the federal government $32.6 trillion over its first 10 years. That's the price of 16 air craft carriers

At 16 bil a pop, 32 tril would pay for nearly 2,000 aircraft carriers.

I would agree that we need to make some serious changes to medical care, but as Tom has said, if you think the feds can run a health care system efficiently, go take a look at the VA. The last thing anyone should want is for the feds to take over health care. At any rate, it still comes down to enforced charity, as in forcing one person to spend his/her money on another person.

Tom is a whatever the market will bear kind of guy. That whole profit motive thing is what usually screws things up because when they can't get that annual 2, 4, 5% growth rate capitalists heads explode. LOL, doctors rag on about their insurance rates being high but you think they care about yours? Wasn't that why we had to get Obama care n the first place because many could not afford even to se a doctor let alone buy health insurance. Still the costs are high and even Medicare here only covers 80% of costs, and you need more insurance to cover the rest. That's all good if you're healthy and can get by with a few visits a year and some cheap pills but if you have a CONDITION that requires a specialists and expensive medicine or treatments, you are going to pay.

Stay out of hospitals! LOL, those junk policies Obamacare ended and repoobs brought back are only for healthy people mostly single GUYS with no kids, and insurance in name only, and despite Tom's still opposition to Obamacare and repoobs relentless attacks even repoobs are growing to like it a lot.

Tom hates government! Capitalists hate it too! Sometimes I do three, but an aging consumer driven economy requires people before profits so screw those capitalists, and those aircraft carriers. Medicare for all, screw the insurance companies and their ever rising profits.

I do not "hate " government . It has a role in a free society . I love a Constitutional Republic and free market economics . Looking forward to the days they return .

As always Tom you have a way of complicating what is basically simple by introducing the profit motive. You call it 'profit motive' I call it the market deciding the value of the service .


At 16 bil a pop, 32 tril would pay for nearly 2,000 aircraft carriers. yeah I get my bils and trils confused sometimes . When you are talking trillions you are talking real money .

I love a Constitutional Republic and free market economics.

Well stated.

I can get with a constitutional republic as long as we don't forget the governance of consensus, but an unbridled so called free market making the rules for profit doesn't fit my idea of FAIR. Now you may love things like they are, but get with the idea things could be better with a few tweaks and we could all benefit from greater circulation by taking the tourniquet off our necks. Think of all those healthy customers you can sell stuff to right here in America.

The old model of building a country off the backs of slave labor should be dead by now!

Hello again:

I love free market economics too.. But, I'm GLAD that when I call the fire department, they get in their trucks, instead of checking with accounting.. I LOVE getting on the freeway without going through a toll booth.. I LIKE that the military protects ME without looking to see if I paid my taxes..

There ARE some services that should NEVER become private, and the delivery of health care is one of those..

excon

Just for the record what is this construct called a constitutional republic? It isn't a democracy, we have been told that often enough. It is the rich, privileged governing as they wish with the illusion that the masses have something to say about it. It was created because a 3% tax was considered too much. No taxation without representation was the cry, but how much representation do you really have today. The corporations buy the politicians and politicians pass laws that benefit the corporations. America isn't a republic, it is a market, and economy

Just for the record what is this construct called a constitutional republic? It isn't a democracy, we have been told that often enough. It is the rich, privileged governing as they wish with the illusion that the masses have something to say about it. It was created because a 3% tax was considered too much. No taxation without representation was the cry, but how much representation do you really have today. The corporations buy the politicians and politicians pass laws that benefit the corporations. America isn't a republic, it is a market, and economy

It's a for profit international corporation Clete.

Ex the examples you cite are legitimate roles of government

freeway ....(either state ;local ;or covered under Federal constitutional government (Art 1 sec 8) ..... all legit powers Some states toll their sections ,others don't . I predict that with EZ Pass systems more states will opt to toll roads . NYC is thinking of using it for congestion tolling . You drive down I-95 in VA. and you can get in an express lane where pricing adjusts while you are on the road depending on traffic levels . The schmucks who don't use the express lanes often end up in horrific traffic jams . Florida tolls express lanes near Orlando also .

fire department ...local governments have to power to set them up as they see fit . Many have paid firefighters . Many use volunteers . Private firefighting is a rapidly growing industry because it costs local governments too much to own their own equipment and facilities and the tax revenues decline because of things like populations fleeing due to high taxes . Many localities are consolidating their departments with other nearby towns .

military ... a Federal government power covered under both the 1st and 2nd article.

Seriously Clete ;you don't know what a Republic is ? A democracy is rule by the majority . ie 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner . A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49

A republic is rule by the people through their representatives . Representatives are directly elected or in some cases appointed . The constitution protects individual rights even if the majority voted to take them away.

I forgot to add one important thing I love ;a federal system where no region because of a majority population can impose their will on regions less populated .

States rights! The basis for the Civil War.

States rights! The basis for the Civil War.

More accurately, the basis for our republic. 10th Amendment (You know, one of those pesky amendments to the Constitution that liberals pay but little attention to) states as follows: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I got ya' and its not surprising that gay rights/marriage, Medicaid expansion, and a living wage were started in the states. So I was paying attention. You conservatives can slow down cultural evolution but I doubt you can stop it.

... and the beat goes on!

I think it is GREAT when individual states express the will of the people. That is how it is supposed to work. What is terrible is when the Supreme Court circumvents the will of the people as in the rulings on prayer in school, Ten Commandments in school, abortion, and gay marriage.

States rights! The basis for the Civil War.


no tal .The issue of the Civil War was slavery

AND there is no such thing as states rights .people have rights ;states have powers ;and the powers of the Federal and State governments are very clearly defined in the Constitution. I defy you to find one clause or amendment that uses the word rights when it applies to states or the Federal government .
Why don't you just admit it ;Progressives don't like living under constitutional law .

"In the first half of the nineteenth century, arguments over states' rights arose in the context of Slavery (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Slavery)."

...defenders of states' rights were concerned that a powerful, consolidated national government would run roughshod over the states. With ratification of the Constitution in doubt, the Framers promised to add protection for the states. Accordingly, the Tenth Amendment (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Tenth+Amendment) was added to the Constitution as part of the Bill of Rights (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Bill+of+Rights). The amendment stipulates that "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This amendment became the constitutional foundation for those who wish to promote the rights and powers of the states vis-à-vis the federal government."

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/States%27+Rights

I think it is GREAT when individual states express the will of the people. That is how it is supposed to work. What is terrible is when the Supreme Court circumvents the will of the people as in the rulings on prayer in school, Ten Commandments in school, abortion, and gay marriage.

You left out the PUBLIC in your school reference that also extends to federal and state GOVERNMENT buildings as well, since religious and PRIVATE schools can pray whenever they want as far as I know, but you can fact check me on those details. The court also said that women have a right to an abortion within confines of the law, and currently only affects poor women since well to do females have an oby/gyn who routinely safely and efficiently keep them from getting pregnant or getting too far along and they have exercised this for many decades before Roe. Can't tell them what to do can you. BUMMER!

States have been changing marriage laws to include gay people for years (As far back as allowing interracial marriages), and most of the nation has evolved beyond the authority of any religious doctrine, tradition, or custom. That started with shacking believe it or not, as logic dictates free choices for it's citizens as they pursue their happiness. Gays are people too, and have rights, the same as everybody, and obviously in need of protection from religious zealotry.

Even some (MOST?) Christians resist the yoke of oppressive and discriminating religious rule. Maybe you should have patented marriage, which no doubt would and should have expired eons ago. So don't blame it on those liberal judges making new law, they just expanded, tweaked and improved the old ones.

Yo' boy Kavanaugh can change them all back, so GOOD LUCK! Go for it! You held your nose and got what you wanted so I suppose you should enjoy it!

It was never about states 'rights '....period . There were plenty of other crisises that came before the Civil War that were about states POWERS that did not erupt into Civil War. example the issue of nullification crisis of 1832. Slavery was the only irreconcilable issue and it came to a head after the idiots in SCOTUS reversed the Missouri Compromise with the Dred Scott decision.

Again I challenge anyone to find wording that States have rights . The 10th is very clear and it needed to be .
The powers
not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the peopleIt wasn't just slave states but ALL the states wanted to preserve state powers . Period . Alexander Hamilton was the least southern like framer there was . He said :
It's not tyranny we desire; it's a just, limited, federal government. (https://www.azquotes.com/quote/122020)

Even without the 10th the limited nature of the Federal Government was defined in the Articles of the Constitution. Article 1 in particular is very specific about what powers Congress has. Nothing outside of the limited and well defined powers is constitutional .
The idea of limited government pervades the entire Constitution

.

Wikipedia:

"The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution), which is part of the Bill of Rights (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights), was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution# cite_note-1) It expresses the principle of federalism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_the_United_States) and STATES' RIGHTS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States%27_rights), which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution for the United States of America, by stating that the federal government (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States) possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

The states ratified the Tenth Amendment, declining to signal that there are unenumerated powers in addition to unenumerated RIGHTS. The amendment rendered unambiguous what had previously been at most a mere suggestion or implication."

assume that powers not defined do not exist . The 9th covers the issue of unenumerated rights of the people .


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The court also said that women have a right to an abortion within confines of the law, and currently only affects poor women

If that is true, then we need to defund Planned NonParenthood since taking care of poor women is one of their mandates.


since well to do females have an oby/gyn who routinely safely and efficiently keep them from getting pregnant or getting too far along and they have exercised this for many decades before Roe.

Otherwise known as birth control.


States have been changing marriage laws to include gay people for years No, they did not. Gay marriage was put on the ballot in many, many states as choice for voters to make and NEVER passed. There was one state (Massachusetts, I think) that passed gay marriage in the legislature.


most of the nation has evolved beyond the authority of any religious doctrine, tradition, or custom. That started with shacking believe it or not, as logic dictates free choices for it's citizens as they pursue their happiness. Gays are people too, and have rights, the same as everybody, and obviously in need of protection from religious zealotry.

The tragedy of the Court's decision was that it essentially has started the end of the institution of marriage. If we say that marriage is simply about people being happy, then who can deny happiness to three people, or four people, or an elderly man and a 15 year old girl, or for that matter people and animals? And the great loser will be children, who are already the losers in fatherless homes, and will become even bigger losers so that liberals can content themselves by believing they have preserved the nation from the influence of religion. The great, grand social experiment will continue, and so will the downhill slide.

If that is true, then we need to defund Planned NonParenthood since taking care of poor women is one of their mandates.
Otherwise known as birth control.



Do you hear yourself, deprive the people who need guidance of that guidance. Obviously not all the advice they get is good advice however there is a difference between funding abortion and funding advice




No, they did not. Gay marriage was put on the ballot in many, many states as choice for voters to make and NEVER passed. There was one state (Massachusetts, I think) that passed gay marriage in the legislature.



The tragedy of the Court's decision was that it essentially has started the end of the institution of marriage. If we say that marriage is simply about people being happy, then who can deny happiness to three people, or four people, or an elderly man and a 15 year old girl, or for that matter people and animals? And the great loser will be children, who are already the losers in fatherless homes, and will become even bigger losers so that liberals can content themselves by believing they have preserved the nation from the influence of religion. The great, grand social experiment will continue, and so will the downhill slide.

