On 7/20/2015 3:53 PM, Oren wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 10:09:24 -0500, Muggles wrote:

That's likely to get a couple responses. Mine is to
suggest to open the phone book under gun stores. Call
several of them and say just exactly what you wrote
above. Ask if they have a beginner class. Cost, location,
etc. I'd choose the one who speaks politely, and does
not either talk down to you or act like a boast and brag.

But, that's just me. I like straight talking people.

That's good advice. Thanks!

Check credentials. An NRA certified trainer is the one you want.
There is also the Eagle Scout Certificate for youngsters.


OK ... more good advice. Thanks.

--
Maggie

On 7/20/2015 4:10 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/20/2015 10:55 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/20/2015 5:31 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
I dare to say it was probably not a couple of
gays who came in to get a "celebrate diversity"
cake before they got married.


The act of washing someone elses feet had a purpose and specific
circumstances, and I was wondering if Ashton knew what it was, and when
or why it happened. Jesus wouldn't just wash anyone's feet, especially,
if he read their mail and knew their sin. He was all about loving
people and for him the ultimate expression of that love was to get
people to turn from their sin and follow him and his ways which led to
salvation and redemption. A cake baking debate wouldn't be a high
priority to him.


Two thousand years later, and people still
discuss what Jesus would and would not do.

Quite a remarkable life and resurrection he
lived.


.... and a short one.

--
Maggie

On 7/20/2015 4:13 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/20/2015 11:08 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/20/2015 5:32 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
If there is only one Bible, why are there 100
different churches listed in the phone book
in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1991?


... because we're human, and we like to be around other people who are
similar to us, think more like us, and have similar beliefs. It makes us
feel safe, and like we belong. It's like when scripture compares
believers to being the "body of Christ"- many members jointly fitted
together, so that we could function as a body functions. None of us
function exactly the same. Some may be feet, some hands, some people
may be ears, or eyes. I always joked that I was a gall bladder because
people would shake their heads at me, sometimes saying things like "you
got a lot of gall saying that!" LOL I was never famous for having much
tact, so I had to make a point of learning better ways of
communicating.

Different expressions (denominations) of the body of Christ usually are
different because they've emphasized one or two particular teachings in
the Bible. The problem with denominational teachings is they tend to
ignore other teachings in favor of emphasizing their favorite teachings
which ends up being unbalanced when it comes to the entire picture of
what's in the Bible, if that makes sense? So, we have different aspects
of the personality of Christ expressed in different churches, and often
the different churches reject each other because they can't really see
that their only one body part of the body of Christ. It takes more than
a mouth, or feet, to function like a body. On top of that all the
living cells that make up each part are imperfect humans who make
mistakes, have bad attitudes, and are totally emotional messes all at
the same time while they're trying to change into a better expression of
who they should be and how they should function.

Anyway ... that's my answer to your question, and I'm sticking to it ...
my final answer. OH WAIT ... this isn't a game show! ha! ;-)


That is much same as my guess. People feature and
spend time on what they like. People select a church
where they feel comfortable, and what makes em feel
good.


And now the final Jeopardy category, Jesus for $1,000.
The final Jeopardy answer is.... a celebrate Diversity
wedding unleavened bread for the feast of the faggots.



I haven't heard anyone ring their buzzer yet.

--
Maggie

On 7/20/2015 4:15 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/20/2015 11:09 AM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/20/2015 5:35 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/19/2015 11:51 PM, Muggles wrote:

I don't know much about guns except I'm afraid of them. At one point I
asked a friend who was a police officer to teach me how to use them,
but
she ended up moving out of state to live closer to her children. I'd
still like to learn how to use them better. In the past I've had
chances to shoot the occasional gun or rifle and strangely enough I can
at least hit the target after a couple of tries, but that's the extent
of my gun knowledge.


That's likely to get a couple responses. Mine is to
suggest to open the phone book under gun stores. Call
several of them and say just exactly what you wrote
above. Ask if they have a beginner class. Cost, location,
etc. I'd choose the one who speaks politely, and does
not either talk down to you or act like a boast and brag.

But, that's just me. I like straight talking people.

That's good advice. Thanks!


With immigration, Muslims moving in, etc. You may need
a gun sooner than you think. The head you save from
being sawed off may be your own.


ack ... now that's a sobering thought.

--
Maggie

On 7/20/2015 4:16 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/20/2015 11:20 AM, Muggles wrote:
Many people believe in what I call a binary
afterlife. Either a 1 or 0. I believe there
are different levels of afterlife. Saved by
grace, exalted by works.


I've always believed that it's the works no one sees that will have a
light shinned on them. The ones we brag about, we've already received
our rewards for on this Earth through admiration, or accolades.


My personal belief (one of) is that everyone will be
surprised, at the day of personal judgement. Humble
Mother Theresa types will be surprised at the splendor
of God's grace. And proud haughty types will be
surprised to find out they are not King Bannanna.


King Bannanna ... funny!

--
Maggie

On 7/20/2015 6:35 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/20/2015 4:13 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
That is much same as my guess. People feature and
spend time on what they like. People select a church
where they feel comfortable, and what makes em feel
good.


And now the final Jeopardy category, Jesus for $1,000.
The final Jeopardy answer is.... a celebrate Diversity
wedding unleavened bread for the feast of the faggots.



I haven't heard anyone ring their buzzer yet.


Would Sargeant at Arms escort out the guy in the
back yelling "BIGOT", please?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 5:36:43 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 7/20/2015 4:16 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/20/2015 11:20 AM, Muggles wrote:
Many people believe in what I call a binary
afterlife. Either a 1 or 0. I believe there
are different levels of afterlife. Saved by
grace, exalted by works.


I've always believed that it's the works no one sees that will have a
light shinned on them. The ones we brag about, we've already received
our rewards for on this Earth through admiration, or accolades.


My personal belief (one of) is that everyone will be
surprised, at the day of personal judgement. Humble
Mother Theresa types will be surprised at the splendor
of God's grace. And proud haughty types will be
surprised to find out they are not King Bannanna.


