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.
Zinfella,
What social advances during the past couple of hundred years were championed by conservatives?
Freeing the slaves?... Nope Liberals
Voting rights for woman?... Nope Liberals
Civil rights in the 60's?... Nope Liberals again!
Liberals drag this world into the future! The conservatives are a social boat anchor. That's not to say all the Liberal ideals are great or even good (unlimited welfare for one). Its just that the conservatives have put forth almost no ideals to progress human society! None that come to mind!
Secularism is the way this world is moving (not fast enough for me)! Even the USA. It'll be a much better world when we get there!
While you are right that under California law "civil unions" enjoy the same legal benefits and protections as "marriages", there are Federally granted rights that are only available to "married" couples.
I'd heard that (I mentioned it in my post), but haven't been able to find out what these are. Could you elaborate? What rights do married people have under federal law that they don't have under state law? Just curious.
Well, I suppose that I can take comfort in the fact that you didn't call shenanigans on me.
If you don't see the religious connection to marriage laws, then you're blind. Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and our laws reflect that. The US is the only country in history to so define itself. We are unique in that we have a secular government with a society based on religious values.
Secularists hate that, they don't want to to be called to account for morals.
Secularists have better defined morals then non-secularists! We actually define our morals internally! Not using those of some power hungry high-priest to define them for us! It is you that have the weaker moral position! not us!
I suggest you read on the founding fathers and their religious views! They are surprisingly secular! The reason they left god out of the government was because of fear! fear of what religions bring!
The founding fathers were a pretty brilliant group!
You libs love to twist words. I'm glad that I don't live in your everything goes society. Admit it, you're a secularist, and you hate religion, or any societal morals. It's people like you that degrade society with the promoting of your liberal lack of responsibilities. You're a real poster boy for no rules.
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?
Ya, but in the great conservative method... you could pay someone to serve your sentence for you!
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.
This is the Creationists' traditional strawman, but it's absolutely ridiculous. They take the exact composition of a current (Human, usually) protein and calculate the probability that it would spontaneously assemble if you just mixed the component elements together. Close to zero? Then it couldn't have happened in the (13.7 billion year, actually) history of the universe!
Problem is, that's not how it works. First of all, there are in all the different life forms on Earth, innumerable variations on this protein that are functionally equivalent, but have different amino-acid sequences, and there are an astronomical number more that could exist that would also be functionally equivalent.
Also, the first airplane was not a 747, and the first protein that performed somewhat the same function, undoubtedly was much, MUCH simpler and less effective. All this raises the probability of some partially effective simple polypeptide that performs a certain function arising spontaneously, with hundreds of millions of years to play with, a virtual certainty.
Once the ancestor of the current protein existed, then variation and selection would improve it to ever more and more effective levels. Please don't bring up that other strawman about evolution being all "chance." Variation is chance, natural selection is the antithesis of chance. It's a two-part process, and it acts as a one-way ratchet.
And creatures "become other creatures" all the time. Insect populations have been isolated from each other for only a few generations, and when they were brought back together, had become reproductively isolated from each other. New species, in other words. Once that happens, there is no selection pressure to keep them the same, and they are free to vary without limit.
If you admit that the universe is billions of years old, then you've lost the argument, because if you're a Christian, you're required to believe that it was created only a few thousand years ago. Specifically, since according to one of your spokesmen, "If the King James Version was good enough for Saint Paul, it's good enough for me," you are required to believe that the Earth was created on Sunday, October 22nd, 4004 B.C., at 6:00 in the morning.
Of course, the Bible states quite clearly that the Earth is flat, as well....
Brainwashed? Did you forget that we escaped from beneath the heel of the King and the Church of England, to form our own country, and our own religious based laws? We all have to to obey the law, and here much of it is religious based. We don't do things the way they do them in merry old England, and that has held us in good stead lo these many years.
Looks like you totally ignored the point of my post, there.
Also, looks like you didn't read it properly, because I said "or brainwashed".
Finally, I'm not sure why you even brought up the brainwashing part given the rest of your post, which doesn't follow from anything that I said.
Not that it matters, but since you mentioned it rather a lot of our laws are "religious-based" as you like to say.
