Mike Huckabee: U.S. moving toward 'criminalization of Christianity'

[RGCheek]

This is why I’m wondering why people are turning this into refusal of service based on sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is not a protected status.

With activist judges the law doesn’t really matter nor does common sense nor any sense of proportion.

 

[RGCheek]

I suspect it’s the couples themselves (more likely, their lawyers) pressing for every cent they could get, rather than deliberately wanting to “punish” a Christian (but I remain open minded on that front because while gay people are just as lovely/obnoxious in the same proportions as in the heterosexual population, there are a few awful people in every walk of life as I’m sure we all have experienced…)

I still don’t get it (I’m sorry to go on about it but I’m clearly missing something). The couples did not ask the owners of Sweet Cakes to conduct their “wedding” ceremonies nor to attend them. They just asked for a cake! Which is a standard product made by the company! Why is it an affront to someone to just do the job you love doing (baking), and get paid for it into the bargain!? You’d think they’d asked them to slaughter kittens…

The requested wedding cake was to have the names of the two women on it and for an obviously gay wedding. This is a request to be involved in the process of supporting and performing in a gay wedding that the bakers felt was immoral.

I don’t get how you don’t get it.

 

[ishii]

 From: zz912

Pope Francis recently denounced the “new tyranny” of unfettered capitalism and calls inequality “the root of social evil.” Subject of another thread but I would welcome some discussion on it. I wonder what alternative he might be thinking about. I bet it’s a mixed economy of some sort. But it’s certainly not unfettered capitalism. That’s off the table.

What is unfettered capitalism and where is it practiced now?

The problem with that particular argument is that the purpose for which Peter had drawn his sword was in fact defense. Jesus and the 12 were not launching an assault on the Roman guards that night. The passage is clearly a statement about violence and weapons. So defense is off the table. Offer another argument and we'll discuss that too.

No its not. Luke 22:36 Why would Jesus tell the disciples to buy a sword if defense was off the table?

I think Charles Dickens spent a good deal of his life writing about private and church run institutions and programs for the poor. The problems with that approach are how the government stuff came about in the first place. For our Tea Party readers, Charles Dickens was a writer in 19th century England.

Well, getting back to the 21st century… We have the opposite extreme: trickle down charity - bloated federal bureaucracies which have programs that waste money and actually make problems worse. Why would it make sense to funnel money through a bloated, corrupt federal bureaucracy which is worried more about its survival (as a bureaucracy) than in solving problems and helping people? Trickle down charity. These programs likely violate the Catholic principle of subsidiarity - for our liberal readers, the principle of subsidiarity says that matters / problems should be handled by the lowest or least centralized authority. This would seem argue against the endless spending on federal programs that make liberals feel good about themselves, but waste money and actually tend to make matters worse. Moreover, these federal programs create a corrupt society: it encourages entitlement mentality among the citizens as well as corrupting those who dispense the entitlement who view the those in need receiving entitlements as a constituency to be grown in order to stay in power : “the American republic will endure until the congress realizes it can bribe the public with the public’s money” ( Alexis de Tocqueville). Note to liberal readers: Alexis de Tocqueville was a Frenchman who wrote Democracy in America.

Ishii

 

[estesbob]

From: zz912

I think Charles Dickens spent a good deal of his life writing about private and church run institutions and programs for the poor. The problems with that approach are how the government stuff came about in the first place. For our Tea Party readers, Charles Dickens was a writer in 19th century England.

All the best,
Gary

And for our liberal victims of the public school system don’t despair- you can get audiobooks of Dickens works

 

[qui_est_ce]

My apologies if I misread your post. I’m very happy to hear you are aware of the different legal issues at play. Many of our elected officials don’t seem to have that awareness and I hope you will run for office and replace them.

No thank you. I have enough problems being on my condo board.

 

[qui_est_ce]

I suspect it’s the couples themselves (more likely, their lawyers) pressing for every cent they could get, rather than deliberately wanting to “punish” a Christian (but I remain open minded on that front because while gay people are just as lovely/obnoxious in the same proportions as in the heterosexual population, there are a few awful people in every walk of life as I’m sure we all have experienced…)

I still don’t get it (I’m sorry to go on about it but I’m clearly missing something). The couples did not ask the owners of Sweet Cakes to conduct their “wedding” ceremonies nor to attend them. They just asked for a cake! Which is a standard product made by the company! Why is it an affront to someone to just do the job you love doing (baking), and get paid for it into the bargain!?

You have a right to your opinion on this one. You don’t have a right to foist it on this couple. To them it was an affront. And they have the legal right to refuse.

You’d think they’d asked them to slaughter kittens…

You’d think they’d slaughtered kittens the way they are being sued and vilified.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From Ishii:

What is unfettered capitalism and where is it practiced now?