King Bannanna ... funny!

--
Maggie

Please Maggie...you are egging him on!

On 7/20/2015 7:21 PM, bob_villa wrote:
On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 5:36:43 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 7/20/2015 4:16 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/20/2015 11:20 AM, Muggles wrote:
Many people believe in what I call a binary
afterlife. Either a 1 or 0. I believe there
are different levels of afterlife. Saved by
grace, exalted by works.


I've always believed that it's the works no one sees that will have a
light shinned on them. The ones we brag about, we've already received
our rewards for on this Earth through admiration, or accolades.


My personal belief (one of) is that everyone will be
surprised, at the day of personal judgement. Humble
Mother Theresa types will be surprised at the splendor
of God's grace. And proud haughty types will be
surprised to find out they are not King Bannanna.


King Bannanna ... funny!

--
Maggie

Please Maggie...you are egging him on!


....but... but..but... I LOVE to laugh!

--
Maggie

On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 8:38:45 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:

Please Maggie...you are egging him on!


...but... but..but... I LOVE to laugh!

--
Maggie

I remember a few yrs back...he actually said something clever, and I told him so...but I forgot to write it down for proof!

On 7/20/2015 9:46 PM, bob_villa wrote:
On Monday, July 20, 2015 at 8:38:45 PM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:

Please Maggie...you are egging him on!


...but... but..but... I LOVE to laugh!

--
Maggie

I remember a few yrs back...he actually said something clever, and I told him so...but I forgot to write it down for proof!


He has a nice sense of humor, I think. So do you.

--
Maggie

On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 22:57:06 -0500, Muggles wrote:

On 7/19/2015 10:08 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2015 09:22:11 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 7/18/2015 11:48 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2015 08:04:00 -0400, Stormin Mormon
Nothing I read in the bible suggests Jesus would be
the bigot

Jesus called the religious people white washed seplucres full of dead
mens bones, and threw the money changers out of the temple because they
had turned the place into a den of thieves. You don't appear to know
anything about Jesus. He looked at people straight up and read their
mail to therm, pointed at their sin and called it evil, and then told
them to turn from their wicked ways and change their lives... You want
to a ask if Jesus would bake gays a cake? That's the most ignorant
question I've ever seen anyone ask..

I tried to answer Ashton's questions, but I do
think you did a little better than I. Very well
done, my friend.


Interesting that you folks think Jesus is a bigot.


Your mind reading really sucks. Your name calling
is extreme. Hmm. Oh, wait, you're a liberal?

You imply you support bigotry so it's hardly name calling to say you
are a bigot.


... But it is name-calling to call someone a bigot just because you
don't agree with their point of view.

The same principle could be turned against you, and you'd equally be a
bigot. I don't think you are, though. We just don't agree for whatever
reasons.

It's not because I don't agree with your point of view. It's because
you, if you support discrimination because someone is gay, are a
bigot. If I agreed with you then BOTH of us would be bigots.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:00:56 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

On 7/19/2015 11:46 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/19/2015 10:15 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
Yet in spite of that the good Christians on here would refuse service
to gays DUE TO THEIR CHRISTIAN RELIGION!!! They make a mockery of
their Christianity.


I refused to post pagan content to a website because of my own belief
system. Someone else posted the content.

I could not in good conscious do it, but I made a way for someone else
to complete the task who had no issue with it.

IOW, I was freely practicing my belief system, and at the same time the
person who wanted pagan content posted to the webpage got their content
posted. We both practiced our "freedom of religion".

Likewise, christian bakers should be allowed to do the same.


If the law can force Christian bakers to make
cakes for homosexual events, what else can the
law force, that is against peoples beliefs?

Do you believe in paying EVERY SINGLE tax that you are assessed and do
you believe in and support every single program the gvt spends your
tax money on? If you do you are a rare person. But you pay them even
though it's against your beliefs. There is nothing special about
religion that should give you the right to pick and choose which laws
you will obey and which you will ignore. If you think you should be
able to you ought to convert to Islam and you can live under Sharia
law.

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 22:01:26 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:
The same principle could be turned against you,
and you'd equally be a bigot. I don't think you are,
though. We just don't agree for whatever reasons.


It's not because I don't agree with your point of view.
It's because you, if you support discrimination
because someone is gay, are a bigot. If I agreed with
you then BOTH of us would be bigots.

You're a bigot because you're intolerant and discriminate against
people you don't agree with, so I should be calling you a bigot based
on your own example. You discriminate against people who want to
practice their freedom of religion.

--
Maggie

On Mon, 20 Jul 2015 22:06:37 -0700, Ashton Crusher
wrote:
though it's against your beliefs. There is nothing
special about religion that should give you the right
to pick and choose which laws

It's called the Constitution. The laws cannot infringe on the
freedom of religion.

--
Maggie

On 7/20/2015 9:38 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/20/2015 7:21 PM, bob_villa wrote:
of God's grace. And proud haughty types will be
surprised to find out they are not King Bannanna.


King Bannanna ... funny!

--
Maggie

Please Maggie...you are egging him on!


...but... but..but... I LOVE to laugh!


Maggie, you're over easy today. Villan is too
hard boiled for this list. Why, we just sit
on the poach, and rock in chairs till we're
scrambled. You and I are a pear, we practice
what we peach. Reminds me, do we have enough
food put back in the celery, in case we have
lean thymes? Have to go take a quick cook.
--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 7/21/2015 7:17 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 7/20/2015 9:38 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 7/20/2015 7:21 PM, bob_villa wrote:
of God's grace. And proud haughty types will be
surprised to find out they are not King Bannanna.


King Bannanna ... funny!

--
Maggie

Please Maggie...you are egging him on!


...but... but..but... I LOVE to laugh!


Maggie, you're over easy today. Villan is too
hard boiled for this list. Why, we just sit
on the poach, and rock in chairs till we're
scrambled. You and I are a pear, we practice
what we peach. Reminds me, do we have enough
food put back in the celery, in case we have
lean thymes? Have to go take a quick cook.

