The Quran and the Bible are different kinds of documents. The Quran is the literal word of God, written down in Arabic by the original authority and preserved in Arabic since then. Muslim sectarian differences centre around the Hadith, which are much more "flexible" commentaries.

In contrast the Bible was assembled over hundreds or thousands of years, in several languages, and the versions have been heavily edited and translated through more languages.

But you've also got some groups that believe the Bible is still the literal word of God, as well, despite all the translations and edits. Because, if it was no longer the word of God, then God would have stuck it down, and since God has not struck it down, clearly it is still the word of God.

Well, such groups tend to believe that the English translations are the literal word, yes... even though certain liberties were taken in translating it into English, because not every language can be directly translated into another and still make sense.

 Sienisoturi wrote:
You did not read the spoiler did you? If you would not do that job people might die, but that is not the case with baking cakes or issuing marriage lisenses. Also, I am fairly certain that when you chose your career you knew that you had to provide this information to anyone who needs it. What must be noted also, is that while many people don't want to do their jobs, it is the business of the employer, worker and the customer, but not the states, meaning that people are very free to choose what job they want to do.

But lots of jobs change. How various careers are perceived and approached changes massively over time, and within organisation internal changes will put new requirements on staff all the time. Every job I've held my role has been entirely different when I started compared to when I left, and in one case it changed in to something I really didn’t like doing (I hate dealing with the general public). So in that case I went and got another job that I wanted to do.

And of course, you want to say but my example just a personal preference, whereas this is someone’s deep religious conviction. But that basically boils down to ‘religion is different and special’, which once we cut away the nonsense ultimately boils down to ‘everybody else needs to make extra-special accommodation for the Christian majority’. Which is complete and total bs from beginning to end.

Of course, where accommodation can be made it should be made. But that reasonable accommodation needs to balance the individual against the needs of the organisation, with give on both sides, and a clear understanding that if the person cannot be made to fit, then they have to go.

The Supreme Court just had to rule on how to interpret a six year old law that was written in English. It's not shocking that different interpretations arise from scripture.

A lot of these guys are basing government decisions on religious belief and claiming the founding fathers would have wanted it that way.

"Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.” - Thomas Jefferson.

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison

"Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.” - Thomas Paine

“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of persecution.” - George Washington

And, in honor of the recent holiday...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - The Declaration of Independence.

Sadly, I doubt their own words will convince anyone of the wrongness of that argument.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Let's remember there is not a valid marriage anywhere in the US according to god. Because according to god a marriage is only valid if the woman is a virgin when she marries, and if she's not, the man is free to execute her. I wonder how that will fly in those freedom of religion states. so if the clerk handed out licenses to a non virgin woman, they should be thrown out of the church as well.

I don't think that's quite accurate.

Your assignment for today is to go read deuteronomy 22 13-21, Then we can discuss which part you feel in inaccurate.

Your assignment is to go read the New Testament, specifically the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, and then you should be able to figure out why I don't think that your claim is accurate.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
The bible lies? tsk tsk, are you sure you're a christian? If you believe any part of the bible is a Lie, then how can you take any other part as gospel? Maybe you have them backwards and what you think are lies are the truth, and what you think is the truth is really the lies. I know what some christians teach, they cherry picked the bible for just the good bits and teach that, while ignoring everything else.

Sigh...

Cincy said, "I'm very aware of what Leviticus says and where in the scripture it lies." What this means is that he is familiar with its position in the Biblical canon (after Exodus and before Numbers) not that the scripture itself is untrue.

Why don't all you christians get together once and for all figure out what bible you're following and what parts. There's 42,000 different sects of christians because no two people can agree on anything the bible says. Or at the very least pick the sect that are the true christians, then call out all the others publicly as non-christian. The anti marriage crowd likes quoting leviticus, as they allow leviticus then deuteronomy is also allowed. I bet this clerk is in the pro leviticus camp, but if that's not your sect's belief, then move along. I'd bet your sect teaches genesis though, so again that allows for the old testament to be relevant. See this is why God sent Mohammad, so he could set the record straight once and for all, straight from his mouth into writing.

That is a multi-tiered question. Part of the problem with deciding what the Bible says is that it is translated from Koine Greek. Inferring meaning from Koine Greek to any other language is complicated, so much so that there is an entire subset of theology devoted to figuring out exactly what the original meaning was. The second part is that, since we are all humans, no one can universally agree on any one interpretation of the text. You're cute example of Mohammad is ironic as well, because Muslim scholars continue to debate over the interpretation of Qur'an (lest we forget that there are multiple denominations in Islam as well).

First after the old testament was just declared a book of fables by cincy, cincy could very well mean that the scriptures actually contains many lies and untruths. As cincy didn't correct me, we can assume he did mean falsehoods and not placement.

