California takes a step backwards!

[Darky]

Should I travel naked or with clothes on?

You, please do keep your clothes on...you seem a bit older than I, and also male, so I don't wanna see ituke: ! But wait, now I'm being intolerant...crap....um, fly however you want and I'll avert my eyes if necessary!!!:jester:

 

[Ray H]

You, please do keep your clothes on...you seem a bit older than I, and also male, so I don't wanna see ituke: ! But wait, now I'm being intolerant...crap....um, fly however you want and I'll avert my eyes if necessary!!!:jester:

I would take pictures and post them all over the www

 

[Darky]

Re: California takes a step back wards!

So then explain why a heterosexual couple who decides not to have children can get married are then afforded legal rights that a queer couple are not allowed to have?

Your argument falls apart when we look at straight couples that choose to be childless. Those couples have given up their reproductive choices to live a life that they find satisfying, the only real difference between them and a queer couple is that they have an 'inny' and an 'outy'. BUT MANY queer couples do want to raise children, and would satisfy this by adoption.

That wasn't really the point I was making...it was meant as a response to an earlier post from 5-90 (back on like page 5 or 6ish) in which he was making a point for homosexuality being genetic and using the example of "homosexual" behavior by pack animals as an example of it occurring in nature. The animals did it to show dominance, the closest example amongst humans would be guys in prison, quite often (although I am admittedly not an expert in what happens behind closed bars in prison) its used to show who's the big man (no pun intended) on campus rather than entirely because they really can't get enough of hairy man-butt...

 

[jeepboy381]

God looked down from heaven, and saw that man had sinned. He gave man a set of rules so that man could live in peace with one another. Man could not do this. So God sent messengers to warn man, but still man could not live in peace. God does love us, but because He is Holy, He can not allow sin to exist.

So its not that God sends anyone to hell because they sin, people are already separated from God because of sin. When they die, they will be eternally separated from God, and His love, forever. The fact that God allows man to live a short time here on earth in rebellion is what amazes me the most. God does not need to take our advice. He is God, and His ways are not our ways. That is why we should fear Him.

And God has demonstrated His love for us, in that while we were still in our sin, Christ died for us. The righteous, for the unrighteous. For God so loved the world that He sent His one and only Son, that who ever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. The only sin God will never forgive is to turn away in your heart from His Son, and His offer to forgive your sin through the sacrifice of His Son, in your place and mine.

Correct me if I am wrong but religion has caused more death and more wars than anything else I can think of. Well maybe death by old age or sickness have it beat. Sure sounds like peace to me... Religion is your own choice for you but it has absolutely no place in the government and should have nothing to do with the governments decision. If being homosexual is against your religion fine, but because it is against your religion dosn't mean the government needs to do anything about it.

 

[ocean_jet]

I have no problem with Christians...

It those who refuse to follow the teachings of Jesus and still call themselves Christians, that I take issue with.


Jesus taught us to love and not judge. Too many self proclaimed Christians try to call their judgement of others, things like love, or "caring for their soul".

Judging is judging, regardless of how or why.

Jesus taught us to love and accept every fellow man... without judgement. Judgement is reserved for God... and if you judge others instead of love others, do so at the risk of being judged yourself.


And finally, our laws are NOT founded in God. They can exists without his commandments. Our laws, our system of governance, our constitution is founded in the principals of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Every law, every action taken by our legislature, our juducial system is founded in that tenat. It's when you try to ground laws in morality or religion that you get into trouble... becuase those things are NOT universal.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as inalienable rights IS.

 

[Darky]

You shouldnt respect those who fear the Christian God - he's supposed to be a loving God. (Christian) God fearing people have other issues they're hiding (guilt?)

"Fearing" God doesn't always mean being afraid. The Bible was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Those 3 languages have words that can have more than one meaning. The meanings are generally close, but can have simple, but important differences. Add on to that the original English translation was a really long time ago (whenever England was ruled by some guy named James) and some words definitions/meanings have shifted a little. To fear God is to respect Him, to be in awe of Him. Those that should fear His wrath are usually the ones who deny His very existence. God is a God a love, but He is also holy, righteous.

And just who is being intolerant of Christians? Are we advocating banning churches or forcing policy changes? No. Saying that your religion should have no say in everybody's laws is not intolerance, it's patriotism

There's been plenty of intolerance shown towards Christians here also. Namely from those who say religion is worthless, God is a fairy tale, etc...

 

[Darky]

I have no problem with Christians...

It those who refuse to follow the teachings of Jesus and still call themselves Christians, that I take issue with.


