The gay marriage bill in the Washington State Legislature specifically claims to protect religious freedom. HB 2516/SB 6239 bills itself as:
AN ACT Relating to providing equal protection for all families in Washington by creating equality in civil marriage and changing the domestic partnership laws, while protecting religious freedom…[Emphasis mine]
But, as always, the devil is in the details.
Section 4 (2) of the proposed legislation says that:
No regularly licensed or ordained minister or any priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any church or religious denomination is required to solemnize any marriage.
Sounds good, right? The Section goes on to say that:
A refusal to solemnize any marriage under this section by a regularly licensed or ordained minister or priest, imam, rabbi, or similar official of any church or religious denomination does not create a civil claim or cause of action. . . .
It doesn’t create a civil claim or cause of action. A civil claim is when one private person (or group of people) sues another private person or group. Notice that the Section is silent on whether a refusal might create any other kind of legal claim.
Now let’s go to Section 7:
(1) Consistent with the law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW, no religious organization is required to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage unless the organization offers admission, occupancy, or use of those accommodations or facilities to the public for a fee, or offers those advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public for sale. [Emphasis mine]
(2) A refusal by any religious organization to provide accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage does not create a civil claim or cause of action unless the organization offers those accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods to the public in transactions governed by law against discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW. [Emphasis mine]
Sounds pretty innocuous, but remember: The devil is in the details.
That little word unless in paragraph (1) is a hole big enough to drive a Mack truck through. Most churches have some procedure whereby at least some people who aren’t parishioners can rent their building and hold a wedding in it. Many churches hold occasional fundraisers on church property. All those churches could be sued under that one “unless.”
But that’s small potatoes compared to the opening clause, which brings all churches in the state for the first time under the purview of Chapter 60 (which deals with the State Human Rights Commission) of Title 49 (Labor Regulations) of the Revised Code of Washington. That’s important, because the Human Rights Commission (HRC) doesn’t function in the civil law arena. It functions in the arena of public and administrative law. According to the HRC website,
If the Commission finds that there is reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred, we will seek conciliation of the complaint. Appropriate remedies in the conciliation process may include back pay, reinstatement, rent refunds, or training to eliminate the unfair practice. If conciliation fails, the complaint may be turned over to the Attorney General’s office for hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.
So. There’s no ground for a civil claim unless the church offers its facilities, services, etc. to the public in situations over which the HRC has jurisdiction. And the HRC just happens to have jurisdiction over, let’s see, anything having to do with employment (of more than eight people), housing, real estate, places of public assembly, credit and insurance.
Can you think of a church with no connection to any of those things?
Me neither.
The religious freedom the bill claims to give with one hand, it quietly and completely takes away with the other.
Now. Let’s go back to the ministers, priests, imams and rabbis. If one of them refuses to solemnize a marriage, it doesn’t create a civil claim or cause of action.
Fine.
But, just as with the churches, this bill leaves the door wide open for the pastor to be pursued by the Human Rights Commission and the Attorney General. Sure, the next step after the HRC would be the relatively low-level Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)–where, by the way, evidentiary standards are relaxed–but an appeal of an ALJ case goes straight into the mainstream Superior Court system. Bam.
Not only do many pastors refuse as a matter of conscience to marry gay couples. Many also refuse as a matter of conscience to marry couples where one party has been divorced, where one party is of a different faith than the other, and so on.This would leave no conscience clause in any of those cases.
Follow the money. This law would force pastors, rabbis, imams, churches, synagogues and mosques to choose between marrying couples they don’t in good conscience believe their God permits them to marry, or being taken to court and bankrupted.
The couple in question, of course, can always go find another place and another officiant. The pastor and the church, though, have no such easy way out.
So much for protecting religious freedom.
Crossposted from Cry, Beloved Country
Carolyn Schultz-Rathbun lives in the woods in a log house she and her husband built with their own four hands, and blogs at crybelovedcountry.com
Our church never charges for any marriages.
BUT you really have to both be members to get married INSIDE the church property.
IF you are not both members a minister may still marry you BUT it must be elsewhere, like a park, reception center, beach or home.
Seems some churches (that charge for church weddings) got greedy for the increased money involved in allowing anyone a church wedding, member or not.
Now they are going to pay, unless (UNLESS) they change their billing procedure.
Good catch on your part, Carolyn Schultz-Rathbun.
You’re stretching. Yes, the way I read that, a church that rents out a building to those outside the church might have to follow the various rules against discrimination in the renting out of that building. Nothing you’ve posted extends that to imposing similar constraints on a preacher or priest in their religious acts.
And even if it did, the 1st amendment would trump that. You may hate that gays are gaining the liberty to marry. But the pretense that limits the religious liberty of those who disapprove homosexuality is just that: a pretense. Catholic priests will remain perfectly free to marry only those couples who follow the rules of the Catholic church. No gays. No one previously married. (Though the Church seems quite adept at disappearing previous marriages.) Mosques will remain perfectly free to marry only those they deem appropriate. And churches that preach against miscegenation will remain perfectly free to marry only same-race couples.
