God wrote the owner's manual for our spirits and bodies, and his design and his directions are more important than what we might choose to believe ourselves.
God says to trust him and to not have sex unless you're married. That goes for heterosexual single people -- no sex until marriage. Do you have gay tendencies? Then you are to have no sex. Are we willing to trust the one who made us to know what is good for us and what is bad for us? Even though we still have urges that he built into us?
My personal answer is "no", because the bible is a fairy tale.
Your answer is different, and that's fantastic. I completely respect your right to that belief. I do not respect your right to enforce that belief on others that don't share your views - and neither does your god for that matter.
That's nice. You can disagree all you want, but there's no possible way that homosexuality between two consenting adults violates the fundamental, constitutionally protected rights of anyone.
Says you. It seems others disagree.
So you also support a constitutional amendment denying sterile couples the right to marry as well? the only purpose of the marital institution is procreation?
You're getting desperate.
No, I already voted in favor of the moral answer, no gay marriage. YOU don't like that, or the FACT that I'm in the majority on this issue. Get over it.
My personal answer is "no", because the bible is a fairy tale.
Your answer is different, and that's fantastic. I completely respect your right to that belief. I do not respect your right to enforce that belief on others that don't share your views - and neither does your god for that matter.
You seem to have a fixation concerning faireys. You also ignore the fact that many scientists are also religious. That one must drive you nuts.
No, I already voted in favor of the moral answer, no gay marriage. YOU don't like that, or the FACT that I'm in the majority on this issue. Get over it.
That's what I thought. Have a good one, but don't be too surprised when enough of us get sick and tired of living by your moral antiquities.
My personal answer is "no", because the bible is a fairy tale.
Try reading it and ask yourself how any human being(s) could have written it. It gives things from an other-worldly perspective that no human could have come up with -- over 40 writers, and over 1400 years, and yet it has a completely unified message.
Quote:
Originally Posted by knownikko
Your answer is different, and that's fantastic. I completely respect your right to that belief. I do not respect your right to enforce that belief on others that don't share your views - and neither does your god for that matter.
The Truth is the Truth. I'm not forcing you to do anything. That doesn't mean that someone that saying that the Truth is the Truth is wrong for saying so. And God happens to be all for his Truth.
The Truth is the Truth. I'm not forcing you to do anything. That doesn't mean that someone that saying that the Truth is the Truth is wrong for saying so.
Of course not. Saying "The truth is the truth, and you must live by the truth" is different though.
200 years ago, murder and theft were against the law. Do you really want to go down this path? Or do you think that you should just follow the laws that you like?
Laws are and should be subject to change.
Law itself provides mechanism to change law.
You are naive to suggest otherwise.
You are describing "being a citizen" as "worshipping your country".
You seem to have a fixation concerning faireys. You also ignore the fact that many scientists are also religious. That one must drive you nuts.
There is evidence to support that concept of a deity is part of your design. But so is our biological ancestry to be a more primitive animal, which is logical explanation as to why we have religious text governing how we act in society.
What I don't get is why is the unproven, unverifiable, unbelievable things in the religious texts that defy logic, rationale, and (my favorite) physics, can be canon, but anyone else who sees or hears God talking to them is crazy, save for the few that actually follow those who claim to be the reincarnation of Christ, God, and so forth. I feel the desire for the easy answer, but I can't bring myself to willingly deceive myself the search for truth simply because I realize I'm incapable of conceiving how vast the Universe is, how alone we are, and how nothing of me will remain after this life.
Sorry Apple. You lost me on this one. Off come the Apple logos on our vehicles and I will no longer encourage my clients, friends and family to purchase Apple products. Even though Apple has superior products in the marketplace, I do not want to be associated with a company that's willing to chance alienating many of its customers by challenging their moral stance on an issue. To be more direct. I cannot associate with anyone that opposes the will of our Creator.
You are just as bad as Apple in your argument for taking a stand against Apple for their stand in your business! Hypocrite!
The problem with morality is that it needs a common definition. If morality only has a personal definition, but doesn't operate as a common law, then the term 'morality' is useless.
Either we are free to choose our own morality -- in which case morality has no real meaning -- or there is a global definition of morality.
You have folks on this thread that claim that homosexuality is immoral. You have other folks on this thread claiming that having the position that homosexuality is immoral is itself immoral. Either we are free to believe whichever we choose (and in that case all the arguing on this thread in nonsensical) or homosexuality is immoral or it isn't. But it's a global law. Some have latched onto the truth and others haven't.
