I have read the New and Old testament several times without believing that Jesus was some sort of peace loving liberal hippie and when you read it like that you walk away with a different understanding than you would otherwise.
Well, if you're of the opinion that Jesus came here to die because orthodox Judiasm wasn't oppressive enough as is, and needed more by laws, stonings, and treating non-Jews like crap, then I suppose that is a valid view.
I am free from all sin. :)
Most especially Pride, right? :P
Well, you're welcome. Christianity is supposed to free people from sin, not oppress them because of it.Weel, I find the best way to free people from sin, is to free them from the concept of sin. ;-)
lol nice :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am free from all sin. :)Most especially Pride, right? :P
Gay pride takes another meaning. They don't sin because they are gay, they sin because of the pride!
PROP 8 results
Votes Percentage
Yes 7,001,084 52.24%
No 6,401,482 47.76%Valid votes 13,402,566 97.52%
Invalid or blank votes 340,611 2.48%
Total votes 13,743,177 100.00%
Voter turnout 79.42%
Electorate 17,304,428The population of California 37,691,912
Just b/c I agree to civil unions that does not mean the constitution can be used to change the definition of Marriage, a Sacrament in the Christian Church. Its a Sacrament not a right to get Married.
Saying most people who are for Prop 8 are hateful and bigoted is just wrong. It creates animosity for those you name call.
Lol, they are not hateful at all, just non-caring for other peoples feelings, what is their problem anyway?
Let people be who they want to be and live your own life instead of limiting other peoples happiness and future, its just pathetic to put so many energy in making other peoples (gays in this case) lives miserable...
Tomayto, tomahto.Well, you're welcome. Christianity is supposed to free people from sin, not oppress them because of it.Weel, I find the best way to free people from sin, is to free them from the concept of sin. ;-)
I don't think so. Guilt is a powerfull tool in the hands of those who promote sin as a moral concept. If you refuse the concept of sin, you also get rid of guilt and can have a healty morality, based upon the search for good, and not on the need for not feeling guilty.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cold hard fact about the Bible...
It has been re-written and edited more times than any other book in history. Why was this done? Subjugate the masses? Clarify the wording? Try and point people in the direction/belief that those that read the book in the direction they wanted them to go?
There are many, many, many parts of the bible that have been tossed out because it did not fit into someones belief system. The bible is as simple a book as L.Ron Hubbard's book of Scientology. In a thousand years someone MAY say IT is the book to believe and follow. Someone could just as easily say Catcher in the Rye is the book to follow.
In the end everything in that book has been twisted to a point of view of someone else. Are WE as humans 100% sure that what is in the bible is 100% FACT? NO!
The book has also been translated from many languages. Jesus or his follows did not speak English and it is SO easy to change a word and misrepresent a word when translating from a language that was common in the region, to one that did not exist at the time.
So who is to REALLY say that homosexuality was wrong? It wasn't wrong until a Caesar of Rome decided it was wrong and then everything went to Hell an a hand basket and started to subjugate the masses.
I've heard stories say it was written and found that Jesus had a male lover. He also had a wife yet others will say he did not. Who is to really say?
If the Christian God thinks it is all so wrong... why has he not whipped the human race off the face of the planet?
When it all comes down to it, Equality for ALL.. all MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. If you take that literal, then only a Male will be treated equal. If you take it to mean what it is suppose to mean men = Human beings, then everyone is equal to everyone and is to be treated exactly like everyone else. I get 1 piece of candy, you get 1 piece of candy. You get to vote, I get to vote. Etc...
I don't think so. Guilt is a powerfull tool in the hands of those who promote sin as a moral concept. If you refuse the concept of sin, you also get rid of guilt and can have a healty morality, based upon the search for good, and not on the need for not feeling guilty.Tomayto, tomahto.Well, you're welcome. Christianity is supposed to free people from sin, not oppress them because of it.Weel, I find the best way to free people from sin, is to free them from the concept of sin. ;-)
Yes, that is true that it can be, and it has been.
