My Fear With Houston

[JohnnyP]

A business owner should be allowed to run their business without having to contradict their own religious position, just like a Muslim or Jewish deli should not be forced to serve pig. Do you think they should?

That's not really the problem, it would be more like, they should not be forced to serve any food to Christians. Would you support their right to deny you and your family food just because you were Christian?

But let's suppose you did. If they want to do that, then they should register as a religious business. And as a religious business, they rightly can't turn you away, but then allow hot Christian chicks to come on in and chow. Same thing: a religious business can't rightly pick and choose from secular products and services to offer. Like a wedding chapel claiming to be a religious business so they can turn away gays, but then offering secular weddings to atheists if requested.

You keep switching that topical point back to forcing businesses to do something, when that wasn't even the point I was making there.

Yes, as is every non-Christian.

But some forms of damnation are more acceptable than others?

Oh I do, but that does not mean condoning a behavior that ipso facto is immoral. Enabling someone in wrong living is not loving them. You don't love an alcoholic by taking them to the bar and buying them all the drinks they want.

Enabling someone to join a religion that rejects Jesus is doing the same thing.

There is nothing inherently in Judaism that requires rejection of Jesus.

In what universe? Go try to get an Orthodox/Reform/Conservative rabbi in mainstream Judaism to convert you while professing that Jesus is God and Messiah and see if you get to be a Jew, I really doubt it. Maimonides' Mishneh Torah is one of the most authoritative texts on what is acceptable in Judaism, specifically about the Messiah:

If he did not succeed to this degree or was killed, he surely is not the redeemer promised by the Torah. Rather, he should be considered as all the other proper and complete kings of the Davidic dynasty who died. God caused him to arise only to test the many, as Daniel 11:35 states: 'And some of the wise men will stumble, to try them, to refine, and to clarify until the appointed time, because the set time is in the future.'

Jesus of Nazareth who aspired to be the Mashiach and was executed by the court was also alluded to in Daniel's prophecies, as ibid. 11:14 states: 'The vulgar among your people shall exalt themselves in an attempt to fulfill the vision, but they shall stumble.'

Can there be a greater stumbling block than Christianity? All the prophets spoke of Mashiach as the redeemer of Israel and their savior who would gather their dispersed and strengthen their observance of the mitzvot. In contrast, Christianity caused the Jews to be slain by the sword, their remnants to be scattered and humbled, the Torah to be altered, and the majority of the world to err and serve a god other than the Lord. -Melachim uMilchamot - Chapter 11

To sum it up:

Of course a Jew can believe in Jesus. Just like a vegetarian can enjoy a rump steak, a peace activist can join a violent demonstration, and a dictator who preaches martyrdom can surrender himself to his enemies. As long as logic and clear thinking are suspended, anything makes sense! -Chabad

Mainstream Jewish groups generally have rejected Messianic Jews, seeing them as luring Jews into Christianity under the pretense that they can maintain their Judaism even while accepting belief in Jesus. -Times of Israel

If I can get a Christian voice there, I will.

If you wanted to provide services for a typical Bar Mitzvah, you'd likely just piss them off talking about Jesus and wouldn't get the job anyway.

No. It's not about yuck factor, but I see my own words and reason won't convince you otherwise. You see what you want to see.

It looks like you think you'd get to preach at a Bar Mitzvah and turn Jews to Jesus, but I don't see that as much of argument as to why servicing one entrance into a state of damnation would be better than servicing another. You could try preaching to gays too just as easily, though I suspect either example might not go very well.

No it doesn't. If the Supreme Court said tomorrow that all triangles have four sides, they would not change what a triangle is by declaring such. Marriage is a metaphysical reality. It is the union of one man and one woman together. The sex of the persons is essential to the union. Government cannot create new metaphysics and to attempt to do so will only be to go against reality and that can only end in pain.

No, really from your view it would be more like what's holy and unholy matrimony, same as, what is holy/unholy sex. Unholy matrimony/sex would still be real in either case.