...that some people have chosen to use their fear and bigotry to legalize hate. Please, do not quote the bible. No one knows who it was written by, and for that matter, the bible may easily be spun to support ANY position (let us not forget that many used the bible to support slavery. To quote Coretta Scott King:
"“I appeal to everybody who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbians and gay people,” (August 1, 2002) - may she rest in peace.
As someone who has studied the bible, many passages claim extreme religious views. Within the pages of the bible it advocates stoning disobedient children to death, makes it unlawful to wear fabric of mixed fibers or to eat anything from the water that has no fins or scales. It advocates slaughter and annihilation of "others" and those who don't conform. In the pages of the bible women are given over to gang rape and dismembered. Parents are told they must amputate bits from the penis of their sons. And we should admire such "wisdom" and look to it as a guide? I think not. It is a collection of fables, often with strong political agenda. Why should it be accorded more merit than Grimms Fairy Tales? How many of you would qualify for a stoning?
The bottom line, the people who cry fowl the most have something to hide. Let us not forget Mark Foley and Sen. Larry Craig, politicians who were extremely vocal in their opposition to homosexual rights. Guess what? THEY'RE GAY. Most heterosexuals who are comfortable with their sexuality don't care what two consenting adults do in their own homes. Why do two people who love each other, who vow to be with one another, threaten you so much? The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints gave MILLIONS to support Prop. 8, think of what all that money could have done to feed the hungry, give shelter to the poor. The real Jesus would have wanted that. If you truly believe in God and religion, then you would know that God created all men as equals, and loves all men unconditionally. Homosexuality has been proven to be genetic. More and more scientific evidence supports this reality. Who in their right mind would willingly chose to be hated, denied the same rights as heterosexual individuals, or be beaten and left for dead as Matthew Shephard (the FBI released statistics that have show sharp rises in hate crimes against homosexuals, most don't get reported in the news. A 15 year old named Lawrence King was shot twice in the back of his head by his fellow class mate this year in California, a gay couple is beaten or harassed every 15 minutes and all anyone can do is quote an antiquated book called the bible that talks about unicorns and stoning, it's RELIGULOUS).
I do not care what your personal beliefs are, but do not impose them on any one else. Two people are free to love each other, that does not infringe on your rights. All this amounts to is hatred and insecurity. If you truly care so much go out and do something positive, work in a homeless shelter, donate to groups who actually do positive work such as animal rescue or Habitats for Humanity. We live in a world in which more people rely on religion to start wars, and no one can even state with any certainty if what is written is fact. No one knows. What is fact is the here and now. Denying someone else the same rights that others have is bigotry, I do not care how you justify it. Putting a laughing emoticon after your statements of hate only solidifies that fact. Further, contrary to what someone stated, most people do not believe in laws such as Prop 8. In fact, the polls are now turning AGAINST it, as more and more people are breaking from the fear mongering of the conservative right and waking up to the reality that WE ARE ALL HUMAN BEINGS. If you truly believe that homosexuals are less than human, then you are no further from the individuals who justified enslaving Africans. You are a bigot.
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.
How would it be "useless"?
Clearly, you believe that homosexuality is immoral, you also believe that the system of morality that you subsribe to is the "correct" one and therefore operates as a "common law", and yet there are still a hell of a lot of homosexuals. Yeah, you believe they'll be punished in the end, but that doesn't stop the behaviour happening right now. So how is your system of morality any less useless than one where it is personally defined?
A big problem that we have in modern society is that a lot of people have no morals at all - they simply do not think about what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. I'd much prefer people to develop their own individual morality than have none at all.
When I say that I've had to work out morality for myself that doesn't mean that I think that what's acceptable or unacceptable behaviour applies only to me and it may be different for someone else. I believe that for an individual in a particular situation there is a set of acceptable behaviours and a set of unacceptable ones and this applies regardless of that individual's background. However, I also appreciate the fact that there's nothing (beyond the attempts of law) enforcing morality and the most important thing is that I live by the rules of my morality rather than adapting my morality whenever it might suit me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality
Some have latched onto the truth and others haven't.
