TOTALLY GEEKED!

apple · Guru

Why the Left Loathes Western Civilization

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

apple wrote:
I am not a religious person, still I find if very upsetting when people use their religiosity to condemn others, even their own family.

Many families are torn apart by religion. This is (to me) where tolerance comes into play, sadly many are intolerant of anyone's beliefs but their own, and this includes family.

And yet those who demand tolerance from the religious don't want to practice what they preach towards the religious.

apple · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
I am not a religious person, still I find if very upsetting when people use their religiosity to condemn others, even their own family.

Many families are torn apart by religion. This is (to me) where tolerance comes into play, sadly many are intolerant of anyone's beliefs but their own, and this includes family.
And yet those who demand tolerance from the religious don't want to practice what they preach towards the religious.

How so? I see a lot of tolerance towards religion, daily.

Your churches are subsidized by the tax payers are they not?

Ohfour · Hooker

apple wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
I am not a religious person, still I find if very upsetting when people use their religiosity to condemn others, even their own family.

Many families are torn apart by religion. This is (to me) where tolerance comes into play, sadly many are intolerant of anyone's beliefs but their own, and this includes family.
And yet those who demand tolerance from the religious don't want to practice what they preach towards the religious.
How so? I see a lot of tolerance towards religion, daily.
Your churches are subsidized by the tax payers are they not?

Ummmm, no...

apple · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
apple wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
I am not a religious person, still I find if very upsetting when people use their religiosity to condemn others, even their own family.

Many families are torn apart by religion. This is (to me) where tolerance comes into play, sadly many are intolerant of anyone's beliefs but their own, and this includes family.
And yet those who demand tolerance from the religious don't want to practice what they preach towards the religious.
How so? I see a lot of tolerance towards religion, daily.
Your churches are subsidized by the tax payers are they not?
Ummmm, no...

Ummmmm... you better check. I see billions of dollars in tax breaks.

Ohfour · Hooker

apple wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
apple wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
I am not a religious person, still I find if very upsetting when people use their religiosity to condemn others, even their own family.

Many families are torn apart by religion. This is (to me) where tolerance comes into play, sadly many are intolerant of anyone's beliefs but their own, and this includes family.
And yet those who demand tolerance from the religious don't want to practice what they preach towards the religious.
How so? I see a lot of tolerance towards religion, daily.
Your churches are subsidized by the tax payers are they not?
Ummmm, no...
Ummmmm... you better check. I see billions of dollars in tax breaks.

Every business get those...

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

apple wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
apple wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
I am not a religious person, still I find if very upsetting when people use their religiosity to condemn others, even their own family.

Many families are torn apart by religion. This is (to me) where tolerance comes into play, sadly many are intolerant of anyone's beliefs but their own, and this includes family.
And yet those who demand tolerance from the religious don't want to practice what they preach towards the religious.
How so? I see a lot of tolerance towards religion, daily.
Your churches are subsidized by the tax payers are they not?
Ummmm, no...
Ummmmm... you better check. I see billions of dollars in tax breaks.

Churches are not taxed for several reasons - 1. It would put the government in the church's business, which is against the Constitution, and 2. they are all non-profit organizations.

They do not RECEIVE anything from the government.

apple · Guru

Churches don't pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don't pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and the like get "parsonage exemptions" that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they're doing their income taxes. They also are the only group allowed to opt out of Social Security taxes (and benefits).

A recent study shows that tax exempt churches in the United States are costing its citizens $71 billion each year in tax breaks.

According to the Secular Policy Institute, religious groups receive $35.3 billions in federal income tax subsidies and $26.2 billion in property tax credits. They also enjoy $6.1 billion in state income tax, $1.2 billion of parsonage and $2.2 billion in faith-based initiative subsidies.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

apple wrote:
Churches don't pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don't pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and the like get "parsonage exemptions" that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they're doing their income taxes. They also are the only group allowed to opt out of Social Security taxes (and benefits).

A recent study shows that tax exempt churches in the United States are costing its citizens $71 billion each year in tax breaks.

According to the Secular Policy Institute, religious groups receive $35.3 billions in federal income tax subsidies and $26.2 billion in property tax credits. They also enjoy $6.1 billion in state income tax, $1.2 billion of parsonage and $2.2 billion in faith-based initiative subsidies.