That was great! lol

--
Maggie

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

stuff snipped

It's not because I don't agree with your point of view. It's because
you, if you support discrimination because someone is gay, are a
bigot. If I agreed with you then BOTH of us would be bigots.

This gayness is a choice thing is pretty easy to demolish. When did any
straight person reading this thread make a conscious decision to become a
heterosexual? The surprisingly simple answer is that they didn't just as
most (all?) homosexuals didn't make a decision to become homosexual. One
day they realized that's who they were.

But if that's not enough proof it's NOT a moral choice, but an innate
process common to more than 10% of all species, there's this:

http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/0...homosexuality/

Recent research has found that homosexual behavior in animals may be much
more common than previously thought. Although Darwin's theory of natural
selection predicts an evolutionary disadvantage for animals that fail to
pass along their traits through reproduction with the opposite sex, the
validity of this part of his theory has been questioned with the discoveries
of homosexual behavior in more than 10% of prevailing species throughout the
world.

Rats turn "gay" when their colonies become over-crowded as if Nature was
trying to reduce the population by limiting pup-producing sexual relations.

How can it be a choice for a dumb animal without a moral system whatsoever?
It's most likely to be just the same for human beings. One thing's clear
from everything I've read, you can't *really* cure gay and trying to live as
a straight person is a loveless hell that a loving Creator would never force
upon us.

--
Bobby G.

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 21:21:58 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

stuff snipped

It's not because I don't agree with your point of view. It's because
you, if you support discrimination because someone is gay, are a
bigot. If I agreed with you then BOTH of us would be bigots.

This gayness is a choice thing is pretty easy to demolish. When did any
straight person reading this thread make a conscious decision to become a
heterosexual? The surprisingly simple answer is that they didn't just as
most (all?) homosexuals didn't make a decision to become homosexual. One
day they realized that's who they were.

But if that's not enough proof it's NOT a moral choice, but an innate
process common to more than 10% of all species, there's this:

http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/0...homosexuality/


When I was in college ('70's) I said gays are born with "gayness" -
during a lit class discussion. I hadn't given it much thought, but
used the same simple logic as you did above. The professor was
probably gay, and he took exception.
It was apparent that I struck a nerve.
Back then it was the fashion to claim it was a "choice."

On 7/21/2015 8:21 PM, Robert Green wrote:
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

stuff snipped

It's not because I don't agree with your point of view. It's because
you, if you support discrimination because someone is gay, are a
bigot. If I agreed with you then BOTH of us would be bigots.

This gayness is a choice thing is pretty easy to demolish. When did any
straight person reading this thread make a conscious decision to become a
heterosexual? The surprisingly simple answer is that they didn't just as
most (all?) homosexuals didn't make a decision to become homosexual. One
day they realized that's who they were.

But if that's not enough proof it's NOT a moral choice, but an innate
process common to more than 10% of all species, there's this:

http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/0...homosexuality/

Recent research has found that homosexual behavior in animals may be much
more common than previously thought. Although Darwin's theory of natural
selection predicts an evolutionary disadvantage for animals that fail to
pass along their traits through reproduction with the opposite sex, the
validity of this part of his theory has been questioned with the discoveries
of homosexual behavior in more than 10% of prevailing species throughout the
world.

Rats turn "gay" when their colonies become over-crowded as if Nature was
trying to reduce the population by limiting pup-producing sexual relations.

How can it be a choice for a dumb animal without a moral system whatsoever?
It's most likely to be just the same for human beings. One thing's clear
from everything I've read, you can't *really* cure gay and trying to live as
a straight person is a loveless hell that a loving Creator would never force
upon us.


One argument in favor of being gay is people are born gay. I've always
countered that argument with a logical response. Do you think people are
born gay?

--
Maggie

"trader_4" wrote in message news:82f87de9-

The bakery didn't refuse to bake cakes for gays.

I suspect you have that wrong as you did the "damages" being called "fines"
part of this case and the cease and desist order being called a "gag" order.

They served the gay couple wanting the cake in the past.

I believe they served non-gay relations of the couple in the past. The
whole affair "blew up" when the cake baker taking the order asked for the
name of the husband. I'd love to see a credible source for your claim
because it neither has the ring of truth to it nor does it match with what's
in the document that details BOLIs actions.

http://m.snopes.com/2015/07/03/sweet...lissa-damages/

http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAsset...Cakes%20FO.pdf

They refused to bake a wedding cake for them.

That I will agree with because that's the specific violation of state law
that landed them in the hot water they're in. Key words being "violation of
law." And now, since the religious Right has clearly lost the battle in the
gay marriage law, is looking for a way to end-run that decision. Hence the
"closely held" religious BS. Just like the hypocrites of Hobby Lobby who
said they couldn't possibly have anything to do with paying for
contraception but somehow aren't reluctant to take money made from investing
in birth control makers.

Sheer hypocrisy. Hiding behind the respect most people in the US have for
the religion of their fellow Americans is reprehensible, especially when
using it to advance a very dubious agenda. If it hurts SO much to pay for
contraception, why is making money from the sale of it to others "fair game"
for Hobby Lobby?

I don't pretend to know what Jesus would or would not do.

Gee, why not? Everyone else here (including me) has ventured some opinion
as to what Jesus would do. That's not unusual considering the question
"What would Jesus do?" is obviously one that's asked often.

As I understand it, Jesus had high moral standards
and since according to the bible homosexuality is a sin, baking a
cake for a gay wedding sounds like something he might not want to
participate in.

One sentence ago you say you "won't pretend" to know but it *sounds* like
you're "pretending to know what Jesus would do" now - doesn't it? As
someone here is fond of writing: good grief!

Prostitution is also a sin, but Jesus clearly had no fear of interacting
with such people. How is ANYONE expected to guide someone to the light if
they're afraid to be in the same room with them? It makes no sense. You
don't "catch gayness." So when people say they are following the teachings
of Jesus I say "that's doubtful." His teachings are rather compact - if you
eliminate all the follow-on interpretations and stick to words it's believed
he actually used. And his teachings are nearly universally inclusive, not
exclusive. "Turn the other cheek, do unto others, take the beam out of your
eye" - it's all there in very plain language.

