Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Custom Wedding Cake Legal Battle Continues

A California county superior court judge has ruled in favor of an anti-gay Christian baker who refused to sell a same-sex couple a custom wedding cake, citing her religious beliefs. Last August Cathy Miller, the owner of Tastries bakery told a couple she would not bake them a cake and referred them to another baker.

 

. . . . . In December Judge Lampe refused to grant California a temporary restraining order barring Miller from selling any item to a different-sex couple she would not sell to a same-sex couple.

 

"The difference here is that the cake is not yet baked," Judge Lampe wrote in his decision Monday. "The state is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. The state asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment."

 

New Civil Rights Movement - Pre-Made Wedding Cakes vs Custom Cakes for Same Sex Couple Couples

 

read more at the link -

 

Guess the SCOTUS needs to hurry with their decision - expected in June.

453 Views
155
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

 

Is a gay couple marrying a crime?

 



Now you are attempting to equate spirtual and religious matters with secular laws and matters.  Read Romans 1: 26-27, in fact read the entire chapter.  

 

But of course you, as with others, will only believe what you want to believe and see what you want to see.

0 Kudos
277 Views
32
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

 

Is a gay couple marrying a crime?

 



Now you are attempting to equate spirtual and religious matters with secular laws and matters.  Read Romans 1: 26-27, in fact read the entire chapter.  

 

But of course you, as with others, will only believe what you want to believe and see what you want to see.


A criticism better applied to yourself Tex.

 

Your Biblical reference is a favorite of ignorant bigoted gay bashers who use it out of context and ignore everything that precedes it.

 

If you took the time to understand it and had knowledge of what it addressed you would realize that it has to do with Roman Christians going back to their previous pagan practices and NOTHING to do with condemnation of gay people!

 

Besides just reading it Tex ..... UNDERSTAND IT!!!

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
892 Views
3
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@myexper wrote:

Besides just reading it Tex ..... UNDERSTAND IT!!!


Ok, I'll bite... do you understand it?

 

Verses 20 thru 24 of that chapter:

 

"20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves"

 

That isn't applicable to the rest of the chapter?

 

Again back to the topic of the wedding cake for gays....the baker was sticking to her religious beliefs fully knowing the penalties of the law, much like the early Christians under the Roman law.   The similarities is their faith.

 

I would believe that all this has been completely hashed out over and over and has become redundant.

 

 

0 Kudos
880 Views
2
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@myexper wrote:

Besides just reading it Tex ..... UNDERSTAND IT!!!


Ok, I'll bite... do you understand it?

Yes I do Tex ..... But YOU obviously do not!

 

Verses 20 thru 24 of that chapter:

 

"20 Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves"

 

That isn't applicable to the rest of the chapter?

Never said it wasn't Tex!

And if you understood it, you would know that it has to do with worshiping idols (exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles) ..... one of the pagan practices that Roman Christians reinstated for themselves!

Your reference has just proven what I stated! 

 

Again back to the topic of the wedding cake for gays....the baker was sticking to her religious beliefs fully knowing the penalties of the law, much like the early Christians under the Roman law.   The similarities is their faith.

There is NO SIMILARITY with Roman law and our law Tex!

 

I would believe that all this has been completely hashed out over and over and has become redundant.

Not quite Tex.

 

So Tex .... as there are certain evangelical/fundamentalists who believe that it is their duty to execute gay people, are their religious beliefs also being violated by secular law which prohibits taking the life of another person (murder)?

 

 


 

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
893 Views
1
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@myexper wrote:

 believe that it is their duty to execute gay people

 

 


 


No one is suggesting executing gays, nor anything similar.  Just that a person shouldn't be forced to violate their religious beliefs.  It violates their constitutional rights.  And one would doubt that the state can take away one persons rights to satisfy anothers.  Even in the small area where I live, there are multiple resources for bakery cakes including custom wedding cakes.

