Patterico's Pontifications

5/1/2015

GoFundMe Changes Policy to Exclude Defense of Christians

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:45 am



That’s not how they put it, of course, but that’s what’s going on here. Having eliminated funding campaigns in favor of florists and bakers who refuse to violate their religious beliefs, using the thin excuse that these people were facing “charges,” the company has decided to expand the policy to justify their decision:

GoFundMe’s old policy on crowdfunding may not have been enough to justify its decision last weekend to kill campaigns on behalf of a Christian-owned florist and bakery — but its new policy is.

The website quietly expanded its list of banned crowdfunding activities this week shortly after The Washington Times questioned GoFundMe’s reliance on its policy against campaigns in defense of “formal charges of heinous crimes” to pull fundraisers for Arlene’s Flowers and for Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

The new policy, which includes a ban on campaigns in defense of “claims of discriminatory acts,” would appear to make it more difficult to raise money on behalf of businesses facing crippling civil damages awards after refusing to provide services for gay weddings for religious reasons.

Travis Weber, a lawyer and director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council, said GoFundMe’s revised policy “could exclude and discriminate against all types of fundraising.”

“Who will determine what a ‘discriminatory act’ is? Will the term be decided according to legal standards? If so, which standards?” Mr. Weber said. “Or will it be subject to the same arbitrary decision-making we’ve seen from GoFundMe so far?”

The previous policy barred “Campaigns in defense of formal charges of heinous crimes, including violent, hateful, or sexual acts.” The new policy bans “Campaigns in defense of formal charges or claims of heinous crimes, violent, hateful, sexual or discriminatory acts.”

To restate my position: for me, this is about basic freedom. We have the right to associate or not associate with anyone we choose. It could be for religious reasons or other reasons; good reasons or bad reasons. Maybe you don’t want to sell to people with nose rings, or people who wear ties you consider to be in poor taste. The law does not support me on this, but classical liberal philosophy does.

And so, I don’t plan to use GoFundMe for anything in the future, although I may still contribute to campaigns being handled by the service that I think are worthy (like Mandy Nagy’s).

Note something inherent in the preceding paragraph, though: unlike decisions by government, handling this one is easy. Just use another service.

It’s when government starts bigfooting all the services and making them all bend to its will that we have a real problem.

See the difference between the government and the market?

When things are handled by the market, you have freedom to choose. Don’t like funding companies that you think support “homophobic” causes? Use another company. Don’t like funding companies that stomp on the rights of Christians? Use another company.

When things are handled by the government, you can a) comply, b) force a different result through voting (yes, I’m kidding, you can’t really do that; you just have an illusion that you can), or c) leave.

The difference can be summed up in one word: freedom.

381 Responses to “GoFundMe Changes Policy to Exclude Defense of Christians”

  1. Well, Patterico, I agree with you 100%

    But I suspect there will be a whole bunch of anti-Christian bigotry in just a few moments.

    If I am wrong, that is great news. Because the point (as you eloquently put it) is about freedom to choose.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJWLt1TmAy4

    The book says it all, and very well.

    http://www.amazon.com/Free-Choose-A-Personal-Statement/dp/0156334607

    But then, I’m not hip.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  2. There’s another option. E-mail or write the person (addresses are usually available on the web) and ask them where they’d like the donation sent. This has the added benefit of cutting out the middleman.

    PPs43 (6fdef4)

  3. pikachu hasn’t had his nespresso yet,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  4. what would be great is if people just stopped discriminating then they wouldn’t need charity and the charity could go to someone who really needed it like a little girl with cystic fibrosis

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  5. Yes Happyfeet, I think it should be required for Christian photographers to film gay threesomes, if they are asked to. We cannot discriminate.

    Gus (7cc192)

  6. What would be even better is if the gays would leave people the hell alone, then there ALSO wouldn’t be a need to help out persecuted Christians with charity.

    Of course, idiot there thinks it’s great that Christians are being persecuted.

    Vancomycin (37e9cd)

  7. i’d like to buy the whirl a coke!

    i’d like to buy a vowel

    i’d like to buy an apple watch

    i’d like to buy a gay wedding cake please

    i’d like to buy a round trip ticket to Minneapolis

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  8. Sorry to hear about your condition, happyfeet.

    LB (c03c68)

  9. You can be sure that the proprietors of GoFundMe succumbed to the same kind of behind the scenes pressure that the gay hoteliers and others have received. There will surely be one or more new crowd funding web places that will crop up as a result of GoFundMe’s “policy” change. All the new guys need to do is demonstrate they are trustworthy with respect to payments, and to use the similar wording that GoFundMe originally did as a precaution that they are not funding actual criminals and especially not funding murderers or sexual criminals. “Claims of discriminatory acts” is a meaningless phrase that can be used primarily by GoFundMe to—discriminate.

    elissa (47fcb1)

  10. Two alternatives I’ll mention here:

    http://www.samaritanspurse.org/

    http://www.youcaring.com/

    seeRpea (81fcfe)

  11. 4. what would be great is if people just stopped discriminating thinking differently than me then they wouldn’t need charity and the charity could go to someone who really needed it like a little girl with cystic fibrosis
    happyfeet (a037ad) — 5/1/2015 @ 8:05 am

    FTFY, happyfascist.

    Congrats, I hear you’ve been selected to head the Gaystapo’s Winter Relief campaign.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  12. 1. …But I suspect there will be a whole bunch of anti-Christian bigotry in just a few moments…

    Simon Jester (c8876d) — 5/1/2015 @ 7:55 am

    Yes, there will. As happyfascist demonstrates, not being in lock-step with the Gleichschaltung will be labelled “discrimination.”

    As the gub’mint presaged in its argument for the HHS mandate, it was never about providing a necessary service. It is about bending people to the government’s will or forcing them out of the public square. That’s why they argued the HHS contraceptive mandate was about “equal rights for women.”

    So, if you’re Catholic and don’t want to violate your beliefs (the gub’mint argues that 90% of Catholics do use birth control, but so what, it’s still against the faith) you’re not really against buying contraceptives.

    No, you’re against “Equal Rights For Women (TM).”

    Similarly, if Christians continue to oppose abortion, the resistance to killing the unborn will be repackaged. No, Christians are really against “Basic Health Care For Women (TM).”

    “Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton said.

    “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will,” she explained. “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed. As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

    Read more: http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2015/04/24/hillary-thinks-she-is-bigger-than-god/#ixzz3YuJPW36w

    This is how the progs are preparing the battlefield.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  13. Steve please stop your VICIOUS war on WYMYN.

    Gus (7cc192)

  14. This is what the left is trying to undo. As James Madison put it:

    It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to Him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society.

    Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/416421/church-left-yuval-levin

    As the left puts it, there is no god but government. There are no duties that precede those demanded by government.

    And if you’re an atheist, don’t think they’re not coming for you. They’re not trying to undo religion, but as Yuval Levin observes establish one to replace all others. And everyone will be roped into the church of the left.

    If they can undo the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion, then nobody will have a right to their own conscience no matter what the source of its formation.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  15. 13. Steve please stop your VICIOUS war on WYMYN.
    Gus (7cc192) — 5/1/2015 @ 10:06 am

    happyfeets, what gulag am I going to be assigned to?

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  16. there’s no gulag and i probably won’t even do any opprobrium on you head, not unless you actually do any discriminatings on people, which you’d never ever do cause of that’s not how you roll

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  17. No, that’s not how I roll. I don’t discriminate against people. There are certain events, though, that I don’t want to attend. That’s being labelled h8.

    I think this whole “public accommodation” nonsense needs to be tossed into the ash heap of history.

    I’ve been discriminated against plenty of times. For instance, I had a weekend liberty in San Francisco, lo those many years ago. And on my last night in port I tried to go to an old college friends bar. It turned out that night he had rented his whole place to lesbian group called Code Blue.

    Understand this was not a private event. It was open to the public for a five dollar cover. There was a SF cop at the door. I was willing to pay the five bucks to have a drink with an old friend before leaving town. But the cop told me I couldn’t because I wasn’t a woman.

    I am still not a woman.

    And in Asia, lots of places refused me entry because I’m white.

    Know what I do? Find another place. Private property should be the property of the owners, not the government. That’s how it works in most of the rest of the world. The don’t have Jim Crow laws saying you can’t do business with certain people. They don’t have public accommodation laws that say you must do business with certain people. People just do business with who they want to do business with.

    It’s really not so bad, Mr. feets. There are plenty of other places.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  18. http://townhall.com/columnists/nealboortz/2014/03/17/racist-elephants-n1809947

    Congress needs to pass a law. The elephants are racially profiling against the Masai!

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  19. Thanks for the details,
    This was obliquely mentioned before, when it was noted that the fund raising for the people in Washington state was going through Samaritan’s Purse (which is a Christain mainly relief organization known for Dr. Brantly of Liberia).

    OK, how long before they get scrutinized by the IRS…

    I’m guessing they are not counting these funds as tax exempt contributions to their org, but maybe that would be ok, IDK, for lawyers to decide.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  20. Only slightly off-topic:

    Has anyone noted the gratuitous placement of gay couples in network television? Bit players who are only there to say “I’m having a same-sex wedding” and really nothing else? I saw this the other night in “The Flash”.

    There seems to be a propaganda effort under way to make it all seem so normal. Get with the program, kids!

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  21. OK, how long before they get scrutinized by the IRS…

    Or have their accounts seized for suspicion of racketeering. Or badthink. Or something.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  22. Maybe you don’t want to sell to people with nose rings, or people who wear ties you consider to be in poor taste. The law does not support me on this

    Nor should it. I guess people with nose rings or bad ties could get “separate but equal” services, but that’s not really what our country should be about.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  23. Carlitos–

    Am I required to serve a patron wearing swastikas? Or Klan regalia? Is THAT what our country should be about?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  24. 20. …There seems to be a propaganda effort under way to make it all seem so normal. Get with the program, kids!

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/1/2015 @ 10:49 am

    Seems to be?

    http://www.amazon.com/dp/0061934771/?tag=mh0b-20&hvadid=3523264140&hvqmt=e&hvbmt=be&hvdev=c&ref=pd_sl_5cza3dmmv0_e

    Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV Hardcover – May 31, 2011

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  25. More to the point:

    Gofundme is actually discriminating against customers based on a belief that they MIGHT discriminate against customers. FOR JUSTICE!

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  26. 9. …“Claims of discriminatory acts” is a meaningless phrase that can be used primarily by GoFundMe to—discriminate.

    elissa (47fcb1) — 5/1/2015 @ 8:56 am

    You mean like how the left uses the word inclusive in order to exclude people? How they use the word tolerance to justify their intolerance?

    http://weaselzippers.us/211700-vanderbilt-professor-accused-of-hate-speech-for-criticizing-islam-you-cant-say-these-types-of-things-on-a-campus-thats-liberal/

    “What I’m really trying to show her is that she can’t continue to say these kinds of things on a campus that’s so liberal and diverse and tolerant,” Yamin declared.

    Orwell was trying to warn people against something. Instead, and I join many others in wearily noting, the progressive left uses it as their bible.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  27. If there were a law against discriminating against people based on their religious beliefs, would gofundme be unable under this policy to raise funds to defend itself?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  28. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu8bmMrfMYw

    A guide to the dark side

    By Pat Condell, my newest favorest atheist since Christopher Hitchens died.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  29. Back when I was a young person, I applied for a sales job with a firm in upstate Illinois (the horror!) During the interview process, the manager inquired about my religious affiliation. I confirmed that I was studying the beliefs of a particular church (although I was not a member). The positive interview process quickly turned cold. He ultimately declined to hire me, even though I had prior experience in the field and came highly recommended.

    Was this discrimination? Quite likely. Was I offended? Not a bit.

    I found a better job that was NII (Not In Illinois). Definitely a win-win.

    The manager was free to refuse to hire me, and I was free to seek other employment.

    Freedom in these United States today is a dwindling commodity. If we’re not careful, it will become but a memory.

    navyvet (c33501)

  30. i never been to Asia

    it sounds so foreign and exotic

    I never been to Spokane, Washington neither

    they have a giant red wagon!

    in you face, Asia

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  31. RE: Two alternatives I’ll mention here:

    http://www.samaritanspurse.org/

    http://www.youcaring.com/
    seeRpea (81fcfe) — 5/1/2015 @ 8:59 am

    Make note that Samaritan’s Purse includes this; Persecuted Christ6ians – Your gift will help meet the needs of persecuted Christians in the United States as they stand strong for Biblical values and face financial distress or other legal burdens inflicted by courts or government-imposed orthodoxy.

    There is nothing on the Samaritan’s Purse site that allows donations to go to specific individuals.

    The YouCaring website includes this disclaimer; Who can raise funds on YouCaring?

    The site is open to individuals or non-profits that are needing to raise funds for personal, charitable, non-divisive causes in the following categories: medical expenses, memorial/funeral expenses, tuition/education help, adoption fundraising, pet or animal medical expenses, service trips or helping a neighbor in need. If you have a need outside of these categories, we encourage you to use another website better suited for your cause. Contact us and we would be happy to provide referrals. If you open a fundraiser on YouCaring.com that falls outside of these categories, it will be put on hold and removed at the discretion of the YouCaring management team. Please note: YouCaring does not permit fundraising campaigns for legal defense, litigation, bail bonds or other legal matters. Related fundraisers may also be subject to review on a case-by-case basis.

    PPs43 (6fdef4)

  32. How far we’ve fallen. Discriminate is now a “bad” word. But where would be if we hadn’t discriminated in the past? Choosing between tainted or pure, bricks or straw, working or looting were all decisions that used to be delegated to the individual. Education was devoted to helping our kids make these decisions, and discrimination was the essential skill we hoped to develop. The ant and the grasshopper, the three little pigs, are just children’s tales, but we tell them for a purpose.

    What is the difference between looting and working? From a progressive standpoint, either option results in the acquisition of goods by someone who desires them. The end point is similar. So the distinction to a Democrat, say the Mayor of Baltimore, is simply one of means. The discriminating mind would look further and note that work creates wealth, while looting destroys a portion, redistributes the rest, and ultimately reduces the incentive to create more wealth. There are distinctions between these actions that are significant.

    But these decisions can not be left with the individual if the elite are to grasp all power. So they must attack the foundation of individual actions, the very notion of good and bad. The battle over gay rights is fundamental in this effort to destroy the individual’s confidence that he is able to discriminate logically. If the left is successful in forcing individuals to participate in activities that they don’t support, as agents in a gay wedding, for example, it will not end with that. This will be just be a fulcrum for leveraging more destruction of what were once considered 1st Amendment Rights, and yielding more power to the state.

    bobathome (ef0d3a)

  33. navyvet–

    Asking religious affiliation in a job interview is prima facie evidence of an intent to discriminate.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  34. I like Asia. I like Asia a lot. I don’t even mind having the owner of one particular place barring the door and not letting me in because I’m a white devil (that’s why I mentioned the racist elephants, they’ve had bad experiences with other white devils). The place down the street that will let me in is probably more interesting anyway.

    And until the Human Rights Campaign and the GLSO came along it never occurred to me I should be obsessed with putting those businesses (and all their employees) out of work because they didn’t let me in. But I digress.

    Sometimes instead of driving I’d take the train from my apartment in Uraga to the Navy base at COMFLEACTS Yokosuka. And after a while, and before hiking up the hill to my apartment, I’d stop off at a little pub snack by the station.

    Japanese pub snacks are a little weird for most Americans. They have women working as hostesses. They sit with the customers, talk to them, socialize, pour drinks, all that. Most of the sailors thought they were hookers. They’re not.

    So this place was kind of leery of me at first. I sat at the bar and talked with the owner (don’t call her mama-san, it’s insulting). They finally figured out I was OK, I wasn’t going to get all gropey like the other sailors so they had to slap my hand away and use the only English phrase they knew, “This is just my job!” Oh, yeah, it helped I spoke enough Japanese that they knew I wouldn’t run out. By that I mean, some Japanese people are reluctant to talk to you because they think eventually you’re going to exhaust your Japanese and then you’ll try to talk to them in English. Which they’re not good at, and it would be awkward.

    Anyway I got on their good side and was welcome in the place.

    So, one night I’m in there and the owner is showing me her knew set of golf clubs. On one of he sofas are a pair of plainclothes cops. Off duty, extremely drunk. They decide they’re going to have fun with the gaijin (me), thinking everyone else is going to be amused as well. So they insist I sit down with them for a drink. I do the only thing that will shut them up; I go over for a drink. They’re pretending to be friendly in a passive aggressive sort of way. One of the cops takes my arm and it’s hard to describe but he’s patting my hand, pretending everything is all convivial and all. But I can tell he’s prepping to do some sort of Aikido wrist breaking move if I take offense to the mockery.

    I defy stereotypes, keep my composure, finish my drink, extricate myself, go back to the bar. Nobody else is amused. They’re all staring at these cops in stony silence. This infuriates the cops, one of whom starts yelling and tries to stagger over to us. He loses his balance, falls back over the coffee table. We all, owner, bartender, hostesses, customers, throw them bodily out in the street.

    Then we sit around and talk about what a couple of @$$holes those cops are. I remember one of the hostesses saying to me, “You know those guys could lose their jobs.” Which is why nobody suffered any repercussions, as once those two sobered up they knew better than to try anything.

    This was the height of my personal diplomacy in the Far East. What could have gone south turned into a night of American-Japanese solidarity. A good time was had by all. There was joy in mudville.

    I didn’t disgrace the flag. No, I upheld it’s honor. You’re all welcome. You should appreciate me more.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  35. And so, I don’t plan to use GoFundMe for anything in the future, although I may still contribute to campaigns being handled by the service that I think are worthy (like Mandy Nagy’s).

    In other words, you won’t use GoFundMe — until you do use GoFundMe.

    Julie the Jarhead (d70d51)

  36. All the new guys need to do is demonstrate they are trustworthy with respect to payments, and to use the similar wording that GoFundMe originally did as a precaution that they are not funding actual criminals and especially not funding murderers or sexual criminals.

    What’s with that? So if Patterico is ever accused of murder, they automatically assume his guilt, and don’t want to help those who believe in him to help him defend himself?! How do they justify that to their own consciences?

    Milhouse (bdebad)

  37. 33. How far we’ve fallen. Discriminate is now a “bad” word. But where would be if we hadn’t discriminated in the past?

    bobathome (ef0d3a) — 5/1/2015 @ 11:43 am

    Discriminate is only a bad word if you’re the one making your own individual choices.

    You must let the collective do your discriminating for you.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  38. 37. …How do they justify that to their own consciences?

    Milhouse (bdebad) — 5/1/2015 @ 12:08 pm

    That assumes they have consciences. I believe they’ve farmed out the whole conscience thing to the progressive left. Who also have their testicles in jars of formaldehyde in a vault.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  39. So, if you’re Catholic and don’t want to violate your beliefs (the gub’mint argues that 90% of Catholics do use birth control, but so what, it’s still against the faith) you’re not really against buying contraceptives.

    No, you’re against “Equal Rights For Women (TM).”

    Also, the case wasn’t about contraceptives in general, it was about specific “contraceptives” which are actually abortifacients. I’ll bet 90% of Catholics don’t use those. (You’re right that it wouldn’t matter if they did.)

    Milhouse (bdebad)

  40. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8P90SAROKA

    Pat Condell – A Society Of Cowards (The best Condell vid ever)

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  41. “What’s up with that” is that it’s the original policy of GoFundMe which seemed sane and seemed to be working out quite well until recently. Start your own business if you want to get into the business of crowdfunding for defense of accused criminals. That’s perhaps a societal need. It might be lucrative for you. But it’s a wholly different business model from what GoFundMe ever was.

    elissa (66ca2e)

  42. I am getting e-mails from GoFundMe since I donated to the Washington florist. I wish I could tell them they won’t see me again but don’t know how.

    I am agnostic but don’t like bullies, even Christian bullies which is why I quit Ricochet.

    Now, as far as anti-Christian stuff, we ain’t seen nothing yet.

    Shea, in her op-ed titled “With Malice Toward Nun,” exposed the real reason why Obama denied the visa for Sister Diana.

    “Sister Diana Momeka of the Dominican Sisters of Saint Catherine of Siena was informed on Tuesday by the U.S. consulate in Erbil that her non-immigrant-visa application has been rejected.

    “The reason given in the denial letter, a copy of which I have obtained, is:
    ‘You were not able to demonstrate that your intended activities in the United States would be consistent with the classification of the visa.’”

    Shea further explains:

    “She told me in a phone conversation that, to her face, consular officer Christopher Patch told her she was denied because she is an ‘IDP’ or Internally Displaced Person. ‘That really hurt,’ she said. Essentially, the State Department was calling her a deceiver.”

    It’s just beginning.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  43. 43. …I am agnostic but don’t like bullies, even Christian bullies which is why I quit Ricochet…

    Mike K (90dfdc) — 5/1/2015 @ 12:23 pm

    What was the deal with Ricochet?

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  44. A bedrock of Progressive belief is that standards are subjective –
    I salute gofundme for acknowledging their Prog-roots.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  45. People are going on as if this is confined to same-sex marriage, but it won’t stop there. If the principle is established that refusing to become an accomplice in an act that one believes to be wrong constitutes discrimination against the participants, then Jews who are against intermarriage will be next on the chopping block.

