Poll on Marriage (Fed vs State vs. Church)

[Phatscotty]

god is real because bible says so; the bible is real because god says so

Will you never understand, that just because there are screwed up people who do screwed up things in the name of God, does not mean there is no God.

[natty dread]

Will you never understand, that just because there are screwed up people who do screwed up things in the name of God, does not mean there is no God.

Nice strawman! Did you build it all yourself? Also, I thought you didn't believe in gods. What happened phats, did your get cancer or something?

(I'm sorry if you got cancer.)


Anyway, there is no evidence of any gods existence, also, the bible doesn't count as evidence. Since we don't have any empirical evidence of any gods, religions need to be kept away from politics, science and legislation, which need to be based on REALITY and not wishful thinking.

Reality is that which keeps on existing even if you stop believing in it.

[Phatscotty]

Will you never understand, that just because there are screwed up people who do screwed up things in the name of God, does not mean there is no God.

Nice strawman! Did you build it all yourself? Also, I thought you didn't believe in gods. What happened phats, did your get cancer or something?

(I'm sorry if you got cancer.)


Anyway, there is no evidence of any gods existence, also, the bible doesn't count as evidence. Since we don't have any empirical evidence of any gods, religions need to be kept away from politics, science and legislation, which need to be based on REALITY and not wishful thinking.

Reality is that which keeps on existing even if you stop believing in it.

It's a fact, you robot.

[Neoteny]

I'm sorry to hear about your illness.

[GreecePwns]

Scotty, prove that God exists. Or, at the very least, provide a logical argument (yes, you can do this and must do this to be accepted in any debate) regarding the existence of a God.

[PLAYER57832]

Will you never understand, that just because there are screwed up people who do screwed up things in the name of God, does not mean there is no God.

Nice strawman! Did you build it all yourself? Also, I thought you didn't believe in gods. What happened phats, did your get cancer or something?

(I'm sorry if you got cancer.)


Anyway, there is no evidence of any gods existence, also, the bible doesn't count as evidence. Since we don't have any empirical evidence of any gods, religions need to be kept away from politics, science and legislation, which need to be based on REALITY and not wishful thinking.

Reality is that which keeps on existing even if you stop believing in it.

The same applies in reverse. You cannot prove there is no God, that most religions are false. (just some ideas you have about religion.. that is not the same as proving the religion false).

I fully agree that religion should be kept out of politics, except in the few cases where it cooincides with societal mores. (there is little debate that child abuse, rape, etc. should be proscribed). However, that means ALL religion, including the idea that accepting God is anathema and therefore there is some "other" for which to strive.

Also, the reason religion must be kept largely out of politics is because it is a finality. You cannot change people's ideas about it, because it is not a matter of proof. That goes for ALL religion, including beliefs/religions that are not identified formal religions, but may represent just one idividual's ideas. It includes your basis as much as mine or Night strike's. You want to keep your beliefs apart, but they are no less beliefs than any others. Just because some of us might look to a book or other things does not make them less worthwhile views. Religion in people's lives is powerful enough to subvert any other dictate. It will make people turn their backs on government, on society on even families or, at times, their own lives. Politics cannot be dictated by politics because if it were, then only one religion would be allowed to exist. That is exactly what folks like Nightstrike wish. The problem is that by claiming that right, they begin to subscribe not just those outside the faith, but within as well. This is not taught by Christianity, nor most religions.

[PLAYER57832]

How about simply showing where and how the Bible specifically says homosexuality is wrong? Folks seem to assume it is there. Is it really?

[natty dread]

How about simply showing where and how the Bible specifically says homosexuality is wrong? Folks seem to assume it is there. Is it really?

Well I put "homosexuality in bible" into google and it gave me a wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_ ... osexuality

Leviticus 18 and 20

Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus, which form part of the Holiness code, contain the following verses:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[3](Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[4](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

The two verses have traditionally been interpreted by many Jews and Christians (including fundamentalists but not exclusive to) as blanket prohibitions against homosexual acts. [5][6]

Romans 1
“ (26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. ”

However, it says in verse 27, "In the same way...", which is a comparative phrase, meaning that the women in verse 26 practiced unnatural relations in the same way that the men in verse 27 did, through homosexuality. This passage is also debated, both in terms of its relevance today and in terms of its actual prohibition.[14] Most Christian denominations maintain that this verse is a complete prohibition of all forms of homosexuality.

