<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Jan 16 2005, 06:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Jan 16 2005, 06:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Only he and his slaves think he defines right. Everyone else realises that right and wrong are subjective terms. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> From their lovely little ivory towers. Then their mother gets raped, and suddenly right and wrong becomes sparklingly clear and reality comes crashing into their intellectual world.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine0I+Jan 16 2005, 01:32 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine0I @ Jan 16 2005, 01:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Jan 16 2005, 06:16 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Jan 16 2005, 06:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Only he and his slaves think he defines right. Everyone else realises that right and wrong are subjective terms. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> From their lovely little ivory towers. Then their mother gets raped, and suddenly right and wrong becomes sparklingly clear and reality comes crashing into their intellectual world. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Bah. Its too easy when you pick something like rape. Lets try something more dificult shall we? Lets say my mother was killed. Now, being the vengefull type and none to happy about my mother's demise I go and kill the murderer. Was I right in doing so? He killed my mother, and therefore deserves to die, so was I wrong in killing him?
Let me make it even harder: The state kills the murderer. Was that right? Even your holy scripture leaves this one up to interpretation.
How about annother? I'm starving and poor with 2 kids. We're in a depression and I can't find work, so I mug a rich man for his pocket change (with a shiv) and use it to buy bread so my children can eat. Is what I did wrong? Would it have been wrong to let my children starve to death instead, even when I could prevent it?
You see, right and wrong depend on point of view. Among other things.
Mark and Samuel love eatchother as much as any two people can, so they want to get married. Naturally they move to canada to do so since christian evangelism rules the US. On there wedding night they have pationate sex and do not regret it. Is this wrong?
Now granted, I can't think of a situation where rape would be OK, but that doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. And thats beside the point, since the christian God condemns as wrong things which are clearly right in my book. God's version of right doesn't mesh with mine, in fact I don't know of anybody whose morality meshes perfectly with mine. I'd be willing to bet that even among faithfull christians you'd be hard pressed to find two people who agree entirely on every matter of right and wrong. So doesn't that suggest that right and wrong are not absolute?
Perhaps not. If you believe God is perfect then of course his version is the right one, even if humans can't understand it. Even if he orders the slaughter of women and children for being sinfull, even if he created human kind to suffer, and even if he did all this just to amuse himself.
EDIT: Also, CrystalSnake asked a good question a ways back that sort of applies here: "The Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality. Does it also condemn pedophilia?"
*edit2* in all of your scenarios the supposedly muddy moral waters are pretty clear, in that it's always wrong to murder, steal, or commit sexual immorality.
1) the state killing a murderer is not "immoral" - it's called justice. 2) while it may sux for the poor guy, it does not entitle him to something that he didn't earn. 3) how about this one - a man and a woman are in love and are extremely turned on by each other. except the guy is married to another woman. is it right for the man to indulge in his desires and royally screw over his wife, who he committed to love until death do them part?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->define "as much as two people can."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The wording was just to make the point that they love eachother as much as any married couple. If you need something more concrete then think Romeo and Juliet. The kind of love where they can't stand living without eachother.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->*edit* also, define pedophilia.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> In this case, lets assume something along the lines of a 28 year old man having consentual sex with a 9 year old girl.
You should read the story of King David and Johnathan. I don't believe marriage is about loving each other so much that you'll die without the other person. That stuff wears off after a while, which inevitably means that people who married just for that "magic feeling" will end up estranged or divorced.
*edit* to put it another way - in a homosexual relationship, is there anything else besides a general friendship and sexual attraction to solidify their relationship/committment?
as to pedophilia...i'll have to do research, because i can't think of anything that addresses it specifically (besides the general gut-wrenching feeling of wanting to puke).
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 16 2005, 02:34 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 16 2005, 02:34 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You should read the story of King David and Johnathan. I don't believe marriage is about loving each other so much that you'll die without the other person. That stuff wears off after a while, which inevitably means that people who married just for that "magic feeling" will end up estranged or divorced. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sure. But this is all beside the point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> as to pedophilia...i'll have to do research, because i can't think of anything that addresses it specifically (besides the general gut-wrenching feeling of wanting to puke).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Exactly. And if you find that god doesn't explicitly condemn it, then what? Is it not wrong? I mean, surely if it was wrong God would have said so right? Otherwise people could be commiting sin and not know it! My point is that you have applied your personal morality to the situation and, until this point, assumed that God agreed with it. Uh oh, did you decide for yourself what was right and wrong? Better be carefull, you might have been condemning an act god fully agrees with.. maybe even enjoys!
Alright so that might be pushing it, but you see my point?
that's flawed logic. God doesn't tell you "on the 6th of november, you should not go skiing with your friends." no. he doesn't tell you everything. you have common sense for a reason. if you allow or encourage your sexual desires to override that, then that's not God's fault. It's possible that pedophilia falls under the catch-all of "sexual immorality," but i'm hesitant to use that route without evidence.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 16 2005, 02:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 16 2005, 02:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> that's flawed logic. God doesn't tell you "on the 6th of november, you should not go skiing with your friends." no. he doesn't tell you everything. you have common sense for a reason. if you allow or encourage your sexual desires to override that, then that's not God's fault. It's possible that pedophilia falls under the catch-all of "sexual immorality," but i'm hesitant to use that route without evidence. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So let me get this straight. God uses a vaugue term like "sexual immorality" to define a sin, and then expects you, a flawed human being, to figure out what counts and what doesn't?
I mean, sure, "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty obvious (though many christians still seem to not get it), but "Thou shalt not commit sexually immoral acts"? I mean, for all I know that could include having sex with the lights on!
<!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Jan 16 2005, 02:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Jan 16 2005, 02:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 16 2005, 02:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 16 2005, 02:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> that's flawed logic. God doesn't tell you "on the 6th of november, you should not go skiing with your friends." no. he doesn't tell you everything. you have common sense for a reason. if you allow or encourage your sexual desires to override that, then that's not God's fault. It's possible that pedophilia falls under the catch-all of "sexual immorality," but i'm hesitant to use that route without evidence. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So let me get this straight. God uses a vaugue term like "sexual immorality" to define a sin, and then expects you, a flawed human being, to figureout what counts and what doesn't?
I mean, sure, "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty obvious (though many christians still seem to not get it), but "Thou shalt not commit sexually immoral acts"? I mean, for all I know that could include such simple things as ****, or having sex with the lights on! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> read carefully. i said that i am not using that route, until I can find out whether or not the context warrants it. sit down, sir, and take a chill pill.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 16 2005, 02:46 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 16 2005, 02:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-SkulkBait+Jan 16 2005, 02:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Jan 16 2005, 02:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 16 2005, 02:42 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 16 2005, 02:42 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> that's flawed logic. God doesn't tell you "on the 6th of november, you should not go skiing with your friends." no. he doesn't tell you everything. you have common sense for a reason. if you allow or encourage your sexual desires to override that, then that's not God's fault. It's possible that pedophilia falls under the catch-all of "sexual immorality," but i'm hesitant to use that route without evidence. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So let me get this straight. God uses a vaugue term like "sexual immorality" to define a sin, and then expects you, a flawed human being, to figureout what counts and what doesn't?
