Lexi Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 Homosexuals should in every sense and way have the same rights to create a partnership that is equal of marriage in every possible way, although the Church might not be the best institution to perform such a service. In a way, forcing the church to conduct homosexual marriages would be the state infringing on the church, and peoples' beliefs and faith. I do however dislike christian people that oppose the idea of gay people entering such a partnership. Sharing one's life with the person you love should not be prohibited for anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 That's like candy coating it. Let's view the analysis. Put a gun to someone's head and say 'kiss my shoe or die'. That person has a choice between disobeying and dying or obeying and not dying. Obey me and believe in me or go to hell. That person has a choice between disobeying and going to hell or obeying and not going to hell. It seems there are choices in both matters. The only difference is the severity of the consequences. Thus, if we say one is under duress, the other is under duress as well considering a situation under duress is that situation at that time without reflection of the consequence. Personally, if I were given these LIMITED choices and believed in Christianity and Hell, I wouldn't want to suffer through eternity. The problem with that viewpoint, Goomf, is that the original choice that was the downfall of mankind didn't include any threat of Hell. The original choice was "Eat any of these thousands of other things and live. Eat this one thing and you'll die." The choice was the same as it's always been...life or death, defined by the actions you take. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 So... God lied to Adam and Eve, since they didn't die from eating the fruit... the snake told them the truth, that eating of it would open their eyes to knowledge of good and evil. Why is the liar considered the good guy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goomf Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 The problem with that viewpoint, Goomf, is that the original choice that was the downfall of mankind didn't include any threat of Hell. The original choice was "Eat any of these thousands of other things and live. Eat this one thing and you'll die." The choice was the same as it's always been...life or death, defined by the actions you take. Oh, I'm speaking of christian religion as we have it TODAY. Not the story of adam and eve, but the punishments that are dolled for not obeying G-D at the present time. Which brings me back to a main reason why I don't like the religion. People, who are often ignorant, act like complete asses and/or sin and believe just because they follow this religion, they are given a free pass. Some of them even get to the point where they don't try to 'improve' themselves and just act like the same ignorant bastards. Sorry, had to vent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayesh Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 So... God lied to Adam and Eve' date=' since they didn't die from eating the fruit... the snake told them the truth, that eating of it would open their eyes to knowledge of good and evil. Why is the liar considered the good guy?[/quote'] But they did die...they became mortal and subject to death, and more to the point, spiritually dead, separated from intimate fellowship with God by their disobedience. Prior to their fall, mankind had no knowledge of evil as they were created in perfection and purity by their perfect Creator. Also, there was more than one tree in the center of the garden. There was also the Tree of Life offered as a choice among the thousands of other normal trees. The serpent's deception came in the form of a half-truth and the insinuation that God was holding out on Adam and Eve. withholding something good and hiding it from them, causing them to disbelieve and then rebel. Additionally, while common opinion always seems to point the finger of blame at Eve, the Bible clearly teaches that it was Adam's conscious disobedience and choice to join Eve in rebelling that caused mankind's downfall, not Eve, who the Bible clearly teaches was tricked into rebelling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elfdude Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 All I gotta say is don't legislate morality, not everyone believes in the same things that you do. IMO you should be able to do whatever the hell you want to as long as it doesn't infringe upon anyone elses rights. Go Libertarians! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexi Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 I always considered most of the Bible to be written in analogues and metaphors anyway, or at least that those that believe in the Bible interpreted it that way. Trying to find and point out every flaw in any religious text could take ages, and you would really miss the point of those texts anyway. Man is a sinful creature. No matter how you see it, that's the truth. Do we ignore that fact? Try to improve ourselves? Live with it? The Bible is the answer for some people, other people find other way. I just tend to not think too much about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EtsoShex Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 So, yeah... DK's, huh? Definitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 I suppose that's a way to look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 All I gotta say is don't legislate morality' date=' not everyone believes in the same things that you do. IMO you should be able to do whatever the hell you want to as long as it doesn't infringe upon anyone elses rights.