For example, if one man and one woman got married, would it still be real and holy and God ordained to you if they were Jews who rejected Jesus, since Jesus is God? Or would they be rejecting the God who ordains it as being real and holy? And would you still provide services for that kind of wedding?

[HeteroDoxic]

[A business owner should be allowed to run their business without having to contradict their own religious position, just like a Muslim or Jewish deli should not be forced to serve pig. Do you think they should?
[/B]

Likewise, the muslim should be able to decapitate their daughter if she kisses her boyfriend at highschool. Shames the family and her future arranged husband and all.

Turning away gays, for the record, according to His own words, is ANti Christ. So, I find it an odd and pretentious claim that it's somethign that should be allowed.

[JohnnyP]

Likewise, the muslim should be able to decapitate their daughter if she kisses her boyfriend at highschool. Shames the family and her future arranged husband and all.

Turning away gays, for the record, according to His own words, is ANti Christ. So, I find it an odd and pretentious claim that it's somethign that should be allowed.

No you are getting carried away and muddling the problem worse than Nick has by his lack of understanding the points I've raised.

Which are again: The Hitching Post precedent for registering a business as religious so that you may refuse to provide services that go against your religious values. But obviously you have to be very clear about what your religious values are and then abide by that.

Once you have done so, you can't refuse to provide services to gays or Muslims because you are a Christian, and then turn around to serve Jews and atheists who reject Christ. You either have to reject them all and lose Jewish and atheist business, or accept them all and sacrifice your values to make those extra bucks.

What I'm saying is, that's a fair compromise: once again, you can't have your cake and eat it too by declaring yourself a religious business, and then turn around to cherrypick among non-religious customers that you are going to serve.

[Tassman]

No it doesn't. If the Supreme Court said tomorrow that all triangles have four sides, they would not change what a triangle is by declaring such.

your

Marriage is a metaphysical reality. It is the union of one man and one woman together.

So you believe. Many Christians and non Christians disagree.

The sex of the persons is essential to the union. Government cannot create new metaphysics and to attempt to do so will only be to go against reality

and that can only end in pain.

Not so. Several countries, e.g. Canada, have had gay marriage for many years and civilization as we know it has not come grinding to a halt - any more than it did following other major social reforms such as allowing miscegenation or granting full and equal civil rights to blacks and women.

[Apologiaphoenix]

That's not really the problem, it would be more like, they should not be forced to serve any food to Christians. Would you support their right to deny you and your family food just because you were Christian?

Do you know why it is that a Jewish or Muslim deli would not carry pork? Do you really know?

But let's suppose you did. If they want to do that, then they should register as a religious business. And as a religious business, they rightly can't turn you away, but then allow hot Christian chicks to come on in and chow. Same thing: a religious business can't rightly pick and choose from secular products and services to offer. Like a wedding chapel claiming to be a religious business so they can turn away gays, but then offering secular weddings to atheists if requested.

Yeah they can actually. A business can choose what services it wants to offer and what it doesn't and if a business owner identifies as a Christian, he should not be forced to do anything that he thinks is a violation of his religious freedom.

You keep switching that topical point back to forcing businesses to do something, when that wasn't even the point I was making there.

But it is what you are making now.

But some forms of damnation are more acceptable than others?

What are you even talking about? Who's making a claim like that?

Enabling someone to join a religion that rejects Jesus is doing the same thing.

Again, as I'm going to show further, nothing in Judaism inherently means rejecting Jesus.

In what universe? Go try to get an Orthodox/Reform/Conservative rabbi in mainstream Judaism to convert you while professing that Jesus is God and Messiah and see if you get to be a Jew, I really doubt it. Maimonides' Mishneh Torah is one of the most authoritative texts on what is acceptable in Judaism, specifically about the Messiah:

This must be news to Paul and other writers in the NT who identified themselves as Jews and still saw themselves as full believers in Jesus. This must also be news to all the Messianic Jews who are believers in Jesus and still identify themselves as Jews. Paul never told Jews to stop being Jews. In fact, it could be at one point in 1 Cor. he refers to his audience as consisting of former Gentiles. Romans has Gentiles grafted into the tree that is Israel.

