|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/10/2005 12:26:58 PM · #326 |
There is another option regarding marriage:
We could completely eliminate any and all civil benefits. No tax breaks, no coverage, no joint Costco memberships, nada.
(this is the only other fair proposal I know of other than the one I mentioned below) |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 12:29:38 PM · #327 |
I'm still a little confused!
In the UK, even when a couple take part in a ceremony at the registrar's office or a non religious venue such as a country house and they are joined as husband and wife, they are said to be married. To have taken part in a marriage. This is not under the umbrella of the Church in any way, shape or form. It is a civil marriage. So where does it say that marriage can only take place in a religious form?
Aren't we just playing with words? Now if it was referred to as holy matrimony ( as in the church wedding service) then fine but marriage as a word just means the union of two people.
So I am confused why there is this big problem with calling the union of homosexuals as a marriage.
Is this an American cultural difference from the UK? If so then I will pack up my camel and leave quietly because I am obviously unable to understand the American use of the ~English language.
P
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 12:32:41 PM · #328 |
Originally posted by persimon:
Originally posted by RonB:
I'd put it on ignore if I were you, too. Especially since the link you provided does not even support your contention. NOWHERE on that site does it provide homosexual vs. heterosexual statistics for AIDS. The CDC site however DOES show that the incidence of aids is higher ( or at least WAS higher thru 2003 ) in the male homosexual population.
The major reason that heterosexual incidences are increasing so quickly is due to heterosexual activity in which one of the participants is bi-sexual. The charts do not show a breakdown on the source of the infection - only the pattern of transmission. |
You have got to be kidding me - Do you honestly believe that AIDS is a predominantly "Gay" disease? |
Since the topic has been broached, UC Berkeley professor of molecular and cell biology Peter Deusberg, is worth a read. I'll probably butcher this is some way, but basically he refutes the theory of a connection between HIV and AIDS, and contends that AIDS is the result of environmental factors in Africa, and of behavioral patterns in the "developed" world. Haven't read it recently, but its compelling. BTW, he is denounced for refuting the "politically correct" (and profitable) HIV/AIDS connection, but IMO his proposals actually remove a "gay" connection from AIDS, other than that it results from several behavioral patterns that are more predominant, though not unique to, the homosexual community.
Now, back to your response to Ron: He didn't say its a "Gay Desease". Going back to when the issue arose, he listed the risk of contracting AIDS as one of several potential "consequences" of the homosexual lifestyle, along with depression and suicide. None of those are "gay" issues, but if they are more predominant among those who practice homosexual behavior, then they certainly are consequences of that behavior. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 12:32:47 PM · #329 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by ericlimon:
do you believe in the bible ron? |
Yes. But.
Before I answer, one thing must be made clear - the Bible consists of two TESTAMENTS - the OLD and the NEW.
Just as in the modern era where, for legal purposes, a NEW "Last Will and Testament" makes obsolete the directives of an earlier "Last Will and Testament", so, with the Bible, the NEW Testament makes obsolete the directives of the OLD Testament.
Thus, the endless quoting of the anti-Bible crowd about the "laws and commandments" from the OLD Testament is really not a valid debating point - unless the directive is also included as part of the New Testament.
Now, that doesn't make the OLD Testament less valuable - it IS a monumental reference book on the culture, religion, history, art, literature, etc. not only of the era, but also a detailed narrative about the character and nature of God.
So, Yes, I DO believe in the Bible, but I believe in the WHOLE Bible. For morals and values, I rely on the NEW Testament. For the nature of God, and for history, culture, etc. I value Both. For what Olyuzi asked, I quoted the NEW ( for the values ) and referenced the OLD ( to show that God's nature ( values ) hadn't changed ).
Thanks for asking. |
Sure,
so which bible did your god write, the old testament or the new testament? I think I'm correct in stateing that you believe the bible is the word of god, right? and now that your god seems to be confused and had to write a new and an old testament, which version is the correct one?
a) The New International Version
b) The New American Standard Bible
c) King James Version
c) New King James Version
d) English Standard Version
e) Wycliffe New Testament
f) World Wide English Version
g) The Message
h) Amplified Bible
i) New Living Translation
j) Contemporary English Version
k) 21st Century King James Version
l) Young's Literal Translation
m) Darby Translation
n) New Life Version
o) Holman Christian Standard Version
There seem to be so many versions to choose from. Which is the correct version that your god actually put out there for you to follow? Are all of the other books false testaments? are they all one and the same, put together as the word of "god"?