@Russell: *You* tell me (on your own authority) that priests and imams will be able to marry whom they choose, but the language of the *bill* tells me that their refusal to do so doesn’t create a *civil* cause of action. And, again, that’s a hole wide enough to drive a truck through. Any legal eagle is going to realize that the silence there is deafening: What about other kinds of legal claims? The fact that the writers of the statute chose to remain silent on that point clearly leaves open suits of other kinds.
So . . . I’ve got your unsubstantiated opinion on the one hand, and the language of the bill on the other.
I think I’ll put my money on the language of the bill.
(1) If it is “natural” to be straight, why is it a “choice” to be born gay? They are both either normal or choices. If you are straight, at what age did you “choose” to be straight? Gays don’t have that choice either. They are gay naturally.
(2) Nobody has ever answered this question: If being gay is a sin, what about the babies who are born both male and female. They have all of the parts of a male and of a female. They must REALLY be sinners.
The doctor asks the parents which they want and the doctor makes it so. I am told that this is where the cross-dressers come from. The have the feelings of a man and of a woman at the same time. Think how confusing that is for them. How many of them don’t know they were born with the male and female parts?
(3) If the USA is supposed to make decisions based on Christianity because it is the more prevalent religion, does that mean that if a religion like Muslim is more prevalent in the future, it is the religion to base decisions on.
Our founding fathers were wise to say that the USA can’t establish a religion. I take this to mean that they can’t MAKE a religion, but they also can’t SANCTION a religion for the country. If this happens, then, if another religion is the more prevalent, then they will demand to use it for decision making.
@Smorgasbord: Your first two questions seem to have wandered in from another conversation. This one is about freedom of religion. This bill when passed would put a mosque in jeopardy for refusing to marry, say a Muslim woman and a non-Muslim man (which is prohibited by Islam). That doesn’t square with the Washington State Constitution:
“Absolute freedom of conscience in all matters of religious sentiment, belief and worship, shall be guaranteed to every individual, and no one shall be molested or disturbed in person or property on account of religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the peace and safety of the state.”
Or, of course, with the First Amendment, for those who care about such things.
As far as Question #3 goes, if your premise were true, then your conclusion would be valid. Your premise is false, though–the U.S. is not supposed to make decisions based on Christianity–so it all sort of falls apart from there.
You’re right at the end, of course: The U.S. can’t establish a religion.
@Cry, Beloved Country: #5
The whole thing came about because of gays wanting to get married and the Christian Muslim religion condemns gays. This is what I was referring to. If gays were allowed to marry, this issue wouldn’t have come up. I am all for this kind of bill.
@Cry, Beloved Country:
The author of the bill also fails to say that President Obama can’t do away with the next election, or that preachers won’t be jailed for repeating lies that have been exposed again and again and again. Neither those nor your concern are “holes,” because you haven’t show the bill constructs any of those fears either.
And even if it did, the Constitution trumps on all of them.
No racist preacher has been forced to stop preaching the curse of Ham in the decades since Loving v. Virginia made inter-racial marriage legal throughout the 50 states. Those preachers are not exposed to suit or administrative law or anything else because they oppose race mixing. That model shows what will happen as gays gain the freedom to marry. Those whose religion teaches against it will remain free to condemn it, to view those marriages as invalid in the eyes of their god, to not participate in those weddings, etc. Your fears are not only baseless, they have been disproven by prior example and almost fifty years of experience since.
Loving v. Virginia was condemned by exactly the same right-wing rhetoric that is now being used: that traditional marriage must be protected, that the laws of god are utmost, that race-mixing was a communist plot to weaken American society, and that it was unnatural. Because the result came from a Supreme Court decision on the Constitution, there was the added rhetoric about black-robed tyrants creating rights from nothing and trumping the rights of the states. In the decades since, I’ve yet to read anyone on the right explain why the same arguments they now use were then so mistaken. The right lost, and Americans are more free because of that. That pattern is repeating itself.
@Russell: “You’re stretching”
You must not know much about the law. This is what some legislation is all about; seeming innocuous, reasonable, but with just that one sentence or paragraph which changes everything.
@Smorgasbord: “If it is “natural” to be straight, why is it a “choice” to be born gay? They are both either normal or choices. If you are straight, at what age did you “choose” to be straight? Gays don’t have that choice either. They are gay naturally.”
Gays have exactly the same sort of choice that alcoholics do. There is a genetic disposition toward alcoholism, but not all people with that genetic makeup becomes an alcoholic. The same is true of the genetic disposition towards being gay. The more that a person participates in gay behavior, the more addictive it becomes. This is why some straight people have a difficult time relating to men who have sexual encounters with 500-2000 other men, which is not abnormal among gays who are in their 40’s.
A small percentage of people have a predisposition toward children and they are attracted to them. However, some act on it and some do not. Just because this desire is a part of their makeup does not give them the right to act on it.