Jesus taught us to love and not judge. Too many self proclaimed Christians try to call their judgement of others, things like love, or "caring for their soul".

Judging is judging, regardless of how or why.

Jesus taught us to love and accept every fellow man... without judgement. Judgement is reserved for God... and if you judge others instead of love others, do so at the risk of being judged yourself.


And finally, our laws are NOT founded in God. They can exists without his commandments. Our laws, our system of governance, our constitution is founded in the principals of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Every law, every action taken by our legislature, our juducial system is founded in that tenat. It's when you try to ground laws in morality or religion that you get into trouble... becuase those things are NOT universal.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as inalienable rights IS.

We are told not to judge the person. You can judge the actions. Hate the sin, not the sinner. If your actions are wrong in the eyes of God, a Christian has the obligation to say something. Not to say you're an evil prick and I hope you die for your sins, but to say, hey, you know you're living in sin, and I'd hate to see you burn for it. Let me show you what God says is the right way. We accept the man/woman, but try to help get rid of the sin. A Christian who kees quiet and never says anything is the one going against the teachings of Jesus. He left us with the command to Go forth and spread the Gospel.

 

[ocean_jet]

but to say, hey, you know you're living in sin, and I'd hate to see you burn for it.

Hmmmm.... sounds an awful lot like judging to me???

He left us with the command to Go forth and spread the Gospel.

Spreading the Gospel is fine (asuming the audience is receptive, and it isn't being forced upon anyone)...

Spreading the Gospel means preaching the words of god. Identifying that someone isn't living up to those words is judging.

To say "hey, you are living in sin" IS judging. You've HAD to make a judgement that those actions are sinful in order to come to such a conclusion.

 

[98XJSport]

The Bible was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Those 3 languages have words that can have more than one meaning. The meanings are generally close, but can have simple, but important differences. Add on to that the original English translation was a really long time ago (whenever England was ruled by some guy named James) and some words definitions/meanings have shifted a little.

Bingo. Same holds true for most religions.

History (and religion) is written by the victorious...

 

[8Mud]

You, please do keep your clothes on...you seem a bit older than I, and also male, so I don't wanna see ituke: ! But wait, now I'm being intolerant...crap....um, fly however you want and I'll avert my eyes if necessary!!!:jester:

Finally somebody with an honest sense of humor.atriot:

I heard something profound today and want to share, "We all shit between our feet".

Imperfect people in an imperfect world. I'd just ask you that before you charge headlong into an uncertain future, you give your direction and the possible consequences of your actions some thought.

 

[JNickel101]

"Fearing" God doesn't always mean being afraid. The Bible was written in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Those 3 languages have words that can have more than one meaning. The meanings are generally close, but can have simple, but important differences. Add on to that the original English translation was a really long time ago (whenever England was ruled by some guy named James) and some words definitions/meanings have shifted a little. To fear God is to respect Him, to be in awe of Him. Those that should fear His wrath are usually the ones who deny His very existence. God is a God a love, but He is also holy, righteous.

There's been plenty of intolerance shown towards Christians here also. Namely from those who say religion is worthless, God is a fairy tale, etc...

I mean God fearing as in, some Christians "do the right thing" (act morally/ethically correct) because they fear that if they don't, God will punish them. NOT because they want to do the right thing. Its like a kid that knows he'll get spanked if he does something his mom and dad told him was wrong - is he not doing that "something" out of fear of being spanked, or because he knows that its something wrong to do and he wants to make his parents happy?

Thats the difference, IMO, between God FEARING and God LOVING. You can respect, honor, praise and worship something without being afraid of it. If you know in your heart that you're a good, moral, decent person, then you have nothing to fear. If you have fear of something, that means you have some sense of doubt. Most religion is simply that - it does two things - gives people a sense of faith (that they are living on this Earth with a purpose, a sense of accomplishment, and not just to be worm food someday) AND gives you a general guidance of how to be a good person, for those who don't otherwise already know.

Human society is able to exist in general harmony because we are kept in a state of fear. Are we going to be overrun/attacked by Nazis/Russians/Terrorists? Are we going to kill the Earth with Global Warming? That sense of fear is what makes SOME people do the right thing and behave - not everyone is capable of just doing the right thing and being a generally good person without some sense of fear of retribution for their actions. Whether its criminal punishment or devine punishment, it depends how you're looking at the act. Behave in the eyes of society - you won't get sent to jail. Behave in life, in "God's" eyes, you won't get sent to hell. Some people need that. I honestly believe that is why society created organized religion.

 

[Darky]

Hmmmm.... sounds an awful lot like judging to me???