Also, just out of curiosity, who owns the copyright on the bible?
Message edited by author 2005-11-10 12:34:49.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 12:33:22 PM · #330 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by persimon:
I AM ASHAMED TO BE TEXAN!!!!!! |
I'm sure Texas feels likewise. :) |
I urge you to look at the Constitution and Declaration of Independence very carefully. Can you find a reference to God, Jesus Christ, Christianity, the Bible????? No???? The founding fathers deliberately left any inference to such things out. Even the reference to "their Creator" in the Declaration of Independence isn't referring to a Christian God but to a person's own belief in a higher power regardless of it's origin. The founding fathers believed in a separation of church and state.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or Bible Thumper) to figure out that A majority of Texans (and a number of other red states) would be ashamed of someone like me - a tolerant individual who believes "...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." Texas is ashamed of me? Doesn't hurt my feelings one bit. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 12:36:55 PM · #331 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Now, back to your response to Ron: He didn't say its a "Gay Desease". Going back to when the issue arose, he listed the risk of contracting AIDS as one of several potential "consequences" of the homosexual lifestyle, along with depression and suicide. None of those are "gay" issues, but if they are more predominant among those who practice homosexual behavior, then they certainly are consequences of that behavior. |
NO. It is at least possible that a higher suicide/depression rate in the gay population is a result of the pressures placed on them rather than being an inevitable consequence of their sexual orientation. I wonder what the suicide rates were in classical Greece?
R. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 12:40:11 PM · #332 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by RonB:
Well, AIDS for one. Depression, for another. Suicide, for yet another. Do you not agree that these "consequences" occur with greater frequency among practicing homosexuals than in the general population? |
Certainly, in the "western world" gays are at higher risk for AIDS than the general population. Not in Africa, though... As for depression and suicide, it's at least arguable that if, in fact, gays have higher rates of either or both, it's less an inherent consequence of sexual orientation and more a reflection of the kind of pressures people like you place on them.
Scripture says "Judge not, lest ye be judged" or words to that effect. You're a skilled debater, Ron, but the bottom line here is that you are "judging"...
Robt. |
FWIW, the full quote is "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you." I fully expect to be "measured by the standard by which I measure".
But... At least in the quote you pulled (and nowhere else, I believe, but I could be wrong) there is no judgement in what Ron has said. Simply a statement of fact and possition. This all came up because Olyuzi asked where in the Bible homosexuality is condemned. Ron responded. And things flowed from there. But I don't believe there's been any "judging" in his comments, at least not in relationship to homosexuality. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 12:42:45 PM · #333 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by bear_music:
You're a skilled debater, Ron, but the bottom line here is that you are "judging"...
Robt. |
This all came up because Olyuzi asked where in the Bible homosexuality is condemned. Ron responded. And things flowed from there. But I don't believe there's been any "judging" in his comments, at least not in relationship to homosexuality. |
That's the "skilled" part :-)
R. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 12:45:34 PM · #334 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by RonB:
Well, AIDS for one. Depression, for another. Suicide, for yet another. Do you not agree that these "consequences" occur with greater frequency among practicing homosexuals than in the general population? |
Certainly, in the "western world" gays are at higher risk for AIDS than the general population. Not in Africa, though... As for depression and suicide, it's at least arguable that if, in fact, gays have higher rates of either or both, it's less an inherent consequence of sexual orientation and more a reflection of the kind of pressures people like you place on them.
Scripture says "Judge not, lest ye be judged" or words to that effect. You're a skilled debater, Ron, but the bottom line here is that you are "judging"...
Robt. |
FWIW, the full quote is "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you." I fully expect to be "measured by the standard by which I measure".
But... At least in the quote you pulled (and nowhere else, I believe, but I could be wrong) there is no judgement in what Ron has said. Simply a statement of fact and possition. This all came up because Olyuzi asked where in the Bible homosexuality is condemned. Ron responded. And things flowed from there. But I don't believe there's been any "judging" in his comments, at least not in relationship to homosexuality. |
Agreed, and I would add that many times we mistake position for judgement. When a group, person, theory, law, amendment disagree's with our belief we believe that we are being judged. I have yet to see any judgement, especially when RonB and others are quoting scriptures from the Bible to support there opinion and not their judgement.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 12:50:05 PM · #335 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Actually, it wouldn't have mattered if you were married and your spouse never applied for U.S. citizenship they'd still not be able to enter the U.S. (Now, I will grant you that it is easier to apply for U.S. citizenship when married to a U.S. citizen. And my statements regarding a seperation of civil from religious issues would resolve that issue.) The problem of not being able to sign is addressed by a "living will". In truth though, the concept of a living will is only now become more common. Than again...few even have "wills" written.
