• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Respect for Marriage Act makes Congresswoman cry real tears.

"Religious Freedom" means the right to make others conform to your religious worldview.

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • No

    Votes: 44 95.7%

  • Total voters
    46

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I'm not saying you are wrong. But do you have a link to an article that specifically says that? I'd like to try to stay informed.
The act also replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The act allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.

See https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
The act also replaces provisions that do not require states to recognize same-sex marriages from other states with provisions that prohibit the denial of full faith and credit or any right or claim relating to out-of-state marriages on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, or national origin. (The Supreme Court held that state laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015; the Court held that state laws barring interracial marriages were unconstitutional in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.) The act allows the Department of Justice to bring a civil action and establishes a private right of action for violations.

See https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404
Thank you! That's exactly what i needed :)
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
Why does she think -- AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION FROM RELIGIOUS PEOPLE -- that it is robbing her of her "religious freedom" to deny soimebody else the right to live their life as they see fit? Is "religious freedom" really about the freedom to order other people to do what you want them to, and not to do what you don't want them to?

Firstly, true liberty and freedom is submission unto God's commandments. Going outside that guidance, eventually leads to unbounded liberty and freedom, which in the end leads to anarchy.

Other than that, her cry from the heart I see was for the good of humanity, it goes beyond personal considerations.

This is a good reason as to why a Baha'i does not get involved in politics, as we support the freedom of the minority to make their own choices.

If one wishes to be a Christian, a Muslim or a Baha'i, then they should also willing to submit to the Laws and Guidance of those Faiths. These laws are clearly defined in those faiths.

Otherwise, outside those faiths they are free to pursue their own liberties and freedoms, to which a Baha'i will support them. (Within boundaries of course, ie we will not support drug or alcohol abuse, but will support them in their right to marry if they have the Nations Laws to support this).

To willingly stand outside a Faiths given Law, is a breach of the contract of Faith. One would have to live with that fact, which is really the penalty, a concious knowledge that one chose to ignore a law given of God.

So to ease that burden, many try to rewrite scriptures to suit their own agenda in life.

Regards Tony
 

HeatherAnn

Active Member
Is it really that difficult to see how ****ing with the foundation of society (families) can eventually **** with all??

And do you want to have the freedom to believe how you want or to not believe in any spiritual principle at all? Of course! Then why in the hell would you support limiting that constitutional right?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
Firstly, true liberty and freedom is submission unto God's commandments.

610%2BL2ha3TL._AC_SY741_.jpg
 

Sgt. Pepper

All you need is love.
For now, let me just say this: if you think that God (or "Almighty Yahweh" as you seem to prefer) doesn't change -- then I do not think you have understood what you've read in the only books we have that tell us anything about Him at all.

We can begin, for example, with Genesis 6:6 "And the LORD regretted that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. So the LORD said, “I will blot out man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—every man and beast and crawling creature and bird of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.”…

Yes, according to Genesis 6:6-7, God Almighty regretted creating not only mankind but also every animal, every creature that creeps on the ground, and the birds of the air. The Bible contains several other verses that mention God's regrets in addition to creating humanity, all animals, and birds (1 Samuel 15:11; 2 Samuel 24:16; Jeremiah 42:10). The Bible also mentions God changing his mind about bringing disasters down on his own people as punishment for their transgressions against him (Jeremiah 26:13, 1 Chronicles 21:15, Joel 2:13). For the record, Jeremiah 26:13, 1 Chronicles 21:15, and Joel 2:13 coincide with Isaiah 45:7 (NIV), which says, "I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things." The New King James Version uses the word "calamity" instead of "disaster," and the King James Version uses the word "evil" and not "disaster" or "calamity."

It seems like God "Almighty Yahweh" didn't learn from his own mistake of creating man and then regretting it, because after he threw a temper tantrum and wiped out all of humanity (aside from Noah and his family), he then turned around and repopulated the world with the same kind of morally flawed people that he had just destroyed in a global flood. It appears that God is incapable of learning from his own mistakes, even after expressing regret for creating humanity, the animals, every creature that creeps on the ground, and the birds in the air. Shouldn't an all-knowing and all-powerful God know better than to make the same mistake twice? But God did commit the same mistake twice, which, in my opinion, was either extremely irresponsible in terms of morality, or he is a psychotic and sadistic monster who delights in cruelly punishing flawed humanity for acting precisely as he intended for humanity to behave.

You might recall, that only a few books earlier, "the Lord saw that it was good...." This, apparently, was a mistake. A mistake He decided to correct (through the simple expedient of killing pretty much everybody). This is, just so you know, the VERY DEFINITION OF A CHANGE -- of opinion, stance and intention.

There are scriptures which claim that God never changes, such as Numbers 23:19, which says, "God is not a man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind. Has he said it, and will he not do it? Or has he spoken, and will he not fulfill it?" And Malachi 3:6 says, "I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed." However, other verses imply that God changes his mind (Jeremiah 18:5–10; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2), describe God changing his mind (Exodus 32:14; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:10), or assume that God will change his mind (Jeremiah 26:3; Joel 2:14; Jonah 3:9). It's clear that these verses contradict the first two.

Amos 7:3 "The Lord changed His mind about this. "It shall not be," said the LORD.

Amos 7:6 "The Lord changed His mind about this. "This too shall not be," said the Lord God.

Exodus 32:14 "So the Lord changed His mind about the harm that He said He would do to His people."

Jonah 3:10 "When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, he relented on the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it."

Jeremiah 26:3 "Perhaps they will listen and each one will turn back from his evil way, and I will change my mind concerning the calamity that I intend to bring on them because of their evil deeds."

