Evidence for God from Science

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I don't support Christian persecution, I don't agree with your reasoning for allowing Christians to persecute others, it's as simple as that.

Please enlighten us, how a Christian not making an activist pro-gay website or refusing to participate in a gay marriage is persecution? While at it, how a Christian being taken to court over such and fined, losing their job/business or serving prison time isn't?

neo-x -- I am back to this disussion after a day or so.
I have just read this post from page 18, so pardon me if you have moved on from this point.

You repeatedly give examples of people discriminating against CUSTOMERS because of their religion, race, etc.
YES - this is discrimination. I agree refusing to serve someone because of these reasons is wrong, unfair, etc.

But the situation that is actually happening is different.
Christian business owners are discriminating against:

• EVENTS (e.g. gay weddings, bachelor parties)
• THEMES (e.g. Halloween, gay pride).

Yes - this is discrimination, but this is not a form of harmful discrimination.
They are not discriminating against the CUSTOMERS.

• To the business owner, the sexual orientation of the customer is irrelevant to the request.
• They would not sell cakes for that event/theme to heterosexual customers either.
• The event/theme of the product is the issue.
• This is evidenced by the fact that they would sell the customer other products.

Now, I just want to be clear. This is the only situation that I endorse.
Yes, there may be cases where the business owner truly did discriminate against the people themselves.
I do not endorse that form of discrimination.

So, in regards to your examples...

neo-x wrote:... Because I detest the core principal for which you are appealing here. You are saying it's ok. A Muslim can refuse me a job, a cake, a promotion, in his perfectly good conscience (because really based on what you said, no law applies, each has thier own). he doesn't support my beleif, message or faith or etc.

No, it is not OK for a Muslim to refuse you a job, a cake, a promotion, because you are a Christian.
It is also not OK for a Christian to refuse a Muslim a job, a cake, a promotion because he is a Muslim.
It is not OK for a Christian to refuse a homosexual a job, a cake, a promotion because he is gay.

neo-x wrote:Based on what you are saying, A Nazi can refuse a Jew, and rightfully so. You may not agree but that is the logical conclusion, sadly, your argument reaches. You are only applying it on Christians, but the logic fails once the shoe is on the other foot.

No, a Nazi cannot refuse a Jew because they are Jewish.
It is not OK to refuse a person service because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

neo-x wrote:Nor was Mrs. K's, I should bake my own? What's next, they refuse to sell you a car, you're gonna make one yourself as well?

You are changing the analogy...
They are not refusing to serve YOU because you are a Christian.
They are refusing to make a product with a CHRISTIAN THEME which they would not sell even to another Muslim.
So your car analogy does not follow at all from what I am saying.

neo-x wrote:But discrimination is what it is, be it against christians or done by them.

Some forms of discrimination are unfair and harmful.
Some forms of discrimination are not.

neo-x wrote:

Mrs.K wrote:You want to sue every business in the country because you can't have a Christian cake? How loving of you.

"Wrong, unfair, unjust, discriminating" are ridiculous when you are talking about cakes.

... maybe I am biased because I love making cakes -- it's a non-issue...

People are not going to die, or have hardships in life because of lack of access to a professionally decorated cake.

I am not suing anyone, you guys have that luxury, I don't. The discrimination against minorities in my country is, somehow protected legally.

Curious, if you did have the luxury to sue, would you?

neo-x wrote:You obvously have never been refused a service in a restuarant because of your beliefs, so I am going to cut you some slack and let this go. Just saying, it's only ridiculous when it's not happening to you. Believe me, once it happens to you, not that I wish it, but you will change your tune after that.

Another poor analogy from you... it is nothing like the situations I have described.

It would be wrong to be refused service in a restaurant because of your beliefs.
It would not be wrong for a restaurant to decline making you a particular meal because doing so would conflict with their beliefs, then offering you something else from the menu.
It would be more like walking into a kebab shop and asking them to make a pork kebab and they refuse, but instead they offer you chicken or lamb instead. Is that discrimination?

neo-x wrote:Your, Rick, Phil, K's, argument as it stands, only says to me, is that I am not going to die if a Muslim person refuses me food or service, it's ok to refuse me food or service in a public place because it doesn't align with the serving or owner / person's conscience or beliefs. I should move on, it's not the end of the world. But you can't admit that such is discrimination. Because they will do it to a group of people, holding a specific belief which is in conflict with their own. So you have no where to draw a line and the argument you are trying to hold is shortsighted to say the least.

But the slippery slope that you guys are on, in principal, leads to terrible things. Is that your standard, that unless someone is dying it is ok to refuse them? What if the next thing they refuse you is food? You still side with the argument you made?

I think you guys are blind-sided by either too much liberty or too much fear. But whatever you are saying is simply unfair and impractical.