We can all agree that equating the right of gay people to be equal under the law and the travesty of gay marriage are two different things

JL ask your wife about oby/gyn visits. It's more than Birth Control which is not 100% effective.



Gay marriage was put on the ballot in many, many states as choice for voters to make and NEVER passed. There was one state (Massachusetts, I think) that passed gay marriage in the legislature.


Try 37 state legislatures.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1a/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_USA_by_state.svg/900px-Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_USA_by_state.svg.png (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_USA_by_state.svg)


Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States of America (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_of_America) by state/district/territory:
Majority support same-sex marriage — 80 to 89%
Majority support same-sex marriage — 70 to 79%
Majority support same-sex marriage — 60 to 69%
Majority support same-sex marriage — 50 to 59%
Plurality support same-sex marriage — 40 to 49%
Plurality oppose same-sex marriage — 40 to 49%
Majority oppose same-sex marriage — 50 to 59%
No recent polling data



Prior to Obergefell, same-sex marriage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage)was legal to at least some degree in thirty-eight states, one territory (Guam (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Guam)) and the District of Columbia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_District_of_Columbia); of the states, Missouri (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Missouri), Kansas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Kansas), and Alabama (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Alabama)had restrictions. Until United States v. Windsor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor), it was only legal in 12 states and Washington D.C. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_D.C.). Beginning in July 2013, over forty federal and state courts cited Windsor to strike down state bans on the licensing or recognition of same-sex marriage.


The ball was already rolling pretty good before the SCOTUS ruling by the second map in this article. The good news is if you are against it you don't have to do it! :D

Same with abortions.

Your map shows public opinion. Yes, we supporters of marriage have lost the public opinion battle due, I think, to a left wing media and entertainment business which endlessly puts out gay propaganda. Still, the great majority of those 37 states you mentioned had gay marriage forced upon them by an array of federal court decisions ruling their own laws to be unconstitutional. In most cases it was not legislative action.

I suppose when marriage is gone entirely, we will wake up one day and realize that God did, after all, know what He was talking about. Too late, in all likelihood, we will realize what we have thrown away. Yes, you are free to go your own way, and you are doing that, but not without consequences. Jesus endorsed marriage between one man and one woman, but you believe you know better. I guess we'll find out who's right.

"In 2013, the Supreme Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act, requiring federal agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where it was legal. Citing that decision in part, dozens of federal district courts declared state marriage restrictions to be unconstitutional, the Supreme Court declined to intervene, and the number of states authorizing same-sex marriage expanded rapidly. On Friday, the Supreme Court said that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

When it came to a ballot initiative even California rejected it (prop 8) .The the courts overturned the will of the California voters . Gay marriage is a dead issue . The only thing left is stopping the persecution of those who oppose it .

Throw rocks at people expect to get rocked. If they won't go quietly then there will be a hell of a ruckus. You know the rules Tom, stay in your lane and let people stay in theirs. That's how it works. If folks would mind their own business and be civil, you may get some civility back. I just never got the memo about discrimination and hating. Before you say anything, I don't hate the dufus or his sycophants either, just the uncivil and uncouth words and behavior, but the good news, we are learning what we shouldn't be doing.

I'm sure even though you are making money you realize as a role model he would be the worst. Sadly we would be making money without him. I doubt he has the chops to keep this gravy train rolling. He darned sure didn't get it started, and only cares about keeping his own silver spoon in his big mouth. That's not hate speech folks, just an observation and maybe a prediction.

Yes I'm ENTITLED and got papers to prove it! Worked as hard as anybody to get 'em. Just tired in my old age of these stupid human tricks and traps!

would you consider forcing bakers to make a wedding cake for gays when that baker morally opposes it "staying in your lane " ,or forcing people to accept values regardless of their opposition ? WE know with all the boycotts and other punishments administered by the thought police that your idea of tolerance is a one way street.

I thought discrimination was against the law in this country? I think our history is one of increasing tolerances, and this gay thing is but the latest test. It wasn't that long ago the races couldn't mix, and it took years to realize the goals set forth in our own constitution, and be real, some are still reaching through continued opposition. We haven't made that perfect union yet, and we still blame each other for why. Heck I doubt we even know what that perfect union is, maybe that's why many are so STUCK in whatever their idea is, while others are building yet.

I think the rule of law, and the free market takes care of those that discriminate don't you? I mean a CUSTOMER is asking for a freakin' cake, not a blessing, or opinion, absolution, conversion, or a sermon. I did mention mind your own business didn't I?

Personally I wouldn't ask him to do a damn thing against his beliefs, nor would patronize him, and yes I might sue him, but that's as lawful of what he does. A recent court case found that a baker did not have to bake a cake for a gay wedding so there you go, but you expect Tolerance from one side while the other can discriminate based on his belief?

Let's face it Tom, man is not ready to live in peace, and actions still have consequences. Hope he isn't a Christian baker because I never heard Jesus say a thing about treating anyone any way other than as a brother. So I respectfully submit that I would tolerate such a baker enough not to beat his a$$, and burn his shop down, and seek a better vendor. History is full of those that have done that even though we have had our dignity trespassed against us.

In conclusion it is human to raise hell when disrespected as a human. Tom I think you expect a lot from anybody that feels disrespected, no matter the faiths and beliefs of the one doing it. I hope the baker enjoys his exemption to the law, and someday finds his own TOLERANCE.

Maybe then we wouldn't have that one way street you speak of. Until then it's simply outlandish to expect dignity and respect for one who gives none himself, or is selective in his own tolerance. I can have tolerance but no sympathy for a baker or anyone who had NONE for me can't I?

Heck I ain't even gay, but still NO SYMPATHY because discrimination sucks!

Jesus ministered to the prostitute . He did not participate . He loved the sinner and hated the sin. Baking a cake for a gay wedding is immoral to those who believe gay marriage is immoral . The same baker would have no issue baking a cake to the same people for a birthday. It it the ceremony the baker does not want to participate in and it is a grotesque argument to suggest that by not baking a cake for a gay marriage the baker is not acting in a Christian manner .

would you consider forcing bakers to make a wedding cake for gays when that baker morally opposes it "staying in your lane " ,or forcing people to accept values regardless of their opposition ?
How about:

***No bakery is required to sell baked goods to people 65 and over (sugar harms their bodies -- a holy temple -- and makes them diabetic)
***No florist is required to sell floral arrangements for funerals (God created flowers for the living to enjoy)
***Condoms and other birth control measures including the rhythm method are a sin (God said, 'Be fruitful and multiply")

umm we already have a lot of nanny state laws for the good of our health .Just ask future Democrat nominee Mike Bloomberg . If a florist doesn't want to sell flowers for any specific event they should not be required to do so . Same thing with birth control a person should not be forced to sell them if they have religious objections . What is so hard about that ? You trying to tell me you can't find other bakers ,florists ,drug stores that would be more than happy to sell them if there is a market for them ? The 14th amendment states 'No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;' Is religious freedom not a right ? Amendment 1 says it is ..... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereo

***No bakery is required to sell baked goods to people 65 and over (sugar harms their bodies -- a holy temple -- and makes them diabetic)
***No florist is required to sell floral arrangements for funerals (God created flowers for the living to enjoy)
***Condoms and other birth control measures including the rhythm method are a sin (God said, 'Be fruitful and multiply")

Fine with me. It would be foolish for them to do, but it's their business. It's amazing to me how much of this should cease to be a problem. If one business does not want my money, then I can find another one who does. Let people run their businesses as they choose to.

But if we are going to force the baker to do business with gay marriages, can we force gay couples to do business with stores owned by evangelical Christians? Can we force people to go to restaurants they might otherwise choose not to go to?

If one business does not want my money, then I can find another one who does. Let people run their businesses as they choose to.

I gotcha on that, but I can understand a bad reaction when service is refused for whatever reason. Ever experienced that?

are you equating race discrimination with having objections to gay marriage ?.... no choice vs a behavior choice ? Yes we appropriately have laws against race discrimination. If I was African American I would be appalled at the attempted equivalence and the misappropriation of the civil rights movement .
Pro-gay marriage advocates are demanding that Americans who dissent from the affirmation of gay marriage recant or be driven from the public square.What's next ?
Will churches and synagogues that cite Scripture forbidding such marriage be indicted for hate speech? Or is it ok to protect the church's free exercise right ? Would you force a church to perform such a service ? If not then why are they entitled to more religious freedom than a merchant who does not wish to participate in a ceremony they find morally objectionable ?

I gotcha on that, but I can understand a bad reaction when service is refused for whatever reason. Ever experienced that?

I can in part, but I don't think the government has any role in forcing businesses to accommodate customers anymore than forcing customers to spend their money in certain businesses. Just an issue of freedom. Next, we will find the feds forcing religious customers to do business with gay-owned businesses.

Personally, I think if I owned a bakery and a gay couple came in to order a cake, I'd view it as a chance to introduce them to the gospel of Christ, but that would be my choice. Should be left up to the individual. Now if I had to deliver the cake and made it appear that I was participating in, and approving of, their marriage, then I would not care to do that.

What if you didn't own the bakery and the boss said serve everybody?

different scenario. Your choice is to work for the employer or not . If you choose to work at the bakery you would be expected to follow the rules

That's about it. So what would I do? I would not participate in the wedding. Otherwise, I would want to be kind to everyone who walked through the door.

Baking and decorating their cake -- and thus "participating in their marriage" -- would affect your life in what way(s)?

Baking and decorating their cake -- and their marriage -- would affect your life in what way(s)?

Baking and decorating the cake... no problem. Being on site with the cake could make it appear I approve of what they are doing. That would bother me. I want to recognize and celebrate marriage in the way God intended it.

Now if I actually did bake and decorate the cake, that would solve the problem. They would turn it down flat!

I want to recognize and celebrate marriage in the way God intended it.
And that is....?

And that is....?

A man and a woman.

Maybe you'll take Jesus's word for it. Matt. 19:4 He (Jesus) answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

the act of baking the cake makes the baker a participant in the ceremony. Find another baker . The only one hurt is the baker because there is no pay day .Otherwise leave the baker alone to keep faith the way the baker chooses .

Just about nailed it.

Not all Christians feel that way as many gay people are as devout as their straight counterparts. I find it fascinating that some churches allow gay marriages and embrace their gay members while others do not. It seems to be growing and reminds me of the ancient times when Christians were the ones in the closet and rejected by masses. If it was wrong then, why would it not be wrong now? I recall the sharia law dust up, and the fear of it, but many of those beliefs are deemed illegal under the law, but discrimination because of ones beliefs in Christianity is not? Let us not forget the slavery thing by a Christian nation that has such a brutal history even long after the civil war, and still lingers heavily today.

I just think its not a good thing that a group can be exempt from the law while they taut equal protection of the law, so I guess it's easier to write the words than do the actions. I get accommodating workers who cannot comply with the functions of their jobs be they bakers, pharmacists or any other job, because of religious beliefs, but I don't see that as a good thing either unless it applied to EVERYBODY.

Maybe that's the real conflict here in that as a nation of laws, we have yet to reconcile the equal protection under those laws, but that's a judges job isn't it? Unfortunately they are picked from the same humans that have the conflicts. One could only hope they are not from the same church as the conflicted. More evolution seems to be needed by some more than others.