@Smorgasbord: “Nobody has ever answered this question: If being gay is a sin, what about the babies who are born both male and female. They have all of the parts of a male and of a female. They must REALLY be sinners.
The doctor asks the parents which they want and the doctor makes it so. I am told that this is where the cross-dressers come from. The have the feelings of a man and of a woman at the same time. Think how confusing that is for them. How many of them don’t know they were born with the male and female parts?”
This is so typical of a liberal argument. Start talking about the one-tenth of one percent. It is like a person who aregues in favor of abortion, and mentions incest and rape. He ignores the 99% of abortions that are retroactive birth control.
You have done the same thing. How many people are we talking about here? 1 in a thousand? 1 in 10,000?
It is not sinful that something happens to you at birth or near your birth. I don’t know of any theologian who has ever suggested such a thing.
We are born with a sin nature, and this sin nature expresses itself in a variety of ways. One person might be prone to self-righteousness, another to gossip, another to homosexual activity, another to promiscuity. Having the desire to do this or that is, in and of itself, not a sin. Acting on that desire is where it becomes sin.
Now, when it comes to cross-dressing, do you really believe that a genetic deformity at birth causes all of this cross-dressing? Are you kidding me?
@Smorgasbord: If the USA is supposed to make decisions based on Christianity because it is the more prevalent religion, does that mean that if a religion like Muslim is more prevalent in the future, it is the religion to base decisions on.””
Rest assured, if the United States ends up with a large population of Muslims, there will not be any choice when it comes to law and religion. Christians were be persecuted, jailed and killed, and have their churches and houses burned.
There are two parts of a law (or proposed law): The ‘letter’ of the law, and the ‘spirit’ of the law. The former is based on the words coding the law, the latter is based on the interpretation of those words. How the words are interpreted, by whom, and when, result in how the law is actually effected.
I believe in freedom of religion as far as personal belief and action in ones own life goes, but when religion becomes an open standard of prescription or proscription for general conduct, then I feel religion has over-stepped its bounds. I feel that religion simply codified those natural laws into social ordinances that were relevant at the time of codification. God was used in many instances as the supreme law-giver, to minimize revolt and maximize obedience to The Law.
Many people understand the relevance or irrelevance of these dictums that were established thousands of years ago. Some people just choose to continue on the path of enforcement of these ancient laws. The former we call liberals; and the latter we call conservatives. Conservatives wish to inflict these historic rules on everyone, on the basis that—as in olden times—it’s god’s law. Liberals are more apt to let humans in a particular society, at a particular time, decide their own rules—without reliance on a extra-worldly authority—which is known as secularism.
By keeping the religious and secular separate, we achieve more freedom for all.
@Smorgasbord: You’re missing the point. It’s certainly possible–not difficult in fact–to write a law that allows gays to marry, but which has a strong conscience clause that protects people who don’t wish to facilitate those marriages. *That* is the law a pluralistic society should write. It’s *not* the law the Washington State legislature is set to pass. HB 2516 protects one class (gay people) and deliberately opens another class (pastors, rabbis, imams, churches, synagogues and mosques) up to legal action for refusing to violate their consciences. That’s wrong.
@Russell: “Your fears are not only baseless, they have been disproven by prior example and almost fifty years of experience since.”
You are basing your argument on Loving, which is 45 years old, and the history which flowed from it. The language of this bill is doing something quite new, so the results are going to be quite different. Loving allowed interracial couples to marry; it didn’t penalize officiants or religious organizations who didn’t wish to assist them in marrying. So, yes, obviously no racist preacher has ever been forced to stop preaching the curse of Ham! That wasn’t the holding of Loving. HB 2516 *does* force officiants and religious organizations to violate their consciences or face the penalties of the HRC and judgments in the mainstream court system.
The fact that, in fifty years, the descendants of two cocker spaniels have always been cocker spaniels–while true!–really isn’t relevant to a discussion of what I’m going to get when I breed my Siamese cats.
@Liberal1 (objectivity): “By keeping the religious and secular separate, we achieve more freedom for all.”
Ah, yes, wouldn’t that be lovely! It would sure make life easier. Too bad it’s a complete impossibility. Dictionary.com defines religion as “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,” and I think you’d be pretty hard pressed to find someone who didn’t have one of those sets of beliefs lying around somewhere. Find me someone who *doesn’t* think about the meaning of life, who *doesn’t* base his or her decisions on a set of values (albeit perhaps subconsciously), who *doesn’t* have moments of transcendence of the material world. All of those are religious activities.
There is no human activity that is not or cannot be religious. (Taking a bath is a religious enterprise in Judaism and Hinduism, maybe other religions as well.) Henry Miller’s books were banned in the U.S. as pornography, but I think it’s pretty clear that he was searching for an ultimate reality, a transcendent meaning to life, through sexual experience.If we can’t keep the religious and secular separate in pornography, we’re not going to be able to keep them separate anywhere else!