If someone came to Jesus and wanted to rent a
room so that they could commit adultery, what would Jesus do?

Oh God, you tell us "I don't pretend to know what Jesus would do" and now
you have him as a hypothetical landlord of a hotsheet hotel. He'd more
likely say (and is on record as saying) "Judge not lest ye be judged."
Find more than a passing reference to homosexuality in the Gospels and
*maybe* I'll concede that Jesus had strong feelings against gays. It will
be a fruitless search, however. It isn't there.

See, this is the problem with libs and all the lib laws.

Here we go - everything wrong with the world in your eyes is because of
something "libs" do. sigh Yet you'll easily excuse Bush for dragging us
into two ten-year plus wars that solved nothing. And you protest mightily
if someone dare blame him for the economic mess two ten year wars brought
us. He may have had bad intel to start, but he stayed LONG after it was
determined the WMD intel was bad. So the bad intel argument you often make
to excuse his war-mongering collapses at that point. We gave him the go
ahead to find and destroy WMDs, but he enlarged his mission to the
preposterous one of trying to bring order to an orderless bunch of religious
zealots who've been killing each other over who loves Allah more for over
1000 years.

One could easily argue that our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan has
resulted in home-grown terrorists acting on their own (like the Boston
bomber) because they believe Islam is under attack by the US. Heckuva job,
as GW would say. We not only didn't solve the Muslim terrorist problem,
we've begun growing our own.

You wind up having to resort to figuring out what is in
people's minds and what Jesus would do. If you leave people
free to do as they please in their own business, you don't have
that problem.

Good gracious God almighty. The way you see things, there's never been any
gay bashing and all discrimination has stopped. What I don't understand is
how a person as smart as you are still believes so profoundly in free
markets. They have notorious failure points and 100 years after the Civil
War the free market had done nothing to end discrimination. In fact, it
institutionalized it in Jim Crow laws. It took Lyndon Johnson's Civil
Rights Act of 1964 to move toward a more fair nation.

Under a truly free market, workers have little/no leverage as its employers
who are able to pick and choose among workers much easier than workers can
pick and choose amongst employees. The free market fails to protect natural
resources and it failed to provide affordable health insurance to seniors,
giving rise to the birth of Medicare. If you remember, the "free market" of
auto manufacturers fought tooth and nail against standards that would clean
up the air, despite LA and many other cities drowning in smog. Not only did
the free market not help to clean the air, it actively fought making this
change that has been beneficial to nearly all members of society. But this
is a subject for another thread.

Or, for the most part, any other real problems.

That's why Nixon had to create the EPA, that's why we had to create a
Superfund to clean up toxic waste sites. How well does the free market,
left alone, keep companies from polluting the environment so much that
billions are required to clean up sites they poisoned? The sad truth is
that your faith in the free market is misplaced because time and again the
bad acts of companies that went bankrupt left taxpayers with the clean-up
bill.

The ultimate refutation of your quaint idea that people, when left alone,
will do the right thing is that there has never been such a society in the
history of the world. There probably never will be. People's
self-interests almost always interfere with altruism. Free market failures
(like the Great Depression) are almost always what cause regulations to come
into being. The US took a very serious swing towards socialism as the
result of the 1929 disaster - the free market run wild.

There were 1000 bakeries that would supply the cake.

But this one insisted on violating state law in Oregon. And they got caught
and punished. Sounds pretty biblical to me. If you want to open a bakery
to the public in Oregon, you have to obey state law. What a quaint idea.
Obeying the Bible is a voluntary choice, obeying the Constitution and law of
the land is not, although some people are trying to make it seem that way.
If a vendor feels the Bible prohibits themfrom interacting with gay people
in the public sphere, they had better go set up a religious commune where
they won't run into people who will disturb their precious sensibilities.

--
Bobby G.

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

stuff snipped

40 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Simon, I have something to say to
you."

So he said, "Teacher, say it."

41 "There was a certain creditor who had two debtors. One owed five
hundred
denarii, and the other fifty. 42 And when they had nothing with which to
repay, he freely forgave them both. Tell Me, therefore, which of them
will
love him more?"

43 Simon answered and said, "I suppose the one whom he forgave more."

And He said to him, "You have rightly judged." 44 Then He turned to the
woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house;
you
gave Me no water for My feet, but she has washed My feet with her tears
and
wiped them with the hair of her head. 45 You gave Me no kiss, but this
woman
has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in. 46 You did not
anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed My feet with
fragrant
oil. 47 Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven,
for
she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little."

48 Then He said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."

49 And those who sat at the table with Him began to say to themselves,
"Who
is this who even forgives sins?"

50 Then He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you. Go in peace."

(New King James Version).


Yet in spite of that the good Christians on here would refuse service
to gays DUE TO THEIR CHRISTIAN RELIGION!!! They make a mockery of
their Christianity.

"Prejudice, a dirty word, and faith, a clean one, have something in common:
they both begin where reason ends." - Harper Lee

--
Bobby G.

On 7/22/2015 12:34 AM, Muggles wrote:

One argument in favor of being gay is people are born gay. I've always
countered that argument with a logical response. Do you think people are
born gay?


We are what we are. We can't change our sexual preference any more than
we can change our eye color. Maybe someday we'll be able to alter our
firmware and tweak our attributes.

"Vic Smith" wrote in message On
wrote:

stuff snipped

a choice thing is pretty easy to demolish. When did any
straight person reading this thread make a conscious decision to become a
heterosexual? The surprisingly simple answer is that they didn't just as
most (all?) homosexuals didn't make a decision to become homosexual. One
day they realized that's who they were.

But if that's not enough proof it's NOT a moral choice, but an innate
process common to more than 10% of all species, there's this:

http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/0...homosexuality/


When I was in college ('70's) I said gays are born with "gayness" -
during a lit class discussion. I hadn't given it much thought, but
used the same simple logic as you did above. The professor was
probably gay, and he took exception.

