Momma, back on page 7 you said you believed that homosexuality was a sin and that gay marriage should be banned. That sounds like condemnation to me. You also said that jesus says " it is wrong in God's eyes and He would let the decision lie with each individual, just as He always does. " So, how can an individual decide his own fate if someone else made one of his choices illegal?
littlek,
I understand where you are coming from. But, just because I don't believe in gay marriage and I don't think it should be legal doesn't mean I condemn those engaged in it. There are people that tell lies and I don't condemn them. There are people that steal. I don't condemn them. Yes, there are laws about stealing and even about slander, etc.
littlek, our being a democracy gives us all the right to fight for what we believe, right? Well, if gay marriages become legal, then they are legal in man's eyes. If abortion is legal, then it's legal in man's eyes. And I guess, to answer your last question there, an individual decides their own fate according to their own conscience.
I can appreciate how you feel making it illegal is taking away their choice. I really can, littlek. But, you do agree there are some decisions that man can make that are not good for anyone? I am not necessarily saying that making gay marriage illegal is the exact same thing here.
Murder is against the law. I highly doubt it would ever be legalized. Now, I happen to consider abortion the murder of a child. Many don't. That is between them and God. But, since I do believe it is the murder of a child, I fight against abortion, but I do it within the law, not with violence.
Now, to God, sin is sin. I'm not so sure He sees sin in colors. I think He sees it in black and white.
Momma, you say that "...we are never to kill in God's name"; I'm glad to hear it. It clearly distinguishes you from the Islamists who would kill us in the name of God.
Let me observe, however, that your "discernments" are really BELIEFS. You BELIEVE that gays are violating God's law, you are not merely making a passive observation (a "discernment").
JLNobody,
LOL. I will say this, according to the Holy Bible, homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God. That is not a belief. That is known.
Discernment: to come to know, recognize, or understand.
JNL, I realize the Muslims believe they are killing for God. but I KNOW Allah is not God, so I don't even they think know who they are doing it for.
Momma, I not Allah another culture's term for the almighty creator?
And when you say that "according to the Holy Bible, homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God. that is not a belief. That is known," I see an unmistakable expression of BELIEF. How can you say otherwise? You and I AGREE that the sky appears blue to human eyes. THAT agreement is more like "knowing". But you and I do not agree on the existence of gods. This absence of agreement makes both our positions a matter of belief. At least that's one basis for distinguishing between knowledge and belief (not a very vigorous one I admit).
JLN,
What I mean is, I know for a fact that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin. That is the know. It is in the Bible.
The Muslim religion is based upon a false God. It is not based on the God of the Bible.
And they say that the Christian god is the same god as that of Abraham, their god by a different name.
The big difference in this JLN, is that Muslims do not believe Jesus Christ was the Savior. Christianity is based on the fact that the Lord Jesus is the Savior. So, if they do not believe that Jesus was the Son of God, then they do not know who God is.
And that's your belief. Fine. So long as you would not kill for that belief, it IS fine in my book.
JLN,
It's nice to come to a peaceful resolution. Thank you.
We have not yet received an explanation of what is wrong with homosexuality morally that does not invoke God's (supposed) abhorrence of it; I feel confident that none is forthcoming. And I still maintain that the answer to this question is ultimately more germane than the issue of whether or not homosexuality is "natural."
That being said, I believe churches (and individuals) have the right to disapprove of the practice, or advocacy, of gay rights as a matter of conscience or belief. I also believe I have the right to disapprove of their disapproval. What some believe is the sacred word of God, others believe is nothing more than the prejudice of an ancient and best forgotten tribe of primitive people.
It is the business of a free society, and the government thereof, to protect the rights of all of us, gay, gay-supportive, and gay-bashing alike; which means in practice that if a church chooses not to condone gay marriage, it should have the right to do so, however abhorrent this policy may be to people like me. I am under no obligation to belong to or respect such a church. By the same token, gays people should have the right to lead lives according to their own lights, however abhorrent this policy appears to some religious groups. Religious groups are (or should be) under no obligation to support or condone homosexual activity or advocacy.
In short, Momma Angel, I think you and your religion couldn't be more wrong. You have every right to think the same of my position. And we both have the right to change our minds, in light of future life experiences whose nature we cannot begin to anticipate.
None of this will remain possible if we do not recognize the paramount importance of maintaining the separation of church and state, which is the best means of protecting everyone's rights, and the beliefs we have now and may have in the future. Christians believe God gave us free will; it would be a mockery of their own belief to seek to deny free will to others by legal means.
It is heartening to see that no one on this forum seems to be advocating that position.
fresco wrote:raheel,
You confirm a particular religious outlook.
From a non-religious perspective "disorder" is the "norm". The 2nd law.... entropy/disorder increases with time is deemed to give the direction of "time". Even if we define "life" as a self organization structure which transcends entropy "for a time" the end result is the same.
what you are trying to say is that everything is moving away from perfection because it is moving to disorder- why is that correct
why does order = perfection
flushd wrote:
I still think that logo looks like a Pride logo.
He didn't/doesn't think so and thought I was kidding.
The answer to the gay marriage rights is so easy I don't know why we can't just get past this and move on to problems that actually don't have a solution! 99% of anti- gay marriage advocates are that way because of their religious reasons( it's against God, it will destroy marriage, etc) Allow civil unions for everyone and let the churches keep their blessed marriages. You can have either a legal civil union or a legal and blessed church wedding. Why is this so hard? Seperation of church and state. Let the gays have the same rights as we straights do and let the church (a private organization) that they can't be members. I can't stand this "MY god thinks its wrong..." bs. Who CARES what your god thinks, really. No one has to worship ANY god, let alone the god you serve so why should all of us have to live by his rules?
Greyfan wrote:We have not yet received an explanation of what is wrong with homosexuality morally that does not invoke God's (supposed) abhorrence of it; I feel confident that none is forthcoming.
I could easily argue that since sex is nature's way of propagating the species, that two people who have incompatible sexual organs have no business having sex. I don't know if that would be considered morality, but it doesn't have anything to do with God. That's just nature.
Then John, how do you explain couples who are infertile? Are they "freaks of nature"? Unnatural? What would you describe those who are unable to have kids? Worthless?
Raheel,
You may have a point,...suicide bombers might believe that "spiritual perfection" could arise from "earthly disorder"....such is one of the many evils of faith !
Bella Dea wrote:Then John, how do you explain couples who are infertile? Are they "freaks of nature"? Unnatural? What would you describe those who are unable to have kids? Worthless?
You are putting words in my mouth. I'm simply saying that there could be an argument there that doesn't involve God.
John Creasy wrote:Bella Dea wrote:Then John, how do you explain couples who are infertile? Are they "freaks of nature"? Unnatural? What would you describe those who are unable to have kids? Worthless?
You are putting words in my mouth. I'm simply saying that there could be an argument there that doesn't involve God.
So you don't agree with your own statement?
Unlike some here, I don't have all the answers. I'm simply pointing out that homosexuality is not just a religious issue. There are many non-religious people who think that homosexuality is wrong. Now does that mean that homosexuals shouldn't be able to live their lives as they see fit? Of course not.
Why do you care so much about what other people think? There are a lot of things that I don't agree with but that doesn't mean that I want to see these things outlawed. So when you have all the answers to life, please let me know.