    Jewish law says that it is wrong for a Jew to marry a gentile. This is not a matter of interfaith marriage; it makes no difference at all what either of the participants believes or thinks. The definition of a Jew is anyone who was born to a Jewish mother, or who underwent a valid conversion. An atheist from a long line of atheists, whose mother’s mother’s mother was Jewish, is a Jew. Someone who was not born Jewish but has come to believe completely in the truth of Judaism is not a Jew unless and until they have a legally valid conversion.

    Thus, if two atheists or Buddhists want to marry, and one of them was born to a Jewish mother while the the other was not, then nobody who believes in the Torah will willingly facilitate such a marriage. If the principle now being established becomes accepted, they will become vulenerable to lawsuits for racial discrimination.

    Milhouse (bdebad)

  46. Carlitos–

    Am I required to serve a patron wearing swastikas? Or Klan regalia? Is THAT what our country should be about?

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/1/2015 @ 11:03 am

    Yes, obviously.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  47. carlitos (c24ed5) — 5/1/2015 @ 10:56 am

    You could require all patrons to enter through a metal-detector – a VERY strong metal detector.

    askeptic (efcf22)

  48. Carlitos, your quotation of my post above is overly selective and misleading, though I don’t believe you intended that.

    The law does not support my fully articulated view of freedom but I think it is still with me on the nose rings and ties. Just not on some of the “bad reasons” I mentioned in the part you didn’t quote.

    Patterico (3d7222)

  49. Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/1/2015 @ 11:18 am

    Doesn’t CRA-64 cover that?

    askeptic (efcf22)

  50. Has anyone noted the gratuitous placement of gay couples in network television? Bit players who are only there to say “I’m having a same-sex wedding” and really nothing else? There seems to be a propaganda effort under way to make it all seem so normal.

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that, if that’s what they want to do. But make no mistake, it is what they’re doing.

    Milhouse (bdebad)

  51. Steve57 (818fa4) — 5/1/2015 @ 12:09 pm

    Because the “collective” is always wiser than the individual…..you can look it up./s

    askeptic (efcf22)

  52. Signs on the door of many a restaurant and store in summer months: No shoes, no shirt, no service. It’s under the guise of a health precaution. Is that OK with you Carlitos?

    elissa (66ca2e)

  53. According to happyfeet if it’s a business, they should serve everybody. Why are they being so bigoted and icky towards Christians?

    Tanny O'Haley (7f2509)

  54. 46. People are going on as if this is confined to same-sex marriage, but it won’t stop there.

    Milhouse (bdebad) — 5/1/2015 @ 12:35 pm

    Not all people. And no doubt before they even get done with Christians they’ll move on to Jews. But eventually they’ll get to everybody. That’s why I’m trying to frame this not as a right to the free exercise of religion, but as the right to your own conscience.

    Surely the SCOTUS can find a right to conscience from one of the penumbras emanating from the Constitution. Since they found a right to abortion in said emanations.

    But you’re right; SSM is just the current crowbar the left is using to separate people from their own minds. They will find another wrecking bar to use in short order.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  55. if you’re gonna go to one of them fancy places where you have to wear shoes then wearing the shoes is part of what you’re paying for

    it’s all part of the package

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  56. How about a sign that says “no hood, no swastica, no service?”

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  57. Did I really need the sarc tag?

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  58. Bumper sticker ideas:

    No tolerant people allowed

    Tolerance sucks

    Tolerate. Ask ME how

    felipe (b5e0f4)

  59. happy may day everyone! Don’t forget may 4th 45th anniversary of kent state.

    happy (e81761)

  60. Yes, obviously.

    Then why is GoFundMe exempt?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  61. may 4th 45th anniversary of kent state.

    This is why Nixon was really a Sith Lord.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  62. 60. Tolerance sucks

    felipe (b5e0f4) — 5/1/2015 @ 1:02 pm

    It does. Tolerate used to mean I can put up with something I don’t like. As in, I can tolerate a certain amount of pain.

    But in today’s Orwellian world of double speak tolerate means to celebrate. As in, unless I’m marching in the gay pride parade I’m not tolerant.

    I still don’t celebrate pain, though. I can tolerate a great deal, as certified by my dad the Senior Chief and a couple of Marine DIs. An attribute that should come in handy in the future as I stick to my guns.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6g2JN2PrHJg

    I Got Nowhere Else to Go! – An Officer and a Gentleman

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  63. You get no tolerance points if you’re only talking about things you agree with.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  64. The slippery slope of a society in decay.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  65. @20 Has anyone noted the gratuitous placement of gay couples in network television? Bit players who are only there to say “I’m having a same-sex wedding” and really nothing else? I saw this the other night in “The Flash”.
    ——————–

    Captain Singh on The Flash hasn’t been so bad. Apparently he’s gay in the comic books. And the scene was part of an extended gag about marriage and Barry’s future wife. Plus the references to his orientation to date have been pretty sparse (I think this is only the third time in the series that it’s been mentioned, and he appears in most episodes). So it gets a pass from me. Additionally, the depiction of Pied Piper in the series was the exact opposite of politically correct. The old comic book version (who is also gay) became a friend and ally of Barry’s replacement. So he was nominally a good guy (no idea what his status is these days), and presumably a more or less decent person. In the series, he’s completely unlikable, and is an arrogant jerk who appears to have no socially redeeming qualities.

    While it’s possible that the writers are playing culture wars with Sing’s relationship, their depiction of Pied Piper seems to suggest the opposite.

    junior (79e744)

  66. i do not agree with various and several of the assumptions inherent in this post Mr. Patterico

    the first thing what jump out at me is the title

    “…to exclude defense of christians” is what it says up there

    all christians? nonono that can’t be true. It’s just a very particular wee small tiny subset. But you never acknowledge this in your post. In fact you double down: “Don’t like funding companies that stomp on the rights of Christians? Use another company.”

    and i bet you know and i know and i know you know I know that if you look at all the peoples that you can go fund at gofundme – scads and scads and oodles of them are in fact Christian people – Christian as you and me and but not George Soros

    well maybe not you

    and for sure not George

    And I tell you what… and this may sound contentious but there’s a reason the gofunders are singling out a particular group of Christians and I tell you why that is.

    Cause they mean.

    Cause they radical.

    Cause they extreme.

    And you know what the gofunders have done to the rest of us Christians?

    They’ve humbled us.

    Why?

    Cause we should police our own. We should stand up to these ones who hold Extreme Views that are outside the mainstream and say nonono pickleheads. NOT IN MY NAME. Just like we want the muslims to do on the jihaders. Just like we want the Baltimore people to do on the rock-throwers. Just like we want the for reals scientists to do on the global warming hoaxers.

    But too often we are silent.

    We meaning y’all but not me.

    Because just like baltimom i too am a strong black woman, and I’m not afraid to point at the extremists among us and say nonono that is not who we are.

    That is NOT who we are.

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  67. 66. The slippery slope of a society in decay.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/1/2015 @ 1:36 pm

    I hope everyone has their crampons and ice axes ready. Just the thing for slippery slopes.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  68. Personally, I’m tolerant of others who are tolerant, I say live and let live, I’m down wit’ teh Golden Rule. But I will not tolerate the intolerant. I find that intolerable.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  69. 68. …the rest of us Christians?

    What do you mean, “the rest of us Christians?”

    Does your Bible not include Matthew 19:

    4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

    A Christian might therefore have more than a tiny problem with a same sex ceremony.

    But let me pose it differently. Suppose I’m a florist. I get to know a customer. I learn he’s divorced. I see him every once in a while at the Catholic church. He comes in and wants to arrange for flowers for his second wedding.

    I refuse because I’m a Catholic and a remarriage after divorce is an attempt to sanctify adultery. Should a court make me do floral arrangements for him?

    Cause we should police our own.

    happyfeet (a037ad) — 5/1/2015 @ 1:40 pm

    Precisely.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  70. you may be a good catholic but you’re a sucky florist imho

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  71. say it with flowers

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  72. 72. you may be a good catholic but you’re a sucky florist imho
    happyfeet (a037ad) — 5/1/2015 @ 1:56 pm

    If you’re religious, which one are you supposed to choose, if you’re forced to choose?

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  73. you compartmentalize Mr. 57 this way you avoid any uncomfortable cognitive dissonance

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  74. I find any and all cognitive dissonance uncomfortable, Mr. feets.

    Just answer the question.

    If a religious person is forced to choose at gunpoint, which should the religious person choose?

    A) Remaining true to his or her faith.

    B) Being a good businessperson in the state’s eyes.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  75. not to be rude but how is that my problem

    it’s not why because I am reasonably well-socialized to where i can run a bakery, a t-shirt shop, AND a flower shop without encountering soul-wrenchingly vexatious spiritual conundrums

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  76. Patterico – (excuse me if I get the legalese wrong here) – I guess that wearers of nose rings and bad ties wouldn’t be a protected class, and thus not subject to strict scrutiny? As feets put it so eloquently, being a good catholic but a lousy florist…seems pretty stupid to me.

    elissa – bare feet and no shirt is a health risk of spreading germs. Tattoos of swastikas, not so much.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  77. 3 % er’s should have 3 % input. And no say as to who is forced to bake a fricking cake.

    mg (31009b)

  78. What is a “3 % er” ?

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  79. 77. not to be rude but how is that my problem

    happyfeet (a037ad) — 5/1/2015 @ 2:12 pm

    Because you’re setting yourself up as the decider of what is and is not truly Christian. So, decide.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  80. 3% of teh population, mg? That seems too high.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  81. happyfeets, you made it your problem. Not me.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  82. How in the hell is feets setting himself up as the decider of what is and is not truly Scotsman Christian? If you are a florist, sell flowers. Is that so hard?

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  83. @85

    You’re a citizen, worship Caesar.

    lurkingestlurker (26ac75)

  84. @84

    “Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” Hmm, kinda think forcing people to go against Scripture runs afoul.

    lurkingestlurker (26ac75)

  85. carlitos @85, crack that whip, overseer.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  86. @76

    As you should, Steve. Aren’t there parts of Scripture about “If you are ashamed of me before men…” At a certain point, for Christians, compartmentalization goes from a way of being all these to all people and a way to function in society to out and out sin and defiance of God.

    lurkingestlurker (26ac75)

  87. How in the hell is feets setting himself up as the decider of what is and is not truly Scotsman Christian?

    carlitos (c24ed5) — 5/1/2015 @ 2:26 pm

    When he comments on it.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  88. @85
    You’re a good Russian. Report on your citizens to keep the Motherland.

    lurkingestlurker (26ac75)

  89. Jesus – I googled 3%er and that was unpleasant.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  90. ah, yes–carlitos. But see, that “no shoes, no shirt, no service ” sign does open the door to allow an individual shopkeeper to be selective of whom to serve. Can you see any barefoot person who was denied service actually suing and saying his rights were violated? Would you support such a suit? How far do you think such a suit would progress through the system? What about the shopkeepers who have a “no gun” sign on their door? Don’t they have that right to exclude some but not other paying customers from entering their establishment? I think that many people loose sight of the larger freedom issue Patterico is bringing up because they are getting all balled up in little things like gay cakes and flowers.

    elissa (66ca2e)

  91. Crrrack that whip
    give tradition the slip
    smokin’ that crack
    break your momma’s heart

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  92. What is a “3 % er” ?

    carlitos (c24ed5) — 5/1/2015 @ 2:19 pm

    According to a CDC survery, less than 3 percent of the population identified themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual. (Carlo Allegri/Reuters)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-survey-gives-government-its-first-large-scale-data-on-gay-bisexual-population/2014/07/14/2db9f4b0-092f-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html

    That was last year.

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  93. Why can’t we just all get along and beat the crap out of ISIS? And Iran?

    Oh, sorry. Forgot about who is President. And his voting block.

    But carlitos, maybe I got it wrong. Maybe you can’t click on the link. So let me make things as easy as I can.

    2when christian bigots assert that gay people are inherently unchristian it makes it hard to feel sorry for them when their bigot asses get sued
    happyfeet (831175) — 4/28/2015 @ 5:09 pm

    4. here’s a picture of the oh so unchristian “message” the trashy pseudo-christian bigots refused to print
    happyfeet (831175) — 4/28/2015 @ 5:16 pm

    This does not imply anything. It means happyfeet is the decider of what is and is not Christian. Hence my question.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  94. this is on top of all my other duties

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  95. all christians? nonono that can’t be true. It’s just a very particular wee small tiny subset. But you never acknowledge this in your post. In fact you double down: “Don’t like funding companies that stomp on the rights of Christians? Use another company.”

    Yes, yes, yes. The percentage of Christians who believe that homosexuality is not a sin is in the minority. Those denominations that believe that homosexuality is NOT a sin have declining memberships. Just because you say so does not mean it’s true, especially when the facts prove otherwise.

    And I tell you what… and this may sound contentious but there’s a reason the gofunders are singling out a particular group of Christians and I tell you why that is.

    Cause they mean.

    Cause they radical.

    Cause they extreme.

    Actually, those persecuting main line Christians by forcing them to go against the bible and their beliefs are the mean radical extremists.

    Cause we should police our own. We should stand up to these ones who hold Extreme Views that are outside the mainstream and say nonono pickleheads. NOT IN MY NAME. Just like we want the muslims to do on the jihaders. Just like we want the Baltimore people to do on the rock-throwers. Just like we want the for reals scientists to do on the global warming hoaxers.

    happyfeet (a037ad) — 5/1/2015 @ 1:40 pm

    Yes, you should police your own and castigate those persecuting the “mainstream” Christians, those with fundamental Christian beliefs.

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  96. hey dude don’t get it twisted

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  97. 97. this is on top of all my other duties
    happyfeet (a037ad) — 5/1/2015 @ 2:57 pm

    Hey, dude. It wasn’t me commenting on all the unchristians and pseudo-chrisians.

    I thought this made you the expert.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  98. According to a CDC survery, less than 3 percent of the population identified themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual. (Carlo Allegri/Reuters)

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-survey-gives-government-its-first-large-scale-data-on-gay-bisexual-population/2014/07/14/2db9f4b0-092f-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html

    That was last year.

    Tanny O’Haley (c674c7) — 5/1/2015 @ 2:39 pm

    OK, but civil rights aren’t really supposed to be a popularity contest.

    Also – there are some white militia types that call themselves “3%ers,” just FYI.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  99. basically it’s all about boolean logics

    you have the normal christians then you have the ones whose entire identity is grounded in a virulently anti-gay ideology

    the normal christians are like a big happy circle: O

    the extremists are a wee tiny circle inside the big happy circle: °

    the ones in the big happy circle our gofundme friends love more than beans

    the ones in the itty bitty wee small tiny circle our gofundme friends are very wary of

    i have to go check on a macro brb

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  100. 2when christian bigots assert that gay people are inherently unchristian it makes it hard to feel sorry for them when their bigot asses get sued

    happyfeet (831175) — 4/28/2015 @ 5:09 pm

    You might want to actually read the bible. After all the bible defines Christian beliefs. You might want to read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 which describes what Christians were before they became Christians. What this verse tells you is here is a list of non-Christian behavior. If you are a Christian, you no longer indulge in that behavior. It’s not hard to understand. It’s written plainly.

    Does that mean that homosexuals are bad people because they are gay? No, just sinners like the rest of us.

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  101. i already read 9 10 like a million times

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  102. ah, yes–carlitos. But see, that “no shoes, no shirt, no service ” sign does open the door to allow an individual shopkeeper to be selective of whom to serve. Can you see any barefoot person who was denied service actually suing and saying his rights were violated?

    No, because the health code. I do not see the parallel here? Germs are real. Imaginary gay cooties are not.

    Would you support such a suit?

    No.

    How far do you think such a suit would progress through the system?

    Not far.

    What about the shopkeepers who have a “no gun” sign on their door?

    The Second Amendment doesn’t care about their sign.

    Don’t they have that right to exclude some but not other paying customers from entering their establishment? I think that many people loose sight of the larger freedom issue Patterico is bringing up because they are getting all balled up in little things like gay cakes and flowers.

    elissa (66ca2e) — 5/1/2015 @ 2:37 pm

    If people here weren’t defending the gay cakes and flowers discriminators, I’d have no issue with it. I find the defense of this stuff laughable. If racial discriminators used “free exercise” as an excuse for segregated accommodations, I’d have the same issue.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  103. Happyfeet,

    You’ve got it turned around. The normal Christians believe that homosexual behavior is a sin. The extremists believe homosexuality is not a sin.

    Normal Christians believe the bible, extremists ignore or lie about the bible.

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  104. “What Lenin didn’t realize was that prayerful piety is the ultimate stage of Leftism.
    It’s when you are in a line praying there is still toilet paper, or bread or a job left for you at the end;

    it is when you are on your knees before al-Qaeda begging them to reduce the ransom from $2 to $1.85 million because that’s all your house, car, jewelry and life savings are worth. It is when your arms are raised in rapturous hope at the coming of Obama, Warren, Sanders — or Hillary. That’s the last vision of heaven you will see as you rush to one side of the boat. Chesterton was right. When people stopped believing in God they didn’t believe in nothing, they started believing in anything.”
    – Belmont Club

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  105. You might want to actually read the bible.

    I agree. Reading the bible is a great cure for all of this nonsense.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  106. 3% seems accurate to me, Col.
    Cape Cod is a retirement destination for older gays, lesbians and drummer transexuals.

    mg (31009b)

  107. “What was the deal with Ricochet?”

    It was about evolution and we had another skirmish at Althouse. It began as a comment on molecular and genetic medicine.

    I describe it here and a link is here.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  108. Normal Christians True Scotsmen believe the bible, extremists No True Scotsmen ignore or lie about the bible.

    Tanny O’Haley (c674c7) — 5/1/2015 @ 3:15 pm

    My edits above. Do you now understand why the above argument is fallacious? There are about 150 million interpretations of the bible; you don’t get to say which one is “normal” to anyone.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  109. Cape Cod is a retirement destination for older gays, lesbians and drummer transexuals.

    mg (31009b) — 5/1/2015 @ 3:16 pm

    Hey, if the trannies show up on time for practice, I’ll take them. It’s hard to recruit a dependable drummer.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  110. 104. i already read 9 10 like a million times
    happyfeet (a037ad) — 5/1/2015 @ 3:12 pm

    Great. What does Genesis 19 say?

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  111. 111. There are about 150 million interpretations of the bible; you don’t get to say which one is “normal” to anyone.

    carlitos (c24ed5) — 5/1/2015 @ 3:18 pm

    That’s because 149,990,000 of those interpretations come from people looking for an easier way than to follow the rules.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  112. Great. So you are cool with Muslim cab-drivers refusing seeing-eye dogs and passengers with duty free alcohol, right? After all, they are just following the rules.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  113. fundamental beliefs? Where in the Symbolum Nicenum is marriage mentioned? Marriage of any kind? In fact, if St. Paul is anything to go by (better to marry than to burn) the Primitive Church may not have been very keen on marriage at all.

    The truly revolutionary idea Jesus was propounding in Matthew 19 was that adultery was applicable to both sexes. In Jewish law, only the marital status of the woman was relevant to the question of whether or not adultery had taken place. An married man who had relations with an unmarried female was at worst engaging in conduct punished by lashes. Reverse the sexes and you had death sentences for both parties. Jesus was not be only condemning divorce, but defining extramarital sex by a married man as something as culpable as extramarital sex by a married woman.

    kishnevi (adea75)

  114. Genesis 19 is one of the silliest stories ever Mr. 57. Probably cause of it’s in the first book of the bible when the writer was still just learning how to tell good bible stories.

    I like the one where God makes it rain to where Mr. Noah has to build a boat and God says Noah there’s gonna be a floody floody – get those animals out of the muddy muddy! And Mr. Noah, he just hops to it and builds a boat like you never saw – and just in time!

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  115. Genesis 19 is where Lot tries to pimp out his daughters, right? That’s kind of a weird example.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  116. the whole story’s a mess

    that’s the one where all the guys in town – ALL OF THEM – show up at Mr. Lot’s house and say hi we wanna bang these dudes you got staying here – ALL OF US

    now how realistic is that?

    I do not belieber it

    it makes no sense that’s not how real people behave

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  117. R.I.P. Ben E. King, singer with The Drifters (“Save The Last Dance For Me”) and solo (“Stand By Me”)

    Icy (797871)

  118. Also, prayers and best wishes for B.B. King, who is in home hospice care.

    Icy (797871)

  119. My edits above. Do you now understand why the above argument is fallacious? There are about 150 million interpretations of the bible; you don’t get to say which one is “normal” to anyone.

    carlitos (c24ed5) — 5/1/2015 @ 3:18 pm

    There are different translations of the bible based on a few original texts. We have different translations because the meaning of language changes. Like, Gentleman used to be a title, now it identifies a behavior. Gay did not mean homosexual, now it does. Between original texts there is only about 2% difference, most of which does not change the meaning of a sentence or paragraph. Some people interpret up to be down which does not mean that because they say so, they are right. Actually, they are wrong. You can say that the bible approves of homosexuality, but the original Hebrew and Greek say you’re wrong.

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  120. My edits above. Do you now understand why the above argument is fallacious? There are about 150 million interpretations of the bible; you don’t get to say which one is “normal” to anyone.

    carlitos (c24ed5) — 5/1/2015 @ 3:18 pm

    Straw man argument based not on what I said.