The logic is pretty simple which is why it's hard to understand why the
religious types are so up in arms. No one I've ever heard of has "caught"
gayness like you might the measles.

Looking at the lines that snaked around courthouses across the county full
of gay people waiting to get married one thing struck me: They were plain,
simple looking folks for the most part. They looked just so damn average.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

That I will agree with because that's the specific violation of state law
that landed them in the hot water they're in. Key words being "violation of
law." And now, since the religious Right has clearly lost the battle in the
gay marriage law, is looking for a way to end-run that decision. Hence the
"closely held" religious BS. Just like the hypocrites of Hobby Lobby who
said they couldn't possibly have anything to do with paying for
contraception but somehow aren't reluctant to take money made from investing
in birth control makers.

What is hypocritical is the studious ignoring of the fact that HL were
more than willing to pay for all kinds of contraception except one kind.
Their investments (as far as I have been able to find out) did NOT
include the makers of the 4 specific medications they were concerned
about.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

"Bob" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 7/22/2015 12:34 AM, Muggles wrote:

One argument in favor of being gay is people are born gay. I've always
countered that argument with a logical response. Do you think people are
born gay?


We are what we are. We can't change our sexual preference any more than
we can change our eye color. Maybe someday we'll be able to alter our
firmware and tweak our attributes.

There are colored contact lenses that can turn brown-eyes blue but I get
your point. What really frosts my cake is that many religious types
actually believe if you work VERY hard at it, you can "ungay" youself.
Sadly, though a lot of people spent a lot of money trying to convert their
son or daughter (or themselves), the outcomes are universally poor and most
"ungayed" people lapse sooner than later:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...sters-johnson/

A British survey published last month found that one in 25 therapists
would assist gay and bisexual patients attempting to convert to
heterosexuality. That's despite the fact that many medical groups, including
the American Medical Association, have for years condemned such practices,
saying they don't work and can actually cause harm.

The irony is that so many of the religious types that despise gays haven't
realized that God *made* them that way. So when the "faithful" codemn gays,
they are also condemning the God that made them so.

http://www.livescience.com/25082-gay...apy-facts.html

says: (edited for Fair Use exemption)

Here are five things you need to know about the therapy and the current
lawsuits.


1. What's happening in the courts?

Two new legal challenges are targeting conversion therapy. The first is a
civil suit in New Jersey in which four former clients of a counseling group
called Jonah are suing for deceptive practices. The patients argue they paid
thousands of dollars for therapies that did not rid them of same-sex
attractions, and that they then had to pay for mainstream therapy to repair
the damage done by the conversion therapy.

2. What happens in conversion therapy?

Because conversion therapy is not a mainstream psychological treatment,
there are no professional standards or guidelines for how it is conducted.
Early treatments in the 1960s and 70s included aversion therapy, such as
shocking patients or giving them nausea-inducing drugs while showing them
same-sex erotica, according to a 2004 article in the British Medical
Journal.

More recently, people who have been through conversion therapy report talk
therapy that emphasizes pseudoscientific theories, such as the idea that an
overbearing mother and a distant father make a child gay. In an April 2012
essay in The American Prospect, writer Gabriel Arana describes his "ex-gay"
therapy experience. His therapist blamed his parents for Arana's
homosexuality, and urged him to distance himself from his female best
friends.

3. Why psychologists say conversion therapy doesn't work

Homosexuality is not considered a mental disorder, so the American
Psychological Association (APA) does not recommend "curing" same-sex
attraction in any case. Instead, societal ignorance, prejudice and pressure
to conform to heterosexual desires are the real dangers to gay people's
mental health, according to a 1997 statement on "conversion" or "reparative"
therapy by the APA.

A 2009 APA task force found that conversion therapies, despite being touted
by religious organizations, have little evidence to back them up. A review
of studies from 1960 to 2007 found only 83 on the topic, the vast majority
of which did not have the experimental muscle to show whether the therapies
achieved their stated goals. (Many of the people studied in the early years
were court-mandated to take the therapies, adding a coercive element to
those outcomes.)

The best-quality studies were more recent and qualitative, the APA task
force found, meaning they focused not on the statistical effectiveness of
treatment, but of the subjective experience.

"These studies show that enduring change to an individual's sexual
orientation is uncommon," the task force wrote in their 2009 report. The
participants continued to report same-sex attractions after the conversion
therapy, and were not significantly more attracted to the opposite gender.

These studies did find that conversion therapy could be harmful, however.
Negative effects included "loss of sexual feeling, depression, suicidality
and anxiety."

4. How did conversion therapy get started?

The desire to turn gay people straight goes way back. In 1920, Sigmund Freud
wrote of a lesbian patient whose father wanted to see her converted to
heterosexuality. Freud echoed modern psychologists by responding that
changing sexual orientation was difficult and unlikely. He offered to see
the woman anyway, but later broke off the therapy due to her hostility. In
1935, Freud went even further, writing to a woman who wanted her homosexual
son converted that homosexuality "is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no
degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness."

One of the most prominent advocates of conversion therapy in the 1940s and
50s was Edmund Bergler, who saw homosexuality as a perversion and believed
he could "cure" gay people with a punishment-based, confrontational therapy
style.

Once the American Psychiatric Association stopped classifying homosexuality
as a mental disorder in 1973, conversion therapies lost support. But
religious-right organizations such as Exodus International and Focus on the
Family's Love Won Out took up the charge, promoting their own "ex-gay"
therapies. A small group of psychologists, splitting with their peers,
continue to promote the therapies, founding the conversion therapy
organization NARTH, or the National Association for Research & Therapy of
Homosexuality. The group has religious links; for example, one of its
founders and former president, psychologist Joseph Nicolosi, is a one-time
spokesman for Focus on the Family.

