News & Politics - Same Sex Marriage Continued - Page 6

LeX_11 · 04-21-2004, 12:55 AM

wow, this is quite intense. I don't have any opinions on the actual matter of same sex marriage. But i have nothing against gays and i certainly don't think they are "sinners". Just a different way of life style.

ceilirose · 04-21-2004, 04:40 AM

Originally posted by Grhmlz

Quote:

Secondly, the concept of "Separation of Church and State" derived when the colonies of New England when they separated from Great Britain. They didn't want the church to ever be able to force its will on the people again. However, the battle wasn't between the people and God. The battle was between the people and the Church/King!

But therein lies the problem. The King of England was the titular head of the Church of England if I remember my history correctly. The Pilgrims came to America for religious freedom because they couldn't worship freely in England. They saw the inherent problems of having a head a state share the dual role of being the head of a religion. Their rights were not recognized. Not that this has anything to do with gay marriage rights.

Originally posted by Bugs8476

Quote:

6. Back in the 60's they don't have the same sources or even the same laws as we do not. But besides the point, Are country has fallen into a deeper hole than when it was back in the 60's.

Have you studied the 60's or are you old enough to remember them? They were a time of great social change that brought about civil rights legislation and more freedom for women plus a questioning of social mores that had been in place for years. That included challenging government and religious institutions by making their workings more transparent.

The 60's had laws that mandated blacks to use separate restrooms and lunch counters while women weren't even allowed to attend schools in this country not to mention having a very limited choice in careers. Law and medical schools wouldn't even accept women because they didn't want to waste their money on someone who would just leave their profession to get married.

You want to go back to those days? What does it have to do with gay marriage rights? Are you saying that gays should stay in the closet so society doesn't have to deal with them?

BTW...the overuse of the rolling eye smiley is something we all agreed on. It was used ad nauseum during the debate about the Iraq war last year and we all pretty much decided to limit it's use.

[ 04-21-2004: Message edited ceilirose ]

StellaSlight · 04-21-2004, 06:35 AM

Shoot! that thread has become very wordy! [img]smilies/eek.gif[/img]

Posts by bugs8476 :

Quote:

I did say that since you live in France that you didn't know anything about what's going on in the US. I said that you might not know everything, so don't switch my words aroud please....I'm happy for you that you study the civilization, laws, history, and democracy, but it doesn't mean you can teach me everything, because you don't live over here.

Well, honey, your exact words were : "Since your from france you don't know everything our democracy does, so to use that would be stupid....ecpesailly coming into the end times".
You directly implied that since I didn't live in your country, I didn't know everything, therefore I couldn't debate properly. Don't wink wink-nudge nudge, and back up now that you know that I know alot although not everything. You even proved that living in a country doesn't mean one necessarily knows everything (not to say alot).

Quote:

If you say that are democracy has been Painful,bloody and really hypocrit for centuries then what makes you think they won't do this agaisnt Homosexuality.
That's right all those things are a differnts topic so why mention them...Where on the subject of Homosexulity.

Do you really think the insane, hating people that would prefer to kill a homosexual rather than see gay marriages allowed have waited for that law to be passed? Don't you think the homosexuals have already persecuted by ignorant, narrow-minded people who, just like you, have said that God was on their side? You should wake up. Homosexuals have always been a favourite target by persecuters. I'm sure there's a minority of intolerant, sick bastards who would try to make troubles to prevent that law to be passed, and like I said, I would feel no sympathy toward them, and will gladly see them go to jail or mental institution.

Duh, when one talks about homosexuals rights, it's almost natural to talk about the long, painful path they all had to endure to be granted a civil right like the right to get married, and therefore relating them to other minorities' suffering isn't off-topic. And yes, we're on the subject of homosexuality, and that's why you guys are bringing up religion all the time, right? Cause frankly, there are lots of us who think that religious beliefs have nothing to do with a civil rights.

Quote:

1. That's what other people said, but beside the point about how many of your, supposly countries have it, I won't have to mention it because you have done that for me.

Why is that besides the point that many European countries have allowed gay marriages (BTW that's not supposedly, you can even check in our constitutions and/or civil laws)? That's precisely the point. But since you seem to believe that America is the center of the world and that Europe is just 'another country', well, eh, I have my explanation.