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  121. It is called prison rape in modern times, Mr. Feets.
    And as the Bible makes clear, especially in Ezekiel, the sins of Sodom were greed, pride, systemic injustice and corruption, oppression of the poor and the stranger. Sexual sins were way down the list, although a lot of people seem to have trouble with that. (See previous discussion with Steve in one of the previous threads.) Sodomy in modern verbiage is a misnomer, although comparison of modern America to Sodom might not be misplaced. Those men wanted to mob Lot’s guests because the guests were outsiders.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  122. got it thank you for explaining

    in modern times i think sodomy might be what we call “civil asset forfeiture”

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  123. Great. So you are cool with Muslim cab-drivers refusing seeing-eye dogs and passengers with duty free alcohol, right? After all, they are just following the rules.

    carlitos (c24ed5) — 5/1/2015 @ 3:30 pm

    No I’m not cool with that since cab drivers are part of a franchise that defines their job. In the case of this post, we are talking about private businesses. This is a straw man argument since it changes the type of business.

    But if you want to talk about employees, there are religious accommodation laws that protect those with a sincerely held religious belief. That is why we have conscientious objectors, and why most Orthodox Jews don’t work Friday from sundown until Saturday at sundown.

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  124. OK, but civil rights aren’t really supposed to be a popularity contest.

    Also – there are some white militia types that call themselves “3%ers,” just FYI.

    carlitos (c24ed5) — 5/1/2015 @ 3:09 pm

    Irrelevant. Christian religious rights are in the constitution (civil code) while homosexuality is not in the constitution. Constitutional rights trump local, state, and federal laws.

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  125. Sodom want somorah, feets.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  126. 118. Genesis 19 is where Lot tries to pimp out his daughters, right? That’s kind of a weird example.

    carlitos (c24ed5) — 5/1/2015 @ 3:36 pm

    Uhh, no. Not exactly. Try again.

    But, you’re hitting around the nail in a sense. If you choose to live in Sodom there’s probably something wrong with your moral compass. As demonstrated later (starting at verse 30), when Lot’s daughters get him drunk so he can father the next generation. Again, if you choose to live in Sodom…

    It’s not a recommendation in any case.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  127. I mean, seriously, what kind of problem solving abilities do you expect your kids to have if you raise them in Sodom?

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  128. 128- I’m choking, my eyes are tearing and my sides hurt, Col.
    thanks

    mg (31009b)

  129. 124. …Sexual sins were way down the list…

    kishnevi (91d5c6) — 5/1/2015 @ 3:51 pm

    But they were on the list. For a reason. As your accounting demonstrates, they don’t exist in a vacuum.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  130. what’s so hard to get?
    informed decision says it’s
    exit not entrance

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  131. It is called prison rape in modern times, Mr. Feets.
    And as the Bible makes clear, especially in Ezekiel, the sins of Sodom were greed, pride, systemic injustice and corruption, oppression of the poor and the stranger. Sexual sins were way down the list, although a lot of people seem to have trouble with that. (See previous discussion with Steve in one of the previous threads.) Sodomy in modern verbiage is a misnomer, although comparison of modern America to Sodom might not be misplaced. Those men wanted to mob Lot’s guests because the guests were outsiders.

    kishnevi (91d5c6) — 5/1/2015 @ 3:51 pm

    In Ezekiel 16:

    48 “As I live,” says the Lord God, “neither your sister Sodom nor her daughters have done as you and your daughters have done. 49 Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughter had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. 50 And they were haughty and committed abomination before Me; therefore I took them away as I saw fit.

    Capitalization and periods are not in the original text. There really isn’t a hierarchy of sins, it’s just a equal list of sins. The story of the fall of Sodom tells the abomination that Sodom committed. The sin of wanting to rape the angles who appeared as men is just one of the many sins they committed.

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  132. Layeth down with dog you geteth fleas

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  133. Lay not thy neighbor’s wife nor his ass.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  134. Angels

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  135. No one knows the true meaning of any religion, except the God of that religion, but that doesn’t mean humans can’t practice them. That’s true under the principles of natural law and especially true in America where our founding documents promise the free exercise of religion.

    It seems to me that some people here want religious believers to be like these Muslim deli owners, who intentionally set aside their religious beliefs to participate in the free market. Of course, they worry it’s wrong to ignore the teachings of their religion, but they do it anyway because it’s easier and more profitable. In addition, it could be these Muslims don’t think the teachings are as important spiritually as other Muslims, just as some Christians put more emphasis on certain Christian concepts than others. After all, what’s a few wedding cakes and flowers, or a few ham sandwiches and beers, in the big picture of religion? Surely these are little sins, if they are sins at all.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  136. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, if that’s what they want to do. But make no mistake, it is what they’re doing.

    It is wrong to promote buggery. Not that the state should prohibit such a thing…

    Michael Ejercito (d9a893)

  137. I’ll be buggered if they ever catch me promoting that, Michael!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  138. there are religious accommodation laws that protect those with a sincerely held religious belief.

    I wonder how long that will survive a USSC decision that makes gay marriage the law. I suspect that will be the end of church tax exemption, which could be a good thing for them after all.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  139. I believe that taking away a church’s tax exempt status was brought up in oral arguments at the Supreme Court.

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  140. People who have refused to participate in SSM have been called bigoted and guilty of discrimination, yet have not discriminated against homosexuals in other areas of business. If it’s not okay to discriminate against SSM, why is it okay to practice discrimination against Christians?

    Why is toleration a one way street?

    If Christians tolerate homosexual behavior, why can’t homosexuals tolerate Christian beliefs?

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  141. 1) I think refusing to cater a SSM is clearly not tolerating it.
    2) You make a good illustration of how Christianity being the culturally dominant belief system of EuroAmerica for the last 1500 years or so confusticates matters. Up to ten years ago, not tolerating homosexuality was a cultural thing as much as a religious thing. (Ayn Rand was certainly not a Christian, but had no tolerance for homosexuality.). And Christianity set the moral parameters of the culture. For a benign example, see the importance of Christmas in our culture…and the Christian overreaction (War on Christmas!!!) to those who do not want to be involved in a Christian religious holiday. What used to be a supermajority is now at best a plurality…and the remaining members seem to have a hard time accepting the fact that they no longer have the power to determine morality for others.

    The culture thing also works the other way. You pointed out that list given to the Corinthians of Stuff Not To Do. Obviously, since heterosexual promiscuity is not good, so is homosexual promiscuity. But did Paul mean to rule out the sort of relationship that, say, Samuel Barber had with Gian Carlo Menotti (more stable and committed than many heterosexual marriages of the period)…or did he not even consider such a possibility because of the culture of his time? How far did 1st Century CE culture shape his views?

    *Yes, one of the most famous musical works about Christmas was written by a gay man. Just as the most popular modern Christmas song was written by a Jew. Which demonstrates the cultural reach of Christmas.
    **Steve provided a piece about gay marriage in pagan Rome the other day, but those gay marriages were not momogamous, often meant to scandalize, and involved usually only the highest reaches of the Roman aristocracy, who were devoted to the practice of serial polygamy/divorce, on which topic we fo not need Corinthians, since we have Matthew 19. In other words, not real marriages even in the sense that SSM advocates use the term.

    kishnevi (adea75)

  142. fo=do

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  143. …Steve provided a piece about gay marriage in pagan Rome the other day…

    .
    Citation please. I hope you’re not talking about this Steve. I think you’re confusing me with Mark.

    Speaking about confusion, I’m not going to begin to try to undo that hairball @144 you’re coughing up. Please, continue.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  144. Refusing to participate in SSM is not being intolerant of homosexuals. Tolerance does not mean agreement. Again:

    Why is toleration a one way street?

    If Christians tolerate homosexual behavior, why can’t homosexuals tolerate Christian beliefs?

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  145. kishnevi, I won’t cater to your hysteria. But I will tolerate it.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  146. Steve,did I confuse you with Mark? My apologies to both of you.
    The last part of my comment was meant to provoke thought, not comments. The first part is a simple historical observation on the way Christianity shaped Western culture and morals for 1500 years or more, a dominance that did not come close to ending until our own lifetimes. And the loss of that dominance may or may not be a good thing, but it is certainly something a lot of Christians have a hard time to come to terms with.

    kishnevi (adea75)

  147. Up to ten years ago, not tolerating homosexuality was a cultural thing as much as a religious thing. (Ayn Rand was certainly not a Christian, but had no tolerance for homosexuality.).

    My mom’s gay cousin brought his “house boy” to a family get together back in the ’70s. Not like anybody didn’t know before that. We just kind of ignored it. We kept inviting him, as long as he and his whatever didn’t do it in the streets and scare the horses.

    What planet are you living on, kishnevi? 10 years ago? I’ve known one of my cousins is a lesbian since the 1980s. I love her to death. She has never invited me to a gay wedding. I don’t try to drag her to church. We know where each of us stands and it doesn’t come between us. We go to dinner when I’m in town.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  148. 147.
    In the bakery cases, Christians are refusing to participate in a wedding. They refuse to tolerate SSM.
    That is refusing to tolerate it.
    Your definition of toleration apparently reduces to “strangers not barging in to stop a SSM”. Mine is different.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  149. kishnevi, I’ve mentioned Rome a few times. Several times, no doubt. But only to say I won’t worship the Emperor as a god.

    As for the rest of what you have to say, I don’t think you know what you are talking about.

    …But did Paul mean to rule out the sort of relationship that, say, Samuel Barber had with Gian Carlo Menotti (more stable and committed than many heterosexual marriages of the period)…or did he not even consider such a possibility because of the culture of his time? How far did 1st Century CE culture shape his views?…

    You do or you do not understand that to a Christian (and for a Jew when it comes to the Torah, I believe) that scripture is inspired by God? So the limited understanding of Paul is irrelevant? Or are you saying God is not omniscient? God could not foresee all the possibilities of His creation?

    Your argument intended to convince Christians that Paul couldn’t have possibly known about certain things also rests on the notion that God could not possibly be God.

    Do you see why I don’t find this convincing?

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  150. Just an observation–Steve57 your comment @150 is personal and micro. Kishnevi, yours @144 is macro and more universal. For what it’s worth I think both of your observations are valuable and bring important insight to the discussion. I am sorry that Kishnevi’s points are being discounted out of hand, though, because I think there’s a lot of truth there that does help explain at least some of the current societal and cultural angst.

    elissa (2288f1)

  151. Steve, maybe your family was more, er, tolerant, than mine. A friend of mine in college was flamboyantly gay. We discussed rooming together my senior year, but I decided against it because I knew my mother would freak out if she ever met him. This same friend felt compelled to not admit to being gay to his family until he was twenty, when a stray comment by me brought the matter into the open. (They really knew. He just did not realize how obviously gay he was.)
    My mother would today be screeched at as a h8ter, but from what I could tell her attitude was shared by most adults around me. And then living in a very gay friendly place, SoFla, makes it hard to judge what was going on in the restbofbthe country from 1980 on.

    kishnevi (9c4b9c)

  152. kishnevi,

    Again, why can’t you be tolerant of Christian beliefs? Do you hate Christians?

    Why is tolerance a one way proposition?

    Both of the bakers and the florists did business with the homosexuals, they just refused to participate in a SSM.

    One of the florists did business with the homosexuals who asked her to do their SSM for over 10 years. Not only that, but after she told them she couldn’t do their SSM because of her religious beliefs, she gave them a list of florists who would do a SSM.

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  153. But did Paul mean to rule out the sort of relationship that, say, Samuel Barber had with Gian Carlo Menotti (more stable and committed than many heterosexual marriages of the period)…or did he not even consider such a possibility because of the culture of his time?

    What I mean is, when Christ said:

    4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

    IF He was God, then yes, He knew about the people you are talking about. If He was God then he was looking into the very eyes of people like the ones you are talking about. Or do you think this Samuel Barber and this Gian Carlo Menotti were some new species that came along a millenia or two later and God couldn’t have possibly known about it? I don’t think so. And yet He didn’t mention them to the Jews He was conversing with, to tell them to back off the whole Leviticus thing. That would have been the time. And He didn’t do it.

    This is what I don’t understand about people like you, kishnevi. I know you think you have a persuasive argument that is supposed to sway the believers. But your argument is firmly anchored in unbelief. To even come up with it you have to start from the premise that there is no God.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  154. Steve there are some orthodox Christians who do not equate divine inspiration with divine dictation, and that therefore Paul’s limited understanding has to be taken into account. Not to mention those of us who do not think anything Paul wrote as being divinely inspired.
    In fact, your view of Scripture (as indicated by your comment)is one of the defining characteristics of Orthodox Judaism and Islam, but not orthodox Christianity, where the whole pointis less important. Nothing in Christianity depends on the precise wording of its scripture, not even the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist.

    But on the general point, Scripture “speaks in the language of men” to use a Talmudic phrase often cited by Maimonides and others to explain why the Bible uses anthropomorphism in speaking about a God who is not corporeal…and in our time, to explain why the Torah described Creation in a way comprehensible to the people of 1300 BCE, instead of using midern physics.
    [Thank you Elissa].

    kishnevi (adea75)

  155. I tolerated a neighbor’s habit of starting his extremely loud motorcycle before 6AM every weekday morning for the 3 years he lived next door. The exhaust note was clearly beyond the allowable decibel level and was usually heard one hour before the 7AM mark, i.e., would’ve been considered a clear violation of the public nuisance code. I never complained to the city, nor did I participate in his morning ritual. I also chose not to respond in kind. I tolerated his actions.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  156. 153. …I am sorry that Kishnevi’s points are being discounted out of hand, though, because I think there’s a lot of truth there that does help explain at least some of the current societal and cultural angst.

    elissa (2288f1) — 5/1/2015 @ 7:34 pm

    I am not dismissing them out of hand. I am trying to address the misconceptions on which they’re based. Beginning with, what is scripture. Was it just Paul and only Paul, 1st century Jew from Tarsus with limited understanding and constrained by his culture, writing most of the New Testament? Well if it was we might as well just trash it.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  157. kishnevi, name the orthodox Christians who do not believe all scripture is God breathed.

    And, tell me again what I as a Catholic believe.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  158. …therefore Paul’s limited understanding has to be taken into account…

    Ignoring all the other flaws in this line of argumentation, this conveniently evades the whole reason why I brought up Matthew 19 in the first place.

    Again, your arguments to sway the believer which probably sound fine in your echo chamber are rooted in unbelief. Which is why they don’t work.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  159. Micro Macro.

    elissa (2288f1)

  160. kishnevi #151,

    You equate tolerating SSM with refusing to participate in a SSM. I think those are materially different. I tolerate SSM by doing nothing, which is not the same as refusing to bake a cake or provide floral arrangements. The former requires nothing from me. The latter requires me to take affirmative action.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  161. I guess I don’t understand your definition of tolerance. It’s a strange idea of tolerance if it forces me to do something. That seems more like acceptance and endorsement.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  162. 156.
    You do know that being Jewish means I do not think Jesus was God? So citing Jesus as evidence of what God thinks is a waste of time.
    As to your final question, I do not believe in your similitude of a divine being you call God. I believe in God as the Torah teaches about God. God exists and nothing else exists in comparison to God, and therefore God is One. Deut. 4:39. And therefore all our existence is but a gift from God, to keep on God’s terms, and nothing truly exists except that it exists in God, and God exists in it. Everything is full with the fullness of God’s beingness. Which means that you and I and Al Sharpton and Sarah Palin and Abu Bakhr alISIS are equally full of him, therefore judge your fellow humans accordingly.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  163. Your whole comment @157 is a case study in missing the point.

    If there is a God, does he not understand his creation? Yes or no.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  164. **Steve provided a piece about gay marriage in pagan Rome the other day, but those gay marriages were not momogamous….

    kishnevi, as you alluded to previously, I was the one who posted the text you describe, not Steve57, although he did mention that this society is taking on the characteristics of a pagan nation, which I fully agree with.

    Whether ancient Rome’s ruling class, including its emperors, were monogamous or not, or took seriously the concept of marriage or not, it was the aggressive, wanton bisexuality of such people and the way that affected their way of thinking in general — and that of their society’s — that is the point to focus on.

    As another example, when Bill Clinton got snared with his scandal with a White House intern over 15 years ago, the mindset of many Americans at that time was such a thing was unthinkable, could not have been true or must have been greatly exaggerated, but if true should be resoundingly condemned. You think that attitude is quite so intact today?

    Simply put, SSM is merely a facet of the gradual, continuous dumbing down and desensitization of a nation. So who’s to say that SSM won’t eventually start to mirror what existed in ancient Rome, but not just with the US’s elite, but also with Americans living in, say, Baltimore, much less San Francisco?

    Mark (607f93)

  165. I do know that your being Jewish means you don’t know a damned thing about what you’re attempting to lecture Christians about. Yet you try it anyway. And when you’re called on it you fall back on the, “You’re wasting your time I’m Jewish” gambit.

    Like Jon Stewart. Clown nose on. Clown nose off. Serious pundit until he realizes he’s over his head, then he’s just a comedian.

    I’d still appreciate an answer to my question @166, if you’re still amenable.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  166. DRJ, I guess I was being confusing.
    Refusing to accept or endorse or participate in something is refusing to tolerate it. Participate in a SSM means tolerating it.
    The bakers refuse to participate , so they refused to tolerate it.
    To take the Colonel’s obnoxious motorcyclist, bakers not making a cake for the wedding would be the equivalent of the Colonel refusing to allow the motorcycle guy to use his (Colonel’s) driveway for his morning ritual.
    Have I made my meaning less confusing?

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  167. You do know that being Jewish means I do not think Jesus was God? So citing Jesus as evidence of what God thinks is a waste of time.

    You do or do not realize that just about every word in Matthew 19 is from Genesis 1 and 2?

    Genesis 1 and 2 tells you nothing about what God thinks?

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  168. The portion of Matthew 19 I cited, I mean.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  169. ==And, tell me again what I as a Catholic believe.==
    ==I do know that your being Jewish means you don’t know a damned thing about what you’re attempting to lecture Christians about. Yet you try it anyway==

    Heh, Steve57, you regularly profess to know and speak for what I as a mainline Protestant Christian believe (and sometimes you are incorrect) so how is that any different from what you are accusing Kishnevi of doing?

    elissa (2288f1)

  170. 169. …Have I made my meaning less confusing?
    kishnevi (91d5c6) — 5/1/2015 @ 8:18 pm

    Yes, your totalitarianism is quite clear now.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  171. That some serious category error, kish, actually the signs that preferred go as far back as genesis. You’re entitled to your faith as I am to mind. The scriptural injunction for the sin in question goes back to leviticus, among many other commands.

    narciso (1b4366)

  172. Participating in an action isn’t tolerating it, kishnevi. Tolerance is allowing others to act,not forcing someone to participate, too.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  173. elissa, my objection with kishnevi is that he keeps talking about what Paul could or could not know. If you’re a Jew who doesn’t believe a word of the New Testament his argument would make sense. Paul’s epistles are just the work of a man. But the arguments don’t make sense if you’re a Christian. Paul was preaching Christ’s Gospel. Therefore it’s no important what Paul the man knew. Nor is this a matter of divine dictation or whatever tangent kishnevi is going off on. If it is Christ’s Gospel, and if Christ is God, then what does God know?

    As far as I know I’ve never pronounced about what you personally believe, elissa, but I have commented on the fact that Mainline Protestant denominations have abandoned the Gospel for, I don’t know what.

    http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/i-am-both-muslim-and-christian/

    …Redding, who until recently was director of faith formation at St. Mark’s Episcopal Cathedral, has been a priest for more than 20 years. Now she’s ready to tell people that, for the last 15 months, she’s also been a Muslim — drawn to the faith after an introduction to Islamic prayers left her profoundly moved…

    You don’t think this is worth noting?

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  174. Steve you missed my point.
    God does not understand Creation in the way humans understand it. neither does God love or think or hate. When the Torah says such things of God, it is merely using human language to convey the truth as best humans can comprehend it.

    BTW, if you check Aquinas you will find him saying almost the exact same thing.

    God is the Knower, the Known, and the Knowing, to use a phrase of Maimonides.

    God knows and understands Creation directly in a way not possible to human minds. Perhaps it is better to say God experiences and participates in Creation directly,as you experience your own beingness directly…that is the closest to human experience as I can think of.

    And remember that being outside time, God knows all things we experience in successive moments of time perfectly and immediately and all at once.

    And nothing exists apart from God, as the quote I gave from Deuteronomy says rather explicitly.

    kishnevi (adea75)

  175. By your definition, tolerance requires participation. If that’s true, then what is the difference between tolerating a group and acceptance into a group?

    DRJ (e80d46)

  176. Mainline Christianity is deficient in its understanding, but as a guest pastor pointed out, some aspects of evangelism has also slid away.

    narciso (1b4366)

  177. And, and, Redding’s bishop gave her time to reflect before firing her. I don’t get that, elissa. Redding was director of faith formation at an Episcopal church, and had so little faith she became a Muslim. And her bishop didn’t want to fire her then and there?!?!

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  178. kishnevi @177, you’re cute.

    Apparently God in his wisdom is so loftily above us, then, that he’s incapable of communicating to his creation that certain things are sin?

    I mean, in a way we can understand. Clearly. In language you can’t muddy.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  179. 170.
    I know quite well what Genesis 1 and 2 say. But the conclusions you draw from it are not the correct conclusions.
    174.
    Narciso, true.
    But the reasons why SSM is unacceptable in Orthodox Judaism are entirely different from the reasons they are not acceptable to Steve. And in fact the differences between Judaism and Christianity is the reason why it is easier to reconcile SSM with orthodox Christianity. In Judaism the exact wording is the basis for all discussion. In Christianity, not so much. Even the Catholic Eucharist depends more on Church Tradition (from Paul’s description of a practice already in place in Corinthians, onward)than the fact that Christ is reported to have said “Zeh gufi” (this is my body) in the Gospel.

    kishnevi (adea75)

  180. What you’re saying, kishnevi, is that there are certain things God can’t do.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  181. 181.
    He did. It us called the Torah.
    It is Christians who came along and said “that is not what he meant”. They had to. If they had not, there would be no talj about Original Sin, Triune God, etc etc which are not in the Torah.

