Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I also take your inability to answer as confirmation that it is discrimination towards gay people to not write a message on the cake and further more it is confirmation of the logical conclusion of discrimination based on your belief system, being; creating absurd situations like the one I presented.

Explain for me the relevance of your question, compared to the one you originally asked which was also quite dumb.

The relevance is that you are saying that it is not discrimination against gay people to refuse to sell a cake with gay message on it and that it is only discrimination against the message itself. If we follow the logic that it is not discrimination then we end up with the scenario I presented. The paramedic is not discriminating against the person, they are discriminating against the tattoos according to their religious beliefs and just in the same way you refuse to help the gay person, the paramedic refuses to help the victim.

Imagine in Neo's situation when Christians are discriminated against in a Muslim country and there is no other option, at least here the paramedic can call another paramedic to help out, but in a country where this paramedic lives maybe it is more like Neo's country, being a pretty homogeneous set of beliefs, calling another paramedic may not be an option and you are left to die.

I think it is clearly discrimination, justified by personal religious beliefs. When you use your religious beliefs to oppress others, then you have fallen into the trap of legalism.

Legalism (or nomism), in Christian theology, is the act of putting law[clarification needed] above gospel by establishing requirements for salvation beyond repentance and faith in Jesus Christ and reducing the broad, inclusive and general precepts of the Bible to narrow and rigid moral codes.[1] It is an over-emphasis of discipline of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigour, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of law at the expense of the spirit. Legalism is alleged against any view that obedience to law, not faith in God's grace, is the pre-eminent principle of redemption. On the Biblical viewpoint that redemption is not earned by works, but that obedient faith is required to enter and remain in the redeemed state, see Covenantal nomism.

Of course legalism is more then just using the law to oppress others, but it is certainly a part of it.

melanie wrote:Exactly
The issue isn't really what is being expressed in icing on the cake but the principal
Some Christians don't want to supply a cake for a gay marriage. That is the bottom line.
My question is where do we draw the line??

Where to draw the line? How about if someone took the gay activist to the roof of a building and threw them off shouting "Allahu Akbar". You guys seriously need perspective.

Milo Yiannopoulos and Dave Rubin Discuss Gay Rights and Cultural Libertarians

These guys did have it coming though...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v00SImBe02o

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I also take your inability to answer as confirmation that it is discrimination towards gay people to not write a message on the cake and further more it is confirmation of the logical conclusion of discrimination based on your belief system, being; creating absurd situations like the one I presented.

Explain for me the relevance of your question, compared to the one you originally asked which was also quite dumb.

The relevance is that you are saying that it is not discrimination against gay people to refuse to sell a cake with gay message on it and that it is only discrimination against the message itself. If we follow the logic that it is not discrimination then we end up with the scenario I presented.

You see, you highlight here what I think is so stupid about it.
We discriminate all the time, society does, the issue isn't discrimination at all.
THAT, is far different from such discrimination didn't happen, which I didn't say.
Do you think all discrimination is wrong? I'm sure you don't, by the pure fact you're discriminating against Christians who would refuse to bake a cake that goes against their values.

You wrote

Kurieuo wrote:No, you missed the real exchanges that it's not about serving people, it's being forced to be complicit in something a person strongly disagreed with.

So should the paramedic be complicit in something that they strongly disagreed with?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:You wrote

Kurieuo wrote:No, you missed the real exchanges that it's not about serving people, it's being forced to be complicit in something a person strongly disagreed with.

So Should the paramedic be complicit in something that they strongly disagreed with?

Dum de dum, I answered immediately after you asked it the first time.

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:You wrote

Kurieuo wrote:No, you missed the real exchanges that it's not about serving people, it's being forced to be complicit in something a person strongly disagreed with.

So Should the paramedic be complicit in something that they strongly disagreed with?

Dum de dum, I answered immediately after you asked it the first time.

Ok you see it as morally bad to not save a life, well I see it morally bad to discriminate based on race, gender, sexual preference etc.. But yet you support discrimination in some cases and not in others based on your personal religious views, so in some cases you won't force people to be complicit even though they are breaking the law, and in other cases you will force people to be complicit based on your personal religious beliefs and suspend their religious beliefs. Sounds pretty totalitarian (ministry of love), hypocritical and legalistic to me.

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I also take your inability to answer as confirmation that it is discrimination towards gay people to not write a message on the cake and further more it is confirmation of the logical conclusion of discrimination based on your belief system, being; creating absurd situations like the one I presented.

Explain for me the relevance of your question, compared to the one you originally asked which was also quite dumb.

Since I'm on a dumb roll and I have some time to waste....

I worked in women's wear once and what if while selling a lady some underwear, she tells me all about her lover and how his wife never wears nice things for him like she does....

Obviously she is buying the super sexy underwear for evil intent but I cant just not sell it. Where do you draw the line? Maybe get a new job.

