Religion Ranting Topic

[Phoenix Wright]

While yes, all three religions are abrahamic and admit that they worship the same god, there is a noticeably distinct characterization (Probably some word fits better, but it doesn't come to my mind) of Yahweh/God/Allah in the Old Testament/Torah, New Testament, and the Koran, respectively. And the Trinity is a very significant divergence that Christianity has in terms of theology.

so are you also arguing that islam is not a religion based on faith or something? because that's all i meant to get across. i am indeed fully aware of the significant differences between the 3.

[eclipse]

eclipse's argument is so unsound

say that there's a religious text against people with neuro-deficiencies

why would anyone defend turning away someone with autism or down syndrome for "religious reasons?" Those are all ways people are born so it's not like anyone ever has a choice in this matter.

or what about if someone felt that people who are paraplegic are "unworthy?" why would anyone justify that treatment

I remember seeing around the time of the posts where Germany had banned face veils and yet you brought up that it's only a good thing to ban if women are forced to wear them.

That's part of Islam. So why are you justifying discrimination but not the control over wives? They're both part of religious freedom. And they're both terrible ideas. So maybe we should treat them equally.

MOD EDIT: This was originally part of another topic. TC, if you want to make this more creative, feel free to do so, BUT you're getting a none-too-friendly response from me because your ability to read backwards and respect the feelings of others seems nonexistent.

You have two homework assignments:

1. Way back in the White House topic, on the subject of cakes, I made a mention as to where I draw the line for religious freedom. Your job is to find that quote, paste it here, and apologize for not reading backwards.

2. Answer this post:

So why do you have such a hard-on for making Christians suffer?

All they're saying is "hey, I don't want to make a cake for your gay wedding". Meanwhile, Islamic countries give out the death penalty for being homosexual.

Be consistant.

Edit: Remember, I'm not even Christian or religious.

If I see you post in here, and fail to do either, it's grounds for a warning. The least you can do is treat others with respect, and fully understanding someone's stance before posting is part of that (the second item on your homework list is for you to explain yourself). I've already commented about your attitude in the White House thread, and it doesn't seem to have sunk in. Hence why I've stepped it up to a warning.

EDIT: One very important word.

Edited August 27, 2016 by eggclipse

[tuvarkz]

so are you also arguing that islam is not a religion based on faith or something? because that's all i meant to get across. i am indeed fully aware of the significant differences between the 3.

No, wasn't arguing that point. Just wanted to clarify that saying that the three religions worship the same god is an innaccurate statement. All religions are based on faith.

Also, @eggclipse, should I edit my reply to Res's post out of this thread and repost it in the White House thread, as it's relevant to that thread but not this one?

[eclipse]

No, wasn't arguing that point. Just wanted to clarify that saying that the three religions worship the same god is an innaccurate statement. All religions are based on faith.

Also, @eggclipse, should I edit my reply to Res's post out of this thread and repost it in the White House thread, as it's relevant to that thread but not this one?

Sure! Things might be a wee bit out of order, but that's okay!

[Life]

belief in god is not a "god-given right." it is an opinion and it is malleable. there does not exist "god-given" rights.

the right to freedom of religion is the choice to choose a religion and always be able to worship. that's it.

You also missed the part where the government cannot pass laws contrary to the religion's belief. Otherwise you don't have freedom of religion.

That is like arguing that Canada or England has free speech. No, they don't. If you can be jailed for "hate speech" (a very loosely defined term that can essentially end up meaning a difference in opinions), you don't have free speech.

I don't think you get the idea of freedom. But then again, you don't like the idea. Otherwise, you wouldn't say below that "some tyranny is good".

come up with a better hypothetical. you complain earlier about hypotheticals not being grounded in reality and then ask me this? lol

I was going to conceed this point entirely but when I looked at the reference, I changed my mind.

First post in this topic. The answer to Enigmar's question is "there isn't and there won't be". My question doesn't exclude the possibility of not happening.