5. Okay, but what about that one study that found conversion therapies work?

Groups that promote conversion therapy often point to a single study to
support their work. In 2003, famed psychiatrist Robert Spitzer, who
spearheaded the removal of homosexuality from the American Psychiatric
Association's mental disorder list in 1973, reported in the journal Archives
of Sexual Behavior that interviews with conversion therapy patients
suggested that some people could change their sexual orientation.

The paper was incendiary and highly criticized, given that it relied on
interviews with patients instead of measurable benchmarks of same-sex
desires. Conservative groups were delighted to have support from Spitzer,
who wasn't tainted with religious bias or anti-gay ideology; gay
organizations felt betrayed.

In the end, however, Spitzer came to agree with his critics. There was no
way to confirm that what his interviewees said was true, he wrote in 2012 to
the editor of the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior. The study, he said,
was fatally flawed.

"I believe I owe the gay community an apology for my study making unproven
claims of the efficacy of reparative thrapy," Spitzer wrote.

So what choice do our religious friends offer someone like this? Certainly
not love and understanding. More like condemnation and ostracism. Doesn't
sound the way Jesus preached to his flock.

--

Bobby G.

"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Probably so. Although some there think he would have made sure none
of the cupcakes got into the hands of gay people. I think Jesus would
have wanted the cupcakes to go to everyone, gay, straight, Trans,
whatever. That's how Jesus was.

From everything I've read about just HIS teachings and not the follow-on
works of others you're right on the money. He was unafraid to preach to and
comfort lepers. I don't remember him checking ID and criminal/sexual
history when he performed the miracle of feeding the poor. You would think
if homosexuality was the enormous evil that some religious types make it out
to be, that Moses and God would have mentioned it by adding an eleventh
commandment. Apparently thought crimes like coveting a neighbor's goods or
wife was of a higher priority.

I suspect Christian bakers will now have to run background checks because if
they get this up-tight about serving cakes to gay couples, then they should
also make sure there are no thieves, idolators, kids who disrespect the
parents, etc. These are mortal sins, carved in stone, but the anti-gay
bakers don't seem too concerned with any of the 10 Commandments the buyer
broke - as long as he isn't gay.

It seems that setting yourself up as a Christian bakery or pizzeria can be a
ticket to instant wealth:

When an Indiana pizza joint said it wouldn't cater a gay wedding,
supporters took to social media and raised more than $840,000 to help the
shop. When a Florida baker was threatened after she said she wouldn't bake
an anti-gay cake, she raised nearly $15,000 in one month.
Two online fundraisers popped up when Ferguson, Mo., Police Officer Darren
Wilson was put on leave for fatally shooting Michael Brown. The pages earned
more than $400,000 in donations.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-...#navtype=panel

So I wouldn't cry TOO hard for these bigoted bakers. Some of them made more
money preaching discrimination than they did at their craft.

--
Bobby G.

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 9:25:21 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Probably so. Although some there think he would have made sure none
of the cupcakes got into the hands of gay people. I think Jesus would
have wanted the cupcakes to go to everyone, gay, straight, Trans,
whatever. That's how Jesus was.

From everything I've read about just HIS teachings and not the follow-on
works of others you're right on the money. He was unafraid to preach to and
comfort lepers.

With lepers there is no morality issue.

I don't remember him checking ID and criminal/sexual
history when he performed the miracle of feeding the poor.

Again the relevant example would be if the criminal was
seeking to buy a weapon from Jesus or an adulterer were seeking
to rent a room to commit adultery.


You would think
if homosexuality was the enormous evil that some religious types make it out
to be, that Moses and God would have mentioned it by adding an eleventh
commandment. Apparently thought crimes like coveting a neighbor's goods or
wife was of a higher priority.

I suspect Christian bakers will now have to run background checks because if
they get this up-tight about serving cakes to gay couples, then they should
also make sure there are no thieves, idolators, kids who disrespect the
parents, etc.

Again, the relevant comparison would be asking a baker to bake a cake
that says "I believe in having sex with children". And again, the bakers
in Oregon had served cakes not only to other gays in the past, but even
baked a cake for the gays involved in the action against them. They just
would not bake a cake commemorating a gay wedding. If I go to a gay baker
and demand that they bake a cakes saying "I believe in traditional marriage",
they refuse, I guess I should be able to go home, claim I can't sleep at
night over it and collect $130K too.


These are mortal sins, carved in stone, but the anti-gay
bakers don't seem too concerned with any of the 10 Commandments the buyer
broke - as long as he isn't gay.

Again, irrelevant and illogical. The bakers were not asked to bake
a cake saying "We believe stealing is OK" or "I believe in adultery".



It seems that setting yourself up as a Christian bakery or pizzeria can be a
ticket to instant wealth:

When an Indiana pizza joint said it wouldn't cater a gay wedding,
supporters took to social media and raised more than $840,000 to help the
shop. When a Florida baker was threatened after she said she wouldn't bake
an anti-gay cake, she raised nearly $15,000 in one month.
Two online fundraisers popped up when Ferguson, Mo., Police Officer Darren
Wilson was put on leave for fatally shooting Michael Brown. The pages earned
more than $400,000 in donations.

Sounds right to me. Where do I contribute? Amazing you'd throw
the skunk Michael Brown into the mix. He had just committed a felony
robbery, assaulted an officer, tried to shoot the officer and finally
wound up dead while charging back at the office. All supported by
witnesses and the physical evidence. There was no "hands up,
don't shoot", just a criminal skunk running amok.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015 04:38:54 -0400, Bob wrote:
One argument in favor of being gay is people are
born gay. I've always countered that argument with
a logical response. Do you think people are born
gay?

We are what we are. We can't change our sexual
preference any more than we can change our eye
color. Maybe someday we'll be able to alter our
firmware and tweak our attributes.

That didn't answer my question, but I'll ask another one.

What does 'preference' mean?

--
Maggie

On 7/22/2015 1:33 AM, Robert Green wrote:
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

Yet in spite of that the good Christians on here would refuse service
to gays DUE TO THEIR CHRISTIAN RELIGION!!! They make a mockery of
their Christianity.