Enough said right there.

Not paying taxes is not the same thing as receiving something.

Ohfour · Hooker

Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
Churches don't pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don't pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and the like get "parsonage exemptions" that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they're doing their income taxes. They also are the only group allowed to opt out of Social Security taxes (and benefits).

A recent study shows that tax exempt churches in the United States are costing its citizens $71 billion each year in tax breaks.

According to the Secular Policy Institute, religious groups receive $35.3 billions in federal income tax subsidies and $26.2 billion in property tax credits. They also enjoy $6.1 billion in state income tax, $1.2 billion of parsonage and $2.2 billion in faith-based initiative subsidies.
Enough said right there.

Not paying taxes is not the same thing as receiving something.

You took the words right out of my fingers!

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

apple wrote:
I am not a religious person, still I find if very upsetting when people use their religiosity to condemn others, even their own family.

Many families are torn apart by religion. This is (to me) where tolerance comes into play, sadly many are intolerant of anyone's beliefs but their own, and this includes family.

Apple, there is a situation in my family right now.

This is how I am living the difference between tolerance and acceptance.

My son has said many, many times he doesn't believe there is a God.

We don't argue about it. We do talk about it. I pray every day for him.

But I refuse to let it tear us apart.

To me, that's a result of letting Satan win.

I'm going to love and include my son in everything.

He knows he can abstain and he doesn't belittle my faith.

Cause we love each other more than we exercise our differences.

apple · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
apple wrote:
I am not a religious person, still I find if very upsetting when people use their religiosity to condemn others, even their own family.

Many families are torn apart by religion. This is (to me) where tolerance comes into play, sadly many are intolerant of anyone's beliefs but their own, and this includes family.
Apple, there is a situation in my family right now.
This is how I am living the difference between tolerance and acceptance.
My son has said many, many times he doesn't believe there is a God.
We don't argue about it. We do talk about it. I pray every day for him.
But I refuse to let it tear us apart.
To me, that's a result of letting Satan win.
I'm going to love and include my son in everything.
He knows he can abstain and he doesn't belittle my faith.
Cause we love each other more than we exercise our differences.

That is good to hear Lily, I think it is the right thing to do. It makes me so very sad when people disown their children because of religious differences.

apple · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
Churches don't pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don't pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and the like get "parsonage exemptions" that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they're doing their income taxes. They also are the only group allowed to opt out of Social Security taxes (and benefits).

A recent study shows that tax exempt churches in the United States are costing its citizens $71 billion each year in tax breaks.

According to the Secular Policy Institute, religious groups receive $35.3 billions in federal income tax subsidies and $26.2 billion in property tax credits. They also enjoy $6.1 billion in state income tax, $1.2 billion of parsonage and $2.2 billion in faith-based initiative subsidies.
Enough said right there.

Not paying taxes is not the same thing as receiving something.

Not having to pay something...like billions of dollars in taxes IS receiving a tax break. Not sure why you cant see that.

I'm not condemning this I am simply using it as a great example of religious tolerance by the non religious.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

apple wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
Churches don't pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don't pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and the like get "parsonage exemptions" that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they're doing their income taxes. They also are the only group allowed to opt out of Social Security taxes (and benefits).

A recent study shows that tax exempt churches in the United States are costing its citizens $71 billion each year in tax breaks.

According to the Secular Policy Institute, religious groups receive $35.3 billions in federal income tax subsidies and $26.2 billion in property tax credits. They also enjoy $6.1 billion in state income tax, $1.2 billion of parsonage and $2.2 billion in faith-based initiative subsidies.
Enough said right there.

Not paying taxes is not the same thing as receiving something.
Not having to pay something...like billions of dollars in taxes IS receiving a tax break. Not sure why you cant see that.
I'm not condemning this I am simply using it as a great example of religious tolerance by the non religious.

It's not tolerance, it's the LAW.

Ohfour · Hooker

apple wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
Churches don't pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don't pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and the like get "parsonage exemptions" that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they're doing their income taxes. They also are the only group allowed to opt out of Social Security taxes (and benefits).

