Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on December 05, 2012, 03:25:43 PM
-
In most of our threads on gay marriage, an argument offered against it is that allowing it the same legal status as heterosexual marriage does not reflect the majority view in the USA. A recent poll suggests that this has now changed: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/12/05/poll-from-gay-marriage-to-adoption-attitudes-changing-fast/1748873/
-
Here we go again
-
I'ma go make the popcorn.
Everyone good with butter and salt?
-
In before the lock!
Yeah... butter and salt are fine. Could you grab me a Coke, too?
-
Brb grabbing my Skoal
-
Everyone had better be polite, or it will be locked. I won't be the one locking it, though, as some other moderator is always faster. ;)
-
ERMAHGERD!
Teh gheys!
I have strong feelings on this matter. I absolutely mumble mumble mumble, and I'm not moving from that position.
And, now that I'm all worked up, I'm gonna go start a religion thread. I'm gonna make it clear that mumble mumble mumble, and that's just plain immutable!
-
I would like BaconSalt on my popcorn. Speaking of which, the bacon or bacon and cheese flavored popcorn by the makers of BaconSalt is horrible and I cannot recommend it. There is no discernable bacon flavor in their bacon-flavored popcorn.
-
Oh jesus christ not another thread on gay marriage. The discussion does no good and everyone just gets fired up and pissed off at each other.
-
I would like BaconSalt on my popcorn. Speaking of which, the bacon or bacon and cheese flavored popcorn by the makers of BaconSalt is horrible and I cannot recommend it. There is no discernable bacon flavor in their bacon-flavored popcorn.
That's a damn shame
Oh jesus christ not another thread on gay marriage. The discussion does no good and everyone just gets fired up and pissed off at each other.
What you have against teh gays that we shouldn't talk about them on APS? Hater.
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.cpcache.com%2Fproduct%2F282582592%2Fnuking_gay_whales_for_jesus_rectangle_magnet.jpg%3Fcolor%3DNA%26amp%3Bheight%3D460%26amp%3Bwidth%3D460&hash=e93546d7ba345226a347101019f34e26870fbafa)
-
So far, so good. Most if the time, this thread is closed by the time I notice it.
As for the topic, I wouldn't be surprised if gay marriage gets the green light everywhere in the US within the next decade.
-
You know, there's this concept called reproduction . . .
-
I've heard of it. What about it?
-
Someone call Orville because I need a boat load of popcorn.
-
I've heard of it. What about it?
I dare not.
There are simply too many silly, giggly memes that immediately come to mind.
-
If you really want to define moral issues by majority vote, then I suppose our new scripture will be the Book of Obama.....
-
My son's a Boy Scout, so if you need Popcorn, here's the link to order it. Shipped right to your door.
http://www.trails-end.com/shop/scouts/email_referral.jsp?id=29481281
Oh jesus christ not another thread on gay marriage. The discussion does no good and everyone just gets fired up and pissed off at each other.
Pointing that out just pisses everyone off.
:P ;) =D
-
If you really want to define moral issues by majority vote, then I suppose our new scripture will be the Book of Obama.....
"Our Lord and Savior Barak 0bama"?
In reading at Liberal Fascism (http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Fascism-American-Mussolini-Politics/dp/0385511841), it is interesting to note how many times these progressive anti-liberal (classical sense) movements have a weird religious component to them.
-
My son's a Boy Scout, so if you need Popcorn, here's the link to order it. Shipped right to your door.
http://www.trails-end.com/shop/scouts/email_referral.jsp?id=29481281[/url]
I think I've had enough Boy Scout popcorn to last my whole life. Might still have some on the shelf.
-
My son's a Boy Scout, so if you need Popcorn, here's the link to order it. Shipped right to your door.
http://www.trails-end.com/shop/scouts/email_referral.jsp?id=29481281
Wait . . .
We don't have an "ist" term for sexual preferences.
We have "racist' for people who are racially prejudiced (and, arguably, race baiters). We have "sexist" for people who are prejudiced regarding the maleness/femaleness of people. We have "misogynist" for women haters, and we have "misanthropist" for people who hate, uh, people (what's the word for "man haters?"), but we don't seem to have a word for "gay haters."
I mean, we have "homophobe" for someone who fears gays, but what about the hatred of gays? Mishomoist? Nah. There's got to be a "mis____ist" for gays.
Who knows what that is?
-
>have a weird religious component to them<
I've been noticing that a LOT with Obama's supporters, actually.
Once dealt with some of the members of the UW Oshkosh Campus Crusade for Christ. Bear in mind, we're talking about a group that was kicked off campus because of the actions of their "leader" (who wasn't a student. Organization was basically a cult). I'm reminded of those folks every time I meet an Obama supporter...
-
Wait . . .
We don't have an "ist" term for sexual preferences.
We have "racist' for people who are racially prejudiced (and, arguably, race baiters). We have "sexist" for people who are prejudiced regarding the maleness/femaleness of people. We have "misogynist" for women haters, and we have "misanthropist" for people who hate, uh, people (what's the word for "man haters?"), but we don't seem to have a word for "gay haters."
I mean, we have "homophobe" for someone who fears gays, but what about the hatred of gays? Mishomoist? Nah. There's got to be a "mis____ist" for gays.
Who knows what that is?
How about heteroist?
-
I'm already pissed and I haven't even read the damned thread
I love you guys
-
I love you guys
Now there's a man getting in the spirit of the thread :-*
-
I really don't care. Giving gay unions legal status is perfectly alright with me for legal reasons, insurance, property transfers and inheritance, etc. But there has to be a legal document which creates the 'union" and I don't want it called "marriage".
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.cpcache.com%2Fproduct%2F282582592%2Fnuking_gay_whales_for_jesus_rectangle_magnet.jpg%3Fcolor%3DNA%26amp%3Bheight%3D460%26amp%3Bwidth%3D460&hash=e93546d7ba345226a347101019f34e26870fbafa)
Ehh... gotta nuke somethin'.
-
(what's the word for "man haters?")
Misandrist.
I reserve that sentiment for guys who nuke gay whales.
-
Misandrist.
I reserve that sentiment for guys who nuke gay whales.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IUxK_0WLbg
Don't be hating Nelson.
-
I'ma go make the popcorn.
Everyone good with butter and salt?
Some may find the butter useful. I'm afraid the salt will chafe.
-
>But there has to be a legal document which creates the 'union" and I don't want it called "marriage". <
I've suggested something similar in other threads that discussed this. And outlined why it will never be accepted...
-
In most of our threads on gay marriage, an argument offered against it is that allowing it the same legal status as heterosexual marriage does not reflect the majority view in the USA. A recent poll suggests that this has now changed: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/12/05/poll-from-gay-marriage-to-adoption-attitudes-changing-fast/1748873/
Meh. Not all that surprising. We already know the country has gone full retard.
Wait . . .
We don't have an "ist" term for sexual preferences.
We have "racist' for people who are racially prejudiced (and, arguably, race baiters). We have "sexist" for people who are prejudiced regarding the maleness/femaleness of people. We have "misogynist" for women haters, and we have "misanthropist" for people who hate, uh, people (what's the word for "man haters?"), but we don't seem to have a word for "gay haters."
I mean, we have "homophobe" for someone who fears gays, but what about the hatred of gays? Mishomoist? Nah. There's got to be a "mis____ist" for gays.
Who knows what that is?
"Heterosexist" is a term that some have used. I am OK with being called that.
-
I really don't care. Giving gay unions legal status is perfectly alright with me for legal reasons, insurance, property transfers and inheritance, etc. But there has to be a legal document which creates the 'union" and I don't want it called "marriage".
How does it being labeled "marriage" hurt you directly?
-
It doesn't hurt me directly. I just feel that marriage is between a man and a woman. Pretty simple and I suspect you already knew what I would say.
Again, I don't really care about giving legal status to homosexual "unions" with a contract. Dissolving the contract will have the same ramifications as with a conventional marriage. Hence, there are consequences to the choices you make in life.
-
I really don't care. Giving gay unions legal status is perfectly alright with me for legal reasons, insurance, property transfers and inheritance, etc. But there has to be a legal document which creates the 'union" and I don't want it called "marriage".
- don't care
- don't want it called marriage
Pick one
-
I want apples called oranges.
-
It doesn't hurt me directly.
All I wanted to know. My point has been made.
-
I really don't care. Giving gay unions legal status is perfectly alright with me for legal reasons, insurance, property transfers and inheritance, etc. But there has to be a legal document which creates the 'union" and I don't want it called "marriage".
Fixed. If we're going to create these "unions," they should be open to any two people who want to enter into them, regardless what they do in the bedroom.
-
All I wanted to know. My point has been made.
Nope. One doesn't argue that government should do something on the basis that it won't harm someone. At least not in any libertarian and/or small government mode of thinking. If you want government to start doing something, you should posit some reason why government NOT doing it WILL harm someone.
-
Funny. Unions are just fine with me. When my future wife was in the hospital and we were co-habitating with no family in the immediate area, the doctors wouldn't even tell me what was going on..... A same sex couple would probably experience the same thing. Hence am comfortable with "unions" for legal reasons and feel it is fair. This is about as far as I am willing to go with this kind of discussion. I have religious beliefs and that is just the way it is. I am not going to vote for "civil unions", but if the majority votes for it, fine with me. I just want no part of it. Live and let live.
-
Meh. Not all that surprising. We already know the country has gone full retard.
How interesting. And just recently on the other thread, and if I recall correctly, you were stating that since the majority of the country agreed with your position, that is one of the reasons why gay marriage should be opposed. So if the majority now support it, do you?
-
How interesting. And just recently on the other thread, and if I recall correctly, you were stating that since the majority of the country agreed with your position, that is one of the reasons why gay marriage should be opposed. So if the majority now support it, do you?
I don't recall saying that. Can you dig up the quotation?
I've never based my position on majority opinion. I oppose gay marriage don't want government to recognize non-marriages because I don't want to live in a nation where kook-fringe left-wing non sequiturs are so easily foisted on the gullible. And then on our legal codes.
-
If we're going to create these "unions," they should be open to any two people who want to enter into them, regardless what they do in the bedroom.
Okay. Is a "union" between a brother and sister okay with you? How about a union of two men and a woman or two women and a man?
My view in essence is to "pass" for the most part as I feel that people in a legal committed union should be able to get things like insurance benefits, social securty, food stamps, welfare, etc. same a man and a woman who are married. Just because they are two different sexes should not make it exclusively legal for them. But it has to be a legal union with all the same legal ramifications as if a man and woman are married. "We don't get along, so I'll see someone else." Fine. But that joint property you both own needs to be dealt with legally before anothe "union" can be made.
-
Okay. Is a "union" between a brother and sister okay with you? How about a union of two men and a woman or two women and a man?
My view in essence is to "pass" for the most part as I feel that people in a legal committed union should be able to get things like insurance benefits, social securty, food stamps, welfare, etc. same a man and a woman who are married. Just because they are two different sexes should not make it exclusively legal for them. But it has to be a legal union with all the same legal ramifications as if a man and woman are married. "We don't get along, so I'll see someone else." Fine. But that joint property you both own needs to be dealt with legally before anothe "union" can be made.
Why does it matter if they are sleeping together? A pair of sisters, or a father and daughter, or a mother and son could all be in a legal, committed union. They could use insurance benefits, social security, food stamps, welfare, etc... Why is the sleeping together part the reason for calling something a "marriage"? (Or, union, as you choose to term it.)
-
The ones really pushing this are the divorce lawyers.
-
Didn't say anything about sex between the parties involved in the union. Equality has all kinds of ramifications to the country.
As I have said before, I'm convinced this country is doomed as we know it today or the recent yesterday.
-
I should really start keeping track of how many times I've posted this...
Remove the term "marriage" (and it's linguistic derivitives) from legal terminology. Replace with "civil union". Want to be "married"? That's where your church comes in, and it is their decision whether or not they'll marry you and your partner.
"Civil union": a legal cohabitation agreement between any two or more consenting adults, granting all the same privledges and responsibilities as are currently granted by the marriage license.
Makes everybody truly equal
-
I should really start keeping track of how many times I've posted this...
Remove the term "marriage" (and it's linguistic derivitives) from legal terminology. Replace with "civil union". Want to be "married"? That's where your church comes in, and it is their decision whether or not they'll marry you and your partner.
"Civil union": a legal cohabitation agreement between any two or more consenting adults, granting all the same privledges and responsibilities as are currently granted by the marriage license.
Makes everybody truly equal
That's what they do in Germany. You go first to the Town Hall and fill out the paperwork and you are "married". Then if you want you can head to the religious building/person of your choosing and get "married" under the rules of that religion.
-
I should really start keeping track of how many times I've posted this...
Remove the term "marriage" (and it's linguistic derivitives) from legal terminology. Replace with "civil union". Want to be "married"? That's where your church comes in, and it is their decision whether or not they'll marry you and your partner.
"Civil union": a legal cohabitation agreement between any two or more consenting adults, granting all the same privledges and responsibilities as are currently granted by the marriage license.
Makes everybody truly equal
But then certain groups can't wield moral superiority over other groups!
-
Gonna pick on Fistful here for a sec. Not trying to be mean, but he has the best "example attitude" for this, as NOTHING will convince him that allowing this in any way, shape, or form is acceptable*
So there's those on the Right covered.
The Left would fight against this plan, probably saying something along the lines of "but it isn't the same!"... never mind that, in legal fact, it IS. But then the Left wouldn't have such a great wedge issue to use, keeping gays voting as a block for the Democratic Party
*Not trying to argue whether or not your views are right, moral, just, or anything else. Just using them as an example, no judgement implied
-
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.cpcache.com%2Fproduct%2F282582592%2Fnuking_gay_whales_for_jesus_rectangle_magnet.jpg%3Fcolor%3DNA%26amp%3Bheight%3D460%26amp%3Bwidth%3D460&hash=e93546d7ba345226a347101019f34e26870fbafa)
In the early '80s I had a bumper sticker that read:
NUKE ALL THE UNBORN GAY COMMUNST WHALES FOR CHRIST
I was stationed at Vallejo CA at the time, got a few dirty looks over it.
