|
That is the point I am trying to make as well, along with demonstrating how and why a lack of good faith causes the problems in the first place.
It is a contest of:
"Prove it!"
"You prove it!"
"I do not have to prove it, it is self-obvious to anyone looking at it!"
"No it isn't, mine is!"
"Prove it!"
Ad infinitum, ad nauseam, the pigs were indistinguishable from the men.
Well for some there are other answers. But you are right, circular Logic results in circular answers.
Three things are necessary for the salvation of man: to know what he ought to believe; to know what he ought to desire; and to know what he ought to do.
That is the point I am trying to make as well, along with demonstrating how and why a lack of good faith causes the problems in the first place.
It is a contest of:
"Prove it!"
"You prove it!"
"I do not have to prove it, it is self-obvious to anyone looking at it!"
"No it isn't, mine is!"
"Prove it!"
Ad infinitum, ad nauseam, the pigs were indistinguishable from the men.Well for some there are other answers. But you are right, circular Logic results in circular answers.
Three things are necessary for the salvation of man: to know what he ought to believe; to know what he ought to desire; and to know what he ought to do.
The fiery pull of Thomas Aquinas almost pulls Mairkurion back into the thread...must...re...sist...
|
Well for some there are other answers. But you are right, circular Logic results in circular answers.
Three things are necessary for the salvation of man: to know what he ought to believe; to know what he ought to desire; and to know what he ought to do.
And of course "ought" has an a priori definition that is never proven.
|
Arguably, he is a dictator. If you don't do exactly what he tells you, he condemns you to an eternity of torture.
In one of the Bible in Translation classes I took, the exact text had several possible meanings, and the one that closest fit the text present was 'cast into the lake of fire, there to suffer eternal destruction.' So, fail the test, into the fire, and poof, destroyed, *instantly,* no second-chances, no take-backsies. No mention of torture or endless torment or the sound of ten million damned souls screaming in eternal agony *right next to the throne of God, where the lake of fire sits,* or any of that noise.
More recent 'translations' delivered from well-thumped pulpits have added stuff about red-skinned goat-men and pitchforks and God creating an entire dimension devoted to eternal torture, in His mercy, but that stuff really doesn't get a lot of play in the Bible. (The hell dimension concept does make sense. If I were God, I'm pretty sure that the sound of millions of people, many of whom were pre-Christian Egyptians, Chinese, Africans, Mayans, Aboriginines, etc. who've never even heard of Me, but I damned to eternal torture for being born so far away from the Holy Land and with the wrong color skin and those damned dirty foreskins, crying out in torment *right next to Me* would get on My nerves after the first couple thousand years...)
The 'eternity of torture' thing is kind of a retcon. Apparently, the idea of being destroyed with no chance of redemption wasn't 'badass' enough. Rob Liefield must have been brought onto the book sometime around the 1400s. The new images of God would be much more muscular, with unnatural posture, lots of little pouches, a passle of pulchitrudinous ninja-angel bimbos at his side, a bionic eye that can see sinners and a bigarse gun that sends people straight to Hell. Probably a cigar, too.
As retcons go, it's nothing compared to what they did to poor Set! Cursed to be forever associated with his hated enemy, the serpent Apep, who sought to devour the sun.
Cliff Cliffs Notes for The Bible: Old Testament
God creates man and everything man does pisses god off.
|
|
Speaking from the gay side of the argument, we feel that a majority of people in america get to dictate the rights of a minority group. We never asked to be gay we just are. I don't understand how our marriage offends your sensibilities, what if we put an ammendment saying we wouldn't get married in your churchs. Fact is we deserve all 1100 marriage rights and benefits. And we also know of another time and another miniority group that a majority of people dictated the rights of a minority and it was a very dark part of history. We also had them yelling from pulpits that anyone with dark skin was the descendant of "Ham" the cursed son of Noah whos descendants were forever cursed to be servants and slaves for all eternity. And now they say that homosexuals are an abomination unto god, who should be persecuted and their way of life taken from them for practicing said sexuality. I think the greatest shame in this country is we have forced people to make a case for who they are and what they can't change.