I mean, sure, "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty obvious (though many christians still seem to not get it), but "Thou shalt not commit sexually immoral acts"? I mean, for all I know that could include such simple things as ****, or having sex with the lights on! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> read carefully. i said that i am not using that route, until I can find out whether or not the context warrants it. sit down, sir, and take a chill pill. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> No! Don't you see? Your absolutism has fallen flat on its face! God has left so much to interpretation that you can't even draw a clear line between whats right and wrong using scripture!
actually, now that i thought about it, it's actually pretty clear that it's wrong, biblically speaking.
sexual immorality consists of two things - fornication, and adultery. Both are expressly prohibited.
Adultery is having sex with someone outside of marriage, assuming a married state. Fornication is having sex with someone outside of marriage, assuming an unmarried state.
Therefore, the only setting that the expression of sexual desire is proper is in the context of [biblical] marriage.
Therefore: Bestiality is wrong, because you can't marry an animal. Homosexuality is wrong. pedophilia is wrong. etc etc etc.
thank you and good night, i have church tomorrow morning, and i must away to bed.
<!--QuoteBegin-Spacer+Jan 16 2005, 05:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spacer @ Jan 16 2005, 05:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It seems like god will send you to burn in hell unless you accept his eternal love...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That reminds me of another question I'd like to ask every Chrisitan who might be reading: Are you willing to go to hell for the glory of God?
I didn't think of that question by myself, it's one of <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin' target='_blank'>John Calvin</a>'s ideas.
I find it amusing that a thread about stereotyping Christians has become a stereotypical Discussion thread about Christianity.
It seems that every other thread here devolves into a clash of beliefs sooner or later. Roll on evolution/the impossibility of Noah's Ark/list of "paradoxes" in the bible. :/
<!--QuoteBegin-CrystalSnake+Jan 16 2005, 02:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CrystalSnake @ Jan 16 2005, 02:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Spacer+Jan 16 2005, 05:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spacer @ Jan 16 2005, 05:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It seems like god will send you to burn in hell unless you accept his eternal love...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That reminds me of another question I'd like to ask every Chrisitan who might be reading: Are you willing to go to hell for the glory of God?
I didn't think of that question by myself, it's one of <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin' target='_blank'>John Calvin</a>'s ideas. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes. It wasn't even Calvin's - I believe Paul also mentioning that he would wish that he lost his salvation if it meant the salvation of others. And I have thought about it before, and while it's a great idea, and I might like it if it were possible, I have concluded that it's a logical impossibility to lose your salvation for the sake of saving others.
I apologize that it was too late last night. But I have to reiterate that doing bad things is a quality of every single human being. If I seem condescending or holier-than-thou, I'm sorry. Being a bad person doesn't disqualify you from heaven or make God hate you. God may seem like a jerk to you, but if you really think about it, you find that's not true, besides the initial reaction and subsequent dismissal. Faith does not preclude or exclude reason, but is rather supported by it.
Nothing God does has to make sense. He gave us sense, he can defy it just as easily. Same applies with logic.
This, of course, makes it impossible for non-Christians to believe everything Christians say, because it defies logic. In fact, Christians are most of the time completely befuddled by our religion when we try to believe fully in everything we hear. If it were simple, we wouldn't need philosophers, theologists, and especially priests.
That is why you cannot always "believe" in God or Christianity, you must have "faith" in it. Faith is inherently frustrating to argue against, because no matter what the Christian can always fall back on "God is God, and God is right," or something along those lines.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Apart from the fact that being homosexual is not... actually... bad.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The funny thing is, non-religious peoples can't actually cite a source of morals that this statement comes from, while Christians can indeed cite (what we believe to be) the word of God. At least we have some backing, while you have none at all.
That said, the relative "badness" of homosexuality DOES NOT MATTER. Period. If you're not religious, you have nothing against **** people, so you shouldn't be bothered by them. And if you ARE religious (the group that makes up the majority of the homo-haters), I ask you this: what were the two laws that Jesus said were most important for all humans to follow? I could be wrong, but discrimination, bigotry, condescension, etc are not exactly loving acts. You don't have to love the act, but you can't hate the person for doing the act. Compare this when people defend someone's freedom of speech, even if they don't agree with what's said. So Wheee is correct in saying homosexuality is a sin, but God doesn't hate **** people, and neither should the rest of us.
Side note: a personal pet peeve of mine is whenever I see some reporter interviewing some guy from Texas or somewhere else in the Bible Belt, and the guy gets on TV and proclaims the US to be, "Founded on Christian beliefs, by Christians, and it'll always be a Christian nation." Bull.
Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution cite the Bible. Somehow I think the Founding Fathers had other things on their mind then, "How should the country deal with **** marriage?" Interestingly enough, not all of the Fathers were Christian. I believe Ben Franklin and Jefferson, among others, were Deists. Deism conveniently combines Christianity with the growing evidence that natural laws governed the world, by declaring that God had created the world, and then for the most part stepped back and let it run itself. Actually, it is basically the "Sandbox theory" discussed earlier in this thread, with an "-ism" tacked on the end.
America is not a Christian nation, and it shouldn't have a Christian government. Bush can create laws based on personal morals, but he can't expect everyone else to follow them. That is, in effect, what he is doing by forbidding **** marriage: imposing his views of marriage on us. Following this argument, taking more than one wife could be legal. Well, the state could find a loophole in this by saying marriages with more than one person are complicated beaureucratically (spelling, arg), but other than that....who the hell cares? Some guy wants to deal with 10 wives, he better hope he's blessed by God....
Notice how contradictory a lot of my statements are in this post. It should seem that my religious beliefs should have unravelled some time ago. But I bring back the point of faith: the glue that holds it all together. And I take comfort in the fact that it all doesn't have to make sense. Heck, maybe it doesn't even make sense to God. Human scientists quite often don't have a clue as to what they're doing when they're trying to create something new, or are observing unfamiliar behavior. If God's a scientist, who's to say he has all of HIS answers? Maybe He has all of OUR answers, but He's bound to laws we can't even begin to know. Who knows? God knows...maybe.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Jan 16 2005, 04:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jan 16 2005, 04:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Nothing God does has to make sense. He gave us sense, he can defy it just as easily. Same applies with logic. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't think this is true at all. *edit* I would like to see your rationalization of why God can defy logic. He created it; it's a reflection of his nature. How can God defy His own nature? Impossible. I understand the argument that God is omnipotent - but that doesn't include doing things that have no meaning, such as becoming something He's not.
Which makes all the rest of this - false.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This, of course, makes it impossible for non-Christians to believe everything Christians say, because it defies logic. In fact, Christians are most of the time completely befuddled by our religion when we try to believe fully in everything we hear. If it were simple, we wouldn't need philosophers, theologists, and especially priests.
That is why you cannot always "believe" in God or Christianity, you must have "faith" in it. Faith is inherently frustrating to argue against, because no matter what the Christian can always fall back on "God is God, and God is right," or something along those lines.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Apart from the fact that being homosexual is not... actually... bad.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The funny thing is, non-religious peoples can't actually cite a source of morals that this statement comes from, while Christians can indeed cite (what we believe to be) the word of God. At least we have some backing, while you have none at all. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
hrm. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> That said, the relative "badness" of homosexuality DOES NOT MATTER. Period. If you're not religious, you have nothing against **** people, so you shouldn't be bothered by them. And if you ARE religious (the group that makes up the majority of the homo-haters), I ask you this: what were the two laws that Jesus said were most important for all humans to follow? I could be wrong, but discrimination, bigotry, condescension, etc are not exactly loving acts. You don't have to love the act, but you can't hate the person for doing the act. Compare this when people defend someone's freedom of speech, even if they don't agree with what's said. So Wheee is correct in saying homosexuality is a sin, but God doesn't hate **** people, and neither should the rest of us.
