Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – now just where does it say “you shalt not do your job” in the bible

So… we have an entire bunch of clerks in Tennessee that have resigned their jobs rather than even have a chance of granting a marriage license to someone they don’t like, that being folks who want to marry whom they want, and not whom the clerks want them to marry.

It’s great that other people who don’t hate so much can get now some decent jobs (22% population below federal poverty level).  But where does it say in the bible that you don’t do your job or obey the government?  The bible repeatedly says obey the government.  Why?  Because the Judeo/Christian god put every government in place and every king or leader in place and this god doesn’t make mistakes.  It doesn’t say only follow it when you feel like it.

If the clerks want to cite not being yoked with others, well, they’re a bit late in that since I can be pretty sure that they’ve associated with plenty of people who have gotten divorced and remarried, Christians they don’t share beliefs with, etc.  As for calling on the “commandments”, I’m sure that the clerks don’t follow all of them though they are quick to claim that the bit about homosexuals is all-important.  How many people who work on the “Sabbath” have they murdered, in God’s name, of course.  Makes it hard to go out for lunch after church, doesn’t it?

Considering that there must have been a lot of prayers going up to prevent same-sex marriage and those failed, one can make some guesses about what was going on:

This god is fine with same-sex marriage and indeed supports it.

The Christians praying were doing it wrong.

There is no God.

Buh-bye, Pope, Bell and Butler.  Don’t let the screen door hit you on the bum on your way out.

Post-script – in a amusing turn, we have a TrueChristian(tm) Colorstorm, being unable to quote his bible in support of the clerks, and himself, but claims that Thoreau’s “Life Without Principles” supports what the clerks did.  You can see the discussion in comments.

Advertisements

34 responses to “Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – now just where does it say “you shalt not do your job” in the bible

  1. These people really are messed-up in the head, aren’t they? Can someone please ask these clerks if they have recently stoned any children to death…

  2. I live in Tn, and saw one of these asshats on the news the other night. This one runs a hardware store and was going on about how he didn’t want gays shopping there. First I thought, when was the last time you saw gays in a hardware store? Then I was like, you know what, let all of these ignoramuses show themselves for the who and what they are, so the rest of us can shop or do our thing where we can avoid said ignoramuses.

    As far as a clerk quitting their job so they would not have to issue a license they didn’t agree with, so what? Let the dumb shits walk out, and someone who really wants a job will step right up!

    • CS, it seems you depend on someone’s ignorance again, and fail. It’s quite amusing to see you refer to Thoreau and especially “Life Without Principle” ( https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Life_Without_Principle ) in an attempt to excuse the actions of Christians like you, so desperate to claim that their religion is true and the only truth. What you seems to have tried to do is create an appeal to authority but have no idea what this authority actually said.

      Thoreau was writing about how one should support one’s self, doing what one enjoys rather than just working for money. It’s a declaration against the faults of capitalism. However, you can find some bits that are indeed applicable to the situation with the clerks, and others who try to do anything they can to prevent people from enjoying the same rights as everyone else. However, anyone can find something in Thoreau to quote, from liberals to conservatives, theists to atheists. What matters, as always, is context. We know the author quite well. Would he support those who would do anything to avoid allowing someone to have the same freedoms they enjoy? It does seem that he would agree that they can make that choice, being all for freedom, but it seems that he would not be the hypocrite that many Christians are in wanting freedom for themselves and no others. He is also of course, not always right, just like any human being.

      Let’s look at some quotes from the work you claim supports you and the clerks:

      “The aim of the laborer should be, not to get his living, to get “a good job,” but to perform well a certain work; and, even in a pecuniary sense, it would be economy for a town to pay its laborers so well that they would not feel that they were working for low ends, as for a livelihood merely, but for scientific, or even moral ends. Do not hire a man who does your work for money, but him who does it for love of it.”

      A rather notable opinion on religion:

      “Merely to come into the world the heir of a fortune is not to be born, but to be still-born, rather. To be supported by the charity of friends, or a government-pension,—provided you continue to breathe,—by whatever fine synonymes you describe these relations, is to go into the almshouse. On Sundays the poor debtor goes to church to take an account of stock, and finds, of course, that his outgoes have been greater than his income. In the Catholic Church, especially, they go into Chancery, make a clean confession, give up all, and think to start again. Thus men will lie on their backs, talking about the fall of man, and never make an effort to get up.”

      “It is remarkable that among all the preachers there are so few moral teachers. The prophets are employed in excusing the ways of men. Most reverend seniors, the illuminati of the age, tell me, with a gracious, reminiscent smile, betwixt an aspiration and a shudder, not to be too tender about these things,—to lump all that, that is, make a lump of gold of it. The highest advice I have heard on these subjects was grovelling. The burden of it was,—It is not worth your while to undertake to reform the world in this particular. Do not ask how your bread is buttered; it will make you sick, if you do,—and the like. A man had better starve at once than lose his innocence in the process of getting his bread. If within the sophisticated man there is not an unsophisticated one, then he is but one of the Devil’s angels. As we grow old, we live more coarsely, we relax a little in our disciplines, and, to some extent, cease to obey our finest instincts. But we should be fastidious to the extreme of sanity, disregarding the gibes of those who are more unfortunate than ourselves.

      In our science and philosophy, even, there is commonly no true and absolute account of things. The spirit of sect and bigotry has planted its hoof amid the stars. You have only to discuss the problem, whether the stars are inhabited or not, in order to discover it. Why must we daub the heavens as well as the earth? It was an unfortunate discovery that Dr. Kane was a Mason, and that Sir John Franklin was another. But it was a more cruel suggestion that possibly that was the reason why the former went in search of the latter. There is not a popular magazine in this country that would dare to print a child’s thought on important subjects without comment. It must be submitted to the D. D.s. I would it were the chickadee-dees.”