It is a terrible hypothetic on reflection but it can be grounded in reality.

every law is some form of government tyranny. some tyranny is good. necessary, even.

Covered in the other topic. But not every law is a form of government tyranny because some are rooted in common sense and religious values (don't kill is an example).

that is nonsense. it seems that there is a general ignorance of what separation of church and state means. on the one hand, it means that religions can't be taxed because that would be an encroachment on the beliefs of the public (somehow, i dunno really, but that's what the supreme court thinks from 200 years ago). on the other, it also means that religions don't get to dictate law: if there exists a law that says you must sell to homosexuals, religious people don't get a free pass to discriminate.

Jesus fucking Christ.

I'm saying that a law shouldn't exist at all.

You are actually saying "fuck you Christians, homosexuals need to be accepted by your religious beliefs as acceptable". How is that not discriminatory against Christians?

What about Islamic bakaries? They also won't sell to homosexuals. Do we do the same there or is that Islamophobic?

Why is the target always only Christians?

Edit: I want to point out one more thing of why Islam is a problem (and why there is no such thing as being a moderate).

Forget Iran. Forget Syria. Let's take the most moderate Islamic country out there. UAE.

https://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/country-search-post.cfm?country=United+Arab+Emirates - Adultery carries a death penalty.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1321504/UAEs-highest-court-rules-men-beat-wives-long-leave-marks.html - Men are legallt allowed to beat their wives. It is referred to as "discipline". The only caveat is to not leave bruises which is where the burqa and niqab come into play (they hide said bruises).

If this is moderate, then something is wrong here.

Edited August 27, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

do you think there could be a more moderate version? i think its possible, now will it happening soon? no not really at this rate.

maybe in like 100 more years if everyone is still around perhaps, i got a feeling it won't be in my life time.

Edited August 27, 2016 by HF Makalov Fanboy Kai

[eclipse]

do you think there could be a more moderate version? i think its possible, now will it happening soon? no not really at this rate.

maybe in like 100 more years if everyone is still around perhaps, i got a feeling it won't be in my life time.

Probably not happening soon (as in, next year). However, if Islam adopted the stance that their religious rules don't allow for hurting others (whether it be nonbelievers, women, people who want to leave, etc.), I think it would be a step in the right direction.

[Time the Crestfallen]

https://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/country-search-post.cfm?country=United+Arab+Emirates - Adultery carries a death penalty.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1321504/UAEs-highest-court-rules-men-beat-wives-long-leave-marks.html - Men are legallt allowed to beat their wives. It is referred to as "discipline". The only caveat is to not leave bruises which is where the burqa and niqab come into play (they hide said bruises).

If this is moderate, then something is wrong here.

Let me ask you a question. Say someone from one of these Islamic countries moves to America and finds himself a home. His neighbours calls the police on him because they think he's beating his wife and, when the police arrive, it turns out he can. Why should he be arrested? The Quran says that it's okay for husbands to beat their wives as you've pointed out numerous times, so arresting him would count as subverting religious freedom and there's even less of a case here than against Sweet Cakes, since this took place in the privacy of their own home as opposed to a public accommodations. Also, what if the shopkeeper of Sweet Cakes was Islamic rather than Christian? I have a feeling you wouldn't be as eager to defend them if that was the case.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Phillius

[-Cynthia-]

no she did not! the source did not explain anything having to do with it. it was conjecture on her part. also, a source that focuses on restaurants does not fit the general case of businesses in the united states.

This is an important point I feel is frequently overlooked. Yes, capitalism may 'fix' discrimination in instances such as a restaurant in Philadelphia where there are a ton of other restaurants available. If I live in rural Wyoming, there may be only one plumber within 50 miles of me. If that plumber refuses service to me and I have a plumbing issue, my quality of life is significantly decreased with few plausible alternatives.

I could perhaps support a religious freedom law with 'causes no undue hardship' caveats, though I'm not sure a blanket rule isn't more efficient at this point.

