|
And who the f~~~ cares?
And before someone jumps all over me, that was mostly rhetorical. Actually I really do care. It is an important subject -- just not here.
Most people I know (Christian or otherwise) do feel that everyone should be awarded the same rights. (And maybe I hang around other Christian circles than you do.) What baffles me is that the government really isn't doing anything about it. Not really. Maybe they've been spending too much time creating this wonderful healthcare bill...
I cleaned up a couple posts that involved personal attacks. This is the civil religious thread. Keep it that way.
I removed some more posts that quoted the posts I removed earlier.
I have issues with any religion that uses the possession of a penis as a qualification for being clergy, in spite of (or perhaps because of) my upbringing in a heavily patriarchal evangelical community.Our pastor is a woman. Just sayin'.
Heh... the church in which I grew up had a female pastor for about three months before the congregation staged a revolt, drove her out of town, and dissociated itself from its parent organization. It happened after I moved away from the area, but my parents were still there, and the stories I heard about what the congregation put that poor woman through were pretty horrifying to me. (Anonymous death threats, vandalism against her home, etc. I note that this was in the mid '90s, too.)
Of course, by that time I'd already decided that I wanted no part of that particular brand of religion, so at least I didn't have to leave a church I still cared about as a result of it.
Christians are not willing to give them the same rights that christians have all because some guy said it was bad 2000 years ago.Technically, Jesus didn't say anything about it.
Correct. Then that means people go to Leviticus or one of Paul's writings to make accommodations for their positions. But as far as I'm concerned, I just respond back: "if your God become Flesh was silent on the matter while on Earth, shouldn't you take that as a hint ... and shut the hell up?"
:P
Aside from the deity reference, a lot of people -- secular and sectarian -- should keep this in mind. And this is an atheist (me) saying as such.
Not saying I support or not.
Despite the author's claims her arguments are secularly based, I believe them to be obviously religious based.
Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the
cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation.
Tradition is not a good enough reason. Slavery existed for millennia too. That is not to say that denying same-sex marriage is the same as slavery. It is to point out one of many precedents where bad, tradition should be changed.
If marriage upholds society, should we not also ban divorce? What about the numerous societies that allowed plural marriage? Did those marriages also help uphold those societies?
Do we really need symbols to demonstrate how to procreate? I dare say everyone on this board has the generally idea…including those who just happen to be attracted to their own sex.
By institutionalizing the relationship that has the inherent capacity to transmit life — that between a man and a woman — marriage symbolizes and engenders respect for the transmission of human life.
Ah! So marriage is just about making babies! If it is so important to society, then we should make laws that everyone must make babies and as many as possible. In fact, if someone can not afford to care for their children, the state should pay for them. Otherwise our society will crumble into dust…right?
To change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples would destroy its capacity
to function in the ways outlined above, because it could no longer represent the inherently
procreative relationship of opposite-sex pair-bonding.
I like the word destroy. Kind of like 'agenda', huh? I have some bad news for Ms. Somerville. One, the human race does not need some symbol to know how to carry on the species. We did it before there were marriages. People living together for the rest of their lives should not require them to have as many children as possible. The population is doing just fine, thank you very much.
Reproduction is the fundamental occurrence on which, ultimately, the future of human life
depends. That is the primary reason why marriage is important to society.
Same argument, just repeated to try and add credence. Therefore, I will repeat my count-argument. If procreation is so important, why do we not insist everyone have as many babies as possible (state funded if needed). Hell, not only that, we should allow plural marriages since a woman can only be impregnated once at a time, while a male may impregnate as many women as he can conceivably (yes, I did that on purpose) mate with.
We better not let women have jobs either. We need to keep them in the kitchen so they are available for mating all the time.
|
Not saying I support or not.
Despite the author's claims her arguments are secularly based, I believe them to be obviously religious based.