Do modern Jews see a contradiction? Yep. Does that contradiction exist in Scripture? Nope.

If you wanted to provide services for a typical Bar Mitzvah, you'd likely just piss them off talking about Jesus and wouldn't get the job anyway.

Or I could come and not even say anything and those who know there is a Christian in their midst could be won over by my actions, as Peter says wives can win over their husbands.

It looks like you think you'd get to preach at a Bar Mitzvah and turn Jews to Jesus, but I don't see that as much of argument as to why servicing one entrance into a state of damnation would be better than servicing another. You could try preaching to gays too just as easily, though I suspect either example might not go very well.

The difference is I don't see anything inherently immoral in a Bar Mitzvah. I do see it in a homosexual service.

No, really from your view it would be more like what's holy and unholy matrimony, same as, what is holy/unholy sex. Unholy matrimony/sex would still be real in either case.

For example, if one man and one woman got married, would it still be real and holy and God ordained to you if they were Jews who rejected Jesus, since Jesus is God? Or would they be rejecting the God who ordains it as being real and holy? And would you still provide services for that kind of wedding?

It would still be a real wedding and a real covenant lived out before God and one that God will recognize. You don't have to be a Christian to be married in the eyes of God. It has all the requirements. It is a man and woman fully mature and ready to share life together including with a sexual union that all things being equal would be capable of producing children.

That doesn't exist in homosexuality.

The question was once asked how many legs does a dog have if you count the tail as a leg. Answer? Four. Counting the tail as a leg does not make it a leg. The state can declare X is a marriage all it wants to, but the state has no power to change metaphysics.

[JohnnyP]

Do you know why it is that a Jewish or Muslim deli would not carry pork? Do you really know?

Because pigs are filthy animals. Of course I know, kosher/halal laws, that's fine. Nobody's demanding that a Christian bookstore carry gay magazines either.

Yeah they can actually. A business can choose what services it wants to offer and what it doesn't and if a business owner identifies as a Christian, he should not be forced to do anything that he thinks is a violation of his religious freedom.

The point you consistently missed is that if you do register as a religious business, your religious freedoms should only be protected by the fact that you offer religious services. Once you start selling beyond that scope, you give up the right to operate as a religious business and are regarded the same as any other secular business.

the exemption makes sense as long as the Hitching Post primarily performs religious ceremoniesHowever, if they do non-religious ceremonies as well, they would be violating the anti-discrimination ordinanceIt's the religious activity that's being protected." -Boise State Public Radio

What are you even talking about? Who's making a claim like that?

Then you don't think denying Jesus or living in a gay marriage are states of sin and damnation if never repented of?

Again, as I'm going to show further, nothing in Judaism inherently means rejecting Jesus.

This must be news to Paul and other writers in the NT who identified themselves as Jews and still saw themselves as full believers in Jesus. This must also be news to all the Messianic Jews who are believers in Jesus and still identify themselves as Jews. Paul never told Jews to stop being Jews. In fact, it could be at one point in 1 Cor. he refers to his audience as consisting of former Gentiles. Romans has Gentiles grafted into the tree that is Israel.

Do modern Jews see a contradiction? Yep. Does that contradiction exist in Scripture? Nope.

As stated, modern mainstream Judaism: Orthodox/Reform/Conservative. When Judaism is discussed in general terms, it's usually understood that we're not referring to Christian/Messianic Jews. Just as when we discuss Christianity, it's usually understood that we're not referring to a minority phenomena of Christian Atheism. Etc.

So to say that there's nothing in Judaism that inherently means rejecting Jesus is about the same as arguing that there's nothing in Christianity that inherently means accepting a God, if you really want to go that route. I wouldn't.