And of course "ought" has an a priori definition that is never proven.Well for some there are other answers. But you are right, circular Logic results in circular answers.
Three things are necessary for the salvation of man: to know what he ought to believe; to know what he ought to desire; and to know what he ought to do.
There ya go again with "proven"...it's possible to have cumulative evidence, converging lines of evidence, an undefeated argument to the best explanation, that is a practical proof, or as close to proof as possible. More than possible, it may be all we ever have outside of tautologies and other analytical proposition. This will not stop us from rationally making assertions and denials, and even insisting on them.
So then you acknowledge that science is as much an issue of faith as any theology.
One argument might be that an internal combustion engine demonstrably works. So does a nuclear power plant. When they fail, the mode of failure is subject to analysis and repair. This argument would conclude that when people can begin performing consistent miracles, faith is "obviously" just as useful a tool for mankind. (Arguments that cars don't really work, and that Satan is deluding is into thinking we're driving, by clouding our senses, get us nowhere.)
Rather, on the flip side, one could point out that Buddhist meditation demonstrably yields measurably lower stress levels and greater displays of empathy. So it, too, is a useful tool -- a faith tool, rather than a scientific one, if you prefer. But it demonstrably works.
|
|
There ya go again with "proven"...it's possible to have cumulative evidence, converging lines of evidence, an undefeated argument to the best explanation, that is a practical proof, or as close to proof as possible. More than possible, it may be all we ever have outside of tautologies and other analytical proposition. This will not stop us from rationally making assertions and denials, and even insisting on them.
What then constitutes "cumulative evidence" and "converging lines of evidence"? All religions and secular philosophies are quite insistent that they have those.
As for "undefeated arguments", that is a Catch-22, where the existence of opposing theologies, ideologies, and philosphies does in fact constitute evidence that none are undefeated by a long shot.Indeed however, that will not stop people from making assertions, rationally or irrationally, or insisting on them. Hence the friction inherent in the system. (In the Clausewitzian sense.)
|
|
One argument might be that an internal combustion engine demonstrably works. So does a nuclear power plant. When they fail, the mode of failure is subject to analysis and repair. This argument would conclude that when people can begin performing consistent miracles, faith is "obviously" just as useful a tool for mankind. (Arguments that cars don't really work, and that Satan is deluding is into thinking we're driving, by clouding our senses, get us nowhere.)
Rather, on the flip side, one could point out that Buddhist meditation demonstrably yields measurably lower stress levels and greater displays of empathy. So it, too, is a useful tool -- a faith tool, rather than a scientific one, if you prefer. But it demonstrably works.
But how do they work?
That is the unanswerable question.One could assert that internal combustion engines and even nuclear power plants only work because proper invocations are made. The Cargo Cults would assert that quite aggressively. There was even that rather amusing new Twilight Zone episode where Sherman Helmsley invoked a devil via a mathematical equation, and defeated him via logical reduction.
So what then is truly proven?
You know, I've realized what a group of elitists you all really are. Don't agree? We don't like you. Don't speak with pretty and flowery words? We don't like you. Don't follow...blah blah blah...
Frankly, I find the vast majority of you all to be pompous windbags that are heady with your own inflated sense of piety.
If anyone would like to tell me off, or have something REAL to say...please feel free to reach me at rocketmail.com.
Muchas Garcias!
There ya go again with "proven"...it's possible to have cumulative evidence, converging lines of evidence, an undefeated argument to the best explanation, that is a practical proof, or as close to proof as possible. More than possible, it may be all we ever have outside of tautologies and other analytical proposition. This will not stop us from rationally making assertions and denials, and even insisting on them.What then constitutes "cumulative evidence" and "converging lines of evidence"? All religions and secular philosophies are quite insistent that they have those.