Side note: a personal pet peeve of mine is whenever I see some reporter interviewing some guy from Texas or somewhere else in the Bible Belt, and the guy gets on TV and proclaims the US to be, "Founded on Christian beliefs, by Christians, and it'll always be a Christian nation." Bull.
Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution cite the Bible. Somehow I think the Founding Fathers had other things on their mind then, "How should the country deal with **** marriage?" Interestingly enough, not all of the Fathers were Christian. I believe Ben Franklin and Jefferson, among others, were Deists. Deism conveniently combines Christianity with the growing evidence that natural laws governed the world, by declaring that God had created the world, and then for the most part stepped back and let it run itself. Actually, it is basically the "Sandbox theory" discussed earlier in this thread, with an "-ism" tacked on the end.
America is not a Christian nation, and it shouldn't have a Christian government. Bush can create laws based on personal morals, but he can't expect everyone else to follow them. That is, in effect, what he is doing by forbidding **** marriage: imposing his views of marriage on us. Following this argument, taking more than one wife could be legal. Well, the state could find a loophole in this by saying marriages with more than one person are complicated beaureucratically (spelling, arg), but other than that....who the hell cares? Some guy wants to deal with 10 wives, he better hope he's blessed by God....
Notice how contradictory a lot of my statements are in this post. It should seem that my religious beliefs should have unravelled some time ago. But I bring back the point of faith: the glue that holds it all together. And I take comfort in the fact that it all doesn't have to make sense. Heck, maybe it doesn't even make sense to God. Human scientists quite often don't have a clue as to what they're doing when they're trying to create something new, or are observing unfamiliar behavior. If God's a scientist, who's to say he has all of HIS answers? Maybe He has all of OUR answers, but He's bound to laws we can't even begin to know. Who knows? God knows...maybe.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Spacer+Jan 16 2005, 03:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spacer @ Jan 16 2005, 03:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Apart from the fact that being homosexual is not... actually... bad. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> what is your assertion of this based on? The fact that you don't think it is? I'm sure you don't think telling a white lie is a bad thing either, but I do.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Jan 17 2005, 09:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Jan 17 2005, 09:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> America is not a Christian nation, and it shouldn't have a Christian government. Bush can create laws based on personal morals, but he can't expect everyone else to follow them. That is, in effect, what he is doing by forbidding **** marriage: imposing his views of marriage on us. Following this argument, taking more than one wife could be legal. Well, the state could find a loophole in this by saying marriages with more than one person are complicated beaureucratically (spelling, arg), but other than that....who the hell cares? Some guy wants to deal with 10 wives, he better hope he's blessed by God.... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wrong. Did you not see the additional polls taken on Election day 2004 regarding homosexual marriage? In every single county, homosexual marriage was voted down by a large and significant margin. Ever notice how whenever these laws come into place its from judges and not the Government? Thats because the American people do not want homosexual marriage, so its up to activist judges to try and force it in, as they did with abortion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It seems like god will send you to burn in hell unless you accept his eternal love... GG god.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems to me that everything good in life is sourced from his eternal love. It seems to me that if you are going to reject his eternal love, then you throw the baby out with the bathwater, and spend eternity without both his love, and without anything good. A place without anything good is an evil place - which we call hell.
So - you dont want his eternal love, he gives you exactly what you asked for when you die, and you want to complain about it? GG God.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 16 2005, 06:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 16 2005, 06:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I would like to see your rationalization of why God can defy logic. Impossible. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And that's the beauty of it, I can't rationalize it, so I can't prove it, but at the same time you can't <i>disprove</i> it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Weee+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Weee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He created it; it's a reflection of his nature. How can God defy His own nature?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's a reflection of <u>our</u> nature; the Bible says God created Man is his image, it didn't say anything about how our brains, or whatever counts as a brain for a supernatural being, stack up. His could work entirely differently, who are you to say that we "think" alike? Until you die and you have the chance to personally ask Him...or an angel...or whoever...you can't say with certainty that he has to follow the logic he gave to us.
<!--QuoteBegin-Weee+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Weee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I understand the argument that God is omnipotent - but that doesn't include doing things that have no meaning, such as becoming something He's not.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What, so God can't do something now? Reminds me of that "paradox": Can God create a taco so spicy that He can't eat it?
<!--QuoteBegin-Weee+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Weee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Which makes all the rest of this - false.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> If you look at it logically. Don't.
<!--QuoteBegin-Weee+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Weee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->hrm.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Very informative, ty. Did I reply too early, and you're still formulating a reply to the rest of the post?
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wrong. Did you not see the additional polls taken on Election day 2004 regarding homosexual marriage? In every single county, homosexual marriage was voted down by a large and significant margin. Ever notice how whenever these laws come into place its from judges and not the Government? Thats because the American people do not want homosexual marriage, so its up to activist judges to try and force it in, as they did with abortion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The majority of people who vote != the majority of the people in the country. I can guarantee you that the group of people who vote in <u>any</u> election/proposition/whatever are not indicative of the population as a whole. The group of people who are fired up about the issue, who really believe that (in this case) homosexuality is worthy of being <i>banned by the government</i> are in the minority. However, they are the ones who will always show up to the voting booths in mass numbers, just because they care so much. It's the majority's fault for letting it happen, yes, but you really can't claim that the vocal minority constitutes the majority of the population. One of the reasons I think that **** marriage shouldn't be banned is just, "Who the heck cares?" It's not <i>my</i> life, I'm not saying <i>I</i> want to get married to a guy, let other people do what they want if it doesn't hurt anyone else. This is the land of the free, still, right?
Unfortunately this "Who cares?" opinion lends itself to a certain apathy about the issue. So when voting day comes, who do you think will show up in greater numbers? The small group of people that care deeply about the issue, or the large group of, "....why is this even coming to a vote?" people?
God is logical, and he reveals it to us. I don't think you can deny it. In Job, he tells Job, "come, let us reason together." Also, God is characterized as unchanging, constant, perfect. Let's define that to be "the state to which there is no superior state in any sense." Now, let us consider what we would imply if we say God defies the logic that he created. That means that either the state is superior, inferior, or isomorphic. If we say that his future state is superior, that implies that his current state was inferior and thus he is not perfect, and vice versa. And if the state is isomorphic, you just change into...yourself, which is no change at all. To be honest, it's hard to speculate about what God is and isn't, because it's hard to say, but I just have this gut feeling that he's a logical, rational God despite your claim.
*edit* oh yeah, and if you throw out all logic, then perfection and righteousness loses all meaning, who knows what crazy stuff might happen then.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wrong. Did you not see the additional polls taken on Election day 2004 regarding homosexual marriage? In every single county, homosexual marriage was voted down by a large and significant margin. Ever notice how whenever these laws come into place its from judges and not the Government? Thats because the American people do not want homosexual marriage, so its up to activist judges to try and force it in, as they did with abortion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That only means that the United States is a nation with a ton of Christians living in it, even if voting against homosexual marriage translates directly to Christianity (which it doesn't). The first amendment in the Bill of Rights directly bars congress from legislating any law that would establish any religion as the official religion. Seeing as the President of the U.S. can't make laws, and the judicial branch can't make laws, there isn't going to be a national religion any time soon.