Second you'd think some sort of omnipotent god could draft some sort of book where it's meaning was crystal clear to everyone and meaningful then and now. But really it's no more meaningful than the grimms fairy tales. If no one can agree on any interpretation of the text, then the whole of the text is worthless, it's more worthless than assembly instructions from ikea.

Third, there's only 3 denominations of Islam and as Sunni's make up 95% of all muslims, clearly god favors them and their message right? But still 3 is a far cry better than 42,000. From what I understand, they all agree on the qur'an, just not the hadiths. The qur'an is the final and complete text of god, as dictated by god, so why do so many who believe in god, reject his book?





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
Let's remember there is not a valid marriage anywhere in the US according to god. Because according to god a marriage is only valid if the woman is a virgin when she marries, and if she's not, the man is free to execute her. I wonder how that will fly in those freedom of religion states. so if the clerk handed out licenses to a non virgin woman, they should be thrown out of the church as well.

I don't think that's quite accurate.

Your assignment for today is to go read deuteronomy 22 13-21, Then we can discuss which part you feel in inaccurate.

Your assignment is to go read the New Testament, specifically the teachings of Jesus in the Gospels, and then you should be able to figure out why I don't think that your claim is accurate.

been there, done that, did you miss Matthew 5:17?
"Don't misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose."

Where Jesus says all the laws of Moses, they're good, keep doing them.

"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.…"

So keep executing your non virgin wives until all is accomplished. As any marriage to a non virgin is invalid in the eyes of god.

There have been several Prophets through the ages that helped steer humanity though the problems of the times that faced it.
It's similar to a parent raising a child. As the child grows, it will face different challenges that need different approaches.
In other words, knowledge is added as the maturity level to handle it grows and the ability to live the precepts is demonstrated. You don't take a child from 2+2 straight to Trigonometry. You help his knowledge and understanding grow.

Relapse wrote:
There have been several Prophets through the ages that helped steer humanity though the problems of the times that faced it.
It's similar to a parent raising a child. As the child grows, it will face different challenges that need different approaches.

So you're saying Objective moral values do not exist? that all morals are subjective to the culture being addressed?

Insteresting. because I've heard this argument quite frequently:
"Does God exist? If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist."
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-god-exist-1

So that means, you just disproved god





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

In other words, knowledge is added as the maturity level to handle it grows and the ability to live the precepts is demonstrated. You don't take a child from 2+2 straight to Trigonometry. You help his knowledge and understanding grow.

Again, so as new knowledge was given with the quran, why aren't christians using this knowledge and understanding grow?

Not at all. Even Jesus told his Apostles not to go to certain peoples because they were not ready to receive his word.

Front Mathew 10: 5-8
5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.

If mankind were ready to receive the same teachings all along, Jesus would have appeared before the time of Noah to be crucified. The time was, however not right, and the message would have been wasted.

As for the Koran, it goes against the teachings that Jesus was the literal son of God.

So, can someone remind me why we're arguing about religion here? None of that has anything to do with the subject of secular marriage laws.

Exactly, jesus was needed around 0bc, and mohammad was needed around 609 ad.

so why don't christians accept the new teachings?

As Peregrine correctly points out, we are getting off topic in this thread, though. This would be a good discussion for a new one.

 Peregrine wrote:
So, can someone remind me why we're arguing about religion here? None of that has anything to do with the subject of secular marriage laws.

How is religion not relevant to the resistance to same-sex marriage in the United States?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So, can someone remind me why we're arguing about religion here? None of that has anything to do with the subject of secular marriage laws.

How is religion not relevant to the resistance to same-sex marriage in the United States?

I think it better to stick to religion and how it relates to separation of church and state. Effectively, the opponents of gay marriage are trying to blur the line.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I think it better to stick to religion and how it relates to separation of church and state. Effectively, the opponents of gay marriage are trying to blur the line.

To be fair, the line is inherently blurred, because people draw much of their morality from their religion, and morality plays a major role in politics.

 sebster wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I think it better to stick to religion and how it relates to separation of church and state. Effectively, the opponents of gay marriage are trying to blur the line.

To be fair, the line is inherently blurred, because people draw much of their morality from their religion, and morality plays a major role in politics.

Very well spoken.

sirlynchmob wrote:

First after the old testament was just declared a book of fables by cincy, cincy could very well mean that the scriptures actually contains many lies and untruths. As cincy didn't correct me, we can assume he did mean falsehoods and not placement.

I chose not to respond to you because there is a direct correlation between the number of times I respond to you and the likelyhood I get a vacation from dakka.

 cincydooley wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

First after the old testament was just declared a book of fables by cincy, cincy could very well mean that the scriptures actually contains many lies and untruths. As cincy didn't correct me, we can assume he did mean falsehoods and not placement.

I chose not to respond to you because there is a direct correlation between the number of times I respond to you and the likelyhood I get a vacation from dakka.

Don't let it frost you. I think most people here understand you and lynch don't agree.

And a further update.