As for "undefeated arguments", that is a Catch-22, where the existence of opposing theologies, ideologies, and philosphies does in fact constitute evidence that none are undefeated by a long shot.Indeed however, that will not stop people from making assertions, rationally or irrationally, or insisting on them. Hence the friction inherent in the system. (In the Clausewitzian sense.)
While these will always be subject to discussion, that does not mean that in the concrete people will not be able to come to consensus about reaching such thresholds, and individuals do so every time they explicitly, critically commit themselves to a proposition. And insistence itself does not insulate positions from objections, criticisms, etc. The existence of opposing prop's or POVs do not in themselves provide more than prima facie evidence that an argument/interpretation is defeated, and on examination, such oppositions either bear fruit or are discovered to be weak. Cumulative case arguments are what constitute and manifest cumulative evidence and converging lines of evidence. I don't think it is particularly helpful to consider them in the abstract. To see it, you need concrete examples of how multiple particulars are brought together to know something.
As to Kirth's engines, they are only "demonstrable" given unprovable first principles like, "sense perception is generally reliable". Otherwise, who knows that there are engines, that they are firing, that Kirth is observing them, etc. Without faith, Kirth observes no engine, working or otherwise.
We never asked to be gay we just are. I don't understand how our marriage offends your sensibilities,
Good for marriage. I just don't like going to weddings is all, and now I'm invited to like 20% more a year what with all this gay marrying.
I think we need to ban all marriage between everyone or make it 'only those within walking distance are invited', because I'm tired of having to drive out of state to see two people I barely know tie the catering hall knot.
If you know me and you're reading this, don't make me go to your wedding. It's cute once in awhile, but ten weddings in a year? I've already spent like two grand on gifts in '08. This $#!t isn't funny anymore! Cut it out! I could have stayed in a penthouse at Gen Con for that money, sleeping on a bed of fresh plucked daffodils. I could have bought a front row seat to Vic and Lisa's Star Wars home theater and put my feet up on a rented human ottoman. I could have finally afforded to produce that nude sugar cereal calendar I've always wanted... twelve straight months of bare me-dom floating in kiddie pools of exotic crispy wafers and soy milk. Rumor has it I'm cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs. Certifiably so, even.
That's my only soy beef with the whole issue.
|
|
While these will always be subject to discussion, that does not mean that in the concrete people will not be able to come to consensus about reaching such thresholds, and individuals do so every time they explicitly, critically commit themselves to a proposition. And insistence itself does not insulate positions from objections, criticisms, etc. The existence of opposing prop's or POVs do not in themselves provide more than prima facie evidence that an argument/interpretation is defeated, and on examination, such oppositions either bear fruit or are discovered to be weak. Cumulative case arguments are what constitute and manifest cumulative evidence and converging lines of evidence. I don't think it is particularly helpful to consider them in the abstract. To see it, you need concrete examples of how multiple particulars are brought together to know something.
Shift that to "that should not mean" and you have it.
As to Kirth's engines, they are only "demonstrable" given unprovable first principles like, "sense perception is generally reliable". Otherwise, who knows that there are engines, that they are firing, that Kirth is observing them, etc. Without faith, Kirth observes no engine, working or otherwise.
I was addressing the how they work, not just that they work.
Even accepting that we are observing the same object and function, how do we come to agree on what is making it function?
So it, too, is a useful tool -- a faith tool, rather than a scientific one, if you prefer. But it demonstrably works.
I have no problem with people getting something out of religion. What I have a problem with is when they use their religion as a basis of proof they are righter than I.
Of course, I must admit that I am just as guilty of using my own sense of right and wrong.