A recent study shows that tax exempt churches in the United States are costing its citizens $71 billion each year in tax breaks.

According to the Secular Policy Institute, religious groups receive $35.3 billions in federal income tax subsidies and $26.2 billion in property tax credits. They also enjoy $6.1 billion in state income tax, $1.2 billion of parsonage and $2.2 billion in faith-based initiative subsidies.
Enough said right there.

Not paying taxes is not the same thing as receiving something.
Not having to pay something...like billions of dollars in taxes IS receiving a tax break. Not sure why you cant see that.
I'm not condemning this I am simply using it as a great example of religious tolerance by the non religious.

And non-religious non-profits get the same benefits. If they took away the church exemptions, they would have theirs taken away too...

apple · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
Churches don't pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don't pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and the like get "parsonage exemptions" that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they're doing their income taxes. They also are the only group allowed to opt out of Social Security taxes (and benefits).

A recent study shows that tax exempt churches in the United States are costing its citizens $71 billion each year in tax breaks.

According to the Secular Policy Institute, religious groups receive $35.3 billions in federal income tax subsidies and $26.2 billion in property tax credits. They also enjoy $6.1 billion in state income tax, $1.2 billion of parsonage and $2.2 billion in faith-based initiative subsidies.
Enough said right there.

Not paying taxes is not the same thing as receiving something.
Not having to pay something...like billions of dollars in taxes IS receiving a tax break. Not sure why you cant see that.
I'm not condemning this I am simply using it as a great example of religious tolerance by the non religious.
It's not tolerance, it's the LAW.

Laws can be changed or challenged, this one is not. TOLERANCE.

Some might argue that giving churches special tax exemptions violates the separation of church and state, and that tax exemptions are a privilege, not a constitutional right.

-- Edited by apple on Tuesday 10th of May 2016 03:52:56 PM

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

apple wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
Churches don't pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don't pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and the like get "parsonage exemptions" that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they're doing their income taxes. They also are the only group allowed to opt out of Social Security taxes (and benefits).

A recent study shows that tax exempt churches in the United States are costing its citizens $71 billion each year in tax breaks.

According to the Secular Policy Institute, religious groups receive $35.3 billions in federal income tax subsidies and $26.2 billion in property tax credits. They also enjoy $6.1 billion in state income tax, $1.2 billion of parsonage and $2.2 billion in faith-based initiative subsidies.
Enough said right there.

Not paying taxes is not the same thing as receiving something.
Not having to pay something...like billions of dollars in taxes IS receiving a tax break. Not sure why you cant see that.
I'm not condemning this I am simply using it as a great example of religious tolerance by the non religious.
It's not tolerance, it's the LAW.
Laws can be changed or challenged, this one is not. TOLERANCE.
Some might argue that giving churches special tax exemptions violates the separation of church and state, and that tax exemptions are a privilege, not a constitutional right.

-- Edited by apple on Tuesday 10th of May 2016 03:52:56 PM

You try to change the first amendment. Good luck.

Ohfour · Hooker

apple wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
Churches don't pay property taxes on their land or buildings. When they buy stuff, they don't pay sales taxes. When they sell stuff at a profit, they don't pay capital gains tax. If they spend less than they take in, they don't pay corporate income taxes. Priests, ministers, rabbis and the like get "parsonage exemptions" that let them deduct mortgage payments, rent and other living expenses when they're doing their income taxes. They also are the only group allowed to opt out of Social Security taxes (and benefits).

A recent study shows that tax exempt churches in the United States are costing its citizens $71 billion each year in tax breaks.

According to the Secular Policy Institute, religious groups receive $35.3 billions in federal income tax subsidies and $26.2 billion in property tax credits. They also enjoy $6.1 billion in state income tax, $1.2 billion of parsonage and $2.2 billion in faith-based initiative subsidies.
Enough said right there.

Not paying taxes is not the same thing as receiving something.
Not having to pay something...like billions of dollars in taxes IS receiving a tax break. Not sure why you cant see that.
I'm not condemning this I am simply using it as a great example of religious tolerance by the non religious.
It's not tolerance, it's the LAW.
Laws can be changed or challenged, this one is not. TOLERANCE.
Some might argue that giving churches special tax exemptions violates the separation of church and state, and that tax exemptions are a privilege, not a constitutional right.