Or I could come and not even say anything and those who know there is a Christian in their midst could be won over by my actions, as Peter says wives can win over their husbands.

You could do the same at a gay wedding.

The difference is I don't see anything inherently immoral in a Bar Mitzvah. I do see it in a homosexual service.

Is that based on your argument that Judaism inherently includes Messianic Judaism? Maybe now you see the problem with that, and it still avoids the issue since a mainstream Jewish Bar Mitzvah is celebrating a boy's obligation to observe mitzvot, where in mainstream Judaism it's a mitzvah not to worship other gods including those in the Christian Trinity.

Or are you saying that an obligation to reject Jesus isn't necessarily immoral?

It would still be a real wedding and a real covenant lived out before God and one that God will recognize. You don't have to be a Christian to be married in the eyes of God. It has all the requirements. It is a man and woman fully mature and ready to share life together including with a sexual union that all things being equal would be capable of producing children.

That doesn't exist in homosexuality.

The question was once asked how many legs does a dog have if you count the tail as a leg. Answer? Four. Counting the tail as a leg does not make it a leg. The state can declare X is a marriage all it wants to, but the state has no power to change metaphysics.

That doesn't exist in homosexuality.

So God will even recognize a Satanic wedding performed by a priest of the Church of Satan, as long as it's between a man and woman? Interesting...

Satanic Weddings by our Priesthood are only available to members of the Church of Satan, and only if there is a member of the Priesthood interested in doing it for the couple within traveling distance (being Satanists, our Priesthood is under no obligation to other members). -CoS

The question was once asked how many legs does a dog have if you count the tail as a leg. Answer? Four. Counting the tail as a leg does not make it a leg. The state can declare X is a marriage all it wants to, but the state has no power to change metaphysics.

It seems you're attempting to do the same thing by claiming that you don't have to be a Christian to be married in the eyes of God, since as we see, this opens the door to all kinds of absurdities.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Because pigs are filthy animals. Of course I know, kosher/halal laws, that's fine. Nobody's demanding that a Christian bookstore carry gay magazines either.

But it is being demanded that a Christian run a business in a way that violates their moral standards. Do you think the government has a right to tell someone to do something they deem to be immoral?

The point you consistently missed is that if you do register as a religious business, your religious freedoms should only be protected by the fact that you offer religious services. Once you start selling beyond that scope, you give up the right to operate as a religious business and are regarded the same as any other secular business.

Doesn't matter a bit to me really. Whatever kind of business you have, government should not be able to force you to do something you deem a violation of your religion or your moral conscience.

Then you don't think denying Jesus or living in a gay marriage are states of sin and damnation if never repented of?

I have no idea how you reach these kinds of conclusions. I suspect you just see what you want to see and ignore the rest.

As stated, modern mainstream Judaism: Orthodox/Reform/Conservative. When Judaism is discussed in general terms, it's usually understood that we're not referring to Christian/Messianic Jews. Just as when we discuss Christianity, it's usually understood that we're not referring to a minority phenomena of Christian Atheism. Etc.

Perhaps in mainstream Judaism, but belief in Jesus does not violate the Torah in any way so in which universe is this the case? This one.

So to say that there's nothing in Judaism that inherently means rejecting Jesus is about the same as arguing that there's nothing in Christianity that inherently means accepting a God, if you really want to go that route. I wouldn't.

You could do the same at a gay wedding.

The difference is if I'm officiating at a homosexual wedding, I am in fact endorsing the activity and promoting and encouraging it. And of course, I don't think those things exist anyway.

Is that based on your argument that Judaism inherently includes Messianic Judaism? Maybe now you see the problem with that, and it still avoids the issue since a mainstream Jewish Bar Mitzvah is celebrating a boy's obligation to observe mitzvot, where in mainstream Judaism it's a mitzvah not to worship other gods including those in the Christian Trinity.

Or are you saying that an obligation to reject Jesus isn't necessarily immoral?