I'm saying that Jesus came to fix that, so that the individual was responsible for his or her own spiritual health, no one else. Instead of having to go through a priest, you can pray or worship (or not) directly.Jesus' intent, I believe, was to remove the middle man. "Organized religion" did not agree, however.
EDIT: My point being, "guilt trip control" is not the intention.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See, here's the thing:
I love the idea of dividing civil unions and marriages. I think gay individuals shouldn't be denied the legal rights associated with a government marriage.
I'm also for that division because in my Church, marriage isn't just "who do you want to hang with until you die," it's one of the sacred ordinances associated with exaltation. I'd explain more about that but it would take for-frikkin'-ever, so let's just say it's important.
See if we separated civil and religious marriages, everyone gets what they want and no one gets mistreated. But that's not the way they're doing it.
In America, the law makes no distinction between a church wedding and a legal wedding in practice, so if you changed the definition of marriage right now, it would have far-reaching effects beyond simple equality-of-choice. Also, people have started government training programs and school curriculum that teaches that anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot akin to a racist, and that's also really, really not good.
See I'm all for equality, but the way these people are trying to do it, with the laws of the United States being what they are, it's in essence knocking down the doors of my Church and informing me the Government is going to mandate my doctrine.
A church doesn't want to loan out their hall for a gay marriage? No one would bat an eyelid if, say, they didn't believe in drinking and didn't loan their hall out for Octoberfest, but since it's gay marriage the only reason they said no MUST be because they're bigots, so they get closed down. Maybe they were bigots, maybe not, but the distinction was never brought up. So what happens when my Church, who CANNOT change their marriage ceremonies without spiting in God's eye, is forced to deny a gay couple use of their facilities for a marriage? You can see why I'm worried.
Everyone in the US being treated equally? Awesome.
Telling me to change my doctrine or else you'll teach my children, their friends and my co-workers that it must be because I'm a 'horrible bigot'? Not so awesome.
I'm all for equality, but in our zeal to fight bigotry let's not become a bunch of bigots ourselves.
Speaking as a Canadian, when I married my wife, I did so in a church, so that I could be married in the eyes of my faith, as that was important to us.
Then we paused during the ceremony to sign some papers so we could be married in the eyes of the Government, otherwise we wouldn't be married in the eyes of the Government, which would lead to all sorts of problems.
Both at once.
However, all that is really required for people to be considered married is the government part. What various faiths opinions on gay marriage are, however, should have nothing to do with whether or not the government recognizes it.
Faiths still have the right to say whether they will recognize/perform the marriage. But that shouldn't stop two people who want to legally join together from being legally joined together.
Whatever you want to call it (marriage, partnership, civil union) doesn't matter.
This clears up so many issues: inheritance, divorce, control over health decisions, stewardship of children, health benefits, that I can't imagine why a government hasn't done it before. Other than a fear of being voted out by people who don't agree with it, but also, are not going to be affected by it.
My 2 (probably more) cents.
Cainus,
That's actually how it works in the US as well. I'm not sure if you have to sign the papers during the ceremony or whether it's done before or after, but that doesn't really matter.
No religious official needs to be involved in the marriage at all.But religious groups have a lot of influence in the US and some of them use that influence to keep gay marriage illegal. Many also work to prevent civil unions.
So basically your last point is right. It's all about the "fear of being voted out by people who don't agree with it". Or about being able to boost turnout among your supporters by drumming up fear of teh gay.
Exactly, me being married by my faith was my CHOICE.
Me being married by the government was the LAW.I chose to combine the two, but I only really needed the one (government, if that wasn't clear).
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would suggest to all the people opposed to gay marriage: Dont ever have one, then.
See, here's the thing:
I love the idea of dividing civil unions and marriages. I think gay individuals shouldn't be denied the legal rights associated with a government marriage.
I'm also for that division because in my Church, marriage isn't just "who do you want to hang with until you die," it's one of the sacred ordinances associated with exaltation. I'd explain more about that but it would take for-frikkin'-ever, so let's just say it's important.
See if we separated civil and religious marriages, everyone gets what they want and no one gets mistreated. But that's not the way they're doing it.