Quote:

2. According to you this was supposly said. Because according to my last finding, i havent't seen that stated anywhere. Did you take a survey on everyone in euroupe to detrmine these results. There is a loop hole missing here. Please explain to me.

[img]smilies/lol.gif[/img] You're really funny.
Why don't you read newspapers for a change? And sometimes you can even check international news. I'm not making up stuff, just reporting what was written aaaaaalllll over the press. Oh but wait. I know that it's not credible since it's not written in the BIBLE...

Quote:

3. On the increasing part of the population i was trying to explain that after you have incrased that gay marriage is ok.....all over the world.....it is just another problem added to the world to cause more chaos.
As i said in other post"I know homosexuals can not have babies, i was explaining the sitution, of what will happen if gay marriages are spreading, and increasing the higher risk...or chaos.

I'm sorry but your posts is hardly understandable. You should really try to make yourself more understandable, instead of puttin the [...] symbols everywhere. And it's not even coherent. I still haven't understood your explanation about the increase of the population through gay marriages.
You're talking about chaos, while you try to explain about the increase of the population. Do you even know what you're talking about???

Quote:

4. Thoery is a theory, but choas happens over a peiord of time, when a nation falls, for "dis-obeying god" instead of the United States of America, we can call it The United Sin of America. Altanis aready went down, soon the u.s, and the world will too.

When did that happen for Atlantis? Do you know where it was situated? Do you have proofs?
Oh wait, I have another chaos exemples... Pompei! And also... every freakin' cities around a volcano. And you also forget all the cities that were devastated by tsunamis, and also San Francisco with the earthquake in 1906. Yes, San Francisco was a city of sinners!
Yeah, right. I'd suggest you to turn on the TV to watch the news and you'll see what chaos is. It's situated in a portion of the planet called Iraq. And you know what? It's not even about homosexuality.

Quote:

But explian to me, if their is choas, there is not control, no control, means no jail or ever mental insitiution, in this case nobody will be going any where. Its not that god does not like them, Its that they are breaking "Gods Laws". Rights for African American and Rights for gay marriages is two different topics.

Because my friend, your chaos will not happen.
Why didn't that happen when pre-marital sex has been allowed? When divorce has been allowed? when slavery has been abolished? When adultry isn't punished by the law anymore?
The way you see it, it's like God chose his chaos, for He said to His people : Forgive all sins, but doth thou not allow homosexual unions.

Ah, and tell me why are right for Blak people different from rights for homosexuals? I'd really love to hear this.

Quote:

5. I do understand the legal/political system. Yes, the gov't can enforce all the laws and pass them, it doesn't mean there right. Thats sinnful enough, so why don't we just add in "gay marriage" rights. Why were add it lets let all the sex predators, so they can do what they do best...I guess were breaking their rights too. It doesn't matter what religion u are in, but the fact that u follow "Gods Laws".

Seriously, you're very not coherent in your thoughts.
That you compare homosexuals with 'sex predators', that's your ignorant right.
But saying that you understand the legal/political system and then talk about religion and God's laws proved that you really don't understand a single thing. We don't care if you're Christians when it comes to law. You're a human being/citizen. Period.
Then you say that, no matter what the religion you're in, you have to follow God's Laws. Well, there are also lots of atheists, and also other religions that where people doesn't have to follow 'a God's Laws'. Buddhists don't. Wiccans don't. Just exemples.

Quote:

I'm not forced to do anything, but I am here to debate your opinions against God's laws, not judging you, but simply preaching it. I don't need to start choas, when eventully it will start it self, why don't you?

Honey, I'm not the one who talks about chaos because a certain civil right will be granted. I'm not the one who came up with those stupid theories about people who will kill homosexuals if a law is passed. I'm not the one who thinks that a chaos is prefereble to gay marriages. I don't need to start a chaos because a civil rights is granted to a minority. I will be on the street protesting if civil rights are taken off. And even then, I wouldn't kill someone who didn't do anything to me because I don't agree with what they do in their bedroom in private.

And as for not judging me... it's too late my friend. Calling people who practice pre-marital sex 'sinners' is judging me. Preaching to me is judging me. I don't need someone to tell me that I don't live my life right because I know that I do. Saying that we all should follow God's laws is judging me, because it implies that atheists (who don't follow any god's laws) are living the wrong way. Yep, too late.