Why is the bible taken so literally? written by human hands, changed and modified by other men throughout the ages. Theres plenty of religions around the world, same themes, you know there was a time when there weren't governments to keep us all safe. People should philosophise a bit more and look at the big picture instead of nit-picking through tiny parts of the bible that were probably inserted at some later date by some homophobes.
Remember just how you view the 'madey-upey' Mormon religion with all its trappings, is just how alot of people view God, the bible and christianity. Mixing church and state for cheap votes is nasty in my eyes. I love my general sweeping statements with little reference to the arguments.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Bah. Its too easy when you pick something like rape. Lets try something more dificult shall we? Lets say my mother was killed. Now, being the vengefull type and none to happy about my mother's demise I go and kill the murderer. Was I right in doing so? He killed my mother, and therefore deserves to die, so was I wrong in killing him? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aha - but I dont need it to be difficult, because in many situations moral clarity is easy. You are claiming right and wrong does not exist; I am under no obligation to prove it exists in deep complicated ways - all I have to do is prove it undeniably true in one case and the bottom line of your argument is destroyed.
You may throw in some curvy morality questions, but all that will result in is me trying to find a common moral standard against which these actions can be judged that both you and I agree on which, if you are being intellectual consistent, wont happen, because you deny any such standard. Moral relativism isnt an answer to anything, its a non answer, a cop out. Moralists do the hard yards, relativists simply shrug their shoulders. If you insist I will attempt to tackle them, but I consider that pointless in your regard, as I will merely be expressing my opinion, and you will judge how it matches up to your own, and even if the two coincide, will still dismiss the notion of absolute morality
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now granted, I can't think of a situation where rape would be OK, but that doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. And thats beside the point, since the christian God condemns as wrong things which are clearly right in my book. God's version of right doesn't mesh with mine, in fact I don't know of anybody whose morality meshes perfectly with mine. I'd be willing to bet that even among faithfull christians you'd be hard pressed to find two people who agree entirely on every matter of right and wrong. So doesn't that suggest that right and wrong are not absolute? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your first sentence is a paradox of your belief. It doesnt matter if you cant think of a situation where rape would be okay - because the "rightness" or "wrongness" of it are purely opinion based terms. You believe that morals are relative, therefore cannot distinguish any form of superiority between the statement "Rape is wrong" and "Rape is good". If I think rape is right, who are you to question the validity of my belief? If morals are mere opinions on what should be done, you have no right to criticise me having my way with your sister against her will - you cannot force that opinion on me any more than I can force my opinions on God onto you.
Your second sentence brings us to the crux of the matter - you dont embrace moral relativity because its intellectually satisfying, you just refuse to accept any sort of absolute lawgiver because you dont like his laws (assuming he exists of course).
Your 3rd and 4th sentences are correct - very few people agree 100% with each other, even Christians. Yet the very nature of an absolute moral is that it exists whether anyone believes it or no. If everyone believes that rape is right, including me, then I'm wrong, and so are they. If they believed rape was right in some circumstances, they're still wrong. A difficult moral question people cannot agree on no more disproves absolute morality than a difficult maths problem disproves mathematics. I agree people cannot agree - but right and wrong remain the same whether they agree or no.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->EDIT: Also, CrystalSnake asked a good question a ways back that sort of applies here: "The Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality. Does it also condemn pedophilia?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, pedophilia is condemned, though in a roundabout way. The Jews only considered their young children until they reached sexual maturity, and then they were married. To have sex before you were married was banned, so pedophilia is out.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The majority of people who vote != the majority of the people in the country. I can guarantee you that the group of people who vote in any election/proposition/whatever are not indicative of the population as a whole. The group of people who are fired up about the issue, who really believe that (in this case) homosexuality is worthy of being banned by the government are in the minority. However, they are the ones who will always show up to the voting booths in mass numbers, just because they care so much. It's the majority's fault for letting it happen, yes, but you really can't claim that the vocal minority constitutes the majority of the population. One of the reasons I think that **** marriage shouldn't be banned is just, "Who the heck cares?" It's not my life, I'm not saying I want to get married to a guy, let other people do what they want if it doesn't hurt anyone else. This is the land of the free, still, right?
Unfortunately this "Who cares?" opinion lends itself to a certain apathy about the issue. So when voting day comes, who do you think will show up in greater numbers? The small group of people that care deeply about the issue, or the large group of, "....why is this even coming to a vote?" people?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry, but the nations future is decided by the nations leaders, who are elected by those who can be bothered showing up to the election. The people who show up on election day are the <b>only ones that count</b>, otherwise you could say that GWB's Presidency isnt actually the will of the majority because heaps of people who didnt vote might not like him. My point still stands - if the voters get their say, then homosexuality gets banned. That is the nature of democracy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That only means that the United States is a nation with a ton of Christians living in it, even if voting against homosexual marriage translates directly to Christianity (which it doesn't). The first amendment in the Bill of Rights directly bars congress from legislating any law that would establish any religion as the official religion. Seeing as the President of the U.S. can't make laws, and the judicial branch can't make laws, there isn't going to be a national religion any time soon.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no idea what you are talking about sorry. Who here refered to instituting a state religion? Not I. I merely pointed out that if the voters of America were asked whether to allow or ban homosexual marriage, then homosexual marriage would be gone by a signficant majority.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-Weee+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Weee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->God is logical, and he reveals it to us. I don't think you can deny it. In Job, he tells Job, "come, let us reason together."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, how else would he act when conversing with humans? He may not be logical, but we surely are, and so if he ever tried to be Himself, so to speak, around us, we'd just misunderstand. Or go crazy. Or our heads would explode. You ever seen Dogma, what happens when God speaks to mortals? I'm picturing something like that.
<!--QuoteBegin-Weee+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Weee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, God is characterized as unchanging, constant, perfect.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Characterized by....humans. Notice a pattern here? We only have knowledge of God through a few men who wrote letters in a giant anthology (aka The Bible), and even they could never know the real God.
<!--QuoteBegin-Weee+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Weee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let's define that to be "the state to which there is no superior state in any sense." Now, let us consider what we would imply if we say God defies the logic that he created. That means that either the state is superior, inferior, or isomorphic. If we say that his future state is superior, that implies that his current state was inferior and thus he is not perfect, and vice versa. And if the state is isomorphic, you just change into...yourself, which is no change at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Or, and here's a kicker, he's only perfect to <u>us</u>. We know what He lets us know, because we only know what He has created for us to know. Therefore He can control what we know, and in doing so fashion Himself as perfect, rather than just perfect in comparison to us. Observe:
Is God perfect? Yes. Can He make himself more perfect? No.... So He can't do this one action? ....uh... So how is He perfect if He can't do everything? ...faith. Logic falters, faith prevails.