-
When my future wife was in the hospital and we were co-habitating with no family in the immediate area, the doctors wouldn't even tell me what was going on..... A same sex couple would probably experience the same thing.
Just curious, wouldn't a reciprocal medical power of attorney alleviate this particular problem? This is something I haven't really thought of until just now, so I haven't looked into it.
bob
-
Funny. Unions are just fine with me. When my future wife was in the hospital and we were co-habitating with no family in the immediate area, the doctors wouldn't even tell me what was going on..... A same sex couple would probably experience the same thing. Hence am comfortable with "unions" for legal reasons and feel it is fair. This is about as far as I am willing to go with this kind of discussion. I have religious beliefs and that is just the way it is. I am not going to vote for "civil unions", but if the majority votes for it, fine with me. I just want no part of it. Live and let live.
With the advent of HIPAA, they won't tell you anything even if you are married. They even get all self-righteous about it.
Why does it matter if they are sleeping together? A pair of sisters, or a father and daughter, or a mother and son could all be in a legal, committed union. They could use insurance benefits, social security, food stamps, welfare, etc... Why is the sleeping together part the reason for calling something a "marriage"? (Or, union, as you choose to term it.)
I frequently bring that point up. It pisses everybody off, so I figure I must be onto something.
-
I'ma go make the popcorn.
Everyone good with butter and salt?
Got any kettle corn? That stuff's my favorite... [popcorn]
-
Just curious, wouldn't a reciprocal medical power of attorney alleviate this particular problem? This is something I haven't really thought of until just now, so I haven't looked into it.
bob
It would. A properly-written durable power of attorney for healthcare gives the second party the necessary legal authority to make decisions and receive information regarding the medical care of the first party. If you do have such a document and run into problems, ask to speak to the hospital risk manager and they should take care of it. Tell them I said hello.
PS: I forgot to mention emphasis on the properly-written part for healthcare. I have lost track of the number of times someone has given me a document that they downloaded from the Net, and it is not a healthcare power of attorney. Usually it is a financial power of attorney, which gives you absolutely zilch authority on healthcare matters, or if it is a DPOAH, it only comes into effect if the patient is incompetent, which is usually the case. If the patient is still competent, they are the ones making the decisions on their healthcare, and you as their spouse or holder of the DPOAH have no legal authority at that time in the patient's healthcare. The DPOAH that I have written for my wife and I only come into effect if we are incompetent.
-
With the advent of HIPAA, they won't tell you anything even if you are married. They even get all self-righteous about it.
Hmm, presuming you are legally-married, this usually only applies if the patient has specifically asked you to not share any information with the spouse or other family members. In addition, if the care has anything to do with sexual matters, mental health or substance use, we will need to ask the patient first if they want the information shared with the spouse or other family members. I run into situations all the time where the patient has asked me to not share info with their spouse and I must legally and ethically honor the patient's request. I don't tell the other person that their spouse has forbidden me from telling them about the care; I just say that Federal and State medical privacy laws do not allow me to share the information.
There is still a lot of confusion about HIPAA in the healthcare community, and the Feds have everyone running scared on this, so a lot of places figure that they cannot get into trouble if they keep their mouths shut.
-
We've both signed releases with our primary healthcare provider. Seems like every time we've had reasson for one of us to talk to them about the other they "can't find" the release even though it's all supposed to be computerized now.
-
Nope. One doesn't argue that government should do something on the basis that it won't harm someone. At least not in any libertarian and/or small government mode of thinking. If you want government to start doing something, you should posit some reason why government NOT doing it WILL harm someone.
I'm not making the argument for or against in this thread. Mostly because certain minds will likely never be changed. Only the point that it isn't hurting anyone.
Make me king tomorrow and governments only involvement in marriage would be county records.
-
>have a weird religious component to them<
I've been noticing that a LOT with Obama's supporters, actually.
Once dealt with some of the members of the UW Oshkosh Campus Crusade for Christ. Bear in mind, we're talking about a group that was kicked off campus because of the actions of their "leader" (who wasn't a student.
No, typically the campus student groups are overseen by an older guy or couple, doing it as a Christian mission.
Organization was basically a cult). I'm reminded of those folks every time I meet an Obama supporter...
Maybe sometime, I'd be interested in hearing about that.
I never had any great desire to be part of any of the campus student groups, back in the day, so I don't have any firsthand knowledge of what they were or are like. My understanding is that the 3 big ones (Campus Crusade (now rebranded as "Cru" so as not to spook the cursadophobic Islamics), Intervarsity and Navigators) each had a distinct internal culture.
-
I should really start keeping track of how many times I've posted this...
Remove the term "marriage" (and it's linguistic derivitives) from legal terminology. Replace with "civil union". Want to be "married"? That's where your church comes in, and it is their decision whether or not they'll marry you and your partner.
"Civil union": a legal cohabitation agreement between any two or more consenting adults, granting all the same privledges and responsibilities as are currently granted by the marriage license.
Makes everybody truly equal
A common notion.
-
In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."
This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.
-G K Chesterton
-
Ok Mak... I'll bite.
"What is the purpose of the government's involvement in the institution of marriage?"
That a good starting point?
-
Ok Mak... I'll bite.
"What is the purpose of the government's involvement in the institution of marriage?"
That a good starting point?
Sure. Why did the governemnt get involved in the first place and why was it only for a union of a man and a woman? Why did the government not recognize a pair of spinsters or a formalize a marraige as merely a business arrangement?
-
I asked the question, expecting someone else to answer it... ;)
-
I asked the question, expecting someone else to answer it... ;)
I believe that was Mr. Chesterton's point.
-
He also spoke of destroying something.
I don't recall anyone saying marriage should be abolished, but expanded. That's something different.
For the sake of discussion, I asked the question. Care to answer it?
-
The bottom line is gay marriage will be legalized in most states in the next 10 years. That is why it makes no strategic sense for Reps to throw away voters and elections by opposing it. I am far more concerned what the country will look like because of everything else that is going on, rather than if a few gays will be legally recognized as equals to heterosexuals in terms of marriage.
IMO, what this is really about is gays want to feel equal and normal. Except they can be equal but cannot be normal. They think they become normal if they are equal. So, let's make them equal and allow them the illusion of normalcy. What is the problem with that? I think many opponents of gay marriage equate equality with normalcy, and as they (rightfully) deny normalcy, they think they must deny equality as well. Equal before the law does not make gays normal.
The counterargument is that semantics matters. There is power associated with words, so opponents do not want to give the power associated with "marriage" to gays. What is that power in reality? How does this affect us practically?
Frankly, the religious interpretation of marriage seems to do more harm than good in today's world. For example, before I got married I dated enough Catholic divorcees to know they are really messed up because of the divorce. They think they are lessened because of it, that somehow their purity and worth are diminished, because "marriage is made in heaven" and they failed at it. Now that is real-world consequences. If we instead realize that marriage is a form of social contract, and thus can be dissolved under the right circumstances, things would be better for everybody. Incidentally, it would also improve the marriage, because each spouse cherished a higher appreciation for the other, exactly because it is possible to leave. Conversely, if there is no such thing as exit, or the exit is particularly cumbersome, many people are then stuck in terrible relationships that make both spouses profoundly unhappy. So, let's cut the crap and de-sanctify marriage; it will make it better, not worse.
-
He also spoke of destroying something.
I don't recall anyone saying marriage should be abolished, but expanded. That's something different.
For the sake of discussion, I asked the question. Care to answer it?
On a tangent; Is marriage the gate or the space the gate spans? Abolishing one is would serve much the same function as expanding the other. Gotta look at the whole system.
(Note to Strings: I'm probably mostly agreeing with your views on the topic. I'm not quoting you as a means of disagreement or attack.)
-
Wow, so the Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases on gay marriage: a Proposition 8 case out of California, and a provision of DOMA: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/12/07/166751369/supreme-court-to-review-gay-marriage-laws?ft=1&f=1001
This should be interesting.
-
Frankly, the religious interpretation of marriage seems to do more harm than good in today's world. For example, before I got married I dated enough Catholic divorcees to know they are really messed up because of the divorce. They think they are lessened because of it, that somehow their purity and worth are diminished, because "marriage is made in heaven" and they failed at it. Now that is real-world consequences. If we instead realize that marriage is a form of social contract, and thus can be dissolved under the right circumstances, things would be better for everybody. Incidentally, it would also improve the marriage, because each spouse cherished a higher appreciation for the other, exactly because it is possible to leave. Conversely, if there is no such thing as exit, or the exit is particularly cumbersome, many people are then stuck in terrible relationships that make both spouses profoundly unhappy. So, let's cut the crap and de-sanctify marriage; it will make it better, not worse.
Marriage has always been a social contract. It was formalized legally to facilitate order in terms of the legatimacy of children, inheritance, property ownership, and so forth. Catholics have always separated marriage (the Sacrament of Matrimony) and the social contract (marriage license) and the basic marriage where papers are signed by both parties. Christians, especially Catholics, santified marriage as a contract between two people (man and woman for the purpose of pro-creation) and God (not the state). Diifferent religious faiths had different rules on dissolving the contract. The Catholic Religion was probably the toughest at least to my knowledge. A divorce or breaking of the marriage contract had religious consequences... essentially dissolving the contract without the blessing of the Church resulted in being denied any of the "benefits" of the religions. That may be a bit outdated, but it remains today.
Changing the social contract to be inclusive of same sex people changes the fundamental religious contract because marriage was for pro-creation from a religous perspective and a legal contract for the other aspects of marriage.
You may dissagree with the fundimental religious aspects, but they exist. Allowing for a civil union but not marriage would skirt the religous aspect and legitamize the legal aspects. Some would say this is outdated. Others feel that this change would fundamentally alter the purpose of a marriage and hence wrong.
It is nothing to me to have civil unions or homosexual marriages. I am no Bible toter, but I believe that the Bible is rooted in a belief that marriage is between a man and woman who could pro-create. There are passages in the Bible which I can't quote but I have a faint memory of them from the Old Testament.
From a religous perspective, the Roman Empire broke up because it became fundamentally corrupt in terms of its social fabric. The USA could do the same and it is headed that way. The government ties people of common goals together and when the common goals or fabric is broken up, the government fails. This is probably a bit simplistic since communistic governments remain today and governments controlled by Islamists remain strong (because the religion forces a very strict family structure with penalties as I understand it). Religious persecution goes back a long time and it continues today. The big difference with America is that it was founded on Christian principles which are more or less generally accepted principles by other faiths. But the difference is that fundamental rights were God given and not granted by the government. The Second Amendment is one of those which many here hold dearly.
Christianity is essentially a communistic and totalitarian system with redistribution of wealth as a basis for the good of everyone. But we know that it is not an effective system from a populace perspective due to human greed. Capitalism and individualism is not necessarily generic with a successful government, but allows for individuals to better themselves when they are not born on the "right side of the tracks" or within a certain family.
How much changing the marriage contract would affect the government is debatable. But a country grows by population increase and same sex marriage is not compatable with that. As long as the number of homosexual is small relatively speaking, it probably has no significant effect on the US social fabric in itself.
But the country is faced with the breakup of the family unit which forms the basis of most Western civilization.
It is very complicated and one can not predict what will happen in the long term. But if the country makes the social contract as not significant, then you become more a vassel of the state rather than a member of a family.
Sorry for wandering a bit, but I will have to sort this out.
-
Someone call Orville because I need a boat load of popcorn.
Orville used planes, not boats.
-
Christianity is essentially a communistic and totalitarian system with redistribution of wealth as a basis for the good of everyone.
In my years in and around Christianity, I can't say I've ever seen anything that would support that as a general statement.
-
In terms of Catholism, it is essentially a communistic system with totalitarian rule by the Pope. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. Many religions "suggest" a tithe. Demand is perhaps a more proper term.
-
Frankly, the religious interpretation of marriage seems to do more harm than good in today's world. For example, before I got married I dated enough Catholic divorcees to know they are really messed up because of the divorce. They think they are lessened because of it, that somehow their purity and worth are diminished, because "marriage is made in heaven" and they failed at it. Now that is real-world consequences. If we instead realize that marriage is a form of social contract, and thus can be dissolved under the right circumstances, things would be better for everybody. Incidentally, it would also improve the marriage, because each spouse cherished a higher appreciation for the other, exactly because it is possible to leave. Conversely, if there is no such thing as exit, or the exit is particularly cumbersome, many people are then stuck in terrible relationships that make both spouses profoundly unhappy. So, let's cut the crap and de-sanctify marriage; it will make it better, not worse.
Our society has been desanctifying marriage for decades. It has made things worse, not better.
Like most social-liberal viewpoints, yours is based on outdated thinking.
-
>It is very complicated and one can not predict what will happen in the long term. But if the country makes the social contract as not significant, then you become more a vassel of the state rather than a member of a family.<
But can you explain how extending the same legal protections to same sex couples "makes the social contract not significant"? You kinda lose me there.
What I keep hearing, from anyone who opposes any form of "gay marriage", is that it "destroys the institution of marriage". Something tells me the current attitude towards marriage is already doing exactly that
-
As I said before, I want same sex unions (if legal) to be viewed as equal under the law. Dissolving the union would have the same consequences as a dissolving childless marriage. If you believe that marriage is essentially for pro-creation of the human species in an orderly manner, then same sex unions do not promote this view. Some religions would say this is godless.
I think same sex unions would serve to further weaken the family overall. Kids are taught that it is Okay. They are not just taught to tolerate differences between people but to accept it as being equal to a traditional family structure. It is obvious that eventually same sex marriages will become "legal".