So JL I hope you understand how it would feel if you walked into an establishment to get a product and got a sermon instead of service. That was what my question were about, and I liked your answer that you would just seek service elsewhere. In that respect you may be a better man than me.

I would call the cops. I just don't believe that service conflates with condoning. Its like no shoes, no shirt, no service signs at 7/11 on steroids.

The world is full of churches who do not believe the Bible. I don't mean to sound ugly, but to say that a person is a devout Christian when he/she is openly and unreservedly sexually active with anyone other than a genuine spouse (a person of the opposite sex) is not a Biblical statement. If we are going to serve Jesus, we have to do things His way. It will not be a perfect experience, but we would, at the very least, have to acknowledge His views of marriage and sexual expression.


I would call the cops...Its like no shoes, no shirt, no service signs at 7/11 on steroids.

Do you believe a shop owner should be able to have ANY standards at all? If not the "no shirt, so shoes, no service" standard, then can they at least insist on having clothes on? Can they prohibit people from spitting on the floor? Any standards at all?


I just don't believe that service conflates with condoning That's kind of the point. That is your belief. Mine is different. Why not simply allow both of us to express our beliefs?

How can you be so blind Tal, either you believe or you do not. There are many deceived people in the world, but being a "good" person will not save you, you have to act on your beliefs too

The world is full of churches who do not believe the Bible. I don't mean to sound ugly, but to say that a person is a devout Christian when he/she is openly and unreservedly sexually active with anyone other than a genuine spouse (a person of the opposite sex) is not a Biblical statement. If we are going to serve Jesus, we have to do things His way. It will not be a perfect experience, but we would, at the very least, have to acknowledge His views of marriage and sexual expression.

Yeah you do sound ugly there, maybe judgmental, but you are entitled to that opinion, I can respect that though I disagree.


Do you believe a shop owner should be able to have ANY standards at all? If not the "no shirt, so shoes, no service" standard, then can they at least insist on having clothes on? Can they prohibit people from spitting on the floor? Any standards at all?


I get standards and at least 7/11 posts a sign of their standards unlike that Baker who might not. You know like those ugly signs back in the day "no coloreds", or "white only". Ever see a sign that says "No gay wedding cake or catering"? At least you know what your getting.



That's kind of the point. That is your belief. Mine is different. Why not simply allow both of us to express our beliefs?

We do, but I just hope you don't take my challenges personally as I never do, though they can wind me up sometimes. 8D

I can respect that though I disagree.

Disagree in what way? Are you saying that the Bible endorses men having sex with men?

We might be struggling over the definition of "gay". I take that to mean a person who actively engages in sex with people of the same gender. If you mean, however, a person who is tempted in that direction but does not act on it, then that would be a different matter.


We do, but I just hope you don't take my challenges personally as I never do, though they can wind me up sometimes. 8D


No offense taken. I enjoy the give and take and certainly respect you as a person.

Disagree in what way? Are you saying that the Bible endorses men having sex with men?

While I find wisdoms and insights into the writings of ancient men, I give NO book(s) a divine position and that includes everybody's bible... not just the Christian one. So it matters not what they endorse, or doesn't endorse. My own relationship with the creator is a personal one that is direct and that I chose to put nothing between us. I need the power of good orderly direction to have the power to resist and deal with the chaos that exists. Just me. I knock no one that needs whatever guidance that makes sense to them.



We might be struggling over the definition of "gay". I take that to mean a person who actively engages in sex with people of the same gender. If you mean, however, a person who is tempted in that direction but does not act on it, then that would be a different matter.

The subject was gay people so that's the term I used, and the point was that discrimination on any basis is WRONG. You can feel free to substitute gay for any social name you want. It is really meaningless segregating or judging any human by what they do with another human behind closed doors. I will admit, I have my limits though, and maybe that's a flaw, but it is what it is, and can certainly accept the flaws of other humans. I think that's why while two humans doesn't bother me, introducing other species is a bridge too far but other family groups beyond two doesn't disturb me so a harem doesn't offend as much as it does others. I'm not ashamed of my liberal views and make no excuses to the boundaries of good behavior I'm comfortable with.

So I admit that my judgement of a fellow human is a scale of good, bad, or somewhere in between. Glad you enjoy the discourse, so do I, and I respect everyone here, even though it gets contentious. It's all good my friend, can't imagine a day without you guys.

I knock no one that needs whatever guidance that makes sense to them.

I don't think you really believe that. If, for instance, someone says he has received guidance that makes sense to him to the effect that he can kill you and rob your house, I just don't think you will go along with that. For that matter, the baker who says he received guidance from Jesus that he should not participate in a gay wedding is exactly what you have been criticizing.

Everything cannot be subjective. There has to be some objective truth. All ancient writings cannot be given equal footing since they have so many places of disagreement. As to the Bible, I would just encourage anyone to examine the evidence for its truthfulness and reliability.

The most important question I know of, and in fact the ONLY truly important question I know of, is this: Did Jesus Christ really rise from the dead? If He did, then that changes everything. If He did not, then I can't see how anything really matters. After all, we would just be another species of animal on a small, otherwise unimportant planet circling one star among multiplied trillions of stars in a universe billions of years old.


my judgement of a fellow human

Hmmm. You judge people? That's strange. About me, you said, "Yeah you do sound ugly there, maybe judgmental." So it's OK to judge when you do it, but not for others?

If we are going to serve Jesus, we have to do things His way.
No, if we are going to serve Jesus, we have to BE like Jesus. This is the Gospel, this is Love. Doing things a certain way is Law.

Jesus saw individuals, not just their labels. This inspired them to know Him better.

No, if we are going to serve Jesus, we have to BE like Jesus. This is the Gospel, this is Love. Doing things a certain way is Law.

I think that's a somewhat fair statement, but Jesus loved people enough to tell them the truth. He didn't just go around patting everyone on the head and telling them not to worry about sin. He confronted sin, and not always in a nice manner, so if we are going to be like Jesus, we will have times when we are called upon to do the same. Doing so is a great act of love.

Don't believe Jesus confronted sins? Try reading this. Pretty strong stuff.

Luke 11:37 When Jesus had finished speaking, a Pharisee invited him to eat with him; so he went in and reclined at the table. 38 But the Pharisee was surprised when he noticed that Jesus did not first wash before the meal. 39 Then the Lord said to him, “Now then, you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness.40 You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also? 41 But now as for what is inside you—be generous to the poor, and everything will be clean for you. 42 “Woe to you Pharisees, because you give God a tenth of your mint, rue and all other kinds of garden herbs, but you neglect justice and the love of God. You should have practiced the latter without leaving the former undone. 43 “Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and respectful greetings in the marketplaces. 44 “Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which people walk over without knowing it.”

Might also check out what he told the woman caught in adultery. He was wonderfully merciful to her, but also told her, "Go and sin no more." There cannot be love without warning people about the consequences of sin. And yes, that has to start with me.


Jesus saw individuals, not just their labels. This inspired them to know Him better


That's a really good statement and I agree with it. However, he did not ignore the conditions of their lives. There was always the call upwards.

He didn't just go around patting everyone on the head and telling them not to worry about sin. He confronted sin, and not always in a nice manner, so if we are going to be like Jesus, we will have times when we are called upon to do the same. Doing so is a great act of love.
And those whom we confront regarding their sin are to confront us also in the same manner, with Love. After all, Romans 3:23 says, "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

And those whom we confront regarding their sin are to confront us also in the same manner, with Love. After all, Romans 3:23 says, "ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God."

I'm not sure what your point is. Should sinners be compassionate to sinners? Absolutely. Should we justify and excuse sin since we all struggle with it? No.

I don't think you really believe that. If, for instance, someone says he has received guidance that makes sense to him to the effect that he can kill you and rob your house, I just don't think you will go along with that. For that matter, the baker who says he received guidance from Jesus that he should not participate in a gay wedding is exactly what you have been criticizing.

You may as well believe it because I don't give a rats patoot where one gets his guidance from, nor where it takes him. A loony can invoke Jesus the same as a good man, so all I deal with are the actions. My criticism of that baker is but my opinion, and my right to express it. My complaint is discriminating by refusing to service another human. I have experienced it first hand, up close and personal, and it's an infuriating, disgusting and humiliating place to be, and WRONG to treat another human that way just because you can.

I have no control over the actions of another, just my own, and if Jesus told you to break in my house and kill me, then I can help you take it up with Jesus personally, god willing, but who can predict the outcome?

Our conflict my friend seems to be you think your baker is exempt from the law, and discrimination is AGAINST the law, though I must acknowledge that you thumb your nose at your fellow Christians as well as take exception when some one doesn't agree strictly with your assessment. I'm guilty of not agreeing and saying so. What do you want me to do about that?


Everything cannot be subjective. There has to be some objective truth. All ancient writings cannot be given equal footing since they have so many places of disagreement. As to the Bible, I would just encourage anyone to examine the evidence for its truthfulness and reliability.


I have already said the writing of the ancients is both fascinating and insightful, but I have yet to find one to be any better than the others and there are many. Actually the names may change but the gist is the same in my honest opinion. You like yours, COOL! I don't mean to offend. I explained that already, and accept you must proselytize when you can. Comes with the territory huh?


The most important question I know of, and in fact the ONLY truly important question I know of, is this: Did Jesus Christ really rise from the dead? If He did, then that changes everything. If He did not, then I can't see how anything really matters. After all, we would just be another species of animal on a small, otherwise unimportant planet circling one star among multiplied trillions of stars in a universe billions of years old.

His body died, but obviously his spirit lives on still in every heart that is open to him. We just do not know the awesome power of creation, but can see the wonder of it all around us. Being a part of it is what really matters. That's where my gratitude starts. OMG am I proselytizing now too!

I'm not sure what your point is. Should sinners be compassionate to sinners? Absolutely. Should we justify and excuse sin since we all struggle with it? No.
But too often the attitude of Christians is "I'm better than you because I'm saved."

But too often the attitude of Christians is "I'm better than you because I'm saved."

I would sure agree with that.


My complaint is discriminating by refusing to service another human.

But you said, "I knock no one that needs whatever guidance that makes sense to them." So if they discriminate because of the guidance they have received, is that OK? And if not, then aren't you judging them?

should a Jewish owner of a deli be forced to cater a KKK meeting ?

So if they discriminate because of the guidance they have received, is that OK? And if not, then aren't you judging them?
I understand him to be judging the guidance they received.


should a Jewish owner of a deli be forced to cater a KKK meeting ?
No forcing. And good could come of that.

I understand him to be judging the guidance they received.

So he can, all on his own, determine the validity of "divine guidance" someone else received? Wow. That's taking on a big responsibility. I don't think he, or you, or I, or anyone other person is able to, on our own, do such a thing.


No forcing. And good could come of that.

So your answer is that they should not legally be forced to do that? Just asking.

And good could come of that. agreed , a pastrami on rye will turn anyone .

agreed , a pastrami on rye will turn anyone.

Now THAT was funny!

But you said, "I knock no one that needs whatever guidance that makes sense to them." So if they discriminate because of the guidance they have received, is that OK? And if not, then aren't you judging them?