In America, the law makes no distinction between a church wedding and a legal wedding in practice, so if you changed the definition of marriage right now, it would have far-reaching effects beyond simple equality-of-choice. Also, people have started government training programs and school curriculum that teaches that anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot akin to a racist, and that's also really, really not good.
See I'm all for equality, but the way these people are trying to do it, with the laws of the United States being what they are, it's in essence knocking down the doors of my Church and informing me the Government is going to mandate my doctrine.
A church doesn't want to loan out their hall for a gay marriage? No one would bat an eyelid if, say, they didn't believe in drinking and didn't loan their hall out for Octoberfest, but since it's gay marriage the only reason they said no MUST be because they're bigots, so they get closed down. Maybe they were bigots, maybe not, but the distinction was never brought up. So what happens when my Church, who CANNOT change their marriage ceremonies without spiting in God's eye, is forced to deny a gay couple use of their facilities for a marriage? You can see why I'm worried.
Everyone in the US being treated equally? Awesome.
Telling me to change my doctrine or else you'll teach my children, their friends and my co-workers that it must be...
You're a Mormon. We get it.
Your strawmen just aren't convincing.
I'm saying that Jesus came to fix that, so that the individual was responsible for his or her own spiritual health, no one else.
With all due respect, how can you be responsible for your own spiritual health if you depend on another person (Jesus) to do so? And if his aim was indeed that one, does not that mean that you should now be able to do it without him?
Nope.
From a Christian standpoint, He is the reason to have spiritual health.
So the removal of middle men are the ones between you and him.
Obviously different faiths and philosphys do not agree.
I'm saying that Jesus came to fix that, so that the individual was responsible for his or her own spiritual health, no one else.With all due respect, how can you be responsible for your own spiritual health if you depend on another person (Jesus) to do so? And if his aim was indeed that one, does not that mean that you should now be able to do it without him?
Many authors make a decent living writing Self-help books for other people.
In an attempt to contribute more than snark to the thread, and maybe refute the "All Republicans=Enemy" theme earlier, I'll link to this:
Representative Maureen Walsh (R, Washington state) on marriage equality
From a Christian standpoint, He is the reason to have spiritual health.
Why?
Can anybody tell me why anybody cares about ANY marriage anymore? Do gay people really want gay divorce and gay alimony to? If so let them have it. As a white, heterosexual male I can't find any good reason to sign half my crap away. If you want to "fix" marriage take the goverment out of all marriage. Gay, hetero, plural, the goverment wouldn't recognize any partnership and grant no benefits. If people want to be married in a legal sense they can get a lawyer and draw up a contract explaining explicitly what the "partners" expect from the arrangement and what it takes to disolve said arrangement. Thus divorce court would cease to extist. Everything would be settled by this "prenuptial agreement". See was that so hard?
For obvious reasons, to a Christian.
Eternal life in the presence of God is only possible through acknowledgement of Jesus' role in securing your salvation, and living your life accordingly.
What other spiritual health would you need?
|
|
For obvious reasons, to a Christian.
Eternal life in the presence of God is only possible through acknowledgement of Jesus' role in securing your salvation, and living your life accordingly.
What other spiritual health would you need?
No... I'm a Good warrior and Odin will reward me thus by allowing me to go to Valhalla and live on there with all the best Meade I can drink
If you truly believe that, more power to ya.
Only if you die in battle. If you die a straw death, it's off to Hel, regardless of how valiant you were before.No... I'm a Good warrior and Odin will reward me thus by allowing me to go to Valhalla and live on there with all the best Meade I can drinkFor obvious reasons, to a Christian.
Eternal life in the presence of God is only possible through acknowledgement of Jesus' role in securing your salvation, and living your life accordingly.
What other spiritual health would you need?
Tie me to a post like Enkidu, that's close enough!
I'm also for that division because in my Church, marriage isn't just "who do you want to hang with until you die," it's one of the sacred ordinances associated with exaltation. I'd explain more about that but it would take for-frikkin'-ever, so let's just say it's important.