I think you have completely misunderstood the situation.
I believe I have drawn the line above. Let me know if you still do not follow it.

People nowadays are taking others to court because of offense, hurt feelings, instead of real harm.
If I thought real harm was caused to the person, then they would likely have a case.

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I don't support Christian persecution, I don't agree with your reasoning for allowing Christians to persecute others, it's as simple as that.

Please enlighten us, how a Christian not making an activist pro-gay website or refusing to participate in a gay marriage is persecution? While at it, how a Christian being taken to court over such and fined, losing their job/business or serving prison time isn't?

FYI Danieltwotwenty, "persecute" means:

Cambridge Dictionary wrote:to treat someone unfairly or cruelly over a long period of time because of their race, religion, or political beliefs, or to annoy someone by refusing to leave them alone

Dictionary.com wrote:to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religious or political beliefs, ethnic or racial origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation

Merrium-Webster wrote:to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief

Oxford Dictionary wrote:Subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of their race or political or religious beliefs.

Of course, add sexual orientation where it is not listed.

According to these definitions of persecuting... I do not consider the Christian business owners in the cases I have listed as having persecuted their customers. Do you?

Mrs. K,

Please don't confuse Daniel with facts.

Mrs K wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I don't support Christian persecution, I don't agree with your reasoning for allowing Christians to persecute others, it's as simple as that.

Please enlighten us, how a Christian not making an activist pro-gay website or refusing to participate in a gay marriage is persecution? While at it, how a Christian being taken to court over such and fined, losing their job/business or serving prison time isn't?

FYI Danieltwotwenty, "persecute" means:

Cambridge Dictionary wrote:to treat someone unfairly or cruelly over a long period of time because of their race, religion, or political beliefs, or to annoy someone by refusing to leave them alone

Dictionary.com wrote:to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, especially because of religious or political beliefs, ethnic or racial origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation

Merrium-Webster wrote:to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief

Oxford Dictionary wrote:Subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of their race or political or religious beliefs.

Of course, add sexual orientation where it is not listed.

According to these definitions of persecuting... I do not consider the Christian business owners in the cases I have listed as having persecuted their customers. Do you?

Absolutely it does, lets take the first definition.

Cambridge Dictionary wrote:to treat someone unfairly or cruelly over a long period of time because of their race, religion, or political beliefs, or to annoy someone by refusing to leave them alone

They are being treated unfairly and cruelly and this has been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years. It actually fits quite well with that definition.

I don't think we need to go through the whole list as they are all fairly similar.

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I don't support Christian persecution, I don't agree with your reasoning for allowing Christians to persecute others, it's as simple as that.

Please enlighten us, how a Christian not making an activist pro-gay website or refusing to participate in a gay marriage is persecution? While at it, how a Christian being taken to court over such and fined, losing their job/business or serving prison time isn't?

Because you are discriminating against them for their sexual orientation. Where we don't agree however is when we can and cannot suspend someones rights if they are infringing on someone else's. The discrimination or persecution belief is a product of how we view your premise.

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.

You feel it is ok to suspend someones freedom and human rights when the freedom of ones beliefs are being infringed upon. I don't agree, I think you give up your right to your freedom when you decide to use that freedom to try to take away from the freedom of others through whatever means, be that discrimination, sexual assault, murder etc.....

So really the question is what type of freedom is more valuable or which one should take precedence of the other, I just don't agree with the one you choose. I understand why you choose the one you do, it is a natural product of being human to choose the one which benefits you most. But I think Christ wanted us to do the opposite, he wants to put others rights above our own, the baker made his own misery by exercising his RIGHTS over that of someone else.

RickD wrote:Mrs. K,

Please don't confuse Daniel with facts.

Please don't confuse Rick with intelligence.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I don't support Christian persecution, I don't agree with your reasoning for allowing Christians to persecute others, it's as simple as that.

Please enlighten us, how a Christian not making an activist pro-gay website or refusing to participate in a gay marriage is persecution? While at it, how a Christian being taken to court over such and fined, losing their job/business or serving prison time isn't?

Because you are discriminating against them for their sexual orientation.

How? Please detail how such is discrimination for their sexual orientation?

As Mrs. K said:

• No, it is not OK for a Muslim to refuse you a job, a cake, a promotion, because you are a Christian.
  It is also not OK for a Christian to refuse a Muslim a job, a cake, a promotion because he is a Muslim.
  It is not OK for a Christian to refuse a homosexual a job, a cake, a promotion because he is gay.

It is like you are willfully choosing to remain ignorant and ignore the real issue we (RickD, Mrs K and myself) take issue with. And it's nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the person.

Dan, did you even watch those two videos Mrs K posted of those Christians? I'd like you to watch them, and then tell me who is being truly discriminated against and persecuted.

