Now that the door is open, where does it close?

[Marisa]

And you believe things that are written in newspapers do you? Things that make news don't have to be true, they just have to sell newspapers. Since when did the truth ever get in the way of a good story?

I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm talking about my family. Things I witnessed. So, yeah, in this case I believe what was written in the newspaper, because I witnessed the event taking place. I'm guessing that you've gone into defend defend defend mode again however, and are projecting comments I'm making about my family onto you. I don't know you. I know a lot of JW's though. I don't know you.

Actually what's priceless is that you consider all JW's to be a reflection of the few who are bad examples.

Do read the above.

No one is perfect and we cannot keep people out of our organization unless it can be proven that they have broken Jehovah's law. Come the judgment, any law breaker will not fare well, no matter what they call themselves. (Matt 7:21-23) You can't fool God.

Good to know. I'll let my uncle know, though I doubt it'll move him much. He's a brother in his Kingdom Hall, highly respected among the other JW's. Something of a roll model.

From reading what you post..how could I ever get that impression?

We all tell ourselves whatever self validating thing we need to in order to lessen the burden on ourselves. Rest assured, I have no doubt that in your mind, I'm the big bad atheist who's mad at god. Mean old me. I also hate Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and kittens.

Or someone on a personal vendetta because another someone wasn't what they claimed to be. Don't look now but the world is full of those people....we are not immune. But no one escapes the watchful eye of the one we must all answer to in the end. He doesn't just see what's on the outside...he sees everything a person is.....and he hates hypocrites. That should be enough for anyone. No one really gets away with anything....calling yourself JW doesn't mean you are not accountable.

Hey we're all hypocrites about something. I'm constantly amused by the self righteous prattling of the permanently pious who can tell everyone else exactly what their sins are, but are clueless about their own.

We don't judge Jesus' apostles by what Judas did.

I imagine that makes their eternal slumber so much more the pleasant. You must feel so proud of yourself!

 

[JayJayDee]

I don't know what you're talking about, but I'm talking about my family. Things I witnessed. So, yeah, in this case I believe what was written in the newspaper, because I witnessed the event taking place. I'm guessing that you've gone into defend defend defend mode again however, and are projecting comments I'm making about my family onto you. I don't know you. I know a lot of JW's though. I don't know you.

I do not know you or your family but the one thing I have no doubt about, is that there are always two sides to every story. I cannot defend anyone on the presentation of one side of a story and neither can anyone else.

Have you ever been in a court of law and were impressed by the counsel's presentation of their client's side of events and began to form an opinion?.....but then you heard the other side and all of a sudden, you see that all is not exactly as it was presented by the first lawyer. The other factors brought in by the defence explained a lot about what led to the outcome. We are not the judges and no one is in a position to judge individuals in the congregation except the elders, who are given authority by God to do that. They are also mindful of the fact that they are doubly accountable before God to judge without bias. As I said, no one gets away with anything at the end of the day.

Vendettas and crusades never lead to good outcomes.

You are on one side of your family's experience and your view is coloured by your position in the family and your loyalties. The ones of whom you speak may have a completely different story....but I haven't heard it. How do we know who provided the newspaper with its information? Like I said...who can believe anything that is written in a newspaper?

 

[Marisa]

I do not know you or your family but the one thing I have no doubt about, is that there are always two sides to every story. I cannot defend anyone on the presentation of one side of a story and neither can anyone else.

Have you ever been in a court of law and were impressed by the counsel's presentation of their client's side of events and began to form an opinion?.....but then you heard the other side and all of a sudden, you see that all is not exactly as it was presented by the first lawyer. The other factors brought in by the defence explained a lot about what led to the outcome. We are not the judges and no one is in a position to judge individuals in the congregation except the elders, who are given authority by God to do that. They are also mindful of the fact that they are doubly accountable before God to judge without bias. As I said, no one gets away with anything at the end of the day.

Vendettas and crusades never lead to good outcomes.

You are on one side of your family's experience and your view is coloured by your position in the family and your loyalties. The ones of whom you speak may have a completely different story....but I haven't heard it. How do we know who provided the newspaper with its information? Like I said...who can believe anything that is written in a newspaper?

Given the fact that you are aware how clueless you are about my family situation, do you think it would be a good idea for you to stop chastising me for how I relate to them? I certainly do.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Again, I am not reading the entire thread of loads of new comments, and skipping across the highlights.

Does it open the door to persecution against church organizations who refuse to do things like perform same-sex marriages, to bakeries who refuse to bake wedding cakes, or photographers who refuse to take pictures, or persecution against priests who promote traditional family values? Yes.