-
>I think same sex unions would serve to further weaken the family overall.<
I've heard this claim every time the subject comes up on here. What I never hear is "How". Simply believing it is the case is no more than a belief in Santa Claus. Explain to me how it would "further weaken the family"
>Kids are taught that it is Okay. They are not just taught to tolerate differences between people but to accept it as being equal to a traditional family structure.<
Um... yeah. That would be one effect.
And this is bad... how?
Every family I've seen, where gays are considered "lesser", "immoral", "degenerate"... the kids have absolutely ZERO tolerance for someone they can identify as "Other". And that's something we want to get past... or at least, I thought we did
-
This thread is sure to change people's minds!
-
This thread is sure to change people's minds!
I'm totally convinced now
-
*shrug*
Those were really helpful, thoughtful, and constructive posts. I'm sure I can speak for fistful and Ron, as well as myself, when I say thank you for the insight.
-
Simply believing it is the case is no more than a belief in Santa Claus.
There lies the problem with social science. Once you can demonstrate a cause and effect, the damage is done and more than likely not repairable. Nobody can even agree on the root cause of crime, solutions, and what kind of punishment is effective in deterring future criminal behavior. Once you start down the slope to same sex marriage, there will be no stopping it for all practical purposes. And we have already started down that slope. Right or wrong, that is where things are headed with the US Supreme Court hearing a case on the issue.
As I suspected all along, we are all just a bunch of animals being herded one way and the other. The question is "herded" where and from what? Towards goodness?? which is like just like the belief in Santa Claus and God; there is no proving that one in a way that is universally acceptable.
-
>there is no proving that one in a way that is universally acceptable.<
QFT
Ye GAWDS, QFT!
-
The Catholic Religion was probably the toughest at least to my knowledge. A divorce or breaking of the marriage contract had religious consequences... essentially dissolving the contract without the blessing of the Church resulted in being denied any of the "benefits" of the religions. That may be a bit outdated, but it remains today.
So, a bunch of people are stuck in a bad relationship, so if they stay, they suffer until dead. If they leave, their religion treats them like lepers. Then they try to move to new relationships and bring a ton of unresolved baggage, for all to enjoy. Outdated is the right word. But others come to mind as well. So, sanctified marriage does not seem to be a good idea.
Changing the social contract to be inclusive of same sex people changes the fundamental religious contract because marriage was for pro-creation from a religous perspective and a legal contract for the other aspects of marriage.
Except one person's religious convictions should be limited to him. It cannot be a free society if those convictions are foisted upon other people, either verbatim or by extension or by effect, especially those who do not share them. Just because in Bob's religion, marriage is between man and woman, does not give the right to Bob to tell Tracy and Kate THEY cannot be married because it is against HIS religion. If Bob tries to use the power of the state to affect what kind of contract the lesbos can get in, then Bob acts as a statist, theocrat, and tyrant.
From a religous perspective, the Roman Empire broke up because it became fundamentally corrupt in terms of its social fabric.
What exactly does that mean? What society does not have corruption?
Regarding the Roman Empire, this is the typical example given. But, closer examination of the historical truth shows the Romans were doing just fine for many centuries, and had several periods of tranquility and prosperity, usually when a competent emperor replaced a wastrel, or when the barbarians backed off for a while. It does not correlate at all with fall of morals. In fact, for most of its history, Rome was decidedly pagan, but it did fall just 150 years after Christianity became the official religion. Should we then conclude Christianity made Rome fall?
The reality is the Roman Empire example is the moral example given by religious leaders as a warning that loose morals destroy societies. Do as we say, or you will fall like Rome. No matter that it has nothing to do with the historical truth. But, it is a useful rationalization if it gets people to follow you. The method is not much different than telling the medieval people that pestilences are the way God punishes them for their sins, although the true cause is bad sanitation or a pandemic virus, both of which have nothing to do with the moral fibre.
Specifically regarding marriage, even in Republican Rome, it was considered a means of solidifying political and economic alliances, to be dissolved when the alliances were broken up as well. And yet, they did just fine for hundreds of years.
The big difference with America is that it was founded on Christian principles which are more or less generally accepted principles by other faiths. But the difference is that fundamental rights were God given and not granted by the government. The Second Amendment is one of those which many here hold dearly.
And the counterargument is the foundation was people willing to do violence to gain their freedom from an oppressive government. The religious aspect of it was necessary to counterweigh the opposite religious argument about viewing the king as the anointed representative of God on earth. Taking into account the revolutionaries had to gain the support of a lot of religious people, they had to provide the latter with a religious immunization against the religious memes of the loyalists.
How much changing the marriage contract would affect the government is debatable. But a country grows by population increase and same sex marriage is not compatable with that. As long as the number of homosexual is small relatively speaking, it probably has no significant effect on the US social fabric in itself.
How is gay marriage incompatible with population increase? if anything, it is neutral. if there are more gay couples adopting or using surrogacy, the effect would actually be positive on population growth.
-
Our society has been desanctifying marriage for decades. It has made things worse, not better.
Which things are worse and how are they brought about by the desanctification specifically?
Like most social-liberal viewpoints, yours is based on outdated thinking.
How is that?
-
Like most social-liberal viewpoints, yours is based on outdated thinking.
How is that?
I mean, this isn't 1955. We've tried it your way. We've already been treating marriage like something temporary that can be discarded, once the magic is gone.
Now, come join us in the 21st century, where we know that approach hasn't made people happier, overall. It has just led to more people being torn up by more and cheaper relationships. More kids not knowing their fathers, etc.
-
Every family I've seen, where gays are considered "lesser", "immoral", "degenerate"... the kids have absolutely ZERO tolerance for someone they can identify as "Other". And that's something we want to get past... or at least, I thought we did
I imagine that would be true of any group of people. If you train your kids to think that liars or cops or Mets fans are all bound for the special hell, then you can expect them to treat such people with less than Christian charity. But that doesn't seem relevant to slingshot's point, which I think was about modeling healthy family structures for children.
-
Quote from: Strings on Today at 01:49:26 AM
Every family I've seen, where gays are considered "lesser", "immoral", "degenerate"... the kids have absolutely ZERO tolerance for someone they can identify as "Other". And that's something we want to get past... or at least, I thought we did
Soon the new "other" will be the Christians that hold historical and traditional beliefs.
-
I mean, this isn't 1955. We've tried it your way. We've already been treating marriage like something temporary that can be discarded, once the magic is gone.
What you say makes sense only if your premise is that a significant percentage of people get married carelessly or cynically. I find this highly doubtful. It is difficult to imagine that many brides that are so cynical from the beginning, saying "let's give this marriage thing a whirl; if it does not work out, I divorce."
The real difference with respect to 1955 is that divorce is relatively easy and no longer a big social stigma. So, instead of being stuck in bad abusive relationships for life, people have a way out and use it. How horrible indeed (sarcasm).
Now, come join us in the 21st century, where we know that approach hasn't made people happier, overall.
Life is what you make out of it, so long as you have the freedom to do it. The answer to people making bad decisions is making good decisions, not taking their freedom of making decisions.
It has just led to more people being torn up by more and cheaper relationships. More kids not knowing their fathers, etc.
In 1955, many children of married parents did not get to know their father either, either because he was the sole breadwinner and thus absent most of the time, or because he spent time with his mistress, or both.
-
>Soon the new "other" will be the Christians that hold historical and traditional beliefs. <
Oh boy...
This suggestion ("Christians are persecuted!") is actually somewhat offensive to those of us who have dealt with actual religious persecution.
Just because society doesn't let you have everything your way does NOT equal persecution
-
>I imagine that would be true of any group of people. If you train your kids to think that liars or cops or Mets fans are all bound for the special hell, then you can expect them to treat such people with less than Christian charity. But that doesn't seem relevant to slingshot's point, which I think was about modeling healthy family structures for children. <
You'll notice that I didn't use any religious terms there. It has nothing to do with "special hells", or "Christian charity". And I've seen it in almost every faith (be kinda silly for a Sikh to show Christian Charity).
And again, I will ask the question: how is allowing gays the same legal protections to their committed relationships damaging to the institution of marriage?
-
This suggestion ("Christians are persecuted!") is actually somewhat offensive to those of us who have dealt with actual religious persecution.
Just because society doesn't let you have everything your way does NOT equal persecution
This. A thousand times this. And I am more than "somewhat" offended. I usually restrain myself and don't say everything I would like to say on the subject in the name of decorum and board peace.
-
I keep thinking what is the Islamist point of view on marriage and family structure. I hear snippets about the religion but my take is that it is essentially like the Christian religion for the most part. The Christian religion of the day when through their purges based on peganism and so forth. Now we are experiencing the same sort of thing with Islam. I think they are winning.
Since I am not well versed in Islam, maybe somebody could draw some comparisions to the Christian religions as well as the Catholic religion.
What does QFT mean?
Added: I am of the general belief that a strict religious structure is actually healthy for society overall as there is less grey area between right and wrong. I rebelled against organized religion in my younger days. But on the whole, I see a great deal of merit in structure. Structure is what our society is lacking. A strict structure allows the government and society to have a less strict structure because the laws are simply not necessary.
-
What you say makes sense only if your premise is that a significant percentage of people get married carelessly or cynically. I find this highly doubtful. It is difficult to imagine that many brides that are so cynical from the beginning, saying "let's give this marriage thing a whirl; if it does not work out, I divorce."
Don't make things up. The premise is the modern reality, in which divorce bears relatively little social stigma. It is axiomatic that a less demanding commitment tends to elicit less thought, less counting of costs, before people either commit to it or abandon it.
The real difference with respect to 1955 is that divorce is relatively easy and no longer a big social stigma. So, instead of being stuck in bad abusive relationships for life, people have a way out and use it. How horrible indeed (sarcasm).
Aside from the sarcasm, you're just repeating what I said. Then, you ignore the social costs that we have come to know all too well.
Life is what you make out of it, so long as you have the freedom to do it. The answer to people making bad decisions is making good decisions, not taking their freedom of making decisions.
What you say makes sense only if your premise is that people are being forced into marriages.
In 1955, many children of married parents did not get to know their father either, either because he was the sole breadwinner and thus absent most of the time, or because he spent time with his mistress, or both.
Oh, please. You're being obtuse. No one said that 1955 was a golden age, or that problems did not exist at that time. The fact is that illegitimacy rates are much higher then, than now.
-
I keep thinking what is the Islamist point of view on marriage and family structure. I hear snippets about the religion but my take is that it is essentially like the Christian religion for the most part. The Christian religion of the day when through their purges based on peganism and so forth. Now we are experiencing the same sort of thing with Islam. I think they are winning.
They are upset with Christians redefining the traditional marriage into this newfangled "one man-one woman" structure. They practice polygamy and believe in subservience of women, which is very Old Testament.
What does QFT mean?
Quoted For Truth
Added: I am of the general belief that a strict religious structure is actually healthy for society overall as there is less grey area between right and wrong. I rebelled against organized religion in my younger days. But on the whole, I see a great deal of merit in structure. Structure is what our society is lacking. A strict structure allows the government and society to have a less strict structure because the laws are simply not necessary.
Yeah, but any strict structure has massive potential for all sorts of abuses.
-
Yeah, but any strict structure has massive potential for all sorts of abuses.
True... like using chemical weapons against your own people?
I know the same sex marriage will become the law of the land regardless of how I feel about it. I just wonder where we go from here with the family structure deteriorating rapidly, out of wedlock births rising for all races, single parent families being the norm, more government dependance, crime seems to be rising again after years of decline, fewer people participating in organized religions, the government becoming more and more intrusive... where is this going? I suspect the answer is Kaboom. But I hope not.
-
Quoted For Truth
Because everyone knows if you saw something enough times it becomes true. (I don't even know what this was about, just the whole idea of "QFT" pisses me off, dagnabbit)
-
>Soon the new "other" will be the Christians that hold historical and traditional beliefs. <
Oh boy...
This suggestion ("Christians are persecuted!") is actually somewhat offensive to those of us who have dealt with actual religious persecution.
Just because society doesn't let you have everything your way does NOT equal persecution yet.
FIFY.
-
>Soon the new "other" will be the Christians that hold historical and traditional beliefs. <
Oh boy...
This suggestion ("Christians are persecuted!") is actually somewhat offensive to those of us who have dealt with actual religious persecution.
Just because society doesn't let you have everything your way does NOT equal persecution
And, while that's true, there are [relatively] modern religions for which "persecution" is neither an abstract nor hyperbole.
There are still a great many "Christians" who can't reconcile themselves with Mormonism. Not a month goes by that I don't hear (or see) someone use the word "cult" in reference to it, and they're actually not kidding. The LDS church has mostly gained recognition as a mainstream religion, but there is no shortage of people who would happily see it dismantled.
As a member of another [relatively] modern church, one whose existence has literally been attacked by the governments of the countries where it started, as well as by the governments of other nations to which it has spread, assisted by both the intel communities and the media, I have a clearer view of what real persecution is.
And, as I see the engines of persecution being incrementally directed toward Christianity, one aspect at a time, I will tell you that -- in slow motion -- Christianity is, indeed, under attack. It's not required that it be entirely demolished, just infiltrated and subverted to the point where it ceases to be a vehicle for traditional moralities. Once that's been accomplished, and the pulpit is no longer dangerous to the conquistadors du jour, it won't matter.
It's only necessary to destroy a church if you don't believe you can "turn" it to your advantage, and you believe that what it teaches threatens your plans.
-
Let's not forget that in the 19 fifties it was also more common for people to have their spouse killed than to seek divorce.
>:D
I just wanted to toss more oil on the flames
-
Don't make things up. The premise is the modern reality, in which divorce bears relatively little social stigma. It is axiomatic that a less demanding commitment tends to elicit less thought, less counting of costs, before people either commit to it or abandon it.
So, what is your solution? Let's make divorce nigh impossible, to strengthen marriage? Then modern people will simply not marry.
Aside from the sarcasm, you're just repeating what I said. Then, you ignore the social costs that we have come to know all too well.