      Thoreau doesn’t apparently like Masons, but he doesn’t want to think that one human would help another because of a fraternity, but out of human decency. Dr. Kane was a surgeon that was on a expedition to rescue Arctic explorer Sir John Franklin.

      “America is said to be the arena on which the battle of freedom is to be fought; but surely it cannot be freedom in a merely political sense that is meant. Even if we grant that the American has freed himself from a political tyrant, he is still the slave of an economical and moral tyrant. Now that the republic—the res-publica—has been settled, it is time to look after the res-privata,—the private state,—to see, as the Roman senate charged its consuls, “ne quid res-PRIVATA detrimenti caperet,” that the private state receive no detriment.

      Do we call this the land of the free? What is it to be free from King George and continue the slaves of King Prejudice? What is it to be born free and not to live free? What is the value of any political freedom, but as a means to moral freedom? Is it a freedom to be slaves, or a freedom to be free, of which we boast? We are a nation of politicians, concerned about the outmost defences only of freedom. It is our children’s children who may perchance be really free. We tax ourselves unjustly. There is a part of us which is not represented. It is taxation without representation. We quarter troops, we quarter fools and cattle of all sorts upon ourselves. We quarter our gross bodies on our poor souls, till the former eat up all the latter’s substance.”

      And that, CS, shows that your desire to restrict freedom and the clerks desire to restrict freedom, by trying to prevent others from getting the benefits of marriage, is nothing that Thoreau would support.

      Do you honestly think that someone who wrote the following would agree with such intolerance and ignorance as you and the clerks attempt to spread?

      “I do not prefer one religion or philosophy to another. I have no sympathy with the bigotry and ignorance which make transient and partial and puerile distinctions between one man’s faith or form of faith and another’s — as Christian and heathen. I pray to be delivered from narrowness, partiality, exaggeration, bigotry. To the philosopher, all sects, all nations, are alike. I like Brahma, Hari, Buddha, the Great Spirit, as well as God.” – Spirit in Nature, vol. 2

      “”The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual.… Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly.” – Civil Disobedience

      “Let every one mind his own business, and endeavor to be what he was made. Why should we be in such desperate haste to succeed, and in such desperate enterprises? If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.”
      – Walden

      • Yike club-

        You said quite a bit to miss my point. You greatly err in thinking HD Thoreau would agree as to the clerks position as to WHY they walked……………; I never said that.

        What he would agree with, and what I avow, is the worth of people acting according to PRINCIPLE, whether you agree with them or not.

        After all, there is the ‘beat of a different drummer…………..’

        Jehovah’s Witnesses are all over the place in the scriptures, and I cannot agree with most of the doctrine, but I can commend their zeal, even if it is misguided.

        But you have set yourself up for a fall by predicting: ‘this will be fun…………………’

      • It’s rather curious that you assume that I think that Thoreau would agree to the clerks position as to “why”. I didn’t say he would agree to the why, since the why was solely to prevent people from enjoying the same freedoms as the clerks did. In fact I showed that he would not agree to the why by citing other quotes from Thoreau. You have indicated that Thoreau would approve of leaving ones job because of principles, any principles. That is not the case. Thoreau has some very defined principles in mind, as can be shown by his other writings. The people he speaks against, those that work for a wage or choose to go mine gold, do have principles, but Thoreau doesn’t agree with those.

        Again, it is no surprise that you wish to quote mine an author and remain ignorant of what they wrote in the context of their beliefs. Let me ask you, do you think that Thoreau would have said that it was just great that a slave-owner quit a job or disobeyed the government because of his principles? And what lovely principles you have since you pick and choose what parts of the bible that you find you simply must obey. Oh, it’s so against your principles to serve homosexual people who want marriages, but you ignore the commandments when convenient. So much for such “principles”.

        It’s hilarious to see you quote the “drummer” paragraph when you and these clerks do not respect that at all. Nope, you want government to force everyone to agree with you. If the clerks cared about the “different drummer” they would have done their jobs for all American citizens, and not declared that if they can’t be the only to be married, then no one can. We’ve seen that repeated all over the US, dogs in the manger deciding that if they can’t be in control, then they’ll do their best to shut down government.

        You may be able to commend people for their zeal, no matter what they believe. I do not, because that zeal is worthless and harmful. Just like yours. Would you commend the Nazis or Maoists for their “zeal”? I certainly wouldn’t.

        I’m sure you hope I have set myself up for a fall. Funny how you can’t actually show that is the case. I’ve shown that your claims about Thoreau are wrong. You are more than welcome to support your case. Show me that it is reasonable to think that Thoreau would agree on the application of principles when those principles cannot be shown to be held to by the claimants.

        Again, CS, where in the bible does it say it’s okay to ignore the government? That is okay to refuse service to others? If these clerks, and yourself are full of such zeal, why is it that you pick and choose what parts of the bible to follow? How many people have you killed for working on a Sabbath? Indeed, when it the Sabbath, since even Christians can’t agree? If these clerks are such TrueChristians, why did they work for years allowing divorce decrees to be filed? To claim that they simply can’t work with homosexuals who want married, then why did they have no problem in granting marriage licenses to people who were supposedly also sinners?

      • Its real simple club; apparently the clerks (and you have no clue as to whether I agree with them………..) answered a higher call; one that does not fit your approval.

        There is this thing called ‘for conscience sake,’ according to the scriptures, and like the hot dog company, they took their ‘answering to a higher authority’ seriously.

        And for what its worth, I probably appreciate more of Thoreau than you, even in his unbelief.

        You will wear your pencils out trying to find a weakness in this opinion.