"Prejudice, a dirty word, and faith, a clean one, have something in common:
they both begin where reason ends." - Harper Lee


Prejudice:
: an unfair feeling of dislike for a person or group because of race,
sex, religion, etc.

me- I was wondering who gets to decide which feelings are unfair?

: a feeling of like or dislike for someone or something especially when
it is not reasonable or logical

me- Also wondering, who gets to decide what feelings are logical or
reasonable?

We tend to toss the word "prejudice" around as IF it is a dirty word,
but it isn't. It represents people's feelings, and that's one thing that
can't be legislated, manipulated, or controlled in people around us let
alone ourselves.

--
Maggie

On 7/22/2015 3:38 AM, Bob wrote:
On 7/22/2015 12:34 AM, Muggles wrote:

One argument in favor of being gay is people are born gay. I've always
countered that argument with a logical response. Do you think people are
born gay?


We are what we are.

That sounds too simplified to me.

I tend to believe we are what we can see ourselves to be, what we make a
decision we're going to be, and what we put feet towards so we will
become what we've decided we'll be.


We can't change our sexual preference any more than

Why not? What does 'preference' mean?


we can change our eye color. Maybe someday we'll be able to alter our
firmware and tweak our attributes.

--
Maggie

On 7/22/2015 6:42 AM, Robert Green wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message On
wrote:

stuff snipped

a choice thing is pretty easy to demolish. When did any
straight person reading this thread make a conscious decision to become a
heterosexual? The surprisingly simple answer is that they didn't just as
most (all?) homosexuals didn't make a decision to become homosexual. One
day they realized that's who they were.

But if that's not enough proof it's NOT a moral choice, but an innate
process common to more than 10% of all species, there's this:

http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/0...homosexuality/


When I was in college ('70's) I said gays are born with "gayness" -
during a lit class discussion. I hadn't given it much thought, but
used the same simple logic as you did above. The professor was
probably gay, and he took exception.

The logic is pretty simple which is why it's hard to understand why the
religious types are so up in arms. No one I've ever heard of has "caught"
gayness like you might the measles.

Have you ever heard of "influence"? What about "learned behavior"?


Looking at the lines that snaked around courthouses across the county full
of gay people waiting to get married one thing struck me: They were plain,
simple looking folks for the most part. They looked just so damn average.


Just because people prefer to do something, it doesn't mean it's right,
natural, normal, or good.

--
Maggie

On 7/22/2015 8:07 AM, Robert Green wrote:
"Bob" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 7/22/2015 12:34 AM, Muggles wrote:

One argument in favor of being gay is people are born gay. I've always
countered that argument with a logical response. Do you think people are
born gay?


We are what we are. We can't change our sexual preference any more than
we can change our eye color. Maybe someday we'll be able to alter our
firmware and tweak our attributes.

There are colored contact lenses that can turn brown-eyes blue but I get
your point. What really frosts my cake is that many religious types
actually believe if you work VERY hard at it, you can "ungay" youself.

All it takes to become anything is a decision, and then putting your
actions behind that decision.

[cut lengthy text]

--
Maggie

On 7/22/2015 8:16 AM, Robert Green wrote:
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Probably so. Although some there think he would have made sure none
of the cupcakes got into the hands of gay people. I think Jesus would
have wanted the cupcakes to go to everyone, gay, straight, Trans,
whatever. That's how Jesus was.

From everything I've read about just HIS teachings and not the follow-on
works of others you're right on the money. He was unafraid to preach to and
comfort lepers. I don't remember him checking ID and criminal/sexual
history when he performed the miracle of feeding the poor. You would think
if homosexuality was the enormous evil that some religious types make it out
to be, that Moses and God would have mentioned it by adding an eleventh
commandment. Apparently thought crimes like coveting a neighbor's goods or
wife was of a higher priority.

I'm sure you're aware of what the Bible states about homosexuality, so
your argument here is a bit odd.



--
Maggie

Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 8:16 AM, Robert Green wrote:
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Probably so. Although some there think he would have made sure none
of the cupcakes got into the hands of gay people. I think Jesus would
have wanted the cupcakes to go to everyone, gay, straight, Trans,
whatever. That's how Jesus was.

From everything I've read about just HIS teachings and not the follow-on
works of others you're right on the money. He was unafraid to preach to and
comfort lepers. I don't remember him checking ID and criminal/sexual
history when he performed the miracle of feeding the poor. You would think
if homosexuality was the enormous evil that some religious types make it out
to be, that Moses and God would have mentioned it by adding an eleventh
commandment. Apparently thought crimes like coveting a neighbor's goods or
wife was of a higher priority.

I'm sure you're aware of what the Bible states about homosexuality, so
your argument here is a bit odd.

Yeah, a single throw-away line in the same chapter of the
old testament that forbids eating shellfish and pork.

Muggles writes:

On 7/22/2015 1:33 AM, Robert Green wrote:
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

Yet in spite of that the good Christians on here would refuse service
to gays DUE TO THEIR CHRISTIAN RELIGION!!! They make a mockery of
their Christianity.

"Prejudice, a dirty word, and faith, a clean one, have something in common:
they both begin where reason ends." - Harper Lee


Prejudice:
: an unfair feeling of dislike for a person or group because of race,
sex, religion, etc.

me- I was wondering who gets to decide which feelings are unfair?

: a feeling of like or dislike for someone or something especially when
it is not reasonable or logical

me- Also wondering, who gets to decide what feelings are logical or
reasonable?

We tend to toss the word "prejudice" around as IF it is a dirty word,
but it isn't. It represents people's feelings, and that's one thing that
can't be legislated, manipulated, or controlled in people around us let
alone ourselves.

You continue to post off topic stupid stuff.
What is your problem?

You should know who gets to decide, especially in this case, since it
was the Supreme Court.

When the word prejudice is used in every day speech, the person
saying the word got to decide.

Sure the word represents a feeling. In this case, it's an "unfair",
"illogical" feeling. So if someone called you prejudiced in this
thread, it's because they think your "feelings" are "unfair" and / or
"illogical". Is that so hard to understand?