 

And regarding the rest of Romans Chapter one, the train of thought is to admonish the Roman Christians to not partake of the deeds listed.  And in doing so Paul gave a summary of what God expected but that man ignored.

 

It wasn't addressed to idol worshipers, but like the entire epistle to the Christians at Rome.  Read what it says in verse 7 and 8.  Nothing was said about idolaters.

 

The baker is apparently using that as a guide as her beliefs. 

0 Kudos
877 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

 

Is a gay couple marrying a crime?

 



Now you are attempting to equate spirtual and religious matters with secular laws and matters.  Read Romans 1: 26-27, in fact read the entire chapter.  

 

But of course you, as with others, will only believe what you want to believe and see what you want to see.


You only "believe what you want to believe and see what you want to see", correct? Technically that is true with everyone. I am not "equating" anything, I asked a question which you failed to answer. No, it is not against the law. Even Christians are held to the laws of our society, regardless of their beliefs. Nothing in Romans justifies a person breaking laws. If you don't like the laws, try and get them changed. Again, if my religious beliefs justify me cutting off someone's hand it doesn't make it legal to do so.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
341 Views
8
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:

Even Christians are held to the laws of our society, regardless of their beliefs. Nothing in Romans justifies a person breaking laws.

Your carrying this to the extremes of cutting off one's hand is being very hypocritical and deviating from the issue.

 

As far as your rejecting the scripture I furnished as not applying to one's belief in what way?

 

Using as a parallel about law, then you believe that the early Christians in Rome was wrong in not obeying Roman law to worship their gods?  Even to the extent of being soaked in oil and being used as human torches? 

 

You are basically saying that a person obeying the commands of the scripture I furnished isrequired to put man's laws over those of God?  Therefore the Romans were justified in their putting Christians to death for not worshiping their false gods?

 

 

0 Kudos
358 Views
7
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

Even Christians are held to the laws of our society, regardless of their beliefs. Nothing in Romans justifies a person breaking laws.

Your carrying this to the extremes of cutting off one's hand is being very hypocritical and deviating from the issue.

 

As far as your rejecting the scripture I furnished as not applying to one's belief in what way?

 

Using as a parallel about law, then you believe that the early Christians in Rome was wrong in not obeying Roman law to worship their gods?  Even to the extent of being soaked in oil and being used as human torches? 

 

You are basically saying that a person obeying the commands of the scripture I furnished isrequired to put man's laws over those of God?  Therefore the Romans were justified in their putting Christians to death for not worshiping their false gods?


An enormous false equivalency Tex ..... in a ludicrous attempt to equate Roman law with our laws!

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
399 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

Even Christians are held to the laws of our society, regardless of their beliefs. Nothing in Romans justifies a person breaking laws.

Your carrying this to the extremes .........

 

 


And you're not? In your dreams.  This is an issue of law. No scripture gives you or anyone the right to break a law.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
404 Views
5
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:



 

And you're not? In your dreams.  This is an issue of law. No scripture gives you or anyone the right to break a law.


You're not following me around disputing everything I post?  And when does the law overrule the Constitution provisions of no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?  That has been continually ignored by the left throughout these discussions.

 

Just because a person enters into a business doesn't mean they give up their constitutional rights.  Even during the days of the draft there was provisions to either be exempt or given consideration and placed in a job to avoid combat.  I've been acquainted with many conscientious objectors who served in a non-combatant area.

 

This baker did the same since she couldn't honestly go against her beliefs.  But there are some here who isn't even happy about that and would want her to be forced to do so.  Wouldn't that make them sort of bigoted also?

 

Or is it that some here just wants to be argumentative and to get back at someone who has a contrary opinion?

0 Kudos
409 Views
4
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:



 

And you're not? In your dreams.  This is an issue of law. No scripture gives you or anyone the right to break a law.