      • Well, CS, I’ll ask you a direct question: do you agree with the clerks in Tennessee or not? Let’s see if you will answer that and show that I was either right or wrong.

        What evidence do you have that anyone answered a “higher call”? Or are they just humans who have their very own hatreds and desires that they ascribe to a god? Considering that Christians don’t agree on what their god wants, how can we tell if someone answered a “higher call”? Plenty of Christians are sure that God has no problem with same-sex marriage. Now, who should be believed? Shall we set up altars where each sect of Christian can call upon their god to see who gets an answer?

        You can claim that you answer to a higher authority. The problem is that you can’t show that this higher authority agrees with you or with someone else, or even exists.

        And it’s worth absolutely nothing to claim that you somehow “appreciate” Thoreau more than me. Just how could we determine that, CS? Or is it just a baseless claim of yours made to try to feel superior?

        In that your claim is nothing more than a baseless opinion, its weakness is pretty evident.

        Always grand to see that you can’t answer questions:

        Let me ask you, do you think that Thoreau would have said that it was just great that a slave-owner quit a job or disobeyed the government because of his principles?

        Would you commend the Nazis or Maoists for their “zeal”?

        Again, CS, where in the bible does it say it’s okay to ignore the government? That is okay to refuse service to others? If these clerks, and yourself are full of such zeal, why is it that you pick and choose what parts of the bible to follow? How many people have you killed for working on a Sabbath? Indeed, when it the Sabbath, since even Christians can’t agree? If these clerks are such TrueChristians, why did they work for years allowing divorce decrees to be filed? To claim that they simply can’t work with homosexuals who want married, then why did they have no problem in granting marriage licenses to people who were supposedly also sinners?

        How is it that people’s consciences give them completely different answers? It’s just like people are making up what a god wants and there is no god at all.

  3. Simply Club, I can appreciate Thoreau because I cite His work as valuable in reference to a life of principle, where you see little or no value in the writings of believers.

    Whether I think it is right or wrong for a clerk to resign is irrelevant. It was wrong for them, according to their conscience, to continue employment in that which they found offensive. Any reasonable person would grant them a little grace.

    • Ummm, where have I shown that I see little or no value in the writings of all believers, as you would claim? Is it that you think I don’t appreciate Thoreau because he was a believer? You haven’t actually read anything of Thoreau’s have you?

      Ah, so you won’t answer questions. Shucks, such indignation about me making an assumption but being so unwilling to set me straight if I was wrong. So, CS, is this how you stand up for your principles? You seem very afraid of actually admitting what you believe.

      No, no reasonable person would accept that people try to shut down government because they don’t want other to enjoy the same freedoms they do. Such bigots don’t deserve any grace at all. They can be held accountable for what they believe.

      • It all boils down to whether or not ‘same sex marriage is possible,; hence the steadfastness of some to not issue things that are non existent.

        They are acting according to principle, THEIRS; kind of hard to argue against.

        I already told you that some act ‘for conscience sake………….’ It’s in the good book, look it up.

        And for what it’s worth, freedom is irrelevant, for if it were, you would cease your complaints against the clerks.

      • So, you are claiming that same sex marriage isn’t possible? That’s quite a argument, if CS doesn’t believe in something it magically ceases to exist.

        Just because someone acts according to a principle doesn’t mean that they are right nor does it mean that they are honorable or courageous. Not all people are like you and just approve of any principle at all. Thoreau doesn’t randomly approve of any principle at all, something that you’ve tried to falsely claim, and even more hilariously refuse to answer questions directly about that.

        The bible does say thing about conscience’s sake. Let’s look at it.

        “27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience. 29 I am referring to the other person’s conscience, not yours. For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience? 30 If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?”

        CS, tell us what Paul means here.

        You don’t make much sense and I am guessing you miss parts of sentences. Your last sentence makes no sense. So you claim that freedom is irrelevant, and that if it is irrelevant there is some mysterious reason that I would cease pointing out that the clerks are wrong. I’m going to guess that you are trying to say that no one can point out how someone is wrong because that would impinge on their freedom. Is this correct?

        To repeat all of the questions you have refused to answer:

        What evidence do you have that anyone answered a “higher call”? Or are they just humans who have their very own hatreds and desires that they ascribe to a god? Considering that Christians don’t agree on what their god wants, how can we tell if someone answered a “higher call”? Plenty of Christians are sure that God has no problem with same-sex marriage. Now, who should be believed? Shall we set up altars where each sect of Christian can call upon their god to see who gets an answer?

        Again, CS, where in the bible does it say it’s okay to ignore the government? That is okay to refuse service to others? If these clerks, and yourself are full of such zeal, why is it that you pick and choose what parts of the bible to follow? How many people have you killed for working on a Sabbath? Indeed, when it the Sabbath, since even Christians can’t agree? If these clerks are such TrueChristians, why did they work for years allowing divorce decrees to be filed? To claim that they simply can’t work with homosexuals who want married, then why did they have no problem in granting marriage licenses to people who were supposedly also sinners?

        How is it that people’s consciences give them completely different answers?

        Let me ask you, do you think that Thoreau would have said that it was just great that a slave-owner quit a job or disobeyed the government because of his principles?

        Would you commend the Nazis or Maoists for their “zeal”?

        Ummm, where have I shown that I see little or no value in the writings of all believers, as you would claim? Is it that you think I don’t appreciate Thoreau because he was a believer? You haven’t actually read anything of Thoreau’s have you?

        So, CS, is this how you stand up for your principles?

      • Well you got me there, I never knew Thoreau was a believer…………….as a matter of fact…………………

        As to your citing of the ‘conscience’ in scripture, I’m afraid the relevance escapes you, as it is an issue between believers, which necessarily leaves you out. You cannot truthfully ingest yourself into an interpretation that you naturally mock.

