I don't know, you keep bringing up things unrelated to what is being actually being discussed. We're not having a discussion about what Christians do or don't believe. Their speech is protected by Freedom of Speech. However, for example, they can still be penalized by the law or kicked from a private etablishment if they are causing problems for other customers. (i.e. loud homophobic man screaming scriptures at other patrons).

The practice of marriage is what is causing the conflict, as they are expecting the baker to participate in that ritual despite well-knowing it is in direct conflict with their religion (however they believe), and the patrons in this case want the courts to compell their practice. Per Freedom of Religion, the courts/govt cannot interfere in that practice. If the basis were them simply being homosexual customers, then the ruling would've been very different...

You cant swear on the bible then deny ones religious beliefs.

OK, I strongly disagree with your interpretations of the events that have taken place, and your desire to discuss religious practice/freedom in such a rose-tinted manner, but we'll never agree on this topic so rather than us both spending the next hour writing the same things at each other in 5 different ways, I'm happy to leave it there.

Thank you

excellent stuff
religious freedom is just something they hide behind; they discard Christian teachings if it doesn't suit them (love thy neighbour and others)
Most Christian denominations for example are appalled at war-mongering and naked greed and inequality of Anglo-American model of capitalism. Do so-called conservative Christians pay any attention to that? Nah.
But homosexuals? Yeah, that's the danger worth focusing on. :fist:
The whole idiotic battle against gay marriage, I mean, anybody with any sense would see that gay marriage promotes social stability by binding 5% minority into stable relationships in law. Why would any conservative have a problem with that? It's good for individuals, it's good for society and the state. But no, let's kick up the fuss because they're different, they're not us. How ****ing short-sighted is that?

Are we really trying to take apart a pathetic middle Eastern cult like its something?

I think in the US, our hardest lines from the past have gradually worked themselves over since those years. Someone who is religious is now more capable of accepting that other people may choose to live differently than in years past. Even when t is deep contrast with their beliefs. I don't think that's necessarily religion changing itself, so much, as our culture has shifted quite a bit thanks to the issue of diversity. People are now have to accept that this is the world they buy into if they support the freedoms they do have, as they have to accept others the right to live that as well. Anyway, I overwhelmingly agree the civil rights era made us a better society, but it also made us more open (see: 60's) of other people who choose to live differently... this newest strain of authorianism surging from the extreme left (and right) is the opposite of that growth in my opinion.

Personally, while I support these freedoms remaining intact, I have major issues with Republicans that govern from the pulpit and base most of their support and decision-making on religion. In the last primary, my candidate went into a run-off. The other was a Christian pastor. Anyway, my candidate was open to allowing room for criticism of modern Christianity and showing tolerance, including their stances on gay marriage, but these evangelical groups were peeved off and started to launch smear campaigns against him both online and through paper mail... my candidate ended up winning the primary, so he will be on the Republican ballot come November.

I don't trust these types of evangelicals, but my issue is not their beliefs, my issue is that these are government officials and they should be representing all groups under them, not just those folk who share their religious denomination. Anyway, I can feel one way about our religious freedoms and still have many problems with it. I don't fault others for having their own pickle with religion.

I must be the LT whisperer. I knew you would eventually make your way over and post something along these lines... :laugh: I'm crap at predicting weather though...

:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2: Let's meet up - but QUICKLY - I have a bridge in London and a tower in Paris which I want to sell you.

Without the use of insane conspiracy theories, explain her corruption.

yes bc it's shaped the Western civilisation and still is the main philosophical influence.
Besides, I'd not call it a pathetic cult. I abandoned religion myself, but can't deny that Jesus brought "the cult" forward in a big way. I have no quarrel with Jesus's teachings (forget about Old Testament stuff tho, that's bigots charter).
Take away the supernatural stuff, and Jesus becomes a serious social reformer and philosopher. I have utmost respect for the man.

Lets not go overboard here, and Jesus himself had nothing to do with bringing the cult forward. For over a thousand years, Christianity ruled the world with an absolute iron fist, where just doubting was seen as an offence punishable by torture or death.

Jesus himself had some interesting things to say about morality and how we should treat others, but nothing that hadn't already been said before by earlier philosophers like the Buddha.

What really pushed the cult forward were the people rising up and saying enough of this ****, and the bringing on of the enlightenment.

:laugh: :nono: Not so. 'Christianity' survived where other contemporary cults did not and even flourished to a degree, but it but it only grew into the world religion which it has now become due to the newly 'crowned' Emperor Constantine converting to Christianity in the year 312 CE.

Before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge - which gained the victorious Constantine the title of Emperor (of the Western Roman Empire, anyway) Constantine saw a 'vision' in the sky of what he perceived as a glowing 'Christian' cross with a message that he would be victorious.

He did not adopt or enforce Christianity as the 'official' religion of The Roman Empire despite personally converting, but he did impose increased tolerance to the new religion and abolished anti-Christian practices, and it was these actions which allowed Christianity to flourish throughout the Roman Empire.

I agree, Twosugars. Well said.

Google and research and reference other sources than just agenda-laden Democratic, Neo-Liberal, Left-Wing, and anti-Trump sources.

Christianity was made the only authorised religion of the roman empire in the 4th century, so I have no idea what you're trying to say. The part of my post that you bolded (for some reason) bears no relation to the content of your actual post, and is a reference to the enlightenment movement which began as a whisper around the 16th century, and grew from there. That's where Christianity was brought kicking and screaming into semi-modernity.

Do you have the Hilary corruption information yet or nah?

You don't get to play that BS game with me, my dude. You say she's corrupt, so tell me how. You obviously know she is because no one uses that many smilies without having confidence in their own position so it should be easy for you. I don't like Hillary; you've got a captive audience here, so hit me with some facts homeboy.

Are you talking about the Reformation rather than the enlightenment?

Nope.

im not sure why as what we have about him, if he ever existed, is an account "written" over 100 years after he allegedly lived. The alleged accounts have been doctored and reimagined hundreds of times over to suit a particular narrative. The accounts contain abject lies about supernatural stuff so why we should believe the non supernatural stuff is a mystery

its utter hokum from start to finish

I didn't mean he was responsible for spreading the message. As we know he was killed for that and before he could do much. Tho he managed a small group of fiercely dedicated followers and as we know the rest is history.

I meant he modernized and updated the message with his teachings which later became the basis of New Testament. It was that (and his messianic status and death) what made Christianity into a new religion which slowly but surely caught on in the whole region.

^ to add to my last post:

Doubt Jesus was aware of Buddha. So the originality of his thought in his cultural millieu remains.

Christianity's problems only began because it became a state religion. That's when politics and political interests started warping its message and adding stuff.
That's not Jesus's fault. I'm sure he would appalled at what has happened to his message.

He was mentioned by some Roman historians. I have to reason to doubt his existence. Also his original message is hardly easy and opportunistic. Again it makes me think it is true.

I think it's indisputable that Judaism is a far more tolerant and peaceful religion than Christianity, and that's without Jesus' message and teachings, so the relevance of his more temperate "teachings" is overplayed. I wasn't making the point that he plagiarized anyone, although it's entirely possible; my point was that he didn't even say anything that new or revolutionary for his time.

I know your statement that he was mentioned in roman history was to LT, but he actually wasn't. There are no mentions of him in the literature from the time he was supposed to have lived, but there were a couple of forgeries that were added a later date to make it look as though he was a contemporary, Josephus being the best example of this.

No time atm to corroborate, but here's a link to Tacitus's confirmation of Jesus

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