You're not following me around disputing everything I post?  And when does the law overrule the Constitution provisions of no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof?  That has been continually ignored by the left throughout these discussions.


You don't like being disputed or disagreed with, that is more than obvious. A political discussion forum is a bad place to be with that attitude. The Constitution doesn't provide for laws to be broken because of supposed religious beliefs that could very easily be defined as simple bigotry. That seems to have been ignored by the Right and so-called Independents throughout this discussion.


Man learns from history that man learns nothing from history.
871 Views
3
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@ChasKy53 wrote:



The Constitution doesn't provide for laws to be broken because of supposed religious beliefs that could very easily be defined as simple bigotry. That seems to have been ignored by the Right and so-called Independents throughout this discussion.


So you are saying that the baker's religious beliefs could be defined as bigotry?  Are you saying that the first chapter of Romans does not cover what she believes?  Are you saying that you can dictate what is written there as simple bigotry?  What gives you the right to rewrite the words in the scriptures?

 

Are you saying that you are the decider as to what religious beliefs are authorized by the scriptures?

 

No, what has been said in this thread is basically covered by the New Testament scriptures.  It does appear that you have set yourself up as being more authoritative than the writings of the Apostles.

 

Additionally you are claiming that you are more an authority on the Constitution than anyone else.  What is in error of that phrase about not passing laws about establishing religion or hinder the free exercise thereof?

0 Kudos
869 Views
2
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

 

Additionally you are claiming that you are more an authority on the Constitution than anyone else.  What is in error of that phrase about not passing laws about establishing religion or hinder the free exercise thereof?


I am not sure, nor do I care, about scriptures.  I do have a pretty good feel for right and wrong.  The baker went into business and the right thing to do is to serve all members of the public equally. 

 

 

857 Views
1
Report
Reply
Moderator
Moderator

Thanks everyone. This thread is now locked.

831 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

 


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@ChasKy53 wrote:

 

Is a gay couple marrying a crime?

 



  Read Romans 1: 26-27, in fact read the entire chapter.  

 

 


The topic is about law - Constitutional law of California and of the United States Of America - secular law only.

 

Attempting to inject religion into court deliberation and into the Supreme Law of the Land is an unpatriotic act.

 

 

44>dolt45
258 Views
18
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@alferdpacker wrote:

 



The topic is about law - Constitutional law of California and of the United States Of America - secular law only.

 

Attempting to inject religion into court deliberation and into the Supreme Law of the Land is an unpatriotic act.

 

 


The verdict in this case is based on something that does not exist but what a baker is expected to design, create and make.  And the declining to do so but referring the requester to a competator with who prior arangements had been made in such instances.

 

Further the reason for declining was based on the baker's religious beliefs.  Chasky has been badgering for scripture that would back up this belief so I have furnished it.  Apparently you just can't accept that explanation. 

 

The Constitution of the United States applies to everyone, not just for those who have no use for religious beliefs.  The state forcing her to do something against her beliefs goes against the establishment of religion or the exercise thereof; even in her business and exhibits a bias against and infringing on her valid religious beliefs. 

 

I would believe that the Supreme Court decision in favor of Hobby Lobby should exhibit that a person/business is entitled to religious factors even in business.

 

 

0 Kudos
231 Views
17
Report
Reply
Silver Conversationalist


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@alferdpacker wrote:

 



The topic is about law - Constitutional law of California and of the United States Of America - secular law only.

 

Attempting to inject religion into court deliberation and into the Supreme Law of the Land is an unpatriotic act.

 

 


The verdict in this case is based on something that does not exist but what a baker is expected to design, create and make.  And the declining to do so but referring the requester to a competator with who prior arangements had been made in such instances.

 

Further the reason for declining was based on the baker's religious beliefs.  Chasky has been badgering for scripture that would back up this belief so I have furnished it.  Apparently you just can't accept that explanation. 