I think one of the fascinating things about this bill is going to be watching the unintended consequences. The current marriage statute in Washington just refers to ministers and priests. The authors of this bill have widened that out to include imams, rabbis and similar officials. I’m sure they just did it to be open and inclusive and non-christian-centric. But, oh, that pesky law of unintended consequences!
Christians have a thing or two in their religion about turning the other cheek. Muslims? Not so much. When the Christians have exhausted all their legal remedies, they will either cave to the pressure of safety and security (the majority, I fear) or shuffle off into the ignominy of bankruptcy, jail time, etc. The Muslims? I don’t see the mosques in Seattle with links to al-Quaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood just rolling over and saying, “Oh, sure, why not? Fine.” When their legal remedies are exhausted, that’s when the fireworks will begin!
@gary kukis: #9
I have had over 60 years to figure a lot of things out. I have learned to figure things out for myself. I try to see as many angles of a new situation as I can. I don’t let people, organizations, religions, etc. tell me what I should think. I believe the way I do and won’t be changing my mind unless some new information comes up. We all should just learn to accept people the way they are and quit trying to make them what we want.
@gary kukis: #10
I am a conservative, but don’t belong to any party. When I lived close enough to Washington DC, I attended most of the Tea Party events. A gentleman who made a book of pictures of Tea Partiers, called Grandma’s Not Shovel-Ready yet, put me in my outfit on page 56. I belong to a Tea Party in Idaho now.
YOU SAID
“Now, when it comes to cross-dressing, do you really believe that a genetic deformity at birth causes all of this cross-dressing? Are you kidding me?”
RESPONSE
Can you say it doesn’t? There are thousands of babies born every year who are born both male and female. They have all of the parts of both sexes. I am guessing this means that the brain is the same way. Does removing some of the parts automatically make the baby ALL male or female. No.
I don’t have the answer as to why things like this happen. When I don’t have enough answers concerning something, I try not to form an opinion until I have enough answers. I have been wrong too many times. The medical profession has come a long way, but it still has a long way to go on a lot of thins. I will wait.
@gary kukis: #11
I couldn’t have said it any better! The problem is that it has already started.
@Liberal1 (objectivity): #12
I have to agree with you on this one. I’m not saying I don’t believe there isn’t a God, I just don’t know. If there is a God, then there is a Devil. This would mean that there is also a heaven and a hell. The way I understand it, Heaven is invitation only. If there is a God, then I am in serious trouble because I haven’t received an invitation yet. LOL
@Cry, Beloved Country: #13
The simplest law that handled a situation like this was when I lived in Massachusetts. People were saying the state allowed gay marriage, when their constitution didn’t even mention marriage.
I am against forcing people to do what they don’t want to do except under certain circumstances. We can’t let people do whatever they want. If someone doesn’t like a certain type of person, they shouldn’t have to do things for that person that they don’t want to.
@Cry, Beloved Country: “The Muslims? I don’t see the mosques in Seattle with links to al-Quaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood just rolling over and saying, “Oh, sure, why not? Fine.””
It is all a matter of percentages; 1-2%, we will hear narry a peep out of Muslims. 5-10%, and things will begin to change…such as, they will ask to deal with legal situations amongst themselves using sharia law.
When the percentages get higher, everything changes after that.
@Smorgasbord: “YOU SAID
“Now, when it comes to cross-dressing, do you really believe that a genetic deformity at birth causes all of this cross-dressing? Are you kidding me?”
RESPONSE
Can you say it doesn’t? There are thousands of babies born every year who are born both male and female. ”
Certainly. It doesn’t.
Homosexuality is an addiction, and it causes many people to do odd things. The percentage of gays who dress up to look like women–even just those who try to look like women in all respects–is much higher than that tiny percentage of people who had a genetic problem. Acting out on one’s homosexual desires is an addiction just like any other; and it is just as powerful.
@Smorgasbord: “Heaven is invitation only. If there is a God, then I am in serious trouble because I haven’t received an invitation yet.”
No problem.
Here’s your invitation: believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved.
The book of John is relatively short. Pick up it or find it on the internet–find a version that is easy for you to read and understand–and just start reading (say, the New King James Version; not the old one). Read, say, the first 6 chapters. Challenge God. Say, “People say this is Your Word. Hell, I don’t even know if You exist. So, I’ll read this and, if You are real, then speak to me through it.”
Try this: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+1&version=NKJV
this: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201&version=NLT
or this: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201&version=HCSB
@gary kukis: #23
Can you show me facts that prove homosexuality is an addiction? A study that was done, then another one that confirms the first study? It has been proven that if a person is an alcoholic at the time of conception, their child will have a tendency toward alcoholism. Just taking their first drink can make them an alcoholic. Does this mean that if a lesbian has a baby, it will have the same tendencies? No. It all depends on the DNA.