It's not just me, but the law that says discrimination is unlawfull. You enjoy an exemption, others do not have. You think a Rasta can practice his religion in Texas? He gets arrested as soon as he fires up! How is that FAIR? I God told you to break other laws would that be right? I have already noted that a court has said a baker cannot be forced to cater a gay wedding. Hey I'm cool with that, but let me ask as Tom has put forward, a gay BIRTHDAY cake is okay? Just not a wedding cake right?



should a Jewish owner of a deli be forced to cater a KKK meeting ?

NO! If a Christian doesn't have to cater a gay wedding, then why should a Jew cater a KKKmeeting? It's still discrimination. This is America and all are equal. No telling when us stupid humans will get that message.



I understand him to be judging the guidance they received.

Maybe, but I have strong beliefs too, that I can admit. I've been to gay weddings had a great time, but a Klan meeting, it would take more than the food to get me there and to be real, never been invited to one. I would worry about being the entertainment as opposed to being a guest if you get my drift.

So he can, all on his own, determine the validity of "divine guidance" someone else received? Wow. That's taking on a big responsibility. I don't think he, or you, or I, or anyone other person is able to, on our own, do such a thing.
Christians all the time judge the guidance of the holy books and holy men of other religions.


So your answer is that they should not legally be forced to do that? Just asking.
Nope. They are business owners and staff who want to sell their wares. The beliefs and lives of their patrons have nothing to do with anything. I worked in LibraryLand for over 25 years. We never questioned patrons as to their beliefs, how they lived, their motivations. We smiled and showed our love as we helped them with their library needs.

ADDED: I was very pleased to see this article in today's (10/28/18) Chicago Tribune:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-libraries-hire-social-workers-1027-story.html

We had our homeless regulars and interacted with them. Someday I'll tell you about Jerry, our very special library homeless guy, who, during our twelve-year friendship, taught me many ways to cope with homelessness.

Christians all the time judge the guidance of the holy books and holy men of other religions.

Not on our own. Our own ideas have nothing to do with it. Our ideas and beliefs are guided by the Bible.

So the Jewish bakery would have to bake/decorate a cake for the KKK? They would be legally required to do so and could be arrested and fined if they refused? Just trying to clarify your position.

So the Jewish bakery would have to bake/decorate a cake for the KKK? They would be legally required to do so and could be arrested and fined if they refused?

Hello j:

Jews don't look at those things quite the same way Christians do... As distasteful as it was, in the very Jewish city of Skokie, Ill, the Jews SUPPORTED the right of the KKK to march down main street..

I suggest, that in order to SUPPORT free speech, most Jewish bakers would hold their nose, and bake the stupid cake..

https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-history-taking-stand-free-speech-skokie

excon

So the Jewish bakery would have to bake/decorate a cake for the KKK?
Bake a stupid cake??? Heck, no!!! They would CATER their meal! I predict KKK minds and hearts opening up.

I predict KKK minds and hearts opening up.
Hello again, Carol:

AND wallets.. Nazi money spends just like Jewish money.

excon

Hello again, Carol:

AND wallets.. Nazi money spends just like Jewish money.

excon
Hello again, excon:

I babysat my way through college in Chicago's western suburbs. The families I regularly sat for were Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish (plus atheist now and then). The ones who quickly and easily made me part of their family by involving me in their religious celebrations and observations, by always having delicious food on hand, and by entrusting me with their delightful children (even the doctor's brood of twelve was a walk in the park) were the Jewish families. It was an eye-opening experience for this small-town Lutheran preacher's kid.

The KKK would only benefit from positive interaction with Jews.

Carol

Bake a stupid cake??? Heck, no!!! They would CATER their meal! I predict KKK minds and hearts opening up.










Evade, evade, evade. Have some courage. Take a position. Should the law force them to do business with the KKK?

Evade, evade, evade. Have some courage. Take a position. Should the law force them to do business with the KKK?
Why get the law involved? Why force? Like excon said, they'll do it willing.

The KKK AND the Jews can benefit from positive interactions with each other, as can other groups that have opposing points of view.

Why get the law involved? Why force? Like excon said, they'll do it willing.

The KKK AND the Jews can benefit from positive interactions with each other, as can other groups that have opposing points of view.

Strange how you fear answering a simple question.

How did the law get involved? Go back and follow the thread that started with the law forcing Christian bakers to be involved with gay marriages. The question was then asked, "Should the government be able to force a Jewish baker to do business with the KKK?"


Like excon said, they'll do it willing. Neither of you has any way of knowing if they would or wouldn't.

Those bakers need to be educated, not put in handcuffs.

"Those bakers need to be educated."

Chilling, frightening words, that the government, or perhaps Wondergirl, needs to be in the business of telling people what to believe. And remember that there are people (not me!) who believe that the JEWISH bakers are the ones who need to be educated.

You still haven't answered the question of the Jewish baker, but I'm assuming from your post above that you do not believe that either the Christian baker or the Jewish baker should be compelled by law to violate their religious beliefs.

Chilling, frightening words, that the government, or perhaps Wondergirl, needs to be in the business of telling people what to believe. And remember that there are people (not me!) who believe that the JEWISH bakers are the ones who need to be educated.
Educated in how to love....

Educated in how to love....





That's a good comment, so long as we realize that love demands we tell people the truth.

Like Pontius Pilate asked, "What is truth?"

Like Pontius Pilate asked, "What is truth?"





If you don't know the answer to that, then how do you know we are supposed to love each other?

And what is YOUR truth? I'm betting at least some of it is different from mine. Then what?

And how can we arrive at THE Truth?

And how can we arrive at THE Truth?


[/QUOTE]


I'd go a step beyond that. How can we even know that there is any such thing as truth? If there is no real truth, then you, nor I, can say with any real conviction that people should love each other. It just becomes opinion.

then you, nor I, can say with any real conviction that people should love each other. It just becomes opinion.
No shoulds. That's legalistic talk that generates guilt. As Dr. Albert Ellis once advised,"Don't 'should' on yourself."

P.S. Read I Corinthians 13.

You're missing the point completely. Why would I read 1 Cor. 13 unless it is the truth? You seem to think that the truth is nowhere to be found, but if you believe truth is in the Bible, then do you accept it all?

You're missing the point completely. Why would I read 1 Cor. 13 unless it is the truth? You seem to think that the truth is nowhere to be found, but if you believe truth is in the Bible, then do you accept it all?
Wow! I guess I'm being too subtle, too philosophical. Do you know what I Cor. 13 is about? As for what I believe about the Bible ... that's a whole 'nother topic.

Wow! I guess I'm being too subtle, too philosophical. Do you know what I Cor. 13 is about? As for what I believe about the Bible ... that's a whole 'nother topic.

I know exactly what it talks about, but if it's not the truth, then what difference does it make? You're being evasive. What you believe about the Bible is the foundation for what you believe about 1 Cor. 13. You can't separate one from the other. You sure are reluctant to nail down what you believe and why you believe it.

I know exactly what it talks about, but if it's not the truth, then what difference does it make? You're being evasive. What you believe about the Bible is the foundation for what you believe about 1 Cor. 13. You can't separate one from the other. You sure are reluctant to nail down what you believe and why you believe it.
I am a preacher's daughter, have taught Sunday school and adult Bible class for years, attended a Lutheran teachers college, taught in Lutheran grade schools, attended an ecumenical neighborhood Bible class for at least ten years, sent my two kids to a Lutheran grade school (pre-K-8th grade). I have grown in grace and am not a literalist.

Jesus was a Jew, so why haven't you converted JL?

I am a preacher's daughter, have taught Sunday school and adult Bible class for years, attended a Lutheran teachers college, taught in Lutheran grade schools, attended an ecumenical neighborhood Bible class for at least ten years, sent my two kids to a Lutheran grade school (pre-K-8th grade). I have grown in grace and am not a literalist.

A lot of nice information, but I still don't understand what you believe other than you are not a literalist with the exception of, I suppose, 1 Cor. 13.

A lot of nice information, but I still don't understand what you believe other than you are not a literalist with the exception of, I suppose, 1 Cor. 13.
Then let's take this into PMs. It's not part of this thread.

OK with me.

Jesus was a Jew, so why haven't you converted JL?

Get a life please, Jesus may have been a Jew by birth but he was more and he founded anew covenant, leaving the old Jewish covenant behind. Being Jewish can't make any one righteous, so why would you convert?

I see what your saying Clete, but if being Jewish doesn't make you right, then how can being a Christian make you right? Or is this part of some evolution or something? I just find it fascinating that we humans can move down the road and start a brand new religion. Don't you? I can certainly see the inspirational value of that.

Neither of you has any way of knowing if they would or wouldn't.

Hello j:

Well, I AM a Jew, after all.. I KNOW my community.. I could be wrong, of course. I was wrong once back in 1997.

I was in the restaurant business. You didn't have to pass a test to be MY customer.. Yes, I'm SURE I did serve some rotten Nazis.

Plus, as a Jew IN business, I KNEW that the courthouse was the place for solving disputes. But, as mentioned, there wouldn't BE any disputes because my only worry about my customers was whether they'd pay me. I didn't give a sh*t what their religion or politics were..

excon

Plus, as a Jew IN business, I KNEW that the courthouse was the place for solving disputes. But, as mentioned, there wouldn't BE any disputes because my only worry about my customers was whether they'd pay me. I didn't give a sh*t what their religion or politics were..

Yes. That's you, and I get that. But you have no way of knowing what the other thousands of Jewish businessmen/women in American would do. We are talking about what the law should compel someone to do, not what your personal intentions are.


I just find it fascinating that we humans can move down the road and start a brand new religion.

It had something to do with a man being raised bodily from the dead.

All due respect but can you prove that or are you just taking the word of some ancient man. I am in no way dismissing your faith or belief, but why should I believe you or your bible?

All due respect but can you prove that or are you just taking the word of some ancient man. I am in no way dismissing your faith or belief, but why should I believe you or your bible?

Actually you are dismissing the Christian faith, but that's your right. Taking the word of some ancient man? You need to investigate the evidence. You plainly have not done so.

Ex why not reconstitute the JDL ? Meir Kahane was always one of my heros .

All due respect but can you prove that or are you just taking the word of some ancient man. I am in no way dismissing your faith or belief, but why should I believe you or your bible?

Now Tal don't get your knickers in a knot. I'll refer you as I have done others to the book "evidence that demands a verdict", perhaps that will convince you

Clete, we agree on something! Evidence Which Demands a Verdict is a great place to start. If you really try to think about it as you read, then it takes a while to get through it.

Ex why not reconstitute the JDL ? Meir Kahane was always one of my heros .Hello tom:

That's a terrific idea..

excon, Jewish warrior

Clete, we agree on something! Evidence Which Demands a Verdict is a great place to start. If you really try to think about it as you read, then it takes a while to get through it.

Yes I've been through it a couple of times, but I don't need it because he revealed himself to me, got my attention you might say

Well I guess I should buy the book if I want evidence of what you say, but cannot articulate.

Well I guess I should buy the book if I want evidence of what you say, but cannot articulate.
Brace yourself for a fundamentalist read. One goodreads commenter said, "This book suffers profusely from circular reasoning, "facts" with no support, and sources that don't matter."

