It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Florida’s New Anti-Gay, Anti-Woman Bill May Be the Most Malicious Yet

page: 10
39
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah, that's what I mean. The laws about not killing, stealing, lying, cheating - those all make sense. The rest is just silliness.




posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Yes you are correct that some laws are necessary, but I see them as common sense laws, they are in place as a way to respect ourselves and others without falling into chaos in our established societies.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv
Just wanted to add this quote from Sam Harris to the comment chain


“If you think that it would be impossible to improve upon the Ten Commandments as a statement of morality, you really owe it to yourself to read some other scriptures. Once again, we need look no further than the Jains: Mahavira, the Jain patriarch, surpassed the morality of the Bible with a single sentence:

'Do not injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill any creature or living being.'

Imagine how different our world might be if the Bible contained this as its central precept. Christians have abused, oppressed, enslaved, insulted, tormented, tortured, and killed people in the name of God for centuries, on the basis of a theologically defensible reading of the Bible.”
edit on 28-10-2015 by Lucid Lunacy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

I'd just be happy if "Christians" did what Jesus told them to do.

"Love God first; love others as you love yourself."

Pretty simple and elegant, that one.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Now we're quoting scripture and doin' some Christian bashing. The level of enlightenment really swells when that happens. I'm wondering how many of you are former disgruntled Christians?



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Now we're quoting scripture and doin' some Christian bashing. The level of enlightenment really swells when that happens. I'm wondering how many of you are former disgruntled Christians?


Are you offended by the Scriptures?

What Christian bashing is going on? My comments have all been about "Christians" i.e. those who claim to be Christians but follow none of the precepts of that faith and in fact blatantly and obviously spit in the face of the teachings of Christ.

EDIT: Bashing implies something that isn't true ... care to give a run at actually providing evidence in a claim rather than vapid philosophical meanderings?

And why would you want to discuss former beliefs of members? How do personal matters impact on the facts of this discussion.

Thank you kindly.
edit on 9Wed, 28 Oct 2015 09:44:03 -050015p0920151066 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It wasn't directed at you specifically. Just a general observation.

I ask my question out of curiosity.

You're welcome.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 09:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Darth_Prime

Man, I'm about as homophobic as Little Richard is straight (which is to say, not at all), but I'm also very pro-freedom of private individuals, both the lives that they lead and the companies that they may choose to build and manage.

With that said, I think that publicly funded entities and companies--even those that take one dime of specific government assistance, to include loans subsidized by the government--can not discriminate in any way against anyone. BUT, if someone builds their company with their own money or private funds, they should be able to decide what they want to do with that business, even if that includes not catering gay weddings because of whatever bias they hold, or only catering to women and not men (I'm looking at you, Curves), or whatever the case may be.

It's a difficult and fine line to draw, because while we are guaranteed personal liberties and freedoms per the constitution, none of that states that we have a natural right to shop everywhere, or not be offended by someone's beliefs. But when it comes down to it, I think that most businesses who would have such an openly offensive and bigoted business model would eventually fail in modern times, and that's better than relying on a heavy-handed government to force people to do things with their own private property that they may not want to do.

But I know that reality differs from my beliefs sometimes, and that's life--as it is life when the tables are turned.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

It wasn't directed at you specifically. Just a general observation.

I ask my question out of curiosity.

You're welcome.


No, I didn't take it personally, I was merely answering your claim based on my own actions and understandings, as I can't speak for anyone else.

I'm very familiar with the tactic of asking questions, but, I'm interested in how you define "Christian-bashing" as you noted in your post.

Is the fact that someone doesn't like the truth spoken "bashing"? Haven't you argued that we are all responsible for how we react to the statements of others, i.e. that in matters of so-called Political Correctness, we should just all take our offenses and hurt feelings and get over it?

I wonder why (or if) the way that Christians react to critiques would/should qualify under your previous positions?



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Is that rationality I see? And I had almost given up for a moment there.

You sure you don't want to drag some Christians over the coals first? Everybody's doing it.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Now we're quoting scripture and doin' some Christian bashing. The level of enlightenment really swells when that happens. I'm wondering how many of you are former disgruntled Christians?


I'm a former disgruntled Christian....

so what?

My opinions don't matter?



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

So you agree that a store owned by white people shouldn't have to cater to black people if it doesn't want to? Something like this?


edit on 28-10-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 09:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're speaking about Christians in a negative manner, meaning, not positively. Do you agree with that? I wasn't aware this was a criticism of Christian thread.

No I don't think you're "bashing" them over the head or anything. It's just an expression.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12




I'm a former disgruntled Christian....

so what?

My opinions don't matter?


I've found its usually the former members who give us the most anti-christian rhetoric.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: olaru12




I'm a former disgruntled Christian....

so what?

My opinions don't matter?


I've found its usually the former members who give us the most anti-christian rhetoric.


Quite so...and why do you think that is? Could it be that they see the spiritual arrogance and hypocrisy of their former religious affiliations.

Claim to follow Christ....then act like it!!!
edit on 28-10-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12




Quite so...and why do you think that is? Could it be that they see the spiritual arrogance and hypocrisy of their former religious affiliations.


You tell me.

I always figured it was just the narcissism of small differences.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're speaking about Christians in a negative manner, meaning, not positively. Do you agree with that? I wasn't aware this was a criticism of Christian thread.

No I don't think you're "bashing" them over the head or anything. It's just an expression.


The perceptions of positive and negative are only your subjective evaluations, and I would think that you could conceive of a bit more objective framework to find whatever the answers are that you're looking for, unless you were using questioning as a rhetorical tactic to actually make statements of your own.

In light of your judgement though, do you find that speaking the truth is negative? Can you point to anything said here about "Christians" or Christians that is non-factual?

Bashing is a pretty specific term ... and a commonly misused one here. Bashing implies making unfair or untrue statements that are intended merely to harm or anger another. Can you point to those comments you're referring to in that sense? Or were you merely using blatant hyperbole to make the point you're trying to make while "asking questions"?



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: olaru12




I'm a former disgruntled Christian....

so what?

My opinions don't matter?


I've found its usually the former members who give us the most anti-christian rhetoric.


They (We) ARE SME's on the religion after all.
edit on 28-10-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

It's a difficult and fine line to draw, because while we are guaranteed personal liberties and freedoms per the constitution, none of that states that we have a natural right to shop everywhere, or not be offended by someone's beliefs. But when it comes down to it, I think that most businesses who would have such an openly offensive and bigoted business model would eventually fail in modern times, and that's better than relying on a heavy-handed government to force people to do things with their own private property that they may not want to do.



There was a time, mostly in the South, when private businesses who had an openly offensive and bigoted business model did just fine. They were eventually forced to do things with their private property that they didn't want to do. Guess what? They got over it, or they got out of that business. And when they died, the next generation just understood that they weren't going to be allowed to have that business model. And the next generation after that wouldn't have even thought about having that business model.
edit on 28-10-2015 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

It's a difficult and fine line to draw, because while we are guaranteed personal liberties and freedoms per the constitution, none of that states that we have a natural right to shop everywhere, or not be offended by someone's beliefs.



Actually, if "we" in your comment is referring to the general public, "we" do have a right to shop at public businesses.

If someone doesn't want to cater to the public (as in, the entire public without unfair discrimination) then they should offer their services through a private club model and require membership.

There's no reference here, as far as I am aware, to asking not to be "offended by someone's beliefs" ... good gravy, I'd be in a constant state of offense ... the only thing I see here is an insistence for equal treatment before the laws.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join