This is going to sound blunt, but it isn't. I don't care. By that I mean, what you do in your church is your business. You can believe whatever you want. I do not believe in god. My religious freedom's deserve just as much protection as yours. Any argument that uses a religious belief has no place in this discussion. Because if there is a religious belief as the foundation, it cannot be used as an argument for the law that rules over me, because that would impinge on my religious freedom.
A church doesn't want to loan out their hall for a gay marriage? No one would bat an eyelid if, say, they didn't believe in drinking and didn't loan their hall out for Octoberfest, but since it's gay marriage the only reason they said no MUST be because they're bigots, so they get closed down. Maybe they were bigots, maybe not, but the distinction was never brought up. So what happens when my Church, who CANNOT change their marriage ceremonies without spiting in God's eye, is forced to deny a gay couple use of their facilities for a marriage? You can see why I'm worried.
No one is suggesting that a church has to open it's doors. In fact there already exists language in most "civil rights" legislation that exempts religious institutions, like Title VII. If the LDS instead fought to preserve such an exemption for religious institutions, no one would care.
As for other peoples perceptions of you, you get to choose your religion, so you have to decide which is more important, your soul or how other people look at you.
Also, the LDS promotes bigotry in other areas as well. It has a history of violence and cruelty. Part of that began as a reaction to the violence aimed towards them in their early history, but as an organization they have done some terrible things and continue to promote a closed-minded attitude. I felt this way before the issue of same-sex marriage and will continue to feel this way even if they change their position on it.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you truly believe that, more power to ya.
What makes Odin and Valhalla any less plausible than the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?
|
|
I have read the New and Old testament several times without believing that Jesus was some sort of peace loving liberal hippie and when you read it like that you walk away with a different understanding than you would otherwise.Well, if you're of the opinion that Jesus came here to die because orthodox Judiasm wasn't oppressive enough as is, and needed more by laws, stonings, and treating non-Jews like crap, then I suppose that is a valid view.
What they do believe is that Christ came to die for the past sins of people who followed the Old Testament and for future sins of those who choose to follow his addendum to the Old Testament. That was the pivotal role that Jesus served in the Christian tradition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you truly believe that, more power to ya.What makes Odin and Valhalla any less plausible than the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?
I'm curious as to why you felt the need to post this.
Did my response suggest that Icequeen could not worship Odin, or that doing so would be a waste of her time or somehow invalid? Or is it possible that I was saying "if that's what you truly believe, more power to ya" and nothing more? Is there a reason to see conflict where none exists?Does this make you a happier person? Does it somehow validate you more, to come up with the snarkiest possible version of a person's faith and post it on the internet? Do you get money or something? What am I missing here? What possible motivation do you have for this?
Straw Man.What they do believe is that Christ came to die for the past sins of people who followed the Old Testament and for future sins of those who choose to follow his addendum to the Old Testament. That was the pivotal role that Jesus served in the Christian tradition.
Well, how is that a straw man? I'm not setting up something you've not said to invalidate your claim.
You have said, and quoted scripture to suggest that Jesus wants Christians to act like total asshats to other people if they have sinned, or that it is totally proper for them to act that way, and apparently use legislation to make other people's lives hell.My comments suggested that's what life was already like for Jews before Jesus got here. Non-Jews were treated like crap, people got stoned for breaking the rules, persecuted for not being Jewish enough, etc.
Jesus died for our sins, so Jew and Gentile alike didn't have red-tape for salvation anymore. No more needing to petition a high preist to talk to God, no more having to buy or sacrifice your own live stock to absolve sin, etc. The power was given to the individual to seek his own salvation through Jesus, or not to seek it at all. To live as they wanted to live, not as a theocrasy would mandate you live. Live as you would, doing no harm to others, not concerning yourself with the little things we all do that make us different.
Today we have Christians who make it thier lifes work to make sure gay marriage, among other things, doesn't happen, in the name of their faith. I think this is wrong.
