Minister Bill

Signs, signs, signs, every where a sign? Yep, Looked into an airport lobby lately? I haven't. The idea frightens me. We (that critter called human) have had choices forever! There have been outcasts, bullies, wise-men, herbalists, spiritual leaders, chaff (common folk that keep everything else moving) I think all that has changed is the immediacy of the issues and communication. I don't like these thoughts. At what point civilization at what point George Orwell?

Rev paul

With our government being anti lgbtq thease people do not have a chance gay is making a choice a choice i respect

Sharmagne Leland-St.John-Sylbert

Gay men and gay women have been known to "breed" with heterosexual men and women .So John Owens, think before you post .

Karen Giovetti

Contrary to your comment regarding gay men protesting less than straight men, the stats don't agree with you. The majority of gay men from my generation back usually tried a straight marriage & had just as many kids as their straight counterparts. Have you ever watched the movie "Brokeback Mountain"? Both men had kids. That's just the way it was. From my kid's generation where most closets are now out in the front yard, these men are STILL having kid with female friends or sometimes surrogate mothers. Look at Elton John & his husband. They have 2 or 3 kids now. And I know for a fact that many of the children with gay fathers are coming out as gay, even those raised away with no contact with their fathers.

John Owens

Protesting? Do you mean procreating? Just for fun, I'll indulge your grasping at straws-- how can men who breed for twenty-five or thirty years, and then decide they prefer little boys or whatever, on average, outbreed men who breed for 45-50 years or more? Over millennia, they would still be bred completely out of existence.

And no, I did NOT watch Broke-Back Mountain, and never will, nor the Bird Cage, or Three Men and a Baby, or Junior, or Will and Grace, and I stopped watching 2 and 1/2 men after Ashton Crutcher took Charlie Sheen's place and he and Alan "pretended" to be gay so they could adopt. Every one of those shows is just mind-control, like Bosom Buddies was mind control to PREPARE you for more mind control.

Nix

OMG John, I pray for you brother. That is riddled with paranoia. "Free your mind and the rest will follow!"

John Owens

It may be paranoia, but it is also correct, Caleb. I saw it happening thirty years ago, before anyone else I knew, and now my grown children and nieces and brothers in law see that I was correct. "Just because I am paranoid does not mean they aren't trying to kill me" Somebody said that. And, I tell you this, " Just because I am dogmatic, does not mean I am wrong. If you were smart enough to argue with me, you would already agree with me."

John Owens

Butterfly, they "breed" LESS frequently or for fewer years than heterosexuals, because they DO NOT DESIRE THE OPPOSITE SEX.

John Maher

JOHN OWINS SPEAKS as if HE has A POST up HIS ARSE and this effects HIS VILLAGE IDIOCY BUTT BOOGER OWINS BELIEVES in HIS MIND HE is HUMAN as DOES HIS UNCA DONALD Jackass tRUMP,they BELIEVE that SPREADING FAKE NEWS or ANTIQUATED WRITINGS are to BE BELIEVED and FOLLOWED EVEN itfBEING DETRIMENTAL to EVERYONE and ANYONE, GO WEST OLD MEN, GO WEST,DUMP the IGNORAMUS COWARDLY TRAITOR tRUMP, GOD is GREAT so is the US of A.,... if you LOOK THRU the BLOG POSTS JOHN OWINS VILLAGE IDIOT has a NEGATIVE RESPONSE to EVERYTHING like an IGNORANT OLD BRAINFART

Nix

Not the same. The KKK and Nazi scenarios you have pointed out opens up the issue of hate speech. That's a whole other conversation.

John Owens

IF they are not using hate-speech (which is a nebulous concept, and only applicable when the left claims it, like now), then the hate-speech doesn't apply at ALL, in the hypothetical cases I mentioned. You are only saying that because when a leftist discriminates, it is perfectly justifiable, but if the right does, it is not. THAT is what you are saying.

John Owens

You don't think gay people have used hate speech against Christians? Again, on which planet do you live?

caz

I find it difficult to believe that people seem to think that the baker has no right to refuse a job. His decision is not illegal, so how can he be forced to do something he doesn't want to do. So much for the land of the free

John Owens

...and the cake is basically a work of art. An artist has to feel inspired. If he wasn't, he wasn't. You cannot legislate the muse.

Nix

I believe the whole reason for the lawsuit is discrimination based on sexual orientation is the basis of the lawsuit. If the court finds that to be the case then the bakers broke the law. If it's an expression of art and it's protected by the first amendment than it's not against the law. Using hate speech analogies and crying about what the left does and doesn't do has no relevance here. Hate speech against Christians? Where did that come from?

Karen Giovetti

Your analogy is flawed because these men did not ask for ANY symbolism on their cake. Thus just wanted a plain old generic 3-tiered wedding cake with nothing more symbolic than flowers & leaves, noty even their names or figurines on top. But this was refused because it was to be used in a gay ceremony. That is patently discriminatory. End of story.

John Owens

Caleb, if you read the OTHER PEOPLE's posts you can see hate against Christians. I have to go to my cave now, and paint stick figures on the wall. I'll be back tomorrow.

John Maher

JOHN F. OWINS why NOT take YOUR HATE and EAT it ALONE or BETTER with the tRUMP UR both IGNORANT A Hs, even BETTER ask HIM for a JOB so U can STOP PANHANDLING and LIVING OFF the WORKING PEOPLE, MAYBE HE will get U work in RUSSIA, the BENEFITS there are SUPERB and U will have the DISGUST of MEETING with Vladimir Puto, DUMP the IGNORAMUS COWARDLY TRAITOR tRUMP,GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

John Owens

SCOTUS decided for the baker. Now, let the baker countersue the pants (or petticoats) off everyone involved in ruining the business.

Nix

But if the car dealer said I won't sell you a muscle car because you're going to drive it to your same sex wedding. I will sell you a sedan because it's not flashy and you won't drive it to your wedding. No one asked him to be in the wedding, to go to the wedding, or even that he has to change his mind about his beliefs about same sex weddings. He owns a business in the public sector. Using religion as a basis to deny goods and services, really? What is his religion anyway?

John Owens

The fact remains-- a cake is a luxury, not a basic need or right. YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO LUXURY if it means making someone else provide it. Why is that difficult to grasp? Besides, certain groups are difficult to please, when it comes to business. You know, the CEO of STARBUCKS said publicly that if you support traditional marriage, STARBUCKS doesn't need or want your business. I don't hear any of the left complaining about THAT. Joseph here on ULC MONASTERY BLOG hasn't found THAT suitable for blog discussion. That puts US at risk if we shop there, which we don't, because it is way overpriced, plus there has been fecal matter found in their iced coffee drinks recently, but we are afraid they will intentionally contaminate the drinks if we shop there and they know we AREN'T GAY.

It still isn't discrimination. There is no RIGHT TO BUY OVER-PRICED COFFEE WITH FECAL MATTER IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

I make my own, use turbinado or other natural sugar, and half-and-half. Costs me maybe 30 cents for a huge cup that lasts all day. No lawsuits. No crying. No hurt feelings. No fecal matter, and the STARBUCKS down the road still has enough idiots buying their contaminated overpriced stuff to do a thriving business so it's a win/win for everyone.

Nix

So water is a need. If someone wants to buy Aquafina instead of a cup of tap, it's okay to say we don't sell premium water to your kind? Because that's what you're saying. What's this garbage you keep saying about the left? You bringing insignificant factors into the conversation. And the Starbucks CEO can believe whatever he wants, but the difference is he still maintains his beliefs while not turning away any customer based on who they are, who they love, or what they do. You seem to have some internal demons you are fighting with. I think you made need a Xanax and a hug!

John Owens

Never had a Xanax. Haven't done any drugs since late seventies. Get hugs from family and biker buddies all the time. Demons cannot remain in my vicinity. You are a little one-sided here, but aren't we all?

Nix

"Flaming gay men" Definition please

John Owens

Someone usually unmistakably gay, due to their behavior, speech patterns, prissy walk, etc. I always think these men are really trying to hard to ACT gay, but who am I to judge? Not being unnaturally attracted to other men, I couldn't possibly have any understanding of such things.

Joseph E Knopick

It is always a choice. I'd know.

John Owens

We may not be able to choose what we think is pretty, or smells good, or is sexy, but we can always choose what we do, unless we are forced by others to do something. That means we can choose what we daydream about, and with whom we flirt, and with whom we do business.

Minister Bill

IE: Joseph E Knopick. "It is always a choice. I'd know"? Huh? You are then a god like being that determines sexuality? Wow. Or did you intend some other meaning and I owe you an apology?

Nix

So a man who acts effeminate, is doing it purposefully? He's choosing to do it? So a good deal, possibly the majority of gay men that possess small to many effeminate traits all just so happen to choose to act that way and coincidentally choose to be gay? Kind of sounds like John, you are giving support to science rather than blind choice. Furthermore unless a man is acting for some theatrical production, what benefits would choosing to be effeminate and gay would he gain?

John Owens

Well, Caleb, since I choose NOT to act that way and NOT to fantasize about another man, I cannot answer for those who do, as to why they do, but I can promise you there is nothing genetic to make them talk or walk differently in such a way as to IDENTIFY them. They may do it as a form of conformity to a group, like other groups may speak a certain way to more readily identify with one another. Everyone knows the accent and jargon help members of the same sub-cultures identify with one another, whether it is drug users, bikers, a church group, a political movement. It is entirely possible they do it as an advertisement, or to reinforce their own image of themselves. I would imagine that each person has slightly different psychological reasons for everything they do, with a few common underlying motivations. Are you actually going somewhere with your questions, or just grazing?

Nix

"accent and jargon help members of the same sub-cultures identify with one another" That is the weakest argument I have heard yet. But I'm calling you on your promise that it's not genetic...examples please And also, I find it strange that you have to choose to not fantasize about another man. Is that a hard thing for you to have to choose not to do?

John Owens

Accent and jargon are not an argument, Caleb. You know, you seem like someone who is trying awfully hard to appear smart or, tell himself that he is smart. You are trying too hard.