|
I'm done arguing. You've made the assumption that my uncle's partner was not a US citizen when he was. To the rest of my personal account and all other arguments in this thread, I am done. I stated what I believed in my first post and I should have left it at that.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 12:53:09 PM · #336 |
Originally posted by res0m50r:
I would add that many times we mistake position for judgement. When a group, person, theory, law, amendment disagree's with our belief we believe that we are being judged. I have yet to see any judgement, especially when RonB and others are quoting scriptures from the Bible to support there opinion and not their judgement. |
RonB has said he is a devout Christian, and he has said (paraphrasing all this) "I believe the Bible is the word of God", and he has said "The Bible condemns homosexuality (among other things, of course)", which of course means he believes that God frowns on homosexual activity.
You are correct that this is not quite the same as RonB "judging" homosexuals, but that's a fine hair to split, sir. How is the statement "You are a sinner because the bible says you are" significantly less of a judgment than "you are a sinner"? Logically, the distinction can be drawn, but emotionally it cannot.
R. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 12:58:43 PM · #337 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by res0m50r:
I would add that many times we mistake position for judgement. When a group, person, theory, law, amendment disagree's with our belief we believe that we are being judged. I have yet to see any judgement, especially when RonB and others are quoting scriptures from the Bible to support there opinion and not their judgement. |
RonB has said he is a devout Christian, and he has said (paraphrasing all this) "I believe the Bible is the word of God", and he has said "The Bible condemns homosexuality (among other things, of course)", which of course means he believes that God frowns on homosexual activity.
You are correct that this is not quite the same as RonB "judging" homosexuals, but that's a fine hair to split, sir. How is the statement "You are a sinner because the bible says you are" significantly less of a judgment than "you are a sinner"? Logically, the distinction can be drawn, but emotionally it cannot.
R. |
I am a sinner no different than any other homosexual EDIT to add: heterosexual and anyone else for that matter. I do not sin in homosexuality, but in many other ways. If God's word says that I am guilt of sin based on the parameters set forth than so be it. I believe the Bible is clear on the point that we will all be judged before God. This does not mean that RonB is judging me or anyone else, but rather agreeing with his beliefs. I do agree that emotionally it feels no different to many people.
Message edited by author 2005-11-10 12:59:25.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 12:59:00 PM · #338 |
Originally posted by persimon:
Originally posted by ScottK:
Originally posted by persimon:
I AM ASHAMED TO BE TEXAN!!!!!! |
I'm sure Texas feels likewise. :) |
I urge you to look at the Constitution and Declaration of Independence very carefully. Can you find a reference to God, Jesus Christ, Christianity, the Bible????? No???? The founding fathers deliberately left any inference to such things out. Even the reference to "their Creator" in the Declaration of Independence isn't referring to a Christian God but to a person's own belief in a higher power regardless of it's origin. The founding fathers believed in a separation of church and state.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist (or Bible Thumper) to figure out that A majority of Texans (and a number of other red states) would be ashamed of someone like me - a tolerant individual who believes "...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." Texas is ashamed of me? Doesn't hurt my feelings one bit. |
I was kidding. Note the ":)". And they say Christians are humorless.... |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 01:01:48 PM · #339 |
| "we are in the house of the "loyd"! i am sorry but i love this line on the movie "steel magnolia's " whoo i feel the heat and hate through my computer screen |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 01:03:38 PM · #340 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
This is truly the only fair and just and constitutional choice. All others will tromp on one group or another's rights. Anything else will "restrict" or "force" to accept. And to any christian who disagrees I quote to you the following Scripture... "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's". And to any homosexual or support who is unwilling to accept the above measures. Realize then that you simply want to thumb your views in front of your opponent with no rational. And yes, if a couple who have a religious ceremony want the legal benefits. They will have to file for a civil incorporation in addition to their religious union.