-- Edited by apple on Tuesday 10th of May 2016 03:52:56 PM

It's not, because other secular non-profits would lose their exemptions too. You can't single out churches...

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

The Supreme Court has already spoken so I'll let them make this argument -

The US Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other."

By taxing churches, the government would be empowered to penalize or shut them down if they default on their payments. The US Supreme Court confirmed this in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) when it stated: "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

As stated by US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in his majority opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970), "The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put employees 'on the public payroll.' There is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion."

If the tax exemption were a serious threat to the separation of church and state, the US government would have succumbed to religious rule long ago. As the Supreme Court ruled in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970), "freedom from taxation for two centuries has not led to an established church or religion, and, on the contrary, has helped to guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief."

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Although, I will agree, apple, that some of the exemptions, like the pastor housing allowance exemption, could use some tweaking.

But the IRS has been instituting new regulations lately that are interfering with how our church operates and wants to help the needy. We can no longer just collect and give donations to charitable organizations from the church. It's very odd. We used to be able to do collections for local charities in need, and run it all through the church, and now we can't. Which makes no sense, since they are also non-profit organizations like the domestic violence shelter, the refuge pregnancy, etc.

We also no longer allow non-members to get married in our church. People used to rent our facility, but can no longer treat non-member differently than members so if we rent the facility to non-members, we also have to charge members, and the members already pay for the facility. The rent we collected covered the cost of cleaning and church staff to be there and the extra was used to support missions.

apple · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Although, I will agree, apple, that some of the exemptions, like the pastor housing allowance exemption, could use some tweaking.

But the IRS has been instituting new regulations lately that are interfering with how our church operates and wants to help the needy. We can no longer just collect and give donations to charitable organizations from the church. It's very odd. We used to be able to do collections for local charities in need, and run it all through the church, and now we can't. Which makes no sense, since they are also non-profit organizations like the domestic violence shelter, the refuge pregnancy, etc.

We also no longer allow non-members to get married in our church. People used to rent our facility, but can no longer treat non-member differently than members so if we rent the facility to non-members, we also have to charge members, and the members already pay for the facility. The rent we collected covered the cost of cleaning and church staff to be there and the extra was used to support missions.

There is a bit of "double dipping" going on there with the housing allowance...perhaps.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

apple wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Although, I will agree, apple, that some of the exemptions, like the pastor housing allowance exemption, could use some tweaking.

But the IRS has been instituting new regulations lately that are interfering with how our church operates and wants to help the needy. We can no longer just collect and give donations to charitable organizations from the church. It's very odd. We used to be able to do collections for local charities in need, and run it all through the church, and now we can't. Which makes no sense, since they are also non-profit organizations like the domestic violence shelter, the refuge pregnancy, etc.

We also no longer allow non-members to get married in our church. People used to rent our facility, but can no longer treat non-member differently than members so if we rent the facility to non-members, we also have to charge members, and the members already pay for the facility. The rent we collected covered the cost of cleaning and church staff to be there and the extra was used to support missions.
There is a bit of "double dipping" going on there with the housing allowance...perhaps.

The housing allowance was put in place b/c pastors were historically paid very little but provided with a parsonage. That has turned into a different animal now. And quite frankly, there should be limits on it. Whatever the fair market rental value is for a basic house with the number of bedrooms needed for the size of the family as established by HUD - based upon claimed dependents would be my way of thinking.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

I do not like that the IRS is interfering with how the church operates in the community.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

The pastors I have known have earned every single benefit they have gotten.

They don't work a regular 9 - 5 job. They never clock out.

The pastors I've known have come to the hospital at all hours of the night, have visited the sick in the hospital, and homes and have been active in programs at the jail.

They sacrifice so much in their personal lives to be of service to their congregation.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

lilyofcourse wrote:
The pastors I have known have earned every single benefit they have gotten.

They don't work a regular 9 - 5 job. They never clock out.

The pastors I've known have come to the hospital at all hours of the night, have visited the sick in the hospital, and homes and have been active in programs at the jail.