The social costs of what? Desanctifying marriage? Making divorce easy? Having gov payoffs for single mothers, so welfare women are incentivized to produce a bunch of kids? I feel like a dentist here. Give us your version in a consistent way, so I understand your claims.
What you say makes sense only if your premise is that people are being forced into marriages.
People make mistakes. They need to be able to make their choices but then be able to fix them as well. Building up walls to entry and to exit makes marriage a prison. Nobody would support that. It goes beyond conservative and into some lalaland.
-
And, while that's true, there are [relatively] modern religions for which "persecution" is neither an abstract nor hyperbole.
There are still a great many "Christians" who can't reconcile themselves with Mormonism. Not a month goes by that I don't hear (or see) someone use the word "cult" in reference to it, and they're actually not kidding. The LDS church has mostly gained recognition as a mainstream religion, but there is no shortage of people who would happily see it dismantled.
Hmm. I've never thought of "dismantling" the LDS, but I guess you'd have to explain why that's such a bad goal. Maybe I don't find the LDS to be a positive influence. What's that to you?
There's certainly no reason to "kid" about the LDS being a cult, it just helps if you understand the sense in which people are using the term. Here's an LDS web site explaining it:
One definition listed for ‘cult’ in Webster’s Dictionary is “a religion regarded as unorthodox.” Since the roots of Mormonism are not a break off from the Catholic or Protestant churches, it is seen by some as “unorthodox.” For example, the LDS definition of the Godhead differs from the Nicene Creed accepted by most Catholic or Protestant churches. The “cult” label is usually applied by Church opponents attempting to criticize or discredit the Church.
http://mormon.org/faq/mormon-church
So, yeah, if Christians think the LDS are so far out of the mainstream that the "cult" label applies, then there's no need for you to wonder why some call it a cult. Just like some (https://www.google.com/search?q=why+the+LDS+is+a+cult&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=3&gs_rn=0&gs_ri=serp&tok=xr142zj7UpFSjVYc7-sQxw&pq=why%20the%20lds%20is%20a%20cult&cp=16&gs_id=1zj&xhr=t&q=catholicism+is+a+cult&pf=p&newwindow=1&client=firefox-a&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aunofficial&sclient=psy-ab&oq=catholicism+is+a&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=bf29acd5aa4ebc9e&bpcl=39650382&biw=1280&bih=873) consider the Roman Catholic church to be a cult. And some wonder if the Oneness Pentecostals (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostalism) can really be considered Christians.
And as long as other religious folks are being offended, I'll cop to being offended by people who claim that we're being mean, or intolerant or divisive, when we say that our religion has certain fundamental tenets, and those who deny those tenets are not in the club. If you don't want to go along with our religion's principles, then quit claiming to belong to it.
And to bring things back on topic; if you don't want to be joined to a person of the opposite sex, quit claiming that you want to be married. Follow the rules, or start your own club.
-
So, what is your solution? Let's make divorce nigh impossible, to strengthen marriage? Then modern people will simply not marry.
Well, the solution is clearly not to further "desanctify" marriage, which was your prescription. That's not working out so well. We can decry the state of affairs in past eras, and we may not wish to be as rigid as the Victorians, but we certainly can't claim to be doing any better than they were. I think we can, and really must, find a middle ground where marriage is neither an inescapable trap, nor a fictional "commitment" in which no one really commits.
The social costs of what? Desanctifying marriage? Making divorce easy? Having gov payoffs for single mothers, so welfare women are incentivized to produce a bunch of kids? I feel like a dentist here. Give us your version in a consistent way, so I understand your claims.
??? I'm not sure I mentioned welfare. And I thought it was pretty clear that I was responding to your idea of "desanctifying marriage." I'm just pointing out that your argument was made decades ago, we tried what you said, and your position has turned out to be wrong.
People make mistakes. They need to be able to make their choices but then be able to fix them as well. Building up walls to entry and to exit makes marriage a prison. Nobody would support that. It goes beyond conservative and into some lalaland.
Only in lalaland is anyone saying that marriage should be inescapable. And the bygone era in which divorce was more difficult was not lalaland, either. People supported tougher marriage laws and more austere social attitudes once. They might do so again.
But, silly me, I thought we libertarians were all about choices have consequences, and honoring contracts and such. Maybe I'm on the wrong forum. =|
-
People make mistakes. They need to be able to make their choices but then be able to fix them as well. Building up walls to entry and to exit makes marriage a prison. Nobody would support that. It goes beyond conservative and into some lalaland.
[I'm presenting this for the sake of a purely religious perspective on divorce.]
My Mother would have said that people make their choices and have to live with those choices especially if there are children for the overall good of society, not personal satisfaction or pleasure. You made your own prison and many Americans have unhealthy expectations of marriage. I used to think she lived in LaLaLand at times when I was younger, but I am not so certain any more. The attitude holds the family together.
If you are a Catholic and were married in the church, you get a civil divorce... you're out or you can not "enjoy" the benefits of the religion which for those that know is the Sacraments. Many divorced Catholics who are religious become Episcopalian where the service is essentially the same but have more liberal rules about divorce. But for Catholics in the USA, that is not the answer.
How can the Catholic religion recognize same sex marriage? They won't even recognize female priests and so forth. The rules are the rules.
I think a strong adherence to morality issues especially outwardly is an important condition that favors stability in the family and the country.
By the way, I am a divorced Catholic who would not be considered a very good catholic. But I have very high ethical standards that transcend profit.
-
>Soon the new "other" will be the Christians that hold historical and traditional beliefs. <
Oh boy...
This suggestion ("Christians are persecuted!") is actually somewhat offensive to those of us who have dealt with actual religious persecution.
Just because society doesn't let you have everything your way does NOT equal persecution
Who used the term persecution?
There is a level of oppression though.
Making by force of law (ie threat of violence) Christians fund abortion and others birth control is happening. Making "Christian institutions" supply health insurance that funds the above is happening.
Making Christians accept the bastardization of the concept of marriage will happen by force of law eventually also. How that effects the hiring practices of churches and religious institutions, the practice of marriage ceremonies and what can be preached from the pulpit will then be the next targets.
See Canada and swaths of Europe for an object lesson in the progression.
Once the majority of adults in the USA are those who have been indoctrinated in our current public school social engineering project, those who hold traditional Christian views of morality will increasingly be that "other".
-
I don't care whether gay marriage is legal or not; it won't affect me either way. I am surprised that such a small percentage of the population (less than 5%, probably closer to 2%) has such a big influence on public laws.
-
Marriage these days just means "two people who love each other." According to that definition, gay marriage makes perfect sense. According to that definition, marriage is also pretty vapid, and should be replaced with "I really like this girl/guy" licenses instead. Why is there a 2-person limit? I have no problem loving two (or more) girls simultaneously. Why can't I marry two of them, or three?
Is there a better definition of marriage available?
-
>And as long as other religious folks are being offended, I'll cop to being offended by people who claim that we're being mean, or intolerant or divisive, when we say that our religion has certain fundamental tenets, and those who deny those tenets are not in the club. If you don't want to go along with our religion's principles, then quit claiming to belong to it.<
There, you and I are in lock-step. Believe that or not as you will...
>And to bring things back on topic; if you don't want to be joined to a person of the opposite sex, quit claiming that you want to be married. Follow the rules, or start your own club.<
I've outlined this so many times: the ones pushing for the term "marriage", not willing to settle for anything "less", are mostly just rabble rousers. If the majority of the states had some form of civil union available to gays, that afforded the partners the same protections and such as marriage, they'd be fine with that.
>Who used the term persecution?<
I described persecution of the "Other". you identified Christians as (soon to be) "Other". That suggests persecution of Christians.
All of my personal experiences have been of Christians persecuting other faiths, while claiming to be picked on when they don't get to enact the tennets of the Christian faith into law.
When YOU have people offering to use you as firewood because of your faith, when YOU have folks in your military chain of command openly denigrating your faith, when YOU have to hide your faith in order to protect your job... THEN, you can claim persecution. I've dealt with all three (and seen MANY other examples, all done by Christians aimed at other faiths)
>There is a level of oppression though.<
I would argue "oppression". But we'll continue...
>Making by force of law (ie threat of violence) Christians fund abortion and others birth control is happening. Making "Christian institutions" supply health insurance that funds the above is happening.<
And I disagree with this actions
>Making Christians accept the bastardization of the concept of marriage will happen by force of law eventually also.<
See my previous explanation as to how to work around this
>How that effects the hiring practices of churches and religious institutions, the practice of marriage ceremonies and what can be preached from the pulpit will then be the next targets.<
And I am just as against that happening too. So long as you don't try to force the the rest of us to follow Christian rules for our lives.
But this always seems to come down to an all or nothing debate, somehow...
-
"So, a bunch of people are stuck in a bad relationship, so if they stay, they suffer until dead. If they leave, their religion treats them like lepers. Then they try to move to new relationships and bring a ton of unresolved baggage, for all to enjoy."
That was something that was pounded into my head growing up from my parents. "Divorce is not an option, you pray when things get bad and they will be answered. That's the only true way." I don't share that viewpoint, which is part of why I will never discuss religion with my parents anymore.
As for the "so they stay..." part: Some of us stay because of our children, wanting them to have a solid parental foundation. So we put on a happy face for them and don't let them see our tears and do our best to be as good of parents as we can. You're right, too, I know some people at the church I belonged to before I stopped going that would act like you didn't exist if they knew you were divorced, which isn't right. People have enough to worry about than if the one place that, traditionally, has been a sanctuary, will treat them as lepers.
Whatever happened to playing nice in the sandbox?
-
"So, a bunch of people are stuck in a bad relationship, so if they stay, they suffer until dead. If they leave, their religion treats them like lepers. Then they try to move to new relationships and bring a ton of unresolved baggage, for all to enjoy."
That was something that was pounded into my head growing up from my parents. "Divorce is not an option, you pray when things get bad and they will be answered. That's the only true way." I don't share that viewpoint, which is part of why I will never discuss religion with my parents anymore.
As for the "so they stay..." part: Some of us stay because of our children, wanting them to have a solid parental foundation. So we put on a happy face for them and don't let them see our tears and do our best to be as good of parents as we can. You're right, too, I know some people at the church I belonged to before I stopped going that would act like you didn't exist if they knew you were divorced, which isn't right. People have enough to worry about than if the one place that, traditionally, has been a sanctuary, will treat them as lepers.
Whatever happened to playing nice in the sandbox?
Why do you hate gays so much that you wanna inflict this on them too? [popcorn]
-
Thinking about it: why is it we ALWAYS start talking about immorality and divorce when these threads start?
Actually being serious: wouldn't gays wanting to codify their relationship, and remain together for "the long haul", be a moral thing?
-
Um.....Last I checked, I never said I hated them. If you wish to know, I'm all for them having the right to marry the one they love. So there. :P
-
Thinking about it: why is it we ALWAYS start talking about immorality and divorce when these threads start?
Actually being serious: wouldn't gays wanting to codify their relationship, and remain together for "the long haul", be a moral thing?
You're kidding, right? ???
-
Just because society doesn't let you have everything your way does NOT equal persecution
Nobody said it did.
When YOU have people offering to use you as firewood because of your faith, when YOU have folks in your military chain of command openly denigrating your faith, when YOU have to hide your faith in order to protect your job... THEN, you can claim persecution. I've dealt with all three (and seen MANY other examples, all done by Christians aimed at other faiths)
When you are fed to lions, and burned alive, because you won't sacrifice one pinch of incense to the emperor...THEN, you can claim persecution. Christians have dealt with this.
See, two can play at this game. :P ;)
-
See, two can play that this game. :P ;)
No, they can't. Unless you have witnessed this personally. Or it happened to you.
-
I guess you had to witness or experience "it" personally to know something is true... consider the Jews during the Hilter years in Germany. I didn't witness it or experience it, so I guess it is not true.
-
I guess you had to witness or experience "it" personally to know something is true... consider the Jews during the Hilter years in Germany. I didn't witness it or experience it, so I guess it is not true.
Ummm no, but when making claims of current trends in persecution first hand accounts have more weight than events of thousands of years ago.
For better or worse, Christianity has been the prime persecuter on the planet for about 800 or so years. Not a monopoly, but they definately held the title. Arguably they tropped off in the last 50 or so. But when talking about recent religious percecution it's good to remember that.
-
I guess you had to witness or experience "it" personally to know something is true... consider the Jews during the Hilter years in Germany. I didn't witness it or experience it, so I guess it is not true.
Not at all. It isn't a matter of it being true or not. It's a matter of being true right now.
-
;/
The fact that some people of religion x have had a harder time than some people of religion y does not mean religion y isn't facing persecution. Or if you like, we could call it harassment. Regardless, even if Christians are persecuting/harassing pagans, that doesn't mean Christians can't be persecuted/harassed themselves. So that line of argument is a non-starter.
Maybe some people here should consider that, just because they don't hear about Christians being persecuted, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And while I don't believe everything I hear, there is no shortage of stories about Christians' religious freedom being curtailed. It usually involves a public school, and an administration that doesn't understand the laws under which they are supposed to operate. Public schools are supposed to allow religious clubs to operate within their schools, or on their property, in the same way they allow other clubs. Students are supposed to be allowed to pray before meals, or read religious materials, just like they are allowed to talk to their friends at lunch, or read other books. Not all schools understand this, or choose to do the right thing.
I, personally, know a girl that was told she could not bring her Bible to school. Obviously, her parents could have fought that and won, but the school did it anyway. I know an atheist who persuaded his school to ban a Christian club, then made them reverse their decision when he decided he wanted to be a Christian himself.
No, it's not lions or fire. But it is something that should bother anyone who believes in freedom of religion. It little becomes us to insist that only our people face opposition, and you have to go through what we went through, or we don't care about your problems.
-
For better or worse, Christianity has been the prime persecuter on the planet for about 800 or so years. Not a monopoly, but they definately held the title. Arguably they tropped off in the last 50 or so. But when talking about recent religious percecution it's good to remember that.