[/quote'] Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Behrens Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 All I gotta say is don't legislate morality' date=' not everyone believes in the same things that you do. IMO you should be able to do whatever the hell you want to as long as it doesn't infringe upon anyone elses rights. Go Libertarians![/quote'] Impossible. Compromises must be reached between moral systems in government. I personally believe that a fetus is an actual person with a right to live. Libertarians believe that a woman's right to kill the fetus is superior to that fetus's right to live. An enviromentalist believes that releasing ANY pollutants into a pristine mountain stream is too much. Our government has reached a compromise that results in small, non-harmful amounts of certain chemicals (example: arsenic), in streams abutting factories. The result is that neither the enviromentalist who believes all factories are immoral nor the industrialist who believes that all resources are his to use is completely happy, and a balance is struck. The other question is financial. Are taxes imposed on my personal freedom? Does any other person have a right to take my money and spend it on anything? National defense, welfare, health care, foreign aid, pick whatever you think is overspent right now. A true Libertarian would not allow taxes for any of these, with the exception (usually) of national defense. As good as that statement sounds, it is unsound for a form of government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 Hypothetical scenario, Behrens: You are in a room on fire. In this room is a three year old child and a box of five fetuses (all perfectly healthy and viable, they would grow to be infants if they survive). Which do you save? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexi Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 What if you were in the same room, Pali, except that one of those fetuses were the result of you and the woman you love? Hypothetical, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EtsoShex Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 Can fetuses box? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexi Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 In hopythetical situations they can. Duh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Behrens Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 Hypothetical scenario' date=' Behrens: You are in a room on fire. In this room is a three year old child and a box of five fetuses (all perfectly healthy and viable, they would grow to be infants if they survive). Which do you save?[/quote'] The three year old child. I'd get both if I could, but I would get the child first. I'd also save my sister before I'd save ten children in a bus. Does that mean I think children don't have rights? I am aware that my actions are not perfect, but that is what I would do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 I'd choose the kid in a heartbeat. A living, breathing, mentally active child is of far more value to me than a cluster of cells that in many ways are indistinguishable from what you get under your fingernails when you scratch an itch. Cloning technology could make a child from that skin, but that doesn't make the skin a child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WagesofSin Posted October 30, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 Might as throw in another wrench into this: Is an infinite punishment(hell) justifiable for a finite crime(i.e sin)? God is the most just being in the universe no? This whole idea of an eternal hell seems rather silly IMO. Not only that, god(according to abrahamic religions) knew completely who and when someone would commit a crime against him(he's omniscient right?). Yet he still creates them, and still punishes them. Justice indeed! Melinda, you mention that you have a problem understanding things the way science tries to explain things. I.e Cells, molecules, time, bigbang... You say that a cell seems too complex to come to existance randomly(Also, I should note, things are not "random" in the universe). What created the cell? The big bang? What created the big bang you ask? Saying "god did it" doesn't help anything. Isn't god infinitelymore complex than a single cell? Why is it ok for god to exist out of nothing but not the universe? Heck maybe the universe is eternal *shrug*. To all of such questions I can answer as an atheist and a skeptic: I don't know. I really don't know. As an atheist and skeptic I hope to find out, I probably won't, but there is no reason to invoke somekind of deity that uses "magic" to do all of this stuff. Doing so just muddies the water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexi Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 Anyway... this whole rescueing who or what first is more about moral and philosophy than religion, no? To me, it would seem 'better' to allow someone who is suffering from incurable illness die, if that is what he wants, but I could never do it myself. Likewise, I am against the death sentance, but I am for abortion. People can have these or other moral standards without following certain religions, although some religions act more in favour, or disfavour, of some activities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