And no, it is not difficult to choose not to think about other males. It is natural NOT to think about other males. It would be UNnatural to think about them. But if a man CHOOSES to think about other men, then that is his choice. I will share some wisdom with you, which you may not deserve. I have to do something else just this moment. I'll be back.

Nix

John you do understand in a debate you make an argument, and then you give facts, truths, evidence to support it correct? Your whole "accent and jargon" was in support of your argument regarding your effeminate men are doing it purposefully to conform nonsense. I am not trying to sound any more intelligent that I am but c'mon John, this is debate 101! You're getting too distracted are you busy choosing to not fantasize about other men?

John Owens

That wasn't an argument, Caleb. You asked a question. I was unsure of the answer, so I suggested a possibility. You don't want to argue with me. I don't want to argue with you. You seem far too young to argue with me.

John Maher

CALEB AS DOES THE Trump BOOGER OWINS will NEVER ANSWER a DIRECT QUESTION with a DIRECT ANSWER,HE is a FAKE NEWS FLAMING VILLAGE IDIOT that SPEWS HATE and NEGATIVITY, a FEAR MONGER, LIKE tRUMP HE PROFESSES to BE INTELLIGENT BUTT READ HIS POSTS WHICH SHOULD be DIRECTED to HIS ANUS, DUMP the IGNORAMUS COWARDLY TRAITOR tRUMP,GOD is GREAT so is the US of A, JOHN OWINS the FLAMING BRAINFART !!!

John Maher

Mr. OWINS per CHANCE do U LIVE in San Francisco ??? FLOWERs in the AR, FLOWERS EVERYWHERE, EAT the CAKE and SHADDUP, DUMP the IGNORAMUS tRUMP GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

Los Guy

Everyone needs a companion and if you are living as a couple and plan to live that way for ever then you want to leverage your options like taxes. First of all marriage is not a Christian thing, secondly to live by archaic laws created by a mythical God about a misunderstanding of homosexuality, is an excuse for not understanding that no one in their right mind would choose to be mocked, ridiculed, discriminated against because they want to be mocked, ridiculed, discriminated against and is the all time excuse for not understanding that it is in their genetic make up but by not understanding genetics you would rather play the martyr saying since you don't want to be a homosexual then it must be a choice. Your reasoning and ideas are like a 5 year child everything is black or white...

John Owens

Very sweet and humble comments, Hoss, and truthful. Some will still call you a hater, because their eyes are blinded by the false light of Satan. Your sincerity and humility should commend you to all people.

John Owens

Please, Guy, PLEASE show us some DNA evidence. PLEASE! Then tell me how that DNA survived evolution. That is such a contradiction it cannot be overcome, and you KNOW it.

I don't know about whom you speak that is playing a martyr here. You make out like homosexuals are some kind of martyrs. They aren't. Sometimes they are victims, but not martyrs. Freddy Mercury didn't die for me or for you. They're just people. You are endowing them with extra ... what? I'm not sure. I am referring to them like people. I have an idea, support Islam, and then find out what hate is, what being judgmental is. I'm not hating on homosexuals. You are hating on me and anyone who tries to do what is right. I care for homosexuals. I just don't tell them they are God's gift to humanity, but neither do I claim to be God's gift, myself.

You seem to hate God and anyone who tries to learn from God, so you accuse people of childishness. You are the one being petulant one here. Everybody sees that except for you. I seldom pray for others, because it is up to me to work out my own salvation with fear and trembling, but I will pray for people like you, that you do not heap damnation on your own head with your profanity and blasphemy. You are the one saying things are black and white. I never said that. You keep attributing YOUR faults to others, so that instead of making their points, they defend themselves from your slanders, but that kind of sophomoric silliness won't wash here. Most of us are adults here, with a few exceptions, you being the one in my face at present.

Nix

Actually John, Guy seems to be pretty spot on. So he doesn't believe in the same higher power as you, that doesn't make him a hater. He's simply pointing out how some people that claim to love God and follow Jesus are letting these beliefs legitimize thier opinions that homosexuals are sinners just for being homosexual. He makes a great point, especially when these same people while using their religion to cast their judgement and calling a group of people sinners and speaking for God while at the same time their religion's main premise is do unto others as you'd have done to you. And judge not lest ye be judged is kind of an important part of that too.

Nix

Also John while there is no definitive gene or 100% undeniable truth that gay people are born that way, but there is a heck of a lot of scientific evidence that supports that hypothesis. Where as there is zero evidence of the contrary. Only the writings of men centuries ago, claiming to be speaking for God. Hmmm wonder which makes more logical sense to believe.

John Owens

What is this scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis of which you speak? I would love to know more, and I just KNOW how much liberals LOVE the FACTS!

Nix

First of all John, I didn't say I was liberal but I do like facts. You seem to have a chip on your shoulders against liberals or people that deal in facts in general. Google "is gay a choice" you'll find an oped by a gay many and many, many articles citing studies and claims that help substantiate the hypothesis that it is not a simple choice. There's been plenty of studies that show it to be evident in around 1500 species. Where is one peice of anything, anything that would help prove it to be a choice?

John Owens

Nobody said it is a "simple choice". Our human libidos are anything but simple, Caleb. Only an idiot would think you could just one day decide, I will be straight or I will be gay. It is not at all one decision. Similar to a wedding vow. I will be faithful. That is a pronouncement, a decision, declaration, but, when a temptation comes, and it will, you will have to decide again, and later, again, and again, I will be faithful.

I understood this about our libidos after my first wife died. I was still relatively young, 45, and after a grieving period, I decided to look around at women. I was not looking for a woman who actually looked like her, but I found that, if they did not have some superficial resemblance, I was not attracted. You see, I had been choosing to fantasize about her for 27 years (25 of them married to her). I could elaborate more on this, and the fact that our sexual quirks evolve over the years should at least SUGGEST this to everyone.

It is not ONE decision, Caleb, not ONE choice, and I never said they CHOOSE to be gay. I said, they choose to walk and talk the way they do.

And there is no male mammal that will PREFER another male when there is a female in estrous available. So, those "scientific studies" are garbage, meant to assuage society's guilt, which they shouldn't feel, if there were anything natural about it. Besides that, most other species are guided by instinct and hormones only. Humans have intellect, but still, you put a horny male hamster in a cage with a female hamster in estrous and another male, and he's going for the female. A male billy-goat will nail anything he can mount regardless of species when he is in rut, but he has no preference toward other males or even other goats. He will mount a dog, a deer, a person if he gets a chance.

John Owens

Caleb, you say Guy is spot on, when he is espousing hate for Christians and calling them all haters, oh, except for the ones who are enablers. They're not haters. They're just NORMAL, GOOD people. Give it a rest. The Christians aren't the ones making scenes, but just keep pushing them. They will.

Los Guy

John and the rest that asked about DNA and homosexuality well here you go. The first one talks about the DNA difference between twins where one is gay and the other is straight. The second article talked about how prescriptions given to the mother during pregnancy (i.e. a female fetus receiving male hormones or the reverse for males tends to lead to transgender and homosexuality because they are getting two different messages from their body. actually alters the DNA. Both tend to lead to homosexuality.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-genetic-homosexuality-nature-nurture-20151007-story.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/10/homosexuality-may-be-caused-chemical-modifications-dna

Los Guy

John I am not espousing hate for Christians if someone wants to believe in and worship mythology it is no skin off of my nose, i could care less, it is what they do using their religion as a weapon against who ever they deem the right to judge and punish. The saddest thing is that if someone does not believe in myths and has overcome their indoctrination\brainwashing from birth theist seem to think it is hate and it has nothing to do with hate but to do with reality. I chased religion for over 30 years and it is all archaic views of how the world works and not how the world really works. For instance the night is not a blanket of God thrown over the world and the stars were tiny holes in the blanket, this was the Ancient Semitic Hebrew view of night. Logic dictates that I have to dismiss this belief just like I analyze and either accept or dismiss possible historical events of the OT. The NT is just a Greek book written for the Romans to try keep the Ancient Semitic Hebrew from revolting. Like it says, "Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." which says it all...

Nix

Guy didn't say he hates Christians, that I read. Sorry to hear about your wife. I hate that for you. If you want to disbelieve science that is your right.

John Owens

I believe science. I just don't believe junk science, and so far, I have heard no credible evidence AT ALL to suggest that homosexuality is something with which a person is born. If you have some evidence, or know of some, just tell me what it is, or you don't believe in science, either-- You believe in myth, fables, junk. Don't try to pretend that I am ignorant because I don't accept science that has NOT been presented. Thus far, it HAS NOT been presented, and if a person accepts evolution (which I partially accept, just not as an origin of gena or phyla), then the idea that a hidden gene could have survived millions of years among people who prefer their own gender is totally contradictory.

John Owens

That stuff in the DNA Guy is talking about is unnatural. If that is what "causes" homosexuality it is an induced mutation and can be prevented. It could also be reversed. It all sounds like BS to me, but I haven't had time to read the articles, being at work. Don't think I won't, but I'm still very skeptical at this point.

Nix

John, Guy just gave you a link. This is one of thousands of studies into the matter. There is a lot of data indicating it is partly if not all genetic. I told you if you needed more studies to google "is being gay a choice." If you're too lazy to do any research then you can demand that it "IS A CHOICE." Why are you so sure? You've given NO theories backed up with data to support this claim that you are so sure you are correct on! Where is anything to support your claim? It you want to know if it is a choice for sure, then ask someone who is gay.

John Owens

I went to the link but at first glance it appears like one of those phony studies that show hamsters humping each other because there is not a hamster of the other gender present. I posted that I will have to look at after work when I can read it carefully and then research the claims there. I'll save the link, but just plain reason like 1+1=2 would SUGGEST that it cannot be genetic. And the circumstances Guy speaks of in those studies are NOT natural circumstances, so it is not as you say, "partly if not all genetic". If an unborn embryo has to be acted upon by an external agent in order to create this condition, there is nothing natural about it. That would render the whole condition UNNATURAL, which is a term offensive to gay people. But, I photographed the links and I will look at them when I am home on my time on wifi.