[PLAYER57832]

How about simply showing where and how the Bible specifically says homosexuality is wrong? Folks seem to assume it is there. Is it really?

Well I put "homosexuality in bible" into google and it gave me a wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_ ... osexuality

Leviticus 18 and 20

Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus, which form part of the Holiness code, contain the following verses:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[3](Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[4](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

The two verses have traditionally been interpreted by many Jews and Christians (including fundamentalists but not exclusive to) as blanket prohibitions against homosexual acts. [5][6]

Romans 1
“ (26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. ”

However, it says in verse 27, "In the same way...", which is a comparative phrase, meaning that the women in verse 26 practiced unnatural relations in the same way that the men in verse 27 did, through homosexuality. This passage is also debated, both in terms of its relevance today and in terms of its actual prohibition.[14] Most Christian denominations maintain that this verse is a complete prohibition of all forms of homosexuality.

Leviticus, yes, but also Old Testament and in amongst many things we no longer practice as a part of Christianity (and for specific reasons).

Romans is interesting. A lot of people say this refers specifically to some Roman rights where same sex relations, castration, etc were means of actual worship. Also, note that just before this part, it speaks of people turning to images of animals and such and that this turning toward the same sex came from that. Many scholars now question if this was, indeed, meant as a general prohibition for what we now call homosexuality. Among many reasons, homosexuality was absolutely a part of these various societies back then. Jesus certainly was aware of it. Yet, its only when it comes in conjunction with worship... and then its Paul who makes the pronouncement, not Christ himself, of this evil.

I am not enough of a scholar to debate this. I am just pointing out that Nightstrike's view is hardly universal or even overwhelmingly dominate any longer. Most Christians today take a more nuanced position. We may or may not feel homosexuality itself is wrong, but feel that laws and proscriptions against the behavior are just not appropriate, not the way to combate it even if it is evil. We don't deal with other types of ills in the way we do homosexuality. In society, we certainly dont put other types of beliefs up to the "does it meet Christianity" yardstick. Why should marriage laws somehow be the only ones subject to that yardstick.

[Symmetry]

How about simply showing where and how the Bible specifically says homosexuality is wrong? Folks seem to assume it is there. Is it really?

Well I put "homosexuality in bible" into google and it gave me a wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_ ... osexuality

Leviticus 18 and 20

Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus, which form part of the Holiness code, contain the following verses:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[3](Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[4](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

The two verses have traditionally been interpreted by many Jews and Christians (including fundamentalists but not exclusive to) as blanket prohibitions against homosexual acts. [5][6]

Romans 1
“ (26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. ”

However, it says in verse 27, "In the same way...", which is a comparative phrase, meaning that the women in verse 26 practiced unnatural relations in the same way that the men in verse 27 did, through homosexuality. This passage is also debated, both in terms of its relevance today and in terms of its actual prohibition.[14] Most Christian denominations maintain that this verse is a complete prohibition of all forms of homosexuality.

Leviticus, yes, but also Old Testament and in amongst many things we no longer practice as a part of Christianity (and for specific reasons).

Romans is interesting. A lot of people say this refers specifically to some Roman rights where same sex relations, castration, etc were means of actual worship. Also, note that just before this part, it speaks of people turning to images of animals and such and that this turning toward the same sex came from that. Many scholars now question if this was, indeed, meant as a general prohibition for what we now call homosexuality. Among many reasons, homosexuality was absolutely a part of these various societies back then. Jesus certainly was aware of it. Yet, its only when it comes in conjunction with worship... and then its Paul who makes the pronouncement, not Christ himself, of this evil.

I am not enough of a scholar to debate this. I am just pointing out that Nightstrike's view is hardly universal or even overwhelmingly dominate any longer. Most Christians today take a more nuanced position. We may or may not feel homosexuality itself is wrong, but feel that laws and proscriptions against the behavior are just not appropriate, not the way to combate it even if it is evil. We don't deal with other types of ills in the way we do homosexuality. In society, we certainly dont put other types of beliefs up to the "does it meet Christianity" yardstick. Why should marriage laws somehow be the only ones subject to that yardstick.

I'd like to point out that I'm glad the Bible is changing as scholars and Christians study it.

[Phatscotty]

Will you never understand, that just because there are screwed up people who do screwed up things in the name of God, does not mean there is no God.