<!--QuoteBegin-Weee+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Weee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To be honest, it's hard to speculate about what God is and isn't, because it's hard to say, but I just have this gut feeling that he's a logical, rational God despite your claim.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> To rephrase: though it defies logic, you have faith in the fact that God can be understood with logic. Interesting. You're getting very close to a point I've wanted to make for this entire thread...oh wait, you say it in the next quote:
<!--QuoteBegin-Weee+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Weee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->*edit* oh yeah, and if you throw out all logic, then perfection and righteousness loses all meaning, who knows what crazy stuff might happen then.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You, sir, are a genius. This is why arguing about religion is pointless and, in the end, futile. I hadn't expected anyone to say this so quickly; you have surely saved me much time by catching on so quickly.
Seriously, so far as I can say, Jesus has not yet returned and I doubt God has any plans on ending this little sandbox of his any time soon. He's kept it going for 4+ billion years, why should he end it now, so soon after creating humans. Also, no one has spoken directly to God for almost two millenia, I believe. The two conclusions I derive from this information are 1) We're all stuck together for the forseeable future, and 2) We have to figure out how best to get along using what God gave us: our common sense. If He doesn't use it, there must be a damn good reason why He gave it to us. Arguing about who's system of worship is right or wrong, who God favors or reviles, or any of this other crap that religious fundamentalists devote their lives preaching about is NOT how God intended us to live.
In the end, we can't understand Him or His plan anyway, and I'm not talking high-schooler-trying-to-understand-string-theory lack of comprehension, I mean a physical and natural block between our minds and His. So instead of butting my head against that wall, and constantly asking myself, "What would Jesus do?" I just ask myself, "What is right?" The answer will come, even if I don't know from where, even if I don't use logic, because God intended for us all to find the answers ourselves. If there's one thing that he did do perfectly, it was that. Your mind, conscience, and emotions are far closer to God's will than the Bible ever could be. If everyone trusted them, rather than what someone else told them to believe or think, the world would be a far better place.
And I'm too bloody tired to talk anymore, it's 2:30am, both the best and worst time to be talking philosophy and/or theology. But one last thing:
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sorry, but the nations future is decided by the nations leaders, who are elected by those who can be bothered showing up to the election. The people who show up on election day are the only ones that count, otherwise you could say that GWB's Presidency isnt actually the will of the majority because heaps of people who didnt vote might not like him. My point still stands - if the voters get their say, then homosexuality gets banned. That is the nature of democracy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Oh, no argument there. I know that's how the system works, I just got a little steamed when you called the people who voted to ban **** marriage the majority. I doubt they are, and more importantly you can't prove they are, so I was just pointing out that a majority in an election shouldn't be taken to mean the majority of the population.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The people who show up on election day are the only ones that count, otherwise you could say that GWB's Presidency isnt actually the will of the majority because heaps of people who didnt vote might not like him<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Perfect example of the majority not coming out on top in an election, just because they often don't care as much as the minority.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Jan 17 2005, 02:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Jan 17 2005, 02:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So you're using logic, based on certain premises, to prove that God is illogical and can't be understood with logic. that is...unpossible. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I believe the word you're looking for is "illogical". Just for consistency's sake. Now seriously, I'm out for now.
kay, i'm not going down that path any further. the discussion forum rules are to keep the debate rational. and i can't foresee this proceeding very far along those lines.
Comments
From their lovely little ivory towers. Then their mother gets raped, and suddenly right and wrong becomes sparklingly clear and reality comes crashing into their intellectual world.
From their lovely little ivory towers. Then their mother gets raped, and suddenly right and wrong becomes sparklingly clear and reality comes crashing into their intellectual world. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bah. Its too easy when you pick something like rape. Lets try something more dificult shall we? Lets say my mother was killed. Now, being the vengefull type and none to happy about my mother's demise I go and kill the murderer. Was I right in doing so? He killed my mother, and therefore deserves to die, so was I wrong in killing him?
Let me make it even harder: The state kills the murderer. Was that right? Even your holy scripture leaves this one up to interpretation.
How about annother? I'm starving and poor with 2 kids. We're in a depression and I can't find work, so I mug a rich man for his pocket change (with a shiv) and use it to buy bread so my children can eat. Is what I did wrong? Would it have been wrong to let my children starve to death instead, even when I could prevent it?
You see, right and wrong depend on point of view. Among other things.
Mark and Samuel love eatchother as much as any two people can, so they want to get married. Naturally they move to canada to do so since christian evangelism rules the US. On there wedding night they have pationate sex and do not regret it. Is this wrong?
Now granted, I can't think of a situation where rape would be OK, but that doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. And thats beside the point, since the christian God condemns as wrong things which are clearly right in my book. God's version of right doesn't mesh with mine, in fact I don't know of anybody whose morality meshes perfectly with mine. I'd be willing to bet that even among faithfull christians you'd be hard pressed to find two people who agree entirely on every matter of right and wrong. So doesn't that suggest that right and wrong are not absolute?
Perhaps not. If you believe God is perfect then of course his version is the right one, even if humans can't understand it. Even if he orders the slaughter of women and children for being sinfull, even if he created human kind to suffer, and even if he did all this just to amuse himself.
EDIT: Also, CrystalSnake asked a good question a ways back that sort of applies here: "The Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality. Does it also condemn pedophilia?"
*edit* also, define pedophilia.
*edit2* in all of your scenarios the supposedly muddy moral waters are pretty clear, in that it's always wrong to murder, steal, or commit sexual immorality.
1) the state killing a murderer is not "immoral" - it's called justice.
2) while it may sux for the poor guy, it does not entitle him to something that he didn't earn.
3) how about this one - a man and a woman are in love and are extremely turned on by each other. except the guy is married to another woman. is it right for the man to indulge in his desires and royally screw over his wife, who he committed to love until death do them part?
The wording was just to make the point that they love eachother as much as any married couple. If you need something more concrete then think Romeo and Juliet. The kind of love where they can't stand living without eachother.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->*edit* also, define pedophilia.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In this case, lets assume something along the lines of a 28 year old man having consentual sex with a 9 year old girl.
*edit* to put it another way - in a homosexual relationship, is there anything else besides a general friendship and sexual attraction to solidify their relationship/committment?
as to pedophilia...i'll have to do research, because i can't think of anything that addresses it specifically (besides the general gut-wrenching feeling of wanting to puke).
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sure. But this is all beside the point.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
as to pedophilia...i'll have to do research, because i can't think of anything that addresses it specifically (besides the general gut-wrenching feeling of wanting to puke).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. And if you find that god doesn't explicitly condemn it, then what? Is it not wrong? I mean, surely if it was wrong God would have said so right? Otherwise people could be commiting sin and not know it! My point is that you have applied your personal morality to the situation and, until this point, assumed that God agreed with it. Uh oh, did you decide for yourself what was right and wrong? Better be carefull, you might have been condemning an act god fully agrees with.. maybe even enjoys!
Alright so that might be pushing it, but you see my point?
So let me get this straight. God uses a vaugue term like "sexual immorality" to define a sin, and then expects you, a flawed human being, to figure out what counts and what doesn't?
I mean, sure, "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty obvious (though many christians still seem to not get it), but "Thou shalt not commit sexually immoral acts"? I mean, for all I know that could include having sex with the lights on!
So let me get this straight. God uses a vaugue term like "sexual immorality" to define a sin, and then expects you, a flawed human being, to figureout what counts and what doesn't?
I mean, sure, "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty obvious (though many christians still seem to not get it), but "Thou shalt not commit sexually immoral acts"? I mean, for all I know that could include such simple things as ****, or having sex with the lights on! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
read carefully. i said that i am not using that route, until I can find out whether or not the context warrants it. sit down, sir, and take a chill pill.