Couple that sued now married.
http://kxan.com/2015/07/06/gay-couple-quickly-granted-marriage-license-after-lawsuit/

 Peregrine wrote:
So, can someone remind me why we're arguing about religion here? None of that has anything to do with the subject of secular marriage laws.

Essentially because so many people continue to insiste that they do.

I'm a little late to this party, but let me give my position.

I'm a very involved atheist. I am a member of the secular student alliance, and I do all kinds of outreach and volunteer work through that, and similar organizations.
I have been an LGBTQ ally since 08, and have gone to as many rallies, and gotten as many petitions signed as I could.

In short, I was ECSTATIC when I heard the news.

I am attending a same sex wedding soon.

Thanks
austin

 cincydooley wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

First after the old testament was just declared a book of fables by cincy, cincy could very well mean that the scriptures actually contains many lies and untruths. As cincy didn't correct me, we can assume he did mean falsehoods and not placement.

I chose not to respond to you because there is a direct correlation between the number of times I respond to you and the likelyhood I get a vacation from dakka.

First, I've never reported you, so you have to wonder how offensive your posts were that others did. If I read your comment wrong feel free to restate your opinion.

Second, good job texas, it's amazing how fast bureaucracy can move when lawyers are involved. Did we say 3 weeks? we meant 3 hours congrats to the new couple.

]

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Heck, cant only an ordained priest officiate a marriage? Why are they handing out the damn things?.

I officiated my sister in law's wedding. There is a website that will ordain anyone who wants to officiate a wedding for a small fee. I got the relevant paperwork at the local courthouse. It was super easy.

I should have clarified. In many religions, only God or a server of God can officiate a marrisgr. Therefore, by handing out Certificates, you can't officiate a marriage, ergo, they shouldn't even hand them out because it is against their religion.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I should have clarified. In many religions, only God or a server of God can officiate a marrisgr. Therefore, by handing out Certificates, you can't officiate a marriage, ergo, they shouldn't even hand them out because it is against their religion.

And this is why separation of church and state is a thing.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I should have clarified. In many religions, only God or a server of God can officiate a marrisgr. Therefore, by handing out Certificates, you can't officiate a marriage, ergo, they shouldn't even hand them out because it is against their religion.

People with such beliefs ought not to apply for jobs in which they will be required to hand out certificates.

 sebster wrote:

 Sienisoturi wrote:
You did not read the spoiler did you? If you would not do that job people might die, but that is not the case with baking cakes or issuing marriage lisenses. Also, I am fairly certain that when you chose your career you knew that you had to provide this information to anyone who needs it. What must be noted also, is that while many people don't want to do their jobs, it is the business of the employer, worker and the customer, but not the states, meaning that people are very free to choose what job they want to do.

But lots of jobs change. How various careers are perceived and approached changes massively over time, and within organisation internal changes will put new requirements on staff all the time. Every job I've held my role has been entirely different when I started compared to when I left, and in one case it changed in to something I really didn’t like doing (I hate dealing with the general public). So in that case I went and got another job that I wanted to do.

But in cases that don't involve someones life or death the state does not make these enforcements. Also, as you experienced, you could easily get another job, which I assume is in the same field, which is not the case when the state forces the job to change.

And of course, you want to say but my example just a personal preference, whereas this is someone’s deep religious conviction. But that basically boils down to ‘religion is different and special’, which once we cut away the nonsense ultimately boils down to ‘everybody else needs to make extra-special accommodation for the Christian majority’. Which is complete and total bs from beginning to end.

What makes you think that?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I should have clarified. In many religions, only God or a server of God can officiate a marrisgr. Therefore, by handing out Certificates, you can't officiate a marriage, ergo, they shouldn't even hand them out because it is against their religion.

This has piqued my curiosity. How does a couple go about getting God to officiate their wedding?

I was raised Catholic and understand they believe priests have the power to officiate sacramental proceedings as a vehicle of God, but God himself? Are you talking about those sects that believe their leaders are, in fact, God?

 cincydooley wrote:
How'd you come up with that 99%?

If there was no benefit under the law to being married, I think things would be a bit different. Just because people don't care who someone else chooses to feth (you know, because it's none of their business) doesn't mean that's going to change what a natural (see: biological) nuclear family is.

A "Biological" Family is typically the Father comes in and rapes the mother, and then leaves her to raise the children.

Instances where the father stays around, or rears children are exceedingly rare, and limited to a handful of mammals and birds (for the most part - There are a few fish where the male rears, but that number is minuscule).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Quran and the Bible are different kinds of documents. The Quran is the literal word of God, written down in Arabic by the original authority and preserved in Arabic since then. Muslim sectarian differences centre around the Hadith, which are much more "flexible" commentaries.

In contrast the Bible was assembled over hundreds or thousands of years, in several languages, and the versions have been heavily edited and translated through more languages.

MUCH of the Qu'ran is just the same recycled stories from the Old and New Testament.