Ha! What a load of BS.
Take the whole history of so called "Christians" persecution of folks and it wouldn't even come close to what the USSR accomplished in the name of their secular religious system. Now add China and the Khmer Rouge to the mix and you can get a real feel for just how noble the secularists and materialists can be without the encumbrance of religion. Then of course we have the fascists who also worship the state like the Nazi's.
I'm a little concerned about you folks with no religion, seems like lack of religion plays a big part in genocide, mass murder and all kinds of inhumanity to others. You're the kind of folks that round up the Bible believers and Jews and disappear them, for the good of the community. I gots my eye on you ;)
Seems like the common ingredient in persecution here is human beings, not religion.
-
Ha! What a load of BS.
Take the whole history of so called "Christians" persecution of folks and it wouldn't even come close to what the USSR accomplished in the name of their secular religious system. Now add China to the mix and you can get a real feel for just how noble the secularists and materialists can be without the encumbrance of religion. Then of course we have the fascists who also worship the state like the Nazi's.
I'm a little concerned about you folks with no religion, seems like lack of religion plays a big part in genocide, mass murder and all kinds of inhumanity to others. You're the kind of folks that round up the Bible believers and Jews and disappear them, for the good of the community. I gots my eye on you ;)
Seems like the common ingredient persecution here is human beings, not religion.
And government.
-
And government.
Plus one zillion for emphasis.
-
1. I'm not without religion, I just don't discuss mine on the internet much.
2. Please. I've never defended the atrocities of Communism, and much of the Christian sponsored atrocities had a large government role, but then they were Christian governments. That said the USSR, China, and some crazy Cambodians? One century of blood? The Cross has the blood of literally half the world at its feet. The history of European expansion is by and large a history of subjugation to the cross. Entire civilizations wiped out. The USSR couldn't even wipe out the Chechans.
-
We don't have an "ist" term for sexual preferences.
How about contortionist? I've yet to encounter one, but bet I could develop a preference. =D
-
>When you are fed to lions, and burned alive, because you won't sacrifice one pinch of incense to the emperor...THEN, you can claim persecution. Christians have dealt with this.<
"Christians" have dealt with this. While I have personally had people offer to burn me at the stake (thank goddess for illegally carried weapons), had many parts of my chain of command in the Nav decide it was fun to push religion on the pagan, and have been at jobs where I had to hide my faith or risk firing (while the Christians were allowed to flaunt). And have personally witnessed many more such occurances.
>The fact that some people of religion x have had a harder time than some people of religion y does not mean religion y isn't facing persecution. Or if you like, we could call it harassment. Regardless, even if Christians are persecuting/harassing pagans, that doesn't mean Christians can't be persecuted/harassed themselves. So that line of argument is a non-starter.<
"Persecution" and "harassment" are two different things. Goes back to the whole "words have meaning" thing.
While harassment can be considered a form of mild persecution, most people think of more... severe things when they hear the word "persecution".
>Maybe some people here should consider that, just because they don't hear about Christians being persecuted, that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And while I don't believe everything I hear, there is no shortage of stories about Christians' religious freedom being curtailed.<
Which, WAY too often for my taste, mean "Christians aren't being allowed to have everything their way". I'll grant there are exceptions, but the majority?
>It usually involves a public school, and an administration that doesn't understand the laws under which they are supposed to operate. Public schools are supposed to allow religious clubs to operate within their schools, or on their property, in the same way they allow other clubs. Students are supposed to be allowed to pray before meals, or read religious materials, just like they are allowed to talk to their friends at lunch, or read other books. Not all schools understand this, or choose to do the right thing.<
Ok... I've heard of some of this. That isn't "persecution", that's "School admin is made up of frelling morons". Since when is THIS a newsflash?
>I, personally, know a girl that was told she could not bring her Bible to school. Obviously, her parents could have fought that and won, but the school did it anyway. I know an atheist who persuaded his school to ban a Christian club, then made them reverse their decision when he decided he wanted to be a Christian himself.<
Cool! And do you know people who have had to defend themselves from beatings, because they won't praise Jesus?
How about people wearing a crucifix, because they've seen the school they work at fire people for not being Christian (public school, mind you)?
How many times have you seen a Christian cemetery denied permits to operate, simply because it's Christian?
And really, fistful, you (personally) should be the last person on this board to try calling for religious tolerance...
>No, it's not lions or fire. But it is something that should bother anyone who believes in freedom of religion. It little becomes us to insist that only our people face opposition, and you have to go through what we went through, or we don't care about your problems. <
Ahhh... see, I DO care about their problems. And I'll fight for your right to believe in the carpenter, while I VERY rarely see a Christian willing to do more than give lip service to my being allowed to believe in my goddess.
And I certainly am not seeing anyone other than Christians trying to codify their religious beliefs into law, which brings us right back around to the question of gay marriage.
-
And no, I'm not kidding. Explain please, why we have to discuss divorce and immorality every time gay marriage comes up?
-
Added: I am of the general belief that a strict religious structure is actually healthy for society overall as there is less grey area between right and wrong. I rebelled against organized religion in my younger days. But on the whole, I see a great deal of merit in structure. Structure is what our society is lacking. A strict structure allows the government and society to have a less strict structure because the laws are simply not necessary.
I dunno. I'm not disagreeing, but I've seen strict religious structures. Amish, Orthodox Judism, Eastern Orthodox and several Muslim countries.
Amish and OJ communities I saw were not the majorities. I've heard arguments that "I've never seen an Amish try to ban electricity or a OJ try to ban bacon." Erm. Not sure. OJ does try to enforce it's will on non-OJ in Israel. If they were 90% majority maybe, except neither has a strong military tradition. Macing women or shaving beards is one thing. To enforce your will on a population, you need to make pretty lax or reasonable laws, or be willing to enforce your will with an iron fist and plenty of blood. Amish don't tend to want social interaction with Outsiders. They use mostly non-violent practices in enforcing draconian internal rules, primary based around indoctrination and threat of exile.
Plenty of religiously strict communities may have less grey areas, but no less decadence or immoral behavior. They are just more quiet about it. Amish has plenty of domestic violence incidents that are NEVER spoke of. Taliban has a habit of using underage males for recreational purposes. Folks have made jokes about Catholic Church priests and young boys for many years. My guess is both liberal and strictly religious communities have varying levels of decadence or immorality, but one is more open about the matter than the other. I don't think you can claim there is any correlation.
I'd also argue that the religion is a lot less important than the culture. In some places, the two become the same. Others, not so much. My cousins grew up in Japan. Not so much religious, but very culturally strict. My uncle and aunt moved back to the States because "half breeds" were NOT culturally tolerated. Sometimes strict, no ambiguity, black and white views are entirely wrong even if believed by 90+% of the culture. I'm quite sure many Japanese believe this to be a very healthy belief, and glad for the righteous certainty. My cousins are not sub-human, regardless strictness of culture or religion.
-
And really, fistful, you (personally) should be the last person on this board to try calling for religious tolerance...
Why on earth would that be?
-
Rev said:
I'd also argue that the religion is a lot less important than the culture. In some places, the two become the same. Others, not so much.
Sooo true.
Christianity gets blamed for a lot that has nothing to do with being Christian or what a Christian should be doing from even a casual perusal of the New Testament. Cultures that adopted and became "Christianized" can and have done very unChristian things.
Conversely Christianity or Christians will be given credit or take credit for things that have a somewhat more convoluted or complicated history, especially here in the USA.
-
Conversely Christianity or Christians will be given credit or take credit for things that have a somewhat more convoluted or complicated history, especially here in the USA.
You mean, the way heterosexual marriage is now a religious idea forced on the nation by crazed theocrats?
-
1. I'm not without religion, I just don't discuss mine on the internet much.
2. Please. I've never defended the atrocities of Communism, and much of the Christian sponsored atrocities had a large government role, but then they were Christian governments. That said the USSR, China, and some crazy Cambodians? One century of blood? The Cross has the blood of literally half the world at its feet. The history of European expansion is by and large a history of subjugation to the cross. Entire civilizations wiped out. The USSR couldn't even wipe out the Chechans.
If you want to blame Kings, Queens and governments using religious fervor to manipulate their subjects we will be in agreement.
I'll also add I blame those same Kings, Queens and governments for perverting and obviously distorting the message of Jesus as told in the four gospels. Any nation building or even imposition of will by force flies in the face of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
If dogmush goes out and murders a bunch innocent bureaucrats in the name of Oleg Volk and his most Glorious website APS am I to be held accountable for his insanity? Have we not all railed against big government? Do we not all come here to talk about our instruments of destruction? It is obvious that dogmush's murderous rampage is the logical conclusion of the influence of the philosophy espoused here at APS.
Write down the desires of humans on pieces of paper and put them in a jar.
Pull any one piece out and someone has been murdered in pursuit of it, sometimes ganging up and murdering as a group.
The common denominator is humans.
http://www.necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm
-
If you want to blame Kings, Queens and governments using religious fervor to manipulate their subjects we will be in agreement.
I'll also add I blame those same Kings, Queens and governments for perverting and obviously distorting the message of Jesus as told in the four gospels. Any nation building or even imposition of will by force flies in the face of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
If dogmush goes out and murders a bunch innocent bureaucrats in the name of Oleg Volk and his most Glorious website APS am I to be held accountable for his insanity? Have we not all railed against big government? Do we not all come here to talk about our instruments of destruction? It is obvious that dogmush's murderous rampage is the logical conclusion of the influence of the philosophy espoused here at APS.
.....
The common denominator is humans.
http://www.necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm
I don't actually want to get in a theological debate here, mostly because I suspect neither of us will be swayed. But I feel constrained to point out that for centuries that Christians were killing people wholesale in his name, yes much was done at the behest of governments, but the mainstream of Christianity at the time all agreed that it was the righteous path. Indeed at the time that was the main thrust of Christianity.
Now, I rejoice that current doctrine doesn't accept, for example, the Inquisition. I think it makes us better as a species, and it definatly makes Christianity better as a religion. But there have been now more burning bushes. Modern Christians have only faith and the Hubris that they're better then their fathers as evidence that the current tolerance is more Christly then a good crusade.
That's worth remembering when you remember your history.
-
the mainstream of Christianity at the time all agreed that it was the righteous path.
But that has no bearing on whether such things can be justified in light of Christ's teachings. They can't, of course.
Indeed at the time that was the main thrust of Christianity.
Please explain.
Now, I rejoice that current doctrine doesn't accept, for example, the Inquisition.
There is no "current doctrine." There are Catholics, which still have an Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith), and there are other denominations. Of course, your point is that the Catholic Church doesn't do the same sort of Inquisitiony tortures anymore. And the Anglicans don't imprison the Puritans anymore. That I agree with.
But there have been now more burning bushes. Modern Christians have only faith and the Hubris that they're better then their fathers as evidence that the current tolerance is more Christly then a good crusade.
That's worth remembering when you remember your history.
You're misremembering history. There have been no burning bushes (unless you're a Mormon - or a Muslim). No burning bushes are needed, to discredit things that violated Christian doctrine from the beginning. Instread, there was a renewed interest in the Bible, and more liberal political theories that made religious freedom a thing.
So I would have to disagree that Christianity somehow allowed for persecution at one time, and then mysteriously changed. Persecution has simply never been an actual Christian doctrine.
-
...which still have an Inquisition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregation_for_the_Doctrine_of_the_Faith)
I didn't expect that.
-
I didn't expect that.
No one does.
-
>Christianity gets blamed for a lot that has nothing to do with being Christian or what a Christian should be doing from even a casual perusal of the New Testament. Cultures that adopted and became "Christianized" can and have done very unChristian things.<
This is actually evidenced by something that has always seriously puzzled me...
Why is it all the big, bad cults* use Christian window dressing for their insanity? Seems that other faiths (wicca, quite notably) would be FAR easier to twist for cult use. However, every time another cult leader pops up in the news, he's claiming to be Christ reborn...
*I'm thinking Jonestown, Branch Davidians, and suchlike
-
>If dogmush goes out and murders a bunch innocent bureaucrats in the name of Oleg Volk and his most Glorious website APS am I to be held accountable for his insanity?<
No... that would be fistful.
Seriously dude: have you NOT been on here long enough to have learned such a fundamental rule? :P
-
You really can't tell me why I don't get to talk about religious tolerance?
-
Hmmm. In my view wars are primarily about DNA and the cultural manifestation of that DNA. The rest is rationalization.
Gays are threatening, to those who are threatened, because they embody two notions: a refusal to fight for the "culture," and lack of propagation of the culture biologically.
-
Hmmm. In my view wars are primarily about DNA and the cultural manifestation of that DNA. The rest is rationalization.
Gays are threatening, to those who are threatened, because they embody two notions: a refusal to fight for the the "culture," and lack of propagation of the culture biologically.
What is a "cultural manifestation of DNA?"
And how does your 1st assertion about DNA make any sense when we have American citizens who are racially vietnamese fighting in Vietnam, American citizens who are racially German fighting in WWII, American citizens who are racially Arabic/Persian/Kurd/Turk/"over there-ish" fighting in the GWoT?
-
We do not propagate or establish community loyalties only through biological means, we do that through para-biological means, aka "culture." All of this establishes a "people."
The individuals you refer to consider themselves sufficiently of this "people" to fight for it. That is precisely what I am talking about.
-
Hmmm. In my view wars are primarily about DNA and the cultural manifestation of that DNA. The rest is rationalization.
Gays are threatening, to those who are threatened, because they embody two notions: a refusal to fight for the "culture," and lack of propagation of the culture biologically.
I suppose, if I felt threatened by "gays," I would not mind having them register their relationships with the government. Might help us keep an eye on 'em. But since I don't find them threatening...
-
What's threatening isn't gays, it's people who should be on our side who in fact are in the employ of collectivism and conformism. Unfortunately, that includes too much of big business with its cult of diversity and belief that whatever sells is good.