 

The Constitution of the United States applies to everyone, not just for those who have no use for religious beliefs.  The state forcing her to do something against her beliefs goes against the establishment of religion or the exercise thereof; even in her business and exhibits a bias against and infringing on her valid religious beliefs. 

 

I would believe that the Supreme Court decision in favor of Hobby Lobby should exhibit that a person/business is entitled to religious factors even in business.

 

 


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

 

The very first line, in the very First Amendment, in the Bill of Rights.

 

Tough to argue against that. I'm not saying it's okay to discriminate against gays. I'm saying there are 2 sides to this argument.

 

1

Nobody knew health care could be so complicated.
Donald Trump
0 Kudos
333 Views
6
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@Loulit wrote:

 

Tough to argue against that. I'm not saying it's okay to discriminate against gays. I'm saying there are 2 sides to this argument.



Yes there is two sides.  But one has to ask is the person being discriminated against or is it the lifestyle?   And should one be forced to condone the lifestyle...

0 Kudos
350 Views
5
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@Loulit wrote:

 

Tough to argue against that. I'm not saying it's okay to discriminate against gays. I'm saying there are 2 sides to this argument.



Yes there is two sides.  But one has to ask is the person being discriminated against or is it the lifestyle?   And should one be forced to condone the lifestyle...


 

More than half of Americans are ok with homosexuality.

That's because the preponderance of scientific evidence - as opposed to fact-free ignorance-based prejudicial bigotry - has led to the knowledge-based realization that one is either born straight, bi, or gay.

It never was a choice - only the delusional believe that.

 

Two thirds of Roman Catholics, as well as mainline Protestants support same sex marriage.

 

Nationally, slightly less than a fifth of Americans - an ever-shrinking crackpot minority - think homosexuality and same sex marriage should be illegal.

 

Should the majority be required to condone and approve of the non-mainstream lifestyle of the whackadoodle crackpot minority?

 

Of course the Constitution grants them the right to believe what they do.

 

But should their attempts to establish un-Constitutional religious tyranny/bigotry be condoned?

 

 

44>dolt45
341 Views
4
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@alferdpacker wrote:

 


More than half of Americans are ok with homosexuality.


 


That doesn't negate the scriptural teachings on the topic.  For centuries people thought the earth was flat, even scientific evidence of the time said so, but that didn't make it so.

 

As far as Catholics or Protestants supporting it, I doubt that would influence God from changing the scriptures.  Nor does it.  Also the Constitution doesn't change the scriptural writings on the topic.  Plus according what you have posted mostly since you have been on this site, apparently you aren't even associated with religion but has mocked it.

 

Finally according to your last sentence you have admitted that the Constitution gives the baker the right to believe as she does, basically giving her the right to conduct her creativity as she wants.  It gives those Christians the right not to support gay conduct without being fear.

0 Kudos
388 Views
0
Report
Reply
Esteemed Social Butterfly

@alferdpacker—RE: homosexuality—How dare you use scientific research and your knowledge to argue the obvious? What you write is common knowledge—known for years amongst anyone who pays attention. 

Thanks for providing accuracy and knowledge into what should be a non issue.

People are born with differing sexual orientations.

Only extreme ignorants and those living under a rock don’t understand that.

It is ILLEGAL to discrimminate—period.

All other excuses SCREAM THREE THINGS—IGNORANCE,

HOMOPHOBIA,

and total DISREGARD FOR THE LAW. 

 

Gee, I miss having a real president!

340 Views
2
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@phyllisc6781 wrote:

@alferdpacker—RE: homosexuality—How dare you use scientific research and your knowledge to argue the obvious? What you write is common knowledge—known for years amongst anyone who pays attention. 

Thanks for providing accuracy and knowledge into what should be a non issue.

People are born with differing sexual orientations.

Only extreme ignorants and those living under a rock don’t understand that.

It is ILLEGAL to discrimminate—period.