While these will always be subject to discussion, that does not mean that in the concrete people will not be able to come to consensus about reaching such thresholds, and individuals do so every time they explicitly, critically commit themselves to a proposition. And insistence itself does not insulate positions from objections, criticisms, etc. The existence of opposing prop's or POVs do not in themselves provide more than prima facie evidence that an argument/interpretation is defeated, and on examination, such oppositions either bear fruit or are discovered to be weak. Cumulative case arguments are what constitute and manifest cumulative evidence and converging lines of evidence. I don't think it is particularly helpful to consider them in the abstract. To see it, you need concrete examples of how multiple particulars are brought together to know something.Shift that to "that should not mean" and you have it.
As to Kirth's engines, they are only "demonstrable" given unprovable first principles like, "sense perception is generally reliable". Otherwise, who knows that there are engines, that they are firing, that Kirth is observing them, etc. Without faith, Kirth observes no engine, working or otherwise.I was addressing the how they work, not just that they work.
Even accepting that we are observing the same object and function, how do we come to agree on what is making it function?
I think I take your point: "does not mean and should not mean," then.
On your second, my point is that we cannot even get to how they work without this implicit knowledge, this faith, that allows us to know that they work. This is an assertion that, critically speaking, one does not have a right to if one rules out faith in principle and pledges allegiance to some kind of unrealistic, nay impossible, notion of what constitutes proof in the practical realm.
So it, too, is a useful tool -- a faith tool, rather than a scientific one, if you prefer. But it demonstrably works.I have no problem with people getting something out of religion. What I have a problem with is when they use their religion as a basis of proof they are righter than I.
True, but I've noticed in my life that the secular left is trying to push their agenda on to me MUCH more than what the religious right is trying to do.
|
|
I think I take your point: "does not mean and should not mean," then.
On your second, my point is that we cannot even get to how they work without this implicit knowledge, this faith, that allows us to know that they work. This is an assertion that, critically speaking, one does not have a right to if one rules out faith in principle and pledges allegiance to some kind of unrealistic, nay impossible, notion of what constitutes proof in the practical realm.
I believe we have agreement.
True, but I've noticed in my life that the secular left is trying to push their agenda on to me MUCH more than what the religious right is trying to do.
And I have noticed the exact opposite.
True, but I've noticed in my life that the secular left is trying to push their agenda on to me MUCH more than what the religious right is trying to do.
(Shrug) I notice the opposite, too -- no funds for stem cell research, bans on gay marriage... all examples of things that are prohibited only because the lawmakers choose to follow Abrahamic religions.
-- no funds for [embryonic] stem cell research,
See now, that kind of thing just drives me nuts. Why does everyone assume they DESERVE to get government funding for some project? If you get it, great, that is a bonus not an expectation.
True, but I've noticed in my life that the secular left is trying to push their agenda on to me MUCH more than what the religious right is trying to do.(Shrug) I notice the opposite, too -- no funds for stem cell research, bans on gay marriage... all examples of things that are prohibited only because the lawmakers choose to follow Abrahamic religions.
FYI Kirth, there are many cultures(past & present) that are not for gay marriage that are not associated with the Abrahamic religions.
|
|
FYI Kirth, there are many cultures(past & present) that are not for gay marriage that are not associated with the Abrahamic religions.True, but I've noticed in my life that the secular left is trying to push their agenda on to me MUCH more than what the religious right is trying to do.(Shrug) I notice the opposite, too -- no funds for stem cell research, bans on gay marriage... all examples of things that are prohibited only because the lawmakers choose to follow Abrahamic religions.
Well the only one that directlt oppose it is Sikhism. That being said Taoism does say it is necessary to pass on your genes but has no instructions thereafter on the subject, buddhism is really against all sex in general, and in hinduism their deities involved themselves in many different types of strange relations with animals, same genders and even switching genders to be in a relationship with another deity. That being said there is one (out of a lot different sects of hinduism) that does disagree totally with homosexuality even though the subject is never broached in their holy books (come on this is the religion that gave us Karma Sutra).
I thought this thread died like a month ago...
I thought this thread died like a month ago...
We all still have more of our own agenda to push on others.
Somewhere along the way it ended up getting hijacked from it's original purpose.