As I mentioned before, my mind won’t be changed until there is proof that homosexuality is a choice. I will still accept them as they are, so we don’t need to waist time trying to convince the other one to change their mind. I go by facts. Not what some religions teach.
@gary kukis: #24
I have read the Bible and used to be VERY religious. I have always had a questioning mind of things new to me. I have learned not to go by what people tell me, even preachers, unless they are proven facts. I have too many questions that make me wonder about the Christian religion. Some are:
(1) How am I supposed to believe man came from a pile of dirt, but woman came from man? Why not use two piles of dirt so they would be equal? Almost every religion has a man as a god and man is over woman.
(2) God created Adam and Eve. They had two children, Cain and Able. God told Adam and Eve to populate the Earth. How was this accomplished?
I had a VERY religious mother who tried most of my life to convert me to her religion. I learned not to go by what a person says when they preach religion. I go by what they do. If you follow most of the people around who try to convert people, you won’t like what you see and hear. I have been around a lot of them. The only way I will be converted to anything is by how a person lives, not what they say. The more they try to convert me, the more I don’t want to be around them. Let’s stay friends.
@Smorgasbord: “As I mentioned before, my mind won’t be changed until there is proof that homosexuality is a choice. I will still accept them as they are, so we don’t need to waist time trying to convince the other one to change their mind. I go by facts. Not what some religions teach. ”
Partially a choice and partially genetic. One of the most famous studies is of identical twins where one is gay. About 50% of the time, the other twin also engaged in homosexual activity….which is way above average, indicating a strong genetic component; but it should have been 100% if it is all about genetics.
With regards to sexual addiction (and this can be true for some heteros as well); the simple fact that 500, 1000 or 2000 partners is not out of the norm…when each additional partner literally threatens the life (through disease) of the gay person engaging in sex with them. If repeated hook ups with people who literally threaten you life with the AIDS virus is not enough to convince you that there is a certain amount of addiction here, I doubt that I could convince you.
@Smorgasbord:
“(1) How am I supposed to believe man came from a pile of dirt, but woman came from man? Why not use two piles of dirt so they would be equal? Almost every religion has a man as a god and man is over woman.
(2) God created Adam and Eve. They had two children, Cain and Able. God told Adam and Eve to populate the Earth. How was this accomplished?”
So, Adam coming from a pile of dirt somehow make man superior? Not sure I get that reasoning.
Here are two things to ponder. We know today that our bodies are made out of the same chemicals of the earth. Do you think the writer of Genesis made a lucky guess here?
Secondly, what is described when the woman is made is cloning. We understand that you can take a cell of one animal and produce the entire animal. How did the writer of Genesis know about cloning? Furthermore, obviously, the was manipulation that occurred with cloning…not yet discovered yet, but it will be. How did the writer of Genesis know about these things? 2 lucky guesses? Which other creation narratives that you know of have such profound scientific information in them? Can you name even one?
@Smorgasbord: “I had a VERY religious mother who tried most of my life to convert me to her religion. I learned not to go by what a person says when they preach religion. I go by what they do. If you follow most of the people around who try to convert people, you won’t like what you see and hear. ”
What the heck, have you been following me around???? All believers and unbelievers have a sin nature. No matter who it is, they sin. The Bible says this over and over again. We are hypocrites by our very nature; nobody can put put up against the standards of the Bible and come out all right. A few people like Billy Graham come off looking pretty good; but I can guarantee you that he sins, which he would readily admit to.
You cannot be converted to Christianity by nagging. You have to choose to believe in Jesus Christ. You have to take one moment out of your life and believe in Him. If you spend 100% of your life pushing Jesus Christ away, then you must endure the consequences for that free will choice.
It does not cost you anything but a few seconds of faith. Everything was paid for on the cross.
@gary kukis: #27
That is why I say there is no need for further discussion. I accept your right to your opinion and I have mine.
@gary kukis: #28
I have more questions than answers. When this happens on a certain subject, I don’t decide anything until I have enough answers. I am still looking for answers.
You didn’t answer the question of how Adam and Eve populated the earth. They had two boys. The ONLY answer can be that mommy had sex with one or both of her sons until a girl was born, then the girl had sex with another member of the family. If God is so far seeing, wouldn’t he have made two men and two women to start with?
As I said before, I have more questions than answers.
This reminds me of the story of a little girl telling a man about Jonah and the big fish. The man didn’t believer in God and told the girl, “I don’t believe that Jonah spent three days in the fish’s belly.” She said, “When I get to heaven I will ask Jonah if he did.” The man told the little girl, “I don’t believe Jonah went to Heaven.” She said, “In that case, you can ask him.” Some day one of us can ask why God did creation the way he did.
@gary kukis: #29
Let me try this a different way. I don’t cuss, drink, womanize, smoke, and I am probably the most honest person you will ever meet. Most of the people I have gotten to know who try to convert me use cuss words, love there liquor, a lot of them smoke, and they don’t come across as someone I would trust very much.