They have the EXACT same origins from the Enumina Elish.

MB

More like post bar hookups.

As the song goes. You and me baby aint got nothing in common so lets do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.

 sebster wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I think it better to stick to religion and how it relates to separation of church and state. Effectively, the opponents of gay marriage are trying to blur the line.

To be fair, the line is inherently blurred, because people draw much of their morality from their religion, and morality plays a major role in politics.

Which is a mistake, since religious "Authority" comes from a book that is not Sound (in the Logical sense).

It is just as easy to claim the parts demanding what we now know without a doubt are heinous evils are the TRUTH as it is to take the more enlightened portions of these textual authorities.

In order to sort out these conflicts, one must resort to external, secondary sources, which do nothing but elevate these sources about a source that is supposed to be THE Authority.

Given the lack of soundness, and need for textual clarification by external sources, it is more appropriate to elevate these secondary sources as the final authority, and just dispose entirely of the text that can be so easily abused to support immoral and unethical behavior.

This is a Foundational Problem for the Abrahamic Faiths:

They have, to use their own metaphor: "Build their house upon a foundation of sand."

MB

Vs. a morality coming from...nothing?

And this has to do with same sex marriage how?

BeAfraid wrote:

A "Biological" Family is typically the Father comes in and rapes the mother, and then leaves her to raise the children.

Instances where the father stays around, or rears children are exceedingly rare, and limited to a handful of mammals and birds (for the most part - There are a few fish where the male rears, but that number is minuscule).

Whatever you say, bro.

I guess it's a GREAT thing we are, in fact, talking about that "handful of mammals" in this instance.

Get out of here with that nonsense.

It's an exaggeration, sure, but the idea of marriage as a partnership between and man and woman is only a generation or two older than gay marriage.

For much of history, it was presumed, both culturally and legally, that a man more or less "owned" his wife.

There's an argument that many on the far right oppose gay marriage precisely because its a marriage without dominance and submission on gender lines.

BeAfraid wrote:


This is a Foundational Problem for the Abrahamic Faiths:

They have, to use their own metaphor: "Build their house upon a foundation of sand."

MB

There Isn't any "foundational problem" as they are, in fact, based on faith as a foundation.

It's pretty much the definition of spiritual faith.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
It's an exaggeration, sure, but the idea of marriage as a partnership between and man and woman is only a generation or two older than gay marriage.

For much of history, it was presumed, both culturally and legally, that a man more or less "owned" his wife.

There's an argument that many on the far right oppose gay marriage precisely because its a marriage without dominance and submission on gender lines.

None of which has any bearing regarding biology and the natural creation of spawn.

Penises. Vaginas. Sperm. Eggs.

 Polonius wrote:
It's an exaggeration, sure, but the idea of marriage as a partnership between and man and woman is only a generation or two older than gay marriage.

For much of history, it was presumed, both culturally and legally, that a man more or less "owned" his wife.

There's an argument that many on the far right oppose gay marriage precisely because its a marriage without dominance and submission on gender lines.

Well we all know who really owns who. Yes dear, coming dear.

 Polonius wrote:

There's an argument that many on the far right oppose gay marriage precisely because its a marriage without dominance and submission on gender lines.

It is good to know that dominance and submission only fall on one side of the political spectrum, however.

 cincydooley wrote:
Sperm. Eggs.

I wont lie I read this quickly as spam and eggs.

 cincydooley wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:


This is a Foundational Problem for the Abrahamic Faiths:

They have, to use their own metaphor: "Build their house upon a foundation of sand."

MB

There Isn't any "foundational problem" as they are, in fact, based on faith as a foundation.

It's pretty much the definition of spiritual faith.

Then Faith is bankrupt in any claim to having ANY moral or ethical foundation, claims, or certainty.

Because "faith" is absent any sound evidential foundation, and one could believe literally anything one could imagine, absent credible evidence.

And all claims of evidence for this "faith" fall apart upon examination, pushing the goalposts of any claim back just beyond the limits of our knowledge.

And as soon as our knowledge of the universe grows, back those goalposts are pushed, even further into regions of ignorance.

In that respect:

Faith = Ignorance.

MB

 cincydooley wrote:
None of which has any bearing regarding biology and the natural creation of spawn.

Penises. Vaginas. Sperm. Eggs.

Just as reproduction has nothing inherently to do with marriage.

The argument that marriage should be a man and a woman because of reproduction is a group of people setting the goal posts where they want them and expecting everyone else to agree with their personal preference, despite the fact that it makes no sense when so many married couples right now have no, and will never have, children.

 insaniak wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
None of which has any bearing regarding biology and the natural creation of spawn.

Penises. Vaginas. Sperm. Eggs.

Just as reproduction has nothing inherently to do with marriage.

.

Never made the argument that it should.

@guy who feels some strange need to put his initials at the bottom of every post:

I won't be responding to any more of your nonsense.

Initial. Initial.