[sarcasm] Shocking. [/sarcasm]
Who are you? The Stay On Topic police?
Whatever else one thinks of Mormons, any cursory study of them will reveal that they are very American, indeed. The movement is inexplicable except in terms of its American context.Except there are more Mormons outside the United States then in it.
Actually thats not True, There are still more Mormons IN the US than out. (although south american is growing considerably)
See now, that kind of thing just drives me nuts. Why does everyone assume they DESERVE to get government funding for some project? If you get it, great, that is a bonus not an expectation.
So why are churches tax-exempt? Wait, don't answer that.
Anyway, I think stem-cell research deserves funding because I'm unabashedly, selfishly American. I want US to have the cutting-edge technology and medical science and the jobs that go with them. We lost the car industry to Japan, and much of the aerospace industry to places like Sweden. Why give up the biomedical fields to Singapore as well?|
|
The LDS Church would disagree.Actually thats not True, There are still more Mormons IN the US than out. (although south american is growing considerably)Whatever else one thinks of Mormons, any cursory study of them will reveal that they are very American, indeed. The movement is inexplicable except in terms of its American context.Except there are more Mormons outside the United States then in it.The Church is also growing more diverse internationally. More than half of all Church members now reside outside of the United States, a milestone that was reached on 25 February 1996.
Granted, if you were to do a country by country census, the United States would have the largest single country membership, but that was not what I was referencing.
|
|
See now, that kind of thing just drives me nuts. Why does everyone assume they DESERVE to get government funding for some project? If you get it, great, that is a bonus not an expectation.So why are churches tax-exempt? Wait, don't answer that.
For the same reason that groups that push stem cell research, gay marriage, abortion, and athism are tax exempt. Because it's the only way to prevent the government from circumventing the First Ammendment by placing punitive taxes on people they disagree with, on either side of the aisle.
I had to answer to explain it to the people who may not understand it. I know that you already do Kirth.
Heck I could make a non-profit organization, that picks weeds out of senior citizens front yards, and I'd be tax exempt too.
You cant tax a church because they are no "organized" that way.It just paperwork, even those "send me all your money" TV churches are tax excempt.
I say people who don't like hotdogs are "un-american", but It's not a political statement.
Anyway on Gay Marriage. WHY do gays WANT to get married?
Marriage is defined as a union between man and woman, which is recognized by church and state.
Gay people do not fit the definition, so why do they want it?
Because when their significant other is dying in a hospital, they are excluded from being there with them when the hospital says "sorry family only" or that when their signficant other dies they aren't included in probate court for that persons possessions (ie the spouse automatically gets the house and the car, a boyfriend does not)
These are legal issues, which actually can be solved by getting the proper powers of attorney and executor of estates.
But that doesn't give the gay lover the recognition.
But I am sorry to say, that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
I can't get my college tutition paid by the United Negro Fund, because well, Im not Negro,sorry Im not born that way, oh well, move on.
Anyone (religion, gay, goths, people who play DnD) are free to do and/or say what they will, barring the breaking of civil law. However that does not entitle them to everything everyone else gets. (scholarships, marriage, whatever)
You are free to be different, but, by defination IF you are different, then you are not the same. No one is preventing gays from well being gay.
However Marriage is first and foremost a religious institution (it was a sacrament long before it wasacivil union) and there are no Scriptures of any religion I am aware of that Says that God, Allah or Yaweh (what ever you choose to call him), supports the union of same sex couples.
With that being said, God also gave everyone born on this earth,freedom of choice, which is also backed up by our constitution (founded on christtian principles largely because the founding fathers were themselves christian).
I, personally do not understand those who want/chose to be different, yet long and pine for the recognition/acceptance of main stream ideas like marriage.
If you beleive in Adam and Steve (which is your God given and Constitutional Right) who cares what others think, or believe about your living arrangements?