Los Guy

John Owens long before doctors were giving drugs that causes gender identity it was just DNA that caused homosexuality. Medical Journals and Books give a wonderful insight to a world of issues that humans have caused...

John Owens

So, since you believe in logic, Guy, how in the heck could there be a homosexual gene, and why is there no evidence of it?

Nix

See my other post that lists three studies. Since you aren't going to read Guy's two studies, even though all you have to do is click and then read. Bigger question is what scientific studies to do have to back up your hell bent opinion that it is not genetic? And why, I can't believe I didn't ask you before, why is it so important to you to not believe that homosexality is biological? I mean you are hell bent, why is it so important to you?

Los Guy

John Owens, your overwhelming ignorance and lack of knowledge astounds me. I never said there was a homosexual gene, that is just the stupidest thing you have said so far. So far you are the only one that thinks if we say DNA it must mean we think there is a homosexual gene. Genes do not work that way they are just road maps for various parts of your body to be built and how you function and think; and if for some reason you get a Chromosome (Chromosomes are made up of genes) or set of chromosomes that make you function or think like a female is it the fault of that person that has this abnormality that is different his physical sex...

John Owens

Either way, you are full of pre-digested beans, Guy. It is not genetic. It is not in DNA. There are other factors, and I have not ONCE condemned anyone for their sexual preference or proclivity on this blog, even though a couple of jerks try to pretend that I have. If you will stop pretending there is anything scientific about the MYTH that there IS something in DNA that causes it, I will stop showing you how dumb it is to think that. That's my best offer, Hominis Cavus.

Nix

What makes you think it's a myth?

John Owens

This research was calculated with algorithms, like climate models, so that the outcome predicts whatever is desired by the researcher. None of it can be actually verifiably predicted, because the genetic markers would have to be identified in neonates and then followed through puberty to approach any kind of certainty of accuracy.

I would furthermore add that our DNA changes as we mature from infancy into adulthood. (genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask137)

Thus far, until now, there is no proof that anyone has been a homosexual at birth. They are not sexual PERIOD. That part of our personality is LEARNED behavior.

Bill C

John Owens?. "not sexual at birth"? Please explain.

John Owens

What we call "sexuality" is not even present at birth and not for 10 or more years unless unless one is unnaturally influenced or sexually abused by older people. No matter how gay you consider yourself to be, you were NOT at birth nor when you were two years old. You learned that as you grew.

Minister Bill

John Owens. I beg to differ. IE, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cross-cultural-evidence-for-the-genetics-of-homosexuality/

John Owens

Yeah. Perhaps you overlooked this:

"On top of these observations, studies in molecular genetics have shown that Xq28, a region located at the tip of the X chromosome, is involved in both the expression of anxiety and male androphilia. This work suggests that common genetic factors may underlie the expression of both. Twin studies additionally point to genetic explanations as the underlying force for same-sex partner preference in men and neuroticism, a personality trait that is comparable to anxiety."

Looks to me like it is pretty much saying same sex preference comes from being neurotic, but it isn't politically correct to come out and say that.

It goes on to say this:

"The research points to childhood separation anxiety as a culturally universal correlate of androphilia in men. This has important implications for our understanding of children’s mental health conditions because subclinical levels of separation anxiety, when intertwined with male androphilia, may represent a typical part of the developmental life course."

Just in case your bias does not allow to comprehend this correctly, it says the universal correlate is SEPARATION ANXIETY, and connects it to MENTAL HEALTH. So, differ all you want, no scientific argument for being born homosexual. Period.

Minister Bill

Ah!. Basic, simple and great answer sir! "Love one another! Thank you and Blessings from Minister Bill.

Minister Bill

Guy Warner, Caleb? Take care folks. Enjoy this hollow wind if you will. I would seek discourse elsewhere where I you. He sees and will not comprehend or accept. Enjoy Guys n Gals. Later and be at peace.

John Owens

Yes, Bill. I see you cite sources which do not say what you assert. I see what is real and do not comprehend what is not. I see you are deceived, blind, gullible, brainwashed, and a sheep. May God Almighty open your eyes.

John Benson

F.Y.I For 2000 years there have been non beleivers of the Bible trying to discredit it truths without much success! Every prophesy has happened...happening as we speak...and the future is presented in length. The only thing it doesn't tell us is when Jesus will return. I ask that you study Revelation and see for yourself what's happening today and was written 2000 years ago. When a book is batting 1000 and has been on the top selling book lists since the invention of the printing press, that says something about its validity...worth a peek!
The one thing that the Word of God does say is that LOVE is the greatest commandment of all! I believe the Lord will return as he states in his word, I pray we're all ready when He does! May God Bless You All!

Los Guy

John Benson, I have no idea what world you have been living on because you are balmy thinking that all of those predictions were right on. This is a list of failed prophesies...

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_prophecies

John Owens

Thank you for that ringing endorsement, John Benson.

John Owens

Wiki's very first "disproof" of a prophecy is based on misreading the name of the Babylonian king in the prophecy. They mistook Nebuchadnezzar for Nebuchadrezzar. Most skeptics wouldn't notice that discrepancy.

The second, regarding Egypt, is for a time still in the future, as is a LOT of the book of Ezekiel. Just because something has not happened does not mean it can not still happen.

The third, regarding the Nile, same thing. Just because it has not happened does not mean it WILL not.

I could go on, but Solomon said to cast not your pearls before swine. I'm not calling anyone a pig-- it illustrates a principle, not to waste effort doing things for people who will never appreciate them.

I'd like to point out that the gay couple could be TOTALLY CRYING WOLF, like young people caught doing something wrong, and then cry racism or some other discrimination in order to mitigate their offense.

John Benson

Come on Guy, do you believe everything you read on the internet? I can point you in a 100 spots that prove its truth! That's what Faith is all about...I believe..you don't have to...we make our own choices in life. I still don't look down on anyone, nor do I think I'm better than anyone else...your listening to religions, who like to judge, and not Jesus Christ! My God LOVES all and has left the loving back to us! I try my best to love everyone, even if I don't agree or believe in what you might, God gives us free will to make our own choices! I made mine for the Lord! I wish you well, Guy, May God Bless you!

Los Guy

John Benson Try reading a book sometime, we are on the internet so I have to give you links to sites that discuss what I have read in medical journals and books. Reading is good for you...

John Benson

Thanks Guy for that great tip...I'll try reading more...maybe I can be just like you when I grow up! One problem, I can't find anything credible to prove your point without twisting wording to suit your case. But I promise to keep trying, again thanks for the tip!

Los Guy

John Benson, your problem seems to be that you don't understand science so you would rather base your whole philosophy on an Archaic Myth and laws, you know just like ISIS is doing, basing their philosophy on an archaic mythology and laws. Oh by the way Islam, Judaism and Christianity all come from the same origins the Abrahamic Religions. Back to the point, there have been major studies in America and Europe that shows the more extreme one's religious views are the less they can distinguish between fact and fantasy because they are basing their philosophy on paradoxes which the Abrahamic Religions are filled with. Man has only one thing that is used to understand the world and religion cannot abide and that is logic, if you do not use logic to understand the world you are basing your whole philosophy on wishful thinking. You like 99% of the theist in this world are controlled by the indoctrination\brainwashing you got from birth, and you like many Christians have had no choice in whether to believe in religion or not, you have never had the choice. Like so many theist you are like a robot, judging and punishing without any logical basis but laws based on ignorance and lack of knowledge. I don't care if you believe and worship myths it is the mindless actions of theist that I detest and fight against.

So far in my life I have never met a theist that could answer this question and like all other theist you will go around the mountain to say nothing but I will ask it anyway. The only requirements is to be logical and truthful (that is if you can as 90% of theist believe that lying to support their religion is not a sin but lying is (another paradox))...

Question: When did you decide to become a theist to follow what ever your religion is...?

John Benson

That's my point Guy, I don't have a religion...those are man made! I believe in Jesus Christ, not a mythical creature, a living God! In my life it has been proven to me on several occasions that God does exist! If you don't want to believe, that's your right, why can't I have the right to my beleifs? You also seem to want to continue this childish back and forth just to prove your right and I'm crazy! Hell, I am! Ha Ha! I respect your opinion, I don't have to agree.

If I believe in the Bible that's my right...even if you think I'm crazy! There are roughly 2 billion other crazy people out there that believe just like me That's what makes this a great country...we don't have to agree and believe what the other guy does. But we should respect one another.

On several posts I've wished you well and again...God Bless you!

Los Guy

John Owens, no one has actual free will. First of all the existence of a God and free will are mutually exclusive. Secondly we all make choices based on our experiences, knowledge, and philosophy. Free will would mean that you actually have no choices based on experience, knowledge and philosophy but are random choices because to have free will you cannot base a choice on anything or it is not free will...

John Maher

JOHN BOOGER OWINS, YOUR GOD ASSUREDLY MISUNDERSTOOD YOUR WISH for a BRAIN and GAVE YOU A TRAIN, SO JESSE JAMES GET a GUN and ROB that TRAIN it WILL KEEP you both BUSY from BAKING CAKES,FLAMING BUTTIES, DUMP the IGNORAMUS COWARDLY TRAITOR tRUMP GOD is GREAT so is the US of A, KNOCK KNOCK come OUT of the CLOSET VILLAGE IDIOTS

Bill C

Guy Warriner? I appreciate your learned discourse but must ask why you continue the conversation? It seems to be a lost cause. I have read many articles on DNA/Genetics and I understand bits of homosexuality. I am no doctor or specialist mind you but I can read. I understand the background of the accepted Christian bible (wow), not a lot of originality there. Even some paganism if I remember correctly. But, I ask again, why continue? John Owens is granite in his beliefs and will not change.