See first paragraph. Add: why is it so difficulty for people who preach "personal responsibility" to understand how that applies to them? It's really simple: if you don't feel like, as an employer, you can follow simple laws then exercise your personal responsibility and don't become a business owner.

Actually, idea has a point. I am gay, but I do hold that in some areas, the gay lobby is going too far. When it comes to retail businesses, like bakeries and florists, sell the merchandise and get on with your life. To do any less is to justify discrimination. What someone does with the merchandise is none of your business. I do, however, disagree with the recent court ruling in Arizona penalizing a wedding photographer for not providing service to a gay wedding. The difference? For me, the difference is that in the latter scenario, that person's physical presence was required at an event that contradicted their religious beliefs. The answer given by the courts is the same as Marisa's: "Know one's forcing you to be in business or be a wedding photographer". At this juncture, what we are now saying is that it is okay to compel someone to physically attend an event that contradicts their religious beliefs; a clear violation, imho, of 1st amendment protections. At this level, a person is now penalized BY LAW for holding a religious belief. Now, let's turn the tables a bit: A gay atheist caterer can now be compelled to provide service and personally attend a "Defense of Traditional Marriage Banquet" or a "Faith Healing Seminar". It works both ways.

Are you familiar with a guy named David Barton?

No.

 

[idea]

But there's a difference between asking Mormons to serve alcoholic beverages and asking Mormons to serve beverages of any kind to Catholics. If a Mormon-owned restaurant chooses not to serve alcohol, because alcohol is forbidden by the religion, that's one thing. But if that same restaurant chooses to serve Coke products, how is it conceivably okay to serve Cokes to Mormons but not to Catholics, or to heterosexuals but not homosexuals, or to Caucasians but not to African-Americans? Think about in the early days of Nazi rule in Europe when there were signs on the doors of stores, etc. saying, "Jews Forbidden." Surely you don't believe that's acceptable! And how would you like living someplace where say 95% of the businesses refused service to Mormons?

So you believe that Mormons should offer temple marriages to both heterosexual and homosexual couples?

it's not the same product Katz...

 

[idea]

Never said it did. People don't choose not to patronize Chic-Fil-A because they are closed on Sunday's, rather because of the whole debacle surrounding the owners ties to the "kill the gays" Ugandan legislation. Most religious people hear a business/owner operates according to "biblical values" and never bother to investigate any further, then ***** at those of us who do and find things like that out.

Do you use Snopes?
snopes.com: Chick-fil-A and Same-Sex Marriage

Marisa, you are the one who is not investigating, and is propagating false accusations...

 

[JayJayDee]

Given the fact that you are aware how clueless you are about my family situation, do you think it would be a good idea for you to stop chastising me for how I relate to them? I certainly do.

I don't remember chastising you for anything. You are presenting one side of a story as if that is all there is to it. I was demonstrating how that never leads to people being able to judge impartially for themselves by hearing both sides.

We wouldn't expect the judge in a courtroom to do that...he'd be thrown off the bench!

All we ever see and hear on JW "hate sites" is one distorted side of a story. They are a dime a dozen....just like all those innocent prisoners in penitentiaries. How many of them pleaded guilty? What was the story their lawyer told in court? How far from the truth was it? How far did it have to be to sound convincingly?

It is human nature to take the side of the person you are closest to and to be influenced by what they say.

I understand how you relate to the situation but how does the other side relate? We don't know.
I hope you understand what I am saying.....I am not calling you a liar...I am saying we have only heard your version of events.

 

[idea]

Actually, idea has a point. I am gay, but I do hold that in some areas, the gay lobby is going too far.

Thanks NewGuy!

When it comes to retail businesses, like bakeries and florists, sell the merchandise and get on with your life. To do any less is to justify discrimination. What someone does with the merchandise is none of your business.

I do have to disagree here though. What someone does with the merchandise is part of the business: examples
Movies - if you buy a movie that is intended for personal use, and instead duplicate it / sell it etc. that is illegal.
Drugs - again, sold with a specific use in mind - the user is not supposed to OD on them, only created for specific medical conditions etc.
Tools - product warranty is void if used in applications other than the intended
Guns - gun manufacturers (save for DOD) do not want their product being used for murder, and restrict sales (background checks etc.) based on what their product will be used for.
Cleaning supplies - sold for the purpose of cleaning, not making drugs - company is very concerned with how their product will be used.
etc. etc. etc.

Most businesses legitimately worry about what their products will be used for after they leave the shelves.