Edited August 28, 2016 by -Cynthia-

[Flee Fleet!]

The Quran says that it's okay for husbands to beat their wives as you've pointed out numerous times

What? Islam doesn't allow beating of wives. There's a reason why most people were against the 'beating wives lightly' law, created by the (somewhat fundamentalist?) CII, the constitutional body of the Islamic Republic, in Pakistan.

Furthermore, I'm quoting a Hadis on this matter: "Men! You have rights over your wives, and your wives have rights over you!"

And another: "Among the believers who show most perfect faith are those who possess the best disposition and are kindest to their families!"

Therefore, husband and wife are to treat each other equally and respectfully, while having their own roles in maintaining a family.

It's pretty much just ignorant extreme 'fundamentalists' and ISIS as well as people who have the most ignorant wrong radical ideas about religion who pretty much treat women in the crappiest ways.

Islam is the only religion that teaches that it is acceptable TO take that next step towards violence.

uh, no it doesn't, not much. Again, pretty much the only thing punishable by death is conversion from Islam to some other religion. I'm not sure if being LGBT is considered punishable by death(even if it does happen in fundamentalist Islamic countries, I'd rather ask people from non-fundamentalist Islamic countries to confirm myself, so you know, not any wrong information be given or anything). And I'm also sure that I've never heard of the "kill all who draw Muhammad and Allah" teaching. Yeah, it's considered a bad thing to do so, among the Muslim community, but I'm pretty sure killing in this case would be done by ignorant extremists or terrorists who think killing is the best option in these sort of occasions.

Again, don't mean to sound rude or offensive to anyone, okay?Okay.

[Life]

Let me ask you a question. Say someone from one of these Islamic countries moves to America and finds himself a home. His neighbours calls the police on him because they think he's beating his wife and, when the police arrive, it turns out he can. Why should he be arrested? The Quran says that it's okay for husbands to beat their wives as you've pointed out numerous times, so arresting him would count as subverting religious freedom and there's even less of a case here than against Sweet Cakes, since this took place in the privacy of their own home as opposed to a public accommodations. Also, what if the shopkeeper of Sweet Cakes was Islamic rather than Christian? I have a feeling you wouldn't be as eager to defend them if that was the case.

Oooh, trying to trap me, right?

Except didn't I state that I believe that Islam is an ideology with a prophet and god? I know nobody likes that idea but you have two options in the religion. Convert or die. Maybe not yet in Western countries but it's coming.

But if you look at Islam as an ideology rather than a religion, they stop being protected by the First Ammendment and have to answer to things like honour killings (which are legal in most Islamic countries) and domestic abuse.

I'll re-instate Islam as a religion when I know that I can choose to be not a Muslim and not have to die. Until then, the faith is a secondary notion in Islam.

What? Islam doesn't allow beating of wives. There's a reason why most people were against the 'beating wives lightly' law, created by the (somewhat fundamentalist?) CII, the constitutional body of the Islamic Republic, in Pakistan.

Furthermore, I'm quoting a Hadis on this matter: "Men! You have rights over your wives, and your wives have rights over you!"

And another: "Among the believers who show most perfect faith are those who possess the best disposition and are kindest to their families!"

Therefore, husband and wife are to treat each other equally and respectfully, while having their own roles in maintaining a family.

It's pretty much just ignorant extreme 'fundamentalists' and ISIS as well as people who have the most ignorant wrong radical ideas about religion who pretty much treat women in the crappiest ways.

uh, no it doesn't, not much. Again, pretty much the only thing punishable by death is conversion from Islam to some other religion. I'm not sure if being LGBT is considered punishable by death(even if it does happen in fundamentalist Islamic countries, I'd rather ask people from non-fundamentalist Islamic countries to confirm myself, so you know, not any wrong information be given or anything). And I'm also sure that I've never heard of the "kill all who draw Muhammad and Allah" teaching. Yeah, it's considered a bad thing to do so, among the Muslim community, but I'm pretty sure killing in this case would be done by ignorant extremists or terrorists who think killing is the best option in these sort of occasions.

