tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433945320549143329.post8062667772986318451..comments2023-09-13T10:53:12.598-05:00Comments on Tullius est [et Tullius non est Cicero]: Would Jesus Bake a Cake for a Gay Wedding?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15716893685688516529noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433945320549143329.post-38986663476444846432014-03-02T21:40:10.630-06:002014-03-02T21:40:10.630-06:00Yes, that is exactly why.Yes, that is exactly why.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433945320549143329.post-37577426710303587682014-03-02T18:21:04.239-06:002014-03-02T18:21:04.239-06:00Good points, Anon. (Why anonymous? Worried about...Good points, Anon. (Why anonymous? Worried about the Thought Police?)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15716893685688516529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433945320549143329.post-87777929813813976972014-03-02T14:38:58.127-06:002014-03-02T14:38:58.127-06:00One outrageous bit from the Powers piece was her e...One outrageous bit from the Powers piece was her equating healing, feeding, and ministering to making a cake for a gay couple. There is an equivocation going on between the service that Jesus provided (and still provides, through his Church and his sacraments), and the service of baking someone a cake. They are quite different.<br />A howler was the "Whether Christians have the legal right to discriminate should be a moot point because Christianity doesn't prohibit serving a gay couple getting married," line. Even if it were true that Christianity doesn't prohibit serving a gay couple getting married, it is equally true that it does not mandate the serving of gay couples. Powers' tone suggests that she thinks Christianity probably does mandate serving gay couples. Wrong.<br />This is the best sentence I've read in a couple weeks: "He did not miraculously make a condom out of dirt and give it to the prostitute telling her to be sure to practice safe sex next time. When he did not sentence the adulterous woman to stoning he did not condone adultery--rather he told her to "go and sin no more."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433945320549143329.post-34408713634309130862014-03-01T19:22:27.402-06:002014-03-01T19:22:27.402-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15716893685688516529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433945320549143329.post-6387613262581573232014-03-01T18:39:44.044-06:002014-03-01T18:39:44.044-06:00FINALLY, someone ELSE on this blog! Congratulation...FINALLY, someone ELSE on this blog! Congratulations Tullius, you have more than one reader. :) Welcome Phil-Will, welcome!<br /><br />Tullius, you should write a professional philosophical article entitled, "A Man CAN GO TO JAIL for BAKING A CAKE." I'll be Phil Review, Nous or even Phil Studies would be rioting to get a crack at that article. In fact, you shouldn't even write an article, just send them the title and ask if they would publish it!!!<br /><br />Ever thought about sending this Powers person a personal email...to, you know, explain to her how being an idiot in print is, like, forever?Monashnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433945320549143329.post-26360608461676193122014-03-01T13:17:24.469-06:002014-03-01T13:17:24.469-06:00Excellent points, Phil-Will.
"....conservat...Excellent points, Phil-Will. <br />"....conservatives wanting to take us "back to the Dark Ages""<br /><br />To quote Nicholas Gomez Davila, " The thing that exasperates today’s Christian about the Middle Ages is Christianity."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15716893685688516529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2433945320549143329.post-85479679567903922272014-03-01T12:15:59.735-06:002014-03-01T12:15:59.735-06:00What I found so galling about the Powers article w...What I found so galling about the Powers article was just that line, "Whether Christians have the legal right to discriminate should be a moot point because Christianity doesn't prohibit serving a gay couple getting married." <br /><br />1. There's live, legitimate theological disagreement over whether that statement is actually true. One side (or both) may be *wrong*, but that doesn't make the disagreement any less real.<br /><br />2. The government has no business wading into (1) and picking sides. None at all. It never seems to cross Powers' mind that whatever principle allows the government to pick sides in a theological dispute over gay weddings doesn't end with gay weddings (the concept of reasoning from "principles" rather than "feels" being largely lost on my generation). <br /><br />3. Anyone who has ever referenced conservatives wanting to take us "back to the Dark Ages" over this issue or that should be terrified by Powers' suggestion that the government can go about enforcing theological orthodoxy. Refusing to pay for some else's contraception is not the second coming of the Inquisition. The government telling you that your religious beliefs about marriage are out of line with what your religion "really says" and ordering you to act in conformity therewith, is.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14304628378660500171noreply@blogger.com