-
"What is the purpose of the government's involvement in the institution of marriage?"
Civil marriage, in most places, existed in part to allow people to marry in situations where churches would not marry them (ie interfaith or interracial marriages).
Today, there are some mainline churches that will perform same-sex ceremonies. However, now it is the State that will not recognize these marriages.
-
Gays are threatening, to those who are threatened, because they embody two notions: a refusal to fight for the "culture," and lack of propagation of the culture biologically.
I knew plenty of gay soldiers. So did everyone else in the military. Some were meh, some were pretty decent, some were pretty good.
Are infertile heterosexuals threatening as well?
-
<- Not a Christian.
The Cross has the blood of literally half the world at its feet. The history of European expansion is by and large a history of subjugation to the cross. Entire civilizations wiped out. The USSR couldn't even wipe out the Chechans.
I would guess that Christians are pikers when it comes to body counts. Pretty sure Genghis Khan was not a Christian when he built his mountains of skulls. There's growing evidence of various American Indian tribes "being disappeared" by folks like the Incas and Aztecs. Read Sun Tzu and other histories of China and they were constantly killing each other, same with the Japanese until they got together to fight one another. Rome had already slaughtered it's way to greatness and was on the downhill side when Jesus came on the scene. Not much is known about Central and Eastern European groups/tribes as they were too busy hacking away at each other to write anything down. Same with most of Africa. And an (dis) honorable mention to Islam for hacking their way to gates of Vienna (why and where crescent rolls come from) spreading their (still popular) "convert or die" policy.
The fact is that Christianity does not have "the blood of literally half the world at it's feet." Especially given what socialist countries did in the 20th century. Christians were no better nor any worse then any other group of people that had a leader that said, "They have it. We need it. Let's go get it."
-
. . . The fact is that Christianity does not have "the blood of literally half the world at it's feet." Especially given what socialist countries did in the 20th century. Christians were no better nor any worse then any other group of people that had a leader that said, "They have it. We need it. Let's go get it."
Also note that what is generally seen as Christianity's low point - the Spanish Inquisition, a thoroughly nasty time - grew out of the Reconquista at least in part as a backlash against theocratic Moslem rule of the Iberian Peninsula in the centuries after the Moorish invasion.
-
>Christianity gets blamed for a lot that has nothing to do with being Christian or what a Christian should be doing from even a casual perusal of the New Testament. Cultures that adopted and became "Christianized" can and have done very unChristian things.<
This is actually evidenced by something that has always seriously puzzled me...
Why is it all the big, bad cults* use Christian window dressing for their insanity? Seems that other faiths (wicca, quite notably) would be FAR easier to twist for cult use. However, every time another cult leader pops up in the news, he's claiming to be Christ reborn...
*I'm thinking Jonestown, Branch Davidians, and suchlike
Simple to me. To build a following, you need converts. You won't get many impressionable young adults coming around if you advertise yourself as a Satan worshiping cult.
-
<- Not a Christian.
I would guess that Christians are pikers when it comes to body counts. Pretty sure Genghis Khan was not a Christian when he built his mountains of skulls. There's growing evidence of various American Indian tribes "being disappeared" by folks like the Incas and Aztecs. Read Sun Tzu and other histories of China and they were constantly killing each other, same with the Japanese until they got together to fight one another. Rome had already slaughtered it's way to greatness and was on the downhill side when Jesus came on the scene. Not much is known about Central and Eastern European groups/tribes as they were too busy hacking away at each other to write anything down. Same with most of Africa. And an (dis) honorable mention to Islam for hacking their way to gates of Vienna (why and where crescent rolls come from) spreading their (still popular) "convert or die" policy.
The fact is that Christianity does not have "the blood of literally half the world at it's feet." Especially given what socialist countries did in the 20th century. Christians were no better nor any worse then any other group of people that had a leader that said, "They have it. We need it. Let's go get it."
I also think it is questionable to blame Christianity for a lot of those wars when it was just an excuse for Nobility and Church leaders seeking more power and control (same as in countless non-christian nations). Such things were some of the reasons why people came to the new world to get away from that stuff.
-
I knew plenty of gay soldiers. So did everyone else in the military. Some were meh, some were pretty decent, some were pretty good.
Are infertile heterosexuals threatening as well?
That was my point: It comes down to character, to primal values; not per se to sexual practices and proclivities.
To your question... All societies that fail to reproduce are obviously jeopardizing themselves. So are societies that are internally fragile in terms of their national identity. This is about the replication of values.
-
>Christianity gets blamed for a lot that has nothing to do with being Christian or what a Christian should be doing from even a casual perusal of the New Testament. Cultures that adopted and became "Christianized" can and have done very unChristian things.<
This is actually evidenced by something that has always seriously puzzled me...
Why is it all the big, bad cults* use Christian window dressing for their insanity? Seems that other faiths (wicca, quite notably) would be FAR easier to twist for cult use. However, every time another cult leader pops up in the news, he's claiming to be Christ reborn...
*I'm thinking Jonestown, Branch Davidians, and suchlike
Biased selection. We don't see the "big bad cults" derived from Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism, because they're mostly somewhere far away.
Very many feel the need to to claim Jesus for their own use.
-
>Simple to me. To build a following, you need converts. You won't get many impressionable young adults coming around if you advertise yourself as a Satan worshiping cult. <
That's a bit of a false dichotomy there.
>Biased selection. We don't see the "big bad cults" derived from Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism, because they're mostly somewhere far away.<
Can you give me an example?
I suppose you could claim that many of the Islamic terrorist orgs are cults, but the assertion is still there: most cult leaders choose to base their cults on the teachings of Judeo/Christian faiths. Is it because that's the dominant family of faiths in the west?
>Very many feel the need to to claim Jesus for their own use.<
That's actually a very astute observation
-
>Simple to me. To build a following, you need converts. You won't get many impressionable young adults coming around if you advertise yourself as a Satan worshiping cult. <
That's a bit of a false dichotomy there.
And I'm thinking there's plenty of impressionable young adults that would go in for a satanic cult.
>Biased selection. We don't see the "big bad cults" derived from Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism, because they're mostly somewhere far away.<
Can you give me an example?
No, I can't, because they're all far away and I don't know much about them.
Hmm. The Hindu Thuggee cult., perhaps.
I suppose you could claim that many of the Islamic terrorist orgs are cults, but the assertion is still there: most cult leaders choose to base their cults on the teachings of Judeo/Christian faiths. Is it because that's the dominant family of faiths in the west?
>Very many feel the need to to claim Jesus for their own use.<
That's actually a very astute observation
-
Didn't mean to derail the thread with the cult discussions. Just always found it kinda odd, that so many cults in the west use Christian trappings, when other faiths might lend themselves to cult use more easily.
Honestly, I think it would be easier to form a cult based on pagan teachings: promises of personal power (seductive to teens), morals that can be viewed as more lax than Christian, plus the rebellion aspect against parents. MUCH less obvious twisting needed to make a cult out of it...
This is in no way a bash on Christianity: any faith can be twisted this way
-
Perhaps the "Christian" cults are the ones more likely to get the cult label. The stereotypical cult has the charismatic leader with total control over his fanatical believers. Such a cult isn't recruiting rebels who want power and sex and a crazy good time; it's recruiting vulnerable young people in need of guidance. The successful cult of this type will go with something familiar, and with an air of authority.
Just a spur-of-the-moment theory.
-
You could be right, fistful.
But wouldn't it be easier to lure those impressionable young children with promises of power?
-
Well, you could take a bunch of young kids and teach them songs about a "glorious leader" who's going to save the world, lower the seas, and all that jazz, and he doesn't have to be a "religious" figure at all.
Hell, he could just be a public figure. Like a president or something.
-
You could be right, fistful.
But wouldn't it be easier to lure those impressionable young children with promises of power?
Not if what they're looking for is an authority figure, to relieve them of the responsibility of having power over their own lives.
-
Ok... that side of it, I hadn't thought of. Very good point
-
See, isn't that so much better? To have me do your thinking for you? Why struggle, my child? Just give in.
-
Not if what they're looking for is an authority figure, to relieve them of the responsibility of having power over their own lives.
Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.
-
Guess I'm looking at it as I was at that age: the lure of personal power would have been VERY strong, and I would figure many teens would feel the same way.
Where Christian trappings would lend to "reward in the hereafter", I would almost think paganism would be easier for a would-be cult leader to twist to attract these kids. "Follow me, do as I say, and I will show you how to [insert desired result]"
Remember, we're talking about folks who twist a religion for personal gain, not the actual teachings of that religion
-
Where Christian trappings would lend to "reward in the hereafter", I would almost think paganism would be easier for a would-be cult leader to twist to attract these kids. "Follow me, do as I say, and I will show you how to [insert desired result]"
Christian cultists have been very successful at that, with various age groups. I assume you're not entirely unfamiliar with the Word of Faith scam? Or the Prosperity Gospel? If not, the basic idea is that God wants you to be happy, healthy and wealthy, and if you just had enough faith, you'd have all God wants for you. If you have cancer, you just need more faith, and you can cure yourself. Economic troubles? Just show God how much faith you have by sending all of that money to my church, and God will pay you back ten-fold!
In fact, any problem you have, just speak a positive confession, and your problems will go away. Any problems you do have are your own fault, because you spoke negative things into your life. Silly you.
Not all Word of Faith teachers are so far off the rails as to be considered cultists, but some of the big names are Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Joyce Meyer, Joel Osteen and Benny Hinn.
-
I like the new avatar, but I can't tell if it's Martin Luther or Friar Tuck. :angel:
-
Interesting concept they have going... ;/
To switch back just a bit towards the OP: can one of the Christians here possibly explain the mental gymnastics necessary for the "alternative lifestyle Christian"?
-
I like the new avatar, but I can't tell if it's Martin Luther or Friar Tuck. :angel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada
Since I'm apparently all intolerant and stuff.
Interesting concept they have going... ;/
And lucrative.
-
Interesting concept they have going... ;/
To switch back just a bit towards the OP: can one of the Christians here possibly explain the mental gymnastics necessary for the "alternative lifestyle Christian"?
Not sure what ALC you are talking about, monasticism? (actually that could just as easily be Buhddist, etc) Or do you mean homosexual "alternative lifestyles" claiming to to Christians? Or something like the Branch Davidians? Seriously, I dunno what you're asking -- not that I'll necessarily be able to answer.
-
The homosexual "alternative lifestyle Christians". Hence my comment of "going back to the OP (kinda)"
I've never understood that concept: how do you follow a religion that (at best) says a major part of who you are is a major sin?
Makes about as much sense to me as a Jewish Nazi
-
I'll offer a couple of possibilities.
1) rationalization - I want to belong, but I don't want to give up this behavior, therefore I shall invent a line of justification that permits this contradiction.
2) subversion - I want to nullify/subvert/hijack this organization, so I shall propose a plausible argument in favor of accepting this behavior, thus making anyone who opposes it into a hater.
Those may not be the only vectors, but they'll do for now.
-
The homosexual "alternative lifestyle Christians". Hence my comment of "going back to the OP (kinda)"
I've never understood that concept: how do you follow a religion that (at best) says a major part of who you are is a major sin?
Makes about as much sense to me as a Jewish Nazi
Yeah, I agree with that. One of the churches around here (Lutheran I think) ordained a lesbian preacher. No idea how they justify that, I guess they think it's edgy and progressive, and that somehow trumps 1 Timothy 3, the whole book of Titus, and the last half of Romans 1.
I also think it's possible to reject homosexuality as immoral and sinful without judging the homosexual. (I have too much of sin of my own to deal with to worry about yours, see Matthew 7:3-5) It's God's prerogative to judge, not mine. That doesn't make it OK, just none of my business. I do sometimes recognize heresy though...
-
I was mainly thinking of Leviticus 18:22 on this.
Met an "alternative lifestyle" preacher at my aunt's funeral: lesbian woman who was dating one of my cousins. Woman was a fanatic. Was supposedly there to comfort my cousin, but was too busy getting off on the service ("PRAISE GAWD!" every other sentence, while my cousin broke down).
She was lucky to survive the funeral: most of us were packing, and everybody was getting seriously disgusted
-
I was mainly thinking of Leviticus 18:22 on this.
Met an "alternative lifestyle" preacher at my aunt's funeral: lesbian woman who was dating one of my cousins. Woman was a fanatic. Was supposedly there to comfort my cousin, but was too busy getting off on the service ("PRAISE GAWD!" every other sentence, while my cousin broke down).
She was lucky to survive the funeral: most of us were packing, and everybody was getting seriously disgusted
As noted, you also have to ignore much of Romans, Timothy, etc...
It's quite simple, however. They ignore it. Most of the "mainline Protestant" churches are already ignoring large parts of the bible as "outdated" or "metaphor" or "symbolic". It's how they get rid of the things that make them feel uncomfortable. (I have a relative who is a pastor in one of these Churches.)
They've "modernized" the bible. (Generally by throwing large parts of it out.)
-
And to anyone who may have problems with your sons, I commend to you Deuteronomy 21: 18-21.
-
Interesting concept they have going... ;/
To switch back just a bit towards the OP: can one of the Christians here possibly explain the mental gymnastics necessary for the "alternative lifestyle Christian"?
"Alternative lifestyle Christian" == "gay Christian"?
No, I can't. It requires a lot of very special pleading, a lot of humming real loud at certain passages of scripture. "Shall not inherit the kingdom of God." seems clear to me.
-
"Alternative lifestyle Christian" == "gay Christian"?
No, I can't. It requires a lot of very special pleading, a lot of humming real loud at certain passages of scripture. "Shall not inherit the kingdom of God." seems clear to me.
You left some parts out: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." (I CORINTHIANS 6:9-11)
The unrighteous, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers and swindlers will also not inherit the Kingdom. So if you posted in the drunk thread, or mentioned how much you covet some cool firearm, you are SOL.