I don't think the human biology came into play with SCOTUS did it?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

There's an argument that many on the far right oppose gay marriage precisely because its a marriage without dominance and submission on gender lines.

It is good to know that dominance and submission only fall on one side of the political spectrum, however.

You can get as snippy as you'd like, but the idea that an ideal marriage has a woman subordinate to her husband is vastly more likely with traditional conservatives. The right wing is a big tent, and that tent includes nearly all members of conservative religious sects. Orthodox Jews lean republican, but not to extent of conservative Catholics, Mormons, or evangelicals.

BeAfraid wrote:
Which is a mistake, since religious "Authority" comes from a book that is not Sound (in the Logical sense).

It is just as easy to claim the parts demanding what we now know without a doubt are heinous evils are the TRUTH as it is to take the more enlightened portions of these textual authorities.

It isn't a mistake, and even if it were, well you're stuck with it - you aren't going to stop being Christian, even if you wanted to. From there it's just a basic reality that their Christianity is going to be reflected in their moral beliefs, and they are going to vote and support laws based on those moral beliefs.

The answer then, is to require a better and healthier understanding of sex and human relationships among Christians. The problem now is that too many Christians still understand sex and human relations in terms of a list of things you can and can't do, with little thought given as to whether those activities are healthy or help people. That's what needs to change, and given time it will.

In order to sort out these conflicts, one must resort to external, secondary sources, which do nothing but elevate these sources about a source that is supposed to be THE Authority.

We all use outside sources as a moral guide. And as far as moral sources go, the Bible is a pretty decent one, even for a non-believer like me. The issue is not in the use of a source, but in the depth and quality of one's thinking about their sources.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
You can get as snippy as you'd like, but the idea that an ideal marriage has a woman subordinate to her husband is vastly more likely with traditional conservatives.

I've been at weddings where the wife pledges to obey her husband. In a revelation that will shock cincydooley to his very core, all of those weddings were of young, conservative people.

I tried to get the wife to say the "and obey" part. The doctor says I will almost be able to walk like a normal person, eventually.

 sebster wrote:

I've been at weddings where the wife pledges to obey her husband. In a revelation that will shock cincydooley to his very core, all of those weddings were of young, conservative people.

To be fair, the JoP had my wife recite the same line. I've cashed in on the "love" and "sickness" part. Maybe I should try to cash in on the "obey" part...

Or not.

There are not insignificant chunks of the population that are strong believers in traditional gender roles in marriage. Just like any other relationship, if everybody is entering it freely, than by all means go at it.

I seriously dated a woman who felt most comfortable in a relationship where she would defer to the man in any conflict. She wanted the 50's housewife deal. It wasn't for me, but I think she's found it with somebody else. She was, not shockingly, of primitive baptist upbringing.

 sebster wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:
Which is a mistake, since religious "Authority" comes from a book that is not Sound (in the Logical sense).

It is just as easy to claim the parts demanding what we now know without a doubt are heinous evils are the TRUTH as it is to take the more enlightened portions of these textual authorities.

It isn't a mistake, and even if it were, well you're stuck with it - you aren't going to stop being Christian, even if you wanted to. From there it's just a basic reality that their Christianity is going to be reflected in their moral beliefs, and they are going to vote and support laws based on those moral beliefs.

The answer then, is to require a better and healthier understanding of sex and human relationships among Christians. The problem now is that too many Christians still understand sex and human relations in terms of a list of things you can and can't do, with little thought given as to whether those activities are healthy or help people. That's what needs to change, and given time it will.

I am not sure I understand this, since I stopped being a Christian because I wanted to. I found it to be a useless, and pretty silly belief to have in an age where we can answer many of the questions it purports to answer without having to qualify my answers with some imaginary textual authority from a being that is self-contradictory.

In order to sort out these conflicts, one must resort to external, secondary sources, which do nothing but elevate these sources about a source that is supposed to be THE Authority.

We all use outside sources as a moral guide. And as far as moral sources go, the Bible is a pretty decent one, even for a non-believer like me. The issue is not in the use of a source, but in the depth and quality of one's thinking about their sources.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
You can get as snippy as you'd like, but the idea that an ideal marriage has a woman subordinate to her husband is vastly more likely with traditional conservatives.

I've been at weddings where the wife pledges to obey her husband. In a revelation that will shock cincydooley to his very core, all of those weddings were of young, conservative people.

I have never seen one that wasn't a Radical Conservative wedding where this occurred (or Muslim - that is pretty typical of Muslim weddings as well).

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
There are not insignificant chunks of the population that are strong believers in traditional gender roles in marriage. Just like any other relationship, if everybody is entering it freely, than by all means go at it.

I seriously dated a woman who felt most comfortable in a relationship where she would defer to the man in any conflict. She wanted the 50's housewife deal. It wasn't for me, but I think she's found it with somebody else. She was, not shockingly, of primitive baptist upbringing.