Spreading the Gospel is fine (asuming the audience is receptive, and it isn't being forced upon anyone)...

Spreading the Gospel means preaching the words of god. Identifying that someone isn't living up to those words is judging.

To say "hey, you are living in sin" IS judging. You've HAD to make a judgement that those actions are sinful in order to come to such a conclusion.

Read the Scripture that deals with this. To say that we cannot judge a person's actions to be wrong is rediculous. If we aren't able to judge a person's actions than lets just throw out the whole judicial system. We are not to judge the person as an evil person. We cannot judge the person's standing with God. I can't look at you and say, oh yeah, he's definitely going to hell. I can however look at what the Bible has told me to be true and the right way to act and comparing your actions to what we are told to do say, "What you are doing is wrong." This is the problem with today's generation (of which I am a part): Nobody can tell me I'm wrong, no one can tell me what to do. If you say I'm wrong well then, you, sir, are wrong and also intolerant. Intolerant has become the new dirty word. If not tolerating what is wrong is being intolerant, so be it. I'll not cut off relations with a person just because I disagree with what he says or does, but if the topic comes up, I will give my opinion on it. If you don't like it, fine, we can both be intolerant. As an example, look back the thread on legalizing Marijuana, 8Mud and I were practically at each other's throats, and here we're joking around.

Thats the difference, IMO, between God FEARING and God LOVING. You can respect, honor, praise and worship something without being afraid of it.

But that ignores the main point of my post...when someone says I am a good, God-fearing Christian, they generally aren't saying I am shaking in my boots that God will stomp me if I get out of line. The word goes back more to respecting and being in awe of than being literally in today's language, in fear of.

And to you that said history/religion( I forget who you are and I'm too lazy to go back and look...) is written by the victorious, actually, the history of it goes back to the fact that the Bible was penned by multiple authors. They each were writing to specific people. Romans was written in Latin as it was going to the Romans. Corinthians was in Greek since it went to the city of Corinth in Greece. It didn't matter who was in power, it was written in whatever language was spoken in the area the letter was meant for. Also, if you were to compare the modern Bible to the original transcripts (Dead Sea Scrolls), you'd see that the meaning of what's being said and the translation is pretty spot on. The only differences being modern English vs Olde English.

 

[JNickel101]

I think everyone is intolerant of at least one other person/type of person in this world. We are all intolerant of those unlike us, OTHERWISE, we'd be LIKE that other person, if we could help it. Plenty of people are intolerant of me b/c I'm white, or I'm a straight guy, or because I'm not a holy roller, or because I'm in the military....you can say you "love everyone" or "tolerate everyone" - but if you really did, you'd be a huge hypocrit/poser.

We live in an imperfect, diverse world - its impossible to tolerate EVERYONE.

 

[98XJSport]

And to you that said history/religion( I forget who you are and I'm too lazy to go back and look...) is written by the victorious, actually, the history of it goes back to the fact that the Bible was penned by multiple authors. They each were writing to specific people. Romans was written in Latin as it was going to the Romans. Corinthians was in Greek since it went to the city of Corinth in Greece. It didn't matter who was in power, it was written in whatever language was spoken in the area the letter was meant for. Also, if you were to compare the modern Bible to the original transcripts (Dead Sea Scrolls), you'd see that the meaning of what's being said and the translation is pretty spot on. The only differences being modern English vs Olde English.

Again exactly my point. They wrote what pleased the most. They wrote for a specific audience. Doesn't mean it's right, wrong, the truth or lies. It was what was needed at the time. If it's what you need, then great, hopefully it helps you...

And comparing sin to sitting in gas playing with matches, Ive done both, the two don't compare

 

[Darky]

Both can end up in serious burns, unless you know who/what to turn to...

 

[98XJSport]

One WILL lead to serious burns. The other is debatable, and possibly forgivable. The two don't compare.

 

[karstic]

You're in your 70's and still a tool? You grow up slowly.

My family came to the states from England in 1540. Yes, we did screw up a good thing. We brought the white man and catholics.

I believe it was the Spanish that brought the Catholics about 50 years earlier.

 

[Trail-Axe]

It is good that we can remain civil, and discuss a subject such as the one we are discussing. Religion, politics, both have many diverse meanings to many different people. No one likes to be judged, even when the judgement is spot on, myself included. But those who are wise will learn from it and move on.

There are many different types of judgements made, and not all of them were forbidden by Jesus. I think the judgement most people hate the most is the one were someone thinks they know what is in your heart, and makes a statement about it. When we judge the motives and intents of another man's heart, that is where we get into trouble. To say to the unbeliever, your going to hell because you will not follow the rules of my god, that is where strife is born. But to point out the error in another man's belief, that can be life to the dead, and sight to the blind, if it is done with humility, and a sincere love for the one in error (Many Christians fail to do this from time to time, myself included, and that is what turns many away from the Savior).