        The clerks stance troubles you no end, and that speaks more to your lack of tolerance than their willingness to quit a job for something.

        And yes, same sex marriage is impossible not because I say so, but because the voice of nature, common sense, and God say so.

        I suggest the french version of the new word for ssm: le mirage.

      • I guess that at least answers my question if you’ve even read Thoreau or the essay you referred to. It seems like you decided to google about principles, found something by a name you recognized and then proceeded to assume it supported your claims, not even reading it. You, of course, will not answer my question if Thoreau was lauding all principles or if he had some in mind. Again, CS, would Thoreau laud a slave owner for standing by his “principles”?

        The clerks are hypocrites, as are you. Such the wailing about how awful homosexual marriage is, but funny how all of you don’t blink when you serve other supposed sinners. It’ business as usual, Christians picking and choosing what they want to pretend their god approves of and what it hates, and surprise! It’s always exactly what such petty little humans approve of and hate. Believers don’t agree on what this god wants, CS. There are plenty of Christians who don’t agree with you at all and are certain their god approves of same-sex marriage. And until any of you can show some evidence of your god, you are all making the same baseless claims.

        All of this whining about homosexuals and golly, not a one of you refusing to serve divorced people, not one of you being willing to murder people for working on the Sabbath, all just as good commandments as telling you to murder homsexuals. Indeed, Christians can’t agree on when that is either.

        It’s also quite amusing that you can’t or won’t tell us what you think Paul means here. You wish to claim that I can’t understand it, and of course you can’t show that my understanding of it is wrong. What it appears that Paul is asking is why should anyone’s belief affect him or other Christians, if they do what they do secure in their beliefs. “For why is my freedom being judged by another’s conscience?” It’s no wonder you don’t want to discuss this because it shows that your, and the clerks actions are certainly questionable, judging others freedom. Now, I am sure that Paul would agree with you rather than me, but when making such pronouncements about freedom, it’s a shame that not everyone’s freedom is important to you or to Paul. You want freedom to treat others as second class citizens but you don’t want the accountability.

        I am quite happy to be intolerant of people who are hypocrites. I’m also very happy to be intolerant of skinheads, Klansmen, Nazis, Stalinists, wannabee theocrats, etc. It seems you are not intolerant of such people, and you have claimed that you admire their “zeal”. Hmm, who is the baddie here?

        Oh my. Now CS has declared something not possible. And why is it not possible? Because of his god, something he can’t show exists. Please do show that your god exists, CS, and then we can see what this god says. Again, plenty of Christians say you are a liar. Surely you can show that they are wrong and you are right? Nature has plenty of examples of how same sex relationships are quite unremarkable. Common sense? Well, common sense was once that the earth was flat and the stars were just flecks of fire on a dome. We got to see how well *that* turned out.

        And again the questions you refuse to answer and thus give us more answers than you think:

        What evidence do you have that anyone answered a “higher call”? Or are they just humans who have their very own hatreds and desires that they ascribe to a god? Considering that Christians don’t agree on what their god wants, how can we tell if someone answered a “higher call”? Plenty of Christians are sure that God has no problem with same-sex marriage. Now, who should be believed? Shall we set up altars where each sect of Christian can call upon their god to see who gets an answer?

        Again, CS, where in the bible does it say it’s okay to ignore the government? That is okay to refuse service to others? If these clerks, and yourself are full of such zeal, why is it that you pick and choose what parts of the bible to follow? How many people have you killed for working on a Sabbath? Indeed, when it the Sabbath, since even Christians can’t agree? If these clerks are such TrueChristians, why did they work for years allowing divorce decrees to be filed? To claim that they simply can’t work with homosexuals who want married, then why did they have no problem in granting marriage licenses to people who were supposedly also sinners?

        How is it that people’s consciences give them completely different answers?

        Let me ask you, do you think that Thoreau would have said that it was just great that a slave-owner quit a job or disobeyed the government because of his principles?
        Would you commend the Nazis or Maoists for their “zeal”?

        Ummm, where have I shown that I see little or no value in the writings of all believers, as you would claim? Is it that you think I don’t appreciate Thoreau because he was a believer? You haven’t actually read anything of Thoreau’s have you?

        So, CS, is this how you stand up for your principles?

        So you claim that freedom is irrelevant, and that if it is irrelevant there is some mysterious reason that I would cease pointing out that the clerks are wrong. I’m going to guess that you are trying to say that no one can point out how someone is wrong because that would impinge on their freedom. Is this correct?

      • I googled nothing regarding the wise fellow Mr. HD Thoreau. Some things a person reminders, such as his observation to ‘beware of all enterprises that require new clothing.’

        I know a man who does not own a tie, does not wear one, and does not want one. When asked about attending places that require ties, he simply does not go.

        That is acting according to his principle, and I challenge anybody to steal his honor.

        On the other hand, he may disagree with the clerks. So what. He may agree with them. so what.

        It infuriates you that people would quit a job because you find fault with their reason; it speaks more to your lack of intolerance and grace (as I said) than the point you are trying to defend.

        Your long speeches simply highlight your weak case.

      • Ah, so we now get you to apparently admit that Thoreau would not agree with the clerks. You ask “so what?” The importance of this admission is that your claims that following a principle is all important and that the principle itself is not important are simply nonsense and your use of a man’s words to defend hatred and ignorance he would not agree with is pitiful. Please do show how it is possible that Thoreau would agree with people who want to keep freedoms from others as you claim “He may agree with them. so what.” Please do show that Thoreau would approve of a slave owner sticking by his “principles”. Quite amazing for you to compare wearing a tie to refusing the same freedom one has to another human being.