Brace yourself for a fundamentalist read. One goodreads commenter said, "This book suffers profusely from circular reasoning, "facts" with no support, and sources that don't matter."

1. Have you read it?

2. Another reviewer wrote, "Originally published in 1972, Evidence that Demands a Verdict (http://amzn.to/2EJuU9Q) by Josh McDowell has been a trusted resource for believers seeking to always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks for a reason for the hope that is in them (1 Peter 3:15 (https://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Pet%203.15)). But as McDowell notes in the foreword, we are to do so with gentleness and respect. That is certainly the tone that comes through throughout this book."

1. Have you read it?
Nope. I HAVE read other works by Josh and several others who think like he does. If you ask me nice, I'll d/l it into my Kindle and do an honest and open-minded reading of it, then report back.

I tend to discount and ignore reviews, good or bad, but wonder why supporters cannot articulate themselves after having read the works, and raving about it. Care to share?



Nope. I HAVE read other works by Josh and several others who think like he does. If you ask me nice, I'll d/l it into my Kindle and do an honest and open-minded reading of it, then report back.

Don't mind doing your homework I see. I started with His YouTube videos.

I tend to discount and ignore reviews, good or bad, but wonder why supporters cannot articulate themselves after having read the works, and raving about it. Care to share?

I think the resurrection of Christ is a good place to start. The best evidence of that event to me is the fact that all the authorities had to do was produce the dead body to refute the claim of resurrection. They couldn't do that. I could add that, if Jesus was just being deceptive, He would have never told them he would physically rise from the dead. He would have simply said He would spiritually rise, which would have been practically impossible to refute. And there is the fact that the witnesses of the resurrection so firmly believed they saw and interacted with Him that they led lives of deprivation and, eventually, were executed for their belief. Even at that, the message they preached changed the world. And then there is the case of Saul of Tarsus, whose life was changed as radically as any man who ever lived because he met the risen Lord.

Don't mind doing your homework I see. I started with His YouTube videos.
Great idea, will do that!

I must be honest that in my own studies over the years I have run into many scholars making very good arguments and presenting them as facts. Ones faith is not always about forensic evidence that can be demonstrated or proven. I surely have no proof of my own, so I offer none. I'm no boy scout, and have enough flaws to fill a rather thick book, so I have no intention of blasting the faith of good people, or dismissing it if it works well for you. We can discuss but don't take it personally.

I find very little references to the guards in the bible, but know of people having life changing spiritual experiences, or awakenings. That alone is enough for me to be aware of things that are greater than I am. Obviously I am no prolific scholar.

Brace yourself for a fundamentalist read. One goodreads commenter said, "This book suffers profusely from circular reasoning, "facts" with no support, and sources that don't matter."

Really, facts are facts, some would say irrefutable, but there are always detractors who want to take a different path and follow their own desires

Who was it who once said, "Facts are troublesome things."

Really, facts are facts, some would say irrefutable, but there are always detractors who want to take a different path and follow their own desires
I was always taught that belief in the teachings of the Bible is a matter of faith, not because they're irrefutable facts.

If they are not irrefutable facts, then why on earth would anyone want to believe them? It is like saying that 2 + 2 = 4 most of the time, but not all of the time. When you come from that point of view, and many do, it just seems to rob the Bible of any authority. Wouldn't it set me up as judge of the Bible rather than the Bible being the governing authority in my life? Jesus rose from the dead only if I believe He did, which is just another version of, "Who knows?"

I used to have a point of view similar to that until I discovered the amazing historical accuracy of the Biblical documents. It's not blind faith to believe the teachings of scripture.

https://d9yyo4u5t5p5jhg3ipeh2o5b-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/JohnAdamsQuote-KL.png

If they are not irrefutable facts, then why on earth would anyone want to believe them? It is like saying that 2 + 2 = 4 most of the time, but not all of the time. When you come from that point of view, and many do, it just seems to rob the Bible of any authority. Wouldn't it set me up as judge of the Bible rather than the Bible being the governing authority in my life? Jesus rose from the dead only if I believe He did, which is just another version of, "Who knows?"

I used to have a point of view similar to that until I discovered the amazing historical accuracy of the Biblical documents. It's not blind faith to believe the teachings of scripture.

I don't question your FAITH JL, nor the historic value of your bible as a whole, but I can refute what scholars present as irrefutable facts. How you treat them is of course your right.

If they are not irrefutable facts, then why on earth would anyone want to believe them?
Arguing over "irrefutable facts" is the main reason there are so many denominations.

arguing over "irrefutable facts" is the main reason there are so many denominations.

Great point!

I can refute what scholars present as irrefutable facts. How you treat them is of course your right.

OK. Let's hear you refute one.




Arguing over "irrefutable facts" is the main reason there are so many denominations.




Actually, it's more the details that people divide over. The core teaching of the Bible is generally not in dispute unless you get into liberal churches who do not believe in the inspiration of scripture and are convinced the Bible is full of non-facts. So we end up with silly disputes, for instance, about the true nature of marriage.

Actually, it's more the details that people divide over. The core teaching of the Bible is generally not in dispute
So you would be just as happy as a Methodist or a Lutheran or an Mormon or a Catholic? Their "divisive details" don't matter to you since they all have the same core teaching about salvation?

They all have the same core teaching about salvation?? Hardly. Mormons do not claim to adhere to the Bible at all and do not believe in salvation that belongs to all who genuinely have faith in Jesus, so that's a false comparison. Catholic doctrine only exists because they put the claims of the Popes alongside the claims of the Bible, and they also do not believe that faith alone in Christ alone is sufficient for salvation, so that's another false comparison. As to Methodists, they have largely abandoned the Bible as being the sole source of doctrine and have consequently drifted into error. Not real familiar with Lutherans, but it's hard to argue with a group who, I suppose, claim to follow the lead of Martin Luther!

I would love to hear your understanding of the "core teaching about salvation". What is your belief in that matter?

They all have the same core teaching about salvation?? Hardly.
They are all listed as Christian.

Mormon, e.g.: "He suffered in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross under an immeasurable weight to ransom us from our mortal burdens. After three days Jesus Christ overcame death, emerging from the tomb resurrected and winning for us that same reward; He made possible our own resurrection, the permanent union of our spirit and perfected physical body. Jesus was sent by His Father to offer eternal life to all of His children; His sacrifice empowers the plan of salvation."
https://www.mormon.org/beliefs/jesus-christ


Not real familiar with Lutherans, but it's hard to argue with a group who, I suppose, claim to follow the lead of Martin Luther!
No, they don't. And you belong to which group?


I would love to hear your understanding of the "core teaching about salvation". What is your belief in that matter?
I was quoting you. And I've told you my belief.

You quoted me about the core of salvation? I must have missed it.

As to Mormon doctrine, you disappoint me. They are very plain about this. "salvation from sin (https://www.mormonwiki.com/Sin), or spiritual death (https://www.mormonwiki.com/Death), is conditional. Entrance to the highest Heavenly Kingdom, the "Celestial Kingdom" (See 1 Corinthians 15:40 (https://scriptures.lds.org/1_cor/15/40)), is only granted to those who accept Jesus through baptism (https://www.mormonwiki.com/Baptism) into the Church by its priesthood (https://www.mormonwiki.com/Priesthood) authority, follow Church doctrine, and live righteous lives. Faith alone, or faith without works, (i.e. dead faith), is not considered sufficient to attain exaltation. (See James 2:26 (https://scriptures.lds.org/james/2/26).)"

By "church", they of course mean the Mormon church.

You quoted me about the core of salvation? I must have missed it.
I used your terminology, "core teaching about salvation."

I used to live near Palmyra, NY, the place where the LDS church began. I've been to their visitor center, have walked through the sacred grove, have climbed the Hill Cumorah (but didn't catch site of the angel Moroni). I posted their belief about salvation from their site.

Jesus wept

Jesus wept
At what?

I posted their belief about salvation from their site.

Not trying to be obstinate, but what you posted was their belief about Jesus. Their belief about salvation includes the following: "Salvation is attained now the same way it was then: we must have faith in Jesus Christ, repent of our sins, be baptized in His name, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and remain steadfast in keeping God’s commandments. In this way, we gain eternal life."

They are very heavily works oriented. This is what they actually post as their "plan of salvation". It's impossible to find in the Bible.

"We lived with Heavenly Father before this life as His spirit children, and we came to earth to gain a body and to learn and grow and eventually return to Him.

Long before the Creation of this earth, our Heavenly Father provided a plan that made it possible for us, His children, to become like Him. This plan is called the plan of salvation. Understanding this plan gives us greater purpose in life.

Before this mortal life we lived with God as His spirit children, without physical bodies. We chose the Father’s plan, which included the Creation of this earth and provided us the opportunity to come here to gain a body, make choices, develop faith, and accept responsibility for our actions. This allows us to progress beyond what was possible in the spirit world when we lived with God.

Sin and death are also part of mortality. The Father sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to provide a way to overcome sin and death. This He did through an act called the Atonement. Through Christ’s atoning sacrifice we can repent of our sins and someday live with God and with our families forever.

https://www.mormon.org/beliefs/plan-of-salvation

What kind of Christian are you that has the real Christianity?

At what?

40“I tell you,” He answered, “if they remain silent, the very stones will cry out.” 41As (https://biblehub.com/greek/5613.htm) Jesus approached Jerusalem (https://biblehub.com/greek/1448.htm) and saw (https://biblehub.com/greek/3708.htm) the (https://biblehub.com/greek/3588.htm) city, (https://biblehub.com/greek/4172.htm) He wept (https://biblehub.com/greek/2799.htm) over (https://biblehub.com/greek/1909.htm) it (https://biblehub.com/greek/846.htm) 42and said, “If only you had known on this day what would bring you peace! But now it is hidden from your eyes.…

The attitudes of the people, the inability to see the truth

Not trying to be obstinate, but what you posted was their belief about Jesus. Their belief about salvation includes the following: "Salvation is attained now the same way it was then: we must have faith in Jesus Christ, repent of our sins, be baptized in His name, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and remain steadfast in keeping God’s commandments. In this way, we gain eternal life."
If they believe this, the Gospel, the peripheral stuff doesn't matter, does it? If it does, why?

If they believe this, the Gospel, the peripheral stuff doesn't matter, does it? If it does, why?

But the word doesn't say that, that statement is full of peripheral stuff

But the word doesn't say that, that statement is full of peripheral stuff
This is full of peripheral stuff?
"...we must have faith in Jesus Christ, repent of our sins, be baptized in His name, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and remain steadfast in keeping God’s commandments. In this way, we gain eternal life."

remain steadfast in keeping God’s commandments.

We do not have a works based gospel. That is where they stray afar from the genuine gospel. It is not peripheral, it is CORE. It is the entire point of the first 8 chapters of Romans and is repeated throughout the NT.

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ephesians-2-9/) Not of works, lest any man should boast.

We do not have a works based Gospel.
So you make no effort to keep God's two greatest commandments, love God and love each other?

Btw, Eph. 2:8,9 are the verses recited by Luther as he rebelled against buying indulgences and then posted his 95 Theses.

So you make no effort to keep God's two greatest commandments, love God and love each other?