    Now, it is 11:55 where I am, and my tablet needs to get recharged. So a good night to all.

    kishnevi (9c4b9c)

  182. 182. …And in fact the differences between Judaism and Christianity is the reason why it is easier to reconcile SSM with orthodox Christianity. In Judaism the exact wording is the basis for all discussion. In Christianity, not so much. Even the Catholic Eucharist depends more on Church Tradition (from Paul’s description of a practice already in place in Corinthians, onward)than the fact that Christ is reported to have said “Zeh gufi” (this is my body) in the Gospel.

    kishnevi (adea75) — 5/1/2015 @ 8:50 pm

    Well then. “You do know that being Jewish means I do not think Jesus was God? So citing Jesus as evidence of what God thinks is a waste of time.”

    I guess I’ll take your word on why it’s easier to reconcile SSM with orthodox Christianity than Judaism.

    Because you are such an authority. Plus I got kicked in the head by a mule when I was a kid.

    Ok, elissa, at this point I admit I am dismissing kishnevi’s arguments out of hand.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  183. 184. …Now, it is 11:55 where I am, and my tablet needs to get recharged. So a good night to all.
    kishnevi (9c4b9c) — 5/1/2015 @ 8:55 pm

    Right.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  184. ==As far as I know I’ve never pronounced about what you personally believe, elissa, but I have commented on the fact that Mainline Protestant denominations have abandoned the Gospel for, I don’t know what.==

    Yes, you have. And that is why when you get in one of your moods like tonight when it’s your way or the highway, and you act as if you are the only person on earth who’s ever studied comparative religion and is entitled to have an opinion, and you clearly state that everyone else is wrong or stupid or has misconceptions, it makes ongoing discussion pretty pointless. DRJ, narciso and Kishnevi for instance manage to carry on a respectful and civil conversation without being insulting even while they disagree and/or seek to better understand the other’s position or advance their own.

    elissa (2288f1)

  185. 181.
    He did. It us called the Torah.
    It is Christians who came along and said “that is not what he meant”. They had to. If they had not, there would be no talj about Original Sin, Triune God, etc etc which are not in the Torah.

    Now, it is 11:55 where I am, and my tablet needs to get recharged. So a good night to all.
    kishnevi (9c4b9c) — 5/1/2015 @ 8:55 pm

    I believe I proved my point. kishnevi’s arguments are rooted in unbelief. Which is fine, I guess. If you don’t believe. But don’t come along like kishnevi and pretend you have an argument that will convince a believer.

    “Look man, Paul didn’t know his elbow from a hot rock and your whole new testament is BS anyway so, why not SSM?”

    Bravo, kishnevi.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  186. 187. …it makes ongoing discussion pretty pointless. DRJ, narciso and Kishnevi for instance manage to carry on a respectful and civil conversation without being insulting even while they disagree and/or seek to better understand the other’s position or advance their own.
    elissa (2288f1) — 5/1/2015 @ 9:05 pm

    Sorry. How am I supposed to react to this?

    169. …Refusing to accept or endorse or participate in something is refusing to tolerate it.

    kishnevi (91d5c6) — 5/1/2015 @ 8:18 pm

    Is this your idea of civil discourse? Up until now I thought if I didn’t raise an objection to something and just allowed it to pass I was tolerating it. In fact:

    tolerate
    [ ˈtäləˌrāt ]
    VERB

    allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference:

    But no. kishnevi tells me I must endorse and participate.

    And, you’re saying I’m the one saying it’s my way or the highway. Interesting.

    Intolerantly yours, with love (and I mean that),

    Steve57

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  187. 187. …it makes ongoing discussion pretty pointless. DRJ, narciso and Kishnevi for instance manage to carry on a respectful and civil conversation without being insulting even while they disagree and/or seek to better understand the other’s position or advance their own.
    elissa (2288f1) — 5/1/2015 @ 9:05 pm

    Elissa, let me quote one of kishnevi’s comments.

    170.
    I know quite well what Genesis 1 and 2 say. But the conclusions you draw from it are not the correct conclusions.
    174.
    Narciso, true.
    But the reasons why SSM is unacceptable in Orthodox Judaism are entirely different from the reasons they are not acceptable to Steve. And in fact the differences between Judaism and Christianity is the reason why it is easier to reconcile SSM with orthodox Christianity. In Judaism the exact wording is the basis for all discussion. In Christianity, not so much. Even the Catholic Eucharist depends more on Church Tradition (from Paul’s description of a practice already in place in Corinthians, onward)than the fact that Christ is reported to have said “Zeh gufi” (this is my body) in the Gospel.

    kishnevi (adea75) — 5/1/2015 @ 8:50 pm

    I believe that the second part of the bolded portion is insulting and disrespectful. It is not true for fundamental Christians.

    At the bible college I went to (but did not graduate because sometimes life gets in the way) the exact wording in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic including the tenses were extremely important. My mother is Jewish. I was raised a Jew. I went to synagogue. I studied Hebrew. In 1974 I became a Christian. When I read the comments by kishnevi, they come across as arrogant and condescending. He’s a Jew and knows better than anyone else. I don’t know if he means it, but what I read comes across as if he is saying that Christians are stupid and will believe anything because they don’t care about the facts (“exact wording”).

    As far as I know I’ve never pronounced about what you personally believe, elissa, but I have commented on the fact that SOME Mainline Protestant denominations have abandoned the Gospel for, I don’t know what.

    Steve57, FIFY. Not all mainline Protestant denominations have abandoned the Gospel.

    I do not understand if according to kishnevi, in Judaism “exact wording” is important and he says he’s a Jew, why he keeps changing the definition of tolerance. He has stated several times that tolerance means participation and if a person doesn’t participate, they are intolerant. Steve57 gave the correct definition of tolerance which is different from kishnevi’s definition.

    By your definition, tolerance requires participation. If that’s true, then what is the difference between tolerating a group and acceptance into a group?

    DRJ (e80d46) — 5/1/2015 @ 8:39 pm

    DRJ has asked a number of good questions and statements that should be answered by both happyfeet and kishnevi.

    It seems strange to me that when I’ve asked a direct question, attempting to engage in discussion, that my questions are rarely answered by happyfeet or kishnevi. I can see how someone could get frustrated when they do get answers and the answers appear to be a straw man argument, irrelevant, or an ad hominem attack. That does not appear to be carrying “on a respectful and civil conversation without being insulting”.

    GoFundMe has a right to discriminate in their policies. After all it is their product. However, it is perfectly acceptable to call them to task for equating biblical Christian non-violent behavior as violent. It’s sad that those policies in my opinion are intolerant of Christians.

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  188. My 2cents,

    I find kishnevi to be thoughtful and I agree with much of what he says, and often learn from him even if I do not agree with him,
    and/but, he does make it clear that he thinks Christians are at best foolish and misguided idolaters, and the true understanding of the Torah is the one that the Jewish scholars have agreed upon over the centuries.
    And in that in one way I find no problem, it is a logically consistent argument.
    In fact, it is no different from one position that is almost 2,000 years old.

    There is the “No true Scotsman” fallacy, but at some point there are Scotsmen and there are those who are not, or the word Scotsman would seem to have no meaning at all
    the trick is being clear on what is meant and how one decides.
    I don’t think saying “I am a Christian because I believe in Jesus Christ’s teaching of the Golden Rule”, for example, is a definition that is clear and meaningful; and to deny any of the ideas that:
    Jesus existed, that he died and was bodily resurrected, was some how not just a mere human but of the divine nature, offers forgiveness of sin and redemption through his vicarious atoning death, and will return again to consummate His Kingship,
    is in conflict with what historically the first “Christians” believed,
    and that Christians “take seriously” what we have written by those who were eyewitnesses and leaders of the original church.
    (“Take seriously” means to affirm what is clearly said, to reject what is clearly contradicted, and to approach in good will what is not as clear. Of course, some of those borders are not agreed on).

    Actually I was having a discussion yesterday with a friend about language and understanding the Bible. To paraphrase a dialogue in “The Last Battle”, words do not mean less than what they mean, but/and they also do not mean more than what they mean. For example, “sunrise” means something, but it does not necessarily mean that in objective scientific truth the sun is actually “rising” over the horizon of the earth, as in the sun is doing the bulk of the moving.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  189. But the conclusions you draw from it are not the correct conclusions.

    Kishnevi, if I’m speaking with an accountant or certainly a mathematician who I want to be confident in, I’ll lose some of that confidence if he tells me that 2+2=5.8. Of if it’s a matter of differing nuances, if I’m speaking with a chef who I want to be confident in, I’ll lose some of that confidence if he drops by the local McDonald’s and starts raving to me about the Big Mac or McNuggets.

    I still can’t get over how you (or anyone else) can ever draw the conclusion that the story of the men of Sodom forming a mob outside Lot’s house and wanting to storm in and rape his 2 male guests was actually a moral about the sins of being inhospitable or hating strangers. To not sense just how lurid was the sexual impulses of the men of Sodom and to instead characterize them as being ticked off by strangers is the height of stretching a supposedly logical conclusion to the breaking point. Simply put, yes, it is a matter of drawing a conclusion, absurd or otherwise.

    The sins of Sodom, the Bible makes clear in the prophets, were oppression of the poor, hatred of strangers (the motive for the attack on Lot’s visitors), rampant corruption and injustice, and love of wealth. Sexual sins, whether hetero or homosexual, were way down on the list. — kishnevi (9c4b9c) — 4/9/2015 @ 6:26 pm

    Mark (607f93)

  190. i did not realize this was an inquisition

    ask your questions, and I will answer them dutifully

    but honest to pickles i think this is all just about social norms

    doing bigotry on gay people is simply not socially acceptable anymores

    but but but

    we always been able to do bigotry on gay peoples – we done it for Jesus and we done it for the Bible and we done it just cause it’s our way – my daddy did bigotry on gay peoples and HIS daddy did bigotry on gay peoples

    yeah well that’s just not kosher no mores, picklehead

    and in the streets the children scream

    the lovers cry

    the poets dream

    but not a word is spoken cause the church bells all are broken

    happyfeet (831175)

  191. IN the end though, it is very simple:

    Gofundme claims the right to deny service to people who defend those who *might* deny service to people.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  192. Citing Religious Beliefs, Muslim Gitmo Inmates Object To Female Guards*

    happyfeet (831175)

  193. those gay marriages were not momogamous,

    Many of the present day gay marriages are not monogamous and the participants are not shy about it.

    When Rio and Ray married in 2008, the Bay Area women omitted two words from their wedding vows: fidelity and monogamy.

    “I take it as a gift that someone will be that open and honest and sharing with me,” said Rio, using the word “open” to describe their marriage.

    Love brought the middle-age couple together — they wed during California’s brief legal window for same-sex marriage. But they knew from the beginning that their bond would be forged on their own terms, including what they call “play” with other women.

    This is well known but not talked about.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  194. 187. And that is why when you get in one of your moods like tonight when it’s your way or the highway, and you act as if you are the only person on earth who’s ever studied comparative religion and is entitled to have an opinion, and you clearly state that everyone else is wrong or stupid or has misconceptions, it makes ongoing discussion pretty pointless.

    elissa (2288f1) — 5/1/2015 @ 9:05 pm

    You’re right elissa. It is pointless. But it’s not my way. In this case, as touched upon in Doc’s post, IF you are going to call yourself a Christian then you must believe in three essential things. Christ’s divinity, his death on the cross for the forgiveness of our sins, and his resurrection. I didn’t invent those elements of the religion.

    If you believe in Christ’s divinity, then it’s axiomatic you will submit to his authority. And since scripture, if you’re a Christian, is divinely inspired it is authoritative.

    The issue I have with kishnevi is that he is criticizing Paul’s lack of understanding as a man of the first century, and his cultural blinders. But IF you are a Christian those criticisms are ridiculous. Paul wasn’t saying what he thought about issues such as homosexuality.

    Galatians 1:

    11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

    When I criticize mainline protestantism, I do so because they no longer believe in the divinity of Christ, his death, his resurrection, and the authority of scripture. The case of the Episcopalian priest is emblematic of that reality. IF you believe the above it is mutually exclusive to think you can be both a Muslim and a Christian. You can not believe at one moment that Christ was God in the flesh and in the next he was a human slave of Allah. But not only did the Episcopal priest see no conflict, but her bishop didn’t defrock her immediately for this gross act of heresy. No, her bishop, Geralyn Wolf of Rhode Island, gave her six months to think about it.

    As if someone who saw no conflict between two religions that are in direct opposition to each other could ever be fit to be a priest in any denomination of Christianity, let alone a director of “faith formation” in one.

    Recently the Presbyterian Church of the USA voted to allow same sex marriage. Why? Because they already drove away just about everyone who believes in the authority of scripture, the divinity of Christ, his death, and his resurrection. This, again, is a fact and not my opinion. They voted the idea of SSM down by a narrow margin in 2012. But even then the PCUSA had already been reduced by about half of its membership from 30 years earlier. And since 2012 they’ve been bleeding about 100,000 members a year, so eventually the exodus of actual Christians allowed the PCUSA to rebel against God.

    Sorry if my adherence to basic doctrine offends you as “my way or the highway.” But again, it’s not my way. As the atheist Christopher Hitchens put it when he was interviewed by someone he called herself a Christian minister:

    http://www.portlandmonthlymag.com/news-and-profiles/people-and-profiles/articles/christopher-hitchens

    The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?

    I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  195. 190. …Steve57, FIFY. Not all mainline Protestant denominations have abandoned the Gospel…

    Tanny O’Haley (c674c7) — 5/2/2015 @ 12:29 am

    Point taken. I will try to be more precise in my wording. When I direct my criticisms at mainline Protestantism I will try to direct my fire more accurately to those denominations that have abandoned the Gospel.

    I agree with your entire post, and thank you for confirming that kishnevi’s line of argument is insulting, disrespectful, and simply invalid for Bible believing Christians. Essentially it amounts to, “Let me as a Jew inform you of what your BS heretical cult really teaches, but first I’m going to tell you I have my own personal, private definition for common words like tolerance.”

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  196. ==When I criticize mainline protestantism, I do so because they no longer believe in the divinity of Christ, his death, his resurrection, and the authority of scripture. ==

    Yeah, you go with that Steve!

    elissa (9fb63c)

  197. IN the end though, it is very simple:

    Gofundme claims the right to deny service to people who defend those who *might* deny service to people.

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/2/2015 @ 9:15 am

    That’s the gist of it. Though they have the right to do that, it should be pointed out to them the bigotry of their change in policy. It should be pointed out to them that they are engaging in anti-Christian bigotry.

    What ever happened to having a difference of opinion? That people can agree to disagree. The problem with the SSM group as I see it is that nobody is allowed to disagree with them. You must accept their position, or else you’ll be sorry. If you don’t agree with them you are evil and must be punished. You must be silenced. They cannot see that those who disagree with them can be good willed people.

    I remember 5 years ago a guy at work who thought that anyone who didn’t believe in SSM should be executed. We’re also seeing this on the left how many are proposing that global warming “deniers” should be executed. They say they’re tolerant, but I don’t believe they know the meaning of tolerance.

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  198. == When I direct my criticisms at mainline Protestantism I will try to direct my fire more accurately to those denominations that have abandoned the Gospel.==

    Or, hey, here’s another option! As a Catholic you could decide NOT to “direct your fire” at other Christian denominations which in your mind do not meet your criteria or conform to Roman Catholic doctrine. There’s a reason there are bunch of Christian denominations, Steve57! 🙂

    elissa (9fb63c)

  199. hold the phone margaret

    i thought christians were a monolithic block of righteousness and moral infallibility being attacked by an evil internet charity-enabling website

    please to break it down for me

    happyfeet (831175)

  200. Many of the present day gay marriages are not monogamous and the participants are not shy about it.

    Which is another reason I have to chortle when people like kishnevi claim that citing the decadence of ancient Rome and its emperors’ exploitation of the concept of same-sex marriage is not analogous to what’s going on today in the US. Why? Because, unlike the folks of yesteryear, the folks of the 21st century who are indulging in SSM do take their marriage vows or monogamy seriously.

    Mark (607f93)

  201. 201. Or, hey, here’s another option! As a Catholic you could decide NOT to “direct your fire” at other Christian denominations which in your mind do not meet your criteria or conform to Roman Catholic doctrine. There’s a reason there are bunch of Christian denominations, Steve57! 🙂
    elissa (9fb63c) — 5/2/2015 @ 10:36 am

    Yes, there are many reasons why there are a bunch of Christian denominations. But differences over the content of the Gospel of Christ are not among them. The only difference between a Catholic Bible and a Protestant Bible is that the Catholic Bible includes the two, non-canonical books of Maccabees in the Old Testament.

    That’s it. So, yes, I’m perfectly qualified to know when a denomination has abandoned the Gospel, even if I don’t belong to that denomination. I mentioned Matthew 19. I can also go to Mark 10 to get Christ’s definition of marriage. It’s in all our Gospels, elissa. And when the Presbyterians redefine marriage I can go to the Gospel and say, no, it’s not in there. I can ask them where they’re coming up with this crap, confident they won’t find it anywhere in the New Testament since they don’t have a different one unless they’ve hired fiction writers. And when they tell me they don’t really believe what’s in that dusty old book anyway, like Unitarian minister Marilyn Sewell, I can say with just as much authority as the old atheist that they are no longer in any meaningful sense Christians. It’s a non-denominational conclusion.

    As for the rest, I have simply stated basic elements for the faith essential for anyone, no matter the denomination, to believe if you’re going to call yourself a Christian. That isn’t Roman Catholic Doctrine. That’s Christianity 101. So when I brought up the Episcopalian Priest, Ann Holmes Redding, who saw no conflict between being a Christian and a Muslim, it was because she had abandoned a fundamental element of being a Christian. That Christ is God. She said she didn’t believe Jesus was God. That He was only divine in the same sense she believes all human beings are divine.

    Do you actually believe that’s my personal criteria for what it means to be a Christian, elissa? Do you think only Roman Catholicism teaches the Trinity?

    Why did Christopher Hitchens get it and you seem unable to, elissa?

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  202. Mr. nk is muy bueno

    spring is a busy time, and it’s beautiful here and he’s figured out how to roll top-notch cigarettes and the time for commenting, it is not plentiful

    so there you go and that is the story of how it came to pass one year, in the autumn of failmerica, that spring arrived late and crept in sneakishly and absconded with a beloved commenter

    happyfeet (831175)

  203. 194. IN the end though, it is very simple:

    Gofundme claims the right to deny service to people who defend those who *might* deny service to people.

    Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/2/2015 @ 9:15 am

    Yes, such is the Orwellian nature of today’s society. And it reminds me of one of the techniques of coercive persuasion used by cults to indoctrinate people. The use of loaded language.

    169. …Refusing to accept or endorse or participate in something is refusing to tolerate it.

    kishnevi (91d5c6) — 5/1/2015 @ 8:18 pm

    That is the cult of the church of the left’s loaded term for tolerate. That isn’t the dictionary term. In fact, if you reference the dictionary the members of the cult will laugh at you. Think Obama mocking Stephanopolous (normally a good cult member) when he pulled out a dictionary to tell Obama what the word “tax” meant.

    I am told by a member of the cult of the church of the left that racism is something only white people are guilty of because racism can only come from people with power and privilege and be directed against the powerless, and by definition people of color are powerless even if they happen to be the President, the Attorney General, the mayor of Baltimore, the police commissioner of Baltimore, and the police chief of Baltimore.

    If I were to go to the dictionary and show them that isn’t the definition of racism they’d laugh for two reasons. First, because the dictionary is written by other racists like me to support a system of white supremacy and oppression of minorities, women, gays, and non-Christians. Second, it means I don’t have the secret knowledge of the cult. The loaded terms of a cult are designed to reinforce the concept of “us, kind, good” and “them, hateful, evil.”

    So it make perfect sense for Gofundme to deny services to people who would deny services because they speak the cultic language. like kishnevi the words they use have different meanings. Membership has its privileges.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  204. it does my cynical lil pikachu heart good to see like-minded people in agreement with each other

    there’s hope for us yet

    happyfeet (831175)

  205. 200. …The problem with the SSM group as I see it is that nobody is allowed to disagree with them. You must accept their position, or else you’ll be sorry. If you don’t agree with them you are evil and must be punished. You must be silenced. They cannot see that those who disagree with them can be good willed people.

    I remember 5 years ago a guy at work who thought that anyone who didn’t believe in SSM should be executed. We’re also seeing this on the left how many are proposing that global warming “deniers” should be executed. They say they’re tolerant, but I don’t believe they know the meaning of tolerance.

    Tanny O’Haley (c674c7) — 5/2/2015 @ 10:32 am

    They know the meaning of the word. It’s part of the cult of the church of the left’s gnosis.