As far as doing what God wants, because we fear Him, that may be a start, but it is just a beginning. God, the God I love and serve, wants His followers to keep His commands because they see that God is good, they know they deserve His wrath, but because they discovered His forgiveness and mercy, they now have a desire to keep His laws because He forgave them. Now they follow in His ways out of love, though not always to His perfection, they are His work in progress. Instead of living their life working for their salvation, they now work from it.

 

[ocean_jet]

Read the Scripture that deals with this. To say that we cannot judge a person's actions to be wrong is rediculous. If we aren't able to judge a person's actions than lets just throw out the whole judicial system.

Huh? We're talking about god, not society.

WE CAN judge who within society is and isn't abiding by societies rules. That is why morality and religion have no place in the legal system. Only protection of rights. By enforcing societies rules, no one is infringing on god's domain. No one is judging sin.


Which scripture are you referring to that outlines man's role in judgement?

 

[5-90]

There seems to be a core issue that hasn't been addressed yet, so let me ask you all this:

"If two homosexuals (of whatever sort,) wish to get married and have their marriage treated like any other, what harm is it causing you?"

I've said before, I'm sure - if we're going to have a married swordfighting team or a couple of clam-bangers getting hitched, it's certainly not going to affect my marriage in any particular way I can think of. As long as the laws are written such that no-one gets any preferential treatment, I honestly don't care. Let them!

My issue has always been disparity under the law - as I talked about with "hate crimes." Should a punishment carry an enhancement because one particular segment of the body politic was injured? No.

(For those of you who wish to bring up that I've thought execution a viable punishment for child molestation and pederasty, bear this in mind: I think all rapists should be put to death. I'd say just have them emasculated, but most jurisdictions carry a penalty for "Sexual Battery with a Foreign Object" - are we going to cut off their hands as well? Two in the head, and bury them in Potter's Field...)

Equality under the Law - if a Law is not applied equally, it should be invalidated. Easy enough.

If gays want to get married, then let them. Don't give them any more or any fewer privileges and benefits than anyone else - equality under the law. I honestly don't see the problem.

For those of you spouting off about religious aspects - note that there are also "civil marriages" - no religion need be involved. If they're going to go to Hell for buggery - that's their problem.

There may be gay "marriages of convenience?" And there aren't any among straights? Please. Hell - take that one step farther, and look at Hollyweird. Most of those people change spouses more often than I buy new socks! Readily-available divorces and prenuptial agreements have done more to "cheapen and dilute marriage" than allowing gays to marry ever will! (Me mum's folks were married for 52 years before we lost him to aggressive pancreatic cancer. I don't think Julie and I will make it that long - the disparity in age means that one of us is likely to check out well before the other, dammit. Oddly enough, I think she's more likely to bury me tho - I get clobbered more often. "Til Death do us Part" has come to pass - I was dead, and we didn't part. A marriage is what you make of it. For everyone who told us we wouldn't last six months - I gave you odds. You should have bet me - I need the money!)

And for "fear of God" leading to "moral behaviour?" "Morality" is a superset (a subset, by now...) of rules for a society that are not codified into any particular body of law, but are universally understood by that society and others with which it interacts. One need not be "God-fearing" in order to comport oneself in a "moral" manner. I don't "fear" God - although He does have some serious explaining to do next time I see Him - but that doesn't prevent me from being able to comport myself in a manner generally considered "moral." It doesn't stop me from trying to help my fellow man where I am able. It's not what keeps me from killing people - even when I think they do deserve it (no, fear of death and prison isn't in that loop, either.)

I do what I do because it's the "correct" way to act, and it's from learning that was instilled into me at a very early age.

Does this mean that gays can't "act morally" or that gay marriages won't last? I've now invalidated both arguments, so I'd like to see what's going to come out next. "Pie in the sky" doesn't work very much anymore these days - most people are too busy dealing with "here & now" to worry overmuch about "hereafter." Fortunately, acting in a "moral" manner towards others comes out to be in the self-interest of the individual, I'll see if anyone else can explain that before I jump in.

I don't have any moral or ethical issues with the idea of gay marriage - I have a feeling that, statistically speaking, they're going to work out much the same as heterosexual marriage. Done properly, there should be no legal issues. Religious issues? That's why we have the division between Church and State - to avoid things like that from causing more trouble than there needs to be.