Good Afternoon Ishii: It’s a fictitious idea that the Pope and I made up that isn’t actually happening anywhere. Just ignore us. The whole thing is foolish.

No its not. Luke 22:36 Why would Jesus tell the disciples to buy a sword if defense was off the table?

Because the two Gospels you and I cited say two different things. This is because they were written decades after Jesus was dead, by two different Greek speaking people who could read and write and who never met Jesus. And Greek is not thought to be the language of Jesus, nor for any Jews that were His contemporaries in Palestine. Jesus probably never met anyone who could read or write with the exception of perhaps Caiaphas and maybe Pilate, and they weren’t interested In His teachings. The skill was rare among Jesus’ population. This means that no one who could read or write probably ever heard the teachings of Jesus or saw His actions. The closest any of these Gospel writers came to Jesus was Luke, who was actually probably a disciple of Paul, and Luke could read and write. Paul of course could read and write as well, but never actually met Jesus during His lifetime or witnessed His deeds or His public ministries. This is important because Paul is Luke’s only link to Jesus. It naturally follows, and we can clearly see of course that the bible has conflicting accounts. Therefore, my point is that you can find something in the bible to support just about anything you want to say. People have been doing that for thousands of years. The passage I have cited about weapons is clearly in opposition to weapons and violence. The one you cited is clearly for weapons and violence. Because of the problems I mentioned above, Jesus turns out to be a rather shapeable character with respect to just about any point you want to make. That is the historical and factual truth on the matter. Because of this, 20 centuries later, He has become the Stretch Armstrong of philosophical, religious and political debate.

Well, getting back to the 21st century… We have the opposite extreme: trickle down charity - bloated federal bureaucracies which have programs that waste money and actually make problems worse. Why would it make sense to funnel money through a bloated, corrupt federal bureaucracy which is worried more about its survival (as a bureaucracy) than in solving problems and helping people? Trickle down charity. These programs likely violate the Catholic principle of subsidiarity - for our liberal readers, the principle of subsidiarity says that matters / problems should be handled by the lowest or least centralized authority. This would seem argue against the endless spending on federal programs that make liberals feel good about themselves, but waste money and actually tend to make matters worse. Moreover, these federal programs create a corrupt society: it encourages entitlement mentality among the citizens as well as corrupting those who dispense the entitlement who view the those in need receiving entitlements as a constituency to be grown in order to stay in power : “the American republic will endure until the congress realizes it can bribe the public with the public’s money” ( Alexis de Tocqueville). Note to liberal readers: Alexis de Tocqueville was a Frenchman who wrote Democracy in America.

So we should stop Social Security and Medicare? These are the two largest entitlement programs in the United States.

All the best
Gary

 

[Murmurs]

You have a right to your opinion on this one. You don’t have a right to foist it on this couple. To them it was an affront. And they have the legal right to refuse.

Of course they have that right but I think not on the basis of it being a cake for a same-sex wedding because that represents discrimination. To put it another way, I’d happily bake a cake for an abortionist. Not because I find abortion remotely acceptable (at least a good 99% of the time) - in fact I would find someone who practices abortion on a daily basis to certainly represent an affront to what I believe in - but I could still bake them a cake.

You’d think they’d slaughtered kittens the way they are being sued and vilified

True, and I hope I don’t come across as vilifying them. Certainly I’d not remotely intend to do that, particularly for their beliefs themselves which I imagine I largely share. In fact in many ways (the payout particularly) the owners have been very hard done by. I’m just questioning at what point the line should be drawn between being an advocate for your beliefs and doing your job in a world which does not (for whatever reason and however much we might regret it) share them.

 

[estesbob]

From: zz912

I think Charles Dickens spent a good deal of his life writing about private and church run institutions and programs for the poor. The problems with that approach are how the government stuff came about in the first place. For our Tea Party readers, Charles Dickens was a writer in 19th century England.

All the best,
Gary

And for our liberal victims of the public school system don’t despair- you can get audiobooks of Dickens works

 

[qui_est_ce]

From Ishii:
{snip}

So we should stop Social Security and Medicare? These are the two largest entitlement programs in the United States.

All the best
Gary

Yes.

 

[ishii]

From Ishii:

Good Afternoon Ishii: It’s a fictitious idea that the Pope and I made up that isn’t actually happening anywhere. Just ignore us. The whole thing is foolish.

Noted that you have no answer, Gary. Do respond when (if) you have one.