John Owens

Minister Bill, you have not read ONE scientific article which shows there is ANY genetic component to this subject. You might have interpreted that way. There are none. There are plenty of desperate studies, and no results. Period. I have examined the crap people put up for references. You might have read where someone ELSE read about a genetic component, but they most likely didn't read the scientific reviews. It's just leftist BS. Humans are NOT born sexual. They have NO sexual thoughts when they are tiny. They want a titty and to be comfortable and loved. The sexuality is LEARNED. Now, to some extent, our DNA coding changes as we grow, DUE TO INFLUENCES AND BEHAVIOR. Not due to anything with which we are born. Yeah. My opinion is granite, for now, until and unless some NEW actual real evidence is presented, which it has not and I seriously doubt ever will.

John Benson

WOW! At first I thought maybe you were pulling my leg....you think I'm crazy!!!! I believe its time I leave this forum, I thought this was a Ministry! I wish you well!

John Owens

I see the source of your confusion, now, Guy. I've had to read several of your posts but you kept giving me little clues and it took me a while to put it together:

You seem to think that ALL members of ALL REAL churches are selfish, ignorant, bigoted, judgmental, high-minded shmucks, and that EVERYONE ELSE is noble, educated, open-minded, altruistic New Age superior human beings, ready for the next step in evolution.

That is what is happening with this goofy cake flap-- People on your side of it think the baker was mean-spirited, bigoted, judgmental, and ignorant (had to be, since he doesn't think gay marriage is fantastic idea, right?) At the same time, people on your side of this think the gay couple were sweet, loving, honest, kind, noble people full of love and goodness (had to be, right? I mean, they ARE gay and WERE going to marry).

Your trouble is, your point of view is bigoted and lop-sided, poisoned by your vanity. Your point of view is not that of a wise man, or a BALANCED MAN, but that of a radical, a sociopath, similar to a true Maoist or Nazi, Antifa, perhaps. You don't accept God, that's fine. He knows you. Your biggest obstacle to true intelligence is your own inflated opinion of yourself, as though YOU know things the rest of the world does NOT. There may be some little insignificant tidbit you see that others don't, but what you are missing is the BIG PICTURE. The big picture says you are just another ant on an anthill, and no better than the other ants.

I submit to you for consideration that the baker is NOT an evil Christian and the gay couple are not perfectly wonderful people. Just permit yourself to ruminate that possibility.

John Maher

JOHN BENSON be THANKFUL that GUY WARRINER ENLIGHTENED YOU and MANY to the TRUTH, WHO WROTE THE BIBLE, CAN YOU or for FACT can ANYONE,this is a FREE THINKING FREE SPEAKING MINISTRY and you and ANYONE ELSE with their HEAD STUCK in their BUTT are MORE than WELCOME get on that TRAIN in JOHN BOOGER OWINS HEAD, OFCOURSE after is LEAVES his ARSE, DUMP the IGNORAMUS COWARDLY TRAITOR tRUMP, GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

Minister Bill

John Owens, you persist. I am at a loss. Sexuality. Recognition of sexual identity or function. Exists at and prior to birth. Children masturbate IN THE WOMB! Here. This is my last offering, I cannot help you. This is admittedly just "Wikipedia" but many valid sources are sited. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexuality#Sexuality_and_age

John Owens

Bill,

Bou are correct about being at a loss. You have LOST YOUR MIND! I cannot conceive how a person who is literate enough to type sentences and internet savvy enough to use a blog can believe the absolute CRAP you are saying. An INFANT, in the womb, MASTURBATING? Are these the same infants you people want to ABORT freely? What does that say about their humanity? Not that it is true, of course.

Have you witnessed this masturbation? What are you calling masturbation? The idea that they fondle themselves? A newborn will fondle ANYTHING that doesn't hurt to touch.

So, you are saying, an embryo while developing in the womb, is wanking off, thinking about sex. You would have to really WANT to believe something stupid to believe that.

I'm sure you would tell me not to believe FOX news. I'm telling you, you need to seriously evaluate the absolutely crazy things YOU believe. If ANYbody tells you an unborn child has sexual thoughts, they are flat out lying to you. That is totally ridiculous.

You can read all kinds of silliness on Wikipedia, but that just takes the cake. How can an embryo who has never seen another human, doesn't even KNOW it is a human, have ANY thoughts about its own gender (which it doesn't know what that is) or what kind of things it wants or wants to do when it's grown?

If I were you (thankfully I am not), I would be totally embarrassed and ashamed to post on the internet that I believe the utter foolishness that you just sent to me, as if I am the one in need of enlightenment. You and anyone else who believes such malarkey are allowing yourselves to be made fools. That goes for everyone else here, too. This is insane. Some of you, just like adolescent children, think I am backward because I am an adult who knows better. You should grow up and stop believing fairy tales.

John Owens

Paradox. That's it. I usually call it conflict. Cognitive dissonance. Something like that. Like when you believe in evolution but also believe in a gay gene. Why would evolution produce a self-destructive gene like that? One that will snuff itself out in a few thousand years? Here's a paradox: You don't believe in the Bible, but you want to preach the Bible. You don't believe in Christianity, yet you want to tell Christians how to be Christians. I'll bet you support gun-confiscation AND abortion. That's a big paradox to me. I'll bet you want a high-paying job with little work involved, and yet support socialism. That's a paradox.

Here's one: you keep talking about Christians like you know them so well, but obviously you don't, because YOU THINK YOU ARE BETTER THAN THEM. That is proof you don't know any very well. That would be like me judging all Chinese women by my experience with my ex-wife. I refuse to do that. Individuals are individuals, while those who belong to the same groups will have certain things in common, YOU ARE PAINTING ALL CHRISTIANS WITH YOUR OWN DARK BRUSH BECAUSE OF A HATRED OF CHRISTIANS. THAT MEANS YOU CANNOT TELL CHRISTIANS HOW TO BE CHRISTIANS, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT ONE.

If you would like to be our leader, you will have to change your ways, your attitude, and SHOW us the love you say we lack.

Nix

I tend to side with Guy on the "goofy cake flap" thing. I personally ("his side") can say I don't believe the baker is all of those things or the gay couple are all of those things. I don't know any of them. I'm just going by what I've read and the CO law. So I would suggest John, not to be rude but if you want your opinion to be valued you should stop with the us vs them nonsense. There are not two solid opinions on these people. Some may think the baker is evil to the core and the couple are flawless crusaders, but I think most of us on wherever we stand on this issue, are probably somewhat neutral on how we see these people. (Most people in general, obviously not everyone on this post). We can only go by what facts we have. The fact that the baker would use his religion to prop up his refusal of service is very hypocritical to the grand message of Christ. The baker is a Christian right? So he should put Jesus's words and teachings first. The baker according to the facts of the case, did not "do unto others as he'd have done unto him." Unless the baker himself had been refused service somewhere and was perfectly fine with being treated as a second class citizen. It is apparent this didn't happen or he would be sure to let the world know it happened to him and he didn't sue. So I think at worse the baker has demonstrated that he is a cafeteria christian, by picking what he chooses to believe and what he chooses not to. Maybe even a hyochrit-ian, talking the talk not walking the walk.

Nix

Now that I think about it, I don't think Guy ever called any of those people those things.

John Owens

When people just want to argue for argument's sake and right/wrong, truth/justice don't enter into their argument, there is no reason why upstanding people should care what their opinion is or what those people value. The chaff means nothing to the wheat and henceforth you are on iggy for talking like a twerp and a twit. You and your hero can sext each other on the side.

Nix

That's you best post yet, John. Congrats on having the maturity and mentality of a ten year old! You're a great Christian for how you call your fellow man that you've never met, names. Good job Johnny Boy! Oh wait I forgot you are admittedly and upstanding citizen that doesn't care about your own opinion or values.

Los Guy

John, oh yes I can I studied and was a Christian for almost thirty year, no I don't mean that I was just a Christian that went to church I read the Bible from cover to cover several times, I read all of the lost books of the Bible, I have read both the Mahabharata and Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, some of the Qur'an, most of the Torah and Talmud and those were the first thing that led me to atheism. The second was classes in logic and philosophy at the University of Southern California at Long Beach along with my classes on history and archaeology and a minor in psychology and geology, 25+ credits a semester was a lot of hard work. So I do have a good idea of what and who you really are from your witless remarks and your desire to discriminate all that displease you...

John Owens

So, you are a dissatisfied, disgruntled "ex-Christian" who has read a lot of pagan literature and so that makes you think you can judge me harshly as if you know me. YOU sir, are the hater and the hypocrite here. The God you claim is a myth will judge you harshly because you say you can see. Therefore, you have no excuse for blindness. Your heart is like a lump of coal, but you judge others as though you have a soft heart full of caring. Inwardly you are empty and spiteful. I pity you and anyone who falls for any of the garbage you so casually strew across this screen.

Los Guy

John Owens I judge you by your posts and the inability for you to see anything beyond your eyelashes. I am not disgruntled nor dissatisfied just another failure on your part. To be an intelligent person you have to use your mind and think. You have to weight the evidence in an objective way and without any bias, then you make a choice. You cannot do that you are so completely compromised by the lack of any logic or rational thinking. In fact I don't think you can think for yourself at all, you need to be told by your pastor or priest what to think. That is the problem with religion it tends to stop all actual logical and rational thinking process and replace with nothing...

John Owens

As if you are capable of doing anything without bias in your bitterness, Hominis Cavus.

Los Guy

John Owens talking to you is like talking to a wall and a wall has less than nothing to say and believes in nothing...

John Owens

Blah blah blah, yada, yada. More goon babble.

Los Guy

John Owens is now talking with the mentality of a baby because he cannot get his bigoted and discriminatory ideas to be accepted and has now gone to baby talk...

John Owens

...and here's Hollow Man Guy with the standard brainless drivel that oozes out of the mouth of a leftist. Let's see.. Yep, There it is. Bigoted because I point out the fallacies in his rants and discriminatory because I don't agree with him. Or the other way around, either way. It's just goon babble. His pet Chihuahua Tiny Man will probably chime in in a bit, also. Just showing how immature and unbalanced they are. Perhaps we could set up a Go Fund Me account to get them in a halfway house somewhere together.