- The Saj |
I cut most of your post for brevity, Saj. But thank you for presenting a well thought out case, so much more clearly than i could :). |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 01:06:09 PM · #341 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by ScottK:
Now, back to your response to Ron: He didn't say its a "Gay Desease". Going back to when the issue arose, he listed the risk of contracting AIDS as one of several potential "consequences" of the homosexual lifestyle, along with depression and suicide. None of those are "gay" issues, but if they are more predominant among those who practice homosexual behavior, then they certainly are consequences of that behavior. |
NO. It is at least possible that a higher suicide/depression rate in the gay population is a result of the pressures placed on them rather than being an inevitable consequence of their sexual orientation. I wonder what the suicide rates were in classical Greece?
R. |
Whatever the cause, they are a consequence. I won't argue that the preasures you mention may contribute, but then cause and effect are always very difficult pinpoint.
As far as the suicide rate in Greece, I would assume there are insufficient census records to know. But then, isn't the Hemolock Society based on the philosphies of an ancient Greek? (Probably not really relevant, but what the heck...) |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 01:09:19 PM · #342 |
Originally posted by melodee:
"we are in the house of the "loyd"! i am sorry but i love this line on the movie "steel magnolia's " whoo i feel the heat and hate through my computer screen |
But its ok. I can stand the heat. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 01:29:25 PM · #343 |
Originally posted by colyla:
I see a lot of people answered to that.....
*shaking head*
I just have a hard time believing it....I've met a lot of people in my life and have not ever seen this....meaning happy...met a lot that thought they were happy but everything they did in their lives pointed in a different direction. Denial is very powerful...I should know...I've been there. |
LOL - another happy agnostic here, married to a Wiccan. How's that for a mix?
btw - i love that Greek and Roman religions are "mythology", according to modern day Christians, yet if you do not have the same unwavering faith in the Christian God and his miracles, you're somehow off in the head. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 01:31:17 PM · #344 |
Originally posted by shamrock69:
i love that Greek and Roman religions are "mythology", according to modern day Christians, yet if you do not have the same unwavering faith in the Christian God and his miracles, you're somehow off in the head. |
That's the great irony of it; all gods are myths except MY God.
R. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 01:35:03 PM · #345 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by RonB:
Well, AIDS for one. Depression, for another. Suicide, for yet another. Do you not agree that these "consequences" occur with greater frequency among practicing homosexuals than in the general population? |
Certainly, in the "western world" gays are at higher risk for AIDS than the general population. Not in Africa, though... As for depression and suicide, it's at least arguable that if, in fact, gays have higher rates of either or both, it's less an inherent consequence of sexual orientation and more a reflection of the kind of pressures people like you place on them.
Scripture says "Judge not, lest ye be judged" or words to that effect. You're a skilled debater, Ron, but the bottom line here is that you are "judging"...
Robt. |
When you say "people like you" are you not judging? Presumably that judgement is based on what I have written ( since we have never met ) - in other words, actions that I have taken.
When you say that I am "a skilled debater", are you not judging? Again, I presume that that judgement is based on what I have written - namely actions that I have taken.
The truth of the matter is that we all judge. Or would a better term be "evaluate" or "compare to a standard" or you-pick-em.
The difference is that my judgements - of actions, not people - are not based on my own idea of morality - they are based on the "standard" by which I judge - that being scripture. And scripture has not changed in several thousand years.
What is the "standard" that YOU judge against? Is is steadfast? Or does it "depend" on the mores of the moment?
For the record, I do not judge PEOPLE who are non-believers - for scripture teaches that that is not mine to do - but I am encouraged by scripture to judge/evaluate/compare the actions of anyone against the teachings of scripture.
Message edited by author 2005-11-10 13:35:33. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 01:38:36 PM · #346 |
Originally posted by shamrock69:
LOL - another happy agnostic here, married to a Wiccan. How's that for a mix?
btw - i love that Greek and Roman religions are "mythology", according to modern day Christians, yet if you do not have the same unwavering faith in the Christian God and his miracles, you're somehow off in the head. |
Ha, small world (not really). My mom's a wiccan. We just call her an old witch though. LOL!! :-D Just kiddin', I LOVE my momma. :-)
Please exuse this brief hijack. You may now return to your regularly scheduled rant.... Have a nice day. :-D
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 01:55:01 PM · #347 |
Originally posted by RonB:
The difference is that my judgements - of actions, not people - are not based on my own idea of morality - they are based on the "standard" by which I judge - that being scripture. And scripture has not changed in several thousand years. |
Um, yes it has. Quite a few times actually. And the parts that different religious groups didn't like they edited out or omitted.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 01:55:20 PM · #348 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Sure,
so which bible did your god write, the old testament or the new testament? |
Both of them
Originally posted by ericlimon:
I think I'm correct in stateing that you believe the bible is the word of god, right? |
Right
Originally posted by ericlimon:
...and now that your god seems to be confused and had to write a new and an old testament... |
Since scientists seem to be confused and have to rewrite the theory of evolution so many times, which version of evolution is the correct one?