-
You left some parts out: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." (I CORINTHIANS 6:9-11)
The unrighteous, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers and swindlers will also not inherit the Kingdom. So if you posted in the drunk thread, or mentioned how much you covet some cool firearm, you are SOL.
And?
-
Modern theology has become an adjunct to the already pervasive post modern materialist philosophy that dominates our culture.
In short, the Bible is no longer viewed as the revealed word of God or even true let alone The Truth.
It seems to me as a layman that modern theology erects an impenetrable barrier between things spiritual (unknowable) and things material (knowable).
Faith therefor instead of being an exercise in reading Christs words to forgive one another, love one another, applying it to your life and believing you are pleasing the great God of all creation becomes something different.
Biblical faith is based on real space time claims about Jesus and who he was as told in the Bible. It is not a contentless leap of faith. It is a weigh the evidence, compare the worldview with others and make a decision to believe the claims type faith.
Faith in the post modern, new theology church becomes an act of self actualization. The content of what you believe isn't important, what is important is that you are believing. It is a faith in faith, contentless. There are no eternal truths or commands to be concerned with ultimately. Spiritual truth exists in a plane that cannot be quantified in material terms.
The modern church that has abandoned believing the Bible as truth has become nothing more than "The Secret" with Christian terminology.
http://thesecret.tv/
Sooo, that is how you can have many "Christians" that believe there is no conflict between their homosexuality and their Christianity.
Having said that, I also believe there are Christians who are believers in Christ as he is presented to us in the Bible who also happen to be gay. The body of believers is made up of all kinds. We all must work out our own Christian life in light of the Bible, struggling along sometimes wondering about the apparent unfairness of life.
-
And to anyone who may have problems with your sons, I commend to you Deuteronomy 21: 18-21.
18 “If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, 19 then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city [a]at the gateway of his hometown. 20 They shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ 21 Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear.
Can you tell me what the problem here is? The law isn't specific, but given it involves going to the elders of the town and admitting you've failed in raising your son (and them agreeing that you've been a big failure), he'd be doing something egregious, likely, something that already requires stoning. That's the part about: "so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear of it and fear". Note that it isn't "young men will hear of it and fear." It's a matter of removing sin from your midst, even if it comes from your own son.
Not "he doesn't clean his room!"
-
There is no problem at all, if you believe in the literal and inerrant application of the Old Testament to your daily life. I suspect that most people today would find this approach to be somewhat harsh and is of course inconsistent with contemporary legal codes in the Western world.
-
You left some parts out: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." (I CORINTHIANS 6:9-11)
The unrighteous, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers and swindlers will also not inherit the Kingdom. So if you posted in the drunk thread, or mentioned how much you covet some cool firearm, you are SOL.
From my background, sin isn't the issue anyway, Jesus took the punishment for all of them already. All Christians sin and many or most commit the same sins over and over. I guess part of the difference is these homosexual Christians justify their sins and don't name them to God and never go further than just Salvation (assuming they truly believe at all). Not for me to worry about I guess. I just don't want to be part of a Church that justified that behavior.
A question that might also be considered is what other sins have Christians commonly accepted or justified in many places? gossiping and maligning? lying? petty theft? adultery?
-
Perhaps the "Christian" cults are the ones more likely to get the cult label.
This is definitely the case for a simple linguistic reason. The term "cult" has different senses in standard English and Christianese; a common occurrance in language. Compare the common and academic sense of words like:
"work" (in physics, means "the vector dot product of force and displacement")
"heat", "color", etc--specialized meanings in academia
"means" or "good" (these take on very specific [and differing!] meaning in economics contexts)
The word "cult" in the American English that I speak means something like "small, obscure, possibly dangerous religion". In the specialized jargon of Christianese, it means something like "heretical Christianity offshoot". This is why Mormonism, 7th day adventism, some radical Pentecostals, and Catholicism (ooo yes I did go there) qualify as "cult (Christianese)" but not "cult (English)". So the "Christian cults" have a double-chance of getting the label.
Note: In Christianese, different religions actually don't get the label "cult", they are simply "pagan". Which word "pagan" also has special meaning in Christianese, meaning "any other religion". Islam, Hinduism, Statism are all "pagan" in Christianese. But in normal English "pagan" has a more specific meaning.
Other words with special meaning in Christianese:
Holy--separate from the world [less connotation of divinity than standard Holy]
Saint--any Christian whatsoever [no relation to Catholic sainthood; does not denote a special person]
Grace--obviously has special meaning compared to the modern sense
You also get archaic English meanings kicking around, like the transitive verb form of "suffer". Jargon is sometimes useful if it allows more precision, but you have to wonder the affect on the Great Commission, especially considering non-native English speakers.
-
When applied to a religion, "cult" means what it was taken from latin to mean: secret, hidden.
Any religion that withholds information or has secret rituals or forbids sharing or speaking with others about the religion is a cult.
A religion (however unorthodox) that clearly lays out its principals for everyone, believer or not, is not a cult.
Sikhism: not a cult. Scientologists: definitely a cult. Amish: not a cult. Islam: possibly a cult (takkiya and what have you)etc...
-
When applied to a religion, "cult" means what it was taken from latin to mean: secret, hidden.
Any religion that withholds information or has secret rituals or forbids sharing or speaking with others about the religion is a cult.
A religion (however unorthodox) that clearly lays out its principals for everyone, believer or not, is not a cult.
Sikhism: not a cult. Scientologists: definitely a cult. Amish: not a cult. Islam: possibly a cult (takkiya and what have you)etc...
Good distinction, but "open" religions tend to become cultural and political systems, not private pathways to Transcendence. "Cults" are not necessarily bad; in fact they served as the secret opposition to "open" tyranny from time immemorial.
-
When applied to a religion, "cult" means what it was taken from latin to mean: secret, hidden.
Any religion that withholds information or has secret rituals or forbids sharing or speaking with others about the religion is a cult.
A religion (however unorthodox) that clearly lays out its principals for everyone, believer or not, is not a cult.
Sikhism: not a cult. Scientologists: definitely a cult. Amish: not a cult. Islam: possibly a cult (takkiya and what have you) etc...
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
My reluctance to discuss the subject has nothing to do with "secrets" and everything to do with swimming upstream against a current of misinformation and persecution.
There are literally hundreds of published titles -- source works -- so "secret" would seem to be incorrect, and that doesn't include hundreds (thousands, actually) of recorded lectures. Do you know something I don't?
-
Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.
Not to men like you...
=D
-
How do you arrive at that conclusion?
My reluctance to discuss the subject has nothing to do with "secrets" and everything to do with swimming upstream against a current of misinformation and persecution.
There are literally hundreds of published titles -- source works -- so "secret" would seem to be incorrect, and that doesn't include hundreds (thousands, actually) of recorded lectures. Do you know something I don't?
Am I mistaken in my understanding that Scientologists are not given the full information about the religion until they get to the upper tiers? And that at each successive tier they are given more information? (I don't know their specific ranking of followers.)
-
Am I mistaken in my understanding that Scientologists are not given the full information about the religion until they get to the upper tiers? And that at each successive tier they are given more information? (I don't know their specific ranking of followers.)
Sounds like the Freemasons. ;)
Chris
-
Am I mistaken in my understanding that Scientologists are not given the full information about the religion until they get to the upper tiers? And that at each successive tier they are given more information? (I don't know their specific ranking of followers.)
The entire subject is described and exposed in books and recordings (formerly "tapes" but now also CDs and DVDs).
Early on (back in the fifties) when things were in a state of fairly constant flux, certain methods and processes were used, and it was discovered that some of these were best employed only after a certain amount of case "undercutting." The foundations for these are still available in the books and lectures, but for managed case progress the more advanced material isn't addressed until certain milestones are reached.
You could consider the application of advanced procedures "secret" but the thing is that the fundamental concepts, principles, and outlines are still publicly available data, still published in books and still sold in the lectures. If I may draw a parallel, there are things you don't teach a novice in martial arts. They're not secret per se, but it is understood that the novice isn't really prepared for that stuff. He can see it demonstrated, there's a ton of written material explaining it, and the essential principles are well known. Still, that part of the training is reserved for those who have achieved a degree of readiness. This is not a perfect analogy, but the idea is that you don't teach or train above the level of individual preparedness.
There is no requirement for "belief" in a conventional sense. One discovers what is true for oneself. In the course of studying the source materials, rote memorization is eschewed in favor of comprehension and understanding, and actual understanding is expressed as an ability to apply. In the course of reviewing the actual material in one's own case (one's own memories and history), one discovers stuff. In the course of that process, one arrives at new understandings.
At no point does anyone tell or instruct one what to think or feel about what is discovered. And you will never, ever, hear anyone ask "how does that make you feel?" (Well, you might, but you would understand that it's a joke.)
Now, as far as "secrets," the contents of one's own case files are confidential. But those aren't "church secrets," those are your secrets, and there's a strict code of conduct related to that.
If you read a book, or if you read several of the books, and you find that -- for you, personally -- it's all rubbish, then for you personally it's all rubbish. On the other hand, if you read some books, listen to a few lectures, and decide -- for yourself, personally -- that there is something worthwhile here and something worth exploring and understanding better, then for you personally the subject would hold some validity.
There are some really basic principles that show up in the basic books, like the idea that mankind is a spiritual construct, not a purely physical bio-machine. Like the idea that mankind seeks to survive and that his problems and solutions are all derived from that. Like the idea that ethical conduct is essential to a happy life. The idea that communication is hugely important. That one is responsible for his own decisions and responsible for his own life. That it is possible to help others.
What you will not find is some deep, dark, special-handshake-and-weird-ceremony "inner circle" where the code of conduct is different from any of the published codes of conduct. The Code of Honor applies everywhere. The principles published in the book "The Way To Happiness" apply at all levels. No "hidden standard" for "insiders" versus "the public." Kind of in the same way that The Four Rules apply just as much at GunSite as they do at your local range.
The Press (the same ones who bring you those exciting episodes of "fun with gun control") delight in discovering scandals in (or related to) Scientology, although they're somewhat more circumspect nowadays, since the church hits back. Yes, they maintain a fleet of heavy-hitting lawyers, and have ever since they were attacked by the US government for offering to help with astronaut training. Yes, the Foundation Church in D.C. was raided by the FBI in 1963, and the case took ten years to resolve, with the dot-gov eventually returning all the seized records and materials. That was only the first of many efforts by governments to eliminate them. I would imagine that if you had an organization which was the object of governmental and media attacks over several decades, you might want to maintain a fleet of attorneys as well.
I no longer expect the church to get anything like a fair hearing in the press, on the Internet, or even in court. Its expansion is a function of acceptance of its merits, along with a willingness to defend itself.
In 1972, I attended a lecture. The next week, I took a communications course. The week after that, I read my first book, entitled "The Scandal Of Scientology," which was supposed to be "an objective, investigative report" on the church and its activities. By the time was I finished I was confused and angry. The book described, among other things, the course I had just completed, and the description was so incorrect, so misleading, and just plain wrong, that I couldn't conceive how anyone doing an "impartial" review could write that crap. I took more courses and read some of the source works. I concluded that the author of Scandal was full of it.
So, no, there's no "big secret" about the church or about the religion and its philosophies. I will concede that there's not just a single tome to which people can point and say "what I believe is all in that book." Hubbard was astoundingly prolific, and he wrote and lectured actively on the subject for more than thirty years. So there's a ton of material, and you won't get through any significant portion of it in a day or a week or a month. However, in a day or a week or a month you can achieve a solid grasp of the subject and its aims and goals.
It is not a subject that invites "consensus" but rather individual understanding, so don't expect to go somewhere magical on the Interwebz and find a discussion forum where people "argue" the principles. If you find that you can use it to improve your life, then you're better off. If you find it makes no sense, that's fine too. However, I will caution you that anywhere tyranny is welcome or group think is encouraged, you will find hostility to the subject.
Investigate for yourself. Find a book or three. If you don't like what you find, then at least you have an honest foundation for your opinion, and you're not operating on rumor.
-
Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel.
Hmmm... an unattributed quote (http://www.google.com/search?complete/search?client=serp&hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=3&gs_rn=0&gs_ri=serp&pq=aristotle%20natural%20slavery&cp=117&gs_id=bi&xhr=t&q=Is%20not%20this%20simpler%3F%20Is%20this%20not%20your%20natural%20state%3F%20It%27s%20the%20unspoken%20truth%20of%20humanity%2C%20that%20you%20crave%20subjugation.&ech=8&psi=GvLIUKD0IYbmiwKBs4CYBg.1355346462484.2&emsg=NCSR&noj=1&ei=GvLIUKD0IYbmiwKBs4CYBg) from a movie based on comic books. Couldn't we have had some Aristotle (with attribution?)
-
Hmmm...
I have seen some... bad things, attributed to Scientology. Mayhap this is similar to other issues we've seen with other faiths?
Sorta like blaming all Christians for Jonestown? Maybe it's just certain groups within Scientology, who cause problems and make the rest look bad?
-
Hmmm...
I have seen some... bad things, attributed to Scientology. Mayhap this is similar to other issues we've seen with other faiths?
Sorta like blaming all Christians for Jonestown? Maybe it's just certain groups within Scientology, who cause problems and make the rest look bad?
Well, there aren't really "groups within" Scientology. There are people who decide they have a "better idea," and they go off and do something else (and occasionally call it Scientology, until the actual church finds out), and there are people who, while still members of the church, do stoopid stuff, and then try to hide behind the organization. One shining example of this was the lady who engineered the breakups of a number of couples (including my own marriage) and who, when finally caught at it, was expelled. That sucked, and didn't need to happen, but it wasn't "the church" who did that. It was a power-trippin' individual.
Sadly, no organization is immune to that crap. They do better than most, but every so often someone will manage to screw things up. It took them a while to realize that there really were hostile entities willing to infiltrate for purposes of disruption. And there's the usual quota of people who, despite everything, can't keep their turds together and blame it on the church.