They sacrifice so much in their personal lives to be of service to their congregation.

Those are not the pastors I'm talking about, Lily. I'm talking about the rich ones. There should not be rich pastors. Ever.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Lawyerlady wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
The pastors I have known have earned every single benefit they have gotten.

They don't work a regular 9 - 5 job. They never clock out.

The pastors I've known have come to the hospital at all hours of the night, have visited the sick in the hospital, and homes and have been active in programs at the jail.

They sacrifice so much in their personal lives to be of service to their congregation.

Those are not the pastors I'm talking about, Lily. I'm talking about the rich ones. There should not be rich pastors. Ever.

See, I have no experience with those. Other than what I see on TV.

Of course, I don't want my pastor to live in squalor, either.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

lilyofcourse wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
The pastors I have known have earned every single benefit they have gotten.

They don't work a regular 9 - 5 job. They never clock out.

The pastors I've known have come to the hospital at all hours of the night, have visited the sick in the hospital, and homes and have been active in programs at the jail.

They sacrifice so much in their personal lives to be of service to their congregation.

Those are not the pastors I'm talking about, Lily. I'm talking about the rich ones. There should not be rich pastors. Ever.
See, I have no experience with those. Other than what I see on TV.
Of course, I don't want my pastor to live in squalor, either.

Neither do I. And I want his kids to be able to get their clothes from the same stores as mine.

But, if the pastor has bigger and better house than most of his parishioners - that's a problem

Ohfour · Hooker

Lawyerlady wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
The pastors I have known have earned every single benefit they have gotten.

They don't work a regular 9 - 5 job. They never clock out.

The pastors I've known have come to the hospital at all hours of the night, have visited the sick in the hospital, and homes and have been active in programs at the jail.

They sacrifice so much in their personal lives to be of service to their congregation.

Those are not the pastors I'm talking about, Lily. I'm talking about the rich ones. There should not be rich pastors. Ever.
See, I have no experience with those. Other than what I see on TV.
Of course, I don't want my pastor to live in squalor, either.

Neither do I. And I want his kids to be able to get their clothes from the same stores as mine.
But, if the pastor has bigger and better house than most of his parishioners - that's a problem

Yep.

UNLESS...he has made money another way...

WYSIWYG · Guru

"Participating" does NOT equal CONDONING.
- flan327

______________________________

Providing a cake or taking pictures at a reception isn't even "participating", as far as the sin of homosexual sex is concerned.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

WYSIWYG wrote:
"Participating" does NOT equal CONDONING.
- flan327

______________________________

Providing a cake or taking pictures at a reception isn't even "participating", as far as the sin of homosexual sex is concerned.

You seem to think that as long as you are not in the act of having sex, you are not participating in the perpetuation of the sin.

That isnt true.

If someone comes to you and says "I need your service while I rob a bank, stand on the corner and watch for police" and you don't report that and you go along with it, you are JUST as guilty as the one robbing the bank.

It's condoning the act and participation in perpetuating the crime.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

WYSIWYG wrote:
"Participating" does NOT equal CONDONING.
- flan327

______________________________

Providing a cake or taking pictures at a reception isn't even "participating", as far as the sin of homosexual sex is concerned.

But apparently even being in the same location as a homosexual wedding, no matter what the reason, is "condoning."

flan

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

flan327 wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
"Participating" does NOT equal CONDONING.
- flan327

______________________________

Providing a cake or taking pictures at a reception isn't even "participating", as far as the sin of homosexual sex is concerned.
But apparently even being in the same location as a homosexual wedding, no matter what the reason, is "condoning."
flan

And, you now get to decide the religious conscience of other people? Good to know!

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Yeah, really.

"Have a moral dilemma? Ask Flan." Says no one, ever.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
Yeah, really.

"Have a moral dilemma? Ask Flan." Says no one, ever.

Except my friends IRL...

flan

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Why? Because I can objectively look at each individual situation and use the brain I was given.