Ditto that. Probably one of the reasons my wife ran off with a black guy who eventually killed her was that I would not make her decisions for her. She came from an Evangelical Baptist family where her Grandfather ran the town church.

MB

I have never seen one that wasn't a Radical Conservative wedding where this occurred (or Muslim - that is pretty typical of Muslim weddings as well).

If I knew then what I knew now I would have inserted "and promise not to wreck the family van every three months, to not view curbs as merely guidelines, to not let buildings leap out and attack the van, and to not leave the engine running when I get out and end up running after it as it rolls away and through a stranger's fence"

Yea I want that!

Ditto that. Probably one of the reasons my wife ran off with a black guy who eventually killed her was that I would not make her decisions for her. She came from an Evangelical Baptist family where her Grandfather ran the town church.

It is not healthy being around you is. "Something's weird with that guy detective, everyone around him ends up...dead."

 Frazzled wrote:

I have never seen one that wasn't a Radical Conservative wedding where this occurred (or Muslim - that is pretty typical of Muslim weddings as well).

If I knew then what I knew now I would have inserted "and promise not to wreck the family van every three months, to not view curbs as merely guidelines, to not let buildings leap out and attack the van, and to not leave the engine running when I get out and end up running after it as it rolls away and through a stranger's fence"

Yea I want that!

Ditto that. Probably one of the reasons my wife ran off with a black guy who eventually killed her was that I would not make her decisions for her. She came from an Evangelical Baptist family where her Grandfather ran the town church.

It is not healthy being around you is. "Something's weird with that guy detective, everyone around him ends up...dead."

The gent has some good stories, all right.

Relapse wrote:


The gent has some good stories, all right.

Right?

It at least explains why he's not a fan of religion. Despite such a limited understanding of it.

 Frazzled wrote:

I have never seen one that wasn't a Radical Conservative wedding where this occurred (or Muslim - that is pretty typical of Muslim weddings as well).

If I knew then what I knew now I would have inserted "and promise not to wreck the family van every three months, to not view curbs as merely guidelines, to not let buildings leap out and attack the van, and to not leave the engine running when I get out and end up running after it as it rolls away and through a stranger's fence"

Yea I want that!

Ditto that. Probably one of the reasons my wife ran off with a black guy who eventually killed her was that I would not make her decisions for her. She came from an Evangelical Baptist family where her Grandfather ran the town church.

It is not healthy being around you is. "Something's weird with that guy detective, everyone around him ends up...dead."

You are not the first person to notice that, but it isn't just me.

There is a FB page dedicated to some 100 some odd of my friends who are dead from the Dallas Area from the Punk/Underground Scene from the 1980s.

I am just one of the few who did NOT die. By all rights I should be dead, though.

So... This sideways attempt at an insult is not something that I have neither heard before, nor have not been used to dealing with since 1985/86 or so, when my friends at the time began to notice how many deaths occurred near me (and it was only a handful at the time - an ex-girlfriend, the guitarist in a band, a girlfriend of another friend, the sound guy at a club, . . . ).

I could not even begin to name off everyone I have ever known who was dead (mostly from the trauma of my wife - and the distance and alienation I have from my former life).

So... Big deal! People die.

MB

 Frazzled wrote:
I tried to get the wife to say the "and obey" part. The doctor says I will almost be able to walk like a normal person, eventually.

My first wife coordinated with the Official to say "Take under advisement" on the Obey bit

And, my first degree, from the first time I went to school, was in Art History, studying Religious and Sacred Art of Early Christianity.

It included a class from Joseph Campbell, whom I have been studying since 1979.

Not to mention I was once a devout Catholic, and am well-read in the Theology of St. Augustine, St. Francis of Asissis, Boethius, Witelo, Robert Leiber, Cornelieus Loos, Cantius. . And I am sure there are others. Not to mention the Heresies of the Bogomils, Manicheans, Monophysites, Gnostics (where I was one of the first to be able to read the Gnostic Gospel of Judas - which apparently the Catholic Church simply denied existed until about a decade ago, even though the Coptics have had copies since the 3rd Century AD).

And I have read some of the drivel of the Evangelicals, like William Lane Craig, who is a fething moron, who does not understand the Structural Soundness of Modal Logic and the necessity of establishing a "Modal Universe/World" over which Necessity and Sufficiency are defined BEFORE applying a proof.

Not to mention having studied with Jesuits when I was a child (and would have probably gone to a Private Catholic School as a child had my mother not joined a cult that she dragged me and the rest of the family into as well).

So... I understand a great deal of religion, from the early history of the Abrahamic faiths from their origin in the Enumina Elish Assyrian/Babylonian Mythic Cycle, to the origin of Monotheism from Josiah of Judea around 600BC, when he constructed the Mosaic Mythology as a means of disempowering the Ashera cult associated with Yahweh Worship (and delivering a blow to Baal, and the Caananite cults popular at the same time), all the way up to the schisms of the early Church between the Paulines and Gnostic sects of early Christianity, and the politicization of it by the Romans.