Quote:

6. Back in the 60's they don't have the same sources or even the same laws as we do not. But besides the point, Are country has fallen into a deeper hole than when it was back in the 60's.

Yes, back in the 60's they had more discriminating, racist and ignorant laws. Saying that the country has 'fallen into a deeper hole' implies that you'd rather go back to that time of prejudices and intolerance. Well, that's a telling thing.

Quote:

7. I feel that the agruement we were making is not crap, but simply and arguement you just don't want to here. God's laws are important in my life, I came here to preach the words of the lords, if you don't like my arguement then don't responed.

I don't like your argument, that's why I'm responding to it. And I'd say whatever I want to say about what you 'preached' because I think it's total non-sense for the topic of homosexuality. You can believe whatever you want to believe, but being judgemental towards people who never did anything to you, well, don't be surprised that people will call your saying 'crap'.
Plus, if I recall correctly, I didn't say that your beliefs were crap, but your whole theory about chaos-that-was-supposed-to-explain-why-we-shouldn't-allow-gay-marriages was.

Quote:

Posted by GrhmLz :

Yes, I know. Which is why you'll have to deal with hearing our views against homosexual marriage. Isn't free-speech a beautiful thing?

[img]smilies/lol.gif[/img] Yeah, actually I love free speech. Imagine how dull it would be if anyone thought like me. Who would I be supposed to be fighting with over subjects like homosexuality and international crisis? I don't mind you having your own views on homosexuality, I never said that you shouldn't post here because I didn't agree with you. And I even enjoy every lines of my responses to each of you.

*Ledi* · 04-21-2004, 08:33 AM

Posted by bugs8674

Quote:

3. There will be less controll in the government, because the public and the world will break out to do what they please
This may seem like a small deal to you, but if you think about the whole picture, it is an effect on the government, and our socitey. Religion will be the cause of this chaos, because the word of god was broken.

You "religious" (wouldn't even call people like you that, because to me it seems like you have made up your own Bible) people should mind your own damn business. It looks to me like you don't live in the REAL world so why do you care about what happens in it, really? If you keep ignoring the REAL world like you have been till now, you can still have your little peaceful and judgemental world where you read your own Bible and preach your God's word.

And like others have said, can you please quote the Bible? I want to see where its been said that being Homosexual is breaking God's law and that Homosexuality is a sin... because for all I know, God made a man and a woman when everything started... and that is ALL. Homosexuality being a sin and blah blah blah... is something you have assumed because of how this world was created in the begining (ie.. a man and a woman.. not two people of the same sex). But seriously, just quote the Bible and prove us all wrong.

And by the way, I'm a Christian too... just like you claim to be, but unlike you, I don't hate homosexuals or think that homosexuality is a sin. I want homosexuals to have the same rights and everything. Does that make me less of a Christian than you are? No it doesn't. It just simply shows that you decide to hate Homosexuality, you have chosen to, and not because God has told you to.

[ 04-21-2004: Message edited *Ledi* ]

Jess519 · 04-21-2004, 10:25 AM

Not sure why I'm bothering to respond, this whole thread has gotten rather hopeless, but here goes. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Separation of Church and State: Of course I don't believe God is completely separate from politics. There are many politicians who believe in God and that is going to mold their beliefs and values, and may affect what bills and legislation they support. But God is not the same as organized religion. Anything that sniffs of the slightest bit of organized religion should be kept out of the government, in my opinion, and vice versa.

I've always felt very strongly about that, as someone who is a member of an organized religion. Because once a chuch is allowed to get involved in the government, well then the government would be allowed to get involved with my church. That's something I don't want, and a line I don't want to cross.

Quote:

Originally posted by GrhmLz:
See, but if a person has to ask those questions that means they really don't have faith? To continuously ask those questions means that one doubts. You see, it has nothing to do with "playing god" or "being absolutely sure." When you have faith, you believe completely in that word. There are no doubts and there is no need for proof. When you pray to God, God opens up the eyes of the people to have the wisdom to see the truth for what it is. The truth just is. And I'm not referring to science's version of "truth" mind you.

First of all, doubt does not mean you don't have faith. Doubt usually means a weakening of faith, something you can work through and overcome. We are humans and we are going to have doubts. If you believe that is not true, than I feel sorry for you. It is just not possible for an human to have 100% absolute faith every second of every day. We are human beings and we will falter and God doesn't need us to have zero moments of doubt. That's not what is most important to him anyway.