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

lilyofcourse wrote:
WYSIWYG wrote:
"Participating" does NOT equal CONDONING.
- flan327

______________________________

Providing a cake or taking pictures at a reception isn't even "participating", as far as the sin of homosexual sex is concerned.
You seem to think that as long as you are not in the act of having sex, you are not participating in the perpetuation of the sin.
That isnt true.
If someone comes to you and says "I need your service while I rob a bank, stand on the corner and watch for police" and you don't report that and you go along with it, you are JUST as guilty as the one robbing the bank.
It's condoning the act and participation in perpetuating the crime.

Or lending your apartment to a friend for their affair.

You don't have to be involved in the sex to be participating in the sin.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

flan327 wrote:
Why? Because I can objectively look at each individual situation and use the brain I was given.

flan

Who "gave" you your brain?

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Yeah, really.

"Have a moral dilemma? Ask Flan." Says no one, ever.
Except my friends IRL...
flan

You have friends?

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

flan327 wrote:
Why? Because I can objectively look at each individual situation and use the brain I was given.

flan

Yeeeeeaaaaaah, you're a temple of morality.

evileye

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

lilyofcourse wrote:
flan327 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
Yeah, really.

"Have a moral dilemma? Ask Flan." Says no one, ever.
Except my friends IRL...
flan
You have friends?

You went there? What are you, two?

I have a life outside my home.

flan

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

LOL.....

Tinydancer · Guru

We are quite aware of your morality flan. You practice feel good morality which is not morality at all.

huskerbb · Guru

apple wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
apple wrote:
I am not a religious person, still I find if very upsetting when people use their religiosity to condemn others, even their own family.

Many families are torn apart by religion. This is (to me) where tolerance comes into play, sadly many are intolerant of anyone's beliefs but their own, and this includes family.
And yet those who demand tolerance from the religious don't want to practice what they preach towards the religious.
How so? I see a lot of tolerance towards religion, daily.
Your churches are subsidized by the tax payers are they not?

What? No. That's absurd. Where do you get your ninsense?

huskerbb · Guru

WYSIWYG wrote:
"Participating" does NOT equal CONDONING.
- flan327

______________________________

Providing a cake or taking pictures at a reception isn't even "participating", as far as the sin of homosexual sex is concerned.

BS. maybe not the actual deed, but you are participating.

if you buy a teenager booze, you are participating in him and his pals getting drunk even if you don't drink it.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
flan327 wrote:
Why? Because I can objectively look at each individual situation and use the brain I was given.

flan
Who "gave" you your brain?

Can she prove she has one? evileye

weltschmerz · Guru

Tinydancer wrote:
We are quite aware of your morality flan. You practice feel good morality which is not morality at all.

Beats practicing feel bad morality.

huskerbb · Guru

weltschmerz wrote:
Tinydancer wrote:
We are quite aware of your morality flan. You practice feel good morality which is not morality at all.
Beats practicing feel bad morality.

No it doesn't. If you don't feel bad once in a while--I doubt if you have morals.

WYSIWYG · Guru

You seem to think that as long as you are not in the act of having sex, you are not participating in the perpetuation of the sin.

That isnt true.

If someone comes to you and says "I need your service while I rob a bank, stand on the corner and watch for police" and you don't report that and you go along with it, you are JUST as guilty as the one robbing the bank.

It's condoning the act and participation in perpetuating the crime.
- lilyofcourse

_________________________________

That's active participation of the act though. By being a lookout, you are participating in that act while it's happening.

By baking a cake you are not participating in the sinful act that happens at home. And that sinful act would be happening at home with or without the cake, or the marriage license for that matter.

WYSIWYG · Guru

Or lending your apartment to a friend for their affair.

You don't have to be involved in the sex to be participating in the sin.
- Lawyerlady

________________________________

That would be "facilitating" because it would make you a party to the act. Baking a cake doesn't make you a "party to the act" because "the act" could happen without a cake just as easily.

Cake is not a requirement for homosexual sex. Or is it now, and I didn't get the memo?

WYSIWYG · Guru

BS. maybe not the actual deed, but you are participating.

if you buy a teenager booze, you are participating in him and his pals getting drunk even if you don't drink it.
- huskerbb

_____________________________

That's only participatory because they couldn't otherwise have the booze if you hadn't provided it.

Can a homosexual couple have homosexual sex if you don't provide them a cake? It's my guess that they could still do it. So providing the cake in no way creates an ability to have homosexual sex.