Again, don't mean to sound rude or offensive to anyone, okay?Okay.

You're not going to like me for this one.

https://quran.com/4

Yep. The Woman. Nice Sura.

First 13 verses in Sura 4 state such:

- If a man is not pleased with his woman, he may have up to four legal wives [4:3]

- If a woman does not obey her man, he should "take it in satisfaction and ease" [4:4]

- A woman is literally worth half a man (check the math) [4:11 and 4:12]

Look, I've already stated that when you pull something from the Torah, you play by my rules. So I'm playing by yours. Am I missing something here?

As for apostasy:

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/apostasy/

23 countries list apostasy as a capital offense. They're all Islamic.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Time the Crestfallen]

What? Islam doesn't allow beating of wives. There's a reason why most people were against the 'beating wives lightly' law, created by the (somewhat fundamentalist?) CII, the constitutional body of the Islamic Republic, in Pakistan.

Furthermore, I'm quoting a Hadis on this matter: "Men! You have rights over your wives, and your wives have rights over you!"

And another: "Among the believers who show most perfect faith are those who possess the best disposition and are kindest to their families!"

Therefore, husband and wife are to treat each other equally and respectfully, while having their own roles in maintaining a family.

It's pretty much just ignorant extreme 'fundamentalists' and ISIS as well as people who have the most ignorant wrong radical ideas about religion who pretty much treat women in the crappiest ways.

It's more that he says it does than I actually think it does. I meant fundamentalist Islamic interpretation, but didn't say it. My bad.

Speaking of which...

Oooh, trying to trap me, right?

Except didn't I state that I believe that Islam is an ideology with a prophet and god? I know nobody likes that idea but you have two options in the religion. Convert or die. Maybe not yet in Western countries but it's coming.

But if you look at Islam as an ideology rather than a religion, they stop being protected by the First Ammendment and have to answer to things like honour killings (which are legal in most Islamic countries) and domestic abuse.

I'll re-instate Islam as a religion when I know that I can choose to be not a Muslim and not have to die. Until then, the faith is a secondary notion in Islam.

Without intending to sound rude, I'm calling bullshit on this. If your only defence is that Islam is not a religion and therefore totally different (something that is provably false), than you need to step up your game.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Phillius

[Life]

It's more that he says it does than I actually think it does. I meant fundamentalist Islamic interpretation, but didn't say it. My bad.

Speaking of which...

Without intending to sound rude, I'm calling bullshit on this. If your only defence is that Islam is not a religion and therefore totally different (something that is provably false), than you need to step up your game.

Ok, you've called bullshit.

Now explain why I must be wrong aside just saying "well, it's clearly a religion".

[Time the Crestfallen]

Ok, you've called bullshit.

Now explain why I must be wrong aside just saying "well, it's clearly a religion".

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion

[eclipse]

This is an important point I feel is frequently overlooked. Yes, capitalism may 'fix' discrimination in instances such as a restaurant in Philadelphia where there are a ton of other restaurants available. If I live in rural Wyoming, there may be only one plumber within 50 miles of me. If that plumber refuses service to me and I have a plumbing issue, my quality of life is significantly decreased with few plausible alternatives.

I could perhaps support a religious freedom law with 'causes no undue hardship' caveats, though I'm not sure a blanket rule isn't more efficient at this point.

I think you already know the answer to this. I'm purposely not answering this until a certain something happens.

[tuvarkz]

do you think there could be a more moderate version? i think its possible, now will it happening soon? no not really at this rate.

maybe in like 100 more years if everyone is still around perhaps, i got a feeling it won't be in my life time.

Took christianity two major schisms plus a considerable amount of heresies/minor splits from catholicism, couple major councils plus likely many other discussions of theology, and many many battles fought over religion (eg Thirty years war) for the religion to reach its current day state.