We, who beleive in Adam and Eve, have this thing called marriage, why can't Gays make their own thing? Why do they want our thing if, by principle and definition they do not beleive in it?
By the way, I am not familiar with the oriental (buddhism, shintosim etc) stance on gay marriage, what do they think?
Speaking from the gay side of the argument....... Fact is we deserve all 1100 marriage rights and benefits. And we also know of another time and another miniority group that a majority of people dictated the rights of a minority and it was a very dark part of history. We also had them yelling from pulpits that anyone with dark skin was the descendant of "Ham" the cursed son of Noah ..... And now they say that homosexuals are an abomination unto god, who should be persecuted and their way of life taken from them for practicing said sexuality. I think the greatest shame in this country is we have forced people to make a case for who they are and what they can't change.
Actually, no one said you have to be persecuted for your beliefs.
You cant belong to a church, that says it doesnt believe in gay marriage, and want to get married it in, that just doesnt make logical sense.
You can do and say as you believe. Anyone who prevents you from doing this is an abomination unto God. Gay Marriage is an abomination unto God. Both topics can be found in the Bible.
This country and it's laws were founded on Biblical Beliefs. They are inseparable unless you want to discuss ending this consitution and writting a new one.
There are many Scripture references to "dark skin" as a curse from God.(lamanities and sons of Cain also come to mind)A mark on ones' appearance however does not make one a slave with no rights (not found in the scriptures anywhere). It is merely a reminder of the sins of forefathers (as I understand said "curse")
If you believe in God, then you believe these things, as you believe Gay marriage is and abomination unto him (so is breaking any commandment, stealing, killing and cheating on your wife to name a few)
.
If you do not believe in God (again your right to choose, Ironically give to you by him) Then you do not care about this topic anyway, so why does the idea of your life style being an abomination offend you, bother you or what not?
you quote 1100 rights of marriage (what are the top 100, Im not sure Im getting all my rights)
Why are you so angry that Christians who oppose gay marriage have a larger lobby than you? Just lobby for 1100 rights to be added into law and call it Gay union, Or homosexual-partership or whatever you want.
It will never be marriage, but if all you want is those 1100 rights, go to court, and get it lobbied to be recognized as a law.
You dont think Mormons (and christians in general) did not live through hardships, persecution, extermination and humiliation when they were the minority?
"Americans" of the 1800s took farms, money, property and lives from the Mormons because of their marriage beleifs (that were poligamist at the time, which was changed by "The Manifesto" of chruch President Woodruff in the late 1800s and now the LDS Church is Monogamist)
The Mormons have spent over 100 years fighting for what THEY beleive, why is it wrong that they now have success and power? Why should you and those who beleive what you do not do the same work as others before you have?
Has anyone taken your house from you, your livestock or your car because you are Gay?
That HAS happened to Mormons and African Americans, who blazed that trial before Gay marriage was an issue.
Who will come after YOU? Once Gays have what they want, who then?
Children?
Should we deny children the right to have what they want, Because they are young?
Is that Age descrimination?
A silly arguement in my mind, but if you look at it from the perspective that juvenille actors have long been robbed of their earnings by their own parents, simply because the law recognizes them as minors. It has a new meaning to whether children should have the rights of their parents and other citizens.
There will be more issues long after the one of Gay Marriage has been put to rest.
And they will have to fight against "the majority" as well.
Democracy, by definition is being ruled by the majority, dont like it, dont live in a democracy, but that same Democracy grants you the freedom you enjoy as well.
|
|
Heck I could make a non-profit organization, that picks weeds out of senior citizens front yards, and I'd be tax exempt too.
You cant tax a church because they are no "organized" that way.It just paperwork, even those "send me all your money" TV churches are tax excempt.
I say people who don't like hotdogs are "un-american", but It's not a political statement.
Anyway on Gay Marriage. WHY do gays WANT to get married?
Marriage is defined as a union between man and woman, which is recognized by church and state.Gay people do not fit the definition, so why do they want it?