Nice strawman! Did you build it all yourself? Also, I thought you didn't believe in gods. What happened phats, did your get cancer or something?

(I'm sorry if you got cancer.)


Anyway, there is no evidence of any gods existence, also, the bible doesn't count as evidence. Since we don't have any empirical evidence of any gods, religions need to be kept away from politics, science and legislation, which need to be based on REALITY and not wishful thinking.

Reality is that which keeps on existing even if you stop believing in it.

The same applies in reverse. You cannot prove there is no God, that most religions are false. (just some ideas you have about religion.. that is not the same as proving the religion false).

I fully agree that religion should be kept out of politics, except in the few cases where it cooincides with societal mores. (there is little debate that child abuse, rape, etc. should be proscribed). However, that means ALL religion, including the idea that accepting God is anathema and therefore there is some "other" for which to strive.

Also, the reason religion must be kept largely out of politics is because it is a finality. You cannot change people's ideas about it, because it is not a matter of proof. That goes for ALL religion, including beliefs/religions that are not identified formal religions, but may represent just one idividual's ideas. It includes your basis as much as mine or Night strike's. You want to keep your beliefs apart, but they are no less beliefs than any others. Just because some of us might look to a book or other things does not make them less worthwhile views. Religion in people's lives is powerful enough to subvert any other dictate. It will make people turn their backs on government, on society on even families or, at times, their own lives. Politics cannot be dictated by politics because if it were, then only one religion would be allowed to exist. That is exactly what folks like Nightstrike wish. The problem is that by claiming that right, they begin to subscribe not just those outside the faith, but within as well. This is not taught by Christianity, nor most religions.

Player, this is twice we have agreed. Thanks for saying what you said, as that was going to be my next point. (except the part about being wrong about Strike)

[Phatscotty]

How about simply showing where and how the Bible specifically says homosexuality is wrong? Folks seem to assume it is there. Is it really?

Well I put "homosexuality in bible" into google and it gave me a wikipedia page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_ ... osexuality

Leviticus 18 and 20

Chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus, which form part of the Holiness code, contain the following verses:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[3](Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[4](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

The two verses have traditionally been interpreted by many Jews and Christians (including fundamentalists but not exclusive to) as blanket prohibitions against homosexual acts. [5][6]

Romans 1
“ (26) Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. (27) In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion. ”

However, it says in verse 27, "In the same way...", which is a comparative phrase, meaning that the women in verse 26 practiced unnatural relations in the same way that the men in verse 27 did, through homosexuality. This passage is also debated, both in terms of its relevance today and in terms of its actual prohibition.[14] Most Christian denominations maintain that this verse is a complete prohibition of all forms of homosexuality.

A lot of people get confused in this area as well, especially if you just go by what you hear, rather than seek and study for yourself. One of the reasons these things are in the bible was because of STD's. There weren't any cures, there weren't exactly many schools if any in certain areas. They were not aware of the exact cause, but they had a pretty good idea where the STD's came from.

There were a lot of challenges in the old world, and the Bible tried to deal with a lot of them. Obviously, we invented the microwave and we know how well you need to cook pork and when not to eat shell fish. To try to take those words from thousands of years ago and apply them to 2012 as proof everything else in the bible is outdated is flat out ridiculous. It only means that we solved shellfish and pork. We have not solved STD's along with other things

[BigBallinStalin]

If a person does not believe in Christ and accept his sacrifice for their sins, then that person will spend eternity separate from God, in a place called Hell.

Prove it. Then prove that this is the basis for your morality. Then prove it is objective morality. Then prove that this morality should be imposed on the nation (in other words, prove that separation of church and state should not exist) The discussion ends if you cannot do all 4.

Please go read the Bible. It clearly states that Jesus is "The Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me [Christ]". For people who do not follow Christ, it clearly states that they will spend an eternity separated from God. There is no other morality other than the objective morality that God teaches because God is the only Creator of all things. To worship anything else or to follow the teachings/moralities of anyone else is idolatry, because you are putting someone else's morals above God. As for the morality on the country, the Founding Fathers frequently spoke about how only a "righteous and upright populace" could continue to honor freedom. It's not surprising that the era of government growth and erosion of Constitutional freedoms has coincided with the removal of God from the public. People have chosen to replace their beliefs in God with beliefs in a bigger and all-providing government. There is not and never has has been a "separation of church and state" in this country. The 1st Amendment simply states that Congress itself cannot establish a religion or prohibit someone from following a religion. It says absolutely nothing about where the moral guidance comes from.