All other excuses SCREAM THREE THINGS—IGNORANCE,

HOMOPHOBIA,

and total DISREGARD FOR THE LAW. 

 

Gee, I miss having a real president!


Ignorant bigots - but for the good fortune of continuing evolution -  the rest of the nation would be a couple of bubbles off of plumb right along with them.

 

 

44>dolt45
0 Kudos
386 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@phyllisc6781 wrote:

People are born with differing sexual orientations.

Only extreme ignorants and those living under a rock don’t understand that.

It is ILLEGAL to discrimminate—period.

All other excuses SCREAM THREE THINGS—IGNORANCE,

HOMOPHOBIA,

and total DISREGARD FOR THE LAW. 

 

 


You have indisputable proof of that?  Then why are humans, and all animals born male or female?  Of course to win arguments one can call anyone disagreeing all sorts of names...

 

And doesn't the law also protect the right to religious beliefs?  But apparently there are some, including here, who is more intolerant of anyone following religious beliefs than those who they claim that is intolerant of their lifestyle?

 

Your post indicates that.  The law, the ultimate law of the land, the Consitution, protects religious beliefs.... yet you suggest they have a disregard for the law. 

0 Kudos
387 Views
0
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@alferdpacker wrote:

 



The topic is about law - Constitutional law of California and of the United States Of America - secular law only.

 

Attempting to inject religion into court deliberation and into the Supreme Law of the Land is an unpatriotic act.

 

 


The verdict in this case is based on something that does not exist but what a baker is expected to design, create and make.  And the declining to do so but referring the requester to a competator with who prior arangements had been made in such instances.

 

Further the reason for declining was based on the baker's religious beliefs.  Chasky has been badgering for scripture that would back up this belief so I have furnished it.  Apparently you just can't accept that explanation. 

 

The Constitution of the United States applies to everyone, not just for those who have no use for religious beliefs.  The state forcing her to do something against her beliefs goes against the establishment of religion or the exercise thereof; even in her business and exhibits a bias against and infringing on her valid religious beliefs. 

 

I would believe that the Supreme Court decision in favor of Hobby Lobby should exhibit that a person/business is entitled to religious factors even in business.

 

 


Hobby Lobby was about a particular type of birth control where there were other options offered through the HL health plan. You are suggesting that the baker can abdicate the responsibility to serve the public equally by providing a work around or sending certain classes of people to other vendors.  I don't think that works. 

 

The court is not trying to determine if the problem was resolved. They are trying to determine if rights are violated. 

229 Views
9
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:



Hobby Lobby was about a particular type of birth control where there were other options offered through the HL health plan. You are suggesting that the baker can abdicate the responsibility to serve the public equally by providing a work around or sending certain classes of people to other vendors.  I don't think that works. 

 

The court is not trying to determine if the problem was resolved. They are trying to determine if rights are violated. 


The Hobby Lobby decision indicates that religious beliefs can be a factor in operating a business.  And doubtful the baker has any responsibiltity to the public since she operates a profit making business, not a public service.  The state is telling her how to run it much like would be in a dictatorial country.  If the state is going to tell her how to run her business, then why can't they subsidize her for any losses since they have become a silent partner? 

 

She was showing concern in declining the customer by arranging an alternate way.

 

 

0 Kudos
348 Views
6
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@Richva wrote:



Hobby Lobby was about a particular type of birth control where there were other options offered through the HL health plan. You are suggesting that the baker can abdicate the responsibility to serve the public equally by providing a work around or sending certain classes of people to other vendors.  I don't think that works. 

 

The court is not trying to determine if the problem was resolved. They are trying to determine if rights are violated. 


The Hobby Lobby decision indicates that religious beliefs can be a factor in operating a business.  And doubtful the baker has any responsibiltity to the public since she operates a profit making business, not a public service.  The state is telling her how to run it much like would be in a dictatorial country.  If the state is going to tell her how to run her business, then why can't they subsidize her for any losses since they have become a silent partner? 