You seem very confident that you've interpreted the Bible correctly. How can you be so sure? There are plenty of Christians who don't agree with you.
over 40 writers, and over 1400 years, and yet it has a completely unified message..
think again. If the message was completely unified, how could there be so many different interpretations of it? For a start we've got three completely separate religions all based on the same book (old testament) -> Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Then each of those religions is broken up countless times according to the minutiae of interpretation. Hardly a unified message...
think again. If the message was completely unified, how could there be so many different interpretations of it? For a start we've got three completely separate religions all based on the same book (old testament) -> Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Then each of those religions is broken up countless times according to the minutiae of interpretation. Hardly a unified message...
Not to mention which translation. Luther's very concise translation into German? The King James version (which the translators were given very definite rules to use)? The Living Bible? Oddly, when I was doing a year's research for a film on the writing of the King James version of the Bible, I talked to Bible scholars, historians, archeologists, etc. -- fascinating stuff -- but it seems that in the very earliest pieces of the Old Testament (some even before the Dead Sea Scrolls), the original iconic glyph used for God was a non-gender rendering that's closest to "All-things," meaning both male and female. The "Him" came in at a later time in some Hebrew transcribings and definitely in the Greek translations (the more patriarchal societies). So, which translation are people talking about when they're quoting, I always wonder. 'Cause if they say "Him" -- it's not the original, but a later-day interpretation.
As an agnostic, deistic, secular seeker of inner illumination, I voted John McCain/Sarah Palin.
My life doesn't revolve around the issue of Abortion but the chance to get a TR Republican back into the White House after a Neo-conservative theocrat behind the helm seems to be lost on the Obamamites.
My views on Christianity [raised Presbyterian] or Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, or Western Ceremonial Mysteries are irrelevant to my focus on the Nation's Economy and basic goals that John has a track record on, including Sarah's efforts to downsize Alaska's abuses in Government.
I'm more disheartened by the individual who has not chosen to explore comparative religions, and lost out on the many inspired/illuminated writings found amongst the Upanishads, Tao Teh Ching, ancient mythos of the Celts, the Egyptians, the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, so on and so forth.
There are some incredibly insightful mythos amongst them all that address the human condition and it's evolutionary pathways.
A Pure Humanist/Materialist approach to life is as stale as a Pure Theocratic, Dogmatic mantra to living.
The more elastic one is in their experience to Life and it's Existence the more reasoned the Individual to times of bliss and adversity.
I can't stomach Bill Gates, but I've spent many years using various versions of Windows. I'm no fan of Linus Torvalds or Stallman, but I used Linux daily for the invaluable efforts of the minds that work and continue to work on it.
I'm not thrilled with the 10 year delay of Openstep devolving and now finally evolving into OS X 10.6 and forward, but I stuck it through since I know the minds and talents behind it's system.
Clearly, you believe that homosexuality is immoral, you also believe that the system of morality that you subsribe to is the "correct" one and therefore operates as a "common law", and yet there are still a hell of a lot of homosexuals. Yeah, you believe they'll be punished in the end, but that doesn't stop the behaviour happening right now. So how is your system of morality any less useless than one where it is personally defined?
A big problem that we have in modern society is that a lot of people have no morals at all - they simply do not think about what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. I'd much prefer people to develop their own individual morality than have none at all.
When I say that I've had to work out morality for myself that doesn't mean that I think that what's acceptable or unacceptable behaviour applies only to me and it may be different for someone else. I believe that for an individual in a particular situation there is a set of acceptable behaviours and a set of unacceptable ones and this applies regardless of that individual's background. However, I also appreciate the fact that there's nothing (beyond the attempts of law) enforcing morality and the most important thing is that I live by the rules of my morality rather than adapting my morality whenever it might suit me.
You seem very confident that you've interpreted the bible correctly. How can you be so sure. There are plenty of Christians who don't agree with you.
What this whole debate is about is morality and tolerance.
The 'Golden Rule" is the possibly the best basis for a universal moral code - A command based on words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: ?All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.? The same idea is worded in virtually all religions - http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm
The funny thing is that reading through the comments here the ones that speak (most strongly) from a religious standpoint are the ones who express least tolerance.
What this whole debate is about is morality and tolerance.
The 'Golden Rule" is the possibly the best basis for a universal moral code - A command based on words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: ?All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.? The same idea is worded in virtually all religions - http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm
The funny thing is that reading through the comments here the ones that speak (most strongly) from a religious standpoint are the ones who express least tolerance.
Why did Jesus overturn the merchant tables at the temple? Did he want them to do that to Him?