But really, when I was talking about doubt and uncertainty, I was not talking about uncertainty of faith, I was talking about uncertainty of Bible interpretation. Something you seem to have little concept of. Your understanding of the Bible is based on your interpretation of it (or more likely your church's interpretation). No matter how much you might protest otherwise, not every single word in the Bible is limited to one and only one interpretation. Why is yours the correct one? (And don't tell me just because it is God's Word and so it is truth.) Words are words. They have varied meanings. They could be saying different things in different contexts. Two words can mean something completely different when placed together. Yet you are so sure that you know exactly what the meaning is in every word, phrase, sentence in the Bible. I'm sorry, but that's arrogance and it is playing God. Because you can't possibly know with 100% certainty that your understanding of every word in the Bible is the correct understanding according to God.

Not sure what the point of my whole post was, so I have a feeling I know exactly what your response will be. Same old, same old. But I had to give it a shot.

GrhmLz · 04-21-2004, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jess519:
Re: Separation of Church and State[/b]: Of course I don't believe God is completely separate from politics. There are many politicians who believe in God and that is going to mold their beliefs and values, and may affect what bills and legislation they support.

But that was exactly the point that I was trying to make in my post. Others are claiming that we live in this dual society where God/Religion operate in one direction and there is a secular society operating in the other direction. And in some arguments that secular dominates completely over God/religion. I think that claim is bogus because when it comes down to it, everybody bases their beliefs off of something. It doesn't have to be religion!

Quote:

Originally posted by Jess519:
But God is not the same as organized religion.

I know that. That was the point of my argument when I brought up the examples of how "God" has clearly been used in this country and it didn't have to be connected to religion. The examples that I used were how the inscription of "In God We Trust" is on our currency, the Declaration of Independence when it states "Endowed with certain inalienable rights by our Creator", and so forth. I read other posts here and in response to my post they explained that changes were brought about through interpretation. Obviously, and that makes sense to me. The point I was arguing is that the argument for "Separation of Church and State" was used to have prayer taken out of schools and to have "god" taken out of the pledge of allegiance. But God is not a Church? God can be separate from religion because religion is nothing but an institution. However, my examples show that there are people trying to rid this country of "God" and the mere mention of "God." They want believers of God to hide away in our "churches" and only mention the word there! Now how does that practice of society guarantee freedom of religion if society forces you to hide your belief in God so you don't offend others who don't believe? Now, I'm a citizen in this country and I am entitled to public education too! What if I am poor and can't afford the cost of private/religious education? Why shouldn't I be allowed to say a prayer in School as long as I am not forcing someone to say one with me?

Quote:

Originally posted by Jess519:
 Anything that sniffs of the slightest bit of organized religion should be kept out of the government, in my opinion, and vice versa.

Okay, fair enough. But I don't think organized religion is the reason some people are opposed to gay marriage or even homosexuality in general. Did you not say you considered yourself to be a christian (and correct me if I am wrong and thinking of someone else but I thought it was you); yet, you are not opposed to it? I think it would be fair to say that there are others out there that are members of organized religion that feel the same way you do. I think the argument is more about what the correct interpretation to God and God's laws are! At least, that is what i am gathering from this thread.

Now for the bible, which most of the debating on this thread has been about. The bible is not religion itself. Neither is God! God and the bible can and are brought into religion but they are not the religious institution. Therefore, I argue that there is nothing wrong with incorporating these two concepts into the morals and values that back the laws of this land. People already do and continue to. But the thread is right when it says people interpret these concepts differently. That much is obvious or we wouldn't be here debating about it. What it eventually comes down to is who serves in Government and what the majority of the country is willing to lean towards in the laws of the land.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jess519:
I've always felt very strongly about that, as someone who is a member of an organized religion. Because once a chuch is allowed to get involved in the government, well then the government would be allowed to get involved with my church. That's something I don't want, and a line I don't want to cross.

Okay, this is a good point that I can agree with. I will give credit where credit is due.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jess519:
 First of all, doubt does not mean you don't have faith. Doubt usually means a weakening of faith, something you can work through and overcome. We are humans and we are going to have doubts. If you believe that is not true, than I feel sorry for you. It is just not possible for an human to have 100% absolute faith every second of every day. We are human beings and we will falter and God doesn't need us to have zero moments of doubt. That's not what is most important to him anyway.