 

She was showing concern in declining the customer by arranging an alternate way.

 

 


The state is not telling the baker how to run the business, simply that they cannot discriminate in who they will serve. Oddly, the same questions arose in the 60s when restaurants were forced to serve blacks. 

  • They have their own restaurants
  • I have the right to refuse service to anyone
  • White folks will not eat here if I allow them inside
  • They are unclean.
388 Views
5
Report
Reply
Esteemed Social Butterfly


@Richva wrote:

 

 


The state is not telling the baker how to run the business, simply that they cannot discriminate in who they will serve. Oddly, the same questions arose in the 60s when restaurants were forced to serve blacks. 

  • They have their own restaurants
  • I have the right to refuse service to anyone
  • White folks will not eat here if I allow them inside
  • They are unclean.

Any ignorant, racist, or bigoted excuse was tried, wasn’t it, Rich?

It’s obvious bigots and racists still can’t understand equality under the law.

RE: Hobby Lobby—entirely different scenario,  which had nothing to do with dealing with the general public. 

 

Gee, I miss having a real president!

395 Views
4
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@phyllisc6781 wrote:

It’s obvious bigots and racists still can’t understand equality under the law.



It's obvious that there are bigots on both sides of an issue.  On the one side is those who think that they have to force those who is attempting to conduct themselves according to their beliefs based on what is commanded in the New Testament.

 

On the other hand are those who are attacking those beliefs in an effort to destroy them because they can't stand anyone who wants to serve God.

 

Some of the latter are also disrespectful of our government by continually calling our President sarcastic juvenile names.  They also cannot tolerate anyone with the noted religious beliefs.  All that is lacking to have a similarity with the ancient Romans is the burning of Christians at the stake for not worshiping the present day secular gods.

0 Kudos
401 Views
3
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

 


@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@phyllisc6781 wrote:

It’s obvious bigots and racists still can’t understand equality under the law.



It's obvious that there are bigots on both sides of an issue.  On the one side is those who think that they have to force those who is attempting to conduct themselves according to their beliefs based on what is commanded in the New Testament.

 

On the other hand are those who are attacking those beliefs in an effort to destroy them because they can't stand anyone who wants to serve God.

 

 


Agreed - it's true that -

"On the one side is those who think that they have to force those who is attempting to conduct themselves according to their beliefs based on what is commanded in the New Testament."

However the description of Xtian bigots and bigotry would be more understandable were it in a gramatically correct English Language sentence that does not contain a glaringly indistinct and unidentified antecedent.

 

Don't be silly - I AM serving god by observing that not only organized Christianity, but all organized religions created by flawed and fallible humans are as flawed and incorrect as those flawed humans who wrote scriptures for all religions - and got it wrong. 

 

That all the scriptural errors and internal self-contradictions have never been corrected after being pointed out - demonstrates that that organized religion is deliberately ignoring the fact that there are multiple instances that nevertheless remain wrong.

 

God didn't create religion - flawed and fallible humans did - and as usual - got it wrong.

 

Divinely inspired writings?   All you have to do is irrefutably prove it.

 

Easy Peasey...

 

 

44>dolt45
403 Views
2
Report
Reply
Honored Social Butterfly


@alferdpacker wrote:

 

God didn't create religion - flawed and fallible humans did - and as usual - got it wrong.

 

 

 

 


He didn't?  Didn't He give man freewill to control his own destiny?  Didn't God expect man to worship him and not some idolatry rather than make him a puppet on a string?  And hasn't man created multiple gods to worship rather than his Creator?

 

Can you prove that there are multiple religions not created by man?  Are you willing to believe that all of these religions will get you into the hereafter?   Where did you get that revelation?  Why should anyone believe you or anyone here instead of the scriptures?

 

And who has pointed out scriptural errors and to whom? 

 

 

0 Kudos
893 Views
1
Report
Reply
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png