        It’s so cute to see you again try to accuse me of things that aren’t true. No, CS, it does not infuriate me that someone would quit their job over a reason I disagree with. I find it sick and sad that someone is a hypocrite, and that one would try their best to prevent someone from enjoying the same freedoms that they do.

        You must create a strawman to attack, since your claims repeatedly fail.

        Again, it’s quite revealing on what questions you won’t answer. Again, I’m quite happy to be intolerant to bigots. And “grace”? I am quite happy to lack “grace”, since that apparently is nothing more than a Christian again trying to claim that their god agrees with them. Again, CS, you claim you god does “And yes, same sex marriage is impossible not because I say so, but because the voice of nature, common sense, and God say so.” Still waiting for your evidence that your god even exists.

        and of course all of the questions you haven’t answered:

        What evidence do you have that anyone answered a “higher call”? Or are they just humans who have their very own hatreds and desires that they ascribe to a god? Considering that Christians don’t agree on what their god wants, how can we tell if someone answered a “higher call”? Plenty of Christians are sure that God has no problem with same-sex marriage. Now, who should be believed? Shall we set up altars where each sect of Christian can call upon their god to see who gets an answer?

        Again, CS, where in the bible does it say it’s okay to ignore the government? That is okay to refuse service to others? If these clerks, and yourself are full of such zeal, why is it that you pick and choose what parts of the bible to follow? How many people have you killed for working on a Sabbath? Indeed, when it the Sabbath, since even Christians can’t agree? If these clerks are such TrueChristians, why did they work for years allowing divorce decrees to be filed? To claim that they simply can’t work with homosexuals who want married, then why did they have no problem in granting marriage licenses to people who were supposedly also sinners?

        How is it that people’s consciences give them completely different answers?

        Let me ask you, do you think that Thoreau would have said that it was just great that a slave-owner quit a job or disobeyed the government because of his principles?

        Would you commend the Nazis or Maoists for their “zeal”?

        Ummm, where have I shown that I see little or no value in the writings of all believers, as you would claim? Is it that you think I don’t appreciate Thoreau because he was a believer? You haven’t actually read anything of Thoreau’s have you?

        So, CS, is this how you stand up for your principles?

        So you claim that freedom is irrelevant, and that if it is irrelevant there is some mysterious reason that I would cease pointing out that the clerks are wrong. I’m going to guess that you are trying to say that no one can point out how someone is wrong because that would impinge on their freedom. Is this correct?

        Oh, so my “long speeches” somehow highlight my weak case? How so, CS? Surely you can show how this works? or is this one more claim that you cannot support?

        Please do show that your god exists, CS, and then we can see what this god says. Again, plenty of Christians say you are a liar. Surely you can show that they are wrong and you are right?

      • Two simple errors to correct.

        ‘Common sense’ you say WAS believing the earth was flat? Ah no that would be un-common sense.

        As to your ‘all over the place’ point to dismiss the existence of God asking me to prove Him?

        Uh, go into a room with a friend or two; heck, take them all; take every one of your unbelieving friends. Your mission? Make a spoonful of dirt. using nothing.

        You have no case, and let God be true and every man a liar.

      • Okay, so how was the common belief by the common man that the earth was flat “un-common sense”? Or is this just you trying to gainsay me with no evidence at all again?

        Yep, CS, show that your version of the Christian god exists. It’s so sweet that you use the same argument that most, if not all, theists make to prove their god/s. Shucks, CS, since you can’t make dirt then every god that a human claims can make dirt has to exist too!

        The fact that I, a human being, can’t make dirt using nothing, does not prove that your god exists. it shows that humans can’t make dirt but does not show that nothing else but your god can make dirt. Physical laws are quite able to make “dirt”, no god needed. Still waiting for that evidence that your god is the only god and that it exists. Do show that no other gods exists and that CS’s version does. Again, plenty of Christians who say you are wrong, plenty of theists say you are wrong, with just as much evidence as you claim.

        Repeating false statements also doesn’t make them true either. Wishes that your god is true doesn’t work either; there is nothing that “lets” your god be true or that “lets” every man to be a liar. it’s also amusing that again you make false claims about other people in your desperation. Please do show that “every man” is a liar.

      • Congrats CS! you’ve again done your best to ignore questions. How wonderfully revelatory of you!

        I have read Romans 3. It doesn’t say quite what you claim. it does says that something should “let” this god be true and everyman be a liar. There is no evidence that this god exists, much less that it is somehow “true”. It also does a good job of indicating that Christians have evidently often lied for their religion, and Paul has to scold them for it.

        It also goes on to make the baseless claim that all humans are somehow not “righteous”, and makes claims about sin. This is nothing special in holy books, where the book, and the believers, try to claim that anyone but them is bad and wrong. They cannot show this, but they so need to imagine that they are special snowflakes, they cannot admit otherwise.

        It also goes into how “just” this god is. Well, CS, how is it “just” to damn people for no fault of their own, but the actions of others or the whim of this god to damn some people just because it feels like it (Romans 9)?

        If you can show your god exists, please do. You’ve been asked to do so and have been unable to do so.

        the list of questions CS can’t/won’t answer:

        What evidence do you have that anyone answered a “higher call”? Or are they just humans who have their very own hatreds and desires that they ascribe to a god? Considering that Christians don’t agree on what their god wants, how can we tell if someone answered a “higher call”? Plenty of Christians are sure that God has no problem with same-sex marriage. Now, who should be believed? Shall we set up altars where each sect of Christian can call upon their god to see who gets an answer?