I agree that we are all human beings and that we have weak points in our lives. That is obvious; otherwise, we wouldn't sin. I was talking about having 100% faith in Gods laws. For example, if I encounter a weak moment in my life and I sin, something doesn't feel right and I acknowledge it was a sin and try not to do it again. If I had doubts about God's laws, I wouldn't be able to acknowledge that I did something wrong and then try to correct it because I wouldn't have complete faith in them.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jess519:
But really, when I was talking about doubt and uncertainty, I was not talking about uncertainty of faith, I was talking about uncertainty of Bible interpretation.

Guess we were coming at it from two different ways.

Maybe I should ask you something more directly so I can understand where you are coming from:

As a Christian, are you uncertain about bible interpretation? And if so, why are you uncertain about bible interpretation?

Quote:

Originally posted by Jess519:
Your understanding of the Bible is based on your interpretation of it (or more likely your church's interpretation). No matter how much you might protest otherwise, not every single word in the Bible is limited to one and only one interpretation.

Okay, but what is it about the bible that gives you more than one interpretation? I can understand what you are trying to say here but I was just curious to know what it is?

Quote:

Originally posted by Jess519:
Why is yours the correct one? (And don't tell me just because it is God's Word and so it is truth.)

Couldn't it be? And if there are multiple interpretations to the bible and God's word, is it a fair question to ask me? If a interpret the bible to mean something doesn't it follow that I probably find it to be correct. Are you implying that all of these interpretions are right or are they all wrong? Or are you saying that just because we can't be sure we should turn our backs on the bible all together or are you saying we should pick and choose what we like?

Quote:

Originally posted by Jess519:
 Words are words. They have varied meanings. They could be saying different things in different contexts. Two words can mean something completely different when placed together.

Agreed. Which probably explains why there has been wars over religion.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jess519:
Yet you are so sure that you know exactly what the meaning is in every word, phrase, sentence in the Bible. I'm sorry, but that's arrogance and it is playing God.

No, I disagree. It's not arrogance it is faith that makes me sure. Do I question? Have I questioned? Yes. But I have also prayed to God for help when I was confused about something i read to clear my mind to understand and it has come to me. I am not looking to the outside world for answers because that is not where I am going to find them. The idea that we have so many different "interpretations" is evident of that.

Why is it wrong to think that every word, phrase, sentence in the bible is right? Because like you said it isn't the word that matters because they can have more than one meaning. Interpretation would have to be the problem.

Quote:

Originally posted by Jess519:
 Because you can't possibly know with 100% certainty that your understanding of every word in the Bible is the correct understanding according to God.

You can if you ask God to help you understand with certainty.

Peace.

[ 04-21-2004: Message edited GrhmLz ]

[ 04-21-2004: Message edited GrhmLz ]

*Lauren · 04-21-2004, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Okay, fair enough. But I don't think organized religion is the reason some people are opposed to gay marriage or even homosexuality in general.

What other reason is there? No-one here can give me a reason outside of religion. Whenever someone says they are against homosexuals, its because of morality. Dig a little deeper and it comes back to what their religion is.

Quote:

Therefore, I argue that there is nothing wrong with incorporating these two concepts into the morals and values that back the laws of this land.

Please. The Bible is part of one religion. A part of it is the Holy Book for another religion. They CAN'T be seperated from the religion.

Besides, a number of its main tenants are part of the law. Thou shall not kill. A lot of past laws were based on the Bible. (adultry) There are some things that are against a civillised society (such as murder) which also happens to be against a religion's teaching. There's a lot of stuff that isn't.

Should it be against the law to eat meat on Friday?

Personally if I lived in a small American town, and wasn't Christian, I'd be FURIOUS I wouldn't be able to buy alchol on a Sunday. Its not MY holy day, why should I be affected? There's a debate over here every Easter and Christmas, as you can't buy alchol on Good Friday or Christmas. Since a number of clubs are open that have bottle shops, people get annoyed. The can drink it there, but not take it home.

Quote:

Okay, but what is it about the bible that gives you more than one interpretation?

The fact it wasn't written in English, and that it was translated from a dead language, more then a thousand years after it was written. There are going to be mistakes.

Quote:

Why is it wrong to think that every word, phrase, sentence in the bible is right?