Comments
We are a representative Republic, and a constitutional democracy.
Bingo!
See, we figured something out together!
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.
Zinfella,
What social advances during the past couple of hundred years were championed by conservatives?
Freeing the slaves?... Nope Liberals
Voting rights for woman?... Nope Liberals
Civil rights in the 60's?... Nope Liberals again!
Liberals drag this world into the future! The conservatives are a social boat anchor. That's not to say all the Liberal ideals are great or even good (unlimited welfare for one). Its just that the conservatives have put forth almost no ideals to progress human society! None that come to mind!
Secularism is the way this world is moving (not fast enough for me)! Even the USA. It'll be a much better world when we get there!
KRR
While you are right that under California law "civil unions" enjoy the same legal benefits and protections as "marriages", there are Federally granted rights that are only available to "married" couples.
I'd heard that (I mentioned it in my post), but haven't been able to find out what these are. Could you elaborate? What rights do married people have under federal law that they don't have under state law? Just curious.
KRR, you are wrong! cdmedeir is standing up for the commands of יהוה (God), our creator.
我也非常喜欢用unicode！
Well, I suppose that I can take comfort in the fact that you didn't call shenanigans on me.
If you don't see the religious connection to marriage laws, then you're blind. Our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, and our laws reflect that. The US is the only country in history to so define itself. We are unique in that we have a secular government with a society based on religious values.
Secularists hate that, they don't want to to be called to account for morals.
Secularists have better defined morals then non-secularists! We actually define our morals internally! Not using those of some power hungry high-priest to define them for us! It is you that have the weaker moral position! not us!
I suggest you read on the founding fathers and their religious views! They are surprisingly secular! The reason they left god out of the government was because of fear! fear of what religions bring!
The founding fathers were a pretty brilliant group!
KRR
You libs love to twist words. I'm glad that I don't live in your everything goes society. Admit it, you're a secularist, and you hate religion, or any societal morals. It's people like you that degrade society with the promoting of your liberal lack of responsibilities. You're a real poster boy for no rules.
You really are confused!
KRR
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?
Ya, but in the great conservative method... you could pay someone to serve your sentence for you!
KRR
KRR, you are wrong! cdmedeir is standing up for the commands of יהוה (God), our creator.
But since god DNE, he's just being an bigoted idiot.
KRR
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.
This is the Creationists' traditional strawman, but it's absolutely ridiculous. They take the exact composition of a current (Human, usually) protein and calculate the probability that it would spontaneously assemble if you just mixed the component elements together. Close to zero? Then it couldn't have happened in the (13.7 billion year, actually) history of the universe!
Problem is, that's not how it works. First of all, there are in all the different life forms on Earth, innumerable variations on this protein that are functionally equivalent, but have different amino-acid sequences, and there are an astronomical number more that could exist that would also be functionally equivalent.
Also, the first airplane was not a 747, and the first protein that performed somewhat the same function, undoubtedly was much, MUCH simpler and less effective. All this raises the probability of some partially effective simple polypeptide that performs a certain function arising spontaneously, with hundreds of millions of years to play with, a virtual certainty.
Once the ancestor of the current protein existed, then variation and selection would improve it to ever more and more effective levels. Please don't bring up that other strawman about evolution being all "chance." Variation is chance, natural selection is the antithesis of chance. It's a two-part process, and it acts as a one-way ratchet.
And creatures "become other creatures" all the time. Insect populations have been isolated from each other for only a few generations, and when they were brought back together, had become reproductively isolated from each other. New species, in other words. Once that happens, there is no selection pressure to keep them the same, and they are free to vary without limit.
If you admit that the universe is billions of years old, then you've lost the argument, because if you're a Christian, you're required to believe that it was created only a few thousand years ago. Specifically, since according to one of your spokesmen, "If the King James Version was good enough for Saint Paul, it's good enough for me," you are required to believe that the Earth was created on Sunday, October 22nd, 4004 B.C., at 6:00 in the morning.
Of course, the Bible states quite clearly that the Earth is flat, as well....
Brainwashed? Did you forget that we escaped from beneath the heel of the King and the Church of England, to form our own country, and our own religious based laws? We all have to to obey the law, and here much of it is religious based. We don't do things the way they do them in merry old England, and that has held us in good stead lo these many years.
Looks like you totally ignored the point of my post, there.