    We don’t know the meaning of the word, Mr. O’Haley. Which is why we need to be sent to reeducation camp.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  206. it does my cynical lil pikachu heart good to see like-minded people in agreement with each other…

    happyfeet (831175) — 5/2/2015 @ 11:59 am

    It would bring joy to such a fan of Gleichschaltung as you to see people brought into conformity with each other.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  207. jeremiah was a bullfrog Mr. 57

    but nonono i take no joy in this mortifying spectacle of people dressing themselves up in histrionic jerry springer show martyrdom cause of they’re getting a little pushback on their blatantly discriminatory business practices

    bosh and pickles

    but i remind you that i do not think these momos should face official sanction

    but nor do I think they should be mollycoddled by society

    not unlike elections bigotry has consequences

    but we’ll all float on alright

    happyfeet (831175)

  208. Double irony. Steve complains about me pontificating on Christianity, but has on numerous occasions treated us to discourses on what Moslems should or should not believe.
    And when I make comments about scripture and Paul and so on, I am usually stating what I learned from Christian scholars who have written on the matter. Indeed, not merely Christian but Catholic scholars!

    Steve has mentioned formal study of Arabic and other study of Islam. So didn’t it occur to him that it is possible for a Jew to know a good deal about Christianity and what Christian scholars say about it?

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  209. 210. …but nor do I think they should be mollycoddled by society

    not unlike elections bigotry has consequences

    but we’ll all float on alright

    happyfeet (831175) — 5/2/2015 @ 12:15 pm

    Yes, we’ll float an alright. Why? Because society was supporting these, to use your cult’s term for Christians, “bigots.” That’s why the gaystapo had to lean on Gofundme to put a stop to the cash piling up.

    You see, you and your gaystapo are losing. If you were winning there’d be no need to shut down that particular Gofundme account and then to lean on Gofundme to change its policy. Because if you were winning nobody would contribute to the cause of freedom. But you’re not winning. And you’re going to lose faster now because you unleashed the fascism a wee bit early.

    Tactical mistake on your part, Mr. feets.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  210. Mark@192.
    My reading of the text is based on the actual text of Genesis. There is also a whole bunch of rabbinic midrash on Sodom, but obviously you as a Christian do not think of that as authoritative, so I have not referred to it. The text of Genesis, with help from Ezekiel, is clear enough.

    To make it clear…why was Gomorrah destroyed along with Sodom? No men from Gomorrah were involved in the attack on Lot and his guests.

    kishnevi (9c4b9c)

  211. kishnevi, I don’t misrepresent the Quran or the Sunnah. I don’t have my own secret, Alice-in-Wonderland definitions. That’s the difference between you and me. You fail to sway people when you argue dishonestly.

    And you have failed.

    No irony.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  212. ==Do you actually believe that’s my personal criteria for what it means to be a Christian, elissa? Do you think only Roman Catholicism teaches the Trinity?==

    OK. Enough is enough. Stop making up crap Steve57. Of course I never said that, and you have no call for imagining it, or insinuating it, or accusing me or any Christian of any denomination who comments on this site of not believing in the Trinity. You are starting to look looneytunes.

    Furthermore, has anyone here ever said they are Episcopalian and/or defended Redding whom you seem to be obsessively putting forth in every other post as the poster girl for all mainline Protestantism?

    Geez, get a grip.

    elissa (a76e79)

  213. for reals actual christians by definitions aren’t bigots Mr. 57

    what we have here is one of them “a few bad apples” situations i think

    it’ll work itself out we just have to be patient

    happyfeet (831175)

  214. 215. …You are starting to look looneytunes..

    elissa (a76e79) — 5/2/2015 @ 12:34 pm

    Thank you for the kind words.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  215. Finally to Tanny.
    First apologies for sounding insulting.
    Next, by exact wording I mean exact wording of Scripture, not anything else. You cite Christian examples of exact wording being important, but in Judaism it is front and center, not peripheral as it is in Christianity.
    As for what tolerance is…my point is that refusing to participate in a SSM celebration is being intolerant of SSM, and this is so no matter what definition of tolerance you user. The Christian bakers are demanding the right to be intolerant.

    kishnevi (9c4b9c)

  216. 216. for reals actual christians by definitions aren’t bigots Mr. 57

    what we have here is one of them “a few bad apples” situations i think

    it’ll work itself out we just have to be patient

    happyfeet (831175) — 5/2/2015 @ 12:35 pm

    Yes, it will.

    Matthew 10:

    34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

    “‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
    a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
    36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]

    37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  217. Oh,Mr. Feets, thanks for the report on nk. Good to know dikence is for a good reason.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  218. dikence=silence

    kishnevi (adea75)

  219. 218. …As for what tolerance is…my point is that refusing to participate in a SSM celebration is being intolerant of SSM, and this is so no matter what definition of tolerance you user. The Christian bakers are demanding the right to be intolerant.

    kishnevi (9c4b9c) — 5/2/2015 @ 12:45 pm

    That is true only according to the cult of the church of the left’s definition of tolerance. You can not take any other definition of the word and stretch it that far without breaking it.

    tolerate
    [ ˈtäləˌrāt ]
    VERB

    allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference:
    “a regime unwilling to tolerate dissent”
    synonyms: allow · permit · condone · accept · swallow · countenance ·
    More

    There is nothing about participation in there.

    You have this habit of declaring things to be true that simply aren’t true, kishnevi.

    And then you seem to think you have made them true by the simple power of your declaration.

    You either have delusions you are god, and can bring things into being with your word, or you are a good cult member.

    I’m going with the latter.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  220. so if a daughter wants to bake a cake for a gay wedding and her mom is all like no daughter of mine is gonna be baking no homo wedding cake

    and the daughter is all you can’t tell me what to do I’m a do what I want

    then in this example the daughter is going to burn in the everlasting flames of hell

    and her mom will be lifted up unto heaven there to reside with the angels and a host of heavenly hosts and such

    as hypotheticals go, i find this to be a deeply silly situation to postulate

    happyfeet (831175)

  221. This is why I don’t misrepresent the Quran and the Sunnah. Because it’s impossible to persuade people by arguing dishonestly. And you, my friend, are arguing dishonestly when you declare by the power of kishnevi that tolerance means “must participate.”

    It simply doesn’t mean that. No matter how loooouuuudly and slooooowly you keep trying to tell us dullards that.

    But it is how your cult has redefined the word.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  222. Notes fact that Steve is putting words in his mouth.
    Notes that this must result from either failure to comprehend written text or dishonest argument. Or possibly both.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  223. OK, kishnevi, I was wrong.

    When wondering about the source of your inability to acknowledge basic facts and reality in general I shouldn’t have gone with good cult member.

    I should have gone with delusions of godhood.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  224. the real point is none of the three cardinal religions, show any acceptance of the sin of homosexuality, the continued practice, which is an illustration as with many things, of man
    denying the knowledge of god, and placing himself as god, which is the real sin at the beginning, that forced Adam and Eve out of the garden,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  225. 225. …failure to comprehend written text…

    kishnevi (91d5c6) — 5/2/2015 @ 1:03 pm

    I am the only one citing written text when it comes to the definition of tolerate.

    You, on the other hand, have failed to cite a single source when you say:

    … refusing to participate in a SSM celebration is being intolerant of SSM, and this is so no matter what definition of tolerance you use…

    No. That’s not true.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tolerate

    tolerate

    transitive verb tol·er·ate \ˈtä-lə-ˌrāt\

    : to allow (something that is bad, unpleasant, etc.) to exist, happen, or be done

    : to experience (something harmful or unpleasant) without being harmed

    : to accept the feelings, behavior, or beliefs of (someone)

    You keep doubling down on dishonesty. Throwing mud at me doesn’t hide that fact.

    But please, cite a text that you think I’m failing to comprehend.

    Project much, kishnevi?

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  226. Can you donate to a police defense fund?

    JD (3b5483)

  227. Okay, kishnevi, then by your definition:

    If some Jews refuse to participate in worshiping Jesus as God, they are being intolerant of Christians. Similarly, if some blacks refuse to participate in Southern Civil War re-enactments, they are being intolerant of Southerners. And if some college students refuse to participate in sorority and fraternity rush, they are being intolerant of Greeks on campus.

    Tolerance doesn’t require participation. It requires forbearance.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  228. ==Can you donate to a police defense fund?==

    Apparently not on GoFundMe”:

    http://www.vocativ.com/news/189320/freddie-gray-gofundme-removed-baltimore-police-officers/

    elissa (a76e79)

  229. gosh these baltimomo popos just can’t catch a break

    happyfeet (831175)

  230. crimethink it’s what’s for dinner,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  231. 227. the real point is none of the three cardinal religions, show any acceptance of the sin of homosexuality, the continued practice, which is an illustration as with many things, of man
    denying the knowledge of god, and placing himself as god, which is the real sin at the beginning, that forced Adam and Eve out of the garden,

    narciso (ee1f88) — 5/2/2015 @ 1:08 pm

    That’s going to be the next front. And it’s going to be a battle of definitions. Applying old labels to new delusions. Which, in a way, couldn’t make kishnevi’s participation in this farce more valuable, as he demonstrates just how these things are going to go.

    Religious entities (well, Christian and Jewish; doubt the left with trouble their allies in Islam, who shall continue to remain above the law) that refuse to rewrite scripture to tolerate homosexuality will lose their tax exempt status for starters. They already can’t be defended, as Gofundme is demonstrating.

    Oh, and by tolerate I’m using the cult of the church of the left’s definition so helpfully supplied by kishnevi; endorse and participate.

    The problem is there is a lot of text that needs to be rewritten before kishnevi’s accusation that I’m failing to comprehend them can pass the laugh test. So far they’ve failed to rewrite even one dictionary to provide a single example of what kishnevi declares to be true by any definition.

    A lot of Greek and Hebrew lexicons will have to be rewritten as well. Of course, we’ll still have the old ones. So we’ll be able to document the fraud. Unless happyfeets organizes a Kristallnacht book-burning on behalf of his gaystapo friends. But even then, the sources outside their reach will still reflect the fact that certain words have meant certain things before they came along to gut them of their meaning. No doubt we’ll have to institute Saudi-type religious police inspections at the borders to prevent them from coming in.

    A lot of nominally Christian denominations will be all to willing to go along with the fraud for various reasons. Which I why I quoted Matthew 10 in my response to happyfeet @219 about how things will work out. Because by abandoning the scripture they will be demonstrating they’re not Christians.

    The Gleichschaltung will also not stop with SSM.

    As they used to say in the Soviet Union, the future is uncertain. It’s only the past that’s unsure. There is a lot of history that will need to be rewritten. Or simply wiped out, as ISIS is doing in Ninevah. This is another area of affinity between the cult of the left and Islam. Islam calls the age before its coming Jahiliyyah, the age of ignorance. The cult of the left admires this concept, and like Taliban blowing up the Buddhas of Bamiyan the left will have to systematically wipe out that which came before it that it can’t redefine.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  232. kish,

    In other words, we are tolerant of other religions without participating in them. Under your definition, that isn’t possible.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  233. As they used to say in the Soviet Union, the future is uncertain. It’s only the past that’s unsure.

    I meant to say the future is certain. This is what our crypo-Marxist preezy among others mean when they talk about being on the wrong side of history. Because the future is guaranteed.

    It’s just the past that needs to be revised. To maintain the fiction that what is now has always been.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  234. DRJ@230
    Point taken.
    JD and others
    From Baltimore FOP Twitter feed
    https://mobile.twitter.com/FOP3

    .THANK YOU for your generous support. We are working to set up a donation point directly on our website. Until then please send to:

    Baltimore City FOP, Lodge #3
    3920 Buena Vista Avenue
    Baltimore, MD 21211

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  235. Citing Religious Beliefs, Muslim Gitmo Inmates Object To Female Guards*

    If they were in the US, that would be one thing. But they chose to be in Cuba, so it’s their own fault!

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  236. The way out of this whole gay marriage thing is simple:

    Christian churches announce that they consider “marriage” a purely civil arrangement, no different than “civil unions” and they will no longer conduct marriage ceremonies. Those desiring to be married in the eyes of the State ought to go talk to the State.

    OTOH, the churches WILL conduct ceremonies proclaiming Holy Matrimony in the eyes of God. These will be limited to one man and one woman otherwise unattached.

    They want the word “marriage”, they can HAVE the word “marriage.” But only that.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  237. Tolerance doesn’t require participation. It requires forbearance.

    DRJ (e80d46) — 5/2/2015 @ 1:31 pm

    Big thumbs up. 🙂

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  238. Kevin M,

    I think that may have been possible in recent years but I doubt it will be possible now. As this debate shows, it’s not enough for people to tolerate gay choices. We must all participate.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  239. 240. …They want the word “marriage”, they can HAVE the word “marriage.” But only that.
    Kevin M (25bbee) — 5/2/2015 @ 1:58 pm

    The cult of the church of the left will not be happy with just the Sudetenland, unfortunately. They want complete, unconditional surrender.

    Followed by full-throated endorsement and participation.

    Unfortunately, Kevin, there are no more hills left to die on.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  240. Bingo, DRJ!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  241. baking a cake is what you do when a you’re a baker

    bake bake bake

    bake bake bake

    arranging flowers is what you do when you’re a florist

    gosh those are pretty

    gosh those are pretty

    and when you have a t-shirt shop, what is it you do?

    you make em up them t-shirts!

    print print print! (or what have you)

    the point is that just like in a Richard Scarry book, everyone has a job to do

    unless you on da welfare

    happyfeet (831175)

  242. 242. …As this debate shows, it’s not enough for people to tolerate gay choices. We must all participate.

    DRJ (e80d46) — 5/2/2015 @ 2:02 pm

    The cult of the church of the left is about establishing a state religion. Without calling itself one.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  243. Finally to Tanny.
    First apologies for sounding insulting.

    Is that really an apology? Sounding?

    Next, by exact wording I mean exact wording of Scripture, not anything else. You cite Christian examples of exact wording being important, but in Judaism it is front and center, not peripheral as it is in Christianity.

    In fundamental Christianity exact wording is also front and center. Why did you twist my words?

    As for what tolerance is…my point is that refusing to participate in a SSM celebration is being intolerant of SSM, and this is so no matter what definition of tolerance you user. The Christian bakers are demanding the right to be intolerant.

    kishnevi (9c4b9c) — 5/2/2015 @ 12:45 pm

    That is not the definition of tolerance.

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  244. I disagree with kishnevi’s approach to tolerance but he’s always willing to discuss things in good faith. Religion brings out the best in us but also sometimes the worst.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  245. And I say that last comment regarding all of us — especially me — and it’s not directed at kishnevi. I think we get wrapped up in religious discussions because it’s so personal and important.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  246. Actually DRJ you made a reasoned rational statement to demonstrate my definition is wrong.
    Unlike others who merely shout about cult of the left, delusions of divinity, and intellectual dishonesty and assume I think everyone should be forced to attend gay weddings.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  247. 248. I disagree with kishnevi’s approach to tolerance but he’s always willing to discuss things in good faith. Religion brings out the best in us but also sometimes the worst.

    DRJ (e80d46) — 5/2/2015 @ 2:22 pm

    Unfortunately his approach to tolerance signifies his approach to so many things.

    211. Double irony. Steve complains about me pontificating on Christianity, but has on numerous occasions treated us to discourses on what Moslems should or should not believe.

    …So didn’t it occur to him that it is possible for a Jew to know a good deal about Christianity and what Christian scholars say about it?
    kishnevi (91d5c6) — 5/2/2015 @ 12:21 pm

    As for the first part, has anyone here failed to be nauseated by the fact that when I talk about Islam I cite, with links, exactly what I’m referring to? For instance if a Muslim were to say, as so many do, that it is perfectly preserved I would not dispute the fact unless I could cite a source that they would acknowledge is authoritative to say, no it’s not. One small example.

    http://www.sunnah.com/ibnmajah/9

    It was narrated that ‘Aishah said:
    “The Verse of stoning and of breastfeeding an adult ten times was revealed1, and the paper was with me under my pillow. When the Messenger of Allah died, we were preoccupied with his death, and a tame sheep came in and ate it.”

    1: These verses were abrogated in recitation but not ruling. Other ahadith establish the number for fosterage to be 5.

    Grade : Hasan (Darussalam)
    English reference : Vol. 3, Book 9, Hadith 1944
    Arabic reference : Book 9, Hadith 2020

    You will not find the verse of stoning, the verse of Rajam, or of breastfeeding in the Quran although the Muslim sources say they’re supposed to be in there.

    Can anyone point to a single time kishnevi has pronounced on Christianity and referenced a single source? Can anyone point to a single time kishnevi has expounded on the meaning of the word tolerance, declaring his definition of the word to be true by any definition of the word, and cited a single source that supports his assertion?

    I’ve cited sources that prove him wrong. He continues to assert. So I don’t understand the impulse to praise him for his good faith. I’d like to see some evidence of it, first.

    As for the second, it has occurred to me it’s possible for a Jew to know a good deal about Christianity. It also has occurred to me it’s possible for a Jew to swim the English Channel. But it has not occurred to me that Kishnevi has done either. So I won’t credit him for either.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  248. …that it is perfectly preserved …

    By it I mean the Quran. The perfect preservation of which is supposed to be evidence of its divine nature.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  249. 250. Unlike others who merely shout about cult of the left, delusions of divinity, and intellectual dishonesty and assume I think everyone should be forced to attend gay weddings.
    kishnevi (91d5c6) — 5/2/2015 @ 2:41 pm

    And quote actual dictionaries.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  250. question, Steve, where does the hijab, and the seemingly viral misogyny of Islam, suggested in the NPR piece, comes from,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  251. Pagan Arabia. It existed prior to Islam. Like the rituals of the Hajj, Muhammad just adopted the Hajj from the idolators.

    It signifies that the woman is the property of another man.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  252. Tanny, I was not twisting your words. I was disagreeing with you plain and simple. I know of no form of Christianity in which the precise wording of Scripture is as important as it is in Judaism.

    Parenthetically, today’s Torah reading included the verses against homosexuality..
    https://www.ou.org/torah/parsha/rabbi-ari-kahn-on-parsha/a-nation-of-priests/

    Although curiously he manages to skip over homosexuality and go straight to bestiality in his list of no nos.

    kishnevi (9c4b9c)

  253. The pagan tribes of Arabia used to expose unwanted girls in the desert. Muhammad forbade the practice. So in that sense Islam was a step forward in women’s rights. But one of the deceptive practices of Islam is to point to Khadija, Muhammad’s first wife, who was a wealthy entrepreneur in her own right, as an example of how Islam freed and empowered women.

    Khadija was a wealthy woman decades before Muhammad supposedly began receiving revelation. Her wealth had nothing to to do with Islam.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  254. and Wahhabism is perhaps the most extreme version of same:

    http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/05/an-al-qaeda-front-group-in-syria.php

    much of what we were told about Al Nusra, which has metastitized into a new alliance, was wrong, one suspects purposefully so,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  255. First, thanks feets for checking on nk,
    I assume you told him we were concerned about him

    Second, concerning the detailed importance of words for Jews compared with Christians,
    I am happy to recognize that in kishnevi’s experience he finds Jews much more interested in the detailed meaning of words and phrases in Scripture than Christians, and he cites his experience reading various Christian scholars

    In my experience those who I know who call themselves Christians and take their faith seriously are very much concerned about the precise meaning of words and Scripture.
    In fact those who are often referred to as “fundamentalists” are very much so.
    But that sidesteps a bit the problem of the interpretation of language as I mentioned before. Taking the language of the Bible very seriously does not mean that the sun “literally” “rises” over the horizon to start the new day.
    The problem with language interpretation, be it Jewish scholars, fundamentalist preachers, or liberal “higher criticism German scholars, is “what does it mean” and then “what do I do with it, how do I apply it in today’s context- and is today’s context any different than the time it was written”.
    kishnevi, understandably, puts his confidence in the tradition of rabbinic scholars
    and I have no problem with that, it is what he does
    and he can cite what he has read from some “Christian” scholars
    but some “Christian” scholars would deny the deity of Christ and demythologize the Bible,
    and some of us would ask by what criterion do they call themselves Christian at all?

    It may be true that not all Scotsmen wear kilts, and one may even catch a man in a kilt who isn’t a Scotsman,
    but someone with dark complexion who speaks Hindi is probably not a Scotsman, even if they are wearing a kilt
    (now, if that same person speaking Hindi had haggis for breakfast, maybe an argument could be made…)

    Alastor, where is your input to this, we are talking about Scotsmen after all???

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  256. kishnevi, do you stand by your slur @250 that “others who merely shout about cult of the left, delusions of divinity, and intellectual dishonesty and assume I think everyone should be forced to attend gay weddings.” Is that all I was doing @189, 222, and 289?

    Because if you do stand by that statement, I’d say my accusation that you are being intellectually dishonest is spot on.

    I am still waiting for you to provide a written text that I can fail to comprehend.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  257. *…Is that all I was doing @189, 222, and 289 228?

    Fat fingered it.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  258. yes i did and i think he appreciated everybody’s concern Mr. Dr.

    happyfeet (831175)

  259. It is important to note, narcisso, that when Muhammad changed the direction of prayer, the qiblah, to Mecca the place was still a pagan town with shrines to over 360 gods.

    http://quran.com/2/144

    Surat Al-Baqarah (The Cow) 2:144

    We have certainly seen the turning of your face, [O Muhammad], toward the heaven, and We will surely turn you to a qiblah with which you will be pleased. So turn your face toward al-Masjid al-Haram. And wherever you [believers] are, turn your faces toward it [in prayer]. Indeed, those who have been given the Scripture well know that it is the truth from their Lord. And Allah is not unaware of what they do.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  260. kishnevi,
    all I can say is, I do not know how a person could be more concerned about the meaning of words than many Christians. All of the time people refer to not only what a Greek or Hebrew word is, but they talk about the syntax of the phrase, the tense of the verb, whether there is an indefinite or definite article. Many Christians (including myself) have Greek-English dictionaries and compare translations, some which purposefully try to be as “literal” as possible, some of which try to be paraphrases, some of which are “expanded translations”, which try to include all of the possible subtleties of meaning.

