Setanta wrote:The thread is way past the point at which Miss Eppie replied to me, but i intend to respond to her reply. It is not with christians of your stripe that i have a beef. I find it highly rational that you have the sense to see the futility of attempting to interfer in the lives of others whose few decisions you deplore, but who are otherwise law-abiding citizens. I applaud that attitude on your part.
It is with those christians (or members of any confession) who would impose upon others that i have a complaint. However--for your part, you are asserting an argument made here before, which runs to the effect that one side wants one thing and the other side wants something different--implying that the two positions are equivalent. But they are not. Those who attempt to legislate against consensual homosexual relations, who attempt to prevent homosexual marriage, who attempt to prevent abortion, who attempt to inject ID into science curricula, are imposing on others. Those who object to and oppose such agendae, are supporting the freedom of people to act freely in any manner they choose which does not constitute a public danger. That is quite different. It has been stated within these fora that allowing such behavior is an imposition upon others because these things are offensive to them. One cannot, however, reasonably allege that it endangers society that someone's nose is out of joint about what others choose to do. The social contract seeks to render the greatest good to the greatest number, and the least harm to all members of society. It does not seek to protect anyone from being offended by behavior which otherwise is innocuous.
Thank you setanta. I understand more clearly now the difference you are talking about. One of the things I see missing sometimes in those who are willing to assert their beliefs to the point of offending others is a lack of understanding of what their effort will produce. Please don't misunderstand me here though. I don't believe everyone should walk around being all wishy washy either. I believe we need to stand up for what we believe in. Not living in fear of offending others, but realizing that being so careless and arrogant in the way you assert things does not help the cause you are trying to serve. It only makes it look bad.
reading tjis thread has been a great way to spend my time on hold with etrade.
Momma Angel wrote:Uh, sorry there Chumly ole boy, but you can't be serious about equating this to Hitler killing 6 million people?
It is exactly the same type of thinking: intolerance towards homosexuals because of moral beliefs / murdering Jews because of moral beliefs.
Momma Angel wrote:If you are serious, don't you suppose that the same thing could be said for your "side of the fence"?
I am not sure what you mean by my "side of the fence" as I speak for and represent no one but myself and I am tolerant of homosexuals.
Momma Angel wrote:Not every atrocity committed has been in the name of God or by those claiming to be Christian.
A vast number of all major wars have had priests and other religious figures on each side, and each side has claimed they are the moral ones and that god is on their side.
Chumly wrote:
Quote:A vast number of all major wars have had priests and other religious figures on each side, and each side has claimed they are the moral ones and that god is on their side.
And, both sides would be right. God does not choose sides.
Which, of course, misses the point entirely . . .
Setanta wrote:Which, of course, misses the point entirely . . .
you talking to me?
No, I got the point I think... LOL well let's see if I really did get the point...
The ideal here is not who is right, who is wrong. Who is pushing their point more. Rather that the purpose for legistlation is not for religious propaganda, but for what works in the best interest of all people regardless of beliefs...
No, my post referred to Intrepid's contention that god takes no sides--which misses the cogent point that Chumly makes that people on both sides in wars claim they have god on their side, one of the evils to which religious fervor can be turned.
No, Miss Eppie, it is my experience to date that you do not miss the points others make, even if, from time to time, as is the case with all of us, you misunderstand at first.
Intrepid wrote:Chumly wrote:
Quote:A vast number of all major wars have had priests and other religious figures on each side, and each side has claimed they are the moral ones and that god is on their side.
And, both sides would be right. God does not choose sides.
So god approved of the Nazi's?
But seriously Bartikus, don't you think it would make sense if god made his presence properly known (he could do it in 10 minutes by stopping the world from turning and speaking to everyone all at once all over the world) then people would stop killing each other, infidels would stop going to hell, and all other religions would be abandoned, etc. and we would all just get along as happy loving Christians?
Are you sure everyone would stop killing each other? For how long?
Would generations hundreds or thousands of years from this event believe it occured? Would new religions then spring forth....No?
How are you sure mankind would stay as happy loving Christians?
You have asserted much here....can you back any of this up?
Should your assertions be taken as true largely on.......faith?
