Evidence for God from Science

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Tell me Nessa why I should believe anything you say or do is from Christ, or for that matter anyone here. You guys make personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with you, you try to tear down people instead of the argument.

For example.

I guess I better not ask him if he really lives in a box under a bridge in Toowoomba like FL says...

Now you can say I am thin skinned, emotional, angry, upset, sleeping with the enemy and all manner of things, but you lose my respect and respect for anything you have to say and I would imagine all the people reading this would be similar. They would see the way you all act and think that Christians are evil, and I would not blame them from thinking such things.

Of course I am not saying I am perfect, I react to things people say sometimes, but I do my best to engage the arguments and not make it personal.

So I am finding it very hard to take anything you say with any seriousness at this point in time, as far as I am concerned you are just one of them.

Nessa wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Tell me Nessa why I should believe anything you say or do is from Christ, or for that matter anyone here. You guys make personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with you, you try to tear down people instead of the argument.

For example.

I guess I better not ask him if he really lives in a box under a bridge in Toowoomba like FL says...

Now you can say I am thin skinned, emotional, angry, upset, sleeping with the enemy and all manner of things, but you lose my respect and respect for anything you have to say and I would imagine all the people reading this would be similar. They would see the way you all act and think that Christians are evil, and I would not blame them from thinking such things.

Of course I am not saying I am perfect, I react to things people say sometimes, but I do my best to engage the arguments and not make it personal.

So I am finding it very hard to take anything you say with any seriousness at this point in time, as far as I am concerned you are just one of them.

Oh plu-lease!

Pot, kettle, black.

The law suit against the bakery was well-intended. It sought to challenge homophobia. But it was a step too far. It pains me to say this, as a long-time supporter of the struggle for LGBT equality in Northern Ireland, where same-sex marriage and gay blood donors remain banned. The equality laws are intended to protect people against discrimination. A business providing a public service has a legal duty to do so without discrimination based on race, gender, faith and sexuality.

However, the court erred by ruling that Lee was discriminated against because of his sexual orientation and political opinions.

His cake request was refused not because he was gay, but because of the message he asked for. There is no evidence that his sexuality was the reason Ashers declined his order….

D220 wrote:You do the crime, you do the time.

What they are doing in my view is sinful and being held accountable to that is fair and just, just like I would view any other criminal activity.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Tell me Nessa why I should believe anything you say or do is from Christ, or for that matter anyone here. You guys make personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with you, you try to tear down people instead of the argument.

For example.

I guess I better not ask him if he really lives in a box under a bridge in Toowoomba like FL says...

Now you can say I am thin skinned, emotional, angry, upset, sleeping with the enemy and all manner of things, but you lose my respect and respect for anything you have to say and I would imagine all the people reading this would be similar. They would see the way you all act and think that Christians are evil, and I would not blame them from thinking such things.

Of course I am not saying I am perfect, I react to things people say sometimes, but I do my best to engage the arguments and not make it personal.

So I am finding it very hard to take anything you say with any seriousness at this point in time, as far as I am concerned you are just one of them.

Oh plu-lease!

Pot, kettle, black.

Did you miss the part where I said I wasn't perfect?

Kurieuo wrote:If assembling of Christians was banned like in Rome of old, and as is the case in some countries around the world unless one subscribes to a nationalistic form of Christianity, then well:

D220 wrote:You do the crime, you do the time.

What they are doing in my view is sinful and being held accountable to that is fair and just, just like I would view any other criminal activity.

PaulSacramento wrote:Look at this situation:

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.ca/2016/10/ ... chard.html

Here is a highly respected Christian scholar, Richard Swinburne, speaking about a clear-cut Christian view on homosexuality, one that everyone in the SCP knows he has, and see the drama?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Nessa wrote:How do you personally distinguish between allowances for broken people in sin and compromising the truth?

Through the lens of Christ and not the law.

The lens of Christ?

I would say the lens of Truth. Tho Christ is also the Truth.

Semantics.

Nessa wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Tell me Nessa why I should believe anything you say or do is from Christ, or for that matter anyone here. You guys make personal attacks on anyone who disagrees with you, you try to tear down people instead of the argument.

For example.

I guess I better not ask him if he really lives in a box under a bridge in Toowoomba like FL says...

Now you can say I am thin skinned, emotional, angry, upset, sleeping with the enemy and all manner of things, but you lose my respect and respect for anything you have to say and I would imagine all the people reading this would be similar. They would see the way you all act and think that Christians are evil, and I would not blame them from thinking such things.