Being obedient to God is certainly important, but works are not a part of our salvation, they are the fruit of it. We all want our children to do chores around the house, but they do not become our children by doing them. Rather, they do them because they are our children. The order in which things happen is important.

I think you're just being argumentative. You know these things.

As every good student of Luther (including you) knows, this verse in Romans was his real eye-opener. Romans 1:17 (http://www.biblica.com/en-us/bible/online-bible/niv/romans/1/) 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."

Being obedient to God is certainly important, but works are not a part of our salvation, they are the fruit of it.
So we have to be careful to say that just right, that we obey the two greatest Commandments, not to earn salvation, but because it is our thank-you to Him.


As every good student of Luther (including you) knows, this verse in Romans was his real eye-opener.
Nope, never connected Luther with the Romans verse. It has always been the Ephesians verse. (Psssst, I was born on Luther's birthday, but in a different year. :D)

Oh, and Eph. 2:10 says, For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life.

So we have to be careful to say that just right, that we obey the two greatest Commandments, not to earn salvation, but because it is our thank-you to Him.

How it's said is not as important as how it's understood, and yes that is important.

Created FOR good works, but not saved BY good works. The difference is enormous. A sinful man can never work his way into God's favor any more than a murderer can work his way into a judge's favor.

Ah religious debates how they rage

So the dufus and his sycophants are likely going to hell right?

So are you if you are not right with God by faith in Jesus.

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,"

Created FOR good works, but not saved BY good works. The difference is enormous. A sinful man can never work his way into God's favor any more than a murderer can work his way into a judge's favor.
Yup. That was Luther's main thesis.


So are you if you are not right with God by faith in Jesus.
So there will be only Baptists in Heaven, maybe with a few Methodists and Lutherans? And it sounds like no Mormons, and certainly not Muslims and Hindi and Catholics.

So are you if you are not right with God by faith in Jesus.

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,"


It never ceases to amaze me how Bible fundies condemn everyone to hell if they don't believe the way the fundies do. Of course, they say they don't condemn anyone, the condemned themselves do it by not accepting Jesus as their Lord and savior.

And in case, you're still not sure, well, the Bible says so!!

What a crock! Hard to believe this nonsense is still around in the 21st century.

So there will be only Baptists in Heaven, maybe with a few Methodists and Lutherans? And it sounds like no Mormons, and certainly not Muslims and Hindi and Catholics.

So says you. I haven't said that. I did paste a scripture from the Bible you say you believe. What part of it do you disagree with?

"for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,"











It never ceases to amaze me how Bible fundies condemn everyone to hell if they don't believe the way the fundies do. Of course, they say they don't condemn anyone, the condemned themselves do it by not accepting Jesus as their Lord and savior.

And in case, you're still not sure, well, the Bible says so!!

What a crock! Hard to believe this nonsense is still around in the 21st century.

And we should believe that because, after all, you believe it. Thus saith Athos.

[and all] are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus
I understand that as, ALL are loved by God and have been justified by His grace as a gift because of Jesus' death, His sacrifice.

I understand that as, ALL are loved by God and have been justified by His grace as a gift because of Jesus' death, His sacrifice.

OK. Sounds like you are a believer in universal salvation, which of course would have to include Stalin, Hitler, and even Donald Trump(sorry, Tal). But if universal redemption is what is meant, then what does this mean?

13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

But if universal redemption is what is meant, then what does this mean?
Oh, c'mon! There are lot more clearer verses than that one!

Speaking of Hitler and Trump -- plus all of the mentally ill, maybe the Catholics have it right with Purgatory.

So God will damn and send to Hell over six billion people, including unbaptized fetuses? Maybe 86 will make it to Heaven, as long as they believe exactly the right way.

When reading scripture watch out for the words that have been added by the translators, they can change the meaning. Christ did not die for nothing he died so all can have the opportunity of redemption but salvation is by Faith

When reading scripture watch out for the words that have been added by the translators, they can change the meaning.
And those words have been circled, so we can recognise them immediately?

Oh, c'mon! There are lot more clearer verses than that one!

As is often the case, you did not answer the question.


And those words have been circled, so we can recognise them immediately?


They are typically in italics. While it is true they have been added, it normally clarifies, rather than change, the meaning. It is generally called for by the context. In this passage for instance, the word "one" was added by translators. "Do you not see all these things? Assuredly, I say to you, not one stone shall be left here upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

You must not have read my reply.

Where would we find the original text? Btw, I've never seen words in italics, nor has that ever been pointed out by any Bible class teachers. Will doublecheck my Bibles.

And those words have been circled, so we can recognise them immediately?

They are usually in brackets or italics but there are side notes

Where would we find the original text? Btw, I've never seen words in italics, nor has that ever been pointed out by any Bible class teachers. Will doublecheck my Bibles.

1. The italics usage is not in every translation. It is in the KJV and NASB. Not sure about which others. Not in the NIV which would be kind of expected. But it's all of very little practical importance. I read in the NAS and notice the italicized words regularly. They do very little more than add some clarity.

2. The reliability of the NT is very, very strong due to the enormous numbers of surviving texts, but even if they were all lost, the NT could be reconstructed by using quoted sections used by the early church fathers. It's all there minus a very few verses.

And we should believe that because, after all, you believe it. Thus saith Athos.

The difference between your belief and my belief is that, unlike you, I don't condemn those who believe differently than I do.

The difference between your belief and my belief is that, unlike you, I don't condemn those who believe differently than I do.

You ridicule and mock those who believe differently from you ("What a crock! Hard to believe this nonsense is still around in the 21st century"), but there is an additional difference. Your belief is based upon your own opinions, to which you are certainly entitled, but the basis of Christian faith is an amazing book and a man raised from the dead.

To disagree with someone is not to condemn them. To point out alternatives is not condemning anyone. To ask questions is not condemning. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I have condemned anyone.

You ridicule and mock those who believe differently from you ("What a crock! Hard to believe this nonsense is still around in the 21st century"), but there is an additional difference. Your belief is based upon your own opinions, to which you are certainly entitled, but the basis of Christian faith is an amazing book and a man raised from the dead.

To disagree with someone is not to condemn them. To point out alternatives is not condemning anyone. To ask questions is not condemning. I'm not sure where you get the idea that I have condemned anyone.


Here is where I got the idea - your post #168 where you condemned Tal to hell with the words "So are you [going to hell] if you are not right with God by faith in Jesus." It couldn't be any clearer.

Ridicule and mockery is a far cry from condemnation.

First of all, I did not mock or ridicule anyone. Tal asked, "So the dufus and his sycophants are likely going to hell, right?" (Note: You have not criticized him for condemning.) I replied to his statement, and I did not say he was going to hell. I did point out that faith in Christ is what prevents that. Now does he have faith in Christ? You'll need to ask him about that.

First of all, I did not mock or ridicule anyone.

I did NOT say YOU mocked or ridiculed anyone. YOU claimed I did the mocking and ridiculing. Please read carefully.




Tal asked, "So the dufus and his sycophants are likely going to hell, right?" (Note: You have not criticized him for condemning.)

Again, your reading is faulty. Tal is obviously NOT condemning, he is suggesting YOU will condemn based on your belief.




I replied to his statement, and I did not say he was going to hell.

You most certainly did. I even quoted you from your post #168



I did point out that faith in Christ is what prevents that.

There you go - you're doing it again.


Let me ask you: Is belief in Jesus Christ necessary for salvation? If so, what happens to those who do not believe in Jesus Christ?

Let me ask you: Is belief in Jesus Christ necessary for salvation? If so, what happens to those who do not believe in Jesus Christ?
Jumping in here -- "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and [all] have been justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." My response was, "I understand that as, ALL are loved by God and have been justified by His grace as a gift because of Jesus' death, His sacrifice."

Jumping in here -- like I said earlier ... "I understand that as, ALL are loved by God and have been justified by His grace as a gift because of Jesus' death, His sacrifice."

Does that mean BELIEF in JC is not necessary?

Let me ask you: Is belief in Jesus Christ necessary for salvation? If so, what happens to those who do not believe in Jesus Christ?

Why would you ask me? Why not listen to what Jesus said?

"As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up;15 so that whoever believes will in Him have eternal life. 16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:14-18).

Does that mean that JC is the ONLY son of the Father? Thanks for answering JL

Does that mean BELIEF in JC is not necessary?
Would a loving God damn over 10 billion humans (including [unbaptized] fetuses and infants) who have never heard the Gospel or are very dedicated to a non-Christian faith they were born into?

Would a loving God damn over 10 billion humans (including [unbaptized] fetuses and infants) who have never heard the Gospel or are very dedicated to a non-Christian faith they were born into?

Yes. That's what this quote seems to mean. ...He who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:14-18).

Would a loving God damn over 10 billion humans (including [unbaptized] fetuses and infants) who have never heard the Gospel or are very dedicated to a non-Christian faith they were born into?

Those are the words of Jesus, so you'll have to ask Him about that. For me, I'll place my eternity in His hands and believe His words. You will have to make your own decision. I would just suggest, however, you remember that not only is He a loving God, but He is also just, and the "Judge of the whole earth". If the Bible's teaching about judgement is correct, then your arguments won't get you very far on that day.

Does that mean that JC is the ONLY son of the Father? Thanks for answering JL

It does in the sense of being His divine Son. However, in John 1 it reads, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were [i (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NASB#fen-NASB-26058i)]born, not of [j (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NASB#fen-NASB-26058j)]blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."

Well please don't keep this layman in suspense, who are those 13... the disciples or... who?

For me, I'll place my eternity in His hands and believe His words. .


So you DO believe God will damn over 10 billion humans. Hardly a loving God.

Thanks for making your belief clear. I'm interested in such beliefs - especially from you, who makes such an issue of "evidence" and yet believes the words of an unknown writer from 2 thousand years ago. I wouldn't call that evidence but you're free to believe what you want.

Most Christians have gone beyond that need to believe such bad things about those who don't hold to the same ideas. Biblical literalists are fewer and fewer as we move deeper into the 21st century.

your arguments won't get you very far on that day
I'm not arguing with you; I'm asking you.

Well please don't keep this layman in suspense, who are those 13... the disciples or... who?
Methinks that's verse 13, not part of the text.

John 1: … 12But to all who did receive Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God 13children (https://biblehub.com/greek/3739.htm) born (https://biblehub.com/greek/1080.htm) not (https://biblehub.com/greek/3756.htm) of (https://biblehub.com/greek/1537.htm) blood, (https://biblehub.com/greek/129.htm) nor (https://biblehub.com/greek/3761.htm) of (https://biblehub.com/greek/1537.htm) the desire (https://biblehub.com/greek/2307.htm) or (https://biblehub.com/greek/3761.htm) will (https://biblehub.com/greek/2307.htm) of man, (https://biblehub.com/greek/435.htm) but born (https://biblehub.com/greek/235.htm) of (https://biblehub.com/greek/1537.htm) God. (https://biblehub.com/greek/2316.htm)

So you DO believe God will damn over 10 billion humans. Hardly a loving God.

Thanks for making your belief clear. I'm interested in such beliefs - especially from you, who makes such an issue of "evidence" and yet believes the words of an unknown writer from 2 thousand years ago. I wouldn't call that evidence but you're free to believe what you want.