It seems to me you're just trolling.

K,

It's pointless to continue with Daniel. He continues to ignore or dismiss the fact that nobody in the examples that have been put forth, have discriminated based on sexual orientation.

It's extremely intellectually dishonest of him to keep asserting discrimination based on sexual orientation, when it's clear from the videos and links, that it's just not the reason for refusing service.

Not only is he misrepresenting them, he's bearing a false witness against brothers and sisters in Christ.

It's disgusting that a Christian would misrepresent other Christians, while taking the side of those persecuting Christians.

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:I don't support Christian persecution, I don't agree with your reasoning for allowing Christians to persecute others, it's as simple as that.

Please enlighten us, how a Christian not making an activist pro-gay website or refusing to participate in a gay marriage is persecution? While at it, how a Christian being taken to court over such and fined, losing their job/business or serving prison time isn't?

Because you are discriminating against them for their sexual orientation.

How? Please detail how such is discrimination for their sexual orientation?

As Mrs. K said:

• No, it is not OK for a Muslim to refuse you a job, a cake, a promotion, because you are a Christian.
  It is also not OK for a Christian to refuse a Muslim a job, a cake, a promotion because he is a Muslim.
  It is not OK for a Christian to refuse a homosexual a job, a cake, a promotion because he is gay.

It is like you are willfully choosing to remain ignorant and ignore the real issue we (RickD, Mrs K and myself) take issue with. And it's nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the person.

Dan, did you even watch those two videos Mrs K posted of those Christians? I'd like you to watch them, and then tell me who is being truly discriminated against and persecuted.

It seems to me you're just trolling.

No I am not trolling and no I haven't watched the videos, like I said I am either at work and cannot or I am at home where I am focusing on my family, if you want to discuss the topic then discuss in written form.

So it's not about freedom and rights now? I thought you said that you were not arguing about discrimination as we discriminate all the time and rightly so.

Kurieuo wrote:We discriminate all the time, society does, the issue isn't discrimination at all.

So is it about discrimination or is it about freedom and rights? You are giving some very mixed messages.

I think you are wilfully being ignorant of the points that myself and Neo have made, but instead you guys call people trolls, emotional, irrational, persecutors, thin skinned, liberals with an agenda and all the other nasty name calling, just because they don't agree with your premises and conclusions. Seems to me that maybe you guys are projecting.

I do not agree that it is not discrimination, to refuse service to a certain group of people just because you don't agree with the legal service they are requesting, based on your personal beliefs, it is a denial of their rights to not be discriminated against when you are doing nothing unlawful or trying to deny the rights of others, they just want to live their lives in peace like everyone else. Not doing the work because the legal message it portrays doesn't jive with your personal beliefs is discriminating against the person or group of people. It is as simple as that, now you can disagree if you like, that is fine, you can say that I am a persecutor or what have you, but from my perspective it is in fact you who are the persecutor.

RickD wrote:K,

It's pointless to continue with Daniel. He continues to ignore or dismiss the fact that nobody in the examples that have been put forth, have discriminated based on sexual orientation.

It's extremely intellectually dishonest of him to keep asserting discrimination based on sexual orientation, when it's clear from the videos and links, that it's just not the reason for refusing service.

Not only is he misrepresenting them, he's bearing a false witness against brothers and sisters in Christ.

It's disgusting that a Christian would misrepresent other Christians, while taking the side of those persecuting Christians.

More false accusations, distractions and misconceptions, you are really good at this Rick, you should be nominated for some sort of prize or something because you have turned it into an art form.

If you have to work Daniel, and then spend family time, then why you wasting so much of it here? 5 minute videos to get more factual information about these Christians who you'd readily condemn, is hardly going to break you.

What Mrs K posted of the videos of Christians who bake or arrange flowers is very factually relevant to this thread. Instead, it seems some (like Daniel) wish to paint some picture of these Christians being bigoted, intolerant, should be rightly prosecuted and destroyed because they're going to cause millions of death blah, blah, blah.

The videos and information of real life Christians that Mrs K posted (highly recommend reading and watching, to get a real idea of the type of Christians we're talking about being persecuted for their beliefs):

Jack Phillips, Cake and Cooky Maker

Mrs K wrote:Here is video of a Jack Phillips, a cake artist from Colorado, explaining it from his side. Jack was taken to court for refusing to make a cake for a couple's same sex marriage. NOTE: Jack offered to make the couple any other type of baked good or sell them a pre-made cake, but, because of his faith, he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex wedding ceremony.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMn3WycWJsg

At 2:10 Jack says:

"It's my pleasure to sell them cookies and cakes and birthday cakes and brownies. It's not their lifestyle that I am accused of turning away. But that's not what it was, it was the event being force to celebrate.