Your reasoning implies that morality is given from above. I guess in your case from God.
I would say that morality is very flexible and does not need consensus, because it is defined by us humans.
Morality needs to be democratic and not religious when it is captured in laws, at least in a democracy.
We do not need to agree about the morality of homosexuality for both of us to treat homosexuals as equal citizens.
(In this post you can exchange the word "morality" for the word "truth")
What a bunch of thugs our world sadly still consists of.Anyone ever heard a couple of straight guys talking about beating up a gay.You bet that happens a lot.Ever heard of a couple of gays wanting to beat up some guy cos he's straight-I very much doubt it. That's all that's going on here-a ripe excuse for persecution tinged with sexual virility-This arguement has nothing to do with God but everything to do with cowardice!
So, what you believe is real, and the rest of us live in ignorance. You didn't have to tell me that you're secularist, it stands out like a red light on your nose.
What I don't get is why is the unproven, unverifiable, unbelievable things in the religious texts that defy logic, rationale, and (my favorite) physics, can be canon, ...
Off topic...
What's funny is how, in our day and age, macro-evolution (the belief that life spontaneously formed and that one species turned into another species) defies logic, rationale, and (my favorite) physics, can be canon in our science books. It's been shown that a single protein could not have spontaneously come together in the estimated 17-billion-year life of our universe, much less life, much less one creature becoming another creature becoming another creature. Yet people believe in this 'black box' that Time + Matter + Chance produced all the complexity that you see. But it's really faith.
Look Einstein, I knew you were a secularist, and you admitted it. Game over. If you took your head out of that dark place you'd find that being religious is in no way anti-American and that most Americans are religious. YOU find religion to be anti-American in your twisted view of the world. One nation, under God, get it?
Only because of fear! but that is the religious way... govern by fear!
Comments
God wrote the owner's manual for our spirits and bodies, and his design and his directions are more important than what we might choose to believe ourselves.
God says to trust him and to not have sex unless you're married. That goes for heterosexual single people -- no sex until marriage. Do you have gay tendencies? Then you are to have no sex. Are we willing to trust the one who made us to know what is good for us and what is bad for us? Even though we still have urges that he built into us?
My personal answer is "no", because the bible is a fairy tale.
Your answer is different, and that's fantastic. I completely respect your right to that belief. I do not respect your right to enforce that belief on others that don't share your views - and neither does your god for that matter.
That's nice. You can disagree all you want, but there's no possible way that homosexuality between two consenting adults violates the fundamental, constitutionally protected rights of anyone.
Says you. It seems others disagree.
So you also support a constitutional amendment denying sterile couples the right to marry as well? the only purpose of the marital institution is procreation?
You're getting desperate.
No, I already voted in favor of the moral answer, no gay marriage. YOU don't like that, or the FACT that I'm in the majority on this issue. Get over it.
My personal answer is "no", because the bible is a fairy tale.
Your answer is different, and that's fantastic. I completely respect your right to that belief. I do not respect your right to enforce that belief on others that don't share your views - and neither does your god for that matter.
You seem to have a fixation concerning faireys. You also ignore the fact that many scientists are also religious. That one must drive you nuts.
No, I already voted in favor of the moral answer, no gay marriage. YOU don't like that, or the FACT that I'm in the majority on this issue. Get over it.
That's what I thought. Have a good one, but don't be too surprised when enough of us get sick and tired of living by your moral antiquities.
My personal answer is "no", because the bible is a fairy tale.
Try reading it and ask yourself how any human being(s) could have written it. It gives things from an other-worldly perspective that no human could have come up with -- over 40 writers, and over 1400 years, and yet it has a completely unified message.
Your answer is different, and that's fantastic. I completely respect your right to that belief. I do not respect your right to enforce that belief on others that don't share your views - and neither does your god for that matter.
The Truth is the Truth. I'm not forcing you to do anything. That doesn't mean that someone that saying that the Truth is the Truth is wrong for saying so. And God happens to be all for his Truth.
You seem to have a fixation concerning faireys. You also ignore the fact that many scientists are also religious. That one must drive you nuts.
Not in the least. Science and religion can and should peacefully coexist. They are not mutually exclusive whatsoever.
Bible != Religion
The Truth is the Truth. I'm not forcing you to do anything. That doesn't mean that someone that saying that the Truth is the Truth is wrong for saying so.
Of course not. Saying "The truth is the truth, and you must live by the truth" is different though.