Marriage is, and has been for millennia, the institution that forms and upholds for society, the
cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation.Tradition is not a good enough reason. Slavery existed for millennia too. That is not to say that denying same-sex marriage is the same as slavery. It is to point out one of many precedents where bad, tradition should be changed.
If marriage upholds society, should we not also ban divorce? What about the numerous societies that allowed plural marriage? Did those marriages also help uphold those societies?
Do we really need symbols to demonstrate how to procreate? I dare say everyone on this board has the generally idea…including those who just happen to be attracted to their own sex.
By institutionalizing the relationship that has the inherent capacity to transmit life — that between a man and a woman — marriage symbolizes and engenders respect for the transmission of human life.
Ah! So marriage is just about making babies! If it is so important to society, then we should make laws that everyone must make babies and as many as possible. In fact, if someone can not afford to care for their children, the state should pay for them. Otherwise our society will crumble into dust…right?
To change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples would destroy its capacity
to function in the ways outlined above, because it could no longer represent the inherently
procreative relationship of opposite-sex pair-bonding.I like the word destroy. Kind of like 'agenda', huh? I have some bad news for Ms. Somerville. One, the human race does not need some symbol to know how to carry on the species. We did it before there were...
Just saying that Britney Spears had a 55 hour marriage, how many marriages has Larry King, and Elizabeth Taylor had. I'm sorry I think people like that are a much bigger threat to the sanctity of marriage than homosexuals.
|
Not saying I support or not.
Despite the author's claims her arguments are secularly based, I believe them to be obviously religious based.
And you are welcome to your belief. As an aside this was the legal argument against same sex marriage used I believe years ago in Canada. It did not work then either.
So you do it again and again until you realize that what you first believed might be more than you thought it was.
Ignoring other possible explanations? What you are saying sounds more like manipulating the data to fit the hypothesis. You were already inclined to believe in a Christian god as you had already been exposed to it even if your parents were not devout. The seed was still planted.
I argue that if you had been raised in a FSM family, you would be seeing his Noodley Appendage everywhere you look.
I bet not every prayer has been answered. Those are conveniently rationalized away as "god works in mysterious ways". He simply did not want to or need to answer that one.
The prayers that were answered, did they require some action or even non-action from another person? If god answered that prayer, did he infringe upon that person's free will?
|
|
Correct. Then that means people go to Leviticus or one of Paul's writings to make accommodations for their positions. But as far as I'm concerned, I just respond back: "if your God become Flesh was silent on the matter while on Earth, shouldn't you take that as a hint ... and shut the hell up?"Christians are not willing to give them the same rights that christians have all because some guy said it was bad 2000 years ago.Technically, Jesus didn't say anything about it.
Pretty much. I've said this before but feel that I may need to say it again...
At its ABSOLUTE worst possibility, let's assume that said actions are a "sin" (and I'm not sure why it would be where just being is a sin). If it is a "sin", then in my opinion, it then falls under the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" or "why are you trying to take the sliver out of your brother's eye when you've got a plank in your own".
I do not feel that it is our place to point out people's faults unless it is hurting or damaging people in the church -- in which case there are pretty clear procedures on how to deal with that.
From a political standpoint -- gay people and gay couples should be offered the same rights that I am entitled to. Period. End of story. Especially since (regardless of what people may think) America is a secular country.
Erm...sorry about the leg. I'll buy you some new pants, Moff. I would buy you new lips too (and a new mouth) but I don't think they sell them. Settle for some nice shower gel and toothpaste?
Don't press charges for spontaneous outpourings of affection? :)
|
|
From a political standpoint -- gay people and gay couples should be offered the same rights that I am entitled to. Period. End of story. Especially since (regardless of what people may think) America is a secular country.Erm...sorry about the leg. I'll buy you some new pants, Moff. I would buy you new lips too (and a new mouth) but I don't think they sell them. Settle for some nice shower gel and toothpaste?