Because the two Gospels you and I cited say two different things. This is because they were written decades after Jesus was dead, by two different Greek speaking people who could read and write and who never met Jesus. And Greek is not thought to be the language of Jesus, nor for any Jews that were His contemporaries in Palestine. Jesus probably never met anyone who could read or write with the exception of perhaps Caiaphas and maybe Pilate, and they weren’t interested In His teachings. The skill was rare among Jesus’ population. This means that no one who could read or write probably ever heard the teachings of Jesus or saw His actions. The closest any of these Gospel writers came to Jesus was Luke, who was actually probably a disciple of Paul, and Luke could read and write. Paul of course could read and write as well, but never actually met Jesus during His lifetime or witnessed His deeds or His public ministries. This is important because Paul is Luke’s only link to Jesus. It naturally follows, and we can clearly see of course that the bible has conflicting accounts. Therefore, my point is that you can find something in the bible to support just about anything you want to say. People have been doing that for thousands of years. The passage I have cited about weapons is clearly in opposition to weapons and violence. The one you cited is clearly for weapons and violence. Because of the problems I mentioned above, Jesus turns out to be a rather shapeable character with respect to just about any point you want to make. That is the historical and factual truth on the matter. Because of this, 20 centuries later, He has become the Stretch Armstrong of philosophical, religious and political debate.

So let me get this straight: you can quote or otherwise refer to scripture to support your position:

The problem with that particular argument is that the purpose for which Peter had drawn his sword was in fact defense. Jesus and the 12 were not launching an assault on the Roman guards that night. The passage is clearly a statement about violence and weapons. So defense is off the table****. Offer another argument and we’ll discuss that too.

But when I quote scripture, suddenly scripture is “shapeable” and can be used to make any point? That seems like an unfair double standard to me.

So we should stop Social Security and Medicare? These are the two largest entitlement programs in the United States.

Where did I say that we should stop Social Security and Medicare? I am not for stopping those programs. I do think that reforms are in order: to make sure that they can remain solvent, and also to make sure that they are available for those who really need them. Honest people can disagree on the extent, shape/form of entitlements and still remain equally committed to helping the poor/needy, would you agree? Or do you think that one has to agree with you 100% and anything short of that is to “not care for the poor” ?

Ishii

 

[DoGodsBidding]

Because the two Gospels you and I cited say two different things. This is because they were written decades after Jesus was dead, by two different Greek speaking people who could read and write and who never met Jesus. And Greek is not thought to be the language of Jesus, nor for any Jews that were His contemporaries in Palestine. Jesus probably never met anyone who could read or write with the exception of perhaps Caiaphas and maybe Pilate, and they weren’t interested In His teachings. The skill was rare among Jesus’ population. This means that no one who could read or write probably ever heard the teachings of Jesus or saw His actions. The closest any of these Gospel writers came to Jesus was Luke, who was actually probably a disciple of Paul, and Luke could read and write. Paul of course could read and write as well, but never actually met Jesus during His lifetime or witnessed His deeds or His public ministries. This is important because Paul is Luke’s only link to Jesus. It naturally follows, and we can clearly see of course that the bible has conflicting accounts. Therefore, my point is that you can find something in the bible to support just about anything you want to say. People have been doing that for thousands of years. The passage I have cited about weapons is clearly in opposition to weapons and violence. The one you cited is clearly for weapons and violence. Because of the problems I mentioned above, Jesus turns out to be a rather shapeable character with respect to just about any point you want to make. That is the historical and factual truth on the matter. Because of this, 20 centuries later, He has become the Stretch Armstrong of philosophical, religious and political debate.

All the best
Gary

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Article 3
Sacred Scripture
II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.””

 

[Murmurs]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Article 3
Sacred Scripture
II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.””

Well the Gospels are absolutely divinely inspired (I don’t think Gary was necessarily denying that at all). But his point is that they don’t absolutely match up, which literally nobody can deny, and what Gary presents is a plausible explanation for how that came about. It doesn’t stop them being truth, or written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Article 3
Sacred Scripture
II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE
105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. “The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.””

Without regard to what the inspiration of scripture might be, whether divine or otherwise, the point is that there are many instances where events and statements in one Gospel are in direct conflict with events and statements in another Gospel. This is simply a fact and this fact is not denied by any church insofar as I am aware. Events in some gospels are actually in conflict with history as well. This is not my fault.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

From Ishii:

Noted that you have no answer, Gary. Do respond when (if) you have one.

I did respond. I advised that you should ignore Pope Francis and myself on the idea that unfettered capitalism actually exists anywhere. Perhaps Pope Francis took some time out from the real pressing matters of our time to comment on something like unfettered capitalism in the vent that might hypothetically happen someday.