Los Guy

That is a laugh, so what fallacies did you point out with the blog "Dee dee dee, dah, dah dah. More sick drooling. Yada, yada." that you posted other than to make your look more pitiful as a human. The Law, The Constitution and the Bible say it was discrimination. Three strikes your out, another complete failure as a man but a great future as a bigot. I am sure the KKK would love to have you join them...?

John Owens

I'm going to humor this sick little puppy for just a minute-- the BIGGEST FALLACY that I have successfully, repeatedly refuted, is that being gay is caused by something in DNA.

From the beginning, MY POSITION had nothing to do with gay or not gay, religious or not religious. My position is that if the man does not want to bake the cake, he doesn't have to bake the cake. Not for a gay wedding, not for a Moslem wedding, not for a Catholic wedding.

In arguing that he DID have to bake it, Hominis Cavus here said more than once that being homosexual was in the DNA. I don't care where it is, but there is NO evidence to believe that it is in the DNA. If it were, then identical twins (who, in case you do not know, as apparently Hominis Cavus does not, share identical DNA) would BOTH be either straight, or homosexual. As it turns out, in pairs of identical twins where ONE of them is homosexual, in the U.S., among male identical twins, the other is homosexual only 7.7% of the time. In females the number is even lower, about 5.3%. You have to look at the flip side of those numbers to see what a huge fallacy that is. 92.7% in males and 94.7% in females. Since we are talking about IDENTICAL twins, that means the DNA is IDENTICAL in both twins, so it is not a factor AT ALL.

The percentages in Australia are slightly higher (3.5-4% higher), and the sample group is huge, so that would STRONGLY suggest that ENVIRONMENTAL factors, such as culture, mores, availability of suitable partners, perhaps religion or lack of it, are the only obvious contributors, and it is illogical to think otherwise.

I'm sure the baby will come back with more insults, KKK, etc. (from whence came that. if not from his dark stereotypical leftist paranoid fantasies?) Poor little bigoted man.

Los Guy

Listen John Owen or male matrem suam it is illegal for him to be holding a business license and discriminating or not wanting to bake a wedding cake for anyone without a legal reason. First of all America is not a Christian State, we have not state religion, whether you like it or not. If he wants to have a private clientele he need to be registered as a private bakery with a registry of members. Like most stupid people think that it is OK to break the law just because they feel like it, well it isn't all right and the baker is guilty of breaking the law for purulent reasons and not reasons that would exempt the baker from baking the cake. Religion is not a reason for discrimination nor refusing a public service. It is people like you that create hate from ignorance and lack of intelligence and try and spread your hate to all you meet...

John Owens

More sour pablum from the dude whose mother denied him her tiny breast. I have to INFORM you, it is not ignorant to be skeptical or just to have a different interpretation of the same information. What IS ignorant is thinking you are better than others OR smarter, which is what YOU do. And, even when you try to call names without actually calling names, you look so silly and immature and sophomoric.

If you weren't afraid or challenged by my opinions and reasoning, you could ignore it, but you aren't able to do that, because of that nagging in your head that tells you that I am speaking the truth and you are afraid that everyone else reading this (all 5 of them) KNOWS that I am speaking the truth.

Keep up the good work. Everyone except you already knows how delusional you are.

Minister Bill

John is lost to this plane of existence. There is clinical evidence of my statements. You refuse to accept. Yes. I used Wikipedia. They sited valid references. Yes, infants rub their legs together in pleasure along with the forearm etc, etc. I refuse to explain anymore to you. Your mind is like unto a rock. Solid and unaccepting. Begone, enjoy, etc. Have fun with baseball, apple pie and mom. I am done with you sir. Your sole purpose here is to instigate rhetoric. Nothing more. Later, peace.

John Owens

Minister Bill, rubbing one's legs together or rubbing the forearms is NOT masturbation and anyone who can put a sentence together knows that. You try to act like you are some kind of intellectual and you are talking absolute nonsense. You didn't give clinical anything except evidence that you are clinically insane and/or abnormally gullible. Now you are trying to backtrack, but the absolute BS your wrote is here for all posterity.

I want to ask you this, seriously, if you are capable of that: Do you believe that the individuals to whom we generically refer as scientists are inherently above the same personality flaws that afflict people to whom we would NOT refer as scientists? If so, can you give any evidence of that?

John Maher

GET A GUN and a RED CAP from tRUMPJESSE JAMES, DUMP the IGNORAMUS TRAITOR tRUMP, GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

John Owens

You just made up the thing about people being told, "Trump is president so I'm safe." That is pure conjecture with no basis in fact.

Minister Bill

Hum. Point conceded for now. What I was implying by that statement is that particular "festering pocket of hate" would be this gentleman's store and any like him that choose how they work. Remember the great "Art supply debate"? Health issues, "abortions regardless of reason" were against the religion of the store owners so, they dis-allowed any insurance that would cover that particular thing. ( my memory doesn't work well, I may have mixed the details, but the point is there". Religious beliefs affected the healthcare system and workers in that business. I DON'T agree, However and again, it is a business choice by the owners. If no one likes it, don't shop/work there. Sad really. Not that long ago many of us would support our neighbors. Now it seems to be a goal to just beat people up one way or another.

John Owens

Not that big a deal, William. I am a compulsive proof-reader, and I make mistakes myself, and auto-correct is a bain to my existence, since it will correct words that already are correct, just not normal to the computer's vocabulary. I will sometimes leave a -d off a preterite verb or past participle, just because I think I'm on a roll. Only a geek would make a big deal over the occasional misspelled or misused word.

John Owens

The baker did not deny them a cake. He denied making them a special cake made especially for a gay couple's wedding. Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, are U.S. Citizens guaranteed the Right to have a certain baker bake us a wedding cake. If you call this hate and bigotry, what do you call your own attitude? Bitterness and dissatisfaction?

John Owens

El español que yo hablo e que yo escribo es excelente, Pendejo. Escribo sin errores ortográficos. Acaso que supieras lo que está hablando, posiblemente, álguien lo escuchiara. Ud. es tan confudido que ní Ud. sabe lo que dice.

Los Guy

Because of your answers, they are White Christian Dogma that has no relationship to reality...

John Owens

...and how, pray tell, are YOUR answers NOT some OTHER kind of dogma that has no relationship to reality? By what standard do you measure, that you think is superior?

John Owens

My White Christian dogma seems to agree with the Supreme Court, but how color ever entered into the conversation is the typical failed argument of the mentally deficient, so they go to race.

Nix

William, let's call a spade a spade here. Those signs are primarily in bars and restaurants not so owners can say "we don't serve your kind." They are there bc they want it to be known when a belligerent and unruly customer comes in and causes a scene, they can then be dismissed. The sign stands as a warning. It does not protect discrimination. Haven't we learned that from what happened to the black people in the 50's and 60's?

Nix

No one's telling bakerman what to do. He's free. That's his life. But he has to follow the law if he want to operate his business. Being "free" still means following the law of the land. And why do you want to bring politics into this? You're being one sided. Both parties have many issues. There's been a number of republicans busted for bathroom misconduct and molesting boys in the recent past that I can recall.

Tom B

John...respectfully, love is compassion...it is not a set of rules...peace...Tom

John Owens

Tom, respectfully, God is Love, and God said love is keeping His commandments. Of course, you think love is a feeling, and it does and should include feeling, but if I look at a person who is cold, and feel sorry for them and wish them warmth and kindness, but do nothing for them myself, that is not love. True love is what we do, not what we think or feel.

Tom B

John...thank you for writing...love is a feeling only in the sense of this world of emotions...compassion is an innate quality that applies to all living things, whether you take physical action or not...if you are compassionate, you see everyone as "lovable", regardless of what they do...if they do things you do not like, you see it as errors, not as subject to hate...while i believe in God, i do not believe there are any writings from God; there is only universal love and peace...there is no love and not love; those are dualities created by people...karma, or balance, keeps us coming back here until we see no dualities, and simply are love/peace...for example, it is not spiritual to be angry or vengeful or other ways of acting toward people...if we look at people as all equal spirits, but with some closer to love and compassion than others, we come closer to the reality of equality and spiritual growth toward the peace with God...please consider this...peace...Tom

Tom B

ULC..as always, i object to censorship; it does not come from God...Tom

John Owens

Tom, love for fellow humans means not stealing from them, not murdering them, not telling lies about them, not coveting their belongings or family members.

It also means if you see a hungry person, you give them some food, or if you have a garden, you let them go pick some. The Torah requires that when you harvest a field, you do not pick each and every thing in the field, but leave the corners, and an occasional stalk here and there, so that widows and orphans and other needy people may go and glean sustenance, or feed their goat or cow.

Based on a seven year cycle, the third year in that seven, people contribute a third tithe, which is for the support of the truly needy. THAT IS LOVE. THAT IS COMPASSION. Not just FEELING sorry for them, and not giving twenty bucks to United Way once a year to assuage guilt.

A good father marries his children's mother, (if she is willing) and sacrifices his own desires for the needs of his family. Sometimes he has to make rules or decisions that his wife or children do not find pleasant at the moment, but if he loves them, he will, and when the children are grown, they will understand true love, and respect their father.

Love, unexpressed, is not love. It is imagination. It is a concept. A dream, a notion. Not a reality. Show me your love without your works, and I will show you my love by my works.

"Hereby do we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS; for this is the love of God, that we should keep His commandments." 1 Jn 5:2,3

Tom B

John...(12/14 7am)...respectfully, i feel/believe/know the opposite...while i agree it is not love to "give" out of guilt, it is our love/peace that leads to the giving...the giving is not the love...if your world is not based on loving all living things, all of the time, then love is not understood, and all the giving in the world does not constitute love...and, as i have said before, no laws, commandments, rules, etc can bring about love...the part that most people miss, is that if you are loving in your soul it does touch everyone, regardless if you give or do things...while i also do many of the things you describe, they come from my love, but they are not the love...you are a good person....peace...Tom

John Owens

Okay, Mahatma. You do it your way, and I'll do it mine. I wager there will be more people at my funeral than yours, because of the ways I express my love.