200 years ago, murder and theft were against the law. Do you really want to go down this path? Or do you think that you should just follow the laws that you like?
Laws are and should be subject to change.
Law itself provides mechanism to change law.
You are naive to suggest otherwise.
You are describing "being a citizen" as "worshipping your country".
That, my dear, I call theocracy.
Not in the least. Science and religion can and should peacefully coexist. They are not mutually exclusive whatsoever.
Bible != Religion
I now have more pressing things to attend to, and I've already done my duty.
You seem to have a fixation concerning faireys. You also ignore the fact that many scientists are also religious. That one must drive you nuts.
There is evidence to support that concept of a deity is part of your design. But so is our biological ancestry to be a more primitive animal, which is logical explanation as to why we have religious text governing how we act in society.
What I don't get is why is the unproven, unverifiable, unbelievable things in the religious texts that defy logic, rationale, and (my favorite) physics, can be canon, but anyone else who sees or hears God talking to them is crazy, save for the few that actually follow those who claim to be the reincarnation of Christ, God, and so forth. I feel the desire for the easy answer, but I can't bring myself to willingly deceive myself the search for truth simply because I realize I'm incapable of conceiving how vast the Universe is, how alone we are, and how nothing of me will remain after this life.
...You also ignore the fact that many scientists are also religious. That one must drive you nuts.
That would be soft secularism on the belief that people don't know everything.
Sorry Apple. You lost me on this one. Off come the Apple logos on our vehicles and I will no longer encourage my clients, friends and family to purchase Apple products. Even though Apple has superior products in the marketplace, I do not want to be associated with a company that's willing to chance alienating many of its customers by challenging their moral stance on an issue. To be more direct. I cannot associate with anyone that opposes the will of our Creator.
You are just as bad as Apple in your argument for taking a stand against Apple for their stand in your business! Hypocrite!
KRR
The problem with morality is that it needs a common definition. If morality only has a personal definition, but doesn't operate as a common law, then the term 'morality' is useless.
Either we are free to choose our own morality -- in which case morality has no real meaning -- or there is a global definition of morality.
You have folks on this thread that claim that homosexuality is immoral. You have other folks on this thread claiming that having the position that homosexuality is immoral is itself immoral. Either we are free to believe whichever we choose (and in that case all the arguing on this thread in nonsensical) or homosexuality is immoral or it isn't. But it's a global law. Some have latched onto the truth and others haven't.
Your reasoning implies that morality is given from above. I guess in your case from God.
I would say that morality is very flexible and does not need consensus, because it is defined by us humans.
Morality needs to be democratic and not religious when it is captured in laws, at least in a democracy.
We do not need to agree about the morality of homosexuality for both of us to treat homosexuals as equal citizens.
(In this post you can exchange the word "morality" for the word "truth")
So, what you believe is real, and the rest of us live in ignorance. You didn't have to tell me that you're secularist, it stands out like a red light on your nose.
So do your bigoted opinions!
You are just as bad as Apple in your argument for taking a stand against Apple for their stand in your business! Hypocrite!
KRR
KRR, you are wrong! cdmedeir is standing up for the commands of יהוה (God), our creator.
What I don't get is why is the unproven, unverifiable, unbelievable things in the religious texts that defy logic, rationale, and (my favorite) physics, can be canon, ...
Off topic...
What's funny is how, in our day and age, macro-evolution (the belief that life spontaneously formed and that one species turned into another species) defies logic, rationale, and (my favorite) physics, can be canon in our science books. It's been shown that a single protein could not have spontaneously come together in the estimated 17-billion-year life of our universe, much less life, much less one creature becoming another creature becoming another creature. Yet people believe in this 'black box' that Time + Matter + Chance produced all the complexity that you see. But it's really faith.
http://www.panspermia.org/chandra.htm
Sport?
Look Einstein, I knew you were a secularist, and you admitted it. Game over. If you took your head out of that dark place you'd find that being religious is in no way anti-American and that most Americans are religious. YOU find religion to be anti-American in your twisted view of the world. One nation, under God, get it?
Only because of fear! but that is the religious way... govern by fear!
FGG
You probably support abortion too, which is rather silly, seeing as how if your mother had practiced it, you wouldn't be here.
Yes, if he supports abortian that would have meant his mother would have aborted him.
This isn't even a sentence.
Serious?!
'Twas ever the slogan "Think Ignorant" more apt...
You da boss Ross
For now.