I'm not saying it is one because I don't see Judaism as necessarily contradicting Christianity. After all, I don't see the Trinity as other gods.

So God will even recognize a Satanic wedding performed by a priest of the Church of Satan, as long as it's between a man and woman? Interesting...

If a marriage is between a man and a woman, yes. It meets the metaphysical requirements of marriage. The husband and wife still have moral obligations. Nothing changed metaphysically about marriage after Jesus.

It seems you're attempting to do the same thing by claiming that you don't have to be a Christian to be married in the eyes of God, since as we see, this opens the door to all kinds of absurdities.

No. It doesn't. Just asserting it does not demonstrate it. Marriage is a metaphysical reality and it was not created by Christianity.

[JohnnyP]

But it is being demanded that a Christian run a business in a way that violates their moral standards. Do you think the government has a right to tell someone to do something they deem to be immoral?

Doesn't matter a bit to me really. Whatever kind of business you have, government should not be able to force you to do something you deem a violation of your religion or your moral conscience.

Per The Hitching Post case, you should be able to register as a religious business specifying what you allow and don't allow, and stick to that. If you stick to it, the government should respect your religious values. If you don't stick to it and start offering non-religious services outside of the scope of what you've registered, then the government has no obligation to exempt you, you've broken your end of the deal.

I have no idea how you reach these kinds of conclusions. I suspect you just see what you want to see and ignore the rest.

This is what I see:

But for us, we see Judaism as wrong, but not immoral as if you are living a sinful life by observing the Jewish law.

Still living in a state of damnation by rejecting Jesus as you said yourself, though.

Yes, as is every non-Christian.

I'm not saying it is one because I don't see Judaism as necessarily contradicting Christianity.

---

So God will even recognize a Satanic wedding performed by a priest of the Church of Satan, as long as it's between a man and woman? Interesting...

If a marriage is between a man and a woman, yes. It meets the metaphysical requirements of marriage. The husband and wife still have moral obligations. Nothing changed metaphysically about marriage after Jesus.

Amazing.

---

I had to revisit this exchange with the latest news, wondering if you'd marry them if asked.

manson.jpg

Charles Manson gets marriage license

[Tassman]

But it is being demanded that a Christian run a business in a way that violates their moral standards. Do you think the government has a right to tell someone to do something they deem to be immoral?

You are demanding special treatment.

What the law is demanding is that the service sectors run their businesses in a way that doesn't discriminate against any citizen regardless of their own personal morality or prejudices. If service providers cannot do this then the service industry is not for them.

In the US, while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, such professed doctrines and beliefs are NOT superior to the law of the land. To argue that they are would, in effect, enable every citizen to become a law unto himself on the basis of his or her personal beliefs. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances.

[JohnnyP]

You are demanding special treatment.

What the law is demanding is that the service sectors run their businesses in a way that doesn't discriminate against any citizen regardless of their own personal morality or prejudices. If service providers cannot do this then the service industry is not for them.

In the US, while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, such professed doctrines and beliefs are NOT superior to the law of the land. To argue that they are would, in effect, enable every citizen to become a law unto himself on the basis of his or her personal beliefs. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances.

Yep, we have to obtain a business/health/etc. license from the government anyway, and abide by all kinds of codes and rules the government sets to run a business: if we want to run a business. It's not the same as the government going into our prayer closets and bedrooms to dictate what we do.

Matthew 22:20-21 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

Romans 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Per The Hitching Post case, you should be able to register as a religious business specifying what you allow and don't allow, and stick to that. If you stick to it, the government should respect your religious values. If you don't stick to it and start offering non-religious services outside of the scope of what you've registered, then the government has no obligation to exempt you, you've broken your end of the deal.

Which is pretty much repeating what you've said and ignoring what's been said against you.

Do you think this line will become more convincing if you just repeat it over and over?

This is what I see:

---

Amazing.

Followed by an argument from incredulity.

Nothing more to see here folks. Move on.