corpsestomp Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 I'm just going to pipe in with a comment on gay marriage. I have absolutely nothing against homosexuals or same-sex marriage. What I DO have a problem with, is changing our constitution to give or take rights from any person(s). Edit: On the subject of religion, I have yet to find any religion that encompasses my beliefs, and as such, I am not really a spiritual person. I refuse to change my ethical or moral beliefs just to be accepted into a religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WagesofSin Posted October 30, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 Behrens wrote: I personally believe that a fetus is an actual person with a right to live. Libertarians believe that a woman's right to kill the fetus is superior to that fetus's right to live. I don't get it. If your belief is true, what does it matter? The aborting mother will face judgement at the end of her life anyway. Let her have her fun on earth and face hell for the rest of it! As for the Fetus, it lacks the brain power to even have any idea what is going on. Whatever happens to fetuses after death(if they indeed have a soul like you say) won't be too bad since it didn't even have a chance to sin anyway. A free ticket to heaven, why do you want to rob the unborn with that?! Really, why must you go into other peoples lives and force your beliefs on them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pali Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 For a long while, fetuses not only lack the brain power to understand what's going on, they lack a brain completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Behrens Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 I don't get it. If your belief is true, what does it matter? The aborting mother will face judgement at the end of her life anyway. Let her have her fun on earth and face hell for the rest of it! As for the Fetus, it lacks the brain power to even have any idea what is going on. Whatever happens to fetuses after death(if they indeed have a soul like you say) won't be too bad since it didn't even have a chance to sin anyway. A free ticket to heaven, why do you want to rob the unborn with that?! Really, why must you go into other peoples lives and force your beliefs on them? Ah, but here we come to the Libertarian crux. A Libertarian must assume that all people have equal rights to sustain his philosophy, for if they do not, then the superior men could have the right to murder the inferior man. After all, who are you to deny the superior man the entertainment of shooting inferior beasts in the back of the head? Indeed, we have laws against torturing dogs to death (animal cruelty laws), but none to disallow torturing babies near birth to death (partial birth abortion). If partial birth abortion is allowed, where is the dividing line at which a human child gains the protection of the law? Did Susan Smith merely perform a 14-month late abortion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexi Posted October 30, 2006 Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 I am saying that the existance of a god, or a similar entity, can be neither affirmed nor disaffirmed. I am not saying God came out of nowhere, but I would like to know what created him. Or what created that which created God. And so on, in infinity. I am saying, however, that it would be easier for me to believe that something created universe (for some weird reason, I just pictured 'Sin' from 'Final Fantasy X' floating around in space, building planets. Is that weird or what? ), than wondering what was before Big Bang, and who lit the fuse. Actually... I'm saying the same thing as you: I don't know. And I hope to find out too. But it is easier to believe that a deity did it, rather than it happened all by itself. Something, or someone, must have pressed the big red 'START' button. But... there are too many things that are too random for me to believe in the existance of a God. He wouldn't bother to create the vast space, all the planets, all the solar systems, and put the humans here and let us become what we are. A god would had put life on the other planets, I think. And I don't believe a god would demand worship from humanity. He can't be that vain or desperate. Those are human traits, anyway. So the whole idea about sin and hell and creation are flawed, anyway. EDIT: I'm getting really confused now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WagesofSin Posted October 30, 2006 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2006 Behrens: The proof for spirituality is merely the fact that people believe in it. By definition, spirituality exists as I have defined it. The question then becomes if spirituality can exist for everyone, or only those who delude themselves. I disagree.You did not prove it. Simply put, a belief in something does not prove it. You defined spirituality as: 1. Spirituality: The existence of a power or powers beyond the capacity of modern science to examine and discover that none-the-less can apply an effect to us, either in our own actions or a change in the world. You did not prove in the existance of the spiritual, all this does is prove the belief in the spiritual. This is a monumental difference. It sounds like your definition of spirituality is synonymous with the word "super-natural". The proof for a Creator is as obvious to those who are looking for it as the proof that there is a Mazda factory in Japan that made my RX-8. The problem is that people have argued themselves into believing that the immensity of the universe came into being by random chance because they want to avoid having a Creator, and therefore the possibility of G-d. A cell is a far more complex structure than my RX-8, yet if I were to postulate my car assembling over hundreds of years in a bath of liquid aluminum and rubber that contained all the needed parts, it would be seen as folly. We are justified in believing there was a creator of my Mazda because we can see the creator, we can observe the process of its creation, we can see the car roll out of that factory. You are not justified in believing the same for the universe. A Cell is more complex than your car? The term "complex" is itself difficult to define. How do you quantify/qualify complex? Isn't god infinitely more complex than a cell or car? Why is it ok for him to be infinite, but not the universe? Also, the universe isn't as "random" as you state it to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.