Also, looks like you didn't read it properly, because I said "or brainwashed".
Finally, I'm not sure why you even brought up the brainwashing part given the rest of your post, which doesn't follow from anything that I said.
Not that it matters, but since you mentioned it rather a lot of our laws are "religious-based" as you like to say.
"“I appeal to everybody who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbians and gay people,” (August 1, 2002) - may she rest in peace.
As someone who has studied the bible, many passages claim extreme religious views. Within the pages of the bible it advocates stoning disobedient children to death, makes it unlawful to wear fabric of mixed fibers or to eat anything from the water that has no fins or scales. It advocates slaughter and annihilation of "others" and those who don't conform. In the pages of the bible women are given over to gang rape and dismembered. Parents are told they must amputate bits from the penis of their sons. And we should admire such "wisdom" and look to it as a guide? I think not. It is a collection of fables, often with strong political agenda. Why should it be accorded more merit than Grimms Fairy Tales? How many of you would qualify for a stoning?
The bottom line, the people who cry fowl the most have something to hide. Let us not forget Mark Foley and Sen. Larry Craig, politicians who were extremely vocal in their opposition to homosexual rights. Guess what? THEY'RE GAY. Most heterosexuals who are comfortable with their sexuality don't care what two consenting adults do in their own homes. Why do two people who love each other, who vow to be with one another, threaten you so much? The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints gave MILLIONS to support Prop. 8, think of what all that money could have done to feed the hungry, give shelter to the poor. The real Jesus would have wanted that. If you truly believe in God and religion, then you would know that God created all men as equals, and loves all men unconditionally. Homosexuality has been proven to be genetic. More and more scientific evidence supports this reality. Who in their right mind would willingly chose to be hated, denied the same rights as heterosexual individuals, or be beaten and left for dead as Matthew Shephard (the FBI released statistics that have show sharp rises in hate crimes against homosexuals, most don't get reported in the news. A 15 year old named Lawrence King was shot twice in the back of his head by his fellow class mate this year in California, a gay couple is beaten or harassed every 15 minutes and all anyone can do is quote an antiquated book called the bible that talks about unicorns and stoning, it's RELIGULOUS).
I do not care what your personal beliefs are, but do not impose them on any one else. Two people are free to love each other, that does not infringe on your rights. All this amounts to is hatred and insecurity. If you truly care so much go out and do something positive, work in a homeless shelter, donate to groups who actually do positive work such as animal rescue or Habitats for Humanity. We live in a world in which more people rely on religion to start wars, and no one can even state with any certainty if what is written is fact. No one knows. What is fact is the here and now. Denying someone else the same rights that others have is bigotry, I do not care how you justify it. Putting a laughing emoticon after your statements of hate only solidifies that fact. Further, contrary to what someone stated, most people do not believe in laws such as Prop 8. In fact, the polls are now turning AGAINST it, as more and more people are breaking from the fear mongering of the conservative right and waking up to the reality that WE ARE ALL HUMAN BEINGS. If you truly believe that homosexuals are less than human, then you are no further from the individuals who justified enslaving Africans. You are a bigot.
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.
How would it be "useless"?
Clearly, you believe that homosexuality is immoral, you also believe that the system of morality that you subsribe to is the "correct" one and therefore operates as a "common law", and yet there are still a hell of a lot of homosexuals. Yeah, you believe they'll be punished in the end, but that doesn't stop the behaviour happening right now. So how is your system of morality any less useless than one where it is personally defined?
A big problem that we have in modern society is that a lot of people have no morals at all - they simply do not think about what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. I'd much prefer people to develop their own individual morality than have none at all.
When I say that I've had to work out morality for myself that doesn't mean that I think that what's acceptable or unacceptable behaviour applies only to me and it may be different for someone else. I believe that for an individual in a particular situation there is a set of acceptable behaviours and a set of unacceptable ones and this applies regardless of that individual's background. However, I also appreciate the fact that there's nothing (beyond the attempts of law) enforcing morality and the most important thing is that I live by the rules of my morality rather than adapting my morality whenever it might suit me.
Some have latched onto the truth and others haven't.
You seem very confident that you've interpreted the Bible correctly. How can you be so sure? There are plenty of Christians who don't agree with you.