As I mentioned earlier, I go by what I see, not what I hear. I try to incorporate features I like in other people in my life because I know how I feel about those people and I want other people to think the same about me. LIVING Christianity will result in more converts than PREACHING it. Mom kept PREACHING to us kids until she died at 92. It didn’t work because she didn’t LIVE Christianity.
@Smorgasbord: “You didn’t answer the question of how Adam and Eve populated the earth. They had two boys. The ONLY answer can be that mommy had sex with one or both of her sons until a girl was born, then the girl had sex with another member of the family. If God is so far seeing, wouldn’t he have made two men and two women to start with?”
I guess I assumed that you knew this: And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were eight hundred years. And he fathered sons and daughters. (Gen. 5:4).
I think far more important than this is the fact that we are made out of the same chemicals are as found in the soil and that cloning is spoken of in the 2nd chapter of Genesis. Do you think these were just lucky guesses?
@Smorgasbord: “Let me try this a different way. I don’t cuss, drink, womanize, smoke, and I am probably the most honest person you will ever meet. Most of the people I have gotten to know who try to convert me use cuss words, love there liquor, a lot of them smoke, and they don’t come across as someone I would trust very much.”
Essentially, this means that you adhere to the laws of divine establishment; laws which were designed for all mankind, believer and unbeliever alike. Societies which follow these laws are both preserved and they prosper; societies that don’t tend to die off. This is why you probably know several Jews but you do not know any Philistines, Hittites, or Aramaeans.
Your mother was flawed as all believers are flawed.
The sin nature manifests itself in a variety of ways in people. Some might chase women, some may be given to greed, some may go after power, and some may gossip about and malign other people. These are all sins and we all commit whatever brand of sin that our sin nature has a hankering to do. The less we sin, the better our lives tend to be; and the more we sin, the worse our lives tend to be. But we all sin, those who have believed in Jesus Christ and those who don’t.
In any case, Jesus Christ died for your sins. This was telegraphed to us all the way back in Genesis 3. Where did these animal skins come from? Animals had to be killed as a representative analogy to Jesus Christ, Who would pay for our sins.
Again, only 3 chapters into Genesis, and this is another “lucky guess;” that the basis of our salvation is represented by the death of an animal (which was a tradition that was canonized in the Mosaic Law).
I offer that up, along with those two other lucky guesses to indicate to you that you do not have to park your brain in neutral in order to be saved. Your relationship to God is a choice; it is not illogical nor does God expect you to toss our your ability to think if you choose to believe in Him.
Have you ever read any of Josh McDowell’s books? “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” ? Any of the incarnations of that book are good except for “ETDV volume 2.” (that book deals with some important subjects, but subjects that don’t appeal to too many people).
@gary kukis: #33
I didn’t know that part of the Bible. I read through it once, but 30-35 year ago.
To populate the planet, Adam and Eve had to have had sex with their kids or the kids had sex with each other. So, what you are saying is that we came from incest, so Christianity is based on incest. I would rather believe that my ancestors crawled out of the ocean.
There is a show on TV that is trying to prove that aliens came to earth and built things, etc. I can’t remember the name. They are using paintings, carvings, writings, etc. to prove this. Each time they show a carving that they say shows a spaceman or space vehicle I can’t help wondering if it was like we do when we make things and put whatever the artist wants to in it. The artist decides how it looks. I don’t care for art where a sign has to tell me what it is.
Anybody can take any information and twist it around to prove a theory they have. For example, how many millions of dollars was spent trying to prove that different people’s THEORIES were correct as to how the pyramids were built or how the stones were moved, only to have someone look at a stone with an electron microscope and find out it had the consistency of concrete. The stones were poured. I don’t go by theories to decide what I think.
As I mentioned before, I believe the way I do and ain’t going to be changed by people talking to me about what THEY believe. I defended your right to believe what you want. Please allow me my right to believe the way I want.
@gary kukis: #34
YOU SAID
This is why you probably know several Jews but you do not know any Philistines, Hittites, or Aramaeans.
RESPONSE
I don’t keep track of a person’s religion, nationality, ect. I use the expression that I judge a person by their insides, not their outside. I don’t care about the rest.
Final question, then I will be done with this conversation:
Why is it that liberals and very religious people feel they have to change people to be the way THEY want the people to be. I won’t change you and you won’t change me. Let’s please end this conversation.
@Smorgasbord: “So, what you are saying is that we came from incest, so Christianity is based on incest. I would rather believe that my ancestors crawled out of the ocean.”
First of all, this is the founding of the human race, not of Christianity.
Secondly, if you believe in evolution, that rocks, mud and water became living cells, these living cells turned into tiny swimming things which eventually became fish, birds, primates and then man, do you not think that there was some incest in all of that? Do you think that, suddenly, one day, 10 or 20 humans all were born at the same time?