        Again, CS, where in the bible does it say it’s okay to ignore the government? That is okay to refuse service to others? If these clerks, and yourself are full of such zeal, why is it that you pick and choose what parts of the bible to follow? How many people have you killed for working on a Sabbath? Indeed, when it the Sabbath, since even Christians can’t agree? If these clerks are such TrueChristians, why did they work for years allowing divorce decrees to be filed? To claim that they simply can’t work with homosexuals who want married, then why did they have no problem in granting marriage licenses to people who were supposedly also sinners?

        How is it that people’s consciences give them completely different answers?

        Let me ask you, do you think that Thoreau would have said that it was just great that a slave-owner quit a job or disobeyed the government because of his principles?

        Would you commend the Nazis or Maoists for their “zeal”?

        Ummm, where have I shown that I see little or no value in the writings of all believers, as you would claim? Is it that you think I don’t appreciate Thoreau because he was a believer? You haven’t actually read anything of Thoreau’s have you?

        So, CS, is this how you stand up for your principles?

        So you claim that freedom is irrelevant, and that if it is irrelevant there is some mysterious reason that I would cease pointing out that the clerks are wrong. I’m going to guess that you are trying to say that no one can point out how someone is wrong because that would impinge on their freedom. Is this correct?

        Oh, so my “long speeches” somehow highlight my weak case? How so, CS? Surely you can show how this works? or is this one more claim that you cannot support?

        Please do show that your god exists, CS, and then we can see what this god says. Again, plenty of Christians say you are a liar. Surely you can show that they are wrong and you are right?

        Okay, so how was the common belief by the common man that the earth was flat “un-common sense”? Or is this just you trying to gainsay me with no evidence at all again?

      • And Club, I have admitting nothing as to your lame insinuations. It is you who cannot follow a train of thought.

        ‘So what?’ meaning it is none of your business what the clerks did, they acted according to THEIR principle. Apparently you don’t get this.

        And it is THEY who have not changed the meaning of a word to suit the decadent.

      • I can follow a train of thought and I can watch you do your best to avoid answering questions. So, what train of thought do you claim I can’t follow? Is it that I can’t follow it or is it that you refuse to actually answer my question if Thoreau would agree with clerks or not? Would Thoreau agree that following any “principle” is good or did he have certain principles in mind, CS?

        You have presented the essay from Thoreau as if Thoreau would approve of following any principle to claim that the clerks were correct. You have refused to answer my questions, and you have written “On the other hand, he may disagree with the clerks. So what. He may agree with them. so what.” When you have insisted before that Thoreau would indeed agree with the clerks with no equivocation. This is the typical movement of someone who knows he has no evidence to support his baseless claims, suddenly you claim that the facts shouldn’t matter.

        Ah, it’s always nice to see that the actions of others are now supposedly “none of your business” (applied to me). It’s always great to see claims that I shouldn’t interfere with anyone but it’s perfectly fine for you and the clerks to interfere with the lives of others when you want to force religion on them or do your best to refuse them the same freedoms you enjoy. Tsk.

        Hmmm, who has changed the meaning of a word? Marriage has changed its meaning repeatedly in history. Shall we keep the early bronze age marriage that is polygamous? Shall we keep the meaning of marriage that means no love but a woman given as property to anchor political arrangements? Shall we keep the meaning of marriage that a woman has to marry her dead husband’s brothers, no matter how many in a row to provide a male heir? Shall we keep the definition of marriage to be that a woman must marry her rapist?

        Again, CS, it’s always great to see hypocrites like you and the clerks who decide that they just can’t work with people because of a piece of the bible they cherry-picked, but who ignore all of those other commandments and claims because they are rather inconvenient. So much for biblical “principles”.

        and all of the questions you have refused to answer:

        What evidence do you have that anyone answered a “higher call”? Or are they just humans who have their very own hatreds and desires that they ascribe to a god? Considering that Christians don’t agree on what their god wants, how can we tell if someone answered a “higher call”? Plenty of Christians are sure that God has no problem with same-sex marriage. Now, who should be believed? Shall we set up altars where each sect of Christian can call upon their god to see who gets an answer?

        Again, CS, where in the bible does it say it’s okay to ignore the government? That is okay to refuse service to others? If these clerks, and yourself are full of such zeal, why is it that you pick and choose what parts of the bible to follow? How many people have you killed for working on a Sabbath? Indeed, when it the Sabbath, since even Christians can’t agree? If these clerks are such TrueChristians, why did they work for years allowing divorce decrees to be filed? To claim that they simply can’t work with homosexuals who want married, then why did they have no problem in granting marriage licenses to people who were supposedly also sinners?

        How is it that people’s consciences give them completely different answers?

        Let me ask you, do you think that Thoreau would have said that it was just great that a slave-owner quit a job or disobeyed the government because of his principles?

        Would you commend the Nazis or Maoists for their “zeal”?

        Ummm, where have I shown that I see little or no value in the writings of all believers, as you would claim? Is it that you think I don’t appreciate Thoreau because he was a believer? You haven’t actually read anything of Thoreau’s have you?

        So, CS, is this how you stand up for your principles?

        So you claim that freedom is irrelevant, and that if it is irrelevant there is some mysterious reason that I would cease pointing out that the clerks are wrong. I’m going to guess that you are trying to say that no one can point out how someone is wrong because that would impinge on their freedom. Is this correct?

        Oh, so my “long speeches” somehow highlight my weak case? How so, CS? Surely you can show how this works? or is this one more claim that you cannot support?

        Please do show that your god exists, CS, and then we can see what this god says. Again, plenty of Christians say you are a liar. Surely you can show that they are wrong and you are right?

      • Sigh club. As far as your insistence that the clerks have ‘interfered with the lives of others.’