    I just bought a book on CD that I am going to listen to on a trip by John Lennox, a mathematician and Christian apologist about the meaning of Genesis 1. All kinds of discussion about the meaning of “yom” and all kinds of stuff.

    As I said before, the bigger problem is looking at a passage and not only “seeing the trees” but also “what forest the trees are in”. A common example is the confusion that can result when someone says something sarcastically but is interpreted by someone else to mean “what it plainly says”.

    I also meant to say I was very glad to hear nk’s fine.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  261. (Comment 289? We’re at 260 at the moment.)

    Then I must assume comment 226 is by someone pretending to be you.
    OK, kishnevi, I was wrong.

    When wondering about the source of your inability to acknowledge basic facts and reality in general I shouldn’t have gone with good cult member.

    I should have gone with delusions of godhood.

    Steve57 (818fa4) — 5/2/2015 @ 1:06 pm

    And in comment 189 you say I want to force you to participate in gay weddings. Uh, I don’t. I call it intolerance, but I believe you have the right to be intolerant.

    kishnevi (9c4b9c)

  262. what we’re dealing with here, is the concept of ‘repressive tolerance’ that Marcuse the father of the New Left came up with, sometime after his OSS stint, but before he joined the Berkeley faculty.

    narciso (ee1f88)

  263. Confirmed; intellectually dishonest.

    For someone who claims to be concerned about precise wording you studiously avoid the fact I cited definitions from actual dictionaries.

    And then misrepresent my own words in the bargain.

    You know, kishnevi, anyone can go back and look at what I wrote in my comments. Apparently it would kill you to acknowledge the truth.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  264. 267. what we’re dealing with here, is the concept of ‘repressive tolerance’ that Marcuse the father of the New Left came up with, sometime after his OSS stint, but before he joined the Berkeley faculty.
    narciso (ee1f88) — 5/2/2015 @ 3:27 pm

    This is why I keep referring to the techniques of coercive persuasion as practiced by cults. In particular, cults of personality. Such as we have in these United States of late.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  265. MD, do Christians draw inferences from the spelling of a word? Do any of them draw inferences like Rabbi Akiva did, from the crowns of the letters (the calligraphic ornaments)?

    That is how deep Jewish tradition goes into the text.
    If Christians go that deep, I am wrong. But I do not know of any that do.

    To put it in focus, Christians think Jesus is the full revelation of God to humans. Jews think it is the Torah. Christians find God in a human. Jews find God in a text.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  266. 266. (Comment 289? We’re at 260 at the moment.)…

    kishnevi (9c4b9c) — 5/2/2015 @ 3:24 pm

    You keep providing examples of your intellectual dishonesty.

    261. *…Is that all I was doing @189, 222, and 289 228?

    Fat fingered it.
    Steve57 (818fa4) — 5/2/2015 @ 3:13 pm

    Why? Why do you keep boastfully displaying the fact you are incapable of arguing in good faith?

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  267. now having seen Wolf Hall, I get a new understanding of the likes of tyrants like Henry VIII who used Tyndale as his raison d’etre to ignore papal authority, then subsequently executed him, this was the founder of the Church of England, which now has strayed so far afield, it might as well be in another solar system,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  268. 268. You deny you wrote comment 226?
    You seem to have failed to notice that DRJ’s argument was enough to convince me I was wrong. Perhaps you were too busy shouting.

    But you claim I want to make people like you participate in gay weddings. Evidence of that, please!

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  269. 270. MD, do Christians draw inferences from the spelling of a word?

    kishnevi (91d5c6) — 5/2/2015 @ 3:34 pm

    You mean like arsenokoites?

    Yes. Yes they do.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  270. 273. 268. You deny you wrote comment 226?

    Not at all. I have integrity. I’ll either stand behind what I say, or fix it. Openly.

    You seem to have failed to notice that DRJ’s argument was enough to convince me I was wrong. Perhaps you were too busy shouting.

    But you claim I want to make people like you participate in gay weddings. Evidence of that, please!
    kishnevi (91d5c6) — 5/2/2015 @ 3:40 pm

    So you’re going to continue with the fiction that all I did was “shout.” I didn’t support any of what I was saying with actual, you know, evidence.

    You accuse me of failing to comprehend written texts, while misrepresenting what someone else writes.

    228. …No. That’s not true.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tolerate

    tolerate

    transitive verb tol·er·ate \ˈtä-lə-ˌrāt\

    : to allow (something that is bad, unpleasant, etc.) to exist, happen, or be done

    : to experience (something harmful or unpleasant) without being harmed

    : to accept the feelings, behavior, or beliefs of (someone)

    You keep doubling down on dishonesty. Throwing mud at me doesn’t hide that fact.

    But please, cite a text that you think I’m failing to comprehend.

    Project much, kishnevi?

    Steve57 (818fa4) — 5/2/2015 @ 1:12 pm

    Again, it’s your position that all I did was “merely shout about cult of the left, delusions of divinity, and intellectual dishonesty and assume I think everyone should be forced to attend gay weddings.” That’s it. I didn’t do anything else?

    That’s your final answer?

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  271. 273. …But you claim I want to make people like you participate in gay weddings. Evidence of that, please!

    kishnevi (91d5c6) — 5/2/2015 @ 3:40 pm

    More evidence that it’s you, kishnevi, who can’t comprehend written texts.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  272. Nor should it. I guess people with nose rings or bad ties could get “separate but equal” services, but that’s not really what our country should be about.

    I would not support laws that said people with nose rings or bad ties must, by force of law, be given separate services.

    Which is what “separate but equal” is all about. Which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, which revolves instead around private decisions to have the freedom to refuse to do business with people for any reason the business owner chooses.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  273. 274. Checking online, arsenokoites is not an example of what I mean. The most neutral discussion I saw: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Arsenokoites

    In speaking of Rebecca’s pregnancy, the Torah uses the word “twins” but spells it defectively (to transpose into English, think of it spelled with a v and not a w: tvins). From this the Midrash (repeated by Rashi) finds a reference to the lifelong hostility of Jacob and Esau.

    Is there a Christian parallel to that level?

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  274. 275. I would hope so, but where is the evidence:

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ayaan-hirsi-ali-islam-not-a-religion-of-peace-but-could-become-one/article/2563882

    narciso (ee1f88) — 5/2/2015 @ 3:48 pm

    Pace kishnevi, but the reason I continued to study Islam after leaving college wasn’t so much to get into peoples’ faces and preach to Muslims about what they believed. It was to understand what motivated members like-minded groups such as al Qaeda. It was no different from studying any other hostile ideology. I wasn’t trying to determine what the correct interpretation of Islam is or is not. Just what is their interpretation. Because getting inside their minds is useful to provide insight as to intent.

    But of course one must never lose sight of capability.

    During the course of that study it dawned on me that there just weren’t any alternative interpretations that hadn’t already been labelled heresies by the Islamic religious authorities.

    I wish reformers like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser luck. I just don’t know where they’re going to find the theological support to back up their efforts.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  275. 277.
    Then what did you mean by this?
    But no. kishnevi tells me I must endorse and participate.
    From comment 189.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  276. with 60-80% of the mosques under Wahhabi auspices, at least in this country, which support a whole Salafi network, of alphabet organization, CAIR is just the most obvious,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  277. treating everyone what comes into your little store equally is probably one of the easiest ways in the whole whirl to assert your believe in individual liberty

    treating some people nice and some people like crap, on the other hand

    this asserts that some people what come in your store are more equal than others

    i don’t have a store but if I did I would be in the latter group of shopkeepers

    me and my fellow-minded shopkeepers would meet down at the pub at the end of a long day of serving our many customers and trade stories about how we treated everyone equally that day and how everyone had great retail experiences in our stores

    cause people wanna go where people know

    that people are all the same

    they wanna go where everybody

    knows their name

    and is nice to them

    and makes them cake

    and t-shirts

    and they do with a kind smile

    America!

    happyfeet (831175)

  278. and they do *it* with a kind smile I mean

    happyfeet (831175)

  279. 279. 274. Checking online, arsenokoites is not an example of what I mean.

    kishnevi (91d5c6) — 5/2/2015 @ 3:59 pm

    If that’s not an example of what you mean, what do you mean?

    It is likely Paul coined the term. But if he did he took the roots of the word from the Septuagint. Not all of the Septuaging (I have to take this on faith as I’m not sufficiently scholarly to offer an authoritatve position) is well transliterated from the Hebrew but the Pentateuch is particularly well done. Leviticus uses the words arsenos and koites to prohibit homosexuality. There were other words the translators could have used such as anthropos. But arsenos is more specific to the male of the species. Koites refers to the bed, specifically the marital bed, and it’s where we derive the word coitus.

    Paul, unlike Jesus, was preaching to the Gentiles. In this case, to the Greeks. Language changes over time, so using the language of the Septuagint which was already a couple of centuries old wouldn’t have made the best of sense necessarily when telling the Greeks of his day what was prohibited. But there’s no doubt what the source of his new word was.

    If that’s not an example, I don’t understand what could be.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  280. does the word, mean the opposite of the concept, syntax errors, as with Google Translate or Babelfish, are something else entirely,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  281. 281. 277.
    Then what did you mean by this?
    But no. kishnevi tells me I must endorse and participate.
    From comment 189.
    kishnevi (91d5c6) — 5/2/2015 @ 4:03 pm

    What did I mean? Just this:

    168. DRJ, I guess I was being confusing.
    Refusing to accept or endorse or participate in something is refusing to tolerate it. Participate in a SSM means tolerating it.
    The bakers refuse to participate , so they refused to tolerate it.
    To take the Colonel’s obnoxious motorcyclist, bakers not making a cake for the wedding would be the equivalent of the Colonel refusing to allow the motorcycle guy to use his (Colonel’s) driveway for his morning ritual.
    Have I made my meaning less confusing?
    kishnevi (91d5c6) — 5/1/2015 @ 8:18 pm

    Look, as you have stated DRJ @230 convinced you that your previous definition of tolerance was wrong.

    But you can’t possibly hold it against me for understanding exactly what you meant with your previous definition @189. You can’t rewrite history and airbrush it away.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  282. 286. does the word, mean the opposite of the concept, syntax errors, as with Google Translate or Babelfish, are something else entirely,
    narciso (ee1f88) — 5/2/2015 @ 4:22 pm

    Retransmit. Garbled upon receipt.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  283. I’d never heard of the term, before, interesting how google, dismisses any possible correct us e of the word,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  284. 273. …But you claim I want to make people like you participate in gay weddings. Evidence of that, please!
    kishnevi (91d5c6) — 5/2/2015 @ 3:40 pm

    I never said you’d put a gun to my head. I meant if I didn’t endorse and participate you’d call me names. Specifically, intolerant.

    Until DRJ convinced you that your definition of tolerance was wrong.

    Please review the record and provide an example of anything I ever wrote that’s inconsistent with what I’m saying now.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  285. I’d never heard of the term, before, …

    narciso (ee1f88) — 5/2/2015 @ 4:36 pm

    You will, if you’re alert. As I said, the next step in the war will be the effort to get Christian denominations to rewrite scripture on pain of losing their tax exemption. As a first step. Redefining that word, or pretending it’s just impossible to know what Paul meant by it and where he got it, will be front and central in the fifth columnists’ sabotage attempts.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  286. Malakoi is another word to watch out for.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  287. especially in iowa

    happyfeet (831175)

  288. I thought Paul had set out fixed categories of behavior as set forth around Romans 1;28, of course, it doesn’t end there,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  289. To put it in focus, Christians think Jesus is the full revelation of God to humans. Jews think it is the Torah. Christians find God in a human. Jews find God in a text.

    Actually Kishnevi, people find God in their imaginations.

    Gil (27c98f)

  290. Paul was a grump-ass

    everyone who knows anything about the bible knows this

    happyfeet (831175)

  291. 296. Paul was a grump-ass

    everyone who knows anything about the bible knows this

    happyfeet (831175) — 5/2/2015 @ 4:52 pm

    Yes, maybe. But he spoke Greek better than you speak English.

    Everyone who knows anything about your comments knows this.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  292. that was both harsh and mean-spirited

    happyfeet (831175)

  293. he’s like Benicio Del Toro, in the Usual Suspects,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  294. 298. that was both harsh and mean-spirited
    happyfeet (831175) — 5/2/2015 @ 4:59 pm

    But both stylish and responsive.

    293. especially in iowa
    happyfeet (831175) — 5/2/2015 @ 4:48 pm

    Actually you need to watch out for this chick more than the malakoi.

    Jessica McCoy, 25, of Des Moines, IA, has been charged with trespassing, resisting arrest and solicitation.

    She was taken from the stadium in handcuffs and kept overnight in a detention facility. She reportedly is set to be released early Tuesday afternoon.

    Signs posted around the stadium alert fans to not go in the fountains.

    A video posted on YouTube shows McCoy appearing to have some sort of drink in her hand at the time…

    Read more: http://www.kctv5.com/story/23059206/woman-25-arrested-after-jumping-into-the-fountains-at-kauffman-stadium#ixzz3Z1sEl2Hz

    Yeah. “Some sort of drink.” If I remember correctly her BAC was something like “Why isn’t she dead.”

    Be careful when in Iowa. I hear they run in packs.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  295. Just a nice girl from Iowa having a nice Iowa good time at a Kansas City Royals game.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  296. did you see the video of that Walking Dead guy on the subway?

    i get off my train for much much less than that

    there’s always another train coming along you know

    happyfeet (831175)

  297. Did you see the video of the nice Io-way girl swimming in the fountain at the KC Royals game?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2mBbM_wsWc

    Reporter: What happened last night?

    Iowa chica: I was drunk. What do you think happened?

    I like people from Iowa. You know where they stand.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  298. …Coleman insists he was sober during the rant, but says he’s not proud he had trouble controlling his emotions when he unleashed a crazed and nonsensical rant on a New York subway train on Friday, screaming at passengers so loudly some got up and fled the carriage…

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3065654/Walking-Dead-s-Tyreese-says-built-frustration-Baltimore-racism-prior-crazed-rant-NYC-subway.html#ixzz3Z1vrkNKP
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

    Sober.

    At least Iowans have to be drunk before going all crazy ond nonsensical on you. And soliciting cops.

    I bet Coleman could solicit a cop sober.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  299. i like her she’s fun

    happyfeet (831175)

  300. More fun than taking the train with the walking dead?

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  301. oh god yes i hate trains when they get all gritty urban and cray cray

    i hate trains just when someone’s talking on their cell phones actually

    here’s way longer video of our iowa friend

    happyfeet (831175)

  302. First, your explanation satisfies me, and I withdraw that charge. But honestly in light of your other comments I presumed you really did think I was willing to put a gun to your head.

    About arsenokoites, there are plenty of links already redefining it. I found one pro gay article, one conservative fisking of that article, several links from obviously progay sources (MCC, etc) that I did not even bother with, and the link I provided.

    But arsenokoites is a problem (to the extent it is a problem)of “what did Paul mean?”.
    Judaism has plenty of ” why did God spell this word that way? “. I gave an instance earlier in 279; specific verse involved is Genesis 25:24 . A famous one is the Midrashim dealing with the question of why God chose to begin the Torah with bet, the second letter of the aleph bet.
    Did a Christian ever try to figure out what God meant to teach us by beginning the Gospels with whatever the first letter if the Gospels is?

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  303. 303. But do they stand with Rand.

    kishnevi (91d5c6)

  304. How many times do we have to tell people? There shall be no drunken cavorting in the Royal pool. Brought to you by Budweiser, the king of beers.

    Whoops. There I go, getting all St. Paul and grumpy on you guys.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  305. I think the meaning in clear, unless you want to illustrate exactly what Paul was talking about, at the beginning of the passage:

    http://biblehub.com/romans/1-26.htm

    narciso (ee1f88)

  306. 309. 303. But do they stand with Rand.
    kishnevi (91d5c6) — 5/2/2015 @ 5:33 pm

    When they can stand, if they can stand, no doubt.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  307. 308. First, your explanation satisfies me, and I withdraw that charge.

    I sincerely appreciate that.

    But honestly in light of your other comments I presumed you really did think I was willing to put a gun to your head.

    No, never. And I don’t want you to take offense as I’m not accusing you of anything here. But I’m going to riff of of this to point out that the punishments used by cults in coercive persuasion are not physical. They’re psychological.

    This of course changes when the cult is the government.

    About arsenokoites, there are plenty of links already redefining it. I found one pro gay article, one conservative fisking of that article, several links from obviously progay sources (MCC, etc) that I did not even bother with, and the link I provided.

    But arsenokoites is a problem (to the extent it is a problem)of “what did Paul mean?”.

    Occams razor suggests he meant exactly what he appears to have said. The pro-SSM crowd has zero evidence that there is anything favorable about committed, loving gay relationships anywhere in the Bible. I realize you don’t believe Christ is God, kishnevi. But if one does believe, we know he had plenty of chances to comment on them when the Pharisees asked him about divorce. And He talked first about the true nature of marriage, and never mentioned anything except for the a man and a woman becoming one flesh.

    I should also point out that the redefinitions are are recent. And the quality of the scholarship is dubious. It doesn’t necessarily invalidate the work, for instance, if a theologian has for twenty years maintained that by arsenokoites Paul meant men who lie with other men, period. Until he found out his son was gay, and then he started going with the line that Paul couldn’t have possibly known about people who are born gay, and in any case he was simply talking about those going against their true heterosexual nature. Their obvious conflict of interest doesn’t preclude them from getting things right, yet they have no evidence to support their conclusion.

    I should also note that the same people coming up with new and creative ways to redefine arsenokoites also have new and creative ways to redefine (in transliterated Hebrew, and forgive me AND let me know if I make a mistake):

    “V’et zachar lo tishkav mishk’vey eeshah toeyvah hee.”

    So new and creative, I accept it I have to conclude Maimonides didn’t know enough Hebrew to write the Mishnah Torah.

    Judaism has plenty of ” why did God spell this word that way? “. I gave an instance earlier in 279; specific verse involved is Genesis 25:24 . A famous one is the Midrashim dealing with the question of why God chose to begin the Torah with bet, the second letter of the aleph bet.
    Did a Christian ever try to figure out what God meant to teach us by beginning the Gospels with whatever the first letter if the Gospels is?
    kishnevi (91d5c6) — 5/2/2015 @ 5:32 pm

    I don’t believe so. The first century gospels are written more in accordance with first century conventions for writing history. likewise, the epistles are written in conformity with first century letter writing conventions.

    That’s my take, anyway.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  308. it’s about behavior, that’s why I quipped what has Crystal been watching lately,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  309. Just so you know, kishnevi, I defer to the experts.

    When I read in the Quran:

    http://quran.com/4

    Surat An Nisa (the woman) 4:155-160

    And [We cursed them] for their breaking of the covenant and their disbelief in the signs of Allah and their killing of the prophets without right and their saying, “Our hearts are wrapped”. Rather, Allah has sealed them because of their disbelief, so they believe not, except for a few. And [We cursed them] for their disbelief and their saying against Mary a great slander, And [for] their saying, “Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah .” And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise. And there is none from the People of the Scripture but that he will surely believe in Jesus before his death. And on the Day of Resurrection he will be against them a witness. For wrongdoing on the part of the Jews, We made unlawful for them [certain] good foods which had been lawful to them, and for their averting from the way of Allah many [people],

    I was sure nothing like this ever happened. Just to dot my i’s and cross my t’s I talked to Rabbi at a local synagogue.

    Yeah. Never happened.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  310. narciso, what has Crystal been smoking lately?

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  311. are we talking about Indiana Jesus Pizza Crystal or some other Crystal

    happyfeet (831175)

  312. I meant Billy Crystal, who got this ball rolling around ’79, with Soap,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  313. got it

    happyfeet (831175)

  314. Did a Christian ever try to figure out what God meant to teach us by beginning the Gospels with whatever the first letter if the Gospels is?
    kishnevi (91d5c6) — 5/2/2015 @ 5:32 pm

    I imagine not, and I would find that a positive note.

    In speaking of Rebecca’s pregnancy, the Torah uses the word “twins” but spells it defectively (to transpose into English, think of it spelled with a v and not a w: tvins). From this the Midrash (repeated by Rashi) finds a reference to the lifelong hostility of Jacob and Esau.
    Is there a Christian parallel to that level?
    kishnevi (91d5c6) — 5/2/2015 @ 3:59 pm

    Probably not, as I imagine if we had a 1900 year old Greek document with a word spelled with v instead of a w, we would first think of a transcription error and focus on the main point being made.

    Do any of them draw inferences like Rabbi Akiva did, from the crowns of the letters (the calligraphic ornaments)?
    That seems like a bug, not a feature.
    The calligraphic ornaments on the original Tablets as given to Moses I would be very interested in, the calligraphic ornaments as added by a scribe at some point from the original dictation, not so much.

    Would you not prefer to have a living relationship with the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who spoke to Elijah in a whisper, rather than contemplating the meaning of calligraphic ornaments from a scribe?

    To put it in focus, Christians think Jesus is the full revelation of God to humans. Jews think it is the Torah. Christians find God in a human. Jews find God in a text.