PROP 8 results
Votes Percentage
Yes 7,001,084 52.24%
No 6,401,482 47.76%Valid votes 13,402,566 97.52%
Invalid or blank votes 340,611 2.48%
Total votes 13,743,177 100.00%
Voter turnout 79.42%
Electorate 17,304,428The population of California 37,691,912
Just b/c I agree to civil unions that does not mean the constitution can be used to change the definition of Marriage, a Sacrament in the Christian Church. Its a Sacrament not a right to get Married.
What does a legal decision by the state of California have to do with the rites of "the Christian Church" (as though such a thing exists)? Ironically, many Christian churches don't even use the word "sacrament" at all.
You can post voter percentages all you want. It doesn't matter one bit. The people do not get to vote on rights. That's why they're called rights. People can't team up to take them away from you.
Please read up on tyranny of the majority. And please stop trying to shove your religious beliefs down others' throats by using them to justify the establishment of laws. You don't get to do that. We get that you love the Bible and everything in it. Your love of the Bible DOES NOT trump the rights of others.
Saying most people who are for Prop 8 are hateful and bigoted is just wrong. It creates animosity for those you name call.Good.
Supporting Proposition 8 is hateful and bigoted, or shamefully (and likely arrogantly) ignorant. Either way, the people who support(ed) it are poor citizens, and even worse Christians. Speaking as a Christian myself, please stop giving us a bad name. It's getting to the point where I'm ashamed to label myself that because it means I'm somehow associated with Christians like you.
It's times like this where I begin to understand how religious wars were fought. Strong enough religious belief precludes mutual understanding. Where...
Scott, I just want to take this opportunity to say, "hell yeah". Please, provide paypal details so I can give you money to buy your self a beer, from me. It's nice to pleasantly surprised by a Christian.
[I'm curious as to why you felt the need to post this.
Is there a reason to see conflict where none exists? Does this make you a happier person? Does it somehow validate you more, to come up with the snarkiest possible version of a person's faith and post it on the internet? Do you get money or something? What am I missing here? What possible motivation do you have for this?
I may be wrong, but I'm guessing that post was intended for the more literal-minded Old Testament-loving Scripturalists out there.
And how is that different if they had passed the amendment before the marriages had ever been deemed legal? Wouldn't an amendment, like what several other states already have, that defined marriage as between one man and one woman be doing exactly this already? So how can they rule that this situation is unconstitutional but the other situations are not?
From 2005-2008, same-sex marriage was legal.
The prop 8 amendment did not annul those marriages. People who were married between 2005-2008 would remain married.
Now, same-sex marriage was no longer legal, but people already married would remain married.
You now have two classes of people. Those who were allowed to be married and those who weren't. The appellate court decided that it is federally unconstitutional because this creates two classes of people.
This wouldn't apply to any other state, unless that state had a similar time-line.
I appreciate your view, but I don't think it is really the issue. When drinking age laws were changed, you still had 18, 19, and 20 year olds drinking because they had been "grandfathered in" and 18 year olds that were just a day younger that could not. I don't think having some people for who the hold law applies and others for who the new law applies is as unconstitutional as you are suggesting.
I may be wrong, but I'm guessing that post was intended for the more literal-minded Old Testament-loving Scripturalists out there.
Ahh, ok.
I appreciate your view, but I don't think it is really the issue. When drinking age laws were changed, you still had 18, 19, and 20 year olds drinking because they had been "grandfathered in" and 18 year olds that were just a day younger that could not. I don't think having some people for who the hold law applies and others for who the new law applies is as unconstitutional as you are suggesting.
You're still ignoring that the law created two classes of people. Teenagers will eventually be 21. There are no more 18 year olds who are grandfathered in.
|
|
Straw Man.What they do believe is that Christ came to die for the past sins of people who followed the Old Testament and for future sins of those who choose to follow his addendum to the Old Testament. That was the pivotal role that Jesus served in the Christian tradition.
Well, how is that a straw man? I'm not setting up something you've not said to invalidate your claim.
You have said, and quoted scripture to suggest that Jesus wants Christians to act like total asshats to other people if they have sinned, or that it is totally proper for them to act that way, and apparently use legislation to make other people's lives hell.My comments suggested that's what life was already like for Jews before Jesus got here. Non-Jews were treated like crap, people got stoned for breaking the rules, persecuted for not being Jewish enough, etc.