You're post above is just a bunch of nonsense. Of course prejudice
is a bad thing. Look at the definition again. You can't make it into
a good word with the silly line of reasoning you present above.

Whether you are prejudiced or not is a separate issue.
I make no statement on that subject, that's between you and the other
posters here who seem to care what you think.

I'm posting just to comment on how ridiculous your "reasoning" above is.
We all know prejudice is a bad thing. Well, all of us, except you
apparently.

--
Dan Espen

On 7/22/2015 10:38 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 8:16 AM, Robert Green wrote:
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

stuff snipped

Probably so. Although some there think he would have made sure none
of the cupcakes got into the hands of gay people. I think Jesus would
have wanted the cupcakes to go to everyone, gay, straight, Trans,
whatever. That's how Jesus was.

From everything I've read about just HIS teachings and not the follow-on
works of others you're right on the money. He was unafraid to preach to and
comfort lepers. I don't remember him checking ID and criminal/sexual
history when he performed the miracle of feeding the poor. You would think
if homosexuality was the enormous evil that some religious types make it out
to be, that Moses and God would have mentioned it by adding an eleventh
commandment. Apparently thought crimes like coveting a neighbor's goods or
wife was of a higher priority.

I'm sure you're aware of what the Bible states about homosexuality, so
your argument here is a bit odd.

Yeah, a single throw-away line in the same chapter of the
old testament that forbids eating shellfish and pork.


Why were those things forbidden to eat in the old testament?

--
Maggie

On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 10:50:30 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 7/22/2015 10:38 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Yeah, a single throw-away line in the same chapter of the
old testament that forbids eating shellfish and pork.


Why were those things forbidden to eat in the old testament?

--
Maggie

Those were forbidden, at least pork, because Jewish tradition/purity wouldn't eat meat from an animal with a cloven hoof. Because of the reference to Lucifer...

On 7/22/2015 10:39 AM, Dan Espen wrote:
Muggles writes:

On 7/22/2015 1:33 AM, Robert Green wrote:
"Ashton Crusher" wrote in message

Yet in spite of that the good Christians on here would refuse service
to gays DUE TO THEIR CHRISTIAN RELIGION!!! They make a mockery of
their Christianity.

"Prejudice, a dirty word, and faith, a clean one, have something in common:
they both begin where reason ends." - Harper Lee


Prejudice:
: an unfair feeling of dislike for a person or group because of race,
sex, religion, etc.

me- I was wondering who gets to decide which feelings are unfair?

: a feeling of like or dislike for someone or something especially when
it is not reasonable or logical

me- Also wondering, who gets to decide what feelings are logical or
reasonable?

We tend to toss the word "prejudice" around as IF it is a dirty word,
but it isn't. It represents people's feelings, and that's one thing that
can't be legislated, manipulated, or controlled in people around us let
alone ourselves.


You continue to post off topic stupid stuff.
What is your problem?

'Scuse me. I didn't bring up this topic, and multiple people are
responding to the discussion. You're welcome to ignore it.

You should know who gets to decide, especially in this case, since it
was the Supreme Court.

Which case are you talking about? I was referencing Robert Green's use
of the word "prejudice" in his Harper Lee quote.

When the word prejudice is used in every day speech, the person
saying the word got to decide.

So, anyone can decide if someone else is being prejudiced, right? What
is a valid litmus test for validating that sort of label?

Sure the word represents a feeling. In this case, it's an "unfair",
"illogical" feeling. So if someone called you prejudiced in this
thread, it's because they think your "feelings" are "unfair" and / or
"illogical". Is that so hard to understand?

So, likewise, I can call you prejudiced if I feel your "feelings" are
"unfair" or "illogical"? Will that mean I'm correct because I say that
about you? IOW, does calling someone "prejudiced" have unintended
consequences to putting that label onto someone else?

You're post above is just a bunch of nonsense.

You're prejudiced, obviously, because your comment presents feelings
that are "unfair" and "illogical", in my opinion.

Of course prejudice is a bad thing. Look at the definition again.
You can't make it into a good word with the silly line of reasoning
you present above.

Is that so? People who disagree often attempt to counter their
opponents argument by attacking their character by calling them
"prejudiced". If you can cause doubt in someone elses character, you
can begin to win your argument based on personal attacks vs. arguing the
actual content of the message, instead.

Prejudice is a judgement based on political correctness and individual
viewpoints. What is fair to one person is unfair to another.


Whether you are prejudiced or not is a separate issue.
I make no statement on that subject, that's between you and the other
posters here who seem to care what you think.

We're all prejudiced about something if we decide to take a stand on any
issue at all because someone will see our position as being unfair
and/or illogical.

I'm posting just to comment on how ridiculous your "reasoning" above is.

My "reasoning" makes logical sense until I pass the point of not being
politically correct in someones eyes.

We all know prejudice is a bad thing. Well, all of us, except you
apparently.


Prejudice is only bad if it supports evil. Otherwise, prejudice that
supports good is good prejudice.

--
Maggie

Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 10:38 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Muggles writes:
On 7/22/2015 8:16 AM, Robert Green wrote:

I'm sure you're aware of what the Bible states about homosexuality, so
your argument here is a bit odd.

Yeah, a single throw-away line in the same chapter of the
old testament that forbids eating shellfish and pork.


Why were those things forbidden to eat in the old testament?


Ah, so _Muggles_ is a alias for Eliza.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ELIZA

On 7/22/2015 11:01 AM, bob_villa wrote:
On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 at 10:50:30 AM UTC-5, Muggles wrote:
On 7/22/2015 10:38 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

Yeah, a single throw-away line in the same chapter of the
old testament that forbids eating shellfish and pork.


Why were those things forbidden to eat in the old testament?


Those were forbidden, at least pork, because Jewish tradition/purity
wouldn't eat meat from an animal with a cloven hoof. Because of the
reference to Lucifer...


Is the same law enforced in the New Testament?

--
Maggie