    That is interesting and says a lot, though probably not what you intended.
    You claim Christians are idolaters by ascribing to a mere human the reality of God dwelling with man,
    I would suggest that perhaps you are more interested in the ink on a page than the Living God, in fact, not even the truth on the written page as communicated by God, but the shape of ink strokes from the scribe. Can the entire truth of the God that appeared to Abraham be contained in the pages of a book?

    I recalled just yesterday to a friend how I was once convicted by the following:
    “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life, and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life.”
    John 5:39-40.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  315. MD in Philly, you and DRJ come along and show me how I’m getting this Christianity thing all wrong.

    1 Peter 3:

    14But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. AND DO NOT FEAR THEIR INTIMIDATION, AND DO NOT BE TROUBLED, 15but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; 16and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.

    I don’t have problem withstanding the fear and intimidation, which we see around us now. Or offering the defense.

    I need to work on gentleness part.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  316. And perhaps the reverence.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  317. ummm,
    I don’t quite get your comment at 321,
    I don’t think I’ve told you how you ought to be other than you are.
    I never follow your comments on Islam too closely when you quote their writings, just because I can’t follow everything.
    Do you sometimes say things differently than I would? Sure, but I am in no position to say I would do it better.
    Paul speaks in II Tim about “not being quarrelsome” as well, but sometimes there is offense without trying to be offensive, as I think I just did above.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  318. I know that I come off as a hothead, is all I’m saying, Doc.

    And you and DRJ have a manner that is more in keeping with the religion that I espouse.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  319. I did liaison for probably 5 years, but diplomacy has never been my strong point. I come from a long line of maintainers who were willing to step in and say, “No, you’re ****ing this up. Here’s how it goes together.”

    One of my early shore commands was supposed to be vital to the support of 7th Fleet. To qualify as duty officers we had learn the comms circuits from resident experts. Whose lore proved, in short order, not to comport with reality. In short order I threw the BS flag. OTCIXS, the Officer in Tactical Command Information Exchange System, does not work that way. TADIX-B, the Tactical Data Information Exchange System, does not work that way. We were being taught a bunch of BS, and repeating the BS verbatim was the way to pass the test.

    But, as I told the CO, IF we were doing anything important it needed to get out to the fleet. So we ought to know how the circuits worked. My view eventually prevailed but I made a few enemies.

    I recall one log entry. “If you don’t know your job, just ask LT Steve 57 and he’ll tell you what your job is.”

    Well, yeah. I would.

    Eventually in an act of revenge I got put in charge of the classified library on the cusp of an inspection, the thinking being apparently that I’d end up in a noose. Shoulder boards torn off, me weeping, tossed into Leavenworth. But I unf***ed that before the deadline, too. Two day before the deadline I had only two publications unaccounted for. Admittedly classified higher than “Arc of The Covenant,” but still only two. No sweat. This, after decades of misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance. By Monday morning, all problems were solved. Everything was haze gray and underway.

    I was not polite. I need to work on that.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  320. 323. …I don’t think I’ve told you how you ought to be other than you are.

    MD in Philly (f9371b) — 5/2/2015 @ 7:21 pm

    I think highly of your example.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  321. haze gray and underway

    that’s how it went down

    on a fateful april sunday

    when the lord called freddie home

    now a mama’s lost her boy

    and justice goes a-begging

    but marilyn’s eyes are lit with joy

    and her raven hair’s a-shining

    happyfeet (831175)

  322. ho hum, nothing else has been happening:

    http://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2015/05/02/the-real-fatwa/

    narciso (ee1f88)

  323. MD@320
    I will try to answer you as best I can without being overlong.
    For Jews, the Torah is not a regular book. It is the one and only way God has revealed Itself to humans. And the Author being God, there are almost infinite levels of meaning.
    In computer imagery, it is both the OS of the universe that contains the code by which the cosmos is run, and the user interface by which we communicate with the cosmos and God. It is only through that text that a living relationship with God is possible.
    Rabbi Akiva thought the ornaments originated with God, not a human scribe.
    But we do not see the Christology you find in it, nor stuff like original sin.

    There are other ramifications. For instance, to have a marriage the bridegroom must give an object to the bride and say a certain formula. The bride says nothing. During the marriage husband has certain rights and duties, and so does the wife. If divorce comes, the husband has the bill of divorce written, and hands it to the wife, who again has no active part in the proceedings…and all that is in the Torah (some of it by implication). Meaning God wants it that way.
    Which has ramifications for SSM, because unlike Christian marriages, those specific duties, etc. are specifically linked to the sex of the partner. If there were SSM marriage in Judaism, you first have to figure out which gay husband will be the wife or which lesbian wife is the husband. Assuming you have wiggled around Leviticus before that point.

    kishnevi (9c4b9c)

  324. feets @327, haze grey and underway. Yeah, I’m up for it. You should be glad. That’s work you don’t have to do. As for the rest.

    Even now
    My thought is all of this gold-tinted king’s daughter
    With garlands tissue and golden buds,
    Smoke tangles of her hair, and sleeping or waking
    Feet trembling in love, full of pale languor;
    My thought is clinging as to a lost learning
    Slipped down out of the minds of men,
    Labouring to bring her back into my soul.

    Even now
    If I see in my soul the citron-breasted fair one
    Still gold-tinted, her face like our night stars,
    Drawing unto her; her body beaten about with flame,
    Wounded by the flaring spear of love,
    My first of all by reason of her fresh years,
    Then is my heart buried alive in snow.

    Even now
    If my girl with lotus eyes came to me again
    Weary with the dear weight of young love,
    Again I would give her to these starved twins of arms
    And from her mouth drink down the heavy wine,
    As a reeling pirate bee in fluttered ease
    Steals up the honey from the nenuphar.

    Even now
    I bring her back, ah, wearied out with love
    So that her slim feet could not bear her up;
    Curved falls of her hair down on her white cheeks;
    In the confusion of her coloured vests
    Speaking that guarded giving up, and her scented arms
    Lay like cool bindweed over against my neck.

    Even now
    I bring her back to me in her quick shame,
    Hiding her bright face at the point of day:
    Making her grave eyes move in watered stars,
    For love’s great sleeplessness wandering all night,
    Seeming to sail gently, as that pink bird,
    Down the water of love in a harvest of lotus.

    Even now
    If I saw her lying all wide eyes
    And with collyrium the indent of her cheek
    Lengthened to the bright ear and her pale side
    So suffering the fever of my distance,
    Then would my love for her be ropes of flowers, and night
    A black-haired lover on the breasts of day.

    Even now
    I see the heavy startled hair of this reed-flute player
    Who curved her poppy lips to love dances,
    Having a youth’s face madding like the moon
    Lying at her full; limbs ever moving a little in love,
    Too slight, too delicate, tired with the small burden
    Of bearing love ever on white feet.

    Even now
    She is present to me on her beds,
    Balmed with the exhalation of a flattering musk,
    Rich with the curdy essence of santal;
    Girl with eyes dazing as the seeded wine,
    Showing as a pair of gentle nut-hatches
    Kissing each other with their bills, each hidden
    By turns within a little grasping mouth.

    Even now
    She swims back in the crowning hour of love
    All red with wine her lips have given to drink,
    Soft round the mouth with camphor and faint blue
    Tinted upon the lips, her slight body,
    Her great live eyes, the colourings of herself
    A clear perfection; sighs of musk outstealing
    And powdered wood spice heavy of Kashmir.

    Even now
    I see her; far face blond like gold
    Rich with small lights, and tinted shadows surprised
    Over and over all of her; with glittering eyes
    All bright for love but very love weary,
    As it were the conjuring disk of the moon when Rahu ceases
    With his dark stumbling block to hide her rays.

    Even now
    She is art-magically present to my soul,
    And that one word of strange heart’s ease, goodbye.
    That in the night, in loth moving to go,
    And bending over to a golden mouth,
    I said softly to the turned away
    Tenderly tired hair of this king’s daughter.

    Even now
    My eyes that hurry to see no more are painting, painting
    Faces of my lost girl. O golden rings
    That tap against cheeks of small magnolia leaves,
    O whitest so soft parchment where
    My poor divorcèd lips have written excellent
    Stanzas of kisses, and will write no more.

    Even now
    Death sends me the flickering of powdery lids
    Over wild eyes and the pity of her slim body
    All broken up with the weariness of joy;
    The little red flowers of her breasts to be my comfort
    Moving above scarves, and for my sorrow
    Wet crimson lips that once I marked as mine.

    Even now
    By a cool noise of waters in the spring
    The Asoka with young flowers that feign her fingers
    And bud in red; and in the green vest pearls kissing
    As it were rose leaves in the gardens of God; the shining at night
    Of white cheeks in the dark; smiles from light thoughts within,
    And her walking as of a swan: these trouble me.

    Even now
    The pleasèd intimacy of rough love
    Upon the patient glory of her form
    Racks me with memory; and her bright dress
    As it were yellow flame, which the white hand
    Shamefastly gathers in her rising haste,
    The slender grace of her departing feet.

    Even now
    When all my heavy heart is broken up
    I seem to see my prison walls breaking
    And then a light, and in that light a girl
    Her fingers busied about her hair, her cool white arms
    Faint rosy at the elbows, raised in the sunlight,
    And temperate eyes that wander far away.

    Even now
    I see her, as I used, in her white palace
    Under black torches throwing cool red light,
    Woven with many flowers and tearing the dark.
    I see her rising, showing all her face
    Defiant timidly, saying clearly:
    Now I shall go to sleep, good-night, my ladies.

    Even now
    Though I am so far separate, a flight of birds
    Swinging from side to side over the valley trees,
    Passing my prison with their calling and crying,
    Bring me to see my girl. For very bird-like
    Is her song singing, and the state of a swan
    In her light walking, like the shaken wings
    Of a black eagle falls her nightly hair.

    Even now
    I know my princess was happy. I see her stand
    Touching her breasts with all her flower-soft fingers,
    Looking askance at me with smiling eyes.
    There is a god that arms him with a flower
    And she was stricken deep. Here, oh die here.
    Kiss me and I shall be purer than quick rivers.

    Even now
    They chatter her weakness through the two bazaars
    Who was so strong to love me. And small men
    That buy and sell for silver being slaves
    Crinkle the fat about their eyes; and yet
    No Prince of the Cities of the Sea has taken her,
    Leading to his grim bed. Little lonely one,
    You clung to me as a garment clings; my girl.

    Even now
    Only one dawn shall rise for me. The stars
    Revolve to-morrow’s night and I not heed.
    One brief cold watch beside an empty heart
    And that is all. This night she rests not well;
    Oh, sleep; for there is heaviness for all the world
    Except for the death-lighted heart of me.

    Even now
    My sole concern the slipping of her vests,
    Her little breasts the life beyond this life.
    One night of disarray in her green hems,
    Her golden cloths, outweighs the order of earth,
    Making of none effect the tides of the sea.
    I have seen her enter the temple meekly and there seem
    The flag of flowers that veils the very god.

    Even now
    I mind the coming and talking of wise men from towers
    Where they had thought away their youth. And I, listening,
    Found not the salt of the whispers of my girl,
    Murmur of confused colours, as we lay near sleep;
    Little wise words and little witty words,
    Wanton as water, honied with eagerness.

    Even now
    I call to mind her weariness in the morning
    Close lying in my arms, and tiredly smiling
    At my disjointed prayer for her small sake.
    Now in my morning the weariness of death
    Sends me to sleep. Had I made coffins
    I might have lived singing to three score.

    Even now
    The woodcutter and the fisherman turn home,
    With on his axe the moon and in his dripping net
    Caught yellow moonlight. The purple flame of fires
    Calls them to love and sleep. From the hot town
    The maker of scant songs for bread wanders
    To lie under the clematis with his girl.
    The moon shines on her breasts, and I must die.

    Even now
    I have a need to make up prayers, to speak
    My last consideration of the world
    To the great thirteen gods, to make my balance
    Ere the soul journeys on. I kneel and say:
    Father of Light. Leave we it burning still
    That I may look at you. Mother of the Stars,
    Give me your feet to kiss; I love you, dear.

    Even now
    I seem to see the face of my lost girl
    With frightened eyes, like a wood wanderer,
    In travail with sorrowful waters, unwept tears
    Labouring to be born and fall; when white face turned
    And little ears caught at the far murmur,
    The pleased snarling of the tumult of dogs
    When I was hurried away down the white road.

    Even now
    When slow rose-yellow moons looked out at night
    To guard the sheaves of harvest and mark down
    The peach’s fall, how calm she was and love worthy.
    Glass-coloured starlight falling as thin as dew
    Was wont to find us at the spirit’s starving time
    Slow straying in the orchard paths with love.

    Even now
    Love is a god and Rati the dark his bride;
    But once I found their child and she was fairer,
    That could so shine. And we were each to each
    Wonderful and a presence not yet felt
    In any dream. I knew the sunset earth
    But as a red gold ring to bear my emerald
    Within the little summer of my youth.

    Even now
    I marvel at the bravery of love.
    She, whose two feet might be held in one hand
    And all her body on a shield of the guards,
    Lashed like a gold panther taken in a pit
    Tearfully valiant, when I too was taken;
    Bearding her black beard father in his wrath,
    Striking the soldiers with white impotent hands.

    Even now
    I mind that I loved cypress and roses, dear,
    The great blue mountains and the small grey hills,
    The sounding of the sea. Upon a day
    I saw strange eyes and hands like butterflies;
    For me at morning larks flew from the thyme
    And children came to bathe in little streams.

    Even now
    Sleep left me all these nights for your white bed
    And I am sure you sistered lay with sleep
    After much weeping. Piteous little love,
    Death is in the garden, time runs down,
    The year that simple and unexalted ran till now
    Ferments in winy autumn, and I must die.

    Even now
    I mind our going, full of bewilderment
    As who should walk from sleep into great light,
    Along the running of the winter river,
    A dying sun on the cool hurrying tide
    No more by green rushes delayed in dalliance,
    With a clear purpose in his flower flecked length
    Informed, to reach Nirvana and the sea.

    Even now
    I love long black eyes that caress like silk,
    Ever and ever sad and laughing eyes,
    Whose lids make such sweet shadow when they close
    It seems another beautiful look of hers.
    I love a fresh mouth, ah, a scented mouth,
    And curving hair, subtle as a smoke,
    And light fingers, and laughter of green gems.

    Even now
    I mind asking: Where love and how love Rati’s priestesses?
    You can tell me of their washings at moon down
    And if that warm basin have silver borders.
    Is it so that when they comb their hair
    Their fingers, being purple stained, show
    Like coral branches in the black sea of their hair?

    Even now
    I remember that you made answer very softly,
    We being one soul, your hand on my hair,
    The burning memory rounding your near lips:
    I have seen the priestesses of Rati make love at moon fall
    And then in a carpeted hall with a bright gold lamp
    Lie down carelessly anywhere to sleep.

    Even now
    I have no surety that she is not Mahadevi
    Rose red of Siva, or Kapagata
    The wilful ripe Companion of the King,
    Or Krishna’s own Lakshmi, the violet haired.
    I am not certain but that dark Brahma
    In his high secret purposes
    Has sent my soft girl down to make the three worlds mad
    With capering about her scented feet.

    Even now
    Call not the master painters from all the world,
    Their thin black beards, their rose and green and grey,
    Their ashes of lapis lazuli ultramarine,
    Their earth of shadows the umber. Laughing at art
    Sunlight upon the body of my bride,
    For painting not nor any eyes for ever.
    Oh warm tears on the body of my bride.

    Even now
    I mind when the red crowds were passed and it was raining
    How glad those two that shared the rain with me;
    For they talked happily with rich young voices
    And at the storm’s increase, closer and with content,
    Each to the body of the other held
    As there were no more severance for ever.

    Even now
    The stainless fair appearance of the moon
    Rolls her gold beauty over an autumn sky
    And the stiff anchorite forgets to pray;
    How much the sooner I, if her wild mouth
    Tasting of the taste of manna came to mine
    And kept my soul at balance above a kiss.

    Even now
    Her mouth carelessly scented as with lotus dust
    Is water of love to the great heat of love,
    A tirtha very holy, a lover’s lake
    Utterly sacred. Might I go down to it
    But one time more, then should I find a way
    To hold my lake for ever and ever more
    Sobbing out my life beside the waters.

    Even now
    I mind that the time of the falling of blossoms started my dream
    Into a wild life, into my girl;
    Then was the essence of her beauty spilled
    Down on my days so that it fades not,
    Fails not, subtle and fresh, in perfuming
    That day, and the days, and this the latest day.

    Even now
    She with young limbs as smooth as flower pollen,
    Whose swaying body is laved in the cool
    Waters of languor, this dear bright-coloured bird,
    Walks not, changes not, advances not
    Her weary station by the black lake
    Of Gone Forever, in whose fountain vase
    Balance the water-lilies of my thought.

    Even now
    Spread we our nets beyond the farthest rims
    So surely that they take the feet of dawn
    Before you wake and after you are sleeping
    Catch up the visible and invisible stars
    And web the ports the strongest dreamer dreamed,
    Yet is it all one, Vidya, yet is it nothing.

    Even now
    The night is full of silver straws of rain,
    And I will send my soul to see your body
    This last poor time. I stand beside your bed;
    Your shadowed head lies leaving a bright space
    Upon the pillow empty, your sorrowful arm
    Holds from your side and clasps not anything.
    There is no covering upon you.

    Even now
    I think your feet seek mine to comfort them.
    There is some dream about you even now
    Which I’ll not hear at waking. Weep not at dawn,
    Though day brings wearily your daily loss
    And all the light is hateful. Now is it time
    To bring my soul away.

    Even now
    I mind that I went round with men and women,
    And underneath their brows, deep in their eyes,
    I saw their souls, which go slipping aside
    In swarms before the pleasure of my mind;
    The world was like a flight of birds, shadow or flame
    Which I saw pass above the engraven hills.
    Yet was there never one like to my girl.

    Even now
    Death I take up as consolation.
    Nay, were I free as the condor with his wings
    Or old kings throned on violet ivory,
    Night would not come without beds of green floss
    And never a bed without my bright darling.
    It is most fit that you strike now, black guards,
    And let this fountain out before the dawn.

    Even now
    I know that I have savoured the hot taste of life
    Lifting green cups and gold at the great feast.
    Just for a small and a forgotten time
    I have had full in my eyes from off my girl
    The whitest pouring of eternal light.
    The heavy knife. As to a gala day.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  325. That’s from the 1st century Sanskrit. I prolly should have given a trigger warning.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  326. wow he really loved her a lot

    happyfeet (831175)

  327. Sammy57?

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  328. Is this “wall of text” day?

    askeptic (efcf22)

  329. At the risk of running much ridicule, I always wondered what the original “Black Marigolds” had to say outside of the truncated Steinbeck version in Cannery Row.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  330. 333. Sammy57?
    Colonel Haiku (2601c0) — 5/2/2015 @ 8:51 pm

    Sorry. I’ll try to do worse next time.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  331. Even now
    They chatter her weakness through the two bazaars
    Who was so strong to love me. And small men
    That buy and sell for silver being slaves
    Crinkle the fat about their eyes; and yet
    No Prince of the Cities of the Sea has taken her,

    Leading to his grim bed. Little lonely one,
    You clung to me as a garment clings; my girl.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  332. Kishnevi,

    I don’t know who the “Christian scholars” you’ve said you read as you didn’t mention their names. As MD mentioned, you have to know if these “scholars” are really Christian. I’d like to help you with just a few questions you can ask.

    1. Do they state that Jesus the Christ is God (notice the capital G)?

    2. Do they state that Jesus died then rose from the dead, alive?

    3. Do they state that Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead so that He would be the final sacrifice?

    4. Do they state that we can obtain forgiveness from our sins if we accept Jesus as our savior?

    5. Do they state that the only way to heaven is by accepting Jesus’ sacrifice for our sins?

    6. Do they believe that all 66 (68 if catholic) books of the bible are inspired by God and are true?

    7. Do they believe in gods other than the trinity.

    If they don’t believe 1-5 they are not Christians since following those truths are what make a Christian a Christian.

    If they don’t believe item 6, but believe 1-5 they are Christians but not trusted sources for Christian apologetics.

    If they believe item 7 they are not to be trusted in Christian theology.

    There are probably more things to look out for, but these are the foundational points.

    Tanny O'Haley (c674c7)

  333. My reading of the text is based on the actual text of Genesis. There is also a whole bunch of rabbinic midrash on Sodom, but obviously you as a Christian do not think of that as authoritative, so I have not referred to it. The text of Genesis, with help from Ezekiel, is clear enough. — kishnevi (9c4b9c) — 5/2/2015 @ 12:30 pm

    Kishnevi, forget about theologians or whether one is a Christian or a Jew. Just the basic nature of a plot, if you will, pertaining to a large group of males gathering at the front door of a guy’s house and demanding they be allowed in to rape his two male guests — and the homeowner becoming so desperate that he offers in exchange his 2 daughters as sacrificial lambs — is, of and by itself, so grotesque, extreme and lurid, that to somehow shrug that off as actually a lesson in the badness of inhospitality is ridiculous. Such an interpretation, in fact, is oddly hilarious. It wouldn’t be all that much more absurd to claim that Adolph Hitler and his Final Solution symbolized the sin of unfriendliness.

    blog.adw.org: …I got push-back from certain homosexuals who wrote in to “remind” me that the sin of Sodom “has nothing to do with homosexual acts, or homosexual rape. Rather,” they said, “It is only about violations of hospitality rules of the ancient near east.”