It's not just the case for the same sex weddings. I haven't singled out that one issue as somethat I won't do.
I also won't make cakes for bachelor parties. I don't make Halloween cakes or anything involving witchcraft or demons.
Sometimes it seems like I've turned down more cakes in a day than I've taken orders for.

For us to limit what we do because of a public accomodations act says that we don't want God to be part of our lives except for on Sunday."

From the website:

... the couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for sexual orientation discrimination.

Even after explaining to the commission that it wasn’t the people Jack objected to, it was the message the cake would send about marriage, an administrative law judge ruled against Jack in December 2013, saying that designing and creating cakes for same-sex wedding ceremonies are not speech protected by the First Amendment.

The commission also ordered Jack and his staff to create cakes for same-sex wedding celebrations, go through a “re-education” program, implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years to show that Jack has completely eliminated his religious beliefs form his business.

Jack's lawers appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals but lost, and are currently petitioning the Colorado Supreme Court to hear his appeal.
https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/c ... p-v.-craig

Barronelle Stutzman, A Passionate Florist

Mrs K wrote:Here is another case: Barronelle Stutzman from Richland, Washington runs a florist and has served and employed people who identified as gay her whole career (40 years). In 2013 a long time customer (someone she knew was gay and who she considered a friend) asked her to make flowers for his wedding to another man.

After much consideration, she felt quite conflicted as she loved her friend, Barronelle respectfully declined as she did not want to take part in their gay ceremony because of her beliefs. The friend's partner complained on social media and the story went viral. The Washington State Attorney picked up the story and filed a case against Barronelle claiming she was required to participate in the wedding by law.

She was then also sued by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of the couple. She lost the case and was ordered to pay attorney fees.

Her lawyers (Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)) petitioned for her case to be heard by the Supreme Court which will begin in November this year.

More information here: http://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/ca ... e-stutzman


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDETkcCw63c

PS. As for Stuntzman, she's even received letters of support from India. Location and level of poverty, third world or first world, persecution of Christians is still persecution. I feel for you in your country Neo-X and certainly I don't know your life, what you see and the like, Christ crosses all boundaries and borders; His church -- His kingdom -- is the only one I care about standing upon and within. Which is why I feel disheartened by Daniel in this thread.

Kurieuo wrote:If you have to work Daniel, and then spend family time, then why you wasting so much of it here?

I don't see it as a waste of time, I enjoy the debate, work is slow, so I have time to type, but I cannot sit at my desk and watch movies all day, I don't think the boss would like that, even though there is nothing to do.

But I have quickly watched the first one, just to keep you happy.

But it didn't add anything I didn't already know, he won't make wedding cakes for gay marriages, that is discrimination against people who happen to be gay and who want to exercise their lawful right to marry, it's pretty simple, he doesn't have to agree with it, he is not giving it his blessing, he is making a cake. Just because he uses the same line of reasoning in different situations does not mean every case is the same, each should be evaluated on it's merits separately and in accordance with the law and agreed upon human rights.

I feel for you in your country Neo-X and certainly I don't know your life, what you see and the like, Christ crosses all boundaries and borders; His church -- His kingdom -- is the only one I care about standing united upon. Which is why I feel disheartened by Daniel in this thread.

Here I feel you are insinuating that I don't care about these things, Christ and his Kingdom come first in my life, hence why I hold the position I do, I will fight against persecution, I will speak up for those who are down trodden and I will extol the virtues that Christ has commanded me to. Just because we don't agree on the application, interpretation or agree what is and isn't persecution does not mean we both not trying to do what we feel Christ has commanded us to. I am sorry that you feel in such a way that you have to talk down to others to build yourself up, but I have come to expect this from humans, as it is a large part of being one. But this is the way of the world, this is why we are now have our Donald Trumps, our Pauline Hansons and other such people coming into power, people with no care for others, people who divide, people who think they can say whatever they like against others without regard, so really your comments don't surprise me and it is what I have come to expect.

What do you think of many Christians who are found in churches today? Do you attend a church?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:K,

It's pointless to continue with Daniel. He continues to ignore or dismiss the fact that nobody in the examples that have been put forth, have discriminated based on sexual orientation.

It's extremely intellectually dishonest of him to keep asserting discrimination based on sexual orientation, when it's clear from the videos and links, that it's just not the reason for refusing service.

Not only is he misrepresenting them, he's bearing a false witness against brothers and sisters in Christ.

It's disgusting that a Christian would misrepresent other Christians, while taking the side of those persecuting Christians.

More false accusations, distractions and misconceptions, you are really good at this Rick, you should be nominated for some sort of prize or something because you have turned it into an art form.

Care to name the false accusations, and misconceptions, and show how they are? Or should we just take this post as a baseless accusation?