I do, however, disagree with the recent court ruling in Arizona penalizing a wedding photographer for not providing service to a gay wedding. The difference? For me, the difference is that in the latter scenario, that person's physical presence was required at an event that contradicted their religious beliefs. The answer given by the courts is the same as Marisa's: "Know one's forcing you to be in business or be a wedding photographer". At this juncture, what we are now saying is that it is okay to compel someone to physically attend an event that contradicts their religious beliefs; a clear violation, imho, of 1st amendment protections. At this level, a person is now penalized BY LAW for holding a religious belief. Now, let's turn the tables a bit: A gay atheist caterer can now be compelled to provide service and personally attend a "Defense of Traditional Marriage Banquet" or a "Faith Healing Seminar". It works both ways.

You are right, it goes both ways, and it should.

Do you think that a bakery should be allowed to refuse service to someone who has a medical condition such as diabetes? or to refuse service to someone who is overweight? If this baker has their own viewpoints of what medical conditions are healthy to support, vs. what medical conditions are not healthy to support ...

Bars are allowed to refuse service to certain individuals with various medical conditions.... If a bar refuses to serve someone who is pregnant, or refuses to serve someone who is an alcoholic, or refuses to serve someone else who has some medical condition that the bar owner believes would be unhealthy / against their conscience to support?

Health trends come and go, everyone will always have different beliefs on what is "healthy" or not, but shouldn't everyone be allowed to act and serve based on their various beliefs?

 

[JoStories]

It is hard for children to cope in family situations when something as horrible as this has happened to them.

Of course it is. My grandfather and I use the word loosely, raped me for many of my childhood years. However, my parents were and are wonderful and loving people. When my dad found out what his dad was doing, he was livid. I have learned from that and no longer bear any ill will. Coping with childhood trauma can be overcome if one understands the lessons that it was meant to teach.

 

[Marisa]

Actually, idea has a point. I am gay, but I do hold that in some areas, the gay lobby is going too far. When it comes to retail businesses, like bakeries and florists, sell the merchandise and get on with your life. To do any less is to justify discrimination.What someone does with the merchandise is none of your business.

I understand how sometimes threads get really long and cumbersome and even I'm guilty of not reading them all. But then something like what's just happened to you happens to me, and I remember that it's always a good idea to make sure I'm completely familiar with a comment someone has made, even if means reading more than just one comment by that person. Had you done that, you'd know that I said as much in a different comment. Several of them, actually.

I do, however, disagree with the recent court ruling in Arizona penalizing a wedding photographer for not providing service to a gay wedding. The difference? For me, the difference is that in the latter scenario, that person's physical presence was required at an event that contradicted their religious beliefs.

That would be lovely, if simply showing up to an event condones the behavior which takes place there. At no time is the photographer asked to approve or disapprove of the couple being married. Indeed, it doesn't seem to violate any religiously held convictions about marriage to service a second wedding, or a third wedding. If one is going to be of an opinion, one appears much more rational and possessive of greater conviction when one is consistent in how that opinion is applied. But I daresay no photographer would ever dream of inquiring as to the number of weddings previously participated in by the bride or groom as the bride or groom.

The answer given by the courts is the same as Marisa's: "Know one's forcing you to be in business or be a wedding photographer". At this juncture, what we are now saying is that it is okay to compel someone to physically attend an event that contradicts their religious beliefs; a clear violation, imho, of 1st amendment protections. At this level, a person is now penalized BY LAW for holding a religious belief. Now, let's turn the tables a bit: A gay atheist caterer can now be compelled to provide service and personally attend a "Defense of Traditional Marriage Banquet" or a "Faith Healing Seminar". It works both ways.
No.

Yes, it does work both ways. When one makes the choice to enter the service industry, one must exercise the personal responsibility to know that one may occasionally be asked to participate in something that may not be as palatable to them personally as other events. Such is this thing called life. Much of the time it's great, but occasionally it really sucks rotten eggs.

 

[Marisa]

Do you use Snopes?
snopes.com: Chick-fil-A and Same-Sex Marriage

Marisa, you are the one who is not investigating, and is propagating false accusations...

Do you use snopes? You might want to read your own article.

 

[Marisa]

I don't remember chastising you for anything. You are presenting one side of a story as if that is all there is to it. I was demonstrating how that never leads to people being able to judge impartially for themselves by hearing both sides.

We wouldn't expect the judge in a courtroom to do that...he'd be thrown off the bench!

All we ever see and hear on JW "hate sites" is one distorted side of a story. They are a dime a dozen....just like all those innocent prisoners in penitentiaries. How many of them pleaded guilty? What was the story their lawyer told in court? How far from the truth was it? How far did it have to be to sound convincingly?

It is human nature to take the side of the person you are closest to and to be influenced by what they say.

I understand how you relate to the situation but how does the other side relate? We don't know.
I hope you understand what I am saying.....I am not calling you a liar...I am saying we have only heard your version of events.

