Skeleon said:
If you enjoyed that, then you may also like this:
To some people, this "yes, even if you're gay, we'll let you give us money"-sticker is bullying. Of Christians.
I'm familiar with that. There's also been a claim that anti-bullying laws unfairly discriminate against Christians because....I don't know. I guess attacking gays is a Christian value, in their minds? I bring it up because of the rest of this:
But that's unfair and wrong. Because these people don't speak for Christians, they only speak for their own, narrow group. Please don't let people like that speak for you, if you are a Christian.
In my college years, my public speaking course required us to make multiple persuasive speeches. One of the ones I did was same-sex marriage, a big deal at the time in the state of Massachusetts because we/they were on the fiftieth or sixtieth attempt to ban same-sex marriages in the state. Well, it's over a decade later and we know how that turned out. In fact, it's almost the 10 year anniversary of same-sex marriage in the state.
Anyway, one of the students argues with me in front of the class that homosexuality is an affront to Christians. That's when my professor stepped in and was all "O RLY?"
My professor, you see, is not just a Christian, but a minister. Now, his branch of Christianity (I forget which it is) still didn't allow gays to marry within the church, but they were open to homosexuals and even gays within the congregation.
...In fact, he had been the one who suggested I use the topic. And he was pro-same-sex marriage, because he knew that what happened in a civil sense had nothing to do with the church.
Anyway, I loved that epic smackdown and thought I would relate it because it's pertinent. When people say being anti-gay is a Christian value, they don't represent every Christian. I'd have trouble saying they represent a majority of Christians in the US, but I don't have the numbers on that.
Rellik San said:
The intereting thing about Satanism is that is rose from the ashes of a Christian discrediting of pagan iconography. The goat-headed God is a left over from the nature worshiping pagan and Druidic religions that dominated Europe in the pre-chrsitian era.
Is it really irony, though, since the Christian faith assimilated so much of the pagan culture either through compromise or comodification?
Adam Jensen said:
But you know what I'd really like to see? A Muslim statue. It would piss them off so much their heads would explode!
The "Ground Zero" Mosque came close.
Knight Captain Kerr said:
I find it worrying that stores would even have to put up stickers like that in the first place.
Several states have proposed religious "freedom" laws. That's what led to this. I find it even more troubling that two states proposed laws that would allow medical and police services to turn you down if you were gay.
Deathfish15 said:
The thing about it is that all they have to do is instead claim what the 10 Commandments are and then it won't be an issue any more. What are they? They are base historical teachings that are the foundation for modern day law. Get it? Basically it's an adorning replica that appreciates the basis for laws against murder, theft, false testimony, and so on. That's where our modern day laws come from and that's why they fit so appropriately without being simply labeled as a "a religious relic". If Oklahoma were to use this explanation for reasoning behind those sitting there, they can totally get away with it without giving in to a bunch of Satan worshipers trying to find a loophole to place a nutter statue in the lawn.
Of course, the Ten Commandments (these and the final ones, along with the rest of the ones in the book) are covenants with God and specific groups. Beyond that, they include things like honouring the Sabbath, honouring your parents, forbidding graven images, and holding no Gods before Yahweh.
These are not the foundation of modern law. Just because they coincide with some elements of modern law (and even things like "false witness" don't work like you claim they do) doesn't make them a legal foundation. And someone else already pointed out that Hammurabi's code and the Egyptian laws are the more accurate foundations, so I won't go there.
Darth_Payn said:
If you mean a statue of Mohammed, there's no way they'd do that. Islamic law forbids showing what he may have looked like.
Not entirely true. That's neither a universal belief nor a traditional one. There are historical depictions of Muhammad by Muslims, and Shia are not against the depiction.
Then again, the Old Testament technically forbids art, period.....
Tanis said:
Also:
I thought Lucifer (Morning Star) was pre-fall and Satan was post-fall?
They have issues with canon. Many fanworks have been released to try and rectify things, but there's no true answer.