And for these kind of things to happen, there needs to be widespread unrest from the population against the current state of the faith, which seems to not be there at all.

[blah the Prussian]

Forget Iran. Forget Syria. Let's take the most moderate Islamic country out there. UAE.

http://www.dailymail...eave-marks.html - Men are legallt allowed to beat their wives. It is referred to as "discipline". The only caveat is to not leave bruises which is where the burqa and niqab come into play (they hide said bruises).

If this is moderate, then something is wrong here.

Uh... what? The UAE isn't moderate. Better example: Jordan. They have legalized homosexual relationships (although marriage isn't recognized yet), women have the right to vote and indeed there are some women in parliament, the government is cracking down on honor killings, and women are not the property of their husbands. It's not perfect by any means, but the king is working on further liberalizing the country, and doing a pretty good job at it too despite all the other problems Jordan has to deal with. I assume that by most moderate Islamic country you mean countries with Sharia law, but Sharia law by definition is not moderate. Now, to be entirely fair a hugely disproportionate number of Islamic countries have Sharia, but Jordan shows that it is possible to be Muslim majority while having a relatively functioning democracy and rights for women and gays.

[Flee Fleet!]

- If a man is not pleased with his woman, he may have up to four legal wives [4:3]

- If a woman does not obey her man, he should "take it in satisfaction and ease" [4:4]

- A woman is literally worth half a man (check the math) [4:11 and 4:12]

as it states:

And if you fear that you will not deal justly with the orphan girls, then marry those that please you of [other] women, two or three or four. But if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry only] one or those your right hand possesses. That is more suitable that you may not incline [to injustice].

I may be seeing it wrong, but I think this verse is trying to tell us that if men fear they will not act justly towards their wives or treat them with equal fairness, then it's better to marry only one. And to point out, Islam considers monogamy(one wife) as the norm and polygamy(multiple wives) as the exception Also, Islam only allows polygamy if:

1: The wife is suffering from an incurable disease. Marrying a second wife in this case would be better so that the second wife can take care of the children(from first wife) and husband, as well as helping the sick first wife.

2: The first wife is barren and can not have children of her own. Now adoption of a child would be the better choice here, in my opinion, however, marryin a second wife is also an option for having children.

3: A war has happened, where many wives are left behind as widows due to their husbands being killed during the war. Polygamy can help in these situation, where one man can marry several widows, who in turn receive shelter, food, water and are also taken care of.

Also, polygamy was never started by Islam but in fact was done by Arabic men long before Islam came. And they used to marry more than just four wives (without any actual reason) and treated them all unjustly. Islam only made it so to marry up-to only four wives in certain situations.

As for your second point:

And give the women [upon marriage] their [bridal] gifts graciously. But if they give up willingly to you anything of it, then take it in satisfaction and ease.

By "take it in satisfaction and ease", it meant taking back the gift the man had given his wife during their wedding. This gift is also known as a dowry or 'Mahr', given by the husband to his wife, and can ONLY be taken back by the man if both man and wife agree to have a divorce due to any circumstances.

I hope that by 'take it in satisfaction and ease' you supposed it meant by taking back the gifts instead of thinking that this implies that the man could beat her wife(which is totally wrong and the verse does NOT imply this, at all)

As for the third point, dude, it's talking about estates and money(which I assume you're trying to say, and NOT trying to say that it means woman are worth less than a man) Honestly I need to understand this point a little more but I'm pretty sure it's talking about inheritance of money and estates. And it includes parents, children and husbands as well, not just women.

Concerning apostasy, I totally agree on that as well as considering the article truth, since that is punishable by death in Islam( and maybe Christianity,regarding it's teachings that is), even if some wouldn't want to consider such punishment(including me).

http://www.dailymail...eave-marks.html - Men are legallt allowed to beat their wives. It is referred to as "discipline". The only caveat is to not leave bruises which is where the burqa and niqab come into play (they hide said bruises).