Don't press charges for spontaneous outpourings of affection? :)
I think I'm missing a reference...
I think I'm missing a reference...
Think Courtfool. Speaking of whom, what happened to the dude? Someone should let him know it's safe to come back now.
I think I'm missing a reference...
Sloppy kisses with a side of tongue and leg-humping for dessert. Or is the leg-humping the main course? I shall defer to the experts on the subject.
I almost said glomp, but I figured that would be a bit obscure.
Think Courtfool. Speaking of whom, what happened to the dude?
Look up about four posts.
Sorry. My daughter's birthday was Saturday, so I have been a busy poodle and did not get a chance to call anyone a bigot.
Sometimes the answer is no.
How can you be sure there is a difference between 'sometimes the answer is no' and 'no one is there to answer'?
Does god answer the prayers of other faiths? If not, how do you explain their prayers being answered?
|
|
Ok ... Hatred.
There really is quite a bit and rather little on "hate" in the Bible. There are a lot of Old Testament references (doing a search on "hate") on what God "hates". There are some minor references that basically say "Bob 'hated' Pete". There are quite a bit of New Testament passages that basically warn believers that they will be hated by others. Very little is actually in reference to what (I believe) the question was about.
Be careful with the Sermon on the Mount passage that some feel talks about it. ("He who hates his brother commits murder.") That passage is speaking very directly to how the keepers of the Law didn't understand the point of the Law to begin with and is talking about one point of the Law specifically and not about "hate".
Probably the best Biblical passage is in I John 2. The passages in question are verses 9-11. Even this, I don't know that it means that it is a "sin" -- just a really bad idea. From a logical point of view, I feel that hatred ends up doing more harm than good. I think that it clouds our judgement and may sometimes cause us to act or say things that may end up causing more harm than good. (Like in Jeremy's example. And I am in no way suggesting that he wasn't justified in his feelings.)
Hatred doesn't generally get us very far and I feel that John was trying to get that across in the above passage.
At least that's what I've got on it.
Do you know what the state bird is for Utah?
Oho! Clever, Moff.
C.S. Lewis has got nothing on you!
Do you know why?
I have no clue. I am obviously missing something.
EDIT: After doing some research, it seems Moff is only furthering my point. Am I misunderstanding you, Moff?
Do you know why?I have no clue. I am obviously missing something.
The Miracle of the Gulls. The historicity of it is pretty dodgy, looks like. It seems few people noticed and commented on it until thirty years later.
|
|
The California gull, even without official status, was long considered the state bird of Utah due to its storied role as a protector of crops. It gained this reputation during the summer of 1848 when swarms of crickets attacked pioneer food supplies. It was reported that flocks of the birds arrived, settled in the "...half-ruined fields" and "gorged themselves" on the attacking crickets. It's often stated that the California gull was made the state bird in return for saving the settler's lives.
EDIT Ninja'd by Samnell
|
|
Do you know why?I have no clue. I am obviously missing something.
Not necessarily. It's not exactly well known.
The Mormons had pretty much been kicked out of two (three?) previous "promised lands" before they made it (finally) to Utah. Now if you've never been to Utah, Utah is pretty much a desert. It is high altitude and very little water -- at least usable water. They set up their town and had a lot of problems with disease, illness and starvation. They managed to get some crops growing that might have been enough to get them through the winter. Then crickets came. According to reports, this was a plague of "Biblical proportions". They were devouring all their crops and the people had now where to go and the winter was rapidly approaching. The entire town/city was instructed to pray as though their lives depended on it. And they did. (Because their lives did depend on it.) A wind then blew in a huge flock of sea gulls which then devoured the crickets and saved the Mormons from starvation.
Now, was it a miracle? Or just VERY convenient timing? That's something that you need to decide.
EDIT: Ninja'd by ... everyone.
|
|
EDIT: After doing some research, it seems Moff is only furthering my point. Am I misunderstanding you, Moff?