John Owens

You are lop-sided, Caleb. It is not ANY MORE HUGE THAN "It’ll be interesting to see what all the “good Christians” say when some business refuses to do something for one of them “because of religious beliefs”. Won’t the hypocrisy be fun to watch?"

I think we can all see how pseudo you are. Tickler just pretty much said Christians are hypocrites, and said "good Christians" in quotes as if they are not. How is MY generalization any greater than HIS?

Answer: It is not. You are just being a pseudo-intellectual and trying to make argument when you have none.

I told you I don't want to argue with you. If you were smart enough to argue with me, you would already agree with me.

John Owens

Show us examples of this "blatant hypocrisy", Caleb, Please.

Los Guy

right on...

John Owens

So, you did not show where the Christians on here are showing blatant hypocrisy, Caleb. You just say that because they don't agree with you. That is not hypocrisy. That is wisdom, because you are wrong.

Nix

Wow! Kinda nailed it! Guy! I think this is that "drop the mike" thing they're talking about.

John Owens

I concur, William, but the moral outrage expressed on this page, people with no obvious moral compass, on behalf of the gay couple, would suggest half the country and Canada are frivolous.

Minister Bill

Indeed. many tales can be taken as moral guidelines. Or community standards. Grimm's for instance. Vaguely showing that in some instances children can be resourceful and be careful who you chose to follow.

Los Guy

What I see is that too many people think that what the movies display as historical fact is facts when it is really a white washed version of history used as a backdrop to someone's story...

Los Guy

I am 71 years old and have studied the Bible and Mediterranean archaeology for the better part of that life. What I have found is that a lot of the OT is history, lineages and fables. I say fables because they were handed down from word of mouth for thousand years or more before they were written. It is like a game of gossip the sentence you start out with is not the one you end up with. Stories have been exaggerated by religious leaders and story tellers to increase the awe factor of their God. For instance the Flood myth could not have happen the way that the Bible depicts it because for one thing there is no physical or geological evidence that a world wide flood ever occurred. The flood was more than likely a flood of the century that occurred during a regular yearly flood season. People cite sea shells on top of mountains but if you look at the Great Russian Steppes there is no evidence of a great flood ever occurring no sea shells, no flood...

John Owens

I'm not sure to what you refer as a Holy War, William. I know the scriptures say that in some wars, God took a side, usually in favor of His chosen people, but sometimes against them, to punish them for disobedience. I would not call the Crusades Holy Wars. Parts of them were justified, to reclaim land and rescue people and cities, but they weren't Holy at all, being presided over by the unholy Bishop of Rome and the apostate priesthood of that church. When the US entered WW2, THAT, in my mind, was closer to a Holy War than the Crusades. I think the Klan thinks of themselves as "Christian Soldiers", but nearly every extremist group, including ANTIFA, thinks they are somehow justified or morally correct. The Maoists and Sandinistas, and DAESH included.

But, while not asking you to concede that the Bible is infallible (I do believe the translators, and the TRANSCRIBERS have tweaked it according to their opinions), I think anyone would be amiss if they did not acknowledge that the way of life prescribed by Moses, on an individual basis, makes for healthier people and relationships, a fair and impartial criminal justice system, less crime, less disease, less poverty, less misery, than any other philosophy has offered to date. If that is conceded, there is no reason not to teach it and accept it.

And Guy, there is no evidence that human beings or cow-farts cause global warming but people STRONGLY believe it. They should demand hard evidence on that. Not charts and propaganda and computer models, but evidence that is in all aspects, real and tangible. They should investigate rigorously on their own, but they don't. You seem to have investigated or at least READ some investigation regarding the universal flood. What you say contradicts some of the things I have read. I will not say you are wrong. I do not posses tangible evidence for that. I will just say people should apply the same rigorous proof to all the wishy-washy theories about economics and government and vaccinations and the spirit world and just about everything else.

Minister Bill

John Owens? Thanks man for being reasonable and apparently affable. The holy war I refer to was what I thought the "crusades"were called. Geological evidence, text evidence, archeological evidence. All open to interpretation I think.The scientific community second guesses itself all the time.Guy Warner? Thanks for that article sir. I admire people that have the patience and skill to dig up old language and architecture and try to make coherent thought out of "bits" of data. Thousands of hours I imagine in all projects. I recall that in science that the "proof" of civilization keeps getting further and further back in years. They find the "epitomy" of discovery on a dig and in the next month someone finds another old site to dig up that is more ancient. Who am I to have a great opinion when many-a learned professional changes their mind's every year?

John Owens

Marriage is a behavior. Marriage between two men is a specific behavior. There is a huge contradiction in your own logic (or lack thereof). The baker did not discriminate against the MEN, but against their behavior, which is perfectly acceptable for him to do.

Nix

Marriage is a legal contract. Some choose to make it a part of their religion as well. It is not a behavior. Here, I'll help you out via Merriam Webster

Definition of behavior

1

a : the manner of conducting oneself criminal behavior normal adolescent behavior

b : anything that an organism does involving action and response to stimulation

c : the response of an individual, group, or species to its environment They are studying the behavior of elephants in the wild.

2

the way in which someone conducts oneself or behaves (see behave 1) We were grateful for the gracious behavior of our hostess. The children were rewarded for good behavior. Be on your best behavior.; also : an instance of such behavior unacceptable social behaviors 3

the way in which something functions or operates They tested the behavior of various metals under heat and pressure.

How is the act of marriage a behavior again? Oh because you'll have to behave in order for the clerk or pastor to sign off on your certificate. Lord please have mercy!

John Owens

Damn, Caleb, look at b: that you wrote. Look at c; look at d; All describe behavior and all apply to marriage. Geez, you don't even understand what you copy and paste, so why copy and paste it?

John Owens

There you go again. God, you are so DENSE!

Los Guy

I might be dense but you definite do not believe in or follow the Bible or the teachings of Jesus Christ which is what your posts indicate. There is nothing more to say to a confirmed homophobic except that I have seen that most homophobic people (like you a non-believer in the Bible or the Teachings of JC, just a person that makes up a lot of stuff) are usually racist. Now I am not saying you are a racist but you sure seem to be a lot closer to them than the rest of the people on this board...

John Owens

You are unbelievably stubborn, bitter and hypocritical. You do hate Christians and you hate yourself which is why you hate me. I couldn't care less except that this blog gives you a forum to spread your untruth and hatred for anything good. You twist everything you see and hear and that I have said and you accuse me of being like you, a hypocrite and hater, but you are wrong. Not just a little bit wrong, 180 degrees wrong. I'm not angry, not hurt, not hating, not homophobic, not ignorant. You only use scripture to condemn others whom you do not even know. I have a new name for you: Hominis Cavus, and your little buddy, Hominis Minimus.

Revel in your new-found celebrity!

Los Guy

John Owens you keep making unfounded accusations about me hating Christianity, I don't hate It it is just another philosophy based on mythology, Why should I care, and I don't, whether a person is uneducated enough to believe in and worship a myth. Your angry because you know that I am right about the bakers discrimination but because I am an atheist you can't admit it so the next thing you do is to start proselytizing, failure is your only option...

John Owens

Dee dee dee, dah, dah dah. More sick drooling. Yada, yada.

Tom B

John...it would be entertaining (though sad) to see the convoluted reasoning that would get that case through all the lower level courts to the Supreme Court...this is not why we have a judicial system...Tom

John Owens

Agreed, Tom

Los Guy

Yup...

John Owens

Don't public vendors already pay for those public services they enjoy through licensing, rent or property tax, and income, municipal, county, and state sales tax?

Tom B

John...sorry for not being clear...my point is that if religious organizations want the services, which they obviously do, they should pay taxes...if vendors pay for all their services, and there is nothing special with the services they receive (no special assessments, etc), then they should have their choice...in no ways does this change my opinion that they should put aside their personal beliefs and serve whomever wants their services...Tom

Los Guy

First of all it is not your business what other people do as long as what they do is not breaking the laws or hurting others. Secondly it is not accommodating anyone sexual habits it is buying a product in a public store that has paid their license fees so they can open a public business. To do this there are laws that one must follow to be a public store and to think that your religion or any religion has a "Get out of jail for free" card is doing exactly that asking that they have the permission to break the law because they are trying to put their nose into someone else business...

John Owens

Guy, all of your arguments are hollow and contrived. I have gay and lesbian acquaintances. We sometimes dine together or socialize at gatherings, but they should they decide to marry, they would not ask me to perform the ceremony, and if they did, they would not sue me when I politely refused. It is the same principle. The EXACT same principle. A wedding cake is not like a birthday cake or an ordinary dessert. A wedding cake is part of a RELIGIOUS ceremony. By taking part in it that way, the baker is validating the marriage. That is what is at stake here. It is not about cake. They can get cake anywhere. They want to force a CHRISTIAN BAKER TO VALIDATE THEIR UNION. If they believe they are REALLY in the right, they don't NEED Christian validation. If they DO need it, they have to do it within the Christian practice, and that does not fit their lifestyle.

Los Guy

John Owens that is a fallacy making a cake has nothing to do with validating the marriage making a cake is not a religious event and the idea that it is OK to sin against others that you disagree with is compounding the sin of the baker and theist that follow this POV. There is a phrase in the Bible that Christians seem to ignore when it comes to people they disapprove of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Even denying the rights of a Christian wedding to anyone is an abomination against the teaching of the NT and the mythical Jesus Christ. Sinning against someone you decide is a sinner seems to me a much more evil sin than just being a sinner due to DNA issues that the person cannot help. Christians that follow this POV against anyone is just like ISIS just not quite as extreme. Christians have become the judge and punisher, I suspect because God has not thrown lighting bolts down and destroyed all of the Gays in the world...