@Smorgasbord: “As I mentioned before, I believe the way I do and ain’t going to be changed by people talking to me about what THEY believe. I defended your right to believe what you want. Please allow me my right to believe the way I want. ”
You can believe whatever you want. There is no way I can get inside another person’s soul and change them from positive or negative; nor can a person be argued into becoming a believer in Jesus Christ. It is a choice.
Again, that is why I recommend that you read those first few chapters of John. If you are open-minded about it and God is real, God will speak to you through the book of John. It may not be a feeling, but you will clearly understand that you have a decision to make.
@Smorgasbord: “Why is it that liberals and very religious people feel they have to change people to be the way THEY want the people to be. I won’t change you and you won’t change me. ”
It is simply God calling you. You will note at no time did I suggest that you become a Baptist, a Mormon or a Catholic. I simply indicated that the way is Jesus Christ, Who said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no man comes to the Father but by Me.”
You decision is quite simple; you devote 100% of your life to pushing Jesus Christ away, or you give in for 2 or 3 seconds and exercise faith in Him. It doesn’t hurt; you can change your mind afterwards. But, the key to your life is Jesus Christ.
What God offers is life eternal and to you, that offer is free. No one is requiring you to adhere to any tenet or set of beliefs; only to believe in Jesus Christ. That act of faith, that would take a few seconds out of your life, costs you absolutely nothing, yet gives you everything. He paid the cost.
I am not the issue; Christian churches are not the issue; your mother’s failings are not the issue. It is just you and Jesus Christ. You either accept what He has done or you don’t. No one can make that choice except you. You have to stand on that decision for all eternity.
The other things I offered here was some rational reasons why it is not illogical to put our faith in Jesus Christ. All that is simply to indicate that God does not expect you to put your mind in neutral in order to be saved. It is a choice.
@gary kukis: #37
It is easier for me to believe that we evolved over millions of years, than that two people were instantly created. I’m a person that the more the person tries to sell me something, the more I don’t want anything to do with it.
You remind me of a RELIGIOUS conversation I was having on the CB one time. I can talk about ANY subject. We had talked for some time, then a third person came into the conversation and he was in preacher mode and tried to convince me to repent, etc., etc., etc. The first guy had a better chance at converting me than the other guy. It’s like I would tell my mom, “I don’t want anything to do with YOUR religion if I have to go around preaching to people.”
I would rather live next to a person who uses cuss words, smokes, drinks, and doesn’t bathe enough, than to live next to a person who is always preaching to me. I don’t mean any disrespect, I just don’t like being preached to. Remember how Jesus said you have to lead sheep. My mom was like you and tried to PUSH people into Heaven. I got to the point that I wanted to tell her, “If you are going to be, I don’t want to go,” but I didn’t.
@gary kukis: #38
I have read and heard many Bible verses. My mind is open enough that when I heard or read Philippians 4:13, it kept bugging me. (I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me) I can do anything because Jesus gives me the strength to do it is the usual teaching. Can I rob a bank because Jesus gives me the mental strength to do it? No. Then it finally came to me. Replace the word “which” with “if it” and it makes sense. This is what I mean by my having an open mind. I don’t go by what people say if something makes me question it.
The more you try to push me into your way of thinking, the harder it will for another Christian try to lead me into it.
@gary kukis: #39
You said God is calling me. God has my phone number, email address, and home address. If he wants to contact me, he can at any time. I’m sorry. I just had to say that.
You said God offers me life eternal, and it costs me absolutely nothing. That made me think that I would feel that I should tithe. That means it would cost me.
That reminded me of the time I was eating in a restaurant in Utah and heard a customer ask a waitress, “What’s it like since you left the Mormon Church?” She answered, “Well,,,,,,I look at it this way. I got a 10% raise and weekends off.” I’ll keep my 10% and weekends, but I do donate my time and money to different organizations and things that come up.
@Smorgasbord: All the confusion spewing out of your mouth is due to you not believing in anything other than hedonism. If you believed in GOD and his word then you would not be having this discussion. I would add that Islam does not accept homosexuality either.
@Mark Smith: #43
Doesn’t the Bible teach not to judge people or you will be judged yourself?
I had to look up “hedonism” to find out it meant you think I want to please only myself. Would someone who is out to please themselves see a police officer or a soldier in a restaurant and tell the waiter or waitress to bring them the meal ticket and give the waiter or waitress a note to give to the officer or soldier thanking them for being out there, and tell the waiter or waitress not to say who it was from? I wish I had a lot more money so I could do it a lot more often.
I have been around a lot of religious people, and they all seem to want to tell all of the GOOD things they have done. Somewhere in the Bible it says that if you receive your rewards on Earth, you won’t receive any in Heaven. Do you have any rewards in Heaven because you did something good and didn’t tell anybody?
Here is your challenge for today: Do something good for someone in need without them knowing about it and see how long you can go without telling anybody.
My mom tried to convert us kids for many, many, years without success. As I have mentioned before, I am not converted to something different by words, but by deeds. Most fishermen use fishing lures to catch fish by showing them something the fish wants. You and my mom like spear fishing instead.