Jesus died for our sins, so Jew and Gentile alike didn't have red-tape for salvation anymore. No more needing to petition a high preist to talk to God, no more having to buy or sacrifice your own live stock to absolve sin, etc. The power was given to the individual to seek his own salvation through Jesus, or not to seek it at all. To live as they wanted to live, not as a theocrasy would mandate you live. Live as you would, doing no harm to others, not concerning yourself with the little things we all do that make us different.
Today we have Christians who make it thier lifes work to make sure gay marriage, among other things, doesn't happen, in the name of their faith. I think this is wrong.
You said:
Well, if you're of the opinion that Jesus came here to die because orthodox Judiasm wasn't oppressive enough as is, and needed more by laws, stonings, and treating non-Jews like crap, then I suppose that is a valid view.
I never claimed anything remotely like this as a representation of the evangelicals that you accuse of not understanding Christ's teachings. I merely gave some passages from scripture that seem to suggest that Jesus merely gave rules as to how the spiritual should judge and that judging is expected in the Christian faith. You reinterpreted this by inventing a singular purpose that these particular Christians must believe if they do not believe like you and you made it absurd so that it would be easier to dismantle - its a straw man.
They believe that Jesus died for the sins of mankind. They do not believe that he came to invalidate the old law but rather to revise punishments. The old law punishes homosexuals with execution. As far as I know evangelical Christians aren't pushing for this. Nor are most of them pushing for making it illegal to be homosexual. So from that angle they are much more "liberal" than ancient Jews and early Christians. So they are actually LESS oppressive. So in other words, before Jesus, Jews stoned homosexuals, after Jesus converted Jews were supposed to preach to them about their sin and encourage them to seek salvation. There is no requirement that they support a government that allows them to wed and when they don't I am not surprised because I understand that they are just following the bigotry from their nontransparent contradictory bible.
Jesus died for our sins, so Jew and Gentile alike didn't have red-tape for salvation anymore. No more needing to petition a high preist to talk to God, no more having to buy or sacrifice your own live stock to absolve sin, etc. The power was given to the individual to seek his own salvation through Jesus, or not to seek it at all. To live as they wanted to live, not as a theocrasy would mandate you live. Live as you would, doing no harm to others, not concerning yourself with the little things we all do that make us different.
Early Christians certainly didn't go out of their way to offer their religion to gentiles. Not until Paul anyway (and he never even met Jesus).
Can anybody tell me why anybody cares about ANY marriage anymore? Do gay people really want gay divorce and gay alimony to? If so let them have it. As a white, heterosexual male I can't find any good reason to sign half my crap away. If you want to "fix" marriage take the goverment out of all marriage. Gay, hetero, plural, the goverment wouldn't recognize any partnership and grant no benefits. If people want to be married in a legal sense they can get a lawyer and draw up a contract explaining explicitly what the "partners" expect from the arrangement and what it takes to disolve said arrangement. Thus divorce court would cease to extist. Everything would be settled by this "prenuptial agreement". See was that so hard?Partly tradition. People like the idea of marriage and don't like thinking of it as a strictly legal contract. People do become couples with the expectation of it being permanent and it is a good thing to have a legal status to reflect that. As I said above: making a family, becoming related in a non-blood but equally important way.
Partly, under current law, you can't draw up a contract that actually replicates everything you might want out of marriage. Gay couples have been trying that end run around the laws for decades.
Plus having everyone make their own contracts just complicates the process and makes work for lawyers. Divorce court would cease to exist, but there would still be plenty of work for courts to interpret the contracts. I'm also bothered by the idea of romantic young kids getting talked into extremely strict contracts and not being able to get out if the relationship turns abusive. Like some of the Covenant marriage deals, but now legally enforced, not just religious.
If it's a tradition it's a dying one. Less people get married every year and those that do put it off til later and later in life. Gay marriage will happen nation wide eventually. Though by time it does nobody will get married anymore anyway.