Sometimes it's hard to tell your point.
Was your point "Does God answer prayer"? Was your point "Does God answer other people's prayer"? Was your point "There is always a logical answer to everything and not a divine answer"?
Was your point "Does God answer prayer"? Was your point "Does God answer other people's prayer"? Was your point "There is always a logical answer to everything and not a divine answer"?
Yes. (big grin)
My point was that others are equally convinced that their god(s) answered their prayers. Since, in the case of differing faiths, those god(s) are different and mutually exclusive, someone is wrong. It seems pretentious not to seriously consider it is oneself who is wrong.
In this case, I guess it is the same god and not exactly mutually exclusive. It would still give me pause that I was in the right club.
|
|
My point was that others are equally convinced that their god(s) answered their prayers.
What does an "answered prayer" look like? Matthew 6:5-15 pretty well describes the function and purpose of prayer. Look closely at verse 8 -- "... for your Father knows what you need before you ask..." But in any case, there really isn't that much that is like a "miracle". Basically it boils down to 1) praise God, 2) acknowledge that God's in control, 3) thank God for taking care of us, 4) help us with forgiveness, and 5) keep us safe.
But we forget about that.
The people I know who have witnessed what they believe are true miracles didn't have time to pray for a miracle -- and wouldn't have prayed for it to turn out the way it did. So, technically, it isn't an "answered prayer".
I've got more but I'm afraid I'd just muddy things further. I leave it to saying that we (all sides) don't really understand what we mean (or should mean) with regard to "answered prayers".
After eight years of careful, measured consideration, Saudi Arabian religious authorities have decided, surely with great regret, that they must accept the necessity of sacrificing modesty in the name of not watching teenage girls burn alive.
I would be glad that they got it right, but for two things:
First, when confronted with the fact that the previous policy led to innocent girls being burned alive, it took them eight years to officially decide that they should change it?
Second, the only thing I can think of that's sicker than that is that they had the policy in the first place. Just that they even considered weighing modesty standards against lives at stake is so out of the gourd crazy that my mind rebels at even contemplating it still eight years after I first heard about the damned thing.
I've got more but I'm afraid I'd just muddy things further. I leave it to saying that we (all sides) don't really understand what we mean (or should mean) with regard to "answered prayers".
Your take on prayer seems quite different than Marcus Aurelius. He seemed to be offering it up as proof of the validity of his faith. That was what I was responding to.
31 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'
32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
Can I start handing out fliers to all the sinners in front of Chick-fil-A?
|
|
31 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'
32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.Can I start handing out fliers to all the sinners in front of Chick-fil-A?
Sure. What ever humps your leg.
|
|
31 "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'
32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.Can I start handing out fliers to all the sinners in front of Chick-fil-A?
I know that this is a little tongue-in-cheek, but again this is part of the Sermon on the Mount and again is talking very specifically about one Law that the keepers of the law were missing the point on.
As for handing out fliers to all the sinners -- just be sure to include the flier on forgiveness as well.
As for handing out fliers to all the sinners -- just be sure to include the flier on forgiveness as well.
Attention Sinners!
Jesus died so that you could be forgiven. Don't let his sacrifice go to waste. Your Bible is the menu!Sorry, I couldn't resist the temptation. I'm a bad person.
|
|
As for handing out fliers to all the sinners -- just be sure to include the flier on forgiveness as well.Attention Sinners!
Jesus died so that you could be forgiven. Don't let his sacrifice go to waste. Your Bible is the menu!Sorry, I couldn't resist the temptation. I'm a bad person.
I may quote you...
EDIT:
I know that this is a little tongue-in-cheek, but again this is part of the Sermon on the Mount and again is talking very specifically about one Law that the keepers of the law were missing the point on.