That reminds me of something:
QUESTION
What is the definition of a fisherman?
ANSWER
A jerk at one end of the line waiting for a jerk at the other end of the line.
I don’t fish, but the wives of fishermen tell me that is accurate.
@Smorgasbord: @Smorgasboard,
In response to your question I would agree that too many Christian’s are easy to dislike. Some examples would be: 1. Demanding that abortion be made illegal while at the same time demanding welfare reform that prevents women who keep their babies and do not have abortions from getting government assistance for their expanding family. This is something that makes Christian’s look very bad. I mean – how can you demand that a person not have sex unless they are married and to accept the consequences of the pregnancy and deny the person in poverty government help? I would respond that I personally oppose abortion but I am pro-choice. As I do NOT believe that laws preventing abortion should be passed. Especially if you are opposed to providing financial assistance to the person who does NOT abort their baby. Though I would say that partial birth abortions should be ILLEGAL.
2. I am opposed to homosexual marriage. This is because it is clearly and indisputably against the laws of nature as well as condemned in the bible as an abomination. I also, do NOT believe that a homosexual family is a “natural family” because homosexuality is in conflict with both the laws of GOD and nature which was created by GOD.
3. Homosexuals and Liberals are intolerant because they oppose all speech that is in conflict with the beliefs of liberals and homosexuals.
4. If you do NOT believe in GOD and the bible it is very easy to accept homosexuality and other sins as acceptable behavior.
5. I am NOT judging homosexuals. I am demanding that homosexuals and liberals RESPECT the religious viewpoints of Christians and do NOT teach their perverted and un-natural beliefs to children in the public school system. All sin is wrong but homosexuals are the only sinners that DEMAND that the government pass laws that make their sins acceptable and to force religious business owners to fund things that are in opposition to their religious belief system.
@Mark Smith: #45
I have a very simple solution to the abortion issue. Let’s put it on the ballot when we elect a president. Since only women can get pregnant, only women could vote. This is something that I think the majority should rule.
I am opposed to homosexual marriage. This is because it is clearly and indisputably against the laws of nature as well as condemned in the bible as an abomination.
Did you know that there are all kinds of male animals having sex with each other? How does one go about proving it is against nature? If you are going to use the Bible as a guide, then whichever religion is the dominant one will be the one to go by, or does each religion have there say in it? You are also saying that if Islam is the main religion in another country, that country should use its rules to govern.
I believe we are born the way we are and not given a choice. At what age were you when you CHOSE to be straight? What about the babies who are born both male and female and have ALL the parts AND FEELINGS of both sexes? They didn’t choose to be born that way.
I don’t say I don’t believe in God. I say that I don’t know if there is one. One reason I don’t belong to a religion is because they condemn homosexuality. Isn’t it ironic that a lot of the world leaders over the years picked one group of people and tried to get the rest of their people to condemn them and used this to gain more power for themselves? Can you think of a country where this was done? Could religions be doing the same thing? Just a thought that didn’t enter my mind until I was writing this comment.
I don’t have a problem with homosexual marriages. I don’t know how much further they should be allowed to go, like adopting kids.
I am NOT judging homosexuals. I am demanding that homosexuals and liberals RESPECT the religious viewpoints of Christians and do NOT teach their perverted and un-natural beliefs to children in the public school system.
Let’s pretend for a moment that homosexuality is natural, but we are teaching our kids that it is a sin. That means that if a boy or girl starts having feelings for the same sex, then they are sinners.
Over the years I have heard of women finding out that their husband was cheating on them. Then they found out it was a man they were cheating with. I have heard this story different times over the years. The husbands who talked about it always said the same thing: The were always attracted to the same sex, but they didn’t want to be condemned and beaten for it, so they pretended they were straight. Some of them had kids. How many others are there married to the opposite sex just to look normal?
Gay activists have tremendous, I mean TREMENDOUS, political clout. They and their super-rich backers could easily gleam the same assets only now afforded to married couples, but that’s not what this push is about. It’s about takeover, about hustling straights and religious people into the closet in droves, and punishing those who have any attitudes of dissent or dissagreement to the gay takeover. Gays have an absolute MONARCHY of the hollywood and entertainment industry landscape, which hugely influneces corporate sponsors, which in turn influences elected officials.
Once gays get the title of marriage, it grants them the authenticating, codifying stamp of government legitimacy which will barr anyone who resist their tireless, reckless cultural takeover. This was already demonstrated in the Mass. David Parker case.
“We just want to marry who we love”, goes the feigned sentiment from these activists. See how noble, innocuous and benign their demands are? Don’t you feel all cozy inside now you see how harmless their aims are. Don’t you see? We werent born yesterday, gay activists, and people are catching on to your little hustle, your grand scheme, and we WON’T be hustled into the closet under the threat of your silly political correctness juggernaut. This truly is David and Goliath playing out all over again. You gays couldn’t help yourselves, you’re drunk with power, and now you got sloppy and careless.