So let me get this straight. God uses a vaugue term like "sexual immorality" to define a sin, and then expects you, a flawed human being, to figureout what counts and what doesn't?
I mean, sure, "Thou shalt not kill" is pretty obvious (though many christians still seem to not get it), but "Thou shalt not commit sexually immoral acts"? I mean, for all I know that could include such simple things as ****, or having sex with the lights on! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
read carefully. i said that i am not using that route, until I can find out whether or not the context warrants it. sit down, sir, and take a chill pill. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No! Don't you see? Your absolutism has fallen flat on its face! God has left so much to interpretation that you can't even draw a clear line between whats right and wrong using scripture!
sexual immorality consists of two things - fornication, and adultery. Both are expressly prohibited.
Adultery is having sex with someone outside of marriage, assuming a married state.
Fornication is having sex with someone outside of marriage, assuming an unmarried state.
Therefore, the only setting that the expression of sexual desire is proper is in the context of [biblical] marriage.
Therefore:
Bestiality is wrong, because you can't marry an animal.
Homosexuality is wrong.
pedophilia is wrong.
etc etc etc.
thank you and good night, i have church tomorrow morning, and i must away to bed.
GG god.
That reminds me of another question I'd like to ask every Chrisitan who might be reading:
Are you willing to go to hell for the glory of God?
I didn't think of that question by myself, it's one of <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin' target='_blank'>John Calvin</a>'s ideas.
It seems that every other thread here devolves into a clash of beliefs sooner or later. Roll on evolution/the impossibility of Noah's Ark/list of "paradoxes" in the bible. :/
That reminds me of another question I'd like to ask every Chrisitan who might be reading:
Are you willing to go to hell for the glory of God?
I didn't think of that question by myself, it's one of <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin' target='_blank'>John Calvin</a>'s ideas. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. It wasn't even Calvin's - I believe Paul also mentioning that he would wish that he lost his salvation if it meant the salvation of others. And I have thought about it before, and while it's a great idea, and I might like it if it were possible, I have concluded that it's a logical impossibility to lose your salvation for the sake of saving others.
I apologize that it was too late last night. But I have to reiterate that doing bad things is a quality of every single human being. If I seem condescending or holier-than-thou, I'm sorry. Being a bad person doesn't disqualify you from heaven or make God hate you. God may seem like a jerk to you, but if you really think about it, you find that's not true, besides the initial reaction and subsequent dismissal. Faith does not preclude or exclude reason, but is rather supported by it.
This, of course, makes it impossible for non-Christians to believe everything Christians say, because it defies logic. In fact, Christians are most of the time completely befuddled by our religion when we try to believe fully in everything we hear. If it were simple, we wouldn't need philosophers, theologists, and especially priests.
That is why you cannot always "believe" in God or Christianity, you must have "faith" in it. Faith is inherently frustrating to argue against, because no matter what the Christian can always fall back on "God is God, and God is right," or something along those lines.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Apart from the fact that being homosexual is not... actually... bad.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The funny thing is, non-religious peoples can't actually cite a source of morals that this statement comes from, while Christians can indeed cite (what we believe to be) the word of God. At least we have some backing, while you have none at all.
That said, the relative "badness" of homosexuality DOES NOT MATTER. Period. If you're not religious, you have nothing against **** people, so you shouldn't be bothered by them. And if you ARE religious (the group that makes up the majority of the homo-haters), I ask you this: what were the two laws that Jesus said were most important for all humans to follow? I could be wrong, but discrimination, bigotry, condescension, etc are not exactly loving acts. You don't have to love the act, but you can't hate the person for doing the act. Compare this when people defend someone's freedom of speech, even if they don't agree with what's said. So Wheee is correct in saying homosexuality is a sin, but God doesn't hate **** people, and neither should the rest of us.
Side note: a personal pet peeve of mine is whenever I see some reporter interviewing some guy from Texas or somewhere else in the Bible Belt, and the guy gets on TV and proclaims the US to be, "Founded on Christian beliefs, by Christians, and it'll always be a Christian nation." Bull.
Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution cite the Bible. Somehow I think the Founding Fathers had other things on their mind then, "How should the country deal with **** marriage?" Interestingly enough, not all of the Fathers were Christian. I believe Ben Franklin and Jefferson, among others, were Deists. Deism conveniently combines Christianity with the growing evidence that natural laws governed the world, by declaring that God had created the world, and then for the most part stepped back and let it run itself. Actually, it is basically the "Sandbox theory" discussed earlier in this thread, with an "-ism" tacked on the end.
America is not a Christian nation, and it shouldn't have a Christian government. Bush can create laws based on personal morals, but he can't expect everyone else to follow them. That is, in effect, what he is doing by forbidding **** marriage: imposing his views of marriage on us. Following this argument, taking more than one wife could be legal. Well, the state could find a loophole in this by saying marriages with more than one person are complicated beaureucratically (spelling, arg), but other than that....who the hell cares? Some guy wants to deal with 10 wives, he better hope he's blessed by God....
Notice how contradictory a lot of my statements are in this post. It should seem that my religious beliefs should have unravelled some time ago. But I bring back the point of faith: the glue that holds it all together. And I take comfort in the fact that it all doesn't have to make sense. Heck, maybe it doesn't even make sense to God. Human scientists quite often don't have a clue as to what they're doing when they're trying to create something new, or are observing unfamiliar behavior. If God's a scientist, who's to say he has all of HIS answers? Maybe He has all of OUR answers, but He's bound to laws we can't even begin to know.
Who knows? God knows...maybe.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't think this is true at all. *edit* I would like to see your rationalization of why God can defy logic. He created it; it's a reflection of his nature. How can God defy His own nature? Impossible. I understand the argument that God is omnipotent - but that doesn't include doing things that have no meaning, such as becoming something He's not.
Which makes all the rest of this - false.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
This, of course, makes it impossible for non-Christians to believe everything Christians say, because it defies logic. In fact, Christians are most of the time completely befuddled by our religion when we try to believe fully in everything we hear. If it were simple, we wouldn't need philosophers, theologists, and especially priests.
That is why you cannot always "believe" in God or Christianity, you must have "faith" in it. Faith is inherently frustrating to argue against, because no matter what the Christian can always fall back on "God is God, and God is right," or something along those lines.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Apart from the fact that being homosexual is not... actually... bad.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The funny thing is, non-religious peoples can't actually cite a source of morals that this statement comes from, while Christians can indeed cite (what we believe to be) the word of God. At least we have some backing, while you have none at all.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
hrm.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
That said, the relative "badness" of homosexuality DOES NOT MATTER. Period. If you're not religious, you have nothing against **** people, so you shouldn't be bothered by them. And if you ARE religious (the group that makes up the majority of the homo-haters), I ask you this: what were the two laws that Jesus said were most important for all humans to follow? I could be wrong, but discrimination, bigotry, condescension, etc are not exactly loving acts. You don't have to love the act, but you can't hate the person for doing the act. Compare this when people defend someone's freedom of speech, even if they don't agree with what's said. So Wheee is correct in saying homosexuality is a sin, but God doesn't hate **** people, and neither should the rest of us.