Because when their significant other is dying in a hospital, they are excluded from being there with them when the hospital says "sorry family only" or that when their signficant other dies they aren't included in probate court for that persons possessions (ie the spouse automatically gets the house and the car, a boyfriend does not)These are legal issues, which actually can be solved by getting the proper powers of attorney and executor of estates.
But that doesn't give the gay lover the recognition.But I am sorry to say, that God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
I can't get my college tutition paid by the United Negro Fund, because well, Im not Negro,sorry Im not born that way, oh well, move on.
Anyone (religion, gay, goths, people who play DnD) are free to do and/or say what they will, barring the breaking of civil law. However that does not entitle them to everything everyone else gets. (scholarships, marriage, whatever)
You are free to be different, but, by defination IF you are different, then you are not the same. No one is preventing gays from well being gay.
However Marriage is first and foremost a religious institution (it was a sacrament long before it wasacivil union) and there are no Scriptures of any religion I am aware of that Says that God, Allah or Yaweh (what ever you choose to call him), supports the union of same sex couples.
With that being said, God also gave everyone born on this...
Sorry have to stop you there marriage isn't regulated by the church it is regulated by the state. The state is to whom you buy marriage licenses from, and the state issues licenses to those who wish to perform marriages. If the church wishes to define what marriage is then they shouldn't have given up regulation of marriage.
our constitution (founded on christtian principles largely because the founding fathers were themselves christian).
Sorry to have to be the one... the U.S. Constitution (to which I assume the "our" refers to, Brits and other Europeans, Aussis, etc. on this site notwithstanding) is founded on a number of sources: English Common Law and Enlightenment thinking among them. One can hardly say it was founded on "Christian Principles" unless the claim is that Christianity somehow has a trademark on representative government (the notion of which a perusal of the Bible will quickly dispel). Likewise, a persusal of the Constitution yields no mention of God, Jesus, Heaven, Sin, or any other religious concept, Christian or otherwise.
Also, the fact that SOME of the Founders were outspokenly Christian (John Jay, Patrick Henry, et al.) says nothing of the ones who quite self-admittedly were Deists instead (Thomas Jefferson, et al.), or the ones who were what you could call CINOs ("Christians in Name Only," mostly because their wives dragged them to church). That's something of a detour, though, because the (varied) religious orientation of the Founders says nothing about the Constitution itself, which I've already covered.
What I want to know is why people who eat bacon can get married. I mean, they have made their souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which god has separated from us as unclean.
Those damn, dirty bacon eaters.
Those damn, dirty bacon eaters.
Gentiles can eat bacon, silly (and shellfish, too). The whole point of being Christian, as I understand it, is that following the Old Testament rules was too hard (although Jews seem to still be expected to do it: people figure they're like Frodo with the ring, I suppose).
Then why do some Christians use Old Testament law to support their bias against homosexuals?
Then why do some Christians use Old Testament law to support their bias against homosexuals?
And why do they worry so much about that splinter, while ignoring the beams in their own eyes? Well, nobody ever said they always practiced what they preach.
Well, nobody ever said they always practiced what they preach.
Point.
Or that they even got the message for that matter.
|
|
Gentiles can eat bacon, silly (and shellfish, too). The whole point of being Christian, as I understand it, is that following the Old Testament rules was too hard (although Jews seem to still be expected to do it: people figure they're like Frodo with the ring, I suppose).
Yeah . . .
No.A Christian can explain their side of it.
Jews follow the law because they are agreed to serve as a light unto the nations by following the much stricter Mosaic Laws, instead of just following the Noahide Laws that are for everyone. Just because Christianity came along does not mean that agreement is null and void.
This country and it's laws were founded on Biblical Beliefs. They are inseparable unless you want to discuss ending this consitution and writing a new one.
I don't know what Constitution you're looking at or who's founding father's you're reading about, but America's founding fathers were profoundly secular.