As a former Christian, I don't think that anyone should look to the Bible to learn about morality. In my opinion, the following Bible stories aren't exemplary examples of upright moral behavior: forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist; smashing infants' heads against rocks; ordering the death of witches; God commanding his "chosen people" to kill an entire populace of foreign nations for their land in a conquest to possess a "promised land"; or God being irrationally angry and committing global genocide by killing every living creature and eradicating the entire human race (aside from Noah and his family) in a worldwide flood. Is that a loving God?

1 Samuel 15:3
states that God commanded the Israelites to attack and not spare the Amalekites (killing every man, woman, child, newborn, and animal and destroying everything that belonged to them). And Psalm 137:9 states, "Happy is the one who seizes your children and smashes them against the rocks." So much for the biblical commandment of "Thou shalt not kill." In my opinion, the God of the Bible has a sadistic mentality of "Do as I say, not as I do," making him the most hypocritical (detestable and barbarous) figure known to mankind. And this article, "Violence in the Bible: Greatest Hits," has several other instances of severe violence in the Bible.

Despite my criticism of the Bible and assertion that it should not be relied on for moral guidance, I believe that what the Bible says should be taken with a grain of salt. As far as I'm concerned, there are a lot of contradictions in the Bible, as well as a few stories of Jesus that were copied and adapted from Greek mythology and other pagan religions, as I explained in other posts, such as this one.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Despite my criticism of the Bible and assertion that it should not be relied on for moral guidance, I believe that what the Bible says should be taken with a grain of salt. As far as I'm concerned, there are a lot of contradictions in the Bible, as well as a few stories of Jesus that were copied and adapted from Greek mythology and other pagan religions, as I explained in other posts, such as this one.
Tis odd that an omniscient omnipotent being would
not make or foresee errors. But this should give
Christians hope that eventually, as God matures,
he'll come around to agreeing with me. Perhaps
then we'll all live in a Revoltistanian libertarian utopia.
(I'm not holding my breath.)
 

TLK Valentine

Read the books that others would burn.
Is it really that difficult to see how ****ing with the foundation of society (families) can eventually **** with all??

What I'm finding difficult is understanding how giving more people the opportunity to form families is ****ing with them. Because I see more families as a good thing.

Seems like the religious types want to keep "family" all to themselves.
 

TLK Valentine

Read the books that others would burn.
Firstly, true liberty and freedom is submission unto God's commandments.

What you are offering is only "liberty and freedom" from responsibility, which is no liberty and freedom at all. A servant assumes no responsibility for following the Master's orders.

Going outside that guidance, eventually leads to unbounded liberty and freedom, which in the end leads to anarchy.

Unless we are guided by something else.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Firstly, true liberty and freedom is submission unto God's commandments. Going outside that guidance, eventually leads to unbounded liberty and freedom, which in the end leads to anarchy.
It's too bad God's commandments are inconsistant and causes strife and conflict.

Other than that, her cry from the heart I see was for the good of humanity, it goes beyond personal considerations.

This is a good reason as to why a Baha'i does not get involved in politics, as we support the freedom of the minority to make their own choices.
Their bigotry is a huge problem for Baha'i if they tried to get into politics, except attracting the far right, Qanon types. Who needs that trouble?

If one wishes to be a Christian, a Muslim or a Baha'i, then they should also willing to submit to the Laws and Guidance of those Faiths. These laws are clearly defined in those faiths.
If you include Jews these offer four different versions of God and different moral guidance. And if you include the KW's, Mormons, and Urantia folks there's even more difference of opinion about God. And try getting Catholics and protestants to agree on interpreting the Bible.

Otherwise, outside those faiths they are free to pursue their own liberties and freedoms, to which a Baha'i will support them. (Within boundaries of course, ie we will not support drug or alcohol abuse, but will support them in their right to marry if they have the Nations Laws to support this).
Are you going against God's commandments against gays?

To willingly stand outside a Faiths given Law, is a breach of the contract of Faith. One would have to live with that fact, which is really the penalty, a concious knowledge that one chose to ignore a law given of God.
So maybe this is an attempt to quietly not support gays marriage after all?

So to ease that burden, many try to rewrite scriptures to suit their own agenda in life.
Which is what theists do. And they get away with it because there is only an absent God not intervening to set anyone straight.
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
What you are offering is only "liberty and freedom" from responsibility, which is no liberty and freedom at all. A servant assumes no responsibility for following the Master's orders.

Liberty is taking responsibility for one's own actions, under the Law.

Otherwise it is branching out to Anarchy

There is no sure guide to follow, but God's Messengers. It is mankind working outside of God's guidance that is the cause of all the Woes we face. A great majority working outside of God's guidance, does include people who are claiming to have Faith. IMHO

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
And of course, there's the question of which "God"
should rule over us with its iron fist. They all have
such different values.

There is only One God. There is no compulsion in religions. That is a God given bounty.

As such, submission becomes a choice and it is in that submission that we can find true liberty.

Regards Tony
 

TransmutingSoul

One Planet, One People, Please!
Premium Member
You chose funny words to do that. Who ever offers me to submit to them has earned fierce opposition.

God has always made it a Choice. It is elements of mankind, with self serving interests, that find it hard to submit for the good of all.

Regards Tony
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
God has always made it a Choice. It is elements of mankind, with self serving interests, that find it hard to submit for the good of all.

Regards Tony
Well, I'm not that much into the DS part of BDSM. But to each their own. Just don't ask me to be your sub.
 
Top