Because the chances are, because of the reasons above, there is a very good chance (I'd say 100% chance) that it is wrong. That dosen't mean the whole thing is wrong, or that you should turn your back on the Bible. Just that because it was written by humans, and humans then translated it, means its not going to be God's word fully. There will be mistakes there.

Look at history. Go read an American book on one event, read a British book on the same event, then go read a German book on the same event. Will they be exactly the same? No, because there is bias. The same thing is more then likely to have happened with the traslators of the Bible.

[ 04-21-2004: Message edited *Lauren ]

Semmer · 04-21-2004, 08:37 PM

Listen, I understand that seperation of Church/State in our country is usually misunderstood. It mostly means that the government can't set up churches or have an impact on others' religion, but it doesn't mean that religion can't have an affect on our laws. I would be lying if I said that our laws weren't based on religious values or influenced by religion, such and murder and crime. But there are some places where lines should be made.
When it deals with someone loving another in a way that some may consider "immoral" but has no direct negative affect on anyone else, then I think each person should be able to decide for themselves their views on this issue. The government has no right to come in and tell us what kind of love is acceptable in God's eyes. We should be able to interpret God ourselves.
I think we have grown enough as a society to be able to distinguish what religiously based laws to be put into place and which ones should not be interpreted directly out of the Bible without proper consideration of those it would be affecting and those it wouldn't be.
There is a reason we don't still stone people who were working on the Sabbath day. We are overcome that kind of ignorance and have more respect for each human life. Regardless if the things they do contradict another person's defination of "morals."

GrhmLz · 04-22-2004, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by *Lauren:
What other reason is there? No one here can give me a reason other than religion. Whenever someone says they are against homosexuals, they say it is because of morality. Dig a little deeper and it comes back to what religion is.

When "digging a little deeper," you discover that God and religion are two separate entities. The argument over the term of "religion" comes from debate about the The Bill of Rights and the first amendment to the constitution. But the concept of God can operate separately from the concept of religion. While God is an entity, religion is an institution. Religions bring God into their institutions because they want to preach about God. But God does not belong to the religious institution. It is completely possible for me to read the bible and know God's laws but not be a member of a religious institution.

I disagree. There are many people that are against homosexual acts and not homosexuals. I happen to be one of them. I'm not on a quest to rid the world of people who committ homosexual acts, although some people accuse me otherwise. I preach against the acts because the acts are wrong. However, this concept is difficult for some people to understand because many people do not separate the human being apart from the choices they make through free will.

Where does the body of a law come from? Morals and value systems are what create laws. And morals and values are based off of a basic belief in something. So yes, morality is a valid argument here. There are people making the laws that are going to view homosexual marriage as immoral because of their value systems; therefore, they will want to prevent it from becoming a law in society. You may not agree with this value system or feel that God/Religion is the only argument you hear but that is because it IS a valid argument.

Quote:

Originally posted by *Lauren:
Please. The bible is part of one religion. A part of it is the Holy Book from another religion. They CAN'T be separated from religion.

What can't be separated from religion? God and the bible can't be separated from religion?

Oh, sure they can. They can be separated from religion for the same reasons that I stated above. Religion is an institution. God is not an insitution because God is an entity. The bible is not an insitution. The bible is a source or a tool that people choose to read to obtain the teachings of God. Secondly, the term "Christianity" is used in reference to those who believe in and follow Christ, which is Jesus. Therefore, many Christians subscribe to the Bible. The bible does not only subscribe to Christians. It's there for anybody that is able to read it or wants to read it.

Here is a hypothetical example. A person, who lives in the free world, walks into a book store. His/Her parents are non-religious and he has never attended church. He has no religion. However, he picks up a copy of the bible in the bookstore and decides he is interested in reading it to see what it is all about. He reads it, agrees with the messages contained within it, and believes in Jesus and living his life by God's word. This person has made the decision to believe in and accept Christ. Therefore, he is Christian. But he is still not a member of an organized religion. In this example, the bible is separate from the religious institution. Not at a later date, this person may want to join an organized religion that speaks of Christianity so he/she could aquaint his/herself with others that share similar beliefs.

My point here is that the bible was incoporated into religion. Religion doesn't come from the bible. People made the decision to create religious institutions. Some use the bible; while others do not. The bible is not part of only one religion because Christianity is what is preached through the bible. There are many organized religious institutions that subscibe to Christianity and the bible and they include: Catholics, Protestants, Baptists, Lutherans...etc. etc. And the bible would have been in existence regardless if people had never bothered to form organized religions and associate themselves with the above terms.