The problem is:

Theism is not Sound (see definition of Soundness: Google it if you have to).

It is based upon premises that are not true, and thus no matter how "Valid" any claim might be, it remains false, due to having false premises upon which it rests.

MB


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not to mention how much additional theology I had to cover in order to untangle Tolkien's beliefs and theology.

MB

Edited. Not worth it

Interestingly enough, same sex marriage is not a new thing.

Rome had it, Greece had it, Mesopotamia had it, medieval France had it, Egypt had it but frowned upon it.

In 1061, Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz were married in Rairiz de Veiga, in Spain.

It wasn't until the 12th century that Marriage became one of the sacraments of the Church.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeAfraid wrote:

Not to mention I was once a devout Catholic, and am well-read in the Theology of St. Augustine, St. Francis of Asissis, Boethius, Witelo, Robert Leiber, Cornelieus Loos, Cantius. . And I am sure there are others. Not to mention the Heresies of the Bogomils, Manicheans, Monophysites, Gnostics (where I was one of the first to be able to read the Gnostic Gospel of Judas - which apparently the Catholic Church simply denied existed until about a decade ago, even though the Coptics have had copies since the 3rd Century AD).

Ironically, the Bishop of Alexandria bitched about it's existence a lot.


That said, you'd then be familiar that the church espoused marriage only as contract to procreate and raise heirs, but at the same time did not take a serious stance on it until Emperor Constantius II, and despite sentencing homosexuals to be burned alive, also collected taxes on male prostitution until the fall of Rome.

Yes, I am aware of that.

There was a great deal of a lack of consistency in the Church during the years leading up to the Inquisition, which was basically a leading force in establishing dogmatic consistency (although the East-West Schism was well established by then), and that it was this attempt to force ideological purity that helped the Renaissance along (not the primary driver, but it certainly gave impetus to the Renaissance).

And Marriage still remained something that was primarily a means of establishing secular power, rather than a religious sacrament (even with the Church's claiming of this).

Besides, the Enlightenment established a different moral framework for the world, which the religious are now seeking to undo in their ignorance of how this moral framework is a more solid Foundation for Morals and Ethics than is the Theological framework (which has nothing upon which to build that foundation).

MB

Faith is not a virtue.

The only oposition to gay marriage had its central claim around the lines of "the bible says it's bad."

They ignore mixed fabrics, shellfish, etc in the same "holy" book. Why are we still discussing this?

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
Faith is not a virtue.

The only oposition to gay marriage had its central claim around the lines of "the bible says it's bad."

They ignore mixed fabrics, shellfish, etc in the same "holy" book. Why are we still discussing this?

If you understood why people ignore mixed fabrics and shellfish in the same book, you might understand an argument why they ought to ignore the bit about homosexuality as well. But I already know you don't, so my recommendation would be for you to read more on the subject instead of assuming you've already got it all figured out. This has caused you difficulties in the past. Educate yourself.

And I'm not saying this because I'm trying to get you to agree with one side or the other. But you are doing yourself a disservice if you are participating in discussions and debates on religion and the root of your argument is "They ignore mixed fabrics, shellfish, etc in the same "holy" book. Why are we still discussing this?" Quite frankly, it makes you much less likely to be taken seriously, and as much as you seem to care about these issues, it might be helpful for you if your understanding of the subject had a little bit more depth than that. Because there is more depth than that, and just because you don't understand that at this point in your life, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

So... This sideways attempt at an insult is not something that I have neither heard before, nor have not been used to dealing with since 1985/86 or so, when my friends at the time began to notice how many deaths occurred near me (and it was only a handful at the time - an ex-girlfriend, the guitarist in a band, a girlfriend of another friend, the sound guy at a club, . . . ).

I could not even begin to name off everyone I have ever known who was dead (mostly from the trauma of my wife - and the distance and alienation I have from my former life).

So... Big deal! People die.

MB

Thats not a sideways insult. I am a Texan. If I am going to do it, I'll do it direct and to your face.

"Watch out. The Little dog bites. So do I."
-Frazzled to people who get too close.

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
Faith is not a virtue.

The only oposition to gay marriage had its central claim around the lines of "the bible says it's bad."

They ignore mixed fabrics, shellfish, etc in the same "holy" book. Why are we still discussing this?

I would edit that to say that Blind-Faith is not a virtue.

The placeholder of simple Faith though is enough, due to people's conflation of faith supported by flimsy to insubstantial claims and the robust support of Science to the claims and faith we have in the products of Science.

The distinction is one most people seem to be incapable of making, equating faith in a talking snake causing a woman to eat a fruit (which she had no ability to determine was wrong - even if she had been instructed not to eat it, because even knowing that ignoring an instruction was wrong required the knowledge the fruit was supposed to impart to distinguish), which then damned all of humanity, causing a deity to rape a woman to give birth to himself as a human, and then sacrifice himself to himself to forgive a punishment he himself imposed. . . . .