Of course I am not saying I am perfect, I react to things people say sometimes, but I do my best to engage the arguments and not make it personal.

So I am finding it very hard to take anything you say with any seriousness at this point in time, as far as I am concerned you are just one of them.

Oh plu-lease!

Pot, kettle, black.

Did you miss the part where I said I wasn't perfect?

Then why why should we listen to you?

Rick: Lemme get this straight...

It's a "criminal" activity, to refuse to bake a cake with a message that a baker finds offensive. And any baker who refuses to bake a cake with a message he finds offensive, should "do time".

Nessa wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Nessa wrote:How do you personally distinguish between allowances for broken people in sin and compromising the truth?

Through the lens of Christ and not the law.

The lens of Christ?

I would say the lens of Truth. Tho Christ is also the Truth.

Semantics.

No, not if you try to tear Christ from the truth

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:If assembling of Christians was banned like in Rome of old, and as is the case in some countries around the world unless one subscribes to a nationalistic form of Christianity, then well:

D220 wrote:You do the crime, you do the time.

What they are doing in my view is sinful and being held accountable to that is fair and just, just like I would view any other criminal activity.

Lemme get this straight...

It's a "criminal" activity, to refuse to bake a cake with a message that a baker finds offensive. And any baker who refuses to bake a cake with a message he finds offensive, should "do time".

I want everyone reading this, to really let that sink in.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:If assembling of Christians was banned like in Rome of old, and as is the case in some countries around the world unless one subscribes to a nationalistic form of Christianity, then well:

D220 wrote:You do the crime, you do the time.

What they are doing in my view is sinful and being held accountable to that is fair and just, just like I would view any other criminal activity.

Lemme get this straight...

It's a "criminal" activity, to refuse to bake a cake with a message that a baker finds offensive. And any baker who refuses to bake a cake with a message he finds offensive, should "do time".

I want everyone reading this, to really let that sink in.

I never said any of that, let that sink in, Rick just flat out lied. This is a misrepresentation of what I said and not actually what I said.

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:If assembling of Christians was banned like in Rome of old, and as is the case in some countries around the world unless one subscribes to a nationalistic form of Christianity, then well:

D220 wrote:You do the crime, you do the time.

What they are doing in my view is sinful and being held accountable to that is fair and just, just like I would view any other criminal activity.

Lemme get this straight...

It's a "criminal" activity, to refuse to bake a cake with a message that a baker finds offensive. And any baker who refuses to bake a cake with a message he finds offensive, should "do time".

I want everyone reading this, to really let that sink in.

I never said any of that, let that sink in, Rick just flat out lied. This is a misrepresentation of what I said and not actually what I said.

No Dan. It's a proper representation.

Take either instance, the one in Ireland, and the one in the US, and the fact that both cases have in common, is that the baker refused to bake a cake because of the message the customer wanted, and not because the customer was gay .

And you said that it was a crime, and they should do the time.

Nobody in either instance, discriminated based on the customer's sexual orientation.

You keep changing the facts. You are misrepresenting your Brothers and Sisters in Christ, by saying they discriminated based on the customer being gay.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:If assembling of Christians was banned like in Rome of old, and as is the case in some countries around the world unless one subscribes to a nationalistic form of Christianity, then well:

Lemme get this straight...

It's a "criminal" activity, to refuse to bake a cake with a message that a baker finds offensive. And any baker who refuses to bake a cake with a message he finds offensive, should "do time".

I want everyone reading this, to really let that sink in.

I never said any of that, let that sink in, Rick just flat out lied. This is a misrepresentation of what I said and not actually what I said.

No Dan. It's a proper representation.

Take either instance, the one in Ireland, and the one in the US, and the fact that both cases have in common, is that the baker refused to bake a cake because of the message the customer wanted, and not because the customer was gay .

And you said that it was a crime, and they should do the time.

Nobody in either instance, discriminated based on the customer's sexual orientation.

You keep changing the facts. You are misrepresenting your Brothers and Sisters in Christ, by saying they discriminated based on the customer being gay.

Yes they did discriminate based on sexual orientation, it's quite easy to figure out.

Scenario a) Sells wedding cake to hetero couple for hetero wedding

Scenario b) Doesn't sell wedding cake to gay couple for gay wedding

The only difference is the sexual orientation of the couples, therefore it is discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I have not changed any facts, the facts are they refuse service of a wedding cake based on that particular couples sexual orientation, anyone can see that is the case.