Side note: a personal pet peeve of mine is whenever I see some reporter interviewing some guy from Texas or somewhere else in the Bible Belt, and the guy gets on TV and proclaims the US to be, "Founded on Christian beliefs, by Christians, and it'll always be a Christian nation." Bull.
Neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution cite the Bible. Somehow I think the Founding Fathers had other things on their mind then, "How should the country deal with **** marriage?" Interestingly enough, not all of the Fathers were Christian. I believe Ben Franklin and Jefferson, among others, were Deists. Deism conveniently combines Christianity with the growing evidence that natural laws governed the world, by declaring that God had created the world, and then for the most part stepped back and let it run itself. Actually, it is basically the "Sandbox theory" discussed earlier in this thread, with an "-ism" tacked on the end.
America is not a Christian nation, and it shouldn't have a Christian government. Bush can create laws based on personal morals, but he can't expect everyone else to follow them. That is, in effect, what he is doing by forbidding **** marriage: imposing his views of marriage on us. Following this argument, taking more than one wife could be legal. Well, the state could find a loophole in this by saying marriages with more than one person are complicated beaureucratically (spelling, arg), but other than that....who the hell cares? Some guy wants to deal with 10 wives, he better hope he's blessed by God....
Notice how contradictory a lot of my statements are in this post. It should seem that my religious beliefs should have unravelled some time ago. But I bring back the point of faith: the glue that holds it all together. And I take comfort in the fact that it all doesn't have to make sense. Heck, maybe it doesn't even make sense to God. Human scientists quite often don't have a clue as to what they're doing when they're trying to create something new, or are observing unfamiliar behavior. If God's a scientist, who's to say he has all of HIS answers? Maybe He has all of OUR answers, but He's bound to laws we can't even begin to know.
Who knows? God knows...maybe.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
what is your assertion of this based on? The fact that you don't think it is? I'm sure you don't think telling a white lie is a bad thing either, but I do.
Wrong. Did you not see the additional polls taken on Election day 2004 regarding homosexual marriage? In every single county, homosexual marriage was voted down by a large and significant margin. Ever notice how whenever these laws come into place its from judges and not the Government? Thats because the American people do not want homosexual marriage, so its up to activist judges to try and force it in, as they did with abortion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It seems like god will send you to burn in hell unless you accept his eternal love...
GG god.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems to me that everything good in life is sourced from his eternal love. It seems to me that if you are going to reject his eternal love, then you throw the baby out with the bathwater, and spend eternity without both his love, and without anything good. A place without anything good is an evil place - which we call hell.
So - you dont want his eternal love, he gives you exactly what you asked for when you die, and you want to complain about it? GG God.
And that's the beauty of it, I can't rationalize it, so I can't prove it, but at the same time you can't <i>disprove</i> it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Weee+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Weee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->He created it; it's a reflection of his nature. How can God defy His own nature?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's a reflection of <u>our</u> nature; the Bible says God created Man is his image, it didn't say anything about how our brains, or whatever counts as a brain for a supernatural being, stack up. His could work entirely differently, who are you to say that we "think" alike? Until you die and you have the chance to personally ask Him...or an angel...or whoever...you can't say with certainty that he has to follow the logic he gave to us.
<!--QuoteBegin-Weee+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Weee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I understand the argument that God is omnipotent - but that doesn't include doing things that have no meaning, such as becoming something He's not.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What, so God can't do something now? Reminds me of that "paradox": Can God create a taco so spicy that He can't eat it?
<!--QuoteBegin-Weee+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Weee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Which makes all the rest of this - false.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you look at it logically. Don't.
<!--QuoteBegin-Weee+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Weee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->hrm.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very informative, ty. Did I reply too early, and you're still formulating a reply to the rest of the post?
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Wrong. Did you not see the additional polls taken on Election day 2004 regarding homosexual marriage? In every single county, homosexual marriage was voted down by a large and significant margin. Ever notice how whenever these laws come into place its from judges and not the Government? Thats because the American people do not want homosexual marriage, so its up to activist judges to try and force it in, as they did with abortion.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The majority of people who vote != the majority of the people in the country. I can guarantee you that the group of people who vote in <u>any</u> election/proposition/whatever are not indicative of the population as a whole. The group of people who are fired up about the issue, who really believe that (in this case) homosexuality is worthy of being <i>banned by the government</i> are in the minority. However, they are the ones who will always show up to the voting booths in mass numbers, just because they care so much. It's the majority's fault for letting it happen, yes, but you really can't claim that the vocal minority constitutes the majority of the population. One of the reasons I think that **** marriage shouldn't be banned is just, "Who the heck cares?" It's not <i>my</i> life, I'm not saying <i>I</i> want to get married to a guy, let other people do what they want if it doesn't hurt anyone else. This is the land of the free, still, right?
Unfortunately this "Who cares?" opinion lends itself to a certain apathy about the issue. So when voting day comes, who do you think will show up in greater numbers? The small group of people that care deeply about the issue, or the large group of, "....why is this even coming to a vote?" people?
*edit* oh yeah, and if you throw out all logic, then perfection and righteousness loses all meaning, who knows what crazy stuff might happen then.
That only means that the United States is a nation with a ton of Christians living in it, even if voting against homosexual marriage translates directly to Christianity (which it doesn't). The first amendment in the Bill of Rights directly bars congress from legislating any law that would establish any religion as the official religion. Seeing as the President of the U.S. can't make laws, and the judicial branch can't make laws, there isn't going to be a national religion any time soon.
Remember just how you view the 'madey-upey' Mormon religion with all its trappings, is just how alot of people view God, the bible and christianity. Mixing church and state for cheap votes is nasty in my eyes. I love my general sweeping statements with little reference to the arguments.
Aha - but I dont need it to be difficult, because in many situations moral clarity is easy. You are claiming right and wrong does not exist; I am under no obligation to prove it exists in deep complicated ways - all I have to do is prove it undeniably true in one case and the bottom line of your argument is destroyed.
You may throw in some curvy morality questions, but all that will result in is me trying to find a common moral standard against which these actions can be judged that both you and I agree on which, if you are being intellectual consistent, wont happen, because you deny any such standard. Moral relativism isnt an answer to anything, its a non answer, a cop out. Moralists do the hard yards, relativists simply shrug their shoulders. If you insist I will attempt to tackle them, but I consider that pointless in your regard, as I will merely be expressing my opinion, and you will judge how it matches up to your own, and even if the two coincide, will still dismiss the notion of absolute morality
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now granted, I can't think of a situation where rape would be OK, but that doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. And thats beside the point, since the christian God condemns as wrong things which are clearly right in my book. God's version of right doesn't mesh with mine, in fact I don't know of anybody whose morality meshes perfectly with mine. I'd be willing to bet that even among faithfull christians you'd be hard pressed to find two people who agree entirely on every matter of right and wrong. So doesn't that suggest that right and wrong are not absolute? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your first sentence is a paradox of your belief. It doesnt matter if you cant think of a situation where rape would be okay - because the "rightness" or "wrongness" of it are purely opinion based terms. You believe that morals are relative, therefore cannot distinguish any form of superiority between the statement "Rape is wrong" and "Rape is good". If I think rape is right, who are you to question the validity of my belief? If morals are mere opinions on what should be done, you have no right to criticise me having my way with your sister against her will - you cannot force that opinion on me any more than I can force my opinions on God onto you.