My, that's quite an impressive defense mechanism you've got going on there.

And your family's experience is a reflection on the whole brotherhood? As is your one sided version of events.

You see, you assumed that I was reciting events that took place in my family, in front of me, in order to discredit you. You assumed that while I'm talking about me, it's really all about you. How arrogant is that, actually? The obvious insinuation you're making is that no person who's ever had a bad experience with JW's can ever speak of that experience because somehow, that's going to be all about YOU.

Ironically, in taking this tact, you rather do confirm some of the things that I've commented about MY experience with the JW's in MY family as applying rather more broadly. So, thanks for that!

 

[idea]

Do you use snopes? You might want to read your own article.

"We found NO evidence that chick-fil-A itself spent money (let alone millions) lobbying congress to prevent that body from issuing a condemnation of a controversial Ugandan legislative bill which carried the death penalty for some homosexual acts. ... (in addition) FRC did NOT support the Uganda bill or the death penalty for homosexuality..."

Marisa, you are repeatedly misrepresenting organizations, and and being dishonest about their intents and motives. Everyone is not out to get you, nor are they out to "kill" homosexuals. For the most part, everyone is just trying to live their own lives according to their own beliefs without being harassed.

 

[k4c]

I am not talking about Jenner. You said that you might be a woman tomorrow. So how probable is it that you will be a woman tomorrow? Just answer that question and then we can move on.

Or just admit that it was sarcastic hyperbole. Nothing wrong with that, just admit it.

It all depends on what you believe carries more authority, the inward thought or the outward appearance. If I believe I'm a woman, even though I have a male body, then to today's society I'm a woman. This is why sex changes are considered right and good. So yes, today I'm a man but tomorrow I can be a woman because it has nothing to do with my plumbing and everything to do with how I feel. I heard of a man who would change genders at will. Today he is a man and tomorrow he is a woman.

Now for more important things. Trust in God and let Him direct your path and He will prepare you for His eternal kingdom, the kingdom of His dear Son.

Colossians 1:13-14 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

 

[Thief]

It all depends on what you believe carries more authority, the inward thought or the outward appearance. If I believe I'm a woman, even though I have a male body, then to today's society I'm a woman. This is why sex changes are considered right and good. So yes, today I'm a man but tomorrow I can be a woman because it has nothing to do with my plumbing and everything to do with how I feel. I heard of a man who would change genders at will. Today he is a man and tomorrow he is a woman.

Now for more important things. Trust in God and let Him direct your path and He will prepare you for His eternal kingdom, the kingdom of His dear Son.

Colossians 1:13-14 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

If the logic of your post can carry over......
I might call myself fair and generous as my wealth increases....
and my employees turn to food stamps and housing projects.

I don't think it matters how you feel about it.

If the reality stares back at you in the mirror......your denial is pointless.

Changing your outward appearance might make you fell better.....but....

 

[k4c]

1. Since it occurs in nature, you are wrong about that.
2. Which God do you speak of here? Christ never spoke of homosexuality. Not once. Doesn't that negate your argument?

If everyone turned homosexual the human race would eventually come to an end. Homosexuality is against God and if you don't believe in God it's still against nature. If you really what to start thinking right and begin to understand what going on around you you need to allow God to take you out of the kingdom of darkness and put you in the kingdom of His Son.

Colossians 1:13-14 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

 

[k4c]

If the logic of your post can carry over......
I might call myself fair and generous as my wealth increases....
and my employees turn to food stamps and housing projects.

I don't think it matters how you feel about it.

If the reality stares back at you in the mirror......your denial is pointless.

Changing your outward appearance might make you fell better.....but....

I guess you're not in tune with what is going on around you. Do your research and get back to. In the meantime trust in God and let Him direct your path and He will prepare you for His eternal kingdom, the kingdom of His dear Son.

Colossians 1:13-14 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

It's hard to see when you're in the dark...

 

[Thief]

I guess you're not in tune with what is going on around you. Do your research and get back to. In the meantime trust in God and let Him direct your path and He will prepare you for His eternal kingdom, the kingdom of His dear Son.

Colossians 1:13-14 He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, in whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins.

It's hard to see when you're in the dark...

Thief is ninja!
hehehehehehe

But more seriously......I have no confusion on my part.

 

[k4c]

Thief is ninja!
hehehehehehe

But more seriously......I have no confusion on my part.

Thief is ninja but God is love and love wins...

 

[Thief]

Thief is ninja but God is love and love wins...

Can't really argue against love....
but I would point out.....an unbridled heart is fickle.

God is not fickle.....and does not love all.