It may be speaking about one particular law, but it seems very specific and clear to me that divorce is a sin. At least for the woman. It seems that the man is free and clear.
|
|
It may be speaking about one particular law, but it seems very specific and clear to me that divorce is a sin. At least for the woman. It seems that the man is free and clear.I know that this is a little tongue-in-cheek, but again this is part of the Sermon on the Mount and again is talking very specifically about one Law that the keepers of the law were missing the point on.
Actually, I don't get that at all. I think that the law had turned that way and Jesus was trying to again put blame where blame was due.
He's not talking to women. Not really. He's talking to men (because they found a loop-hole to divorce and not take any blame or any consequences for it).
"I tell you..." -- Jesus is going to say how he understands the law in question.
"...anyone who divorces his wife..." -- he's defining who he's talking to and/or about -- men.
"...causes her ..." -- he's putting blame on the husband.
"... anyone who marries the divorced woman commits..." -- again, he's putting the blame on the man.
The point, in this case, is that the people had added to the law and made divorce little more than a minor inconvenience. Marriage should be a lifelong committment. And it shouldn't be taken lightly. Neither should divorce. The people were taking it very lightly and had found rather easy ways to get out of the committment of marriage.
Is divorce a sin? It depends. The Bible certainly doesn't cover all the different scenarios surrounding possible reasons for divorce. And again I'm not going to be the one to judge. But with regard to the passage in question, Jesus was saying that what the keepers of the Law had done to modify the Law was wrong.
To me, that sounds like reading what you want to into it.
I believe you and I had argued previously about how to know which parts are meant allegorically and which parts should be taken literally. If I remember correctly, you said to read the Bible, contemplate it and decide for yourself. I can see where you might read this and think, "Surely, Jesus does not literally mean divorce is a sin." Then look for a deeper or alternate meaning.
The problem I have with that is I can read just about anything into anything. Anyone with a little creativity can. The more I read and contemplate on the Bible, the more convinced I am it is and always was meant to be taken literally and that the authors were not divinely inspired.
I started reading the Tao-te Ching recently. It is full of allegory, contradictions and things that just make you go WTF. I can read it and be happy with whatever I take away from it because that is how it was presented to me. The Bible, however, has never been presented to me as something I should take my own meaning from.
There has always been an 'official' understanding. And that understanding has caused so many problems, in my opinion, as to ruin its credibility.
Now, if I am understanding you correctly, Moff, you are suggesting I should take my own meaning from the Bible. I would say I have. I try to live my life by the golden rule. Beyond that seems filler. I see no reason why I should accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior. I do not know the guy. If god wants me to worship him, then he should show himself to me.
I know you might counter with '…you are expecting god to do what you want.' Except…not really. I do not expect anything of god. I do not demand anything. As far as I am concerned, there is no god to expect or demand of. If I am wrong, he can prove it or not. It really does not matter to me. If he does exists and I must go before him when I die, I am confident that he will know why I did not believe him and, if he is truly loving, he will not punish me for using the mind he gave me.
I am sorry for rambling on again and going over the same stuff we have been over before. Maybe, if you had gotten to me before others, you could have convinced me to find meaning in the Bible. All I find is people trying to make god what they want him to be. Ironic, is it not?
|
|
To me, that sounds like reading what you want to into it.
A lot of the points in the Sermon on the Mount start off with "You have heard that it was said..." and then Jesus continues on with "... but I say ..." This is specifically calling attention to what was "said" and then putting a different spin on it than what the people were used to. The problem is that it often times isn't written in the Bible exactly what was "said" because it is an addition to the Law and not the Law itself. So it's not always easy to put it in the correct context.
With regard to divorce specifically -- I don't feel that divorce is good. But for the sake of argument, let's say that divorce is a "sin". Similar to what I said above about the worst-case scenario for being gay -- it puts the person going through the divorce in the same "boat" as the rest of the world. So welcome to the club.
I personally think that a lot of the gospel can be summed up as -- stop doing and start being. So many people are so focused on following rules or whatever that they are really missing out on what they could actually be.