Your second sentence brings us to the crux of the matter - you dont embrace moral relativity because its intellectually satisfying, you just refuse to accept any sort of absolute lawgiver because you dont like his laws (assuming he exists of course).
Your 3rd and 4th sentences are correct - very few people agree 100% with each other, even Christians. Yet the very nature of an absolute moral is that it exists whether anyone believes it or no. If everyone believes that rape is right, including me, then I'm wrong, and so are they. If they believed rape was right in some circumstances, they're still wrong. A difficult moral question people cannot agree on no more disproves absolute morality than a difficult maths problem disproves mathematics. I agree people cannot agree - but right and wrong remain the same whether they agree or no.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->EDIT: Also, CrystalSnake asked a good question a ways back that sort of applies here: "The Bible explicitly condemns homosexuality. Does it also condemn pedophilia?"<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, pedophilia is condemned, though in a roundabout way. The Jews only considered their young children until they reached sexual maturity, and then they were married. To have sex before you were married was banned, so pedophilia is out.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The majority of people who vote != the majority of the people in the country. I can guarantee you that the group of people who vote in any election/proposition/whatever are not indicative of the population as a whole. The group of people who are fired up about the issue, who really believe that (in this case) homosexuality is worthy of being banned by the government are in the minority. However, they are the ones who will always show up to the voting booths in mass numbers, just because they care so much. It's the majority's fault for letting it happen, yes, but you really can't claim that the vocal minority constitutes the majority of the population. One of the reasons I think that **** marriage shouldn't be banned is just, "Who the heck cares?" It's not my life, I'm not saying I want to get married to a guy, let other people do what they want if it doesn't hurt anyone else. This is the land of the free, still, right?
Unfortunately this "Who cares?" opinion lends itself to a certain apathy about the issue. So when voting day comes, who do you think will show up in greater numbers? The small group of people that care deeply about the issue, or the large group of, "....why is this even coming to a vote?" people?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sorry, but the nations future is decided by the nations leaders, who are elected by those who can be bothered showing up to the election. The people who show up on election day are the <b>only ones that count</b>, otherwise you could say that GWB's Presidency isnt actually the will of the majority because heaps of people who didnt vote might not like him. My point still stands - if the voters get their say, then homosexuality gets banned. That is the nature of democracy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That only means that the United States is a nation with a ton of Christians living in it, even if voting against homosexual marriage translates directly to Christianity (which it doesn't). The first amendment in the Bill of Rights directly bars congress from legislating any law that would establish any religion as the official religion. Seeing as the President of the U.S. can't make laws, and the judicial branch can't make laws, there isn't going to be a national religion any time soon.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have no idea what you are talking about sorry. Who here refered to instituting a state religion? Not I. I merely pointed out that if the voters of America were asked whether to allow or ban homosexual marriage, then homosexual marriage would be gone by a signficant majority.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Weee+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Weee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->God is logical, and he reveals it to us. I don't think you can deny it. In Job, he tells Job, "come, let us reason together."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, how else would he act when conversing with humans? He may not be logical, but we surely are, and so if he ever tried to be Himself, so to speak, around us, we'd just misunderstand. Or go crazy. Or our heads would explode. You ever seen Dogma, what happens when God speaks to mortals? I'm picturing something like that.
<!--QuoteBegin-Weee+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Weee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Also, God is characterized as unchanging, constant, perfect.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Characterized by....humans. Notice a pattern here? We only have knowledge of God through a few men who wrote letters in a giant anthology (aka The Bible), and even they could never know the real God.
<!--QuoteBegin-Weee+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Weee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Let's define that to be "the state to which there is no superior state in any sense." Now, let us consider what we would imply if we say God defies the logic that he created. That means that either the state is superior, inferior, or isomorphic. If we say that his future state is superior, that implies that his current state was inferior and thus he is not perfect, and vice versa. And if the state is isomorphic, you just change into...yourself, which is no change at all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Or, and here's a kicker, he's only perfect to <u>us</u>. We know what He lets us know, because we only know what He has created for us to know. Therefore He can control what we know, and in doing so fashion Himself as perfect, rather than just perfect in comparison to us. Observe:
Is God perfect? Yes.
Can He make himself more perfect? No....
So He can't do this one action? ....uh...
So how is He perfect if He can't do everything? ...faith.
Logic falters, faith prevails.
<!--QuoteBegin-Weee+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Weee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->To be honest, it's hard to speculate about what God is and isn't, because it's hard to say, but I just have this gut feeling that he's a logical, rational God despite your claim.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
To rephrase: though it defies logic, you have faith in the fact that God can be understood with logic. Interesting.
You're getting very close to a point I've wanted to make for this entire thread...oh wait, you say it in the next quote:
<!--QuoteBegin-Weee+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Weee)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->*edit* oh yeah, and if you throw out all logic, then perfection and righteousness loses all meaning, who knows what crazy stuff might happen then.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You, sir, are a genius. This is why arguing about religion is pointless and, in the end, futile. I hadn't expected anyone to say this so quickly; you have surely saved me much time by catching on so quickly.
Seriously, so far as I can say, Jesus has not yet returned and I doubt God has any plans on ending this little sandbox of his any time soon. He's kept it going for 4+ billion years, why should he end it now, so soon after creating humans. Also, no one has spoken directly to God for almost two millenia, I believe. The two conclusions I derive from this information are 1) We're all stuck together for the forseeable future, and 2) We have to figure out how best to get along using what God gave us: our common sense. If He doesn't use it, there must be a damn good reason why He gave it to us. Arguing about who's system of worship is right or wrong, who God favors or reviles, or any of this other crap that religious fundamentalists devote their lives preaching about is NOT how God intended us to live.
In the end, we can't understand Him or His plan anyway, and I'm not talking high-schooler-trying-to-understand-string-theory lack of comprehension, I mean a physical and natural block between our minds and His. So instead of butting my head against that wall, and constantly asking myself, "What would Jesus do?" I just ask myself, "What is right?" The answer will come, even if I don't know from where, even if I don't use logic, because God intended for us all to find the answers ourselves. If there's one thing that he did do perfectly, it was that. Your mind, conscience, and emotions are far closer to God's will than the Bible ever could be. If everyone trusted them, rather than what someone else told them to believe or think, the world would be a far better place.
And I'm too bloody tired to talk anymore, it's 2:30am, both the best and worst time to be talking philosophy and/or theology. But one last thing:
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm sorry, but the nations future is decided by the nations leaders, who are elected by those who can be bothered showing up to the election. The people who show up on election day are the only ones that count, otherwise you could say that GWB's Presidency isnt actually the will of the majority because heaps of people who didnt vote might not like him. My point still stands - if the voters get their say, then homosexuality gets banned. That is the nature of democracy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, no argument there. I know that's how the system works, I just got a little steamed when you called the people who voted to ban **** marriage the majority. I doubt they are, and more importantly you can't prove they are, so I was just pointing out that a majority in an election shouldn't be taken to mean the majority of the population.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The people who show up on election day are the only ones that count, otherwise you could say that GWB's Presidency isnt actually the will of the majority because heaps of people who didnt vote might not like him<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perfect example of the majority not coming out on top in an election, just because they often don't care as much as the minority.
mind...asplode.........
I believe the word you're looking for is "illogical". Just for consistency's sake. Now seriously, I'm out for now.