        If you cannot see the gross negligence of your mis-understanding, that they have done the OPPOSITE, then it is pointless….

        They removed themselves, like a judge on the bench recusing himself; they are not interested as it is a conflict of interest.

        How many times do you need it explained.

        ‘Please show your God exists?’ Uh, it’s called life. Open your eyes.

      • CS, please do show me this “gross negligence”. You keep making new accusations and of course can’t even support the ones that you’ve made so far.

        let’s go over this again, the clerks abandoned their posts and closed an office to the public because they were so afraid that anyone but them would have freedoms to do what they wanted, e.g. marry who they want. They did this by claiming that it was their religious beliefs that made them unable to serve others they didn’t agree with. That is simply an excuse since this religious belief never was a problem before because they pick and choose what parts of their religion they want to follow. Any claims of “principles” can be shown to be false since they do not actually follow the principles of the bible. They are hypocrites who have indeed interfered with the lives of others by their intentional actions.

        Yep, they certainly removed themselves and again did their best to try to prevent others from enjoying the same freedoms that they do *by* removing themselves.

        No, it’s not a “conflict of interest”. If it were, they would have long removed themselves from serving all of the other reviled types of people in the bible. They never did.

        Aw, repeating again the same claim that all theists claim as “evidence” for their god. So, CS, please do show that “life” is from your god. Other theists say its from theirs and that you should open your eyes. You don’t believe them. I don’t believe you for very likely the same reasons. Who should I believe? Why are you limited to the same baseless claims that other theists are, having not one scrap of evidence of the events in your bible? Not able to actually do what your savior claimed that all true believers in him would be able to do?

      • @club

        You are comparing things that have no comparative values.

        Is divorce wrong? Yes. Is adultery wrong? Yes. Is gluttony wrong? Yes.

        Is same sex marriage wrong? Uh, wrong? No, it is impossible. This is why you are having trouble seeing, as your bias clouds your vision.

        A marriage is the union of opposites. Case closed. The clerks wanted no part of a mirage, and acted according to their conscience.

        So few are people of principle.

      • Hey, more questions that CS can’t answer and has no evidence to support! How unsurprising!

        Again, nice to see that you pick and choose your bible. Funny how you decide to hate some people and deny them freedoms but golly, you have no problem in allowing people who are supposedly also just as horrible sinners, why they get the same freedoms. So much for your claims of conscience and biblical support for your pitiful bigotry.

        Same sex marriage is just as real as opposite sex marriage. It’s awfully cute to watch you stomp your feet and say that something doesn’t exist when it does. Sorry, CS, there is same sex marriage and Christians have no problem with it, sure that their god is happy with it. Hmm, how is it that Christians just like you are sure that God and Jesus have no problem with same-sex marriage, CS? Again, why should we believe your version of Christianity?

        Now, CS, you need to show that your god is unhappy with same-sex marriage. Can you? Where’s the smiting? let me guess, it’ll be “later”, just like how idiots like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell claimed when their prophecies of destruction since people weren’t agreeing with them didn’t actually come about.

        A marriage is not only the union of opposites. How nice to see you try to claim that marriage has only one definition. Funny how every dictionary says you are a liar. So, case not closed, but yet more evidence that you attempt to claim false things are true. Let’s see what Merriam-Webster.com says about marriage: ”
        1

        a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

        b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock

        c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

        2

        : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

        3

        : an intimate or close union ”

        The clerks wanted to force their religion on others and to deny freedoms that they enjoy to others. Let me pose a situation , CS. There’s a office you need to get something from, let’s say the Department of Motor Vehicles. The staff at this office decides that they hate you and will not give you what you need, even though the law says they must. They all leave the office just to make sure you can’t have the same things that they do. Now, do you think this is interfering with your life? Why or why not?

        Yep, people of decent humane principles are indeed few. Happily, there are fewer and fewer of people with principles like you. Again, CS, just because someone claims to hold to some principle doesn’t mean it is right or good. As I’ve asked before, would Thoreau laud a slave owner for holding to his principles? Do you laud Hitler and Stalin for holding to theirs, admiring them for their “zeal”? Oh yes, these are the questions you don’t like to answer.

        And the questions that CS can’t/won’t answer so far:

        What evidence do you have that anyone answered a “higher call”? Or are they just humans who have their very own hatreds and desires that they ascribe to a god? Considering that Christians don’t agree on what their god wants, how can we tell if someone answered a “higher call”? Plenty of Christians are sure that God has no problem with same-sex marriage. Now, who should be believed? Shall we set up altars where each sect of Christian can call upon their god to see who gets an answer?

        Again, CS, where in the bible does it say it’s okay to ignore the government? That is okay to refuse service to others? If these clerks, and yourself are full of such zeal, why is it that you pick and choose what parts of the bible to follow? How many people have you killed for working on a Sabbath? Indeed, when it the Sabbath, since even Christians can’t agree? If these clerks are such TrueChristians, why did they work for years allowing divorce decrees to be filed? To claim that they simply can’t work with homosexuals who want married, then why did they have no problem in granting marriage licenses to people who were supposedly also sinners?

        How is it that people’s consciences give them completely different answers?

        Let me ask you, do you think that Thoreau would have said that it was just great that a slave-owner quit a job or disobeyed the government because of his principles?

        Would you commend the Nazis or Maoists for their “zeal”?

        Ummm, where have I shown that I see little or no value in the writings of all believers, as you would claim? Is it that you think I don’t appreciate Thoreau because he was a believer? You haven’t actually read anything of Thoreau’s have you?

        So, CS, is this how you stand up for your principles?

        So you claim that freedom is irrelevant, and that if it is irrelevant there is some mysterious reason that I would cease pointing out that the clerks are wrong. I’m going to guess that you are trying to say that no one can point out how someone is wrong because that would impinge on their freedom. Is this correct?