Marriage in western society is just a heavily one sided contract. If you a guy good luck getting any justice in divorce court. If you don't have a prenup your screwed. If I could sell my "right" to marriage I would for a dollar. Any takers?|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can anybody tell me why anybody cares about ANY marriage anymore? Do gay people really want gay divorce and gay alimony to? If so let them have it. As a white, heterosexual male I can't find any good reason to sign half my crap away. If you want to "fix" marriage take the goverment out of all marriage. Gay, hetero, plural, the goverment wouldn't recognize any partnership and grant no benefits. If people want to be married in a legal sense they can get a lawyer and draw up a contract explaining explicitly what the "partners" expect from the arrangement and what it takes to disolve said arrangement. Thus divorce court would cease to extist. Everything would be settled by this "prenuptial agreement". See was that so hard?
Wow this would be so convoluted. Also, it would be harder for poor people to do this because they couldn't afford to hire lawyers to draw up these contracts. It is classist. The way it is now is easy. You have a ceremony (be it Christian, Atheist, Hindu, or no ceremony at all)...and then you file some paperwork for $50 down at the courthouse that legally gives your partner "closest living relative" status. It is much simpler this way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For obvious reasons, to a Christian.
Eternal life in the presence of God is only possible through acknowledgement of Jesus' role in securing your salvation, and living your life accordingly.
What other spiritual health would you need?
If eternal life is possible at all. What if not? Should I spend my life looking for something that may not exist? And if it really exist, why would a good god place people out of his reach even if they lived a good and moral life only because they did not aknowledge him and spend their time trying to live a good life instead?
|
Straw Man.What they do believe is that Christ came to die for the past sins of people who followed the Old Testament and for future sins of those who choose to follow his addendum to the Old Testament. That was the pivotal role that Jesus served in the Christian tradition.
Well, how is that a straw man? I'm not setting up something you've not said to invalidate your claim.
You have said, and quoted scripture to suggest that Jesus wants Christians to act like total asshats to other people if they have sinned, or that it is totally proper for them to act that way, and apparently use legislation to make other people's lives hell.My comments suggested that's what life was already like for Jews before Jesus got here. Non-Jews were treated like crap, people got stoned for breaking the rules, persecuted for not being Jewish enough, etc.
Jesus died for our sins, so Jew and Gentile alike didn't have red-tape for salvation anymore. No more needing to petition a high preist to talk to God, no more having to buy or sacrifice your own live stock to absolve sin, etc. The power was given to the individual to seek his own salvation through Jesus, or not to seek it at all. To live as they wanted to live, not as a theocrasy would mandate you live. Live as you would, doing no harm to others, not concerning yourself with the little things we all do that make us different.
Today we have Christians who make it thier lifes work to make sure gay marriage, among other things, doesn't happen, in the name of their faith. I think this is wrong.
What non-Jews are you talking about? Because the non-Jews that existed in Jesus’ time were ROMANS. Jews were not the majority, even in Israel, and any power they held was temporal and granted by the Romans. At best, the Kohanim that were in the Romans pockets could lord it over the lower class Jews in their community, which is where Jesus theoretically steps in. Also, there were no ORTHODOX Jews in this era either. Orthodox Judaism in its current form, which is kind of oppressive to women and paranoid about outsiders, has only existed for maybe 300 years. What existed in ancient Israel was the formal infancy of the Jewish Priesthood, which is about as close to orthodox Judaism as a Model T is to a Cadillac. I’m not trying to disprove your point but if we’re going to pick apart history and religion lets at least try to be “factual”. History being subjective and all that…
stuff
Ok then...
Your position (as I understand it) is:It's understandable if Christians act in a bigoted fashion towards homosexuals, because it's a sin, and their bible tells them they are supposed to act that way towards sinners.
Mine (My original point) is:
This is a missunderstanding, and I do not belive Jesus ever intended or thought it was ok for us to hate each other or use his teachings to justify this behavior for any reason. We (Christians) are supposed to act in a way that shows His love, which is most definately not bigotry.