So let me get this straight: you can quote or otherwise refer to scripture to support your position:

Yes, people do it all the time. And you can usually find something to support whatever it is you want to say. Tis is because of the way the words of Jesus are recorded in prose and parables coupled with the fact that the gospels sometimes show Him saying and doing one thing and have him saying something or doing something that doesn’t resonate with those words or actions in another. It lends to being able to shape His message just about any way you want. The example I gave was the issue of guns and weapons. Conservatives use Luke to show Jesus as someone who recommends weaponry. Liberals use Matthew to portray Him as a peaceful emissary of God. Which was He? Take your pick.

But when I quote scripture, suddenly scripture is “shapeable” and can be used to make any point? That seems like an unfair double standard to me.

We both shape it whatever way we are predisposed to see it. I advocate non-violence so I see no non-violent Jesus. Others see Him as some sort of warrior. What can I say?

Where did I say that we should stop Social Security and Medicare? I am not for stopping those programs. I do think that reforms are in order: to make sure that they can remain solvent, and also to make sure that they are available for those who really need them. Honest people can disagree on the extent, shape/form of entitlements and still remain equally committed to helping the poor/needy, would you agree? Or do you think that one has to agree with you 100% and anything short of that is to “not care for the poor” ?

Ishii

I had taken it that you thought social programs were corrupt and wasteful and should be replaced by private programs and church programs. If I read you wrong, I apologize.

All the best,
Gary

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Without regard to what the inspiration of scripture might be, whether divine or otherwise, the point is that there are many instances where events and statements in one Gospel are in direct conflict with events and statements in another Gospel. This is simply a fact and this fact is not denied by any church insofar as I am aware. Events in some gospels are actually in conflict with history as well. This is not my fault. As for the actual authors, we know they were human. With respect to how they were inspired, that Is a matter of faith. With regard to the Gospels being totally historically accurate or matching one another, we do know the answer to that. And while it may all be divinely inspired, and I do not contest that one way or another, the contents show that the people who wrote them down were very human.

All the best,
Gary

 

[ishii]

Without regard to what the inspiration of scripture might be, whether divine or otherwise, the point is that there are many instances where events and statements in one Gospel are in direct conflict with events and statements in another Gospel. This is simply a fact and this fact is not denied by any church insofar as I am aware. Events in some gospels are actually in conflict with history as well. This is not my fault.

All the best,
Gary

Which makes me wonder why you quoted scripture as a definitive proof that the Bible is against using weapons for defense.

Ishii

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Which makes me wonder why you quoted scripture as a definitive proof that the Bible is against using weapons for defense.

Ishii

I did it to make a point about people using the bible to make a point. Are you following me?

 

[ishii]

I did it to make a point about people using the bible to make a point. Are you following me?

Looking back at previous posts, I can see now that was the point you were making.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

 From Ishii:

I did respond. I advised that you should ignore Pope Francis and myself on the idea that unfettered capitalism actually exists anywhere. Perhaps Pope Francis took some time out from the real pressing matters of our time to comment on something like unfettered capitalism in the vent that might hypothetically happen someday.

I was simply asking where you thought unfettered capitalism is practiced. You don’t seem like the type that would blindly follow authority when you said this:

“I listen to all parties and make my own decisions. Catholic yes, but a modern human too.”

So it seems you would be able to give your own examples instead of saying, “if Pope Frances said it, then we must believe it.” (I’m talking about when the Pope is NOT speaking infallibly about faith and morals - which I don’t think he was doing in that case).

Yes, people do it all the time. And you can usually find something to support whatever it is you want to say. Tis is because of the way the words of Jesus are recorded in prose and parables coupled with the fact that the gospels sometimes show Him saying and doing one thing and have him saying something or doing something that doesn’t resonate with those words or actions in another. It lends to being able to shape His message just about any way you want. The example I gave was the issue of guns and weapons. Conservatives use Luke to show Jesus as someone who recommends weaponry. Liberals use Matthew to portray Him as a peaceful emissary of God. Which was He? Take your pick.

I believe that is why we have the magisterium - to help us better understand the word of God in the bible, and how to apply it to our lives, and live our faith.

We both shape it whatever way we are predisposed to see it. I advocate non-violence so I see no non-violent Jesus. Others see Him as some sort of warrior. What can I say?

I see your point.

I had taken it that you thought social programs were corrupt and wasteful and should be replaced by private programs and church programs. If I read you wrong, I apologize.

I find it interesting that merely speaking about reforming entitlements, talking about subsidiarity and pointing out the obvious problems with centralized bureaucracies would be interpreted as wanting to abolish the entire safety net. Its interesting (and quite telling) that you would jump to that conclusion. Is it possible that you have not really considered other points of view much ? And / or looked into other ideas such as subsidiarity (as you didn’t seem to understand it) ? Perhaps you’ve been too busy reading Charles Dickens.

Ishii