    …Now to the average reader who does not need to be defensive, the text conveys a clear message of widespread homosexuality in Sodom, a fact rather bluntly confirmed by the angelic visitors. And this is the clear emphasis of the story, not hospitality norms or other secondary concepts.

    However, it may help to confirm this fact in other texts of the Bible and to legitimately ask if this is the only sin involved. Two texts are most specifically helpful in this regard. First there is a text from Ezekiel:

    Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (Ezekiel 16:49-50)

    Now this is the text used most often by those who deny any homosexual context in the sin of Sodom. And, to be fair, it does add a dimension to the outcry God hears. There are clearly additional sins at work in the outcry: pride, excess or greed, and indifference to the poor and needy. But there are also mentioned here unspecified “abominations.” The Hebrew word is תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה (tō·w·‘ê·ḇāh) which refers to any number of things God considers especially detestable, such as worshiping idols, immolating children, wrongful marriage and also homosexual acts. For example, Leviticus 18:22 uses the word in this context: Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.

    But of itself, this text from Ezekiel does remind us that widespread homosexuality is not the only sin of Sodom. And while the abomination mentioned here may not be specified exactly, there is another Scriptural text that does specify things more clearly for us. It is from the Letter of Jude:

    In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. (Jude 7-8)

    And thus it is specified that the central sin of Sodom involved “sexual immorality (ἐκπορνεύσασαι) and perversion (ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας – literally having departed to strange or different flesh).” And this would comport with the description of widespread homosexual practice in Sodom wherein the practitioners of this sin are described in Genesis 19 as including, “all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old.”

    Hence we see that, while we should avoid seeing the sin of Sodom as only widespread homosexual acts (for what city has only one sin?), we cannot avoid that the Scriptures do teach that homosexual acts are central to the sins of Sodom which cry to heaven for vengeance, and for which God saw fit to bring a fiery end.

    Mark (607f93)

  334. 338. Kishnevi,

    I don’t know who the “Christian scholars” you’ve said you read as you didn’t mention their names. As MD mentioned, you have to know if these “scholars” are really Christian. I’d like to help you with just a few questions you can ask…

    If they don’t believe 1-5 they are not Christians since following those truths are what make a Christian a Christian.

    If they don’t believe item 6, but believe 1-5 they are Christians but not trusted sources for Christian apologetics.

    If they believe item 7 they are not to be trusted in Christian theology.

    There are probably more things to look out for, but these are the foundational points.
    Tanny O’Haley (c674c7) — 5/2/2015 @ 11:12 pm

    There are foundational truths? Well shiver me timbers.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  335. nor stuff like original sin.

    kishnevi, I think I understand your view very well even before your last comment.
    I imagine you understand that Christians do not view the Bible as just a book either. how we differ, and frankly I am astonished that you think and say this, “and only way God has revealed Itself to humans. And the Author being God, there are almost infinite levels of meaning.”

    How can that be? God did not reveal Himself to Abram with a book, He did not reveal Himself to Moses with a book, He didn’t reveal Himself even to pharaoh with a book, and He certainly didn’t reveal Himself to the prophets with a book.
    Apparently you mean that the only way God reveals Himself to people today is through the Book that records how He revealed Himself to people in the past.
    That, I suggest, is a reflection of original sin that you deny.

    Historic apostolic Christian belief is that God revealed Himself to people in many ways over the centuries, including through the Creation (heaven and earth declare the majesty of God) and through the written Word which recorded that activity. Christians believe that Jesus was/is the Word made flesh.
    Furthermore, historic apostolic Christians believe that in Acts is recorded the fulfillment of the prophecy in Joel that God will pour out His Spirit on “all flesh” (that believe in Him).

    Actually, there are (many) Christians who claim essentially the same thing you do, that after the NT was finished God does not communicate/reveal Himself to people other than through the written Word.

    more to say, but I need to relinquish the computer now.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  336. There has been mention here by posters several times of 2 additional books contained in the Catholic Bible. Following are two short articles. One from a respected Protestant publication and one from a Catholic Priest of a Virginia diocese. They both address the question of the difference in the number of books in Christian Bibles and how that occurred, and both seem to agree that the difference is (as I was always taught) 7- not 2. (66 versus 72). The authors generally also seem to be in agreement on the whys and whens and that there has been some human intervention along the way.

    Further, from Father William Saunders is this introduction to his article.:

    To appreciate this question and its answer, one must first remember that almighty God never handed anyone a complete Bible and said, “Here it is.” Rather, over the centuries of salvation history, the Holy Spirit inspired the authors of Sacred Scripture to write down God’s revelation to us. As time went on, the Church compiled these books to form a Canon—an authoritative set of Sacred Scripture—and declared it “God’s Word.”

    https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PCBIB.HTM

    And from Christianity today:

    The Protestant Bible, of which the NIV is one version, is seven books shorter than the Bible used by Roman Catholics. But Protestants didn’t just take out books; they used a different standard of what should be in the Bible.
    The Hebrew Bible has 24 books. This list, or “canon,” was affirmed at the Councils of Jamnia in A.D. 90 and 118. The Protestant Old Testament includes exactly the same information, but organized into 39 books. For example, the Hebrew Bible has one book of Samuel, while the Protestant Bible has I and II Samuel—same book, but divided into two parts.

    In addition to these 39 books, the Catholic Old Testament includes Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Baruch (includes the Letters of Jeremiah), I and II Maccabees, and additions to Daniel and Esther. At the time of the Reformation, Protestants decided that, because the additional books weren’t in the Hebrew Bible, they shouldn’t be in the Christian Bible, either… Catholics, at the Council of Trent (1546), decided to keep the “deutero-canonical” books.

    http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/asktheexpert/jun01.html

    As I head off to church and then to a family event on a beautiful day, I post this with respect to all and also as a caution as to why laymen discussing religion on blogs –especially laymen arguing over scripture–can often be both misunderstood and/or counterproductive.

    elissa (ff619d)

  337. duh typo–73.

    elissa (ff619d)

  338. Well said, elissa. I am off to worship, too.

    felipe (56556d)

  339. After all, what’s a few wedding cakes and flowers, or a few ham sandwiches and beers, in the big picture of religion? Surely these are little sins, if they are sins at all.

    DRJ (e80d46) — 5/1/2015 @ 4:32 pm

    DRJ – I had to run out to a personal thing the other day. I just wanted to thank you for this reasoned point of view.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  340. I would not support laws that said people with nose rings or bad ties must, by force of law, be given separate services.

    Which is what “separate but equal” is all about. Which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, which revolves instead around private decisions to have the freedom to refuse to do business with people for any reason the business owner chooses.

    Patterico (9c670f) — 5/2/2015 @ 3:56 pm

    Hi Patterico,

    I don’t understand. Weren’t the lunch counters sit-ins a protest against “private decisions” not to do business with those people? Wasn’t the fact that the Drake Hotel in Chicago wouldn’t admit black guests until the 60’s a “private decision?”

    I’m being serious here, and not hyperbolic — how is this different from Muslim taxi drivers refusing seeing eye dogs or passengers with alcohol? Is there some kind of legal threshold that establishes a service for which it is too important to discriminate – e.g., transportation, food and lodging? The only legal reason I can see is protected class / strict scrutiny. But I am not a lawyer.

    carlitos (c24ed5)

  341. That was sarcasm, carlitos. You don’t seem to recognize it online any better than I do! However, it’s not important whether someone thinks these are petty things to disagree about. What matters is the sincere beliefs of the religious advocates — provided they don’t involve health risks and safety, and sometimes even if they do. In addition, if there is a reasonable basis to restrict a religious belief, it must be done by the least restrictive method. Is that what is being done in these cases? I’m not sure it is.

    Of course, I’m sure you understand that the Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion but, after reading some of your earlier comments, it bears repeating that this is true even (and perhaps especially) when the churches themselves don’t agree on doctrine. (See, for example, Presbyterian Church vs Hull Church.)

    Finally, carlitos, on another topic: We’ve disagreed in the past about global warming. As I know you recall, you refused to discuss my links because the scientists there aren’t up to your standards of peer review and scientific merit. For the record, just so I’ll know who to avoid in any future discussions, do you consider these and these to be quacks?

    DRJ (e80d46)

  342. not discriminating against people is what you do if you want to live in a little country where nobody does discriminations on you

    there’s this icky subset of self-styled christians what are saying okey dokey you can discriminate on us but we get to discriminate on you

    these people are fundamentally stupid and unamerican and they make me sick to my stomach to where i need to lie down for a little bit sometimes

    happyfeet (831175)

  343. carlito’s,

    I responded but my comment has too many links, so it’s not appearing yet.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  344. From a religious standpoint, some sins certainly seem worse than others but they all separate us from God’s Will. Living a life right with God is the goal for believers.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  345. DRJ, your comment with the links is approved.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  346. I don’t understand. Weren’t the lunch counters sit-ins a protest against “private decisions” not to do business with those people? Wasn’t the fact that the Drake Hotel in Chicago wouldn’t admit black guests until the 60′s a “private decision?”

    What does that have to do with “separate but equal”?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  347. it doesn’t have to be all separate but equal we could just say to the ones that want to do the discriminations hey guys ok stop doing the discriminations on the gay people and when we play star wars you get to be boba fett AND you can have the millennimum falcon AND the death star and i promise not to blow it up with my x-wing fighter

    how is that not a fair compromise

    happyfeet (831175)

  348. I’m being serious here, and not hyperbolic — how is this different from Muslim taxi drivers refusing seeing eye dogs or passengers with alcohol? Is there some kind of legal threshold that establishes a service for which it is too important to discriminate – e.g., transportation, food and lodging? The only legal reason I can see is protected class / strict scrutiny. But I am not a lawyer.

    I’m not talking about legalities, carlitos. I’m talking about freedom. I would support a) Muslim taxi drivers not being licensed, b) independent Muslim taxi drivers being free to pick up or not pick up anyone they like, and c) taxi companies being free to discharge Muslim taxi driver employees for not picking anyone the employer says to pick up, religious beliefs or no. Economic freedom.

    The law does not agree with my belief in the total freedom of the businessman to serve or not serve whomever he likes.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  349. i do not agree with various and several of the assumptions inherent in this post Mr. Patterico

    the first thing what jump out at me is the title

    “…to exclude defense of christians” is what it says up there

    all christians? nonono that can’t be true. It’s just a very particular wee small tiny subset. But you never acknowledge this in your post. In fact you double down: “Don’t like funding companies that stomp on the rights of Christians? Use another company.”

    and i bet you know and i know and i know you know I know that if you look at all the peoples that you can go fund at gofundme – scads and scads and oodles of them are in fact Christian people – Christian as you and me and but not George Soros

    well maybe not you

    and for sure not George

    And I tell you what… and this may sound contentious but there’s a reason the gofunders are singling out a particular group of Christians and I tell you why that is.

    Cause they mean.

    Cause they radical.

    Cause they extreme.

    And you know what the gofunders have done to the rest of us Christians?

    They’ve humbled us.

    Why?

    Cause we should police our own. We should stand up to these ones who hold Extreme Views that are outside the mainstream and say nonono pickleheads. NOT IN MY NAME. Just like we want the muslims to do on the jihaders. Just like we want the Baltimore people to do on the rock-throwers. Just like we want the for reals scientists to do on the global warming hoaxers.

    But too often we are silent.

    We meaning y’all but not me.

    Because just like baltimom i too am a strong black woman, and I’m not afraid to point at the extremists among us and say nonono that is not who we are.

    That is NOT who we are.

    As for your comment that maybe several of the beneficiaries of GoFundMe campaigns are (incidentally) Christian — are you saying that they don’t discriminate against Christians even if they discriminate against any campaign the theme of which is Christian, as long as some Christians happen to be (incidentally) Christian?

    My point is that they are declaring a particular Christian belief discriminatory and off-limits.

    If an Orthodox rabbi did not want to marry an Orthodox Jew to a non-Jew, and the state threatened the rabbi with legal repercussions, and someone set up a defense fund, under this logic I guess you would say that they are not targeting Jews as long as you can find a Jewish guy with cancer who is still receiving GoFundMe funds. But I would feel like they are targeting Jews.

    The fact that you might disagree with this decision, and you might feel as though Orthodox Jews have the right to marry anyone they like and anyone who says otherwise is a discriminatory bad guy, would not change a thing.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  350. Puritan theology gave weight to the idea that if people allowed God’s will to rule and guide the community, peace, harmony and prosperity would follow. If the community did not live up to that ideal, however, God’s wrath would come down and destroy the community. The Puritan elders, therefore, felt obligated to make sure that people conformed to the ideals of the community. To not conform suggested that a person was an “impostor” who was not predestined to be saved and did not really belong in the community.

    As with any group, there were differences of opinion, but the leaders of the colony made sure that such differences did not stray too far from established ideals. Harmony and faith, not tolerance, were the guiding principles. When forced to choose between the harmony of the colony and banishing or executing dissenters, Governor Winthrop and the ministers did not hesitate to act against nonconformists to preserve what they felt were the best interests of the larger community.

    happyfeet (831175)

  351. Completing my thoughts from 341, for any interested:
    In a very real way it seems that the divide between those (Jew and Gentile) who view Jesus as the Messiah and those Jews who do not begins much earlier in the Bible than at the end of the Torah.
    The historic apostolic Christian belief is that God created people out of the overflow of His goodness and love with the intention of having a personal loving relationship with those created in His image. The original sin was the decision that God was not to be trusted, that we humans could make a better life for ourselves independent of God our Creator/Heavenly Father. That original sin has persisted ever since, in that we all like sheep have gone astray, every one to his/her own way.

    There are many ways to go our own way. Some go our own way by flaunting God’s commands, others go our own way by trying to prove we can be good, even obey God’s perfect law, without God’s help. The historic apostolic Christian faith believes that all have gone astray from God and no one has any chance of any kind of relationship with God based on our own merit, which is why Someone Else needed to carry away our iniquity, the “True Scapegoat” if one will.

    If one doesn’t believe in original sin, that somehow one can be good enough to “abide the day of His coming”, then one doesn’t need someone who can be their sin-bearer.

    There are many who think and live the Christian faith as if it has to do with keeping a bunch of rules to be good enough, and even those who know better can slip into that mindset in any given nanosecond, for until we see the Lord face to face a remnant of the original sin that wants to walk away from God and live independently is always there, like it was crouching at the door of Cain’s heart.
    But the historic apostolic Christian faith says that every human is utterly lost on the basis of our own merit, that Jesus died and rose again taking on Himself the punishment that we deserved, and that we can live not by our own efforts but by yielding our life to God, empowered from within our being by the Holy Spirit, the incredible power that raised Christ from the dead giving life to us while still living in our mortal flesh.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  352. happyfeet,

    The Puritan point of view did not tolerate dissent. I suspect you think that makes those of us who support the bakery and the pizza pie shop the Puritans. But with the recognition of gay marriage in many states, now you and others are the Puritans because you want to use the government to impose your point of view on everyone. Go back to your link and read about Roger Williams, the father of individual freedom of religion.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  353. By the way, is your last comment the “real” happyfeet? This is the first time I recall you dropping your persona online.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  354. MD:

    There are many who think and live the Christian faith as if it has to do with keeping a bunch of rules to be good enough, and even those who know better can slip into that mindset in any given nanosecond, for until we see the Lord face to face a remnant of the original sin that wants to walk away from God and live independently is always there, like it was crouching at the door of Cain’s heart.

    This is so important. I thought that way as a child and sometimes I find myself feeling that way as an adult. It’s seductive and very human, but I don’t think it’s God’s way.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  355. nonono DRJ picklehead

    i said it once i said it 100 times

    i don’t think the government should force people not to do discriminations on gay people

    i think people should not discriminate on gay people cause of they themselves don’t want to be discriminated on in turn

    do unto others, i say

    and if that involves baking a tasty cake so be it

    i miss me mom’s carrot cake is what i miss personally

    i might could have the recipe somewheres, maybe

    moving is such bollocks

    happyfeet (831175)

  356. oh nonono that last comment was just a quote from the linked page none of it is in me own words

    i just think it’s interesting

    have we come full circle here in failmerica?

    i wonder a bit i really do

    happyfeet (831175)

  357. happyfeet,

    I can’t square your comments about discrimination with earlier comments that (I think) say the bakery and pizza place should have to serve gay weddings. Are you saying they should do it because it fits your personal code of ethics, and not because the law requires it? If so, then what if those folks personal code of ethics say differently?

    DRJ (e80d46)

  358. of course they should serve gay weddings

    but that’s a way different thing than saying it should be compulsory

    i been a very very consistent pikachu

    you don’t wanna serve gay people?

    fine

    i will make disparaging comments about you on the internet

    and you will suffer most cruelly

    happyfeet (831175)

  359. I agree we have come full circle, and we do it every time and on every issue that we reject or misunderstand our founding documents.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  360. founding documents just get the ball rolling

    if nobody internalizes the spirit of the thing then what’s the bloody use

    there’s a reason it’s called failmerica you know

    cause it’s a faily faily failure

    is why

    and right in front of all the neighbors too

    i’m glad me mum’s not around to see this

    happyfeet (831175)

  361. Ok, to say disparaging things about me if you want, as long as they’re true. I will say disparaging things about your position, because I think you ignore our founding documents when you care more about social discrimination (some might even call it social etiquette) than about individual freedom of religion. At the very least, I urge you to see this as an issue of competing interests rather than as something where one side is right and the other side is wrong.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  362. No, I don’t see why you call America “failamerica.” What other nations are better, in your view?

    DRJ (e80d46)

  363. nonono DRJ you talk a big game

    but i refuse to believe you ever done discriminations on gay peoples

    so i will not be saying anything disparaging about you

    not unless i see proof you done some discriminations on somebody

    my gut says that’s not how you roll

    and my gut is one of my most bestest amigos

    happyfeet (831175)

  364. What other nations set the bar as high?

    happyfeet (831175)

  365. It doesn’t matter if either of us think the religious folks are wrong or right when they object to helping celebrate gay weddings. We can all have our opinions about that subject, but we’re talking about government restricting what they can and can’t do.

    What matters is whether the religious beliefs are sincerely held, whether the government has the right to restrict those beliefs, and, if so, whether the restrictions are narrowly drawn. I don’t see you addressing any of those questions. Instead, you simply assert that those beliefs are wrong and you want to shame and name anyone who supports them.

    I don’t know what I would do in a similar situation but I do know that I’m willing to stand up for religious beliefs — whether or not I share those beliefs — because I want this to be a nation of freedom of religion. If I don’t stand up for this, who will stand up for me?

    DRJ (e80d46)

  366. ok i think we understand each other

    happyfeet (831175)

  367. FWIW, my answers are:

    I think people who have objected to being forced to celebrate gay marriages are acting out of sincere beliefs. They have been willing to suffer economically and in public opinion for their beliefs, which is a sign they are sincere.

    I don’t know if the government has the right to restrict these beliefs. To me, it’s a question of balancing the individual’s interest in freedom to practice his/her religion vs the right of gays to be treated equally. I’m not sure how that balancing should be done.

    If it’s determined that the discrimination outweigh the religious interests, then I think there should be less onerous, common-sense ways to deal with situations like this. For instance, in lieu of criminal or administrative charges, why not allow businesses to refer customers to other businesses for services?

    DRJ (e80d46)

  368. There are many who think and live the Christian faith as if it has to do with keeping a bunch of rules to be good enough, and even those who know better can slip into that mindset in any given nanosecond, for until we see the Lord face to face a remnant of the original sin that wants to walk away from God and live independently is always there, like it was crouching at the door of Cain’s heart.

    I think this is tru, and I think it’s because it’s much easier for fallen man to try to adhere to rules and law rather than receiving the gift of grace and walking *in* it. The natural man is reluctant to accept that grace is just that, grace – free and unmerited favor. We keep expecting so much of ourselves, as if we can transform and make ourselves more into the image of Christ. That’s usurping God’s role. And we seem so prone toward that inclination.

    Dana (86e864)

  369. I also think the idea of following rules makes us feel like we’re still in control. Giving ourselves to God means we recognize we aren’t in control, and that’s a hard thing for humans to accept.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  370. true, that is what Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for, rules in themselves, do not save you, but observing them, are outward signs of ones faith, it is the promise that the former will yield to persecution,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  371. Yep. Walking in grace demands surrendering the illusion that we are in control. I say that because the older I get, the more I realize how little controls ideally have. Somewha like really seeing the vastness of God and the smallness of me. Being yielded to God’s will, no matter the circumstance, is what moves us more and more to the the place of peace that is the heart of His grace. It so goes against the natural man.

    Dana (86e864)

  372. Omg, I am so inept at typing on an iPad. It looks like I’m illiterate.

    Dana (86e864)

  373. MD in Philly, your comment at 357 is profound. Thank you.

    TG (71074c)

  374. 342. There has been mention here by posters several times of 2 additional books contained in the Catholic Bible. Following are two short articles…

    elissa (ff619d) — 5/3/2015 @ 8:10 am

    I hope you had a good Sunday. At the risk of appearing malicious, I hesitatingly raise the following from my comment @204:

    …Yes, there are many reasons why there are a bunch of Christian denominations. But differences over the content of the Gospel of Christ are not among them…

    I was clearly wrong about the differences in our Old Testaments.

    Steve57 (818fa4)

  375. You’re welcome, TG

    Whatever wisdom I have is God’s grace, and I need prayer to live by it as much as anyone else.

    MD in Philly (not in Philly at the moment) (deca84)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2838 secs.