Momma Angel
When your "differing views and beliefs" cause pain and suffering for homosexuals then they are far more than simply "differing views and beliefs".
Chumly wrote:Intrepid wrote:Chumly wrote:
Quote:A vast number of all major wars have had priests and other religious figures on each side, and each side has claimed they are the moral ones and that god is on their side.
And, both sides would be right. God does not choose sides.
So god approved of the Nazi's?
I didn't say that and I don't know. I am just saying that God loves all mankind. If mankind decides to kill each other, even in His name, then both sides can claim that God is on their side and believe it. It is in the minds of men.... nothing to do with God's will.
Chumly wrote:Momma Angel
WheN your "differing views and beliefs" cause pain and suffering for homosexuals then they are far more than simply "differing views and beliefs".
Give me a break chumly. How in the world is momma sharing her views causing any pain or suffering for any homosexuals?
Chumly wrote:Perhaps I have differing views and beliefs than you and others do. What does that make me? It's makes me just what I am, someone with differing views and opinions]
Whne your "differing views and beliefs" cause pain and suffering for homosexuals then they are far more than simply "differing views and beliefs".[/QUOTE][/color]
Perhaps I should get my two friends that are homosexuals to log on here and tell you themselves they don't feel I am doing a single thing to cause them any pain and suffering.
I don't even get to vote on this in my state, Chumly. It's just my opinion and what I believe. If I am hurting anyone by discussing this topic on these threads, well, I am sorry, but I am not trying to hurt anyone's feelings or anything else.
But, like I said. I have the same rights as you do. Thing is, you see me exercising my exact right that you have to hurt people. I don't look at you as hurting anyone because you think same sex marriage is ok even though I believe it is a sin. I just look at it as you think something is ok that I don't think is ok. Perhaps I feel that making things God considers sin detrimental to society? There is no difference. Well, except for the fact that I respect your right to vote for what you think is right and you don't seem to want to convey to me that same respect.
momma, your friends may not care to marry. those who do wish to marry do, indeed, take this rally to block gay marriage personally and are hurt.
Bartikus wrote:But seriously Bartikus, don't you think it would make sense if god made his presence properly known (he could do it in 10 minutes by stopping the world from turning and speaking to everyone all at once all over the world) then people would stop killing each other, infidels would stop going to hell, and all other religions would be abandoned, etc. and we would all just get along as happy loving Christians?
Are you sure everyone would stop killing each other? For how long?
Would generations hundreds or thousands of years from this event believe it occured? Would new religions then spring forth....No?
How are you sure mankind would stay as happy loving Christians?
You have asserted much here....can you back any of this up?
Should your assertions be taken as true largely on.......faith?
Answer my question:
Don't you think it would make sense if god made his presence properly known (he could do it in 10 minutes by stopping the world from turning and speaking to everyone all at once all over the world) then people would stop killing each other, infidels would stop going to hell, and all other religions would be abandoned, etc. and we would all just get along as happy loving Christians?
Chumly wrote:hephzibah wrote:Back to the main point please...
Who is to say what claim is more extraordinary?
What I'm really getting out of this statement chumly (correct me if I'm wrong)is that to you the claims of the christian "God" demand a higher burden of proof because to you the idea itself is extraordinary. However, being one who does not believe in this "God" the argument against it does not require as high a burden of proof, simply because the idea itself is not extraordinary to you.
Well, given that the Christian faith is just one of 100's of thousands of just as likely religions that have accompanied man over the ages, all of which have zero tangible evidence to back them up, I must ask myself which claim is the more extraordinary and therefore requires the higher burden of proof (and is hence less likely):
1) That this is one Christian religion (as you interpret it to be) is correct
2) That this is one Christian religion (as you interpret it to be) is not correct
Sorry it took me so long to get back to this. I got a little side tracked there... LOL.
So then you agree with how I interpreted your viewpoint on this?
Momma Angel,
It does not matter what your two friends think, by stopping homosexual marriage you deny the homosexual's who do want to marry the true love and union that a marriage brings. How can you be so cruel and heartless as to deny such an elemental need? How can you wield such power so recklessly? How can you put yourself above so many others?
