Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?