You probably support abortion too, which is rather silly, seeing as how if your mother had practiced it, you wouldn't be here.
over 40 writers, and over 1400 years, and yet it has a completely unified message..
Not to mention which translation. Luther's very concise translation into German? The King James version (which the translators were given very definite rules to use)? The Living Bible? Oddly, when I was doing a year's research for a film on the writing of the King James version of the Bible, I talked to Bible scholars, historians, archeologists, etc. -- fascinating stuff -- but it seems that in the very earliest pieces of the Old Testament (some even before the Dead Sea Scrolls), the original iconic glyph used for God was a non-gender rendering that's closest to "All-things," meaning both male and female. The "Him" came in at a later time in some Hebrew transcribings and definitely in the Greek translations (the more patriarchal societies). So, which translation are people talking about when they're quoting, I always wonder. 'Cause if they say "Him" -- it's not the original, but a later-day interpretation.
My life doesn't revolve around the issue of Abortion but the chance to get a TR Republican back into the White House after a Neo-conservative theocrat behind the helm seems to be lost on the Obamamites.
My views on Christianity [raised Presbyterian] or Islam, Hinduism, Taoism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, or Western Ceremonial Mysteries are irrelevant to my focus on the Nation's Economy and basic goals that John has a track record on, including Sarah's efforts to downsize Alaska's abuses in Government.
I'm more disheartened by the individual who has not chosen to explore comparative religions, and lost out on the many inspired/illuminated writings found amongst the Upanishads, Tao Teh Ching, ancient mythos of the Celts, the Egyptians, the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, so on and so forth.
There are some incredibly insightful mythos amongst them all that address the human condition and it's evolutionary pathways.
A Pure Humanist/Materialist approach to life is as stale as a Pure Theocratic, Dogmatic mantra to living.
The more elastic one is in their experience to Life and it's Existence the more reasoned the Individual to times of bliss and adversity.
I can't stomach Bill Gates, but I've spent many years using various versions of Windows. I'm no fan of Linus Torvalds or Stallman, but I used Linux daily for the invaluable efforts of the minds that work and continue to work on it.
I'm not thrilled with the 10 year delay of Openstep devolving and now finally evolving into OS X 10.6 and forward, but I stuck it through since I know the minds and talents behind it's system.
Choice is paramount, in all facets of life.
How would it be "useless"?
Clearly, you believe that homosexuality is immoral, you also believe that the system of morality that you subsribe to is the "correct" one and therefore operates as a "common law", and yet there are still a hell of a lot of homosexuals. Yeah, you believe they'll be punished in the end, but that doesn't stop the behaviour happening right now. So how is your system of morality any less useless than one where it is personally defined?
A big problem that we have in modern society is that a lot of people have no morals at all - they simply do not think about what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. I'd much prefer people to develop their own individual morality than have none at all.
When I say that I've had to work out morality for myself that doesn't mean that I think that what's acceptable or unacceptable behaviour applies only to me and it may be different for someone else. I believe that for an individual in a particular situation there is a set of acceptable behaviours and a set of unacceptable ones and this applies regardless of that individual's background. However, I also appreciate the fact that there's nothing (beyond the attempts of law) enforcing morality and the most important thing is that I live by the rules of my morality rather than adapting my morality whenever it might suit me.
You seem very confident that you've interpreted the bible correctly. How can you be so sure. There are plenty of Christians who don't agree with you.
What this whole debate is about is morality and tolerance.
The 'Golden Rule" is the possibly the best basis for a universal moral code - A command based on words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: ?All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.? The same idea is worded in virtually all religions - http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm
The funny thing is that reading through the comments here the ones that speak (most strongly) from a religious standpoint are the ones who express least tolerance.
What this whole debate is about is morality and tolerance.
The 'Golden Rule" is the possibly the best basis for a universal moral code - A command based on words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount: ?All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.? The same idea is worded in virtually all religions - http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm
The funny thing is that reading through the comments here the ones that speak (most strongly) from a religious standpoint are the ones who express least tolerance.
Why did Jesus overturn the merchant tables at the temple? Did he want them to do that to Him?
Otherwise, one could do something like, say, sexual harassment and then claim, "I was just doing onto others what I'd like done onto me"
We need to take all of what Jesus has to say, not just the pieces that fit well with our own personal philosophies.