[JohnnyP]

Which is pretty much repeating what you've said and ignoring what's been said against you.

Do you think this line will become more convincing if you just repeat it over and over?

Followed by an argument from incredulity.

Nothing more to see here folks. Move on.

I'm amazed how you went from saying being in Judaism is wrong and living in a state of damnation as is every non-Christian, to Judaism not necessarily contradicting Christianity. And amazed you think God would recognize a Satanic wedding. Next you'll be saying that Satanism doesn't necessarily contradict Christianity.

---

Edit/add: I might be too rough on you, apologies about that. It's just that I started posting in here with, "Even Nick's article kind of does it to Christians: stand up and fight you cowards! Well how, unless you go out and beat up gays? What persuasive arguments can the Right use..."

And I kind of expected to see more than: Satanist straight weddings are acknowledged by God, but not Christian gay weddings.

If you can't see anything wrong there and think those arguments work for you, I'll leave it at that.

[Apologiaphoenix]

I'm amazed how you went from saying being in Judaism is wrong and living in a state of damnation as is every non-Christian, to Judaism not necessarily contradicting Christianity. And amazed you think God would recognize a Satanic wedding. Next you'll be saying that Satanism doesn't necessarily contradict Christianity.

Because Judaism doesn't. I am convinced Paul to his dying day would have seen himself as a faithful Jew. Also, yes to the satanist thing. You see, here's the requirement for marriage. One man and one woman who are not close relatives coming together in a union that all things being equal could produce children. That's it.

Edit/add: I might be too rough on you, apologies about that. It's just that I started posting in here with, "Even Nick's article kind of does it to Christians: stand up and fight you cowards! Well how, unless you go out and beat up gays? What persuasive arguments can the Right use..."

I have no desire to see us beat up homosexuals. We're to demolish arguments however.

And I kind of expected to see more than: Satanist straight weddings are acknowledged by God, but not Christian gay weddings.

If you can't see anything wrong there and think those arguments work for you, I'll leave it at that.

No. My definition of marriage is the same. No need to redefine it. I don't believe we can create metaphysical realities.

[JohnnyP]

Because Judaism doesn't. I am convinced Paul to his dying day would have seen himself as a faithful Jew.

Initially you understood I was referring to mainstream Judaism not a minority of Christian Jews when you stated "we see Judaism as wrong," then backpedaled to say that Judaism doesn't contradict Christianity by your inclusion of Christian Jews, which was never my argument anyway. But whatever, we can leave one at that.

Also, yes to the satanist thing. You see, here's the requirement for marriage. One man and one woman who are not close relatives coming together in a union that all things being equal could produce children. That's it.

There are others but we've probably exhausted the topic for now.

Source: KJV

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

Ezekiel 44:22 Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away: but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a priest before.

© Copyright Original Source

[Apologiaphoenix]

Initially you understood I was referring to mainstream Judaism not a minority of Christian Jews when you stated "we see Judaism as wrong," then backpedaled to say that Judaism doesn't contradict Christianity by your inclusion of Christian Jews, which was never my argument anyway. But whatever, we can leave one at that.

No I didn't. When I hear Judaism, I think Judaism. I know about modern forms of it, but I don't see them as being true to Judaism if they say one cannot believe in Jesus.

There are others but we've probably exhausted the topic for now.

Source: KJV

2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

© Copyright Original Source

This was written in a culture of arranged marriages. It's not about marriage. It's about doing ministry work together. Paul spoke of believers being married to unbelievers already in 1 Cor.7 and encouraged them to stay in the relationship. Naturally, I encourage Christians to marry Christians, but it is not the case that only Christians have real marriages.

[CITE] Ezekiel 44:22 Neither shall they take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away: but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that had a priest before.[/CITE]

This was talking about priests and Levites in a temple system. (One I don't think was meant to be a real temple anyway) You might as well take the passage in Judges about catching girls that are dancing and saying this is the Biblical way to get a wife.