Honestly, I really hate people who don't actually check up on the Quran or try to misinterpret it's teachings (talking about UAE and countries like that here) I really doubt that sharia law actually allows beating of wives(heck, I haven't been really sure if there is actual sharia law, that was present in the old times, present in this day and age, and not some messed up version created by ignorant radicalized people). That's why I rather stick to the book and Hadiths ,than considering any 'Islamic' law created by some country, as truth. Besides, if beating of wives was a part of sharia law, then it literally contradicts all other verses in the Quran which says that wives should be treated with respect,love and kindness.

Again, sorry if I sounded rude or offensive.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Flee Fleet!

[ErrantDShepherd]

Can I just say that your post was in no way offensive or rude but was informative and interesting? I feel like I learned a fair bit due to your contribution there.

Concerning apostasy, I totally agree on that as well as considering the article truth, since that is punishable by death in Islam( and maybe Christianity,regarding it's teachings that is), even if some wouldn't want to consider such punishment(including me).

From my interpretation, the typical reading of the New Testament is that nothing is punishable by death, unlike in the Old Testament. But that apostasy is a form of spiritual death, that is soul killing, as the further from God we are, the further away we are from a fulfilling and meaningful life. (Apologies if I misinterpreted the context of the quote) Edited August 28, 2016 by ErrantBlackSheep

[Phoenix Wright]

No, wasn't arguing that point. Just wanted to clarify that saying that the three religions worship the same god is an innaccurate statement. All religions are based on faith.

Also, @eggclipse, should I edit my reply to Res's post out of this thread and repost it in the White House thread, as it's relevant to that thread but not this one?

they do worship the same god though. they even have some of the same stories. one half of the bible is the book that jews read.

You also missed the part where the government cannot pass laws contrary to the religion's belief. Otherwise you don't have freedom of religion.

the bible says that if a man rapes a woman he pays 50 silver shekels and gets to marry her. that's not how marriage or rape laws work in this country.

the bible says shellfish are an abomination. shellfish are legal for consumption in this country.

That is like arguing that Canada or England has free speech. No, they don't. If you can be jailed for "hate speech" (a very loosely defined term that can essentially end up meaning a difference in opinions), you don't have free speech.

whilst i agree that being jailed for hate speech is silly, saying those nations don't have freedom of speech is equally silly.

I don't think you get the idea of freedom. But then again, you don't like the idea. Otherwise, you wouldn't say below that "some tyranny is good".

that is a very weird accusation to make lol.

I was going to conceed this point entirely but when I looked at the reference, I changed my mind.

i don't understand what you mean here.

It is a terrible hypothetic on reflection but it can be grounded in reality.

the one that you asked me? how?

Covered in the other topic. But not every law is a form of government tyranny because some are rooted in common sense and religious values (don't kill is an example).

also responded to in the other topic.

Jesus fucking Christ.

inshallah

I'm saying that a law shouldn't exist at all.

your personal philosophy on the law is irrelevant. the law exists and my point is valid.

You are actually saying "fuck you Christians, homosexuals need to be accepted by your religious beliefs as acceptable". How is that not discriminatory against Christians?

am i actually saying that?

how is outlawing discrimination discriminating the discriminators? what the actual fuck are you talking about?

it's like saying the civil rights act discriminated against racists. it is absolutely the opposite.

What about Islamic bakaries? They also won't sell to homosexuals. Do we do the same there or is that Islamophobic?

stop being dense, of course muslims too.

Why is the target always only Christians?

because i'm waging a war against them of course. the atheist in me just has to. but not islam though because they're minorities. but also a war against jews because everyone hates them.

you sound so goddamn ridiculous.

Edit: I want to point out one more thing of why Islam is a problem (and why there is no such thing as being a moderate).