Fact: The word God is not mentioned in the Constitution even once. Religion is mentioned only twice and both time to limit it's power. First we have article 6
"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Notice that it doesn't say that you can't be religious. It's saying that religion should have no bearing in the government.
Fact: The first words of the first sentence of the first amendment say:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Notice that the FIRST statement is to limit religion, only THEN do they say that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want. But the FIRST statement is that the government does not support religion.
But what about the attitudes of the founding fathers? Let's look at Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist.
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
Yes, the separation of church and state is real. It should be noted that this letter was in response to the Danbury Baptist who were afraid that the US would promote some other religion than theirs. It was the Baptist, the religious folks, who wanted the separation to exist.
But maybe that's not clear enough. So let's continue to look at the writing of the founding fathers. How about the Treaty of Tripoli which was written by George Washington, signed by John Adams, and ratified unanimously. Article 11 of the treaty of Tripoli says:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Let's look closely at that first sentence:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;
The facts seem to contradict your assumption that "This country and it's laws were founded on Biblical Beliefs." But more importantly, a secular nation is a nation which guarantees the MOST freedom for all Americans. In a secular nation you are guaranteed the freedom to worship as you please. But you can't force that religion on others just as they cannot force their religion upon you. So the moment you start talking about how we should put the Bible into our laws and our political process should reflect your personal religious views you're out of the conversation. Done, That's it, gone. You have no right AT ALL to force any of your religious beliefs on anyone.
I however, have every right to fight for the rights of ALL Americans because I believe in equal rights for everyone. As our 14th amendment put it:
"no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"
If the state provides community property protection and the right to make medical decisions for my spouse then it should provide the same rights for ALL spouses.
Notice that as an atheist I'm fighting for equal rights for EVERYONE because my morality comes from an empathy for other human beings.
However, the religious sense of morality that is fighting against equal rights for gay people is saying "there is a subset of Americans who should not have the same rights as the rest of us".
And that is the very definition of bigotry.
|
|
This country and it's laws were founded on Biblical Beliefs. They are inseparable unless you want to discuss ending this consitution and writing a new one.
I don't know what Constitution you're looking at or who's founding father's you're reading about, but America's founding fathers were profoundly secular.
Fact: The word God is not mentioned in the Constitution even once. Religion is mentioned only twice and both time to limit it's power. First we have article 6
"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
Notice that it doesn't say that you can't be religious. It's saying that religion should have no bearing in the government.
Fact: The first words of the first sentence of the first amendment say:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Notice that the FIRST statement is to limit religion, only THEN do they say that everyone has the right to believe whatever they want. But the FIRST statement is that the government does not support religion.
Okay, I know I said that I was gone, but you sucked me back in. You have misunderstood both Article Six and the First Ammendment. In no way did the founders intend either of these sections to be a limit on religion. First lets take a look at Article Six. You only provided half the story. The reason that this article exists is because several states, like Massachussets, had laws either requiring, or forbidding membership in a certain church for office holders. Article Six is intended to say that the government is open to all people, regardless of what church they attend. It was not intended to say that religion has no bearing on government, as has been suggested.
The first Ammendment is even more clear. The entire purpose of the First Ammendment, and indeed the entire Bill of Rights, was to place limits on government's influnce into people's lives. There is no limit on religion in the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," there is a limit on the power of government.
The First Ammendment was entirely intended to prevent the government from infringing on the rights of the people by establishing a state religion and forcing all to join it. In fact, the very idea that you are advancing, that somehow the First Ammendment is a limit on religion, was the very fear that almost caused it not to pass. As a result, they proposed changing the wording to read "national religion" but then changed it back because many anti-Federalists felt that the phrase "national religion" implied that the federal government was an all powerful central government. In the end the wrote it the way they did because they felt that the wording clearly indicated that they meant Congress would not making any laws "touching religion or infringing the rights of conscience."
D@mmit! I was going to post last time sarcastically when David said that, and I didn't. Sigh.