Quote:

Originally posted by *Lauren:
Should it be against the law to eat meat on Friday?

If there were enough people making the laws that believed this was an important moral practice that should be incorporated into law, then it would be illegal to eat meat on Friday.

As for biblical scripture, many rituals and practices were no longer part of God's command because of the new testament. But that was all they were! Rituals and practices that God's people were required to abide by to honor God's laws of morality already set in place. The practices and rituals change with time not the foundation that they are founded upon. Therefore, I don't understand your comparison of God's laws on murder and adultry with "eating meat" to support homosexuality. It is told that God did away with these rituals; however, the New Testament does not tell the people that the laws of murder, adultry, and sexual immorality were done away with. These laws still stand.

Also, why do you give me this example to support your argument? You are arguing in your post that the bible was translated from a dead language and that there is a 100% chance that it was incorrectly! Why would you give me this example if the example stands to be translated incorrectly?

Quote:

Originally posted by *Lauren:
The fact that it wasn't written in English, and that it was translated from a dead language, more than a thousand years after it was written.

It doesn't matter that the bible was translated more than a thousand years after it was written. As Jesus declared, "Heaven and Earth shall pass away but my words will not."

As for the bible being translated from a dead language, that does not prove that the bible was translated incorrectly. How do you know that there weren't people that studied the language, mastered the language fluently, and then translated the bible? How do you know whether the Holy Spirit/God guided the translation? You speak of mankind being flawed but God also has the power to work through mankind.

The fact that it wasn't written in English has no merit. People debate interpretation of the bible within the English text right now. It does not surprise me in the least that people will argue that the versions translated into Hebrew, Greek or Aramic are different. However, it only makes sense that the wording in each translated text would be different because all languages are different and have they have different words of expression to get a meaning across. It doesn't mean just because you can not translate it word for word so that it fits the same word expression in your language that the message has changed.

Quote:

Originally posted by *Lauren:
Because the chances are, because of the reasons above, there is a good chance (I'd say 100% chance) that it is wrong.

But there is also a very good chance that people revived the dead language accurately. It doesn't have to translate into the "same word for word" context and the chances are it won't because different languages don't all contain the same word expressions. Therefore, they use a different word expression to get the same message across. Therefore, there is also a 100% chance that it is right.

I still hold that people are debating about interpretation and not so much translation.

Quote:

Originally posted by *Lauren:
Look at history. Go read and American book on one event, read a book on the same event, then go read a German book on the same event. Will they exactly the same? No because there is bias.

I don't that they are being biased here. For example, if you go into history and read about World War II, of course you will get different perspectives from German Books versus American books. That is because they experienced the war differently. It doesn't mean that they are being biased in the books, it's just the actual way each country experienced the war. Who is right and wrong here becomes more complex because then you have to analyze each countries value systems to see what they are based off of? "Bias" is just a word used to discredit people when people can't come to an agreement on what they think is right. The bible translations aren't biased. People's interpretations are.

Lexi A. · 04-22-2004, 02:58 PM

*sigh* It just amazes me that the arguments against gay marriage are based on religion. Think outside your religion for just one second! The world doesn't operate on your terms nor does it run on one religion. To expect the US government to deny gay people the right to marry just because it goes against what some people's belief system says is just...scary.

If you're going to argue against same sex marriage, leave religion out of it. Can anyone do that? Apparantly not.

That said, I guess I have nothing to reply to other than religion filled posts...

Quote:

Originally posted by GrhmLz:


I was taught that God is love too! But God is also a vengeful God!

That makes no sense to me. I believe God is love and is perfect. By definition, God could not then be vengeful or hateful or anything negative.

Also, the Bible? It is a wonderful document with many wonderful lessons, but to think it is the unaltered word of God is foolish. Mankind is far from perfect, and with all the language, political, and social changes that have occurred over centuries (not to mention books that have been left out of the Bible), how could anyone see the Bible as unaltered?

Jess519 · 04-22-2004, 03:00 PM

Sorry, don't really have time to respond to your entire post, but wanted to respond to this, because it goes to the heart of the main point I was trying to make.