Hey, it's humans. Whatcha gonna do?
-
Someone call Orville because I need a boat load of popcorn.
have something to ship? ??? [popcorn]
-
Hubbard was astoundingly prolific
That he was. I've been meaning to read some of what he wrote that wasn't sci-fi just to have a foundation for an opinion, but the three or so fiction books of his that I have read were so singularly awful, I keep forgetting to do so. The man was a terrible writer, and how he got even moderately well know in that pursuit is a complete mystery to me.
-
That he was. I've been meaning to read some of what he wrote that wasn't sci-fi just to have a foundation for an opinion, but the three or so fiction books of his that I have read were so singularly awful, I keep forgetting to do so. The man was a terrible writer, and how he got even moderately well know in that pursuit is a complete mystery to me.
Yeah, I pretty much don't read his fiction after the fifties. Get your hands on his early work and the difference is startling. Final Blackout is good. Ole Doc Methuselah, quite good. His early pulp is good. Several of his early shorts. When he re-entered the world of fiction later on, too much had changed.
Oh, well.
-
There is no problem at all, if you believe in the literal and inerrant application of the Old Testament to your daily life. I suspect that most people today would find this approach to be somewhat harsh and is of course inconsistent with contemporary legal codes in the Western world.
Thinking about it: why is it we ALWAYS start talking about immorality and divorce the legal codes of a society that died 2000 years ago when these threads start?
-
Who needs a cult, or any other organized religion? Just do your thing.
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Father-Carves-Pentagram-into-Son-on-12-12-12-183209891.html?dr
-
have something to ship? ??? [popcorn]
Orville Redenbacher
-
Note: In Christianese, different religions actually don't get the label "cult", they are simply "pagan". Which word "pagan" also has special meaning in Christianese, meaning "any other religion". Islam, Hinduism, Statism are all "pagan" in Christianese. But in normal English "pagan" has a more specific meaning.
Says who? Hinduism might be called paganism, as it fits the usual definition,* but I haven't noticed any Christians referring to Muslims as pagans. =|
* http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pagan
pa·gan [pey-guhn]
noun
1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks. Synonyms: polytheist.
2. a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. Synonyms: heathen, gentile; idolator; nonbeliever.
3. an irreligious or hedonistic person.
4. a person deemed savage or uncivilized and morally deficient.
adjective
5. pertaining to the worship or worshipers of any religion that is neither Christian, Jewish, nor Muslim. Synonyms: heathen, heathenish, idolatrous, polytheistic. Antonyms: Christian, Jewish, Muslim, monotheistic.
6. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of pagans.
7. irreligious or hedonistic. Synonyms: unbelieving, godless, atheistic, agnostic; impious, profane, sacrilegious, unholy, ungodly. Antonyms: religious, pious, devout.
8. of a person deemed backward, savage, or uncivilized or morally or spiritually stunted. Synonyms: primitive, uncultivated, uncultured, heathenish, barbaric, barbarous, philistine. Antonyms: civilized, cultivated, cultured, urbane.
Also, "cult" seems to have many different meanings. For example, Webster's offers as one definition: "a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious." I could be wrong, but I doubt Webster's is just taking that usage from the people you church with.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult
-
I'm not sure what the hell was going through the mind of the father in fistful's linked article. Nor am I sure what your point was, man
Crazy people will do crazy things?
-
I'm not sure what the hell was going through the mind of the father in fistful's linked article. Nor am I sure what your point was, man
Crazy people will do crazy things?
No point.
-
For a substantial part of our history the majority of folks in the country were Christian in some way shape or form.
As a result we ended up with a form of cultural Christianity in the USA that was intermingled with our civic culture to the point where they were almost indistinguishable.
While polls may show we are still a religious country and still predominantly self identify as "Christian" in most cases, the form of "Christianity" has changed dramatically. Peoples religion has increasingly become a "spiritual" exercise that has little to no impact on their daily lives.
This has been the case for many decades now and the ongoing divorce between cultural Christianity and our civic religion has not been pretty.
Ultimately I think the divorce is going to be bad for the country but good for believers.
Christianity was never meant to sit on the Ceasers throne.
-
You left some parts out: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God." (I CORINTHIANS 6:9-11)
The unrighteous, fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers and swindlers will also not inherit the Kingdom. So if you posted in the drunk thread, or mentioned how much you covet some cool firearm, you are SOL.
Sorry for this being my first post; I've been a looooong-time lurker on this board, and have been well and truly intimidated to join this merry band, based on the tight-knitedness. As I am "other," I'll just have to hold my breath, jump in, and blame Fistful if I drown.
Above, there are a lot of compelling arguments, for and against a lot of things, but as far as MillCreek (with whose views and beliefs I am unfamiliar) saying that drunks or firearms covetors or anybody else in the Rogue's Gallery of sinners goes, I disagree with that as vehemently as my username is weapons-grade. The important thing about that passage above is that because one is washed (baptized), sanctified (bestowed with the grace, knowledge, and action of the Holy Spirit), and justified (absolved of sin by the human suffering of Christ), one inherits the Kingdom of God, regardless of the constant sins we commit as imperfect beings.
That just is. You don't have to choose it--some might say you can't even choose it--because God already laid it on you. Kind of a like-it-or-not thing, given freely, and without action required on your part. All you have to do is accept it. Of course, the beauty of not living in a theocracy is that, hey, you don't wanna, no sweat.
Sorry for being so heavy right out of the gate, but hey, that's mass for you.
-
A lot of folks still want to pick and choose commandments from the OT.
It is baffling, as to me even a casual reading of the NT epistles makes it clear that we are not subject to the OT law, esp as non Jews.
Yet here we are still talking about commands to stone the sinners, commands even the Jews did away with in the first century (probably because it was so ineffective in stopping the spread of that sect called The Way).
-
I've struggled with this myself, and I consider it a huge topic, that I don't personally see addressed very satisfactorily. Consider even the way the ten commandments are taught...is it valid to teach that to our children as God's commandment to us, and then hand-wave away dozens of other commandments to the Isrealites? Did WE just pick out those commandments to observe (cafeteria Christianity) because they flatter our cultural preferences, and ignore the rest? If so, we are putting ourselves in the place of God in deciding what is moral and writing the scripture ourselves.
Either the Old Testament is totally valid and binding (stonings, kosher, and usury and all), or it's totally irrelevant and retained as a historical document, or else there is a third middle ground where there is some coherent, biblical-or-revealed praxis for interpreting the Old Testament.
I'm still looking for said praxis and becoming more and more gruntled over the issue.
-
When Jesus was asked about his disciples harvesting some food to eat on the sabbath (which wasn't allowed) this is how he replied:
The Sabbath was made for the good of man. Man was not made for the Sabbath.
That pretty much wraps up the point behind the commandments.
You want to know what the most important commandment is? Love God with all your heart soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself.
How do you do that? Follow the example set by Jesus. It has become a trite bumper sticker slogan but it is true nonetheless. When faced with moral or ethical questions "what would Jesus do?" is a good guide. That of course presupposes a working knowledge of the life and purposes of Jesus time on earth as recorded in the NT.
Focus on others, lay down your life as a living sacrifice, serve God not materialist goals.
Children need rule books, God has said don't be children, love one another. This isn't license to do whatever we want, it is a more sobering call to look past the letter of the law and focus on the motivations, the intentions of the heart. Studying both the old and new testaments they become mirrors reflecting back how we really are and what we need to change.
Just my take as a non sectarian follower of Jesus.
-
A suggestion: read the Gnostic Gospels.
-
A suggestion: read the Gnostic Gospels.
Meh, I don't know, nothing of real interest in them IMHO. Like the above discussion about cults, even back then folks were trying to appropriate Jesus for their own particular religious flavor of the day. As a matter of fact the dichotomy between the material and spiritual world found in post modern theology is a very gnostic concept. The gnostic gospels don't really line up very well with most NT books and don't reflect the traditional view of God espoused by most Jews of that day.
The Book of Enoch is probably the most interesting of the writings of those not included in the official canon. it is more like the books of the prophets in the OT than the gnostics.
-
I've struggled with this myself, and I consider it a huge topic, that I don't personally see addressed very satisfactorily. Consider even the way the ten commandments are taught...is it valid to teach that to our children as God's commandment to us, and then hand-wave away dozens of other commandments to the Isrealites? Did WE just pick out those commandments to observe (cafeteria Christianity) because they flatter our cultural preferences, and ignore the rest? If so, we are putting ourselves in the place of God in deciding what is moral and writing the scripture ourselves.
Either the Old Testament is totally valid and binding (stonings, kosher, and usury and all), or it's totally irrelevant and retained as a historical document, or else there is a third middle ground where there is some coherent, biblical-or-revealed praxis for interpreting the Old Testament.
I'm still looking for said praxis and becoming more and more gruntled over the issue.
My understanding is that the covenant that God entered into with us through the suffering and death of Christ, combined with the promise of life and salvation expressed through His resurrection, negated the need for the Old Law. The fact that we, as irredeemable sinners, are saved through the grace of God alone precludes the need to follow a set of laws in order to attain salvation (or avoid God's wrath).
However, I think that, discounting the salvatory aspects of Christianity, a Judeo-Christian foundation provides a lot of good material for building a just and moral society based on natural rights and laws. There's probably more to it, but unfortunately, I'm an armchair theologian at best, and a miserable ignoramus at worst.
-
Meh, I don't know, nothing of real interest in them IMHO. Like the above discussion about cults, even back then folks were trying to appropriate Jesus for their own particular religious flavor of the day. As a matter of fact the dichotomy between the material and spiritual world found in post modern theology is a very gnostic concept. The gnostic gospels don't really line up very well with most NT books and don't reflect the traditional view of God espoused by most Jews of that day.
The Book of Enoch is probably the most interesting of the writings of those not included in the official canon. it is more like the books of the prophets in the OT than the gnostics.
Jesus was anything but traditional. The Gnostic writings were jettisoned as apochryphal because of Church politics.
-
Wasn't that around the same time that any mention of survival and rebirth (after death -- basically $LIVES > 1) in any form that could be construed as "reincarnation" was also ditched and declared anathema?
Been years and years since I read that. Very fuzzy recollection.
-
Jesus was anything but traditional. The Gnostic writings were jettisoned as apochryphal because of Church politics lack of connection to Christ or His apostles.
Fixed.
Wasn't that around the same time that any mention of survival and rebirth (after death -- basically $LIVES > 1) in any form that could be construed as "reincarnation" was also ditched and declared anathema?
When was reincarnation accepted doctrine among Jews and Christians, then?
-
When was reincarnation accepted doctrine among Jews and Christians, then?
No idea. Evidently there was some material of that kind around. If there wasn't, I have no idea why it would be "banned" as a concept.
Trouble is, I can't remember the reference. It was more than twenty years ago, so no Internet.
-
Jesus was anything but traditional. The Gnostic writings were jettisoned as apochryphal because of Church politics.
There was politics for sure, there always is in human institutions. I pretty much reject any church institution as an authority.
Questions of internal consistency with accepted writings is also a big part of why some writings got left out of the official canon.
While I'm no Bible scholar I am pretty well acquainted with it, esp the NT. My personal reading of many of the apocryphal books left me feeling comfortable that they didn't belong in the canon.
Early on in my christian walk I was very attracted to gnostic ideas. Even in referencing some material while thinking about this thread I enjoyed reacquainting myself with some of the concepts. I live within easy driving distance of the Theosophical Society in Wheaton, Il and frequented the bookstore there often. Much of their material was gnostic in character, that and influenced by eastern religion.
I also enjoy learning about Buddhism and haunt some philosophy forums as a lurker.
Having said that I think there is more than enough instruction in the NT on how to follow Christ without muddying the waters with questionably sourced writings or merging different religious streams of thought with simple Christianity.
When I said "meh" I'm afraid I may have sounded a bit too dismissive.
-
No idea. Evidently there was some material of that kind around. If there wasn't, I have no idea why it would be "banned" as a concept.
I don't know what you mean by banned as a concept, but like Ron said, there were purported gospels and other works that clashed with what Christ taught. So those ideas were not accepted.
-
There's also the possibility of "other writings" that are currently unknown. So who knows what could have been, when talking about the Bible.
I know there are a LOT of archeologists working in the field in the Middle East, utilizing the Bible as a rough field guide. I hear about it regularly (side effect of having H2 on as background noise).
Of course, all I hear about lately is Revelations. Have I mentioned that I'm really looking forward to 22 Dec?
-
H2 - somebody mentioned that a day or two ago. History Channel 2? Is it all Biblical archeology or something?
-
Biblical Archeology is one of their favorite topics. And I have to admit to finding it interesting...
Lately though has been almost all "end of the world" topics...
-
H2 - somebody mentioned that a day or two ago. History Channel 2? Is it all Biblical archeology or something?
That, ancient history, and stuff like that. More real history with less fluff, unlike the main history channel.
-
Don't forget this guy:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m8x5zaZFAi1rxkjdjo1_250.jpg&hash=2bb3277f24f30d13fac89340cd9007f59271cc07)
-
Don't forget this guy:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F24.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_m8x5zaZFAi1rxkjdjo1_250.jpg&hash=2bb3277f24f30d13fac89340cd9007f59271cc07)
Well of course he thinks it's aliens. He's a Centauri.
-
Friday nights: where I spend a great deal of time turning to the TV with that "he didn't just REALLY say that, did he?" expression...
-
Well of course he thinks it's aliens. He's a Centauri.
He's not a Klingon? ??? =|
-
Well of course he thinks it's aliens. He's a Centauri.
Half man, half horse's ass? (I don't even know who that is, but I recognize a joke setup when I see it)
-
Half man, half horse's ass? (I don't even know who that is, but I recognize a joke setup when I see it)
This:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centauri_(Babylon_5)
-
H2 is not near as much fin as Youtube, depending on what you start with and where it goes from there....
Mt Sinai? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cfPMKv2fBM