Forget Iran. Forget Syria. Let's take the most moderate Islamic country out there. UAE.

https://www.deathpenaltyworldwide.org/country-search-post.cfm?country=United+Arab+Emirates - Adultery carries a death penalty.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1321504/UAEs-highest-court-rules-men-beat-wives-long-leave-marks.html - Men are legallt allowed to beat their wives. It is referred to as "discipline". The only caveat is to not leave bruises which is where the burqa and niqab come into play (they hide said bruises).

If this is moderate, then something is wrong here.

we get it, you hate arabs.

also, jordan is probably the most moderate.

Edited August 28, 2016 by Phoenix Wright

[tuvarkz]

they do worship the same god though. they even have some of the same stories. one half of the bible is the book that jews read.

the bible says that if a man rapes a woman he pays 50 silver shekels and gets to marry her. that's not how marriage or rape laws work in this country.

the bible says shellfish are an abomination. shellfish are legal for consumption in this country.

whilst i agree that being jailed for hate speech is silly, saying those nations don't have freedom of speech is equally silly.

Not exactly. Theologically, the concept of the Trinity is very darnedly important-this was what got Arianism declared as heresy. Jesus is the Son made flesh and is God as well, and neither created by the Father nor surbordinate to it. Muslims and Jews may worship the Father, but neither worships the God that is Trinity, which is what Christians worship.

Regarding rape and other crimes, Romans 13 says in no unclear terms that Christians must follow the law of where they live.

Also, Jesus directly made all foods clean, as per Mark 7, which explicitly says "(Thus he declared all foods clean.)"

EDIT: In addition, there is plenty of debate regarding whether old testament rules still apply to christians, and if so, which.

Edited August 28, 2016 by tuvarkz

[Flee Fleet!]

Can I just say that your post was in no way offensive or rude but was informative and interesting? I feel like I learned a fair bit due to your contribution there.

Thanks. The more we know the better, right?

Jesus is the Son made flesh and is God as well, and neither created by the Father nor surbordinate to it. Muslims and Jews may worship the Father, but neither worships the God that is Trinity, which is what Christians worship.

Just wanted to point out (no offence to Christians though), but according to Islam, Jesus, also know as Hazrat Isa, was the previous Prophet before Hazrat Muhammad who preached Christainity. So, technically, according to Islam, all three religions did worship the Father AKA God, and Christianity also did not allow worship of Prophets(HOWEVER I could be wrong here as I am taking information from another religion,that is, Islam, not from Christianity directly. Again, no offence to Christians).

[Rezzy]

Well, to add my two cents to the discussion. I'm a bisexual lapsed Catholic, if people care.

I believe in religion freedom as long as it does not involve physically harming another. If a private company doesn't want to make a gay wedding cake, that's up to them. However, beating your wife and honor killings cross the line. As a bisexual, I'm a bit ashamed of the way the LGBT community goes on witch hunts for people who don't agree with us. Like the Chik-fil-A controversy a few years ago. The private views of the owner are fine. They never even really discriminated against LGBT further than saying they didn't agree with it. And you know what? I ate Chik-fil-A with my girlfriend several times, and it was never a big deal. I believe that the free market will take care of people who are openly discriminatory, and if it's a privately held view, who cares?

Also, if you are acting in a government capacity, you are obligated to do as the institution says. The Kentucky clerk who refused to issue gay marriage licenses was out of line, because as a government employee, she's obligated to issue the marriage licenses. If it was a private company, she could act as she wished.

For my personal discrimination, I've been unable to get my son baptized in the Catholic Church due to my past sinful lifestyle. But I don't want to force the Church to cater to me, since I value religious freedom over my own personal wishes, and would rather see them come around to my way of thinking than forcing them to.

For the rules about rape and female person value, that's a relic of the ancient world. In the world, a woman's value was primarily her ability to bear and raise children. I'm not saying it's right. It's just the way it was. If an unmarried girl was raped, she was "damaged goods", so to speak, and it would be difficult for her family to find her a husband, so having the rapist marry her and pay restitution was a way to punish the rapist and make him take responsibility for her. Again, I'm not saying it's right, it's just the way they thought back then. And a woman being x% of a man's worth is not unique to religious texts. In the ancient and classical world, up through the middle ages, there was the concept of wergeld, assigning a value to each human life. An able bodied man was worth the most, but women of child bearing age were also very valuable, if somewhat less. Old people were worth the least. So it's not a natively sexist view, just one that values one's contribution to the community, rather than people as individuals.