As is the same with the cake that is also being used for evil intent. Does writing on it their names make it any worse? You are selling them a wedding cake regardless.

So perhaps I'm changing my mind. Or sitting on the fence. Hopefully the fence is not electric, cos that would be really dumb.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:You wrote

Kurieuo wrote:No, you missed the real exchanges that it's not about serving people, it's being forced to be complicit in something a person strongly disagreed with.

So Should the paramedic be complicit in something that they strongly disagreed with?

Dum de dum, I answered immediately after you asked it the first time.

Ok you see it as morally bad to not save a life, well I see it morally bad to discriminate based on race, gender, sexual preference etc.. But yet you support discrimination in some cases and not in others based on your personal religious views, so in some cases you won't force people to be complicit even though they are breaking the law, and in other cases you will force people to be complicit based on your personal religious beliefs. Sounds pretty totalitarian (ministry of love), hypocritical and legalistic to me.

Who said they were religious? Again, the main issue I kept stressing is missed.

Stop posting videos that I cannot watch. I am at work and at home I try to stay off forums and spend time with my family.

If I keep missing the point, then you need to be more concise.

Nessa wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I also take your inability to answer as confirmation that it is discrimination towards gay people to not write a message on the cake and further more it is confirmation of the logical conclusion of discrimination based on your belief system, being; creating absurd situations like the one I presented.

Explain for me the relevance of your question, compared to the one you originally asked which was also quite dumb.

Since I'm on a dumb roll and I have some time to waste....

I worked in women's wear once and what if while selling a lady some underwear, she tells me all about her lover and how his wife never wears nice things for him like she does....

Obviously she is buying the super sexy underwear for evil intent but I cant just not sell it. Where do you draw the line? Maybe get a new job.

As is the same with the cake that is also being used for evil intent. Does writing on it their names make it any worse? You are selling them a wedding cake regardless.

So perhaps I'm changing my mind. Or sitting on the fence. Hopefully the fence is not electric, cos that would be really dumb.

If you refuse to sell, then you may be forced to get a new job.

What are you doing selling super sexy underwear anyway? You're risking your salvation on such wickedness! You should tell the lady that she needs to bow her knee to Christ, repent from her sins and make Jesus Lord of her life! Because THAT is what a righteous person would do.

After all, God made bananas to be held in the hand with a nice pull lever at the top to make it easier for us to eat.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Stop posting videos that I cannot watch. I am at work and at home I try to stay off forums and spend time with my family.

If I keep missing the point, then you need to be more concise.

I'd encourage you to re-read over my messages rather than skim them.

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Stop posting videos that I cannot watch. I am at work and at home I try to stay off forums and spend time with my family.

If I keep missing the point, then you need to be more concise.

I'd encourage you to re-read over my messages rather than skim them.

Erm I don't skim them, I have re-read them, your point is not concise and I suck at reading between the lines.

I this your point?

The issue as I see it, isn't that the person is refusing to make the cake, which they refuse on the basis of their good conscience to God (and no one's life is at stake if they don't write the message on top of the cake). Rather, the true issue between us is that that Neo-X and yourself do not see homosexuality as morally wrong, or harmful to anyone, or an affront to God.

Because if it is, then this is not true.

Or is it this part.

If people are gay by design, biologically, or what-have-you, then the person making the cake is just being stupid not writing the damn message on top. Right? They're a bigot, because they're somehow imposing their morality onto others, and they're clearly wrong because there is nothing wrong with being gay. And that, is what society when it hauls a Christian cake maker before court is being taught a lesson on when they don't comply with writing a message they strongly disagree with.

This is not true anyway, being born anything does not imply design or something being morally right as you suggest.

Thanks D220. Those were points of difference between why we perhaps disagree.

Rather, my core issue with people being prosecuted over holding to their beliefs is this (when I responded to Neo-X):

K wrote:My issue is one you touch upon here -- with one's freedom being taken away to believe and act according to their beliefs. Do we truly value a person's freedom? Even if we do all we can to change the minds of others, so long as the freedom of others aren't infringed upon, then such is good -- and it's what God also values, our freedom.

Call people who won't serve cake mean names like dumb, or stupid, bigoted or the like (if you don't, it's clear that's what people feel). But lawsuits are essentially holding a gun to the heads of a person to change or else. It is a legal gun. As Nessa said, should she go out of business? Yes, activists believe that is a good end goal for someone who believes "gay marriage" is wrong, to drive such self-righteous homophobes out of business.

So who has it worse and receives more oppression in having their liberty taken away? I think it obvious. But, perhaps you feel such cake makers deserve it, so who cares. But, as Luther said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

The issue isn't discrimination, which your hypothetical paramedic example is seeking to show an inconsistency on. That is why I say it is irrelevant to what my issue actually is over all this. I wonder if you also caught this part of my words:

K wrote:To be clear, I've never said that I wouldn't make the cake with a pro-gay message.