Which version of Atomic Theory is the correct one? Which version of the fall of the Incan Empire is the correct one.
Do you assume that everytime someone changes or rewrites their will ( and testament ) that they must have been "confused" - else they wouldn't have had to rewrite their will?
Sorry, but your "logic" escapes me.
Originally posted by ericlimon:
...which version is the correct one?
a) The New International Version
b) The New American Standard Bible
c) King James Version
c) New King James Version
d) English Standard Version
e) Wycliffe New Testament
f) World Wide English Version
g) The Message
h) Amplified Bible
i) New Living Translation
j) Contemporary English Version
k) 21st Century King James Version
l) Young's Literal Translation
m) Darby Translation
n) New Life Version
o) Holman Christian Standard Version
There seem to be so many versions to choose from. Which is the correct version that your god actually put out there for you to follow? |
For me? All of them, and None of them. On the one hand, Scripture says:
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."
But it also says:
"The time is coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them, " declares the LORD. "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the LORD. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."
So for me, I can take my pick. Any one of them, studied under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will lead to correct thinking.
Or, I can pick none of them, and listen closely for the voice of the Holy Spirit alone.
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Are all of the other books false testaments? are they all one and the same, put together as the word of "god"? |
Are you mixing up "books" and "testaments"? What "books" are you referring to? Books of the Bible? or different versions of the Bible? Or are you asking if the Old testament is false, given that there is a New testament? ( FWIW, the answer is No ).
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Also, just out of curiosity, who owns the copyright on the bible? |
There is no copyright on the King James Version. Other translations come in a variety of copyrights - some have no copyright, some are copyrighted to protect the investment made to produce the translation.
Message edited by author 2005-11-10 13:56:34. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 01:59:55 PM · #349 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by RonB:
The difference is that my judgements - of actions, not people - are not based on my own idea of morality - they are based on the "standard" by which I judge - that being scripture. And scripture has not changed in several thousand years. |
Um, yes it has. Quite a few times actually. And the parts that different religious groups didn't like they edited out or omitted. |
Um, no it hasn't. They stopped writing ancient Greek and Aramaic manuscripts a long time ago. Perhaps you are referring to different versions? or translations? or interpretations? Just because some group leaves out the 1st amendment when they publish their version of the Constitution, doesn't mean that the Constitution changed. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 02:16:06 PM · #350 |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Sure,
so which bible did your god write, the old testament or the new testament? |
Originally posted by RonB:
Both of them |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
I think I'm correct in stateing that you believe the bible is the word of god, right? |
Originally posted by RonB:
Right |
Originally posted by ericlimon:
...and now that your god seems to be confused and had to write a new and an old testament... |
Originally posted by RonB:
Since scientists seem to be confused and have to rewrite the theory of evolution so many times, which version of evolution is the correct one?
Which version of Atomic Theory is the correct one? Which version of the fall of the Incan Empire is the correct one.
Do you assume that everytime someone changes or rewrites their will ( and testament ) that they must have been "confused" - else they wouldn't have had to rewrite their will?
Sorry, but your "logic" escapes me. |
So basically, your comparing god with man. what you are saying here is that god is not all knowing, because if she (he) was, then god wouldn't have had to re-write his (her) will. But god did change her (his) will and therefore re-wrote the bible?
That is about the stupidest thing i've heard.
Originally posted by ericlimon:
There seem to be so many versions to choose from. Which is the correct version that your god actually put out there for you to follow? |
Originally posted by RonB:
"For me? All of them, and None of them"
"So for me, I can take my pick. Any one of them, studied under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, will lead to correct thinking.
Or, I can pick none of them, and listen closely for the voice of the Holy Spirit alone."
|
so... um. which one? do you believe none of them or all of them? maybe it's you that is a bit confused? Do you believe the bible is the word of god or not? can't you just say yes or no? your so full of double speak you don't even seem to know what you believe. I just don't get it ron. what bible do you follow and believe in? it's either all or nothing, because according to you, they are ALL the word of god.
Message edited by author 2005-11-10 14:20:23.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 06:34:20 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 06:34:20 PM EDT.
|