Most Christians have gone beyond that need to believe such bad things about those who don't hold to the same ideas. Biblical literalists are fewer and fewer as we move deeper into the 21st century.

Your argument is with the words of Jesus, and not with mine. I'll let you argue with Him. I suspect you have no idea what "most Christians" have done, but rather than picking and choosing what to believe on the basis of my own tastes and preferences, I'll just choose to believe the words of the man who was raised from the dead.







I'm not arguing with you; I'm asking you.

It's interesting to me that you believe, on the basis I suppose of the Bible, that God is a loving God, but seem unable to believe what the same Bible teaches, that He is also coming for justice. Now as to who will be subject to that judgement, it will be the guilty, which is to say those still in their sins.

Now as to who will be subject to that judgement, it will be the guilty.
I'm guilty, you're guilty; all are guilty.

Yes indeed.

I respect your scholarship and knowledge of your bible, JL, but I must also acknowledge the many sects of Christianity, some more similar to your position than others, but also the many more, almost half the people of the world, who differ in custom, culture, and tradition, and name. Amazingly though the similarities and commonality is so striking I wonder why such deep conflicts from those differences.

I suspect that it's more a difference of the leaders of faith than the faith itself, and the strictness of the shepherds who dominate their flock for their own purpose which in simple human terms is personal power and wealth. Yes the history of a land, region, and it's people, is what shapes these great books, but one must acknowledge that it's not limited to one people, one region, or one religion.

How this comes together as we evolve naturally I can't say, but all have merit as more is revealed and lessons learned. We just ain't their YET! There is certainly enough room to disagree.

I hear what you're saying, but just because there is a wide variety of beliefs does not make all of them valid. There truth in this to be found. I can find no better place to look than the Bible, and there are many plain and clear truths to be found there, independent of the beliefs of man.

The beliefs of others is no less valid to them, as yours is to you, and that's an accepted fact. Conversion is a matter of choice, no matter where you came from or are going to.

The problem with believing that there are many valid religious beliefs is that the person never comes to a conclusion. To believe everything is really to believe in nothing. It's a life of maybes. If a math teacher puts a problem on the board, and six students come up with different answers, then no one believes that all six students are correct. Either one is correct and the others incorrect, or all six are incorrect, but all six are not correct. Strange that we know that of math, and yet believe that there is no real truth about God, so therefore everyone must be correct.

The problem with believing that there are many valid religious beliefs is that the person never comes to a conclusion. To believe everything is really to believe in nothing. It's a life of maybes. If a math teacher puts a problem on the board, and six students come up with different answers, then no one believes that all six students are correct. Either one is correct and the others incorrect, or all six are incorrect, but all six are not correct. Strange that we know that of math, and yet believe that there is no real truth about God, so therefore everyone must be correct.
That's not what Tal said. He said, "The beliefs of others is no less valid to them, as yours is to you."

I worked in LibraryLand with coworkers and volunteers who were born into the Muslim religion and the Hindi religion. Each spoke enthusiastically about his/her faith's blessings and celebrations and observances. Years ago I babysat for a Jewish family who told me about their holidays and rituals. It would have been the height of disrespect for me to tell any of them that what they believed since birth, beliefs that were part of their daily lives and prayers and worship, were evil and should be given up, that only Christianity is correct and if they don't change over, they're going to Hell.

They shared their religions with me but didn't preach to me and threaten hellfire, nor would I do that to them. I would not expect any of them to forsake a lifelong belief any more than they would expect me, a lifelong Christian, to become Muslim or Hindi or Jewish.

How do you, JL, behave with coworkers and friends who have different beliefs from yours?

It would have been the height of disrespect for me to tell any of them that what they believed since birth, beliefs that were part of their daily lives and prayers and worship, were evil and should be given up, that only Christianity is correct and if they don't change over, they're going to Hell.

You need to reread my post. You have fallen into the same error. Everyone cannot be right. Jesus said that salvation is available ONLY through Him. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but through me." Now you have to decide if He is right or not. As to your coworkers, no, I would not just confront them and tell them they are wrong, but I would start with the understanding, in my own mind, that they are in error. I would pray for them and trust God for opportunities to tell them the Gospel. I would not be as concerned about their feelings as I would be about the truth.


I really don't understand you. You stated in an earlier post that, aside from the first three chapters of Genesis, you have a literal understanding of the Bible, but you don't seem to believe the statements of Christ. If indeed, "No comes to the Father but by Me," then don't you think your friends need to know that?

You need to reread my post. You have fallen into the same error. Everyone cannot be right. Jesus said that salvation is available ONLY through Him. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father but through me." Now you have to decide if He is right or not. As to your coworkers, no, I would not just confront them and tell them they are wrong, but I would start with the understanding, in my own mind, that they are in error. I would pray for them and trust God for opportunities to tell them the Gospel. I would not be as concerned about their feelings as I would be about the truth.
Why would they believe my truth is truer than their truth?


I really don't understand you. You stated in an earlier post that, aside from the first three chapters of Genesis, you have a literal understanding of the Bible
I did not say that. I question if there was a worldwide flood, if Balaam's donkey talked, if a great fish swallowed Jonah, if Moses parted the Red Sea, and so on.

Why would they believe my truth is truer than their truth?

The question is, do you believe "your truth" is true. You seem to be unconvinced. You seem not willing to even accept the statements of Jesus. As I said earlier, to believe everything is to believe nothing.

Regarding the first three chapters of Genesis, you said you regarded it as an allegory, so I assumed you regarded the rest of the Bible as true. My mistake.

The question is, do you believe "your truth" is true. You seem to be unconvinced. You seem not willing to even accept the statements of Jesus. As I said earlier, to believe everything is to believe nothing.

Regarding the first three chapters of Genesis, you said you regarded it as an allegory, so I assumed you regarded the rest of the Bible as true. My mistake.
You certainly take huge leaps in logic as to what I said and what you have decided I believe!

Then tell us what you believe. Is your "truth" true? Are the statements of Jesus true? If his statements are true, then aren't you under some obligation to tell your co-workers the truth?

Is this guy telling the truth?

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/167/16732/1673284.gif

You believe him don't you?

That the stock market is up since Trump's election? Are you kidding? Only a raging idiot would deny that. Yes I believe it.

Come on man! So are hate crimes and that's what the chart is about. You seem to see what you want to see. More lies by YOUR side!

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/cache/lw600/167/16743/1674330.jpgBe glad when this silly season is over.

Then tell us what you believe. Is your "truth" true? Are the statements of Jesus true? If his statements are true, then aren't you under some obligation to tell your co-workers the truth?
I'm retired and have no coworkers.

In a PM, I had said this (how quickly they forget....):

"You asked, "Did Jesus really rise from the dead. Is sin real? Are heaven and hell real? Is a day of judgement coming? Can I really do all things through Him who gives me strength?

My answer to all of those is a resounding YES!!!"

That the stock market is up since Trump's election? Are you kidding? Only a raging idiot would deny that. Yes I believe it.

Stock markets rise and fall, how do you account for the big adjustments lately? Who shall we blame or does Trump only take credit for rises. If you are using the stock market as an indication of confidence then Trump's influence might be positive. I think Trump's impact is as credible as the hockey stick curve, just coincidence, now if he sees a big win this week it might point to confidence in him, if not it is censure, much more reliable as an indicator of sentiment

Sorry to have to tell you this, but hate crimes increased the last two years of Mr. Obama's administration. So whatever you think is true of Trump must also have been true of Obama.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/11/13/hate-crimes-in-the-united-states-increased-last-year-the-fbi-says/?utm_term=.108a66dac29d


"You asked, "Did Jesus really rise from the dead. Is sin real? Are heaven and hell real? Is a day of judgement coming? Can I really do all things through Him who gives me strength?

My answer to all of those is a resounding YES!!!"

What a shame that you seem so determined to not share those truths with others who do not know them.

What a shame that you seem so determined to not share those truths with others who do not know them.
What a shame that you think that.

This is what I was referring to.
"I worked in LibraryLand with coworkers and volunteers who were born into the Muslim religion and the Hindi religion. Each spoke enthusiastically about his/her faith's blessings and celebrations and observances. Years ago I babysat for a Jewish family who told me about their holidays and rituals. It would have been the height of disrespect for me to tell any of them that what they believed since birth, beliefs that were part of their daily lives and prayers and worship, were evil and should be given up, that only Christianity is correct and if they don't change over, they're going to Hell."

They need to hear the truth, and you seem to be saying you would not risk "the height of disrespect" in order to tell them.

So with all evasiveness aside, what would you tell them?

"It would have been the height of disrespect for me to tell any of them that what they believed since birth, beliefs that were part of their daily lives and prayers and worship, were evil and should be given up, that only Christianity is correct and if they don't change over, they're going to Hell."

I would not have told them that their beliefs were evil and that they were going to Hell. I would have asked them about their faith, their beliefs and learned as much as I could, would have shared with them the features of Christianity that were especially common to their faith.

And btw, the workplace is not the place to share this in any depth -- maybe briefly during a coffee break or at lunch. Better would be to meet outside of work.

I would not have told them that their beliefs were evil and that they were going to Hell. I would have asked them about their faith, their beliefs and learned as much as I could, would have shared with them the features of Christianity that were especially common to their faith.

And btw, the workplace is not the place to share this in any depth -- maybe briefly during a coffee break or at lunch. Better would be to meet outside of work.

There is some wisdom there, but I would add this. It is only in sharing the aspects of my faith that are NOT common with their faith that I can share the gospel with them. They will not, for instance, have faith in Christ, so I will have to tell them about Him. I don't have to confront them or argue with them, but I would need to tell them as I have the opportunity to do so.

There is some wisdom there, but I would add this. It is only in sharing the aspects of my faith that are NOT common with their faith that I can share the gospel with them. They will not, for instance, have faith in Christ, so I will have to tell them about Him. I don't have to confront them or argue with them, but I would need to tell them as I have the opportunity to do so.
Did I say I wouldn't do that? You must have missed "especially"; N.B. I didn't say "only".

I think you misread your own post. Your emphasis was on that which is common. "the features of Christianity that were especially common to their faith." My comment concerned that which was NOT common.

I think you misread your own post. Your emphasis was on that which is common. "the features of Christianity that were especially common to their faith." My comment concerned that which was NOT common.
And those would eventually become part of the discussion.

I have used this analogy before and it's appropriate now.


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









The parable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable) of the blind men and an elephant originated in the ancient Indian subcontinent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_subcontinent), from where it has been widely diffused. However the meaning of the popular proverb (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proverb) differs in other countries. It is a story of a group of blind men, who have never come across an elephant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant) before and who learn and conceptualize what the elephant is like by touching it. Each blind man feels a different part of the elephant's body, but only one part, such as the side or the tusk. They then describe the elephant based on their limited experience and their descriptions of the elephant are different from each other. In some versions, they come to suspect that the other person is dishonest and they come to blows. The moral of the parable is that humans have a tendency to claim absolute truth based on their limited, subjective experience as they ignore other people's limited, subjective experiences which may be equally true.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant#cite_note-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant#cite_note-snyder12-2)

And those would eventually become part of the discussion.


Good. Then we agree.