For polygamy, that's also a relic, since women back then had a hard time if not married, and you could have towns where half the town's male population was wiped out from war. Even today, I don't find polygamy inherently bad. I wouldn't want to do it myself, but if consenting adults want to have multiple spouses and aren't hurting anybody, who am I to judge?

[Life]

Well, to add my two cents to the discussion. I'm a bisexual lapsed Catholic, if people care.

I believe in religion freedom as long as it does not involve physically harming another. If a private company doesn't want to make a gay wedding cake, that's up to them. However, beating your wife and honor killings cross the line. As a bisexual, I'm a bit ashamed of the way the LGBT community goes on witch hunts for people who don't agree with us. Like the Chik-fil-A controversy a few years ago. The private views of the owner are fine. They never even really discriminated against LGBT further than saying they didn't agree with it. And you know what? I ate Chik-fil-A with my girlfriend several times, and it was never a big deal. I believe that the free market will take care of people who are openly discriminatory, and if it's a privately held view, who cares?

Also, if you are acting in a government capacity, you are obligated to do as the institution says. The Kentucky clerk who refused to issue gay marriage licenses was out of line, because as a government employee, she's obligated to issue the marriage licenses. If it was a private company, she could act as she wished.

For my personal discrimination, I've been unable to get my son baptized in the Catholic Church due to my past sinful lifestyle. But I don't want to force the Church to cater to me, since I value religious freedom over my own personal wishes, and would rather see them come around to my way of thinking than forcing them to.

For the rules about rape and female person value, that's a relic of the ancient world. In the world, a woman's value was primarily her ability to bear and raise children. I'm not saying it's right. It's just the way it was. If an unmarried girl was raped, she was "damaged goods", so to speak, and it would be difficult for her family to find her a husband, so having the rapist marry her and pay restitution was a way to punish the rapist and make him take responsibility for her. Again, I'm not saying it's right, it's just the way they thought back then. And a woman being x% of a man's worth is not unique to religious texts. In the ancient and classical world, up through the middle ages, there was the concept of wergeld, assigning a value to each human life. An able bodied man was worth the most, but women of child bearing age were also very valuable, if somewhat less. Old people were worth the least. So it's not a natively sexist view, just one that values one's contribution to the community, rather than people as individuals.

For polygamy, that's also a relic, since women back then had a hard time if not married, and you could have towns where half the town's male population was wiped out from war. Even today, I don't find polygamy inherently bad. I wouldn't want to do it myself, but if consenting adults want to have multiple spouses and aren't hurting anybody, who am I to judge?

I can't agree with this post enough.

Thank you for articulating my views on a way I couldn't.

[Phoenix Wright]

Not exactly. Theologically, the concept of the Trinity is very darnedly important-this was what got Arianism declared as heresy. Jesus is the Son made flesh and is God as well, and neither created by the Father nor surbordinate to it. Muslims and Jews may worship the Father, but neither worships the God that is Trinity, which is what Christians worship.

Regarding rape and other crimes, Romans 13 says in no unclear terms that Christians must follow the law of where they live.

Also, Jesus directly made all foods clean, as per Mark 7, which explicitly says "(Thus he declared all foods clean.)"

EDIT: In addition, there is plenty of debate regarding whether old testament rules still apply to christians, and if so, which.

the father and god are the same thing.

ah, so say there was a law such that you had to sell to people regardless of race, orientation. etc. etc., what then perhaps?

then why ever make shellfish an abomination. oh, because the holy books are riddled with contradiction lol.

that's only because the old testament is archaic and cruel. christians like the nice god of the new testament.