[A lot of the points in the Sermon on the Mount start off with "You have heard that it was said..." and then Jesus continues on with "... but I say ..."
Maybe that's what I like about the Sermon so much. The Buddha used the same format most of the time, when preaching among the prevailing Hindus.
But the Buddha then went a step further and added "But never mind what I say, either -- what does your experience tell you?"
|
|
If I remember correctly, you said to read the Bible, contemplate it and decide for yourself.
This doesn't sound like me. If I did say this, I'm sorry. I've actually had a lot of studies into the Bible and strongly feel that the idea of "just read it and it will all make sense" is a load of crap. There is a lot that I don't fully understand and I have resources that many don't have.
I'm not always the best for a lot of the more legal questions with the "Law" and so on with the Bible. If you are interested in looking more into those specific questions, I would suggest finding (hoping one might be available) a Messianic Jewish congregation and asking the Rabbi there. (Or we have a congregation like that at our church and can forward the question(s) on there if you'd like.) They have a better understanding of the context of those passages.
But the Bible is anything but "simple" or easy for being "self taught".
I know you might counter with '…you are expecting god to do what you want.' Except…not really. I do not expect anything of god. I do not demand anything. As far as I am concerned, there is no god to expect or demand of. If I am wrong, he can prove it or not. It really does not matter to me. If he does exists and I must go before him when I die, I am confident that he will know why I did not believe him and, if he is truly loving, he will not punish me for using the mind he gave me.
Betrand Russel used to tell people the same thing, pretty much. Believers used to think it was clever to ask him what he'd say if brought before the Almighty to account for his infidelity:
I'm sorry, Lord; not enough evidence.
|
|
[A lot of the points in the Sermon on the Mount start off with "You have heard that it was said..." and then Jesus continues on with "... but I say ..."Maybe that's what I like about the Sermon so much. The Buddha used the same format most of the time, when preaching among the prevailing Hindus.
But the Buddha then went a step further and added "But never mind what I say, either -- what does your experience tell you?"
Personally, I feel that that is fine if the person is searching to better or improve. The problem that I see is that selfishness or human nature gets in the way -- "My experience tells me that if I step on the little guy, I'll be in a better position to get what I want."
This goes back into what I was saying about Truth. You can read anythign you want to in a book the size of Moby-Dick but in the end it is about a guy without a leg, a whale and a boat.
At the risk of derailing the thread, I think the book makes the most sense if you read it as an ethnography of whaling culture, told through fiction. Had he lived seventy years later, Melville could have been an anthropologist.
Except for the short stories. Those are just recycled stuff he'd sold previously but used as filler.
The bit about the guys dancing around in the whale's foreskin was funny, once you cut through the several feet of thick Victorian prose and realize what's going on.
Personally, I feel that that is fine if the person is searching to better or improve. The problem that I see is that selfishness or human nature gets in the way -- "My experience tells me that if I step on the little guy, I'll be in a better position to get what I want."
Yeah, sadly, people often look only in the short-term and call it "experience." Stepping on the little guy, in a communal society, more or less has to catch up with you sooner or later -- it just might be later. And some asshat is always failing to look ahead, and thinking he's getting away with something.
Interstingly, given enough hypothetical players and turn iterations, game theory will actually predict the morality we get from "holy" sources almost to a "T."
|
|
This goes back into what I was saying about Truth. You can read anythign you want to in a book the size of Moby-Dick but in the end it is about a guy without a leg, a whale and a boat.At the risk of derailing the thread, I think the book makes the most sense if you read it as an ethnography of whaling culture, told through fiction. Had he lived seventy years later, Melville could have been an anthropologist.
Except for the short stories. Those are just recycled stuff he'd sold previously but used as filler.
The bit about the guys dancing around in the whale's foreskin was funny, once you cut through the several feet of thick Victorian prose and realize what's going on.
Ok so there is in fact a lot going on.