Here's what wrong with your elephant story. In that story, there really is an elephant and the elephant has definite characteristics. If one blind man says the elephant has eight legs, then he is wrong. If another says the elephant is the size of his thumb, then he is also wrong. All the claims of the blind men are not correct. There is an objective standard of truth, and that is the elephant itself. So again, if we want to think that everyone is right, then no one is right.

Beyond that, the Christian faith does not claim that man has wandered about over the centuries and, quite by accident, discovered some things about God. No, the Bible tells us that God has revealed Himself to man, most recently in the person of His Son. So we are not blind men groping about, trying to relate our subjective discoveries of God. We can look at His Son and know all we need to know, and know it with confidence. It is not subjective, it is objective.

Whatever gets you through the day my friend. Your point is well taken though as God is the big elephant in the room, and always has been, but ponder for a moment if those blindmen had put their knowledge and experience together then maybe instead of conflicts, they would have a much more accurate concept/picture as to what the elephant is. That is why I cannot fully grasp or agree with focusing on the differences between the faiths of men because I feel you miss so much and invite the conflicts between us to separate and divide as opposed to the more productive path of good orderly direction of building bonds of respect that leads to better understandings of our world.

While I am no scholar of any particular faith I've read enough history to know the interactions of man have produced many conflicts when one tribes seeks domination over another, but PEACE requires the willingness to share and exchange ideas to learn from each other and forge the path forward that benefits us all.

No, we ain't there yet, but is not faith based on the hope we will get there eventually, no matter what tribe, or region we are from? Do you really believe you must change the world into your own image? I don't think that was the example of Jesus, quite the opposite frankly. I think that God has revealed himself to man in many ways, and not just through Jesus. Just my humble observation.

Do you really believe you must change the world into your own image? I don't think that was the example of Jesus, quite the opposite frankly.

You need to look much, much closer. If you don't think He came to bring, not merely change, but enormous change, then you have missed it completely. Read the gospels for yourself. Either accept his words or reject them, but it is a terrible thing to try and live in the middle, content with a fantasy Jesus that has no relationship to the real one.

"Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 (http://biblehub.com/luke/12-52.htm) From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 (http://biblehub.com/luke/12-53.htm) They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

He is not advocating for war, but rather saying that the truth brings division.

That is not a license for YOU to ostracize or persecute, or dominate and a reality check that you cannot control the thoughts, actions, and words of others. The example of Jesus is make peace, whether that is the outcome or not. He did not make war with those that opposed him, punished him, crucified him. I take it as an acknowledgement of the challenges of your faith, can you make peace where there is opposition?

Maybe that's something to consider when you beech about Caeser taking YOUR money and giving it to another.

That is not a license for YOU to ostracize or persecute, or dominate and a reality check that you cannot control the thoughts, actions, and words of others. The example of Jesus is make peace, whether that is the outcome or not. He did not make war with those that opposed him, punished him, crucified him. I take it as an acknowledgement of the challenges of your faith, can you make peace where there is opposition?

I haven't ostracized or persecuted anyone that I know of. I have no idea where you got that from. As to what Jesus came to do, you can argue with Him about what He said. The peace that Jesus came to bring is peace between people and God. I have no ill intent toward anyone, but there is a lot of opposition to the Christian message that I have no control over.

The SON of God or the SUN of God?

"It was forbidden by early Christian church authorities to study astrology. That might well have been because the authorities were afraid that anyone astute enough could come to realise that astrology was the source from where the New Testament Jesus story was derived."
https://www.newparadigm.ws/my-blogs/are-god-s-sun-the-son-of-god-the-same/

What a load of... …………………………..

What a load of ........................

Just about right.

Just about right.
It was your chuckle for the day.

"It was your chuckle for the day."




I'll be the first to admit I need to loosen up a bit and see the humor in some things. The only thing about those articles is that I know that some people actually believe that stuff.

Some of those beliefs are older than Christianity by a few thousand years, and entire cultures are built around them. The accuracy of ancient calendars based on the sun and moon cycles is fascinating and still used today. Plotting the movements of the planets is the stuff that even NASA uses. Hard to tell a person to forget their own ghosts and demons and get with yours. You should know how it goes. When others get tired of your spiel they ignore and avoid you and go about their own business.

Isn't that what free will and free choice is about? To the subject of this thread, spiritual choices often get lost when the mind and body ails and there are no healing options. Sometimes what they need is a physician not a preacher. You can walk in any church and get a sermon, but we can't walk in any hospital and get a band aid without paying an arm and leg for it.

No disrespect but until your religion can show me how to pay those doctor bills, or at least find an affordable doctor, don't call me, I'll call you.

No disrespect but until your religion can show me how to pay those doctor bills, or at least find an affordable doctor, don't call me, I'll call you.
And that's what Christians must do -- help each other (and yes, those who AREN'T Christian) emotionally, physically, financially -- and, of course, spiritually. Like the song says, "And they'll know we are Christians by our love...."

(Where are the U.S. Christians and their churches with this caravan trudging through Mexico?)

They are cringing behind their doors afraid to do as their savior says because they listen to a lying cheating dufus! So what if devils travel among them, can't they recognize them and rebuke them? I don't know if that's cowardice or hypocrisy... or maybe it's BOTH!

Boy was that harsh.

Or maybe those devils traveling among them need a demonstration of Christ's love too.

They are cringing behind their doors afraid to do as their savior says because they listen to a lying cheating dufus! So what if devils travel among them, can't they recognize them and rebuke them? I don't know if that's cowardice or hypocrisy... or maybe it's BOTH!

Boy was that harsh.

Good grief. You need to jump off the ole bitterness train. I can assure you that Mr. Trump does not guide my Christian faith. I let Jesus do that.

I can assure you that Mr. Trump does not guide my Christian faith. I let Jesus do that.
You're one of a minority of conservative Christians who think this way.

You're one of a minority of conservative Christians who think this way.

And you would know that how??? That's a pretty judgmental statement if you don't have solid evidence for it.

And you would know that how??? That's a pretty judgmental statement if you don't have solid evidence for it.
I was born into and raised in conservative Christian communities in NC and NY. I married into a conservative Christian family and live in a conservative Christian county in Illinois. Do you want U.S. statistics?

Do you want U.S. statistics?

If you have statistics pertaining to conservative Christians not following Christ, then yes, I would like to see that. Anecdotal stories really don't count for much.

And you would know that how??? That's a pretty judgmental statement if you don't have solid evidence for it.

For someone who frequently calls for evidence, your own position on evidence is highly selective. You offer the Bible as evidence when it is nothing of the sort. You confuse faith with evidence. "...the evidence of things unseen."

You offer the Bible as evidence when it is nothing of the sort.

Not really sure what you're talking about. There is a lot of evidence as to the reliability of the Bible. The Bible would, of course, be offered as the expression of the will of God for those who accept it. Beyond that, I just don't get your point.

Not really sure what you're talking about. There is a lot of evidence as to the reliability of the Bible. The Bible would, of course, be offered as the expression of the will of God for those who accept it. Beyond that, I just don't get your point.

Everybody says that about their bible.

The Bible would, of course, be offered as the expression of the will of God for those who accept it.


That is faith, not evidence.

I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate . We all have our intractable beliefs ;even non-believers . Just adding a moments pause to hear from the basket of deplorables . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qCpCXGAKwA

Bah ker sha demere, Tom, no one who sings it is deplorable, don't argue with athos, he wants to remain ignorant

About all I can tell someone is to investigate the reliability of the Bible and judge for yourself. A man performs miracles and then is raised from the dead is pretty good evidence. I don't know of any more important aspect of life than a person's relationship with God, so choose well.

don't argue with athos, he wants to remain ignorant


This from someone who claims Barack Obama is a "self-admitted gay Muslim"! Speaking of ignorance.........

That is faith, not evidence.



I'm not going to get into a philosophical debate . We all have our intractable beliefs ;even non-believers . /QUOTE]

[QUOTE=jlisenbe;3824639]I don't know of any more important aspect of life than a person's relationship with God, so choose well.

We can agree on that.

We can agree on that.

Stop the presses! We agree on something. So you see, we are still living in the age of miracles. (<:

It's no miracle in my opinion that we do much better BUILDING on our commonality as humans, instead of fighting over artificial differences.

Your argument is with the words of Jesus, and not with mine. I'll let you argue with Him.










No, my argument (your word) is with you, not Jesus. Do you have the courage of your convictions or do you wish to simply transfer the onus of persuasion elsewhere? Obviously, I can't argue with Jesus - he's not here. Then there's the problem of words purportedly spoken by Jesus and finally canonized three centuries after his time on earth.

(My apologies for being late responding. I missed this the first time around).

No, my argument (your word) is with you, not Jesus. Do you have the courage of your convictions or do you wish to simply transfer the onus of persuasion elsewhere? Obviously, I can't argue with Jesus - he's not here. Then there's the problem of words purportedly spoken by Jesus and finally canonized three centuries after his time on earth.

I simply told you what Jesus said. You have to choose what you do with them. My courage, or possible lack thereof, has nothing to do with the truth. If you don't accept the words of Christ, then you need to decide whose words you do accept.

I can only respectfully submit that developing a personal relationship with the god that you understand is better than relying on the words of ancient men, or even modern ones.

I can only respectfully submit that developing a personal relationship with the god that you understand is better than relying on the words of ancient men, or even modern ones.

I respectfully submit that what you are proposing, the idea that everyone gets to have their own god and therefore their own truth, is just a flight of fantasy and ignores the meaning of the word "truth". As to accepting the words of ancient or modern man, you have to accept someone's words. In what you are suggesting, you are accepting your own words and thoughts. Well, you better be fantastically smart if you expect that to work.

I respectfully submit that what you are proposing, the idea that everyone gets to have their own god and therefore their own truth, is just a flight of fantasy and ignores the meaning of the word "truth". As to accepting the words of ancient or modern man, you have to accept someone's words. In what you are suggesting, you are accepting your own words and thoughts. Well, you better be fantastically smart if you expect that to work.

Bingo! You are catching on finally. Who and what I believe is MY choice. I am very grateful it has worked so well for me and smart has nothing to do with it.

BLESSED would be a more accurate word given my own flaws, foibles and mistakes, but gratitude is my attitude. May you have peace in your own journey through life.

Who and what I believe is MY choice.

I've never said otherwise. I have pointed out, however, that you or I believing something does not make it true. The idea is to find the truth and believe that. We can believe what we want, but we cannot change the truth.

I've never said otherwise. I have pointed out, however, that you or I believing something does not make it true. The idea is to find the truth and believe that. We can believe what we want, but we cannot change the truth.


The idea is to find the truth and believe that.

Thus, you believe that YOUR truth, the one that you found, is the REAL and ONLY truth.

I've never said otherwise. I have pointed out, however, that you or I believing something does not make it true. The idea is to find the truth and believe that. We can believe what we want, but we cannot change the truth.

We could both be wrong! 8I

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/167/16743/1674305.gif

Thus, you believe that YOUR truth, the one that you found, is the REAL and ONLY truth.

And you don't?

That's part of the nature of truth. It is exclusive, so you can't just choose your own truth like on a smörgåsbord. Either you have the truth or you have something other than the truth. Yes, I am convinced the Bible contains the truth, and that Jesus, as He said, IS the truth. You can feel free to disagree with Him if you like.