And then try to equivocate that to the faith one has that gravity will remain constant over just the next few minutes. . . takes a lot of willful manipulation and obscuration of reality (and this doesn't even approach Muslim, Hindu, or other mythologies).

But trying to claim this sort of faith is a virtue is akin to claiming that willful ignorance is a virtue.

MB

 Frazzled wrote:
I am a Texan. If I am going to do it, I'll do it direct and to your face..

Yeah, Frazz, you do subtle like a Tiger tank that fires Dachshunds.

Thanks!

 Frazzled wrote:
Thanks!

Don't thank me yet, I've got a scrub brush for you to use to help clean the crew compartment. Apparently dachshunds find being shoved into a KwK 43 scary.

BeAfraid wrote:

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
Faith is not a virtue.

The only oposition to gay marriage had its central claim around the lines of "the bible says it's bad."

They ignore mixed fabrics, shellfish, etc in the same "holy" book. Why are we still discussing this?

I would edit that to say that Blind-Faith is not a virtue.

The placeholder of simple Faith though is enough, due to people's conflation of faith supported by flimsy to insubstantial claims and the robust support of Science to the claims and faith we have in the products of Science.

The distinction is one most people seem to be incapable of making, equating faith in a talking snake causing a woman to eat a fruit (which she had no ability to determine was wrong - even if she had been instructed not to eat it, because even knowing that ignoring an instruction was wrong required the knowledge the fruit was supposed to impart to distinguish), which then damned all of humanity, causing a deity to rape a woman to give birth to himself as a human, and then sacrifice himself to himself to forgive a punishment he himself imposed. . . . .

And then try to equivocate that to the faith one has that gravity will remain constant over just the next few minutes. . . takes a lot of willful manipulation and obscuration of reality (and this doesn't even approach Muslim, Hindu, or other mythologies).

But trying to claim this sort of faith is a virtue is akin to claiming that willful ignorance is a virtue.

MB

Luckily, your characterization of all of those things isn't the only out there. Theological interpretations vary widely, and some are better than others.

[Woops, sorry]

BeAfraid wrote:

FoWPlayerDeathOfUS.TDs wrote:
Faith is not a virtue.

The only oposition to gay marriage had its central claim around the lines of "the bible says it's bad."

They ignore mixed fabrics, shellfish, etc in the same "holy" book. Why are we still discussing this?

I would edit that to say that Blind-Faith is not a virtue.

The placeholder of simple Faith though is enough, due to people's conflation of faith supported by flimsy to insubstantial claims and the robust support of Science to the claims and faith we have in the products of Science.

The distinction is one most people seem to be incapable of making, equating faith in a talking snake causing a woman to eat a fruit (which she had no ability to determine was wrong - even if she had been instructed not to eat it, because even knowing that ignoring an instruction was wrong required the knowledge the fruit was supposed to impart to distinguish), which then damned all of humanity, causing a deity to rape a woman to give birth to himself as a human, and then sacrifice himself to himself to forgive a punishment he himself imposed. . . . .

And then try to equivocate that to the faith one has that gravity will remain constant over just the next few minutes. . . takes a lot of willful manipulation and obscuration of reality (and this doesn't even approach Muslim, Hindu, or other mythologies).

But trying to claim this sort of faith is a virtue is akin to claiming that willful ignorance is a virtue.

MB

SO is this part of the thread where we start having bible debates? It seems like we have some members enjoy making out of context bible quotes to bash Christianity..I mean as has happened in tthe past..I don't mind having the debate, but if the mods are going to let this off topic debate go..I'll jump in and debate....so here it goes.

1)The distinction is one most people seem to be incapable of making, equating faith in a talking snake causing a woman to eat a fruit...
The snake didn't "cause " the sin, Eve willingly disobeyed Gods command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
This shows the concept of free will, in that God did not create man to be robots.

2) (which she had no ability to determine was wrong - even if she had been instructed not to eat it, because even knowing that ignoring an instruction was wrong required the knowledge the fruit was supposed to impart to distinguish),
This is an illogical statement, in that.God informed Eve that eating this fruit was wrong, therefore she knew it was wrong.
You error in presenting your argument, as though eve had no foreknowledge of the instruction not to eat. She did have foreknowledge, and disobeyed the instruction not to eat.

3)causing a deity to rape a woman to give birth to himself as a human,
Are you referring to Mormonism here? Because the bible does not state that God raped Mary, but that her conception was a miracle, I.E. no human intercourse was involved.


Your attempt to distill a complex theological doctrine down to a few cute sound bites, is pretty typical of someone that doesn't really know as much as they claim.

She had God's command not to eat it, but how was she to know that she shouldn't break that command without a sense of right and wrong?

Yeah we're done here. I'm finally taking this thread out back and putting it down