        Oh, so my “long speeches” somehow highlight my weak case? How so, CS? Surely you can show how this works? or is this one more claim that you cannot support?

        Please do show that your god exists, CS, and then we can see what this god says. Again, plenty of Christians say you are a liar. Surely you can show that they are wrong and you are right?

        CS, please do show me this “gross negligence”. You keep making new accusations and of course can’t even support the ones that you’ve made so far.

        So, CS, please do show that “life” is from your god. Other theists say its from theirs and that you should open your eyes. You don’t believe them. I don’t believe you for very likely the same reasons. Who should I believe? Why are you limited to the same baseless claims that other theists are, having not one scrap of evidence of the events in your bible? Not able to actually do what your savior claimed that all true believers in him would be able to do?

      • No picking and choosing club. The point was made that the clerks acted according to their principle, and you cant fathom that.

        And also, the ruling on the field stands: Two men cannot be married according to nature, common sense, and the God of heaven who created male and female as well as the institution of marriage.

        You may as well challenge the moon to stop giving light at night; you have no case.

      • No picking and choosing? So, CS, how many people working on the Sabbath have you and the clerks murdered? How many folks who have been divorced were granted marriage licenses? You see, for all of the claims of “principle” about following one part of your bible, your picking and choosing shows that your principles are nothing more than personal hatreds and desires that you cloak in baseless claims that they are supported by some god.

        So, how does “nature” show that two men can’t be married? You make vague claims but you need to show how this is supposed to work. Again, since “common sense” often is wrong and is entirely subjective, what does itmatter what someone like you claims is “common sense”?

        And please do show that your god agrees with you and not the Christians who say that your god has no problems with same-sex marriage. I’ve been asking you to do this and surprise! you can’t give it.

        Since same sex marriage exists and gays and lesbians have been getting married for many years, I have quite a case that same-sex marriage isn’t imaginary as you falsely claim. Nature doesn’t care about marriage, “common sense” isn’t, and you have yet to show that your god exists, much less agrees with you and only you.

        Still waiting for evidence, CS.

        The questions CS can’t/won’t answer:

        What evidence do you have that anyone answered a “higher call”? Or are they just humans who have their very own hatreds and desires that they ascribe to a god? Considering that Christians don’t agree on what their god wants, how can we tell if someone answered a “higher call”? Plenty of Christians are sure that God has no problem with same-sex marriage. Now, who should be believed? Shall we set up altars where each sect of Christian can call upon their god to see who gets an answer?

        Again, CS, where in the bible does it say it’s okay to ignore the government? That is okay to refuse service to others? If these clerks, and yourself are full of such zeal, why is it that you pick and choose what parts of the bible to follow? How many people have you killed for working on a Sabbath? Indeed, when it the Sabbath, since even Christians can’t agree? If these clerks are such TrueChristians, why did they work for years allowing divorce decrees to be filed? To claim that they simply can’t work with homosexuals who want married, then why did they have no problem in granting marriage licenses to people who were supposedly also sinners?

        How is it that people’s consciences give them completely different answers?

        Let me ask you, do you think that Thoreau would have said that it was just great that a slave-owner quit a job or disobeyed the government because of his principles?

        Would you commend the Nazis or Maoists for their “zeal”?

        Ummm, where have I shown that I see little or no value in the writings of all believers, as you would claim? Is it that you think I don’t appreciate Thoreau because he was a believer? You haven’t actually read anything of Thoreau’s have you?

        So, CS, is this how you stand up for your principles?

        So you claim that freedom is irrelevant, and that if it is irrelevant there is some mysterious reason that I would cease pointing out that the clerks are wrong. I’m going to guess that you are trying to say that no one can point out how someone is wrong because that would impinge on their freedom. Is this correct?

        Oh, so my “long speeches” somehow highlight my weak case? How so, CS? Surely you can show how this works? or is this one more claim that you cannot support?

        Please do show that your god exists, CS, and then we can see what this god says. Again, plenty of Christians say you are a liar. Surely you can show that they are wrong and you are right?

        CS, please do show me this “gross negligence”. You keep making new accusations and of course can’t even support the ones that you’ve made so far.

        So, CS, please do show that “life” is from your god. Other theists say its from theirs and that you should open your eyes. You don’t believe them. I don’t believe you for very likely the same reasons. Who should I believe? Why are you limited to the same baseless claims that other theists are, having not one scrap of evidence of the events in your bible? Not able to actually do what your savior claimed that all true believers in him would be able to do?

        Sorry, CS, there is same sex marriage and Christians have no problem with it, sure that their god is happy with it. Hmm, how is it that Christians just like you are sure that God and Jesus have no problem with same-sex marriage, CS? Again, why should we believe your version of Christianity?

        Now, CS, you need to show that your god is unhappy with same-sex marriage. Can you? Where’s the smiting?

        Let me pose a situation , CS. There’s a office you need to get something from, let’s say the Department of Motor Vehicles. The staff at this office decides that they hate you and will not give you what you need, even though the law says they must. They all leave the office just to make sure you can’t have the same things that they do. Now, do you think this is interfering with your life? Why or why not?

  4. Considering that there must have been a lot of prayers going up to prevent same-sex marriage and those failed, one can make some guesses about what was going on:

    This god is fine with same-sex marriage and indeed supports it.

    The Christians praying were doing it wrong.

    There is no God.

    My money is on the “free will” defense. 🙂

Leave a Reply (depending on current posters, posts may be moderated, individually or en masse. It may take a day or two for a comment to be released so don't panic). Remember, I control the horizontal, I control the vertical.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s