Quote:

Originally posted by GrhmLz:
Couldn't it be? And if there are multiple interpretations to the bible and God's word, is it a fair question to ask me? If a interpret the bible to mean something doesn't it follow that I probably find it to be correct. Are you implying that all of these interpretions are right or are they all wrong? Or are you saying that just because we can't be sure we should turn our backs on the bible all together or are you saying we should pick and choose what we like?

My point is not that one is right or one is wrong, or that all are right and all are wrong. My point is that we just don't know.

Let's look at is this way. We both read Scripture and we both pray. It appears that I believe God is directing me towards one understanding or things, and he is directing you towards another. Do I know for certain that my understanding is right and yours is wrong? Of course not. I believe in what I believe. I don't know if you're right or I'm right and frankly I don't care. Because I believe what I believe, and I'm not necessarily all that concerned that everyone else believe exactly the same things that I do.

I guess my point is that we (not just you and me, but everyone) could go around in circles forever, because we believe so strongly, and for us that belief and understanding comes from God. So how can any of us say that the other is wrong? I think if we do, we are judging, because who am I to say what God is truly saying or working through someone else?

Am I making any sense at all? I feel like I'm not. [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

Anyway, to try and remain somewhat on the topic of gay marriage. I am for gay marriage, because no one's beliefs should be foisted on anyone else. There's plenty of things in the Christian doctrine that are not in the law. In fact most things that are in the law that also happen to be laws in Christian doctrine, are generally there because they are more of a universal moral law (like murder, stealing, etc). Gay marriage is not something that falls under some universal moral no-no. Not that I can see anyway. So it shouldn't be legislated against.

[ 04-22-2004: Message edited Jess519 ]

[ 04-22-2004: Message edited Jess519 ]

Enigma, I.C. · 04-22-2004, 03:01 PM

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/04/042204MichMed.htm

Quote:

Michigan Preparing To Let Doctors Refuse To Treat Gays
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff

Posted: April 21, 2004 8:14 p.m. ET

(Lansing, Michigan) Doctors or other health care providers could not be disciplined or sued if they refuse to treat gay patients under legislation passed Wednesday by the Michigan House.

The bill allows health care workers to refuse service to anyone on moral, ethical or religious grounds.

The Republican dominated House passed the measure as dozens of Catholics looked on from the gallery. The Michigan Catholic Conference, which pushed for the bills, hosted a legislative day for Catholics on Wednesday at the state Capitol.

The bills now go the Senate, which also is controlled by Republicans.

The Conscientious Objector Policy Act would allow health care providers to assert their objection within 24 hours of when they receive notice of a patient or procedure with which they don't agree. However, it would prohibit emergency treatment to be refused.

Three other three bills that could affect LGBT health care were also passed by the House Wednesday which would exempt a health insurer or health facility from providing or covering a health care procedure that violated ethical, moral or religious principles reflected in their bylaws or mission statement.

Opponents of the bills said they're worried they would allow providers to refuse service for any reason. For example, they said an emergency medical technicians could refuse to answer a call from the residence of gay couple because they don't approve of homosexuality.

Rep. Chris Kolb (D-Ann Arbor) the first openly gay legislator in Michigan, pointed out that while the legislation prohibits racial discrimination by health care providers, it doesn't ban discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.

"Are you telling me that a health care provider can deny me medical treatment because of my sexual orientation? I hope not," he said.

"I think it's a terrible slippery slope upon which we embark," said Rep. Jack Minore (D-Flint) before voting against the bill.

Paul A. Long, vice president for public policy for the Michigan Catholic Conference, said the bills promote the constitutional right to religious freedom.

"Individual and institutional health care providers can and should maintain their mission and their services without compromising faith-based teaching," he said in a written statement.

�365Gay.com� 2004

Here's an example of why church and state should be separate.

Lexi A. · 04-22-2004, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Enigma, I.C.:
http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/04/042204MichMed.htm

[img]smilies/frown.gif[/img] I can't believe that could ever be legal. It just seems so inhumane.

dyxlecis gril · 04-22-2004, 03:34 PM

...

how about i just shoot myself in the head?

AirBear · 04-22-2004, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Enigma, I.C.: http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/04/042204MichMed.htm

That is the most un-Christian thing I have EVER heard! By that ignorant reasoning, those doctors should not treat anyone; we're all sinners after all.