I was born and raised Greek Orthodox. I know what it says. Now prove its actually true. You can't make the other steps I mentioned without making this first one.

Hey look, everyone! Look what NS did!

[BigBallinStalin]

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PLEASE NO MORE 'PROVE HE EXISTS/DOESN"T EXIST' ARGUMENTS!!!

[GreecePwns]

aaaaand /thread

[Phatscotty]

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PLEASE NO MORE 'PROVE HE EXISTS/DOESN"T EXIST' ARGUMENTS!!!

well, that is just a fact BBS. The people who feel the need to go around in life shouting "there is no proof there is a God" have exactly the same amount of proof that there is no God. Both statement have zero proof.

Why it's called faith

[Symmetry]

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PLEASE NO MORE 'PROVE HE EXISTS/DOESN"T EXIST' ARGUMENTS!!!

well, that is just a fact BBS. The people who feel the need to go around in life shouting "there is no proof there is a God" have exactly the same amount of proof that there is no God. Both statement have zero proof.

Why it's called faith

And irrational.

[rdsrds2120]

And so it begins...again....

-rd

[Phatscotty]

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PLEASE NO MORE 'PROVE HE EXISTS/DOESN"T EXIST' ARGUMENTS!!!

well, that is just a fact BBS. The people who feel the need to go around in life shouting "there is no proof there is a God" have exactly the same amount of proof that there is no God. Both statement have zero proof.

Why it's called faith

And irrational.

It's completely rational. I will take on your argument anytime, anywhere. (if your overall point is that faith is irrational)

[Symmetry]

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PLEASE NO MORE 'PROVE HE EXISTS/DOESN"T EXIST' ARGUMENTS!!!

well, that is just a fact BBS. The people who feel the need to go around in life shouting "there is no proof there is a God" have exactly the same amount of proof that there is no God. Both statement have zero proof.

Why it's called faith

And irrational.

It's completely rational. I will take on your argument anytime, anywhere. (if your overall point is that faith is irrational)

My point is not that, try again.

[Phatscotty]

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, PLEASE NO MORE 'PROVE HE EXISTS/DOESN"T EXIST' ARGUMENTS!!!

well, that is just a fact BBS. The people who feel the need to go around in life shouting "there is no proof there is a God" have exactly the same amount of proof that there is no God. Both statement have zero proof.

Why it's called faith

And irrational.

It's completely rational. I will take on your argument anytime, anywhere. (if your overall point is that faith is irrational)

My point is not that, try again.

your point is there is some proof God doesn't exist?

[Symmetry]

Both statement have zero proof.

Why it's called faith

And irrational.

It's completely rational. I will take on your argument anytime, anywhere. (if your overall point is that faith is irrational)

My point is not that, try again.

your point is there is some proof God doesn't exist?

Not that either, but I don't think She does. What's your rationale for opposing gay marriage?

[AAFitz]

Both statement have zero proof.

Why it's called faith

And irrational.

It's completely rational. I will take on your argument anytime, anywhere. (if your overall point is that faith is irrational)

Faith in something with zero proof is not fully irrational, and can certainly be rational, even if fully incorrect, but full faith, with no acceptance of alternative possibilities is certainly by definition not rational, and depending upon degrees, often irrational indeed.

[Phatscotty]

It's completely rational. I will take on your argument anytime, anywhere. (if your overall point is that faith is irrational)

My point is not that, try again.

your point is there is some proof God doesn't exist?

Not that either, but I don't think She does. What's your rationale for opposing gay marriage?

would you mind letting me in on your specific point before you change the subject? I will be happy to start a new line of conversation at that time.

[AAFitz]

your point is there is some proof God doesn't exist?

Believing in something, simply because there is no proof it does not exist, in many ways, is probably the most basic definition of insanity that there is. Perhaps delusional fits more precisely, but is certainly the root of the very meaning of the word insanity.

Believing in something that is not true, with no proof, and no tangible evidence whatsoever, is certainly insane.

That being said, if it is true, you are possibly just lucky, or absolutely brilliant, but still, quite possibly, insane.