John Owens

Guy, how can someone like you even PRESUME to preach to anyone about ANYTHING? You have eloquently expressed your disdain for the "Abrahamic Religions," and with them their Scriptures. THEREFORE, SIR, YOU HAVE NO LEG ON WHICH TO STAND BESIDES YOUR OWN EGO which is hyper-inflated and hollow.

Nix

I would say as educated as Guy seems to be on the Bible and Christianity, he very much has a leg to stand on.

Los Guy

John Owens, as usual your reading comprehension is at a very low level. I never said anything about hating the Abrahamic Religions and of course you do not understand the difference between disliking the actions of many Christians and hating Christians. First of all hate is a useless emotion and a waste of my time. Secondly I still don't care if you worship myths that's your business but the actions of people including Christians that I dislike. It is none of my business how you think but it is my business how you treat people...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John Owens

I don't know who you think you are kidding, but you are about as unhinged as a person can be who is not institutionalized or at least in a half-way house.

John Owens

...and I daresay my reading comprehension as well as my writing ability, grammar, and syntax are equal to the best 3-5% on this blog, if there is any accurate way to measure such things, plus I do this in a place of business and distractions, and I'm still as good as you, or better.

John Owens

EPILOGUE: 07/23/2018 The Supreme Court said my assessment was correct, and that Guy Warinner and Caleb were wrong.

John Owens

Did you lose your love of goodness when you decided to become something you know is an abomination? Or was it later? Just wondering.

John Maher

TELL ME JOHN BOOGER OWINS, is that what HAPPENED to YOU and ALL the DOTAR ORANGUtRUMP VOTERS ??? DID YOU LOSE YOUR LOVE of the CHRIST and NOW FOLLOW DOTAR ORANGUtRUMP ???

Nix

There are many studies to the contrary:

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-genetic-homosexuality-nature-nurture-20151007-story.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3265248/Homosexuality-imprinted-genes-Scientists-predict-gay-70-cent-accuracy.html

http://bigthink.com/think-tank/the-gay-gene-new-evidence-supports-an-old-hypothesis

Google "gay dna" Those stories are in the first five that pull up. What you got to dispute science?

John Owens

An excerpt from the first study you linked, emphasis mine :

McCarthy and other experts cautioned that the discovery of epigenomic marks SUGGESTIVE of homosexuality is a FAR cry from finding the causes of sexual preference.

The distinctive epigenomic marks observed by Ngun and his colleagues COULD result from some OTHER biological OR lifestyle factor common to homosexual men but UNRELATED to their sexuality, said University of Utah geneticist Christopher Gregg. They could correlate with homosexuality but have NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

“Epigenetic marks are the consequence of complex interactions between the genetics, development and environment of an individual," said University of Cambridge geneticist Eric Miska. "Simple correlations -- IF significant -- of epigenetic marks of an individual with anything from favorite football player to disease risk DOES NOT IMPLY a causal relationship or understanding.”

If you are reading this as though it says genetics cause homosexuality, you cannot read very well.

John Owens

The second link is the dailymail, and the claims in the header of this article oppose the information in the first article, even though both are about the same GAY researcher, Tuck C. Ngun. Accepting GAY GENE research from a GAY researcher would be just like accepting CREATIONISM research from a CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALIST researcher. It doesn't mean it is false, but it has to be heavily scrutinized.

Either way, the research does NOT say there is a gay gene, and Caleb and his buddy Guy are reading INTO it what they SO BADLY WANT TO BE TRUE, but is not, cannot be, because it is TOTALLY ILLOGICAL.

They claim to follow and believe science, but they are NOT faithful to the science.

All of which is irrelevant. Gay or not, the couple has no specific right to a wedding cake. I only mention the fake DNA information because one Guy keeps saying it as though it is a recognized FACT, which it is NOT.

Nix

There first study concludes with the data "conclusively suggest that genes don’t explain everything." The key word being everything. Meaning not 100%. Just like I have said two or three times before. Nothing is 100% in the study or any other on this topic! The article also says that much more study will have to be done. A good scientist will use all factors to prove, disprove their theory. That was done here. Biological evidence was not disproved, meaning the evidence is partially there, at least enough to keep studying further. But you are so right with your second post John, a study with some conflicting, some collaborating evidence that homosexuality is in part biological, can't be given credence because the scientist was gay. Good catch there!

John Owens

I don't have to disprove anything. It is a stupid theory, yet some people keep throwing it into the conversation nonchalantly as though it is accepted. You even want to argue it, because you have nothing else to do.

Los Guy

John, Stupid is professing to follow Jesus Christ 's Teachings and then support discrimination. Either you follow the teachings of JC or you don't and from your answers you don't seem to follow the teaching of JC. Stupidity is an option you have taken...

John Owens

You're just saying that because your "evidence" is crap, but then it would have to be. You wouldn't know about JC. Saying you've studied something is the same as saying, "I read a book about that." Every time you type something it just makes you look more and more hollow. I guess that's caused by DNA, too.

Los Guy

Stupid again. John I said I read them while I was a Christian, it is too bad you don't have any reading comprehension. Exactly how would you know my evidence is crap because I will bet dollars to donuts that you didn't read them. The mentally weak always attacks with lies about what was posted, the others read and evaluate what I have said or posted, Your such a sad person that you have to lie to try and prove me wrong...

Nix

Again John why are you so hell bent on the idea that it is biological?

John Owens

I DID READ THEM. IS YOUR COMPREHENSION DEFICIENT? THAT WAS DONE BY A GAY RESEARCHER AND DID NOT SAY HOMOSEXUALITY WAS CAUSED BY DNA. So, even though he had an axe to grind, so he was saying maybe this and maybe that, could be this, could be that, he did NOT say being gay was caused by DNA. You are just grasping at straws.

Nix

Oh so now you know the scientist. We'll tell me what is his ax to grind exactly? Again you can't defend your position other than name calling. You have 0 credibility.

John Owens

Caleb, you are far too dense to converse about this. I looked up the researcher. He is openly gay. His last name appears Cambodian or Vietnamese or Laotian, like Nungh, or something similar. I am not hellbent and it is not "ridiculously" important to me to prove it is not biological. YOU AND YOUR HOLLOW HERO are the ones who keep insisting that it IS biological and you keep putting up pretend research to back your preposterous claims. THEN you are so hollow that you pretend that I am the one obsessing. It is EASY to discredit any science that says that, because it is junk science, and cannot ever be anything else because when you set about to achieve a pre-determined result, you cannot, will not follow the pure scientific method and your findings will always be dubious. You are both very unbalanced individuals.

Nix

Why do you obsess bc me and another member who I've never met, agree on this particular issue? You've done that like three of four times and it's creepy. But ultimately what I find interesting is where there are tons of studies to say science has some play in one being gay, so call it all junk. Where's your science that it's not. You've been asked that at least 10 times and can't provide anything. Not just science but you can't even say why you have come to this conclusion. Man up and offer something.

John Owens

Where is YOUR evidence the Bible is not true? Can you prove the God of the Bible is not the Creator?

John Owens

A) You don't decide what is Christian and what is anti-Christian, and B) It remains to be determined whether it was unlawful or not. Being accused and prosecuted does not mean guilty. Still grasping at straws. Such desperation!

Los Guy

I don't decide what is Christian ignoramus it is in the Bible to be read in plain language as well as archaic language and being an atheist I know what anti-Christians is. Discrimination is against the law, against the Constitution and against the Bible.and your homophobic insanity dose not allow you to think beyond stupidity...!!!!!!!

John Owens

There you go with the homophobic thing again. That's all you have. No science, no reason, no real discussion. Just accuse, accuse, accuse, accuse. THAT's unbiased, objective thinking, right there! You made up your mind about me before you ever met me. The only way anything I EVER say could sound reasonable to YOU, is if it MATCHES WHAT YOU SAY. You sit there in front of your keyboard, typing out the blasphemies in your head, as though it is just therapy for you and has no effect on those who read the debris that comes out of your hollow cranium. You criticize Christ and Christians, and call them homophobes and haters and judgmental because they do not automatically assume the worst about other Christians and the best about non-Christians AT THE SAME TIME. You exalt yourself above all that is called God, showing yourself that you are God, at the same time as you say that God is a myth. That would make you a fictional character, hence the name, Hominis Cavus.

You get more and more unhinged with each blurb. Babble on, please.

John Owens

EPILOGUE: 07/23/2018 The Supreme Court said my assessment was correct. Now who is an ignoramus?

John Owens

Nobody is hiding, Caleb, and I belong to a group of people who do not hide.

John Maher

CALEB that sounds like a THREAT from the COWARD OWINS, KKK, MAYBE, HE WOULD or WORSE a tRUMPETEER, DUMP the IGNORAMUS TRAITOR tRUMP, GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

Nix

John Mayer, he's not threatening. I mean how serious can you take someone who conducts himself like a 10 year old.

John Owens

You can take me a lot more seriously than Caleb, or Guy. I called this from the beginning, but NOOOOO. I was a hater, and lacked credibility.

Y'all were the ones acting like juveniles.

John Owens

Yeah, that's fantastic. Does not appy to CIA, NSA, DOD, ICE, FBI, etc. I wasn't talking about being a greeter.

John Maher

AMEN, BROTHER GUY, AMEN, DUMP the IGNORAMUS tRUMP GOD is GREAT so is the US of A

John Owens

On this very blog, a white Christian, especially a MALE white Christian, is verbally discriminated against, BECAUSE he is white, and because he is Christian. A white Christian will draw a lot of insults and snide commentary just for speaking here. I don't mind that, but you have to realize you are preaching horrendous overkill to prevent future theoretical discrimination. I am saying not baking a cake for someone for ANY reason does not constitute actionable DISCRIMINATION in any just society. Now, in this country, you can sue anybody for anything. That doesn't mean you will win, but like I said somewhere else on here, nothing shows love and tolerance like a lawsuit. You could also say, "Love me or I will take you to court." None of that is going to gain any love for gays.

LtBil Drat

By that, I would agree with in total. No two bites of the apple. Your resolution also mandates that Jews would have to make a Nazi cake, Bendme Sanders, Obozo and Killary Klansmen would have to make a Trump cake. Blacks would have to make a KKK Cake etc. So either NO group can discriminate or it's allowed by the bakery owner in ANY instance.

John Owens

EXACTLY, LtBil Drat. They'll be singing out the other end if that happens.

angel

Hey, wait a minute, white people are being discriminated against all the time, especially white males! They don't have to be christian and yes, my family has before and still lives on your side of the coin! Tables have already turned, are you happy now? Is this what you call equality? Get a clue!

angel

My family has never discriminated against people, in fact, if it weren't for people like my dad who fought in wars for this country, you wouldn't have the right to spout your bs right now! Now let me give you a little history lesson, since they don't like this to be taught in schools anymore. The people you follow now (democrats) are the very people who bought and used slaves! Yep, a bunch of rich white democrats. The people you hate (republicans) are the one's who created the underground railroad and risked their lives to not only help slaves get to a free land but also fought to make all slaves free! No, Harriette Tubman did not create the underground railroad, not only was she black, but she was also female. She was an activists for it though, and she networked with people to help the slaves get from the south to the north! But I guess it's easier to blame ALL white people so you have an excuse to continue to live your pethetic miserable life on my tax dollars! If you want to blame white people for slavery, then point the finger to the people who actually did it, your beloved democrats! Because there is not a drop of blood on my families hands for the slavery!

John Owens

Amen, Angel. Blaming ALL whites doesn't give any credit to the soldiers of the North who died in the Civil War, or to the white civil rights activists who were killed or beaten. It's just bigotry disguised as victimhood and acrimony.

John Owens

Yep, Let the unfounded recriminations fly. "anger and unfounded hatred." You're funny!

John Owens

...as opposed to the gay couple who wants to SUE people to prove they are equal, meaning they are not, or they wouldn't be having to sue to prove it.

Los Guy

John, the gay couple are asking for equality and nothing more. I wonder how many bakeries they went to and were denied service before they were frustrated enough to sue...?

John Owens

Any self-respecting homosexual would have hired a homosexual caterer and not had to worry about it, and their wedding and reception would have been FABULOUS.

Stefan

Matthew 9,9-13

Los Guy

Yes the baker did provoke something or this case would not be in the courts. The baker is expecting to get the privileged to discriminate based on sexual preference (which is not a preference because there is not one person that goes out and says "Gee, I want to be gay so I can get beat up, discriminated against, ridiculed, abused, mocked" because those are really fun things to do, it is a DNA issue or an issue of what a doctor gave the mother during pregnancy. Those are facts that have been proven not serialized in an archaic book about the Ancient Semitic Hebrew and their mythical God and the Ancient Semitic Hebrew's view of how the world works. Finally John the baker was not acting like a Christian he was acting like a God judging and punishing them for his perceived sins of their actions. The Christian Bible says that only God or Jesus Christ has the right to judge and punish but most white men take this to heart and take over the job of God so they can judge and punish who ever they decide is evil...

John Owens

GUY! IN WHAT UNIVERSE IS NOT BAKING A CAKE FOR SOMEONE CONSIDERED GOD-LIKE JUDGEMENT? Your statements are insane, the product of a sick, deluded mind with no real-world experience.

And Stefan, I am familiar with the verses you mention, but I HAVE broken bread with all manner of people on three continents, but I have not participated in all manner of weddings. Jesus did not cater a wedding here. On this issue, the ones siding with the gay couple are totally off base. The use of any Christian principle here is totally opportunistic and inappropriate, particularly so if you do not call yourself a Christian. Pagans do not dictate to Christians how to act like Christ. Christ at no time ever told people that He blessed their sin. He forgave sin, but He did not say that it WASN'T sin, and He didn't participate in it. Best I can tell, the baker did not condemn these people. He was just not comfortable fulfilling their wish. Guy wants to turn it into hateful judgement, but that's just so he can get his way, not because he believes it.

John Owens

And Guy, please provide some evidence somewhere of a DNA issue causing homosexuality. PLEASE! Just come up with a plausible reason that DNA could have stood the rigors of evolution and procreated itself.

angel

I agree, if the baker wants to commit financial suicide, I say we let him!

angel

Actually, Jesus was a Jew and lived in the middle east where homesexuals were killed, so he probebly would have sent them away. Thinking that Jesus was a loving and the greatest person on the planet is ridiculous since we see the anger he had towards the pharisees! He hated these spiritual leader's with a passion! Though he was a bit more open-minded, he still stayed pretty close to confines of his religion, Judaism.

Stefan

Guy, exactly right. Making oneself a judge of a behaviour that does no harm anyone is dangerous for the soul, the psychological well being or the karma. Even if I would think that homosexuality was evil, who make me judge of it? Matthew 7 has a clear message about that.

Stefan

The real problem or the ethical question here in my view is not whether homosexuality is right or wrong. Everyone seems to take sides here to defend either baker or couple.

The question that I ask myself just for me personnally without claiming that it is the right answer for everyone: what would Jesus have done being in the shoes of the baker? what being a wedding guest of the couple? If we want to give a Christian answer that would be the point to think and meditate about. Someone who forgave the people who crucified him. Would he really prefer the law over mercy? Why does the old Hosea 6:6 quote appear twice in Matthew both time in the context were Jesus has made a choice between the law and the mercy towards a human being?

For me this is guidance enough. Others may think differently.

John Owens

Nobody on Earth is qualified to answer with any finality what Jesus would do. Jesus was a builder and not a baker. He left His business to His brothers and mother to go and preach the Kingdom of God.

I agree that homosexuality is not the issue here, but apparently most of the people on the blog think it is. The issue, in my opinion, is whether the gay couple had a LEGAL RIGHT TO DEMAND THAT ANOTHER PERSON BAKE THEM A CAKE. I say, no they did not, nor do I nor does President Trump nor did Barak Obama. You can NOT demand others do as YOU wish in a free country.

This is why "Health Care" can NEVER EVER be a RIGHT. That would mean that any "health care" professional would not be free. They would HAVE to work for others, even if they did not want to do so, and at a wage determined by others. Their freedom would be stripped from them. No couple, black, yellow, gay, straight, green, purple, Innuit, can demand that somebody bake them a cake. You just have no right to demand that.

Sorry. You know I'm right, even though you hate it.

Stefan

John, in reply to you comment: yes, you observe correctly, everyone here speaks about the law and about being right.

That is why I quoted Matthew 9,9-13 in the first place. The Pharisees talk about the law and the sin and in the end even refuse to sit with the sinners on one table while Christ points out that the law is less relevant than mercy.

I know I am repeating myself and and hope no one gets annoyed by this.

As long as we stick to the legalistic arguments we stay stuck in the world view of the pharisees. And core of Christian teaching is, that this world view does not lead to good things.

John Owens

I appreciate what you are saying, Stefan, but the gay couple went the way of the Pharisees. These people only want us to act like Christians when it means they can walk on us. The rest of the time they want us to go along with what they are doing or at least ignore it and not make a sound about it. That is their idea of love because they only know Satan's love and not God's.

Nix

Now you're making things up. Who knows if the gay couple followed the golden rule?They patronized a business and were turned away. It hasn't been reported that they treated anyone not the way they would want to be treated. And you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say a Christian needed to do anything to "give me my way." You're starting to come off as delusional.

John Owens

That would be you coming across as delusional, Caleb. I am quite rational and reasonable. I also have a lifetime of experiences on which to draw. The golden rule is universal and cuts both ways. Either live by it and expect it of others, or don't live by it and don't expect it of others. You're just being obtuse now. I'm saying, if they followed the golden rule, they wouldn't sue. Not hard to understand. You want Christians to act like Christians if it means giving the gay couple what they want, but if acting like a Christian means not taking part in a gay wedding, you DON'T want them acting like a Christian. ERGO, YOU are saying, in THIS CASE, in order to behave like a Christian, the ONLY option is to play this minor role in a gay wedding. That is your position, but goes against 1900 years of Christian teaching. You may think your position will someday be the majority position, AND IT MAY, but at this time, it is not. Not even close. It is perhaps the majority position ON THIS BLOG, but ULC is not indicative of the population as a whole. Most traditionalists will have nothing to do with the ULC, because it only exists for NON-traditionalists or people who are not actually religious at all, but still want to be ministers of nothingness.

Nix

Funny John, I don't remember Jesus ever saying,"do unto others as you would have done unto you...except if you're homosexual"

John Owens

I would counter that homophobia is not a disease at all, because the way the word is used has nothing whatsoever to do with its lexical definition. Homosexuality is not a disease either, but a condition, although the word fairly accurately describes the symptoms of the condition, unlike homophobia.

I say it takes a weak and unintelligent mind to be convinced that homophobia is a disease at all. That's just low-rate low-IQ brainwashing talk for the generations of the Bell curve.

John Owens

Blah blah blah, dee dee dee, yada yada yada. You go around in circles over and over, and you can't stand it if I don't indulge your little quasi-thoughts. I have to iggy you, except to say blah blah blah, etc. Now, go sniff Guy some more.

Los Guy

It is sad that you are mentally retarded as well as ignorant, stupid, bigot and a liar, etc. I could go on but the list it too long...

John Owens

ROFL!

Los Guy

Thank you John Owens for supporting my last post...

Minister Bill

:)

John Owens

Like the one just below. V

John Maher

JOHN OWINS get off the BLOG and get back to UR FAMILIEs FOX FAKE NEWs and the tRUMPs, YEAH and READ a BOOK if YOUR ABLE MABEL, GOD is GREAT so is the US of A, DUMP the IGNORAMUS TRAITOR tRUMP !!!

John Owens

YOU tell US, Caleb. YOU'RE the one following Guy.

Tom B

Stefan...i generally agree with you...but with regard to laws, i believe that the more laws that exist, the more they evidence the breakdown of society...i also believe that if people would stop talking about Christian/Jewish/Islamic or all other "beliefs", and just consider each other in light of love and caring, everyone would be better off...religions act to separate, not unite, people...Tom